The grand jury concept has been much in the news of late. People with axes to grind (including multiple talking heads on CNN) decry the fact that grand juries in Missouri and New York exonerated the police officer who shot Michael Brown in Ferguson and the one who grabbed Eric Garner and pulled him to the sidewalk in NYC. Benjamin Crump, the plaintiffs’ attorney for the families in the Brown case, the Garner case, and the Trayvon Martin death before that, has called for a prosecutor to indict without sending the case to the grand jury in yet another racially –charged case.
I know many defense lawyers – and many citizens from the far left to the far right – who hate the grand jury system and believe it should be abolished. Having worked within the American criminal justice system in one way or another for more than four decades – as arresting officer, as police department prosecutor, as expert witness for both sides – I have to profoundly disagree.
When people hear the word “jury,” they think of the regular, “petit” jury: normally six to twelve people with some alternates as “spares” who determine guilt or innocence in a full-blown criminal trial, or apportion responsibility between plaintiff and defendant in the trial of a civil lawsuit. The grand jury is exclusive to the criminal side of the justice house, and is called by the prosecutor to determine whether or not there is probable cause to believe a crime has been committed, or at least, enough question thereof that the matter should be sorted out in a full-blown trial. The grand jury will return either a “true bill,” which means that the person in question is now a defendant, stands indicted, and is fully inserted into the gullet of the criminal justice machine, or “no true bill,” which essentially exonerates the potential defendant, though that’s not exactly 100% because the prosecutor can usually re-file the case.
The grand jury is the province of the prosecutor. Often, a defense lawyer for the “person of interest” won’t even be allowed in the room, and if he is, he won’t be allowed to advocate for his client. This is what led to the famous saying that “a prosecutor can convince a jury to indict a ham sandwich.” The members of the grand jury hear what the prosecutor allows them to hear. This is what ticks off absolutists on both far left and far right.
And of course, if you are the one who wants to lead the lynch mob that hangs the defendant, you’ll be ROYALLY pissed off if the prosecutor actually allows exculpatory evidence which convinces his or her fellow citizens to return “no true bill.” This is apparently why Benjamin Crump does not want people he hopes to pillory to go in front of grand juries, and it is why CNN’s Sunny Hostin, a former prosecutor herself, was outraged that exculpatory evidence was presented to the grand jury in Ferguson, Missouri.
Having been on both sides of this two-way street, I support the grand jury concept, and I applaud prosecutors who perform their duty as ministers of justice to allow exculpatory evidence (indicative of innocence) to go before the grand jurors as well as inculpatory evidence (indicative of guilt). Their job is as much to exonerate the innocent as it is to prosecute the guilty.
Some say, “But if the prosecutor is the sole arbiter of the evidence, he can get anyone he wants indicted!” To which I say, “SO WHAT?”
Please understand: IN MOST JURISDICTIONS, THE PROSECUTOR CAN INDICT ON HIS OR HER OWN WITHOUT A GRAND JURY ANYWAY, under what is generally called an “offer of information.”
In the cases currently under media scrutiny, the grand juries heard both sides of the story, while the public and the talking heads only heard one side’s narrative. Before anyone joins in the howl of the lynch mob, they should ask themselves one question: “If I was the one accused, would I want my side of the story and the evidence supporting me to be heard, before I was sent to trial in a case that would likely cost me six figures worth of dollars and incalculable suffering for myself and my family, before the decision was made to put me through that ordeal?”
The grand juries in the Brown death in Ferguson and the Garner death in New York did hear both sides. Having heard that, they each issued no true bill.
I for one respect that, and the prosecutorial authorities who allowed those grand juries to hear both sides.
Agreed Mr. Ayoob! Unfortunately, those not in “the industry” fail understand either the prosecutor or grand jury’s roles in determining probable cause that a crime occurred and that the accused committed it. No person goes to trial if the p/c does not exist. Both the Ferguson and NYPD grand juries had more objective and factual information than is generally presented. No True Bills were returned. The system did its job. The rest is media spin, ignorance, and entitlement attitude.
