View Full Version : Where is the outrage?
ThunderSquirrel
11-21-2014, 10:45
No looting, no rioting, no huge media coverage.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/11/21/nypd-rookie-kills-unarmed-man-in-brooklyn/?intcmp=latestnews
A rookie cop fatally shot an unarmed man inside a Brooklyn housing project late Thursday, authorities said.
The cop and his partner, also a rookie, were descending from a dimly lit eighth-floor stairwell at the Pink Houses at 2724 Linden Blvd. about 11:15 p.m. The 28-year-old victim, Akai Gurley, entered from the seventh floor with his girlfriend, startling the cops, police sources said.
The cop fired one shot into Gurley’s chest. He stumbled down to the fifth floor, where he collapsed, sources said.
The girlfriend, Melissa Butler, 26, is distraught, her mother said.
“She keeps crying,” said Naomi Butler. “She’s very upset, she saw everything. Police shot him and we don’t know why. He doesn’t carry any firearms. He was just going back home, they were taking the stairs. He’s a nice man. He’s been together with my daughter for four years. He has one daughter as far as I know.”
An NYPD spokesman said there was no indication a weapon was recovered from the scene. A neighbor on the eighth floor, Angela Tucker, said a light in that section of the stairwell has been out for three weeks and “with that door closed, you can’t even see in the staircase.”
Gurley was rushed to Brookdale Hospital and pronounced dead on arrival, authorities said.
Great-Kazoo
11-21-2014, 10:48
logistics have sharpton and holder in Fergadishu for the outrage play by play. Moving them to NY this late in the game ruins their cred.
YO HOMIE, THAT MY OUTRAGE ?
Not enough info. Perhaps the officer was non-Caucasian and the person that was shot was Caucasian? Or maybe both parties were Caucasian? Or perhaps both parties involved were non-Caucasian?
Or perhaps this type of thing just doesn't make headlines in the geographical location where it occurred?
Or perhaps whatever the circumstances involved the whole thing just didn't serve any purpose for the media's agenda?
HoneyBadger
11-21-2014, 11:06
Not enough info. Perhaps the officer was non-Caucasian and the person that was shot was Caucasian? Or maybe both parties were Caucasian? Or perhaps both parties involved were non-Caucasian?
Or perhaps this type of thing just doesn't make headlines in the geographical location where it occurred?
Or perhaps whatever the circumstances involved the whole thing just didn't serve any purpose for the media's agenda?
Exactly my thoughts.
BushMasterBoy
11-21-2014, 11:10
Makes me want to post some politically incorrect drivel. I feel bad for the guy, if his only crime was still wearing his "zombie" costume leftover from Halloween. When I go to NYC, I always rent a ballistic vest at the airport...
ruthabagah
11-21-2014, 15:38
Here it comes.... Outrage in 5, 4, 3....
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/New-York-Brooklyn-Shooting-NYPD-Pink-Houses-New-York-283460421.html
HoneyBadger
11-21-2014, 15:52
Here it comes.... Outrage in 5, 4, 3....
http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/New-York-Brooklyn-Shooting-NYPD-Pink-Houses-New-York-283460421.html
The only mention of race in the entire article was this:
"The senseless killing of another unarmed African-American male by the NYPD should shock the conscience of all New Yorkers and the nation," Democratic New York Rep. Hakeem Jeffries said in a statement. "At this point, talk is cheap. The community demands action. Our Mayor and the Police Commissioner must commit to a systematic change in the law enforcement culture of this City. Anything less will not be tolerated."
Jesus-With-A-.45
11-21-2014, 16:18
RACISM!11!!11!11!
XC700116
11-21-2014, 16:54
Maybe also since the NY Post's first image of the shooting victim that they could dig up was a mug shot......
http://nypost.com/2014/11/21/police-fatally-shoot-man-in-brooklyn-building/
Out of curiosity, why are two rookie cops put together on a foot patrol in Red Hook? Honestly, that's just asking for a mistake to be made.
BushMasterBoy
11-21-2014, 17:21
The outrage will be in Ferguson soon. I just saw a news announcer say the grand jury verdict is expected shortly.
OtterbatHellcat
11-21-2014, 17:33
The shit storm is Closer.
PugnacAutMortem
11-21-2014, 17:41
I'm outraged at the outrage about the lack of outrage. It's outrageous.
hurley842002
11-21-2014, 17:42
I'm outraged at the outrage about the lack of outrage. It's outrageous.
Lol
Big John
11-21-2014, 18:10
IBTL[obama]
NYPD on verticals in the projects. Unless you've been in combat, there isn't much to compare it with.
It has been a few decades since I was there, but when I was, not a month went by without a death or serious injury to some government employee, usually a cop, by gravity propelled five gallon bucket. Sometimes it was spackle, others paint, but from five or more stories, the only thing that mattered was whether it hit you on the way down. Verticals were normally saved for the rookies. Sort of a Darwinian thing within NYPD.
