So after listening to Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity today, they mentioned something interesting. Hopefully everyone knows by now that the Department of Justice and the Obama administration are conducting their own investigations into the incidents in Ferguson, NYC, and Cleveland. However they aren't stopping there. They have setup a committee to investigate these incidents throughout the country and investigate pretty much all of the police agencies in the country.

 

This committee has come up with the bright idea of not allowing Police officers the right to a trial by a grand jury, essentially stripping them of their Fifth Amendment Right.

 

In my personal opinion I don't think anything like that would ever be put into law, however since the Obama administration has clearly sided on the opposite side of the police and this committee is hand picked by his administration, I really have no idea what will happen.

 

They are also thinking of implementing new training standards requiring all officers in the country to be retrained.

 

Anyway I would just like to hear some of the community's thoughts on this matter.

 

 

 

Also moderators: this is my first topic so if it's out of place or not labeled correctly please let me know, so I can fix it next time.  

Great....glade to see our federal government always stepping in...

 

*rolls eyes*

There is no Fifth Amendment right at the state level. It only applies to federal charges, and actually probably produces less protection of the accused: a grand jury is a secret proceeding which (at the federal level) indicts essentially instinctively, without even thinking about the evidence. Without a grand jury, states generally make prosecutors prove probable cause before a judge in which the accused actually has the right to know what's going on and even (gasp) challenge the prosecution. On the other hand, grand juries love to not indict police officers, and there is no transparency on that decision (no, releasing some evidence by one side is not transparency, it's propaganda). Frankly, it's probably a bad thing the US uses grand juries in any situation; in police killings, it's even worse because there should be absolutely no protection of privacy for a police officer's official actions, unless critically needed for reasons like "we're investigating and gathering evidence, and if they know we're gathering it they can destroy it" or "this is an undercover cop".

While i do admit, there is police brutality in this country (eg. The 76 year old man that got tasered the other) etc, that's why I really the body camera they're putting on offciers, but be careful what you wish for guys, now with the bodycam, there will be no more of this he said/she said.

There is no Fifth Amendment right at the state level. It only applies to federal charges, and actually probably produces less protection of the accused: a grand jury is a secret proceeding which (at the federal level) indicts essentially instinctively, without even thinking about the evidence. Without a grand jury, states generally make prosecutors prove probable cause before a judge in which the accused actually has the right to know what's going on and even (gasp) challenge the prosecution. On the other hand, grand juries love to not indict police officers, and there is no transparency on that decision (no, releasing some evidence by one side is not transparency, it's propaganda). Frankly, it's probably a bad thing the US uses grand juries in any situation; in police killings, it's even worse because there should be absolutely no protection of privacy for a police officer's official actions, unless critically needed for reasons like "we're investigating and gathering evidence, and if they know we're gathering it they can destroy it" or "this is an undercover cop".

 

http://sos.ga.gov/admin/files/Constitution_2013_Final_Printed.pdf

 

Paragraph XI

 

What you describe doesn't make sense to me. A Grand jury doesn't care about evidence, they just act all whilly nilly and do what they want with a person's indictment? 

 

While I can agree with the need for more transparency overall, and that an officer involved case should have full disclosure, I'm not sure if I understand correctly but isn't an indictment just a charge of a serious offense not a verdict? And correct me if I'm wrong (I'm not a lawyer), but if an indictment is reached then the person goes to trial and is then able to challenge the charges? In which case the prosecutor has to prove his case anyway. Sounds like you just want to get rid of the grand jury and go straight to the trial in and of itself. 

The point of a grand jury is that whoever's accusing someone of a crime must show some good reason to make them go through the ordeal of a trial and force them to defend their life, liberty, or property. The origin is actually from well before modern police and prosecutors existed; historically, a grand jury was an actual powerful investigative body, before which citizens would bring complaints. The grand jury could gather evidence and decide if a crime merited the person being placed in jeopardy of a criminal conviction (before the indictment, they have not been placed in jeopardy). The issue is that this does not translate to the modern system, in which the state provides essentially all the investigation and also provides the prosecutors for every case, and in which no one except the state is seeking a criminal indictment. Nowadays, people who might be tried generally know they might be tried, and frivolous charges are extremely rare (charges may not be supported by probable cause, but they aren't normally totally made up either), so the argument that this saves the defendant having to defend himself on a simple accusation doesn't really apply.

Grand juries now are effectively going straight to the trial; at the federal level (where they're required) they will indict just about every single person they're asked to, and serve as a combination of a rubber stamp and an institution that prosecutors can claim they're doing things on behalf of. Originally, the accused didn't get to challenge witnesses because the idea was to see if there was enough evidence to make them answer in court. At the federal level (the only level at which grand juries are required, as no states mandate their use and this is one of the few parts of the Bill of Rights not applied to the states), there were 11 cases where a grand jury did not indict in 2010. This is out of well over 150,000 federal prosecutions. The go-to adage about grand juries is that any mildly competent prosecutor could get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich.