Randall
My guess is that many of us are not consistently conscious enough that every video is taken from some limited point of view, especially the videos accompanied by some kind of commentary, conjecture, private opinion, gossip, etc. “Seeing is believing” (what we want to believe), no matter how partial the view, and we “don’t need no stinkin’ grand juries.” Add to that the attention and financial leverage that seems to come with passive-aggressive scenes enacted in order to provoke reaction from the public authorities. Then throw in the chance of computer-generated imagery! Mas, thank you for showing more of the good side of our justice system. Imagine a process with no grand juries.
Thanks Mas. There’s so much emotion and name-calling in this area it’s tough to follow. Most of us know 99%+ of the cops out there are good ones. Most of us appreciate the thin blue line separating us from anarchy. Most of us want to do the right thing. Keep the faith.
Read: http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2014/12/notes-of-a-grand-juror.html
The problem isn’t that the prosecutor allowed exulpatory evidence. It’s that they were only presented in cases where police where put before the grand jury.
If these were ordinary citizens, they would have been “true billed” by the respective grand juries, no doubt what so ever. So your “If I was the one accused…” argument doesn’t hold water at all.
There is only one flaw in your argument: You are speaking as if we live in a rational and sane world.
When “justice” means “burn this bitch down” then there really is no room in the argument for the truth.
Anonymous: You might want to reread both what I said, and the essay you linked. My point was that if one is wrongfully accused, justice is served if the grand jury gets to see their side of things as well as the accusers’ side. In the link you offered, the essayist said essentially the same thing, noting that true bills were returned in 91 of 94 cases where they did not hear from the defendant. The essayist you linked, and I, were making similar points.,.and I’m afraid you missed both points.
I’m surprised by your statement, “The members of the grand jury hear what the prosecutor allows them to hear.” In my state (Nebraska), jurors may question witnesses directly and request the prosecutor to investigate facets of the case they believe are relevant. That enables them to get both sides even if the prosecutor is unfairly biased.
Not all grand juries are perfect. Several years ago, a small town police chief shot and killed a 16 year old burglary suspect. The chief was an outsider disliked by many of the townspeople. A grand jury indicted him for “felony 2nd degree assault” even though the suspect was pointing a stolen pistol at him when shot. Ultimately, the chief was acquitted but it should never have gotten that far.
Mas – thanks for providing much-needed education on what has always been a “gray area” for me. When I read anything you write, I feel as though you are an old friend, having a “regular” conversation with me. It is one of your journalistic gifts.
I couldn’t disagree more with posters that seem to think LEO gets a free pass. Anonymous – you seem to think cops are spared. Where is the proof for your statement that only cops have exculpatory evidence presented? Have you not heard what has happened to Officer Wilson’s “career,” just for one example? He is only one who is now reaping the benefits of your “biased evidence theory.”
Mas
Thanks for the report. I was foreman of a Grand Jury for a long, long six-month term, and I truly believe that a Grand Jury is the best “screening” mechanism to put the brakes on overzealous prosecutors as well as to clean up the “fuzzy picture” before someones life is exposed to the tribulations and destruction of a full trial.
A Texas Grand Jury can ask questions of witnesses, demand production of witnesses and additional evidence, table their deliberations, and the Grand Jury, in the person of the foreman, is in control of the deliberations NOT the prosecutor.
The folks who want to abolish the Grand Jury are result oriented and self-serving, and wish to remove an important protection from the innocent- namely, the fact that the prosecutor must convince 12 good citizens , citizens specifically selected to exercise good judgement in examining the facts and circumstances , that a crime has been committed AND that the person brought before them should stand trial.
A big responsibility and a protection for the innocent.
The Grand Jury is a BS detector, that is why the prosecutor in the Martin/Zimmerman case did NOT convene a Grand Jury.
regards
GKT
Much has been said about the testimony of those “eye witnesses” whose account of Wilson/Brown pointed to an unprovoked assassination of Brown, giving equal weight to their claims as compared to those who corroborated the officer’s account. The problem for the prosecutor comes with the fact that each and every one of these pro-Brown witnesses’ accounts had at least parts of their story easily, demonstrably, shown to be untruthful. No competent prosecutor would use these “witnesses” in a trial before a petit-jury. Allowing them to testify before the grand jury served two purposes. The prosecutor could righteously say that no evidence was with-held and simultaneously allow them (grand-jurors) to compare these accounts with the physical evidence which disproved their account of the event.
