Where is the outrage?

[cstone]

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/...ng-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.

[cstone]

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.

[Hound]

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.

[Bailey Guns]

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.

[Hound]

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 . 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]

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 . 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"?

[cstone]

Rather than open another thread, anyone happen to read this tragic story?

http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news...is-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/R...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_j...nd_Jury_Clause

[Bailey Guns]

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

1. a person has made an unlawful or uninvited entry into the dwelling
2. that person has committed, is committing or will commit any crime against persons or property inside the dwelling
3. 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.

[Ronin13]

Well said, Bailey... Well said!

[Big John]

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.