Grand Juries and Police Officers

[SkullKing]

It just didn't appear like he was being choked. There was compression on the side of his neck which was used to bring him down.

That is a choke

[SkullKing]

Homicide legally means "the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder." Sorry, but that's not for the coroner to say. The coroner can say his death was due to another person, but he CANNOT say the intent of the other person as he has no idea. Misusing terms like this causes a lot of confusion.

Can you source this?

From what I found

Homicide= killing of one person by another.

Murder=Deliberately and unlawful killing of one person by another.

Manslaughter=Non-deliberate but unlawfull killing of one person by another.

So the coroner´s job is to give his opinion fo it was an accident of homecide, and so if the signs pointed to a sleeper hold or something like that, he should give his opinion on it being an homecide. Deliberate or not.

[Gravekeeper]

Homicide legally means "the deliberate and unlawful killing of one person by another; murder." Sorry, but that's not for the coroner to say. The coroner can say his death was due to another person, but he CANNOT say the intent of the other person as he has no idea. Misusing terms like this causes a lot of confusion.

A coroner can and does rule something a homicide. That was why I included the definition of what homicide is when ruled as such by a coroner. Because coroner's use the straight definition of homicide not the legal definition. Coroner's rule the cause of death as homicide, suicide, natural, accidental or undetermined. In the case of homicide it means the coroner determined the death was caused by another person(s).

Something you could have easily checked instead of just arguing what you think is right.

[Andara Bledin]

can I remind people the OP said this was NOT for re-arguing the Michael Brown case? This thread is meant for discussion about if Grand Juries need reform in cases where an officer has shot somebody dead.

The problem is that in order to determine that you have to look at the cases that have come up, which currently include the Brown case and a few others.

If you exclude Brown and other cases, there is no discussion left.

The reality is, police officers have an extraordinary amount of power to make the average joe's life miserable. If it comes down to a question of he said/she said the police officers word will be taken over the civilians. If it comes down to a choice to back a police or a civilian in any situation, the other police will choose their fellow police every time. The systematic oppression by a police officer or a group of them is a very real and realistic threat.

This is pretty much the problem in a nutshell.

Nobody is watching the watchers, as it were, and the Grand Jury, while doing the right thing in most instances, is failing utterly in cases where the potential defendants are part of the same system.

[Greenday]

The reason why you should have another PD investigate/ to prevent any form of tampering with the evidence.

So what's to stop two departments from just having a gentleman's agreement not to mess with each other?

[s_stabeler]

So what's to stop two departments from just having a gentleman's agreement not to mess with each other?

either have it that you pick a department at random from a list (say, of departments that bare within a reasonable distance), or have someone like the FBI do it. That part is ONLY to ensure the investigation is not tainted by allegations of a cover-up of evidence.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

NecCat - I think It's fair that it's the US Grand Jury system and you don't feel confident. It's really more of a brainstorming issue like corporate governance since you're asking people to police themselves which never works. That's why I find it fascinating.

I absolutely agree with you that jurisdiction in the case of police officers should change. What is a fair change is a tough question though. In the Garner case, it was tried in Staten Island which is around 70% white and votes extremely Republican. The cop probably could have shot the Pope and it would have gotten the same outcome. But if you move it to Harlem or the Bronx and how likely is it that he'll be guilty even if it was a black officer with no video? That's my problem... I'd have no idea how to curb what are obvious citizen biases in these cases.


--

Kara - Sorry, I just happened to post that right after you posted. It was just I checked my thread back after 3 pages and it was already effectively hijacked at that point. I've certainly had points I forgot to tie together before.

And yea, I'm not sure why DA's don't seem to be as concerned with their conviction rate on officers either.

--

The problem is that in order to determine that you have to look at the cases that have come up, which currently include the Brown case and a few others.

If you exclude Brown and other cases, there is no discussion left.

Not really. The question is, when you're dealing with a department (internal affairs) and a prosecuting department that is interdependent on the police force, is there a mechanism to deal with the conflict of interest in the Grand Jury system where the prosecutor holds all cards. The specifics of those cases technically are irrelevant since statistically either the issue exists or Cops are routinely brought up on false charges far more than the average citizen to an absurd degree.

My sidestepping of the cases was deliberate as the case could very well be a prosecutor failing to get a Grand Jury to indict an Officer over the theft of a lollipop. The cases are in reality interchangeable because what happened in both cases is a normal outcome for prosecuted Police Officers.

So how do you deal with it?

Brown has no less than 4 other threads people can feel free to argue about. I live in NY so honestly I mind discussion about Garner's case less but it's not a discussion I'm going to have here too. That's just me. Again, if people want to debate the Garner case, why not open a thread though?

[Cia]

Michael Brown was walking in the middle of a residential street and being a nuissance when a police officer decided to assert his authority against him by rolling up on him to tell him and his friend to get out of the way of the traffic that, at the time, consisted of him. The officer was looking to teach Brown "his place"

Of course the officer "asserted his authority" as you put it, they were walking where they shouldn't be - down the middle of the road. If you think enforcing the law is equivalent to putting someone "in their place" than we have different views of the law.


Back on point:
Grand Juries I don't always understand. Case in point, I participated in a jury trial as a jurist. It sucked rocks - eleven counts of 1st degree rape of a child under the age of 13 with eleven alternate counts of sexual contact w/ a child under the age of 13. Twenty-two counts covering three kids. We were given one double sided page, ONE piece of paper was entered into evidence, of the oldest girl's testimony to the Grand Jury. There were three kids involved and we get the partial testimony of one. How they put through a True Bill on just what we were given I don't know. What the other two kids testified to as opposed to what we heard during the trial is what we wanted to know.

On top of that the cops didn't do their jobs and left a lot to be desired. They didn't follow up on evidence, waited two years to get testimony and several other things that drove us nuts.

The Grand Jury obviously thought there was enough evidence for a True Bill and the State DA agreed. But what the citizenry thinks is enough evidence and what GJs think is enough are two very different things.

[Gravekeeper]

Of course the officer "asserted his authority" as you put it, they were walking where they shouldn't be - down the middle of the road. If you think enforcing the law is equivalent to putting someone "in their place" than we have different views of the law.

I think you're kind of missing the point Andara is making. -.-