# Why are police so quick to kill?
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689
**Category:** Great Debates
**Created:** [May 30, 2017, 12:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689 "2017-05-30T00:48:32Z")
**Posts on this page:** 20
**Page:** 14
### Author:  [@Saint\_Cad](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Saint_Cad)
#### Post date: [July 20, 2017, 8:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/261 "2017-07-20T08:43:00Z")
> [@Hocus\_Pocus](#):
>
> Considering both the law & agency policy strictly detail when deadly force can be used, please provide evidence that police officers can kill on a whim.
[Ask and ye shall receive](https://youtu.be/t3uEgRUMatg?t=39s).
---
### Author:  [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)
#### Post date: [July 20, 2017, 9:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/262 "2017-07-20T09:37:53Z")
And of course, it’s difficult to find cases of unjustified police murders where the officer got caught.
_Obviously._
But given how many officers get away with murder when their actions are _caught on camera_, given how hard you have to work to get a cop convicted of _anything_ even when they confess to the crime, as **Saint Cad** pointed out in post #251, it should not come as a surprise when you read articles like “[The Police Killed My Unarmed Son](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/opinion/the-police-killed-my-unarmed-son-in-2012-im-still-waiting-for-justice.html)”.
---
### Author:  [@blindboyard](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/blindboyard)
#### Post date: [July 20, 2017, 11:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/263 "2017-07-20T11:20:45Z")
David Grossman is a popular and successful provider of training to US police departments on the use of force.
> **[Opinion | ‘Do Not Resist’: A chilling look at the normalization of warrior cops](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2016/09/30/do-not-resist-a-chilling-look-at-the-normalization-of-warrior-cops/?utm_term=.5117d662988c)**
>
> A new documentary finds the best and most frightening way to tell the story of police militarization: Let cops tell it themselves.
> [@](#):
>
> Fittingly, the most chilling scene in the movie doesn’t take place on a city street, or at a protest, or during a drug raid. It takes place in a conference room. It’s from a police training conference with Dave Grossman, one of the most prolific police trainers in the country. Grossman’s classes teach officers to be less hesitant to use lethal force, urge them to be willing to do it more quickly and teach them how to adopt the mentality of a warrior. Jeronimo Yanez, the Minnesota police officer who shot and killed Philando Castile in July, had attended one of Grossman’s classes called “The Bulletproof Warrior” (though that particular class was taught by Grossman’s business partner, Jim Glennon).
>
> In the class recorded for “Do Not Resist,” Grossman at one point tells his students that the sex they have after they kill another human being will be the best sex of their lives. The room chuckles. But he’s clearly serious. “Both partners are very invested in some very intense sex,” he says. “There’s not a whole lot of perks that come with this job. You find one, relax and enjoy it.”
>
> Grossman closes the class with a (literal) chest-pounding motivational speech that climaxes with Grossman telling the officers to find an overpass overlooking the city they serve. He urges them to look down on their city and know that they’ve made the world a better place. He then urges them to grip the overpass railing, lean forward and “let your cape blow in the wind.” The room gives him a standing ovation.
> **[Opinion | A day with ‘killology’ police trainer Dave Grossman](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2017/02/14/a-day-with-killology-police-trainer-dave-grossman/?utm_term=.79ccc1759593)**
>
> The disturbing popularity of classes in which cops are taught that they should be less hesitant about killing people.
> [@](#):
>
> [Grossman] views the world as almost unrecognizably dangerous: a place where gang members seek to set records for killing cops, where a kid “in every school” is thinking about racking up “a body count.” His latest book, Assassination Generation, insists that violent video games are turning the nation’s youth into mass murderers. The recent wave of “massacres” is just the beginning. (“Please stop calling them mass shootings!”) He smacks the easels: “These [thump] crimes [thump] are [thump] everywhere!” He foresees attacks on school buses and day care centers. “Kindergartners run about point-five miles an hour and get a burst of about 20 yards and then they’re done.” It won’t just happen with guns, but with hammers, axes, hatchets, knives, and swords. His voice jumps an octave: “Hacking and stabbing little kids! You don’t think they’ll attack day cares? It’s already happening in China. When you hear about a day care massacre,” he shouts, “tell them Grossman said it was coming!”
