|
Raerlynn posted:That seems abusable, but okay, that's the letter of the law. Is there a provision for what to do in this case, where a grand jury declined to bring charges? Is there a mechanism to challenge the grand jury? I recall there being something about being able to bring a petition directly to a judge. I believe you can challenge an indictment but I don't think you can challenge a failure to indict
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 14:36 |
|
|
Raerlynn posted:That seems abusable, but okay, that's the letter of the law. Is there a provision for what to do in this case, where a grand jury declined to bring charges? Is there a mechanism to challenge the grand jury? I recall there being something about being able to bring a petition directly to a judge. I'm hesitant to create in general, processes that make it easier to put people on trial that grand juries think shouldn't be. However, I'm interested in finding ways to get DAs to bring the vigor they have against everyone else to cop investigations too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:18
|
|
|
Honestly Grand Jury is so loving stacked in the favor of indictment that on the rare case they fail to do so, it should be left alone. Which is why of course this case is being treated by the prosecutor as a defense trial because CLEARLY the case had no merit if they failed to indict by such lax standards also we get expert witnesses for the accused all the time in GJ, trust us
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:22
|
|
|
twodot posted:I wanted to come back to this since AreWeDrunkYet correctly noted that purposely causing the death of anyone under the age of 13 is aggravated murder in Ohio. The Ohio state constitution requires a grand jury for any crime that you can be sentenced the death penalty for: Phew! We found a LEGAL reason to say it's bad, so you don't have to admit that it can separately yet simultaneously be MORALLY bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:24
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:However, I'm interested in finding ways to get DAs to bring the vigor they have against everyone else to cop investigations too. This is the more relevant reason. A real weakness in the system is that it depends on the DA to give honest effort to ask cases equally, which we don't see when it comes to cases involving officers as the defendant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:25
|
|
|
It's not just a lack of will to prosecute cops. They are actively abusing the grand jury system in order to have their cake and eat it too. They don't want to be known as the corrupt prosecutor that looked at a man shooting an unarmed child without any warning and then lies in his report and says "that looks ok; not going to charge you with anything" but they do want to have that outcome. So they lead the secret grand jury to fail to indict and then "welp I tried but there just wasn't enough evidence to convince these people who are not allowed to talk about what went on behind these doors." Then Serious People get to say the system works and anyone that doesn't like it just doesn't understand why we have to sacrifice innocent people in order to keep everything working and cops safe (which is a much higher priority than regular people). It's yet another uniquely American problem where if cops can't execute children or people buying toy guns then we are risking their lives.
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 20:30 on Oct 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:27
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:This is the more relevant reason. A real weakness in the system is that it depends on the DA to give honest effort to ask cases equally, which we don't see when it comes to cases involving officers as the defendant. Grand Jury is totally pointless loving garbage and we should just abolish it outright. Since that isn't going to happen, the next best answer is that any case against a policeman or county official brought to Grand Jury should be handled 100 percent by an attorney with no formal relationship with the DA's office. My time in grand jury illustrated how buddy-buddy the prosecutors were with the cops, and I'd have zero confidence in any of them trying to indict one.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
7,000 people were held illegally in Chicago's "black site". Around 6,000 of those people were black. Only 68 were allowed access to an attorney.quote:According to an analysis of data disclosed to the Guardian in late September, police allowed lawyers access to Homan Square for only 0.94% of the 7,185 arrests logged over nearly 11 years. That percentage aligns with Chicago police’s broader practice of providing minimal access to attorneys during the crucial early interrogation stage, when an arrestee’s constitutional rights against self-incrimination are most vulnerable. http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/oct/19/homan-square-chicago-police-disappeared-thousands This is 2x the number of people the CPD originally admitted to disappearing.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:31
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I agree, OP; only the strong should have the right to enforce the law. No more women and noodle-armed girly-men. I'm sure policing will be improved when all departments are staffed with the most roided-out übermenschen we can find. In a perfect world, cops would not escalate situations with angry hot-heads over frivolities and instead calmly wait for backup and arrest them. Instead we see a pattern of cops escalating non-dangerous situation into melee, taking the perp on solo and then shooting them when they are unable to win the fight they just started. Since cops can't seem to help themselves from engaging in George-Zimmerman-style behavior of continual confrontation and escalation - starting fist-fights with "bad guys" only to summarily and cowardly gun the person down when they start losing the fight that they started - I vote we start demanding cops have the skills, fitness, and equipment that give them a high likelihood of winning a melee against teenagers with no martial training. No doughy cowboys allowed. In this fashion we can spare some people from being gunned down by pathetic wimpy cops who like to escalate situations, something I think that everyone should want. BTW this does not exclude women, they can train hard and be very formidable. Or, to put it another way, there simply needs to be a higher level of minimum physical and mental ability for the job then we presently allow. If that makes me an "only the strong" cop apologist then so be it. Of course what I would really like is for the macho bullshit to stop and for cops to stop escalating minor situations, but that's not going to happen.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:32
