Grand Juries and Police Officers

[Gravekeeper]

Of course I'm still going with it, it's the truth in these situations. Michael Brown attacked a cop and died doing so. That's not a racial problem. Eric Garner had the cops called on him by multiple store owners sick of him selling cigarettes in front of their stores, killing business. The police show up, he gets rowdy, resists arrest, and dies afterwards due to complications from his poor health. He wasn't choked to death. You can't yell "I CAN'T BREATHE!" when you are being choked.

Holy shit, seriously? You really bought that line of BS from Fox & Friends? Maybe you should actually explore said facts before you talk about them. Seeing as the coroner's report specifically says "neck compression" from a choke hold. A choke hold that was specifically banned by the NYPD since 1993. Also, I like that you call "protesting his innocence" as being "rowdy" and "pulling his hand away from a cop and asking him to please not touch him" as "Resisting arrest". Never mind the fantastically callous and fucked up excuse of "You can't yell "I CAN'T BREATH" when you are being choked.". The farking UN Human Rights council has had to weigh in on this for god sakes.

Do you have similar BS excuses for the shooting of Tamir Rice within 2 seconds by an officer who was fired for being unfit for duty in 2012?

Rumain Brisbon being shot after the officer mistook a pill bottle for a gun?

Akai Gurley being somehow shot and killed by an officer by "accident"?

Sean Bell being shot at some odd 50+ times because one officer claimed he thought he saw a gun?

Timothy Stansbury being shot because the officer claims he was startled by him opening a door?

Andy Lopez? Kendrec McDade? Timothy Russell? Nicholas Heyward Jr? Amadou Diallo? Kimani Gray? Patrick Dorismond? Shall I go on?

You don't deserve to die just because you don't lick the ground a cop walks on.

Why do you even bother to come into these discussions when you consistently demonstrate you have no interest in learning anything about the subject matter?

[Gravekeeper]

The way you act, it's like he shot Brown for not listening and had NOTHING to do with the fact that Brown attempted to take his gun already and was charging at him. It'd be pretty reasonable for Wilson to assume the guy charging him would go for the gun a second time.

So your version of what are disputed facts of the case are correct because you believe Brown deserved it? Your version doesn't even gel with Officer Wilson's version for crying out loud.

[Greenday]

Why do you even bother to come into these discussions when you consistently demonstrate you have no interest in learning anything about the subject matter?

Pot calling the kettle black.

I think what you meant to say was "Why do you even bother to come into these discussions if you don't want to agree with the popular opinion?", a very common theme you seem to bring up.

So your version of what are disputed facts of the case are correct because you believe Brown deserved it? Your version doesn't even gel with Officer Wilson's version for crying out loud.

I'm saying the police have a right to protect themselves from attempted murder. When Brown reached for Wilson's sidearm, it went from assault to attempted murder. You can try to rip on me for using Fox as a source, but I don't watch Fox. I also don't use CNN, ABC, or MSNBC which are all just as bad as Fox just with a uber-liberal bias instead of a uber-conservative bias.

[Andara Bledin]

I think what you meant to say was "Why do you even bother to come into these discussions if you don't want to agree with the popular opinion?", a very common theme you seem to bring up.

You don't even always agree with verified facts if they don't fit your narrative...

[Greenday]

Do you have similar BS excuses for the shooting of Tamir Rice within 2 seconds by an officer who was fired for being unfit for duty in 2012?

Rumain Brisbon being shot after the officer mistook a pill bottle for a gun?

Akai Gurley being somehow shot and killed by an officer by "accident"?

Sean Bell being shot at some odd 50+ times because one officer claimed he thought he saw a gun?

Timothy Stansbury being shot because the officer claims he was startled by him opening a door?

Andy Lopez? Kendrec McDade? Timothy Russell? Nicholas Heyward Jr? Amadou Diallo? Kimani Gray? Patrick Dorismond? Shall I go on?

You don't deserve to die just because you don't lick the ground a cop walks on.

Why do you even bother to come into these discussions when you consistently demonstrate you have no interest in learning anything about the subject matter?