The prosecutor in the Brown/ Wilson case had no case against Wilson and he knew it. Political and media pressure was driving the narrative. The grand-jury is a tool that every prosecutor has in his bag to short circuit a lynching, at the same time saving having a trial that would cost both the taxpayer and an innocent person much treasure, knowing the final result would be same.
In the NYPD case, we see a different grand-jury with a completely different set of facts, with a very good video of what took place, come to the same conclusion. They found the officer not culpable. Why?
The media immediately latched onto the “illegal choke-hold” narrative. As a retired police officer, I can assure you (I know some will scoff) that what was seen in the video was not a “choke hold”. No pressure that I could see was ever applied to the trachea (the autopsy confirmed no bruising or abrasion to this area). As a police officer, I used the LVR technique numerous times, always with good results. The lateral vascular restraint was probably the most effective and humane skill an officer had in his martial skills tool-kit, until political correctness removed it. The term “choke hold” was one of many slang terms given it. Others were “snot-lock”, “sleeper-hold” and humorously, “the sh_tter” because of the involuntary bodily function that occasionally took place when it was applied. None of this applies because the technique the officer used was not any of these.
If you think I’m defending all of the actions of the officers involved in this event, you’re wrong. My problem with their actions stems not from their actions, but rather from their in-actions. They could not be aware of the subject’s medical problems, but they should have been aware of their training in the dangers of “positional asphyxiation” (mentioned in the autopsy report). Their failure to take immediate actions to alleviate this could have, in my opinion, justified a true-bill for involuntary or negligent homicide.
Now, why did the grand jury refuse to indict? If you’ve followed Mas’s postings for a while, you’ve heard him use the term “jury nullification”. This happens when a jury (or grand-jury) because of circumstances surrounding the fact testimony leads them to set aside the law and find someone not guilty. Many times this occurs when they can say to themselves “there, but for the grace of God go, I”.
Why would they come to this conclusion? The “victim” had 30 prior arrests, was a huge man, had been arrested several times for this same infraction, left home that morning with the intent to continue breaking the law, did in fact break the law, made the decision to resist arrest, verbalized that intent, and did in fact resist.
Contrast that with the officers’. They were confronting the subject in response to complaints from store owners in the neighborhood, they observed the subject commit the infraction, they waited until they had several officers on scene (as they are trained when they see that they are going to have to arrest someone who has expressed an intent to resist, so as to overwhelm the resister, hopefully avoiding injury to them or the subject). None of the officers started their day intent on committing an unlawful act. None of them provoked the encounter. None of them violated any law up to and until the subject stopped breathing. His death was not the result of just one cause. It was a result of several contributing causes, of which the only one that could be attributed to the officers was not an action, but rather an inaction.
Even though intent is not an element that has to be proven in an involuntary or negligent homicide case, I believe the majority of grand jurors could not bring themselves to destroy the life of someone who had led an exemplary life up to this event, and through a series of events, largely outside his control, had a tragic outcome.
Most folk’s following this blog do so to learn. Hoping to be educated so that, heaven forbid, they find themselves defending themselves from prosecution due to actions they took to defend themselves or others from injury or death. The grand jury finds you guilty of nothing, but it has the power, if used, to shield you from malicious or media/political driven prosecution. Be careful not to condemn a process that could someday come to your rescue.
Thanks for clearing up some points of confusion. By the way, are you following the Maarus Kaarma murder trial here in Missoula, Mt. ? Has some interesting legal points mixed up in it….
While what Mas says is in itself correct, I also think that it kind of misses the point. Indeed, I think that the disconnect here is that by focusing on what actually happened in the Brown and Garner legal cases that both the protesters and the defenders are missing the point. (Note that I’m only talking about the legal cases, not what happened on the street.)