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:7,000 people were held illegally in Chicago's "black site". Around 6,000 of those people were black. Only 68 were allowed access to an attorney. But remember if you make it any easier to prosecute cops for killing people then THAT is what is going to totally break down our not at all corrupted justice system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:34
|
|
|
Devor posted:Phew! We found a LEGAL reason to say it's bad, so you don't have to admit that it can separately yet simultaneously be MORALLY bad.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:36
|
|
|
twodot posted:It seems to me that a prosecutor can hosed a trial just as easily as a grand jury hearing. This isn't true. There's oversight in an actual trial from a judge, the media, an opposing attorney, and a jury with stricter guidelines. Grand Jury is just totally secret and the prosecuting attorney can spin literally any narrative they want. I really can't stress enough how lopsided the grand jury process is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:39
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:This isn't true. There's oversight in an actual trial from a judge, the media, an opposing attorney, and a jury with stricter guidelines. Grand Jury is just totally secret and the prosecuting attorney can spin literally any narrative they want. Sure, but I don't understand how getting rid of the grand jury would do anything but just have the DA dismiss the case without even the show of a Grand Jury. If the DA wants to prevent someone from getting convicted, I don't see how the fact there's a defense attorney there would do jack poo poo. And at the end of the day, this thread makes me happy there aren't more ways to convict someone over the opinion of their peers. The fact that judges can overrule juries on the death penalty is crazy enough, I'd hate to imagine a trial where judges have more power than they already do.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:This isn't true. There's oversight in an actual trial from a judge, the media, an opposing attorney, and a jury with stricter guidelines. Grand Jury is just totally secret and the prosecuting attorney can spin literally any narrative they want. twodot fucked around with this message at 20:50 on Oct 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Sure, but I don't understand how getting rid of the grand jury would do anything but just have the DA dismiss the case without even the show of a Grand Jury. That'd affect their chances of re-election. quote:If the DA wants to prevent someone from getting convicted, I don't see how the fact there's a defense attorney there would do jack poo poo. Again, also the judge, media, and a jury with stricter guidelines and thresholds for evidence. I'm not trying to be rude but do you understand what grand jury is? It's literally one person who makes a case, and then calls as many witnesses as he/she likes that only support her view and then says "hey, do more than half of you think what I said is even possible?" Not even plausible or likely... just possible. And not even a whisper of the proceedings leave the room. An actual jury trial has a judge that can witness misconduct, a media that can report if a prosecutor is not even trying, and the jury has to decide as a whole group what ACTUALLY happened, not just if it's a slight possibility.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:This isn't true. There's oversight in an actual trial from a judge, the media, an opposing attorney, and a jury with stricter guidelines. Grand Jury is just totally secret and the prosecuting attorney can spin literally any narrative they want. I wonder if there's been a justification on why it's done behind closed doors.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
twodot posted:Except for the media, all of this oversight is designed to prevent convictions. Regarding the media, short of actually lying, I don't see how a prosecutor could say anything favorable to the defense that the media would get outraged about. Prosecutors are already legally obligated to give over any exculpatory evidence, I don't think being especially zealous about that or declining to present inculpatory evidence is going to make headlines. Are there any cases of the media reporting on ineffective prosecutors? Yeah, and the Grand Jury is designed to secure indictments (at least in modern usage.) Turns out the system is corrupted sometimes, so the only hope would be a system with any actual oversight. As for the media coverage, I don't think a prosecutor would be stupid enough to not TRY to secure a conviction with a judge and the media watching. It's terrible business.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Once you enter US territory, shooting to disable no longer works, for some reason (even though Euro cops do it all the time). Maybe it's something like ray shield the Nazis had that would mind control superman if he tried to stop Hitler, only you know makes US cops worse shots
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:Is it your job to investigate those dangerous looking people? No? Then it's irrelevant, the situations are not the same. A Fancy Bloke posted:This is the most bullshit cop-out answer I've read in a thread FULL of bullshit cop-out answers so congratulations. Raerlynn posted:Cowardly and a cop out. Instead of answering a yes or no answer you quote a fantasy. Stop loving nit picking at words and engage in the discussion, or gtfo. Dr Pepper posted:Yes or no on whether or not a 12 year old deserved to die please. A Fancy Bloke posted:Please please PLEASE don't forget this same poster looked at a picture of two white dudes with their rifles drawn and their fingers near the triggers in a restaurant and said they didn't look like a threat. Raerlynn posted:He has killed a child, and claims that it was in self defense of his life. Why do we need a grand jury to determine that a crime was committed? The boy is dead, and the officer does not dispute that the officer killed the child. Self Defense is an affirmative defense, so shouldn't the officer have to defend such a claim against a prosecutor in the truly neutral court that is being claimed?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:51