>
> That’s not the end of it. “More people are signing up with ISIS than we can count,” Grossman says. He predicts a terrorist organization will soon detonate a nuclear bomb off the West Coast. “We have never been more likely to be nuked, and we have never been less prepared!” Terrorists will send “suicide bio-bombers” across the border to spread deadly diseases. “The day will come,” Grossman insists. “Folks, it is very, very bad out there!”
>
> -snip-
>
> Before proceeding, Glennon points to a threat in the back of the room: me. “In 35 years, we have not allowed the press to come into a class,” he says. “The reason is because we don’t trust them.” He says he’s letting me observe because many police chiefs are frustrated no one is advocating for them. They’re tired of being portrayed in the media as racists and unaccountable killers and want a more sympathetic depiction. If my article screws them, he tells the class with a smile, “I’ll fly out to Seattle”—where I live—“and kill him.”
---
### Author:  [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)
#### Post date: [July 20, 2017, 11:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/264 "2017-07-20T11:47:08Z")
> [@](#):
>
> If my article screws them, he tells the class with a smile, “I’ll fly out to Seattle”—where I live—“and kill him.”
That _can’t_ be legal, right?
---
### Author:  [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)
#### Post date: [July 20, 2017, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/265 "2017-07-20T13:02:07Z")
> [@Saint\_Cad](#):
>
> [Ask and ye shall receive](https://youtu.be/t3uEgRUMatg?t=39s).
To be fair, the suspect was leading them on a high speed chase. If he hadn’t been put down right there, he may have made it another 4 or even 5 feet.
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#):
>
> That _can’t_ be legal, right?
I am sure the officer can justify it as being in fear for his life.
---
### Author:  [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)
#### Post date: [July 20, 2017, 1:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/266 "2017-07-20T13:42:30Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#):
>
> I am sure the officer can justify it as being in fear for his life.
I just meant the threat, but _damn_, you’re probably still right.
(And in case _some_ people have trouble telling, this is a joke.)
---
### Author:  [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)
#### Post date: [July 20, 2017, 1:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/267 "2017-07-20T13:50:48Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#):
>
> I just meant the threat, but _damn_, you’re probably still right.
>
> (And in case _some_ people have trouble telling, this is a joke.)
Today it may be a joke. But given the current atmosphere and the administration’s feelings towards the press, I would actually be more than a little concerned if I were that reporter.
---
### Author:  [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)
#### Post date: [July 20, 2017, 2:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/268 "2017-07-20T14:05:20Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#):
>
> In _practice_, these laws and policies excused the murder of Philando Castile and Terence Crutcher, and allows officers to gather a _long_ list of complaints against them before any action is taken.
You know well by now that that’s not what happened. No murders were excused, killings were thoroughly investigated and found not to be murder. That is what happened in practice, what you are describing only happened in your fevered imagination.
Action against them shouldn’t be based on number of complaints. It should be taken if the complaints are investigated and found to be legitimate.
You, and others in this thread, have shown that cops sometimes lie. Why is it so hard for you to understand that other people sometimes lie - especially if those people are criminals being arrested. You don’t trust cops, I get that. But it’s silly to trust them less than career criminals.
---
### Author:  [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)
#### Post date: [July 20, 2017, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/269 "2017-07-20T14:12:12Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#):
>
> And of course, it’s difficult to find cases of unjustified police murders where the officer got caught.
>
> _Obviously._
>
> But given how many officers get away with murder when their actions are _caught on camera_, given how hard you have to work to get a cop convicted of _anything_ even when they confess to the crime, as **Saint Cad** pointed out in post #251, it should not come as a surprise when you read articles like “[The Police Killed My Unarmed Son](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/02/opinion/the-police-killed-my-unarmed-son-in-2012-im-still-waiting-for-justice.html)”.
