You’re wrong. The DA reviews it even if the police say there was no crime. That is part of the integrity balance.
And how, pray tell, do police “file charges” if the DA doesn’t wish to prosecute? Who are they “filing” the charges with?
Your claim was that a grand jury sees every case. Your claim was false. You’ve now tried twice to rehabilitate it with non-sequiturs. Do we want to go a third round?
They file a criminal complaint with the relevant court. Since it is apparently mindblowing to you that not everywhere works like your home jurisdiction, maybe next I’ll blow your mind by telling you about private criminal complaints!
(post shortened)
And you’d be wrong.
A thug is a man who acts violently, especially a criminal. But not necessarily a criminal.
A criminal a person who has committed a crime or been found guilty of committing a crime.
If a criminal (a person who has committed a crime or been found guilty of committing a crime), or thug (a man who acts violently but is not necessarily a criminal), wants you dead, all they have to do is kill you. A thug would become a criminal after they beat you to death.
I stand by my wording.
Nonsense. Have you ever sat on a GJ? I have. True the DA does decide what evidence to present, to a large extent. But the GJ is entirely independent, and it’s democracy and the voice of the People in action.
Non-police (civilians) are generally not considered criminals only/just because a cop decides to use force against them. Why was forced used? Did the non-police resist arrest? Was the non-police person threatening others with physical injury? Was there an outstanding warrant against the non-police person?
And after they file this complaint, what happens next?
I had no expectation otherwise. Now cite a dictionary for “non-sequitor.”
I’m glad you felt part of the democratic process, but it’s not really the case that grand juries provide any kind of realistic gatekeeping function. In the rare cases when the grand jury does not indict, in many jurisdictions the prosecutor can just try another grand jury. Or, in some jurisdictions, bring the charges regardless. About all they are good for is providing political cover for non-indictment of police officers.
In the 162,000 federal grand jury cases in 2010, do you know how many returned non-indictment? 11. ELEVEN! It is nearly universally acknowledged by lawyers on both sides of the aisle that if a prosecutor doesn’t get an indictment its because he didn’t want it.
And that shouldn’t come as much of a shock, given the structure of grand jury proceedings. If the prosecutor didn’t have enough one-sided evidence to get a grand jury to indict according to the prosecutor’s view of the law, then the prosecutor probably wouldn’t be interested in the case. The only notable exception to this is cops, because prosecutors are soft on them and because most grand jurors believe all cops. Indeed, you’d get booted from the grand jury if you expressed the opinion that cops often lie, but not booted if you expressed the opinion that they rarely lie.
Right this is a good example.
The real reason why most cops dont get convicted of murder is motive.
Most common motives for murder are money, love or vengeance. These things rarely figure in what a uniformed cop shoots someone. In the sitrep above- what’s the cop’s motive for the shooting?
To protect his ass. (and the public safety, to a lesser extent) And that is 100% legal, and since we know there are crazies out there that go out of their way to kill cops, there is reasonable cause for every cop to be paranoid.
So it turns out the cop was* wrong.* The victim wasnt packing heat, and wasnt going to shoot the cop. Then- it’s a mistake in judgement. Juries are very prone to allow a cop a mistake in judgment, given the circumstances- and they should be.
In all these recent killing by cops, I have seen almost none where people can show any reasonable motive for the cop- other than a mistake in judgement. Sometimes anger comes into it, sure, and maybe a tinge of racism. But does anyone think the cop in Parker’s sitrep above woke up planning to kill a random motorist today?
Dont get me wrong, I’d like to see a world where the cops can be less paranoid and less trigger happy. And, we definitely gotta get rid of the Blue Code where good cops dont rat on bad cops.
It is assigned to a prosecutor. That prosecutor can choose to drop the case, plead the case, or go to trial on the charges set forth by the police. Sometimes they don’t like how the police charged it–which is not surprising since most of the police aren’t lawyers. When that happens, they either plead it, drop it, or ask the cop to re-arrest and re-charge (but the latter very rarely, because it pisses off the cops).
Notably, in that county, prosecutors cannot file their own charges. They have to be filed by a police officer.
Naturally, in practice, there is some degree of cooperation on cases where the prosecutors are involved at the investigation stage. But for the vast majority of cases, the case file falls into the ADA’s lap with whatever charges the charging officer sought fit to bring.