For the protesters, they fail to recognize that the legal cases are defensible. For the defenders, they fail to recognize that the real issue here isn’t really about these individual cases but about what’s happening, or at least perceived to be happening, between the police and people of color. By taking these positions and continuing to argue about the legal cases, the protesters give the defenders an easy objection that everything was done right in these cases (i.e. the very argument which is being made here). From the flip side, the defenders give the protesters an easy objection that even if defensible that the system was manipulated to give the cops a break, which is where these legal proceedings are vulnerable.
As a lawyer and ex-prosecutor (though a prosecutor who was a member of the ACLU at the same time I was a prosecutor), I think that – as filed – these cases ended with the right results. Whether they, overall and not limited to just how they were filed, best served the public good is a different and less certain question.
In the Brown case it appears that the grand jury proceedings were filed to give the prosecutor cover for the prosecutor’s decision not to charge Wilson, the cop, which the prosecutor had the right to do without a grand jury. I believe that not charging Wilson was the right decision, and it obviously would have been even more controversial and disruptive had the prosecutor had just made that decision on his own. The grand jury proceeding failed to give him all the cover that was needed, however, because it strayed from the norm for grand juries by not excluding the exculpatory evidence, probably because the prosecutor wasn’t taking any chance that it would go the wrong way. Both of those give some credence to the argument that the grand jury proceeding was, for racial or other improper purposes, rigged to exonerate the officer
I’m also fairly certain that the Garner grand jury decision went the right way as against Officer Pantaleo on the charges offered to the grand jury, but I also think that it was questionable in just being filed against just that one particular officer, in giving the other officers immunity to testify, and by not allowing the bottom-level charge of reckless endangerment. That could have been avoided if all the officers involved in taking and maintaining custody of Garner had been brought before the grand jury and if the charge of reckless endangerment had been made available. The officers would probably have still been no-billed, but the way it was done it lended itself to looking like it was rigged in the officer’s favor for racial or other improper reasons.
Whether they were so rigged – and I’m inclined to believe that they were not, though there’s some residual doubt in my mind in the Garner case* – is kind of irrelevant because the fact that they left themselves open to that speculation unquestionably fuels the larger question of whether people of color get a fair shake, or at least the same shake that white people get, at the hands of the police.
Footnote re Garner: * Why do I have some residual doubt as to the bona fides of that proceeding? Because the way it was charged put the entire grand jury question on the chokehold used by this one officer alone and, notwithstanding how it’s been colored in the popular press and among the protesters, neither the chokehold nor the actions of this one officer alone were what killed Garner. Indeed, the techniques used in the takedown by all the officers were not what killed Garner. Though they may have contributed somewhat, they were not only not directly responsible but were pretty clearly legally justified. What killed Garner, and might conceivably have made the officers criminally liable, was the lack of adequate care given to him after he was in custody after the takedown. While there are certainly counterarguments to be made against that liability, the focus of the prosecutor and thus the grand jury on one officer’s behavior which was pretty clearly not the cause of death (but which was, probably not coincidentally, the cause célèbre) is pretty questionable and looks a lot like that officer being set up as a straw man which could easily and conveniently be knocked down while not only quietly strolling past the real issue but issuing immunity to the other officers to prevent any possibility of that real issue being second guessed in a second grand jury proceeding.
IMHO the grand jury is not a very good way to determine who goes to trial. Jurors can be biased, and can be swayed by a prosecutor with an agenda.
OTOH no one has come up with a system that works better.
If I was the one accused…
Amen. What the justice system will do unto others, it will also do unto me.
Maybe I’m missing something here. I believe the job of the grand jury is only to rough-sort whether or not to even bother with a trial.
Say I were to shoot someone in self defense. If it truly was self defense: if it met the requirements of the assailant had the ability, opportunity and showed signs they were going to do me serious bodily harm; the Grand Jury’s job is to say why waste the resources to have a trial about this? If they conclude I acted in self defense, they stop the process right there, and send a “No True Bill”. If they do that, they had better be sure a trial would have the same verdict (not guilty). If they aren’t sure, they will say let a trial decide.