Another case where the article makes clear that there was no case to answer. It went to a Grand Jury twice, and there was no grounds for a trial. Justice, despite the claims of the mother in the article, has happened. What hasn’t happened is what she actually wants, unjustified revenge for the unfortunate but non-criminal killing of her son.
It’s fully understandable that she wants that. What is _not_ understandable or acceptable is that other people, free of emotion and in possession of the facts, should want that. Your hard-on for punishing cops for perceived (but not actual) crimes puts you at the same moral level as a 1930s redneck who liked lynching niggers for perceived insults.
Actually no, you are worse. The victims of lynching were simply neutral, trying to live their lives. You want to punish those who are risking their lives to make your life, and everyone else’s, better and safer, because you refuse to look at the actual facts and events that have happened. That’s inexcusable.
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [July 20, 2017, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/270 "2017-07-20T15:02:28Z")
> [@Budget Player Cadet](#):
>
> And of course, it’s difficult to find cases of unjustified police murders where the officer got caught.
>
> Obviously.
Agreed. It is difficult, especially since cases of unjustified police murders are quite rare, compared with all police shootings, and even more so when compared to the number of times people are arrested without police shooting anyone.
There are something like 800,000 police in the US, and they arrest millions of people every year. In the one-in-a-thousand cases where the police shoot someone, 95% of the time the shooting is not only justifiable, it isn’t even questionable. The perp shot first, or was attacking people, or otherwise making it obvious to anyone except a Black Lies Matter activist that the perp was demonstrating why US cops carry guns in the first place.
> [@](#):
>
> But given how many officers get away with murder when their actions are caught on camera, given how hard you have to work to get a cop convicted of anything even when they confess to the crime, as Saint Cad pointed out in post #251, it should not come as a surprise when you read articles like “The Police Killed My Unarmed Son”.
The case in the article is a cop who shot someone who declined to obey police orders, who the police believed had a gun. The cop in question went before two grand juries, neither of which returned an indictment.
Can you please describe the specific ways in which you want to change the grand jury process so that the cop would be convicted of murder (or manslaughter, which is what he was charged with)? Should we dispense with the presumption of innocence? Should the cop not be given the assistance of counsel? Should the jury instructions include “don’t believe a word the defendant says”?
Or if the grand jury determines that there is not enough evidence to proceed to trial, should the judge just say “fuck this noise - he shot a black kid and he’s white so he gets twenty years”?
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)
#### Post date: [July 20, 2017, 3:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/271 "2017-07-20T15:19:13Z")
> [@Steophan](#):
>
> You know well by now that that’s not what happened. No murders were excused, killings were thoroughly investigated and found not to be murder. That is what happened in practice, what you are describing only happened in your fevered imagination.
And you continue to not understand what I’m saying, despite me explaining myself at length. You continue to play these absurd semantic games, wherein a cop who got away with murder by any reasonable definition was cleared by a jury because they were afraid for no good reason.
> [@](#):
>
> You, and others in this thread, have shown that cops sometimes lie. Why is it so hard for you to understand that other people sometimes lie - especially if those people are criminals being arrested. You don’t trust cops, I get that. But it’s silly to trust them less than career criminals.
Wow, and here I thought I had carefully selected a bunch of cases where I didn’t have to take the word of a criminal being arrested. Like the Philando Castile case. Because there, there was no criminal, nobody was getting arrested, and there was video footage of the whole thing. 🙂
C’mon.
> [@Steophan](#):
>
> Another case where the article makes clear that there was no case to answer. It went to a Grand Jury twice, and there was no grounds for a trial. Justice, despite the claims of the mother in the article, has happened. What hasn’t happened is what she actually wants, unjustified revenge for the unfortunate but non-criminal killing of her son.
And if you honestly believe that, I hope you also believe that the cops are your friends, and cooperate in _every_ way you can. I hope you don’t take [your right to shut up](https://www.popehat.com/2011/12/01/reminder-oh-wont-you-please-shut-up/) seriously. After all, the cops are your friends. The justice system is fair and rarely makes mistakes.