And of those 162000 cases, in how many were the defendants found Not Guilty? (excluding those where new evidence was found after the GJ held their hearings)
Remember, a GJ does not say Guilt or Not Guilty- the GJ simply says whether or not there’s enough evidence to go to trial. And- oddly, in almost every case, the GJ is right- there* is* enuf evidence to go to trial and usually the defendant is found guilty (or pleads out). Do we have any significant % of cases where the GJ turned in a True Bill, it went to trial and the Judge threw the case out on a motion to dismiss due to no evidence? (except of course in those cases where the witnesses were murdered so they couldnt testify).
Really? We were allowed pretty much any opinion we wanted, once the GJ was impaneled. Do you have evidence of many Jurors being kicked off once impaneled for expressing their opinion?
Well, I guess that would be the success rate of motions for “Judgment as a matter of law”, formerly known as “motion for directed verdict”. I presume every time these succeed, it’s in a case that managed to get past the grand jury phase, unless there are federal cases being pursued that didn’t have a grand jury phase at all.
I’m prepared to assume the success rate is rather low, but that’s where I’d start.
Cite that the military is required to put themselves in danger to protect someone?
Thousands of federal cases are dismissed in the preliminary stages and thousands more end in not guilty verdicts. But that’s not really the point. Even if we grant your premise that grand juries really are exercising meaningful oversight and prosecutors have genuine probable cause in the 99.999% of cases that grand juries indict, then it still follows that grand juries are a huge waste of time and resources. And it suggests that non-indictment is something truly extraordinary, so the commonplace non-indictment of police should raise our eyebrows.
I don’t know why you’d limit it to “once empaneled” jurors. My point was that people who are skeptical of the police are systematically not empaneled. No one keeps statistics on it, AFAIK, but it is a common practice to ask prospective jurors about their views on police.
When the prosecution’s case falls apart in the preliminary stages, it is often dropped or pleaded down. I think it would be practically impossible to assess how many cases get past the GJ stage for which there wasn’t really probable cause, since probable cause is very rarely assessed again. A motion to dismiss the indictment could be successful for a whole range of reasons having nothing to do with PC.
Two (related) questions:
[ol]
[li]Do you think if citizens were encouraged to refrain from “yelling and being unreasonable” when frustrated at being stopped by cops, and then to refrain from “pulling [their] loose pants” after being instructed to “keep [their] hands up”, that it would have an impact on the number of innocent people shot by cops?[/li][li]Do you think it’s possible that the public focus on abusive and biased cops increases antipathy to and suspicion of cops, particularly by members of minority groups, and thus exacerbates the problem in scenarios such as you’ve described?[/li][/ol]
A soldier is a soldier, and a cop is a cop. Federal troops are prevented, through posse comitatus, from any direct policing actions unless martial law is declared.
And
The courts have decided that the Constitution does not impose a duty on the state and local governments to protect the citizens from criminal harm. In other words, you can successfully sue the police for failing to take a bullet meant for you.
*DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (No. 87-154)
Opinion
CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST delivered the opinion of the Court.
…Its purpose was to protect the people from the State, not to ensure that the State protected them from each other. The Framers were content to leave the extent of governmental obligation in the latter area to the democratic political processes.
Consistent with these principles, our cases have recognized that the Due Process Clauses generally confer no affirmative right to governmental aid, even where such aid may be necessary to secure life, liberty, or property interests of which the government itself may not deprive the individual*.
[QUOTE=Richard Parker]
But you’re right that many questionable shootings do go before grand juries. The problem is that grand juries are controlled by prosecutors. When the prosecutor actually wants indictment they will indict. When they don’t, they won’t.
[/QUOTE]
I see your point, but that would be difficult to change via legislation. Is the idea to reduce prosecutorial discretion whenever a cop shoots someone (or when he shoots a black guy)? Or just bypass the GJ (as I think can happen in some states) and indict any cop anytime he shoots someone?
I think that would lead to a lot of wasted time and energy. Most shootings are justified (at a rough guess) and so we would spend a lot of time prosecuting cops who should be out on patrol. The Darren Wilson case shows some of the drawbacks - as Smapti mentioned, the DA presented both sides of the case in order to show that there was no chance of a conviction, so a no-bill was the best outcome. That’s prosecutorial discretion, but it doesn’t appear to me to be an abuse of the idea.
Regards,
Shodan
A dictionary is not just something you might use to level a table. 
Just a thought, but I believe you meant to say “police” instead of “military”.