Where is the outrage?

[Bailey Guns]

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.

[Hound]

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]

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.

[Hound]

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.

[Scanker19]

Hound is right. No jury in the history of America has ever convicted an innocent/wrong person before.

[Bailey Guns]

No jury in the history of America has ever convicted an innocent/wrong person before.

Yeah...no shit.

[Hound]

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.

[cstone]

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.

[Hound]

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.

[BushMasterBoy]

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!