So a “No True Bill” makes it really clear a defendant is not guilty. But a “True Bill” means we either aren’t sure, or we think the defendant is guilty. So a “No True Bill” should send a clear message of a persons innocence. Whereas a “True Bill” should not influence what will later be a trials verdict.
The advantage to me, the defendant, is that it costs me nothing but my time. Whereas a trial would easily bankrupt me.
Imagine if in Fergeson, if the Grand Jury had gone “True Bill” and later Wilson was found not guilty. the same ignorant protesters would be claiming see, the grand Jury got it right, it’s the rest of the court system that’s crooked…
Unfortunately the grand jury has fell out of favor with many. Some view them as a circumvention of the 5th Amendment or as a tool for prosecutors. Others feel that that a trial by information with a pre-trial hearing that allows both sides to present evidence, witnesses are cross-examined, and the defendant has a right to appear and see witnesses against them in an open courtroom. For these, it is also believed that a judge will be more fair than a prosecutorial led grand jury.
However, one advantage to a grand jury is that it allows a conscientious prosecutor to essentially get the community through its representatives to resolve highly contentious issues in a fair way. Crump and others of his ilk don’t like it because it makes it more difficult to sue in civil court when a community’s grand jury decides that no probable cause exists that a crime has been committed. Past factual decisions by a legal body make it more difficult to change the narrative.
In addition, it creates a record (which is usually kept secret) unless a person decides to contradict prior sworn testimony in a subsequent court case. Thus, it locks the narrative down for witnesses and makes it more risky for any witness to deviate from their grand jury testimony (including the defendant if the defendant chose to testify before the grand jury.).
In studying and teaching about the criminal law and the U.S. Constitution for the past fourteen years, I have come to conclude that the grand jury is a good thing but it would help if prosecutors allowed defendants to testify and juries could direct legal questions to someone other than the prosecutor to answer. Allowing and encouraging grand jurors to ask questions of the witnesses is also a good practice.
However, there is no system of rules that some attorneys won’t try to evade just to get a win. That is where the judges should be more bold in dismissing cases before a trial which are travesties of justice. This occurs whene the prosecution’s case is so weak that as a matter of law probable cause has not been met.
BTW, Mas, just got your new Deadly Force book, about halfway through it and it is a great companion to In the Gravest Extreme. Also am simultaneously reading Rory Miller’s Facing Violence book. Both are highly informative as I expected.
Also, thanks for your books and magazine column writings as well as this blog. They have helped inform my criminal law class especially because they often illustrate key issues dealing with criminal law. This semester, our trial simulation in the class (wrote before the Brown case for mock trial competition) also revolved around a police shooting of an unarmed youth. Given the media coverage of the Brown case, it gave a teaching moment for class discussion of the use of force. Many had the preconception of firing warning shots, shooting people in the leg, and so forth were viewed as legitimate less than lethal actions that police should take, similarly, many felt that as the teen was unarmed that the police officer should not have shot despite the fact that the youth had eerily like Michael Brown just carried out a strong arm robbery with a companion which the officer had heard via radio just before a confrontation with the youth. These students are often shocked to hear what the black letter and caselaw actually is regarding use of force. This led to a discussion of the reasonableness doctrine for evaluating the use of force.
Given that I have known many students in this class who have carry permits in our state, I am glad of your influence and knowledge that you have shared through the years along with former alums of your training such as Andrew Branca. Thanks.
Brian-MT, THAT’S an interesting case. Let’s discuss it here once the jury comes in with their verdict.
The more I read on this site, the more I’m humbled to be able to have any interaction with you gentlemen. To say I’m being educated would be a huge understatement. Thanks for providing such a great learning opportunity for all of us.
This article exactly parallels Mas’ position on “Stand Your Ground” laws.
To wit: If a judge or grand jury can be convinced by a preponderance of the evidence (tipping the scales ever-so-slightly) that a defendant was justified, how on earth can a prosecutor prove that defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt (high 95th percentile)?