The problem with grand juries is that they're effectively a tool of the prosecution. If the prosecution wants an indictment, they generally give an indictment. If the prosecution doesn't want an indictment, they won't give an indictment. However, even though they act as a tool of the prosecution, they're treated like a legitimate independent judicial body; a grand jury wields significant power that in practice they just give to the district attorney (a district attorney cannot compel testimony, issue subpoenas, or things of that nature; a grand jury can, and so the DA can do it "on behalf of the grand jury" when the grand jury is being a rubber stamp). It's not that grand juries themselves are so awful (besides the secrecy in cases like this), it's that the legal system pretends they have an independent function when they really pretty much don't.

The main alternative to a grand jury is not cases proceeding directly to trial. Instead, the case has a preliminary hearing, where the DA goes before a judge (not a jury) and presents evidence supporting probable cause against the accused. Unlike a grand jury, a preliminary hearing is in the public record. Unlike a grand jury, the accused has the right to know about it, to defend themselves, and to have legal counsel to defend themselves. A preliminary hearing isn't actually a trial; if the accused loses, then the case goes to trial. It's a way to save the accused some of the burden of preparing for a trial if they were falsely accused, and as it's adversarial, it doesn't basically serve as an arm of the DA's office. Preliminary hearings are the norm in every state, I think; it's only at the federal level that grand juries are required.

The main alternative to a grand jury is not cases proceeding directly to trial. Instead, the case has a preliminary hearing, where the DA goes before a judge (not a jury) and presents evidence supporting probable cause against the accused. Unlike a grand jury, a preliminary hearing is in the public record. Unlike a grand jury, the accused has the right to know about it, to defend themselves, and to have legal counsel to defend themselves. A preliminary hearing isn't actually a trial; if the accused loses, then the case goes to trial. It's a way to save the accused some of the burden of preparing for a trial if they were falsely accused, and as it's adversarial, it doesn't basically serve as an arm of the DA's office. Preliminary hearings are the norm in every state, I think; it's only at the federal level that grand juries are required.

 

Ah okay. Thanks for replying I understand a bit better now. 

 

However with what you mention above about a preliminary hearing, wouldn't it give a bit too much power to the Judge handling the case? If he didn't like you or had a problem with you and would not recuse himself from the case, the only option would be for your legal counsel to fight for his removal from the case, correct?

As an active duty law enforcement officer myself, I will be the first admit that not all of us walk the "Thin Blue Line".  Some of us fall off.  A few years ago we had an officer in my agency fall off the line.  He was removed from duty and subsequently removed from the agency all together after an internal investigation.  His "offenses" were not criminal.  They were more civil offenses than anything else (profiling, making inappropriate comments about suspects, etc.,).  However, don't take that as me defending his actions.  He was wrong and he got what he rightfully deserved (loss of job and authority).  As long as I can remember, we have never had an officer commit a criminal offense on duty (that I can recall).  In fact, we have had more officers get killed (both on and off duty) by criminals this year than any other neighboring department has in 10 years (most recent officer lost was actually today).

 

That brings me to this: do I agree with what the Obama administration has done by creating a "committee" to investigate state and local officer and department's actions?  No.  Those investigations should be conducted at the local or state level and the DOJ should only intervene if absolutely necessary.  Do I think certain department's could use a review and (possible) overhaul of their training policies and other departmental procedures?  Yes.  My agency reviews and updates all of its policies and procedures AT LEAST twice a year.

As an active duty law enforcement officer myself, I will be the first admit that not all of us walk the "Thin Blue Line".  Some of us fall off.  A few years ago we had an officer in my agency fall off the line.  He was removed from duty and subsequently removed from the agency all together after an internal investigation.  His "offenses" were not criminal.  They were more civil offenses than anything else (profiling, making inappropriate comments about suspects, etc.,).  However, don't take that as me defending his actions.  He was wrong and he got what he rightfully deserved (loss of job and authority).  As long as I can remember, we have never had an officer commit a criminal offense on duty (that I can recall).  In fact, we have had more officers get killed (both on and off duty) by criminals this year than any other neighboring department has in 10 years (most recent officer lost was actually today).

 

That brings me to this: do I agree with what the Obama administration has done by creating a "committee" to investigate state and local officer and department's actions?  No.  Those investigations should be conducted at the local or state level and the DOJ should only intervene if absolutely necessary.  Do I think certain department's could use a review and (possible) overhaul of their training policies and other departmental procedures?  Yes.  My agency reviews and updates all of its policies and procedures AT LEAST twice a year.

 

 

I completely agree with you Mike.

 

And sorry for the loss as well. 

Love what Fmr. Mayor of NY Giuliani had to say. Summed up, it amounts to "FUCK OFF OBAMA! STOP PANDERING!"