I have no comment about the death of the man in this story. I don't have any verifiable information.
Be safe. Stay out of the projects.
hurley842002
11-21-2014, 18:38
NYPD on verticals in the projects. Unless you've been in combat, there isn't much to compare it with.
It has been a few decades since I was there, but when I was, not a month went by without a death or serious injury to some government employee, usually a cop, by gravity propelled five gallon bucket. Sometimes it was spackle, others paint, but from five or more stories, the only thing that mattered was whether it hit you on the way down. Verticals were normally saved for the rookies. Sort of a Darwinian thing within NYPD.
I have no comment about the death of the man in this story. I don't have any verifiable information.
Be safe. Stay out of the projects.
The man with some of the most rational, informative, and well thought out posts on the forum strikes again, thanks for your input.
This made the ABC nightly news, so it is not just being glossed over.
The man with some of the most rational, informative, and well thought out posts on the forum strikes again, thanks for your input. [Sarcasm2]
FIFY [ROFL3]
hurley842002
11-21-2014, 19:43
FIFY [ROFL3]
Lol! Nah, my post was as genuine as they come, and I'm sure many would agree. Okay, enough with the sentimental BS lol.
scratchy
11-21-2014, 20:03
The charge should be negligent homicide. Prosecuted fully. Badge does not grant a screw up pass.
The charge should be negligent homicide. Prosecuted fully. Badge does not grant a screw up pass.
All of that based on a news story you read on the Internet? You should be on the jury [hahhah-no]
Prosecuted fully does not mean assumed guilty. If ANYBODY shoots another person who is found to be unarmed (this is not in question, the rest will come out in trial), they should be prosecuted and put in front of a jury, period, regardless of Cop or not. And ya, cops should not get ANY special treatment for or against them. They are civillians and should be treated as such. This is not cop bashing, it is saying that NOBODY is above the law. If the cop is innocent no problem, if not... justice is served. Don't turn this into ANOTHER BS Cop bashing thread. Obviously this thread was going after the racism angle to start with, that is a whole other topic.
pros·e·cute
ˈpräsəˌkyo͞ot/
verb
past tense: prosecuted; past participle: prosecuted
1.
institute legal proceedings against (a person or organization).
"they were prosecuted for obstructing the highway"
(of a lawyer) conduct the case against the party being accused or sued in a lawsuit.
"Mr. Ryan will be prosecuting this morning"
All of that based on a news story you read on the Internet? You should be on the jury [hahhah-no]
Great-Kazoo
11-22-2014, 00:18
Maybe also since the NY Post's first image of the shooting victim that they could dig up was a mug shot......
http://nypost.com/2014/11/21/police-fatally-shoot-man-in-brooklyn-building/
The ROOKIE should have kept his mouth SHUT and demanded his Union Rep. They'll hang his ass (literally) out to dry. IF he survives segregation / protective lock down.
Hound, I believe you missed a couple of steps.
1. Investigate
2. Deliberate
3. Indictment, if appropriate
When one person shoots another person, causing their death, prosecution is not always or the only possible outcome. Regardless of the shooter's chosen profession, I hope we could agree that no one in the United States should be charged with a crime solely based on the information published in a news story.
I know nothing about the shooting in this instance, and I try to be patient in letting the process work. If the shooting is investigated, the prosecutor and/or Grand Jury deliberates and decides the officer should be prosecuted, then that is likely what will happen. But it won't happen because someone in Colorado reads a few newspaper stories and makes a decision that they know what happened and how it should be handled.
Maybe jury duty is in your future.
Be safe.
Investigate, sure, of course. All the evidence should be put on the table.
Deliberate, that should be for the Jury.
Indictment, I think this is where the rub comes with a lot of people out there because there is a feeling of a lack of fairness. For a DA, who deals with cops regularly to make their cases, is not seen as being unbiased in this instance. This is why I say ANYBODY that shoots an unarmed person should go before a Jury. That takes most of the favoritism out of the process by design. I am not saying this is how it is done, but how it should be done, my opinion.
Getting onto people or dismissing them because they only read about it in a paper/online in a different part of the nation has nothing to do with it. This is America and we all have opinions regardless of where we are because this can and even will happen here. It does not matter if you are in NY, CA, MO or CO, we can all have an opinion on how things should work, everywhere. I nor Scratchy said the guy was guilty and should go to jail or be shot, the word was prosecute. This is where we can agree, a newpaper is not remotely enough information to go that far on guilt. But if ANY of us shoot an unarmd person, something got screwed up.... Bad. The guy should be prosecuted and a jury should be left to determine if it was the cop or some extenuating circumstance that justified it. The jury would get to see ALL of the evidence.