We can argue about JVSTICE (Latin inscription on a marble pedestal) all day long, but the preliminaries can save the taxpayers and defendants the horrible burden of a trial that will likely result in an acquittal.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irnD34P2l1w&feature=player_embedded
The other Dave makes a great point. We have truth verses those who want to ferment anarchy. The problem is that the truth is getting in the way of the Anarchy. The prosecutor is being caught in the middle of a power struggle of special interests. There is money to be made by rubbing emotions raw. A city on fire brings rating points. There are plenty of people who want a crisis for thier own ends. The Grand Jury has worked and now people want make it a scape goat.
Both grand juries reached correct verdicts like it or not. Facts speak for themselves not emotions not political correctness….
There was no hands up in Ferguson that was proven by numerous witnesses yet the far left pushes this false agenda that he was shot with his hands up is still being played out even today by members of congressional staff.
Officer Wilson was fully justified in shooting of Michael Brown and the exaggeration of the facts and the suggesting of race playing a part in this by the race baiters, the President and Holder are troubling.
Mr. Garner was not placed in a choke hold I trained with that technique and used it in the street the officer reached around with two hands in front like a horse grab and the struggle was on, yes at one time his arm was across his neck but that’s not a choke hold, placing your elbow pointed straight out from his chin cutting his arteries off from air with your head tucked on his is a choke hold. We herd from many defensive tactics people stating iit wasn’t a choke hold yet the public stuck with the false narrative just like the hands up.
A supervisor was present amoung the officers struggling who says nothing and all the officers pike on struggling with Mr. Garner to the ground. This was due to his refusal to allow them to place him under arrest following lengthy discussion he resisted when his health was in no shape for fighting. It was not a murder by one officer and the grand jury got it correct, that officer nor any officer there did not set out to murder him.
The Mayor of New York was a complete disgrace siding with the criminal and throwing his officers under the bus citing centuries of racial tensions when race played absolutely no part here.
I grew up in NYC in the 60’s when the Black Pathers were terrorizing the whites in public schools, African Americans were complaining about racial injustice, rioting and beating up New York City police officers attacking whites at random… All these riots and protests recently turning ugly few innocent people being killed reminds me of 50 years ago the reason my family moved out of New York.
It’s disgusting that a small group of politicans and race hustlers were able to undue the hard work that went into the last fifty years of progress.
While you make a fine case for the Grand Jury I believe you also make a perfect case for the inclusion of ALL evidence, exculpatory and inculpatory.
Otherwise you have what we have today which is an easily prejudiced system that can serve to advance a (less than honest) prosecutor’s political career.
I don’t think that relying on the honesty of politicians gets us very far.
Noah,
I agree. As a matter of law, grand juries should hear any exculpatory evidence as well and defendants should have the right to appear voluntarily before the grand jury. I would almost go as far as to allow grand juries to refer to judges or outside counsel on questions of law as well rather than simply the prosecutor. Grand juries should not be a rubber stamp for the prosecutor and kept in the dark about key evidence in the case.
I agree in principle, but I believe that state laws should be amended to reflect that the prosecutor MUST present any exculpatory evidence to the grand jury, for three reasons: 1) prosecutors must present exculpatory evidence to the defense in discovery anyway, 2) many prosecutors have no conscience, and 3) if inculpatory evidence is neutralized by credible exculpatory evidence, then no probable cause actually exists, and the grand jury system is based upon determining probable cause.
How many of the people who could testify without their identity being known, would not have out of fear for themselves and their families. Given the inability to accept the truth even from blacks who’s testimony was consistent with physical evidence the only thing a jury trial would have accomplished is danger to the members of the community who were telling the truth.
Mas what is your opinion on body cameras? The House passed 1.1 Trillion has money for them.
It’s all well and good for us to sit here calmly discussing the facts and points of law involved in these cases (and a lot of good facts and discussion have been made). But the rabble causing all the trouble aren’t interested in facts or law. And by rabble I mean the rioters in Missouri (and other locations), the football players, the Congressional Black Caucus, the Congressional staffers and others who parade about with their hands up chanting a silly slogan. They are interested in the same things that interest a lynch mob. Revenge.
