Saddened by NY Grand Jury Decision To NOT Indict

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

Someone said he was on disability, isn't that a way of supporting ones family? BTW, I don't make claims that use expertise in such manner, but you obviously do.

If the governement is paying you money to support your family, no, YOU aren't supporting your family, I am.

[n david]

Originally Posted by Sasha

I do believe that often, people aren't indicted on charges they probably should be. However, you are comparing the actions of an officer with those of civilians. I don't think that's something that can be compared. I say that because officers are required as part of their job to do things that we as civilians cannot do. We don't have the authority of the law on our side as they do. Now, this doesn't mean that they all act within the confines of the law. I do believe many take their authority and use it as a reason to harass, threaten, and such like in order to 'be the boss'.

That being said, I think it makes it harder to indict someone of using their authority inappropriately when it's part of their job compared to someone who is just an average joe that might do the same thing.

Compare a doctor to myself. A doctor can prescribe a medication that may kill his patient. He can be brought up before the GJ to indict him on negligence because the medication he prescribed was something the patient was horribly allergic to and he died. Turns out, the doctor didn't know he was allergic and no action is taken.

I, on the other hand, obtain a prescription pad and write a prescription for my child, who subsequently dies due to an allergy. I am brought up on charges, found guilty, and sentenced to 50 years.

Now, if you compare the actual happenstance, I did the same thing the doctor did. He wrote a prescription, so did I. His patient died from an allergy, so did mine. He was never charged, I'm serving 50 years.

The difference? The doctor, as part of his job as a licensed professional, can legally do something I cannot do. You can argue that the doctor did indeed know about the allergy and let's say you prove it, you might be able to prove negligence, but he won't serve 50 years like I am.

I think it's very difficult to prosecute someone for something they are legally allowed to do, even when someone dies. This is why most malpractice suits literally don't make it to court. I promise you that the people who file suits against the cops find themselves in the same situation. There isn't an attorney in the world who will take their case because it's a no-win situation unless you have absolute die-hard evidence. It's just not as easy as it is for filing those same charges against Joe Schmoe.

I don't agree with the Doctor comparison, but it's well thought out.

And I'm not trying to compare the actions or reasons of cops versus that of civilians, just the raw numbers. From what's been stated by Judges and other legal experts, the Grand Jury is basically a stacked deck against the defendant, which is why the statistics show 99% came back with a true bill.

So when, in just one county, that statistic gets flipped on its head and now just .01% of cops are indicted, it doesn't seem right. These are cops which the Prosecutor has already decided to try and indict, which means he/she feels some crime was committed by the officer. I'd like to see the numbers which Prosecutors have declined to pursue at all.

You would think that the stat would be higher than just .01%. Yet, for some reason, 99.99% of cops suspected of a crime walk away free while only 1% of civilians do.

Is it that the civilian juries offer broad discretion to officers? Is it Prosecutors not taking advantage of the stacked deck or rigorously prosecuting the officers?

I don't know.

I do believe DA's should be off any officer-involved case and instead it be referred to a special prosecutor who isn't daily involved with the police department. Also removing some of the secrecy around the Grand Jury procedure; possibly requiring the public release of evidence, witness testimony and transcripts once the GJ trial is complete would at least help people trust the process more.

[BrotherEastman]

Originally Posted by Sasha

If the governement is paying you money to support your family, no, YOU aren't supporting your family, I am.

I receive disability which I PAID into from previous taxes, so in essence you are not paying for my family to support. I also am a 100% disabled veteran that receives VA Compensation for disabilities received from combat which I paid for by my service to this nation. Don't try and tell me I don't support my family for services rendered. Are you going to tell me I don't deserve any of it and that I do not love my family?

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by n david

I don't agree with the Doctor comparison, but it's well thought out.

And I'm not trying to compare the actions or reasons of cops versus that of civilians, just the raw numbers. From what's been stated by Judges and other legal experts, the Grand Jury is basically a stacked deck against the defendant, which is why the statistics show 99% came back with a true bill.

So when, in just one county, that statistic gets flipped on its head and now just .01% of cops are indicted, it doesn't seem right. These are cops which the Prosecutor has already decided to try and indict, which means he/she feels some crime was committed by the officer. I'd like to see the numbers which Prosecutors have declined to pursue at all.

You would think that the stat would be higher than just .01%. Yet, for some reason, 99.99% of cops suspected of a crime walk away free while only 1% of civilians do.

Is it that the civilian juries offer broad discretion to officers? Is it Prosecutors not taking advantage of the stacked deck or rigorously prosecuting the officers?

I don't know.

I do believe DA's should be off any officer-involved case and instead it be referred to a special prosecutor who isn't daily involved with the police department. Also removing some of the secrecy around the Grand Jury procedure; possibly requiring the public release of evidence, witness testimony and transcripts once the GJ trial is complete would at least help people trust the process more.

I absolutely agree with that last paragraph. Mainly because of how it looks to those on the other side.

I'm just glad it's not my job to seek indictment against someone who is just doing their job, or against someone who should have been doing their job but wasn't. That's got to be tough.

I appreciate your input and demeanor on this subject as well. Thank you.

[Sasha]

Originally Posted by BrotherEastman

I receive disability which I PAID into from previous taxes, so in essence you are not paying for my family to support. I also am a 100% disabled veteran that receives VA Compensation for disabilities received from combat which I paid for by my service to this nation. Don't try and tell me I don't support my family for services rendered. Are you going to tell me I don't deserve any of it and that I do not love my family?

There is a disability paid out to people who have never worked. Garner, by the age of 43, had six children and a rap sheet where he had been arrested no less than 30 times as an adult. Doesn't sound like he had time to work long enough to earn a working disability check. In addition, he received welfare and other assistance as needed. Those things are paid by me and you.

I apologize if you thought I was judging you or others who have worked, lived a good life, and do the best they can in their situation. I don't know your situation and would never judge you. However, I don't think you deserve what you are getting...

You deserve much more. Thank you for your service, sir.

[StillStanding]

Originally Posted by Sasha

I absolutely agree with that last paragraph. Mainly because of how it looks to those on the other side.

I'm just glad it's not my job to seek indictment against someone who is just doing their job, or against someone who should have been doing their job but wasn't. That's got to be tough.

I appreciate your input and demeanor on this subject as well. Thank you.

Sometime there is political pressure to send a case to the grand jury for indictment, even though the DA office knows there's a small chance for indictment, and zero chance of a conviction. Sometimes they have to go through the process to appease, so it doesn't look like they're sweeping everything under the rug.

[Pressing-On]

Sheriff David A. Clarke, Jr. @SheriffClarke Tweets:

"If anyone has an in with NY Mayor DeBlasio, AG Holder or the POTUS, please get this commentary by Paul Harvey to them."

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

Sheriff David A. Clarke, Jr. @SheriffClarke Tweets:

"If anyone has an in with NY Mayor DeBlasio, AG Holder or the POTUS, please get this commentary by Paul Harvey to them."

Appealing to the emotions? I thought we needed to keep emotions out of the debate, since it makes people unreasonable and keeps them from thinking clearly.

[Pressing-On]

Originally Posted by n david

Appealing to the emotions? I thought we needed to keep emotions out of the debate, since it makes people unreasonable and keeps them from thinking clearly.

So, you are saying you felt emotional when you viewed the video?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Pressing-On

So, you are saying you felt emotional when you viewed the video?

Nope, saw this already.