Right? _Right?_
In case it’s obvious, I don’t think that’s always true. I think there are some cases where the justice system _fails_. Miserably. Where it is unjust, unfair, inconsistent, and unreasonable. Dealing with cops is one of them. Dealing with poor minorities is another.
It’s _really_ hard to get a jury to convict a cop of, well, _anything_. At least part of that has to do with people like you and **Hocus Pocus** , who seem ready to rabidly defend the police and the justice system no matter what evidence you’re going against, no matter how damning the videos are. Because people are likely to take cops at their word, and believe all kinds of mythmaking about how great cops are. When I talk about murder, you seem to be either intentionally misrepresenting me, or incapable of imagining that I could think that either the jury or the law was wrong to not convict an officer of murder in a case where we watched video of said officer shooting an unarmed, fleeing civilian in the back, then trying to plant evidence that would justify that obviously unjustified shooting. This is not hard to understand. The way you’re arguing, the SS officers at Auschwitz were not guilty of murder. And if anyone thinks _that_ analogy is unfair or offensive… Well…
> [@](#):
>
> It’s fully understandable that she wants that. What is _not_ understandable or acceptable is that other people, free of emotion and in possession of the facts, should want that. Your hard-on for punishing cops for perceived (but not actual) crimes puts you at the same moral level as a 1930s redneck who liked lynching niggers for perceived insults.
>
> Actually no, you are worse. The victims of lynching were simply neutral, trying to live their lives. You want to punish those who are risking their lives to make your life, and everyone else’s, better and safer, because you refuse to look at the actual facts and events that have happened. That’s inexcusable.
…_Wow_. Just wow. Keep digging, I’m sure that barrel-bottom we lost track of is down there somewhere. With the drilling equipment you’re using, you shouldn’t have any trouble if you hit bedrock.
[Grand juries are biased in favor of police](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/08/nyregion/grand-juries-seldom-charge-police-officers-in-fatal-actions.html?_r=0). No huge surprise; the DA works closely with the police, and there’s an incentive to keep the peace there - if the cops think you’re against them, they’re less likely to help you when you need help. So they do what they can to _avoid_ indicting cops. This is not new or controversial; [grand juries indict civilians at absurdly high rates, and police officers at absurdly low rates](https://fivethirtyeight.com/datalab/ferguson-michael-brown-indictment-darren-wilson/).
A lot of abuses are written off as he-said-she-said and never get anywhere, [even when the accusations form a clear pattern among many victims](http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2017/04/14/the_michael_bongiovanni_case_shows_how_bad_cops_cover_for_each_other.html). There is a reason a lot of people don’t trust the cops, and don’t think they act in their best interest. For every high-profile case like Philando Castile and Walter Scott, who knows how many cases flew under the radar and never made the news? How many cases are there like Bongiovanni, where all we have to go on for _years_ of abuse is witness statements (that get ignored, because it’s a witness against a cop, and the cop gets the presumption of trust), right up until he gets caught on video beating the shit out of a motorist to get his jollies off?
That’s just three issues that make this difficult. Any one of those would be a problem. Hell, _even just the presumption of truth_ makes holding police accountable without video evidence basically impossible - that’s why body cameras are so important. But what’s also important is that when cops kill people because they were afraid of a threat that didn’t exist, that they be held accountable. If I shot my neighbor, the response, “I thought he was going for his gun” would not be good enough when it turned out he didn’t have a gun. It shouldn’t be good enough for the police either.
---
### Author:  [@Bone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bone)
#### Post date: [July 20, 2017, 4:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/272 "2017-07-20T16:12:20Z")
> [@Steophan](#):
>
> Your hard-on for punishing cops for perceived (but not actual) crimes puts you at the same moral level as a 1930s redneck who liked lynching niggers for perceived insults.
>
> Actually no, **you are worse.** The victims of lynching were simply neutral, trying to live their lives. …
(my bold)
I started reading and first thought your post was an interesting framing of an argument and observation about disinterested parties. Then I got to the above quoted section.