We saw the same thing after the officers involved in the Rodney King incident were exonerated. Riots, burning and looting, with the looters carrying store merchandise through broken store windows with gleeful expressions on their faces (the same thing happened in Ferguson, MO. Most notably, from the liquor store). There were even reports during the LA riots of signs being spray painted on walls saying, “FREE RODNEY KING!” This shows how informed a rabble usually is.
This next part requires the reader to exercise top notch reading comprehension skills. My experience in posting to internet discussion groups leads me to believe that is a lost art among some.
I’ve no doubt that certain minority groups get stopped by police more frequently than others. I also know for an absolute, undeniable fact, based on FBI crime statistics, that these groups commit crimes far out of proportion than their numbers in the general population would suggest. How long must a cop serve on the street before trends emerge from his experience and observation (and believe me, I am no apologist for the police, having encountered or witnessed my share of incompetence, law breaking and sloth on their part)? What we see on TV after incidents such as Ferguson and the LA riots only reinforce these stereotypes. And every stereotype is based on factual evidence. I’m a member of a group that is unfairly stereotyped myself, but when I am honest, I have to admit that the stereotype is based on reality. It rubs me raw at times, but it’s a fact.
It’s only when people stop dancing around the issue, give up the nonsense of this political correctness crap, face facts and decide to do something effective about this situation that progress will be made. Hysterically howling that the cops and the courts are racist isn’t going to accomplish anything. This just feeds the rage of the uninformed rabble.
I was encouraged by the comments made by former NBA star Charles Barkley (but I have always thought Sir Charles was a stand up guy who said what is on his mind and damn the consequences, a trait I admire in anyone. It’s gotten him in hot water before, but he doesn’t seem to mind).
Bill Cosby could have had a similar effect, but it seems (and I admit, making a judgement based on facts not in evidence) he is enduring a certain level of credibility loss at the moment. But there are many other calm, rational black men and women who need to counter the ravings of the likes of Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson (whom former CFL star and former Congressman from Oklahoma J.C. Watts, a black man, if you didn’t know, and now a minister once accurately called, “Race baiting poverty pimps.”) who need to step up and make themselves heard. It is long past the time that these people need to emerge and take their places as leaders. Al Sharpton is a disgraceful human being who long ago should have lost all credibility (and, truthfully, be in jail), but our president seems to rely on his expertise and wisdom. That says a lot about more than just Al.
The “Dear Leader” and his butt boy Holder could have done a lot to improve relations but they saw these incidents as another of those crisis events that should not be wasted. “Stay the course,” he advised, giving the green light to the rioting rabble. His brand of Marxism is rife with such examples of using destruction and death to advance the revolution.
Am I a racist? No, I’m a realist. But, as Jack Nicholson once famously said, loudly, a lot of people can’t handle the truth.
Nevada Vin, I think body cams for cops are a good idea. They won’t see everything from their narrow, two-dimensional vantage point, but I think overall they’re good for both cops and folks who worry about cops.
With all due respect, and I it’s a great amount of respect, I don’t know that I agree necessarily with you on this one sir.
The purpose of the system is a determination of whether or not enough evidence exists to go to trial. I have zero problem putting both exculpatory and inculpatory evidence in front of that jury. What I do think is that they don’t have the legal expertise to really make that determination. And I say this because I, and I’m sure you, know that a DA that isn’t a drooling idiot can get a ham sandwich indicted. That says to me that Grand Juries are unsophisticated enough to easily be snowed based on the DA’s taste for taking something to trial, and there are plenty of egregious examples going either way, both indictments and no true bill.
The other problem I have with it is the symbiotic nature of the relationship between the DA and the police department he works with. It just lends itself to too many instances where in a system in which you can indict a sandwich, you can’t seem to indict a law enforcement officer for something sketchy. There’s just too much bias there about even bringing the case to the grand jury in the first place. I think the determination on whether or not you go to trial should be done by a 3rd party with less skin in the game, like a judge or special prosecutor, who doesn’t have to rely on law enforcement every day in order to do their job.
I am so disgusted listening to elected officials calling for a indictment right after something happens instead of calling for the rule of law to be applied. That ninny Nixon in MO, publicly siding against DW early in the situation and Obama chiming in. We are truly leaderless today
Comments are closed.