I wasn't trying to twist your words.

 

Forgive me, as I am no expert on the Constitution. What constitutional rights would be violated if police officers who used deadly force had their case presented to a jury?

 

If presented to a jury that implies that they have been arrested and are on trial. Would you apply this standard to all citizens?

All police don't have these magic union reps that can get them out of everything, you realize that right?

 

Trust me, I do. Honestly, if I were an officer in some situations, I would be running to hire my own attorney instead of rolling with my union rep.

 

I was just making the point that as compared to an indigent client or something like that, they have things a bit better. There's also some cases where clearing the officer lessens the chances of liability against the department and the like, so there's some incentive to clear them and find back channels to get rid of them.

 

Not saying it's widespread or anything like that, but as a union, they have some advantages that non-unions members don't.

 

Trust me, I do. Honestly, if I were an officer in some situations, I would be running to hire my own attorney instead of rolling with my union rep.

 

I was just making the point that as compared to an indigent client or something like that, they have things a bit better. There's also some cases where clearing the officer lessens the chances of liability against the department and the like, so there's some incentive to clear them and find back channels to get rid of them.

 

Not saying it's widespread or anything like that, but as a union, they have some advantages that non-unions members don't.

 

And I'm saying all officers aren't in a union.

 

Also, most departments ask shootings to be investigated by an outside agency so that it doesnt look like they are clearing them just to cover themselves.

And I'm saying all officers aren't in a union.

 

Also, most departments ask shootings to be investigated by an outside agency so that it doesnt look like they are clearing them just to cover themselves.

 

Fair enough.

I thought it was pretty apparent that in a thread discussing a GRAND JURY, that he was talking about going to a grand jury. Obviously I'm the only one. :idunno: Maybe I'm wrong...

I would have no problem with every police involved shooting being brought to a grand jury as long as ALL shootings are brought before a grand jury. If a prosecutor has the discretion not to charge John Q. Public then police officers should have the same opportunity. If this was the case it may have saved the life of a tourist that was in Louisville for the Derby earlier this month.

Grand jury or a jury?

 

We don't present cases to a jury unless there's probable cause to charge someone with a crime.

 

I'll clear it up. I meant a grand jury--like in the thread title.

 

I'll clear it up. I meant a grand jury--like in the thread title.

 

 

I'm glad that the case will actually be heard by someone and hopefully we all learn about what happened.

 

 

That is what should happen in almost every case. Present it to the jury and see what happens. The American public is tired of the thin blue line always defending their own. If it was justified let it be presented to a jury.

 

 

You can see why it was apparent you meant a jury...How hard is it to add the word "grand" ? PP said at least the case will be heard (seems to me he was talking about someone other than a grand jury hearing the case since they already heard it) and you said that's what should happen in any case.

 

To be clear, I think you also said of there's any question that the officer should be charged right?

 

Btw, it seems like someone here has said it before, that officers should be charged no matter what...and that a jury should decide their fate.

I wasn't trying to twist your words.

 

Forgive me, as I am no expert on the Constitution. What constitutional rights would be violated if police officers who used deadly force had their case presented to a jury?

 

If all the evidence points to John Q. Public being completely innocent in a deadly force case, should his case be brought before a grand jury?

Where did I even insinuate that?

 

You can't assume police are going to or have tampered with something. People assumed Darren Wilson was wrong...

 

Investigations, if thorough, will reveal what happened IMO. Even if some evidence is tampered with, some things can't be changed.

 

And you can't assume that just because there isn't evidence to implicate the police that evidence wasn't tampered with.

 

And you can't assume that just because there isn't evidence to implicate the police that evidence wasn't tampered with.

 

Luckily, we can't convict people on hunches.

Luckily, we can't convict people on hunches.

 

Very true. That only happens in the NFL.

 

Very true. That only happens in the NFL.

 

Different standards, wouldn't you agree?

It's my understanding in the state of KY any time a police officer has to use dead force it is presented to a grand jury. Even if it is cut and dry justified.

That sounds crazy to me. So if a guy is shooting at people in public and an officer shoots him to save others, why would we waste time with a grand jury if the prosecutor thinks it is clearly a justified shooting?

Different standards, wouldn't you agree?

 

I was making a joke.