Again, not cop bashing, just wanting a fair prespect for justice regardless of your job.
And BTW, jury duty should be in all our futures if done right.
May we all be safe.
Hound, I believe you missed a couple of steps.
1. Investigate
2. Deliberate
3. Indictment, if appropriate
When one person shoots another person, causing their death, prosecution is not always or the only possible outcome. Regardless of the shooter's chosen profession, I hope we could agree that no one in the United States should be charged with a crime solely based on the information published in a news story.
I know nothing about the shooting in this instance, and I try to be patient in letting the process work. If the shooting is investigated, the prosecutor and/or Grand Jury deliberates and decides the officer should be prosecuted, then that is likely what will happen. But it won't happen because someone in Colorado reads a few newspaper stories and makes a decision that they know what happened and how it should be handled.
Maybe jury duty is in your future.
Be safe.
Bailey Guns
11-22-2014, 09:55
This is why I say ANYBODY that shoots an unarmed person should go before a Jury.
Really? So a young woman who weighs 105 pounds, in her home, who's being raped and brutalized by a 260 pound "unarmed" man shouldn't have the right to use her gun to defend herself without being brought to trial, despite all evidence pointing to reasonable self-defense? Why do you not like the "Make My Day" law in Colorado? Why do you disagree with longstanding Colorado law that allows innocent persons to use deadly force against some unarmed criminals who are committing certain crimes like kidnapping and violent sexual assaults? Do you even realize that under Colorado law virtually all criminals can potentially be armed with a deadly weapon just by virtue of having certain body parts such as hands, arms, legs and feet?
Not "EVERYONE" who shoots an unarmed person should be prosecuted and not EVERY shooting of an unarmed person is a bad thing that warrants prosecution, despite your nonsensical attempt to prove otherwise. INVESTIGATED? Yes. PROSECUTED? No.
NOTE: This is not a commentary on this particular shooting instance.
hurley842002
11-22-2014, 10:18
Really? So a young woman who weighs 105 pounds, in her home, who's being raped and brutalized by a 260 pound "unarmed" man shouldn't have the right to use her gun to defend herself without being brought to trial, despite all evidence pointing to reasonable self-defense? Why do you not like the "Make My Day" law in Colorado? Why do you disagree with longstanding Colorado law that allows innocent persons to use deadly force against some unarmed criminals who are committing certain crimes like kidnapping and violent sexual assaults? Do you even realize that under Colorado law virtually all criminals can potentially be armed with a deadly weapon just by virtue of having certain body parts such as hands, arms, legs and feet?
Not "EVERYONE" who shoots an unarmed person should be prosecuted and not EVERY shooting of an unarmed person is a bad thing that warrants prosecution, despite your nonsensical attempt to prove otherwise. INVESTIGATED? Yes. PROSECUTED? No.
NOTE: This is not a commentary on this particular shooting instance.
completely agree
Really? So a young woman who weighs 105 pounds, in her home, who's being raped and brutalized by a 260 pound "unarmed" man shouldn't have the right to use her gun to defend herself without being brought to trial, despite all evidence pointing to reasonable self-defense?
A trial would be quick then, what is there to fear? Are you saying that in your example there is a question not brought up or that the "people" are not smart enough to see the obvious? Are you against the Judicial branch of governance?
Why do you not like the "Make My Day" law in Colorado? Why do you disagree with longstanding Colorado law that allows innocent persons to use deadly force against some unarmed criminals who are committing certain crimes like kidnapping and violent sexual assaults?
I never said I did. Why do you always seem to change what is actually said? You have a distinct tendency of making false assumptions to bolster your Know-It-All positions with anybody that disagrees with you. The "Make my day" law would be an excellent defense.
Do you even realize that under Colorado law virtually all criminals can potentially be armed with a deadly weapon just by virtue of having certain body parts such as hands, arms, legs and feet?
And a jury would be able to make that determination.
Not "EVERYONE" who shoots an unarmed person should be prosecuted and not EVERY shooting of an unarmed person is a bad thing that warrants prosecution, despite your nonsensical attempt to prove otherwise. INVESTIGATED? Yes. PROSECUTED? No.
NOTE: This is not a commentary on this particular shooting instance.
Here is where we will disagree. Why are you so afraid of a jury? If it is so obvious, a jury should be able to make that determination. Do you not believe in all three branches the Constitution created? Is it so easy to take a life and not be judged for that action by what is setup to be an impartial process called a Jury made up of the community? Or do you think that only a few "professionals" that work together day in and day out should be the only say regardless of any bias, conflict of interest or even say from the community for which they all serve/work? Is the Constitution "non-sensical" to you?
Now come on back with your standard BS.....