The comment about "hard-on"s would be sufficient to moderate given the rule against sexualizing posters or their arguments. That alone would likely only garner a comment. However, saying another poster is worse in terms of morality than someone who engages in racist lynching is not okay.
This is a warning for personal insults.
* * *
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#):
>
> The way you’re arguing, the SS officers at Auschwitz were not guilty of murder. And if anyone thinks _that_ analogy is unfair or offensive… Well…
Please do not make a habit of ridiculous analogies, especially tit for tat. This is a note and not a warning because it lacks the personalization bolded above and describes the rationale, however, I’d rather not engage in this level of hair splitting.
[/moderating]
---
### Author:  [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)
#### Post date: [July 20, 2017, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/273 "2017-07-20T16:17:33Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> Can you please describe the specific ways in which you want to change the grand jury process so that the cop would be convicted of murder (or manslaughter, which is what he was charged with)? Should we dispense with the presumption of innocence? Should the cop not be given the assistance of counsel? Should the jury instructions include “don’t believe a word the defendant says”?
It is my understanding that if you, as a private citizen, have charges in front of a grand jury, then there is only the prosecution’s side of the case. You are not allowed to make any statements, call any witnesses, or in any other way defend yourself. You are usually not even aware of what transpired in the proceedings. Your first chance to defend yourself is at trial.
In the case of a police officer, this is not the case. They actually do get a defense in the grand jury stage of justice proceedings, so many of them do not make it past the grand jury.
That is a specific change that I would make to the grand jury process.
I would also involve prosecutors (and investigators) from either a different district, a different state, or even federal prosecutors, as local prosecutors have too much of a temptation to make a weak case against their friends in blue.
I think if you made those two changes, you would probably see more of the unjustified shooters, the cops who are caught planting evidence, the cops who get caught raping and beating the people who called them for help, the “good” cops who cover up for bad cops, and just the cops who cuase harm to the public by simply being the wrong man for the job receive appropriate discipline, and the rest of the cops will quickly fall in line, realizing that their position is not as unassailable as they thought.
---
### Author:  [@wolfpup](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wolfpup)
#### Post date: [July 20, 2017, 4:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/274 "2017-07-20T16:28:13Z")
> [@Steophan](#):
>
> You want to punish those who are risking their lives to make your life, and everyone else’s, better and safer, because you refuse to look at the actual facts and events that have happened. That’s inexcusable.
No, what is inexcusable is blind, knee-jerk defense of police officers without acknowledging that unnecessary police violence is a real problem and a preventable one. The way to make your life and everyone else’s better and safer is to acknowledge that a problem of police violence exists instead of steadfast denial. It would help promote gathering better statistics which are presently [incomplete and inadequate](http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/number-of-black-people-killed-by-us-police-still-no-stats-1.3670513) and lead to better training and fewer innocent people shot. Using specious arguments like “juries are never wrong” in blind defense of the police only makes you part of the problem.
---
### Author:  [@RickJay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RickJay)
#### Post date: [July 20, 2017, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/275 "2017-07-20T16:41:31Z")
> [@Steophan](#):
>
> Nope, that’s not how this works. The jury found reason to doubt their guilt, that’s not something they _can_ be wrong about. It is quite literally meaningless to say they were wrong.
Juries are made of humans and humans are fallible. It is quite plausible a jury could make a stupid decision.
It’s the best system we have, but it’s preposterous to suggest it is perfect.
---
### Author:  [@Shodan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shodan)
#### Post date: [July 20, 2017, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/276 "2017-07-20T16:49:10Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#):
>
> It is my understanding that if you, as a private citizen, have charges in front of a grand jury, then there is only the prosecution’s side of the case. You are not allowed to make any statements, call any witnesses, or in any other way defend yourself. You are usually not even aware of what transpired in the proceedings. Your first chance to defend yourself is at trial.