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:I wonder if there's been a justification on why it's done behind closed doors. In the grand jury I participated in, someone they were presenting a case against actually somehow found out what day it was happening and held a protest outside of the courthouse, picket signs and everything. They showed up after we were seated, and the staff subtly moved over and closed the blinds before any of us noticed. I suspect it's to prevent witness intimidation and juror tampering.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:53
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Once you enter US territory, shooting to disable no longer works, for some reason (even though Euro cops do it all the time). chitoryu12 posted:The officers in question responded to a call related to an armed suspect by driving off the road to stop right next to the suspect (putting themselves in immediate danger if Rice had actually been armed and threatening), failed to acknowledge the suspect's age, and one of them decided that he was in danger (entirely because of the decision to drive so close to the suspect) and began shooting without confirmation that he was in any danger. Lessail posted:the unintended consequences of your proposals make them bad and worthy of ridicule
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Did this unarmed 12 year old deserve to get shot? I don't know, that's a metaphysical question. Anyway, let me talk more about natural rights
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 20:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I would say if I had an affirmative duty to investigate those rough-looking men on the corner, that would provide me an even greater defense to negligence than if I just happened to walk past them. But you don't, so..... quote:It's basically a metaphysical question. Did he deserve it? I don't know, I can't know, but probably not. Why does it matter? Would it be OK if the police went around killing people who deserved it? You tell us. Your argument boils down to it. quote:If you think that a man posing for a photograph in a restaurant may suddenly snap and try to kill you, I can't imagine what it must be like for you to eat at an establishment where steak knives are included in the flatware. People in every direction with deadly weapons in hand, who knows which diner might suddenly decide to plunge their razor sharp blade into your jugular. Steal Knives are a common item in restaurants. Rifles are not. quote:Prosecutors have an ethical obligation not to press charges if they do not believe a crime has been committed. They also have an ethical obligation to prosecute to the fullest of their ability yet he we are with a prosecutor building a loving defense for their cop friend.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 21:00
|
|
|
Keep Juror's personal information out. Keep Witnesses personal information out. Other than that release all Grand Jury transcripts and testimony to the public.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 21:01
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:That'd affect their chances of re-election. Actually, I'm well aware of grand juries. My point is, you're trying to secure more convictions by replacing them. As it stands, I prefer an institution that goes along with prosecutors 99% of the time to one that goes along 100%. That's what you seem to be missing about their role. Grand juries are designed to make charging people harder. They're externalizing an internal process. That's why they're secret, not to hide evidence when the grand jury indicts, but to protect the innocent when they don't. I'd rather have a minuscule check on prosecutors' ability to overcharge or drag someone's name through the mud, rather than none. Dexo posted:Keep Juror's personal information out. Keep Witnesses personal information out. So if your name comes up in a child porn investigation because you frequent a site frequented by known child porn users, you don't mind if one of those busted.com sites list you, right? Edit: to be clear the listing will only say "investigated for child porn" Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 21:07 on Oct 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 21:04
|
|
|
botany posted:Did this unarmed 12 year old deserve to get shot? I don't know, that's a metaphysical question. Anyway, let me talk more about natural rights Dexo posted:Keep Juror's personal information out. Keep Witnesses personal information out.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If you think that a man posing for a photograph in a restaurant may suddenly snap and try to kill you, I can't imagine what it must be like for you to eat at an establishment where steak knives are included in the flatware. People in every direction with deadly weapons in hand, who knows which diner might suddenly decide to plunge their razor sharp blade into your jugular. Unless someone called 911 reporting a man with a gun in Chipotle, in which case you'd apparently be okay with police driving onto the sidewalk, charging inside, and shooting him dead on the spot because he saw a gun. Edit: I seriously can't believe the cognitive dissonance. You are okay with men posing with kitted out semi-automatic rifles in restaurants and find it unreasonable to be afraid of them, but are also okay with police driving up within point blank range of a 12-year-old and gunning him down for holding a fake pistol. chitoryu12 fucked around with this message at 21:23 on Oct 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 21:16
|
|
|
It's almost like there's some very noticeable immediate difference between Tamir Rice and those two men that makes Tamir an immediate threat and the two men not... Hmmmm...