Bailey Guns
11-22-2014, 11:41
Because a jury trial in EVERY instance would be an unnecessary waste of resources in an already overburdened court system. Murder trials, more specifically the process leading up to a murder trial, is never "quick". It would also be an unnecessary financial burden on an innocent person to have to defend themselves in a murder trial. My defense in a civil case where I didn't even kill anyone cost $480,000, give or take. That's after an internal investigation and an outside investigation by the FBI had already cleared me. Why would you want to subject an innocent victim to the emotional torture and financial burdens of going to trial for murder when a thorough investigation has already cleared them of any wrong doing.
You've crossed the line (again) from nonsensical to just plain stupid and you're obviously ignorant of how the "justice" system works and Colorado law in general...despite having so many family and friends in law enforcement.
Scanker19
11-22-2014, 12:08
Hound is right. No jury in the history of America has ever convicted an innocent/wrong person before.
Anybody that does not agree with your BS "cross's the line". All hail the King. Kill somebody that is not armed and hope you are on the right side of the Thin Blue to save money. That is your answer? Screw the people having any say or review...... just leave it to the professionals/government. That has worked real well in every dictatorship in history. And here I thought your were a conservative........ Who knew you were for more government control.
I doubt you paid a dime of any defense since the Union probably had ya covered.
Because a jury trial in EVERY instance would be an unnecessary waste of resources in an already overburdened court system. Murder trials, more specifically the process leading up to a murder trial, is never "quick". It would also be an unnecessary financial burden on an innocent person to have to defend themselves in a murder trial. My defense in a civil case where I didn't even kill anyone cost $480,000, give or take. That's after an internal investigation and an outside investigation by the FBI had already cleared me. Why would you want to subject an innocent victim to the emotional torture and financial burdens of going to trial for murder when a thorough investigation has already cleared them of any wrong doing.
You've crossed the line (again) from nonsensical to just plain stupid and you're obviously ignorant of how the "justice" system works and Colorado law in general...despite having so many family and friends in law enforcement.
Bailey Guns
11-22-2014, 12:38
No jury in the history of America has ever convicted an innocent/wrong person before.
Yeah...no shit.
Never said that, what I said was there is a process that allows the people a chance to review. Nobody said it was perfect just better than leaving the fox as judge and jury in the hen house. The Constitution, I kinda like how it is setup.
Hound is right. No jury in the history of America has ever convicted an innocent/wrong person before.
Bailey Guns
11-22-2014, 12:52
Anybody that does not agree with your BS "cross's the line". All hail the King.
It's not because you disagree with me. It's because you're statements are moronic.
Kill somebody that is not armed and hope you are on the right side of the Thin Blue to save money. That is your answer? Screw the people having any say or review...... just leave it to the professionals/government. That has worked real well in every dictatorship in history. And here I thought your were a conservative........ Who knew you were for more government control.
OK, genius. Who do you think: investigates the case? The government. Decides on whether or not, in many cases, to prosecute? The government. Prosecutes the case? The government. Picks the jury (partially)? The government. Hears the case and decides on the legality of the evidence and procedures? The government (the judge). And the jury is only allowed to hear the evidence that "the government" decides it can hear. So I'm the one arguing for minimal government intrusion into many cases. You can't even get that right.
My answer is, contrary to your obvious lack of understanding of what I've written, let the system work based on our current set of laws. You'd realize this is the right thing to do if you had any understanding of, or a working knowledge of, how our legal system works.
I doubt you paid a dime of any defense since the Union probably had ya covered.
Umm...wrong again. It was paid by my insurance company with plenty of out-of-pocket, incidental expenses paid by me. I don't do unions.
I will state one more time, I know nothing about this incident in New York. That said, let's play the hypothetical game:
Scenario One:
Rookie officer is contacted by jealous former boyfriend of the girl dating the deceased. For the sum of $5000, rookie officer stalks deceased until he finds him in a situation where he can shoot the deceased and try to claim it was accidental. In this case, the murder is pre-meditated and deserves the most severe penalties allowed under the law.
Scenario Two:
Rookie officer is surprised by the deceased in a darkened stairwell. Rookie officer makes a bad decision and shoots the deceased without provocation. In this case, the murder is some degree of manslaughter and deserves a much lesser penalty than pre-meditated murder.
Scenario Three:
Rookie officer is surprised by deceased in a darkened and cluttered stairwell. The rookie officer was on his way down the stairs to investigate a radio call of a violent crime in progress and had his firearm in his hand when the deceased startled him. The rookie officer stumbles and in the process of trying to catch his balance he grabs for the handrail with his none gun hand and he has a sympathetic grasp of the gun hand which causes him to inadvertently fire the weapon in the direction of the deceased. In this case, the homicide may not even be criminal but it would certainly be a tort in the civil court.
