Where is the outrage?

[cstone]

At least we can all apparently agree, everybody is a moron.

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

[Hound]

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]

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

[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.

[Hound]

No argument there. Ya just have to shoot for the best you can get.

Ain't nothing fair and balanced about anything anymore

[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.

[Great-Kazoo]

At least we can all apparently agree, everybody is a moron.

Everyone in favor of that motion?

AGREED, now if only there was some kind of theme song.

[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!