>
> In the case of a police officer, this is not the case. They actually do get a defense in the grand jury stage of justice proceedings, so many of them do not make it past the grand jury.
>
> That is a specific change that I would make to the grand jury process.
Do you have a cite that police may present a defense at grand juries, and regular citizens do not?
Regards,
Shodan
---
### Author:  [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)
#### Post date: [July 20, 2017, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/277 "2017-07-20T17:43:10Z")
> [@wolfpup](#):
>
> No, what is inexcusable is blind, knee-jerk defense of police officers without acknowledging that unnecessary police violence is a real problem and a preventable one. The way to make your life and everyone else’s better and safer is to acknowledge that a problem of police violence exists instead of steadfast denial. It would help promote gathering better statistics which are presently [incomplete and inadequate](http://www.cbc.ca/news/trending/number-of-black-people-killed-by-us-police-still-no-stats-1.3670513) and lead to better training and fewer innocent people shot. Using specious arguments like “juries are never wrong” in blind defense of the police only makes you part of the problem.
There’s nothing blind about my defence of people who kill in self defence, and it doesn’t apply only to the police. I acknowledge the problem, and have repeatedly (if not in this thread, certainly in others) supported the use of body cameras.
The problem with body cameras, as demonstrated by this thread, is that cameras in general don’t provide the level of evidence some people think they should, in that a video on its own is not proof of guilt. Multiple videos from different sources can be better, and the more body cameras there are the closer we could get to that. I could also see that some people would choose to wear their own, similar to the way many drivers choose to use dash cameras.
My problem with the unceasing criticism of the police is simply that, even when the actions have been fully investigated and shown to be acceptable, to the extent of having a full trial - about the most thorough investigation we ever do of someone’s actions - people are still attacking the cops. That’s indefensible.
---
### Author:  [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)
#### Post date: [July 20, 2017, 5:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/278 "2017-07-20T17:55:03Z")
> [@Shodan](#):
>
> Do you have a cite that police may present a defense at grand juries, and regular citizens do not?
>
> Regards,
> Shodan
I don’t have a cite for that, as that was not my specific claim. My claim was that they “get a defense”, and that defense is the prosecutor.
> [@](#):
>
> [Grand Jury System, With Exceptions, Favors the Police in Fatalities](https://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/08/nyregion/grand-juries-seldom-charge-police-officers-in-fatal-actions.html)
> For most felonies, grand jury hearings are swift, bare-bones proceedings. Prosecutors present enough evidence to show it is probable that the defendant, who rarely testifies, committed a crime, and ask the jury to vote for an indictment. Several cases are usually processed in a single day.
>
> But because most prosecutors impanel a special grand jury to investigate police-related deaths, they insulate themselves from the final decision, while appearing to fulfill the public desire for an independent review, legal experts said. The inquiries often go on for weeks or months, with testimony from several witnesses.
>
> The proceeding is transformed into a trial of sorts, behind closed doors but without cross-examination. Prosecutors control what witnesses appear and in what order, legal scholars said.
>
> In most cases, the officer provides his or her account; prosecutors can decide to let an officer’s version of events go unchallenged or to discredit it with cross-examination. They can do the same with other witnesses.
> [@](#):
>
> [GRAND JURIES, HAM SANDWICHES, AND POLICE WHO KILL](http://kgdefenselaw.com/grand-juries-and-ham-sandwiches)
> It is my opinion that in these police cases the prosecutor stops prosecuting and takes on the role of defense attorney for the accused officer. In the presentment, which normally just covers the basis for charging the accused with a crime, the prosecutor makes sure that the grand jurors hear evidence that would lead them to believe that the officer’s actions were justified and to sympathize for his predicament. This simply is not done with people accused of crimes who are not police officers. I am very familiar with grand jury presentments because as the lawyer of the accused, I get read the transcript after indictments have been issued. No prosecutor has ever presented evidence that is favorable to my clients. Massachusetts requires that exculpatory evidence be presented to the grand jury (which is not required in all states) but certainly does not require showing how the accused may have incorrectly perceived himself to be in danger and therefore justified in acting in self-defense. Raising the issue of self-defense is left for me as the defense attorney to do at trial. I don’t get an assist by the prosecutor before the grand jury. DA’s prefer to hand over the screening to grand juries when an officer is facing charges because when the grand jury decides not to indict, the DA gets political coverage. The DA can say (and likely be believed) that the decision by the grand jury was out of his hands but be sure that this was the result that he wanted and made sure would happen.