I am willing to guess that no one on this board, including me, has enough information to rule in or out any of these possible scenarios or any other possible scenarios. This is what investigations and deliberations are for. In some jurisdictions, sending the investigation to a Grand Jury for any police shooting is mandatory. Other jurisdictions have chosen to handle these situations differently. Grand Juries are both investigative and deliberative bodies. Grand Juries are guided by prosecutors. The head of every prosecutors office that I am familiar with is an elected position, with the exception of the Attorney General in the federal system. Elected prosecutors must face their electorate like every other politician. The prosecutor/law enforcement coziness you assume is not as prevalent as you would think, or at least it hasn't been in my experience. Yes, we work together, but often with very different ideas on how the job should be done.
As for opinions, Yes, I am in favor of everyone having them and expressing them. I am as opposed to people in Colorado judging the system in New York City as I am of the Mayor of New York City forcing his opinions on the people of Colorado.
I understand you have an opinion based on a news story. Is there any chance that you might be rushing to judgment on this issue based on your bias? Wouldn't it be better to wait for more information or trust the people who are closest to the issue, in New York City, to seek the justice that their judicial system has evolved to provide for them? It seems like this is the same trap that our President and many of the people in Ferguson have stepped into in making snap judgments about that situation before waiting for more evidence to be made available.
Patience and a healthy dose of skepticism toward preliminary news stories is all I think I am asking for here.
I will personally add that I do think Law Enforcement personnel should receive special treatment. To whom much is given, much is expected. To those who wear the badge, they should be held to the highest possible standards when it comes to obeying the law. A wise man said "if you live by the sword, you will die by the sword." Carrying a gun and exercising the power of the state is a great responsibility and anyone who wears the Color of Law lightly, does so at their own peril. If you think cops have carte blanche when it comes to breaking the law, then you are mistaken. All criminals eventually get caught, and I believe that criminals who hide behind a badge deserve a very special place in the penal system.
Be safe.
Prosecuted fully does not mean assumed guilty. If ANYBODY shoots another person who is found to be unarmed (this is not in question, the rest will come out in trial), they should be prosecuted and put in front of a jury, period, regardless of Cop or not. And ya, cops should not get ANY special treatment for or against them. They are civillians and should be treated as such. This is not cop bashing, it is saying that NOBODY is above the law. If the cop is innocent no problem, if not... justice is served. Don't turn this into ANOTHER BS Cop bashing thread. Obviously this thread was going after the racism angle to start with, that is a whole other topic.
pros·e·cute
ˈpräsəˌkyo͞ot/
verb
past tense: prosecuted; past participle: prosecuted
1.
institute legal proceedings against (a person or organization).
"they were prosecuted for obstructing the highway"
(of a lawyer) conduct the case against the party being accused or sued in a lawsuit.
"Mr. Ryan will be prosecuting this morning"
You're overlooking castle doctrine and many other situations.
If some scumbag comes into my house to do harm, unarmed or not, he's going out with a toetag.
[edit] Upon further review of the thread, it's evident this point was well covered...
BushMasterBoy
11-22-2014, 19:24
I bet his baby momma is pissed she didn't have a life insurance policy on him! A million dollars for a hundred dollar bill!
Funny, I feel the same about your statements. You continue to show yourself as a poster child for what people see wrong with Cops. You can't even agree to disagree.
Enough said.
It's not because you disagree with me. It's because you're statements are moronic.
I am going to post this incident here since it involves a homicide that may, or may not ever see a courtroom.
http://www.seattlepi.com/news/crime/article/Cops-Dad-errantly-shoots-kills-son-while-hunting-5911754.php
Cops: Dad errantly shoots, kills son while hunting
Updated 4:45 pm, Saturday, November 22, 2014
WEST WINDSOR, N.J. (AP) — Police say a father has accidentally shot and killed his adult son during a hunting trip in New Jersey.
WCAU-TV reports that the shooting happened Saturday afternoon in West Windsor.
Police say the older man mistakenly shot his 45-year-old son in the back of the head. The son later died from his injuries.
West Windsor police and the Mercer County prosecutor's office are investigating.
At least we can all apparently agree, everybody is a moron. [Coffee]
Everyone in favor of that motion?
Since I am the unofficial representative on this board from the State of Maryland and a native Baltimoron, I resemble that remark [Wiggle]
Please go back and read what I said again. I never said "EVERYTHING should go through the courts" only thing I talked to was an unarmed shooting. As for the court system, have to agree with you there, it has some major problems like most of government at this point. It is just the only system we have and is better than trusting two entities with an obvious conflict of interest. I would say all unarmed shooting cases so it is fair and balanced to all citizens.... Cop and Non-Cop.
Rather than mandate EVERYTHING go through the courts, you'd probably have more fairness by stepping outside with a quarter, calling heads, and shooting the poor bastard if he loses. At least you would be right 50% of the time. Marketably more efficient and higher success than the Court system..
stoner01
11-22-2014, 19:42
Please go back and read what I said again. I never said "EVERYTHING should go through the courts" only thing I talked to was an unarmed shooting. As for the court system, have to agree with you there, it has some major problems like most of government at this point. It is just the only system we have and is better than trusting two entities with an obvious conflict of interest. I would say all unarmed shooting cases so it is fair and balanced to all citizens.... Cop and Non-Cop.