No.
If he TRULY believed Brisbon was pulling a gun, yes. Though a bottle of pills is a lot smaller than most guns.
It appears he improperly handled his weapon which resulted in the death of a non-threat. That's criminal negligence.
Sean Bell hit a cop with his car while driving drunk to avoid getting in trouble with the police. Not an excuse to shoot him once he stopped driving. Without being there or video, I don't know what the police saw or thought they saw. The changing stories and the BS fourth man story don't lend the police credibility. Charges probably should have stuck but I don't have all the details that were given to the jury.
Timothy Stansbury - Looks like it could have gone either way. But if you are so skittish that you freak out when someone opens a door, you probably shouldn't carry a weapon. In all reality, it probably was a complete accident and the cop didn't intend to shoot someone but why did he have his gun drawn and his finger on the trigger if he wasn't actively pursuing a threat?

I can go on and on posting about the ambiguity in a lot of these cases. I think a lot of these cases that didn't make it to trial were extremely ambiguous and getting a jury to unanimously decide someone is guilty almost nil. The ones that did make it to trial did so because they were a lot less murky.

How do you intend to prove in the Eric Holder case that there was intent to injure instead of just taking someone down? There's a difference between illegal and against the rules. I mean, are there any laws against performing a choke hold on someone? There aren't that I know of. It'd be enough to suspend him or fire him, it'd be enough reason to sue the cop in civil court, it might be enough to get Holder's charges dropped. But you have to prove there was mal-intent and good luck proving that. I can't even find evidence of that from the conspiracy theorist websites that are trying to equate this with the Sandy Hook or Aurora shootings (Yes, I've actually seen those brought up).

[Greenday]

You don't even always agree with verified facts if they don't fit your narrative...

And which verified fact am I disagreeing with? The story I use with Michael Brown is the official story. The story I use is based off the video. 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 restricted some bloodflow which combined with his medical conditions resulted in his death.

Speaking of his death, where is this mysterious autopsy report that keeps being referenced to? I can find people quoting small bits of it, but I'd sure be interested in reading the full report instead of just a small quote and saying, "HAH! I'm right!"

[KabeRinnaul]

Speaking of his death, where is this mysterious autopsy report that keeps being referenced to? I can find people quoting small bits of it, but I'd sure be interested in reading the full report instead of just a small quote and saying, "HAH! I'm right!"

Many people would be interested in it. Unfortunately, the court is refusing to release any of the actual evidence used in the case. They've provided lists of what that evidence was, but not the material itself.

[Gravekeeper]

And which verified fact am I disagreeing with? The story I use with Michael Brown is the official story.

And as I said before if you had paid the slightest attention you would see that the "official" story ( which has been changed 3 times now ) is dubious. The witnesses who testified Brown charged are a small minority. While the majority of witnesses testified Wilson opened fire while Brown was trying to run away.

The story I use is based off the video. 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 restricted some bloodflow which combined with his medical conditions resulted in his death.

His health was a contributing factor but his death was ruled a homicide. Which in coroner speak means it was caused by the actions of another. The main reason was ruled compression of the neck by a choke hold plus compression of the chest due to the position he was held prone in.

Here's the NYPD's own patrol manual on the subject:

Members of the New York City Police Department will NOT use chokeholds. A chokehold shall include, but is not limited to, any pressure to the throat or windpipe, which may prevent or hinder breathing or reduce intake of air.

Whenever it becomes necessary to take a violent or resisting subject into custody, responding officers should utilize appropriate tactics in a coordinated effort to overcome resistance (for example see PG 216-05, "Aided Cases-Mentally Ill or Emotionally Disturbed Persons"). The patrol supervisor, if present should direct and control all activity. Whenever possible, members should make every effort to avoid tactics, such as sitting or standing on a subject's chest, which may result in chest compression, thereby reducing the subject's ability to breathe.

After an individual has been controlled and placed under custodial restraint using handcuffs and other authorized methods, the person should be positioned so as to promote free breathing. The subject should not be maintained or transported in a face down position.

The member assuming custody of the subject should closely observe him or her for any apparent injuries. If the area is dark, a flashlight or other source of illumination should be used to maintain a clear view of the subject at all times.

If a person appears to be having difficulty breathing or is otherwise demonstrating life-threatening symptoms, medical assistance will be requested immediately. The patrol supervisor will direct that alternate means to maintain custody be utilized, if appropriate.