> [@](#):
>
> [The Tamir Rice case shows how prosecutors twist grand juries to protect police](https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/12/29/in-tamir-rices-case-the-grand-jury-process-was-turned-upside-down/?utm_term=.1768d7c528f6)
> His 70-page report reads like defense counsel brief, not a neutral assessment of potential charges. (It even has headings like “Officers Loehmann and Garmback’s subsequent statements are consistent with the evidence in this case” and “The incident conforms to the Cleveland Police Department’s active shooter policy.”)
>
> This approach — using the grand jury to review arguments on behalf of potential police defendants, not to prosecute them — fits the model of several recent inquiries of police shootings.
>
> Just last week, Texas prosecutors announced that a grand jury declined to charge any Waller County jail officials in the death of Sandra Bland, a 28-year-old woman who was arrested after a routine traffic stop caught on video and was later found dead in her cell. Jail staff said they discovered her hanging by a plastic bag, an apparent suicide. Her family maintains that the circumstances are suspicious.
>
> Prosecutors convened the grand jury to consider potential charges against the jail staff but then said they already concluded that her death was a suicide.
I found at least a dozen other articles or legal blogs that go on like that. Talking about how the prosecutors act as the defense, about how the officers are allowed to testify to the grand jury, and about how the grand jury is given instructions and information that are very different than the instructions and information that would be given to them had it been you or I holding the smoking gun at the end of a controversial confrontation.
---
### Author:  [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)
#### Post date: [July 20, 2017, 6:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/279 "2017-07-20T18:05:46Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#):
>
> The way you’re arguing, the SS officers at Auschwitz were not guilty of murder. And if anyone thinks _that_ analogy is unfair or offensive… Well…
Plenty were, plenty more weren’t. And many of the people convicted (not just officers, but at other levels) were convicted when laws were changed or created to allow _ex post facto_ guilt - something that would be unconstitutional in the US, and should be considered only as an absolute last resort to extreme atrocities.
Looking at Nuremberg and other post-Nazi investigations and trials might well help educate you on what is or is not murder, and how it’s determined. There were many convicted of manslaughter, or aiding and abetting murder, or other crimes.
Your claiming every one of these killings is murder is part of the problem, as it leads to overcharging. This happened in the Casey Anthony case, where the focus on trying to prove murder lead to a lack of focus on the lesser charges, which may be why the only convictions were for lying to the police.
---
### Author:  [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)
#### Post date: [July 20, 2017, 6:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689/280 "2017-07-20T18:11:54Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#):
>
> I don’t have a cite for that, as that was not my specific claim. My claim was that they “get a defense”, and that defense is the prosecutor.
>
> I found at least a dozen other articles or legal blogs that go on like that. Talking about how the prosecutors act as the defense, about how the officers are allowed to testify to the grand jury, and about how the grand jury is given instructions and information that are very different than the instructions and information that would be given to them had it been you or I holding the smoking gun at the end of a controversial confrontation.
This, and a lot of other things in this thread, to me suggest that the police are getting the treatment they have the right to during investigations and trial, and that many others - especially poor people - are not.
If someone, cop or otherwise, claims they killed in self defence, they should be presumed innocent until proven otherwise, as should anyone accused of a crime. Killing in self defence shouldn’t be considered an excuse to murder, it should be considered a fully legal act, and the standards of proof required for arrest, conviction, and so forth shouldn’t change whether someone claims they committed no crime because the killing was legal, or because they didn’t kill because they were in another country.
[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689.md?page=13)
[Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/why-are-police-so-quick-to-kill/787689.md?page=15)