Ain't nothing fair and balanced about anything anymore
I actually think we are agreeing on most all of this but I will point out a couple high points.
1) I never showed any bias (nor have any) in this thread towards the cops guilt or innocence. As you rightfully point out, none of us have a clue on the specifics. The only thing I said was, get it in front of a jury in the case of an unarmed shooting. Let them (the community) see all the evidence and make the call.
2) I agree that cops should be held to the highest possible standards. I also don't think most cops are the problem but those that are do exist. When there is any question, I look for some independent judge of the situation. In America that should mean a jury as stated in the Constitution. I think if a cops integrity (as in an unarmed shooting) is being questioned, an independent jury is how we are setup to handle it so the cop (or anybody else) gets a fair hearing. This should not be a contentious thing to say.
I understand you have an opinion based on a news story. Is there any chance that you might be rushing to judgment on this issue based on your bias? Wouldn't it be better to wait for more information or trust the people who are closest to the issue, in New York City, to seek the justice that their judicial system has evolved to provide for them? It seems like this is the same trap that our President and many of the people in Ferguson have stepped into in making snap judgments about that situation before waiting for more evidence to be made available.
I will personally add that I do think Law Enforcement personnel should receive special treatment. To whom much is given, much is expected. To those who wear the badge, they should be held to the highest possible standards when it comes to obeying the law. A wise man said "if you live by the sword, you will die by the sword." Carrying a gun and exercising the power of the state is a great responsibility and anyone who wears the Color of Law lightly, does so at their own peril. If you think cops have carte blanche when it comes to breaking the law, then you are mistaken. All criminals eventually get caught, and I believe that criminals who hide behind a badge deserve a very special place in the penal system.
Be safe.
No argument there. Ya just have to shoot for the best you can get.
Ain't nothing fair and balanced about anything anymore
There is a huge difference between a trial jury and a Grand Jury. Some states and localities require police shootings to be sent to the appropriate Grand Jury, while other states and localities do not. I believe that the local jurisdiction, as governed by the representatives in that jurisdiction should make those decisions.
There is no "one size fits all" solution to justice in America.
Another aspect of the recent shooting in New York City that you may, or may not be aware of is the animosity and tension between Mayor Bill de Blasio and the NYPD. Each borough of the city has it's own independent District Attorney and Borough President. The way a case involving the police in Staten Island, Richmond County is handled may be quite different than how a similar case would be received in Kings County, Brooklyn. Unless it has changed, all police shootings in New York City are investigated by a Grand Jury. After the appropriate Grand Jury has investigated and deliberated upon and returned either a true bill or refused to bring an indictment, the ADA handling criminal litigation will still need to decide on which charges are most likely to bring a successful conviction in the most efficient manner. If the Grand Jury refuses to indict, for whatever reason, then the ADA may decide to file an Information charging the officer with a lesser crime.
The process takes time. No amount of "every unarmed shooting should go to the jury" or "the officer should be charged with negligent homicide" will bring the process to it's conclusion any faster. Express your opinion, but in the end, that is all it is, your opinion. Some opinions have more experience behind them. That doesn't make them more right, but it does raise the probability.
Be safe.
Great-Kazoo
11-22-2014, 21:04
At least we can all apparently agree, everybody is a moron. [Coffee]
Everyone in favor of that motion?
AGREED, now if only there was some kind of theme song.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrgpZ0fUixs
Rather than open another thread, anyone happen to read this tragic story?
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/local-news/former-deputy-tom-fallis-indicted-in-wife-ashley-fallis-2012-murder
If the case is proven, I can only imagine what will happen to Detective Michael Yates from Weld County. As a local story, this holds much more interest for me and I will be following it to see how it progresses through the system.
Is anyone down south following this story?
http://www.kktv.com/home/headlines/Rocky-Ford-Police-Officer-Charged-with-Second-Degree-Murder-282767381.html
And back on the subject of Grand Juries, and admittedly wikipedia is not always the best source, this may be an interesting initial read into the requirement or lack of a requirement for a Grand Jury at the state level.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_juries_in_the_United_States#Grand_Jury_Claus e
Bailey Guns
11-23-2014, 00:22
The "Make My Day" law in Colorado provides a great deal of legal protection to persons in their homes and is a strong deterrent to would-be intruders. Your ridiculous and unnecessary requirement that EVERYONE who shoots an "unarmed" person be charged with murder in one form or another and face a trial flies in the face of the Make My Day law. Furthermore, it would subject innocent persons defending themselves inside their homes to tremendous emotional trauma a criminal trial often brings along with the staggering costs of a competent legal defense, likely bankrupting most people facing a lengthy murder trial. Contrary to your assertion a murder trial is not quick.