The cops basically did every possible thing wrong by their own manual. Even after they realized he was unconcious they failed to render aid. In fact, the responding EMTs were also suspended because they to failed to render CPR. So if you want to talk about contributing factors, that's one farking major one right there.

And for the record the "crime" he was accused of was not an arrestable offense. It was a citation.

[s_stabeler]

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.

[Greenday]

His health was a contributing factor but his death was ruled a homicide. Which in coroner speak means it was caused by the actions of another.

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.

[Kara_CS]

I'm going to regret getting into this conversation and I already know that I'm going to be told that I'm wrong, but, why the hell not?

Coroners can, and do, rule deaths to be homicides based on their findings during autopsies. The police and courts do not determine if a death was a homicide, it is their job to determine and bring to trial the party(ies) responsible for a death that has been determined to be a homicide. And yes, police shootings are generally listed as homicides. From there, the determination must be made as to whether or not it was a justifiable homicide.

[D_Yeti_Esquire]

Well, I applaud this topic for missing the point and substituting it's own after an entire 1 post. I admit it was a fairly specific topic and not everyone's cuppa. What can I say, I like actual systemic questions.

I mean, if you want to have a "is race a thing in law enforcement", I'm not sure why you couldn't have created your own post and left this topic to the one or two that might have actually responded. No responses would have been fine too.

Have fun everyone.

Edit: Thanks stabeler... I'm glad someone noticed that.

[Kara_CS]

I suppose I should have elaborated because I did mean to tie it back to the point, but after the thread derailed so hard it kind of slipped my mind. When proper police procedure is followed when the officer is in the wrong, we have shooting->homicide determination->internal investigation->determination of excessive/unnecessary degree of force used->charges filed->criminal jury trial->verdict and sentencing. Grand jury indictments are supposed to help out a DA who isn't sure there's enough evidence for a trial, but the new trend seems to be DA's who don't WANT a trial and sabotage their own case before a grand jury. Which is really bizarre, because prosecuting attorneys don't care about anything whatsoever besides getting a conviction. If someone is facing 20 charges and there's only a slim chance of getting a conviction in a single charge, they will zero in on that charge and fight like hell to get their conviction.

When the police can police themselves properly, there's no need for a DA to bother with the grand jury indictment process.

[NecCat]

Well, I'm not that familiar with the United States justice systems, so I didn't feel qualified to chime in, but I'll give you my gut reaction to your original question.

In a grand jury situation, I would be hesitant as a jury member to find a police officer over for trial, and I would be hesitant as a prosecutor to present evidence in a way that the jury would want to make that happen. 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.

Having lived through that, knowing that I can never go back and live in the town my family and friends are from, and knowing that there is nothing I can do about it, is a serious form of oppression. I can't go tell on a police officer who is abusing me, who could I tell, the other police will take his side, every time, without question.

As a grand jury member, or a prosecutor, I would be very hesitant to bring that upon myself. The jury in a trial itself is in a different position. Finding an officer guilty of a serious crime at a trial means that person will no longer be a police officer, will probably be in jail, and will be unlikely to get backup from other officers, who wouldn't want their name associated with a 'known criminal' if they tried. Truthfully calling guilty or not guilty in a trial of a police officer would seem to have less consequence for the rest of the jurys' life.

If you wanted to present a more fair grand jury experience for police, I think you need to remove the fear. Either require police officers to go to a different location, with which they are not associated, and have a local prosecutor and grand jury examine evidence there, or have a distant jury and prosecutor brought to the offices locale for the purpose of holding the officers grand jury.

[s_stabeler]

actually, I agree: the best way of dealing with this should probably be to take investigating a police shooting out of the hands of the PD/SO/Whatever the officer/Deputy/Special Agent/whatever is from. Same for prosecuting any case: Don't have the local DA ( who inherently works closely with the police) prosecute police officers- have a special prosecutor in from elsewhere.

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

Note that this doesn't actually inconvenience anybody if the police officer is innocent- if anything, it makes it more obvious. But it means a guilty police officer can no longer hide behind either the 'blue wall of silence' or by intimidating a grand jury/prosecutor.