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:But you don't, so..... chitoryu12 posted:Unless someone called 911 reporting a man with a gun in Chipotle, in which case you'd apparently be okay with police driving onto the sidewalk, charging inside, and shooting him dead on the spot because he saw a gun.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Edit: I seriously can't believe the cognitive dissonance. You are okay with men posing with kitted out semi-automatic rifles in restaurants and find it unreasonable to be afraid of them, but are also okay with police driving up within point blank range of a 12-year-old and gunning him down for holding a fake pistol. I just need to point out a factual error. Rice never actually held the fake pistol before the police shot him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If someone reported armed gunmen in a restaurant, and an OC'er got shot by the responding officers because they saw him reach for the AR slung across his chest, I could consider that a reasonable mistake depending on the circumstances. That's one of the many reasons I think OC as a fashion statement is real dumb. Sharkie has been trying to articulate why he should be allowed to consider any person with a weapon an imminent danger irrespective of their behavior, which is also real dumb. So the difference is that someone makes a 911 call saying they're scared? Then why do the officers not have a responsibility to analyze a situation before acting? Especially in a state where open carry is legal, and therefore the officers have greater incentive to make sure a life-taking mistake isn't made.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 21:59
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:So the difference is that someone makes a 911 call saying they're scared? Then why do the officers not have a responsibility to analyze a situation before acting? Especially in a state where open carry is legal, and therefore the officers have greater incentive to make sure a life-taking mistake isn't made. Remember, that the 911 caller mentioned they thought the gun might be fake too!
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 22:00
|
|
|
At what point did police lose any obligation to analyze a situation before using lethal force? Statistically, cops aren't exactly facing a high chance of death every time they step out onto the street (they're actually more likely to live while walking a beat, since more police are killed in vehicular accidents than are murdered by suspects).
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Remember, that the 911 caller mentioned they thought the gun might be fake too! But this was not passed onto the responding officers correct? Or has it come out that they'd lied about that too now?
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 22:10
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Unless someone called 911 reporting a man with a gun in Chipotle, in which case you'd apparently be okay with police driving onto the sidewalk, charging inside, and shooting him dead on the spot because he saw a gun. Did the kid even hold the toy in his hand? Everything I've heard has said that he just "made a motion towards his waist".
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 22:11
|
|
|
Booourns posted:Did the kid even hold the toy in his hand? Everything I've heard has said that he just "made a motion towards his waist". The police claimed that Rice drew the gun from his waistband, but the video doesn't show anything in his hands and the last frame before he falls has him just lifting his shirt. They also claimed to have issued 3 warnings to drop the gun before firing, but the video showed that the entire incident lasted less than 2 seconds from the officer getting out of the car.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Remember, that the 911 caller mentioned they thought the gun might be fake too! That information was never relayed to the officers. It dead ended in the 911 dispatch.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
ayn rand hand job posted:That information was never relayed to the officers. It dead ended in the 911 dispatch. Unfortunately so. Someone asked pages back what happened to the dispatcher, they quit their job because they're so loving distraught over outcome. She didn't really need to think about it at a metaphysical level
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 22:34
|
|
|
Blaming the 911 operator isn't right unless she told them he was actively shooting at people. A kid having a gun in an open carry state isn't supposed to be a death sentence and Rice wasn't threatening them in any way; those cops hosed up regardless of the information they got. "Going for his waistband" is as bullshit as when "resisting arrest" is tacked on to a person who wasn't committing a crime before police started hassling him or her, especially when the person ends up being unarmed. It's pretty easy to say that a person who has his arms at his side is "going for his waist" when they are moving their hands from their sides up in the air. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 23:31 on Oct 19, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 14:36 |
|
|
The video appeared to show that Rice was lifting his shirt with both hands. The officers lied through their teeth about what happened so we can't just ask them, but I'd hazard a guess he was showing it to them and maybe saying or starting to say something like "It's an airsoft gun" when he was shot.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2015 23:56
|
|