I've already pointed out from personal experience how costly even a civil trial can be. I've also pointed out that under Colorado law virtually everyone is armed with a potential deadly weapon in their various body parts such as hands, feet, etc... You've ignored all of that.
The Make My Day law is a perfect example of how your trial requirements are extremely misguided and wrong. The Make My Day law basically states:
Coloradans have a right to expect absolute safety within their homes
Any occupant of a dwelling may use any degree of force, including deadly force, when they have a reasonable belief all of the following have occurred
a person has made an unlawful or uninvited entry into the dwelling
that person has committed, is committing or will commit any crime against persons or property inside the dwelling
the intruder might use any degree of force against any occupant of the dwelling
The law provides immunity against civil liability and criminal prosecution if the use of force is in accordance with the law
There is no requirement the intruder be armed. There is no requirement the intruder actually use force to gain entry or use force against an occupant...only that there is a reasonable belief he/she might use force. It's an excellent law...arguably one of the best of it's kind in the country. You would destroy that law by requiring EVERYONE who shoots a so-called "unarmed" person face a trial? Even a person with basic critical thinking skills should be able to understand why that's a horrible idea. It's not surprising YOU can't see that.
Well said, Bailey... Well said!
I never made a distinction between a trial Jury or Grand Jury. The issue I was bringing up was that it should not be left to just cops and the AD. It sounds like what I am pointing out is already in effect in NY. In MO, even the parents are wanting to let things play out with the Grand Jury. This does not cost the parents anything and yet the community is able to review. It should be automatic but at least they got there. Thanks for the information, it was informative.
There is a huge difference between a trial jury and a Grand Jury. Some states and localities require police shootings to be sent to the appropriate Grand Jury, while other states and localities do not. I believe that the local jurisdiction, as governed by the representatives in that jurisdiction should make those decisions.
There is no "one size fits all" solution to justice in America.
Another aspect of the recent shooting in New York City that you may, or may not be aware of is the animosity and tension between Mayor Bill de Blasio and the NYPD. Each borough of the city has it's own independent District Attorney and Borough President. The way a case involving the police in Staten Island, Richmond County is handled may be quite different than how a similar case would be received in Kings County, Brooklyn. Unless it has changed, all police shootings in New York City are investigated by a Grand Jury. After the appropriate Grand Jury has investigated and deliberated upon and returned either a true bill or refused to bring an indictment, the ADA handling criminal litigation will still need to decide on which charges are most likely to bring a successful conviction in the most efficient manner. If the Grand Jury refuses to indict, for whatever reason, then the ADA may decide to file an Information charging the officer with a lesser crime.
The process takes time. No amount of "every unarmed shooting should go to the jury" or "the officer should be charged with negligent homicide" will bring the process to it's conclusion any faster. Express your opinion, but in the end, that is all it is, your opinion. Some opinions have more experience behind them. That doesn't make them more right, but it does raise the probability.
Be safe.
Big John
11-23-2014, 09:35
I sure as hell don't want to have to go to trial for shooting an unarmed scum in my home. That goes for my car (extension of my home) as well.
Bailey Guns
11-23-2014, 09:42
I never made a distinction between a trial Jury or Grand Jury.
Yes, you did.
If ANYBODY shoots another person who is found to be unarmed (this is not in question, the rest will come out in trial), they should be prosecuted and put in front of a jury, period, regardless of Cop or not.
In that same post you then cut/pasted a definition for "prosecute". One is not prosecuted or judged in a trial by a grand jury. One is prosecuted by the DA's office and put in front of a judge and/or jury for trial.
Here's another instance where you're clearly speaking of a jury trial:
A trial would be quick then, what is there to fear?
Now you're trying to backpedal? Lame, dude. Lame.
Bailey Guns
11-23-2014, 09:45
I sure as hell don't want to have to go to trial for shooting an unarmed scum in my home. That goes for my car (extension of my home) as well.
In Colorado, your car is not an extension of your home. You don't have the same legal protections in your car as you do in your home and you don't have the same expectation of privacy in your car as you do your home.
Baily, learn to actually read without putting in your BS about things that were not said. Your attacks on another member of this forum are [beatdeadhorse] that only shows you [dig] of your own ignorance, against things that were not said. CSTONE shows that you can have a debate without resorting name calling.
Bailey Guns
11-23-2014, 10:02
[ROFL1]
[Sarcasm2]
Ya.... Nobody has every used the statement a "Grand Jury TRIAL", they use it in the news all the time, and here I thought that was common vernacular .
No, backpedal and Yip.... LAME.
Keep [beatdeadhorse]. Your ignorance seems to know no bounds.
Yes, you did.
In that same post you then cut/pasted a definition for "prosecute". One is not prosecuted or judged in a trial by a grand jury. One is prosecuted by the DA's office and put in front of a judge and/or jury for trial.
Here's another instance where you're clearly speaking of a jury trial:
Hound
"A trial would be quick then, what is there to fear?"
Now you're trying to backpedal? Lame, dude. Lame.
Bailey Guns
11-23-2014, 10:15
OK. I'm done laughing now. So, Hound, now you're trying to say, despite the fact I pointed out where you did say it, that you were talking about a grand jury and not a trial jury? And you're saying I need to learn to read? I don't even know what to say to that.
Bailey Guns
11-23-2014, 10:20
[Sarcasm2]
Ya.... Nobody has every used the statement a "Grand Jury TRIAL", they use it in the news all the time, and here I thought that was common vernacular .
No, backpedal and Yip.... LAME.
Keep [beatdeadhorse]. Your ignorance seems to know no bounds.
Your edit just made it worse. I have NEVER heard anyone use the term "grand jury trial". A grand jury doesn't try anyone. A grand jury is presented evidence and basically decides if there's enough probable cause for the DA to bring charges against someone.
You're hilarious if nothing else.
"Grand Jury Trial"? [ROFL1]
HoneyBadger
11-23-2014, 10:42
You guys seriously both sound like 10 year olds. [facepalm]
Bailey Guns
11-23-2014, 10:47
I was shootin' for 12...
You guys seriously both sound like 10 year olds. [facepalm]
Thanks. When I grow up, I would like to be the champion of the Internet!
HoneyBadger
11-23-2014, 10:51
Thanks. When I grow up, I would like to be the champion of the Internet!Carl is almost there! [LOL]
(That wasn't directed at you, btw... it was BG and Hound)
Here is one of those interesting, to me at least, "behind the scenes" stories dealing directly with how some Grand Juries work: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2014/11/23/court-ferguson-grand-jury-documents-wont-be-public-immediately/
As a general rule, Grand Jury testimony and evidence is considered secret and is not routinely publicly released. Obviously once testimony or evidence is presented at trial, it becomes public record. Grand Juries, however, have always operated in a more deliberative fashion. The members of a sitting Grand Jury are not made known, and most people never concern themselves with the identity of Grand Jurors. The methods used by GJ are fairly conventional but not normally discussed or considered by people outside of the workings of the court system.
This particular Grand Jury sitting in St Louis County, looking into the death of Michael Brown has been problematic for me. I have read stories where the court officials are being required to take special precautions to protect the identities and persons of this GJ. These are citizens of the local community, who have been empaneled to hear more than just this case. I don't know how many GJ St Louis County has sitting at the moment, but unless there are two or three GJ in that jurisdiction, this GJ may be handling numerous other significant criminal matters. The other concern for me is how many leaks, and the nature of the information being leaked from this GJ. While leaks in "news worthy" cases are not unusual, they do impact, often in a negative way, the investigative function of a sitting GJ. Yes, people deserve to be given some information, but not all information is necessary and some information is of such a sensitive nature that it should be safeguarded from public disclosure.
These are often life or death issues being dealt with, and the clamor of the public and unethical "journalists" to make rash and uninformed decisions causes me to have a great deal of concern for all involved. The wheels of justice are slow. IMO, speeding those wheels up will not produce better or more equitable justice for anyone.
Be safe.
Aloha_Shooter
11-23-2014, 17:02
Baily, learn to actually read without putting in your BS about things that were not said.
Mmmm ... no, he read what you wrote correctly. You may have written something other than what you meant but if so, that's your fault.
I do not live in Denver, however, Denver PD is often used as a model when it comes to policy for smaller departments within the state. If you are interested in this subject, I urge you to explore and share the information you find relevant to the department in the jurisdiction where you live.
Here is the the Denver District Attorney's Guidance on "Officer Involved Shootings." http://www.denverda.org/News_Release/Officer-involved_shooting_investigations.htm
Here is a link to the 17th Judicial District (Adams and Broomfield Counties) District Attorney's Office Decision Letters on Officer Involved Shootings: http://adamsbroomfieldda.org/?page_id=613
Knowledge is Power. Better to be armed before the weapon is needed than be caught empty handed and struggling to catch up.
Be safe.
No indictment for Wilson
Sent from my subconscious mind.
HoneyBadger
11-24-2014, 22:12
No indictment for Wilson
Sent from my subconscious mind.
Are you going to post that in every thread? [Poke]
Great-Kazoo
11-24-2014, 22:47
Are you going to post that in every thread? [Poke]
No Indictment.
Are you going to post that in every thread? [Poke]
Gotta get my post count up somehow.
Are you going to post that in every thread? [Poke]
Every thread? I wonder what he was drinking while waiting for the announcement. [Flower]
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.