Why not require an indictment whenever police shoot an unarmed person?

[Sienna86]

It would result in a probable cause hearing, which is open to the public. This would eliminate the prosecutor's ability to steer a grand jury to issue a no bill. And maybe require a special prosecutor always be appointed.

[Recursion]

1. How do you know when someone is "unarmed"?

Also, I don't know that whether someone is armed directly bears on the statutes in any state (though a weapon will add to the presumption that someone can do harm, but the lack of a weapon doesn't remove it).

[merrily]

2. You search the body. If you find no weapon, you know the person was "unarmed."

[Recursion]

7. Who's "you"? And when do "you" do that?

There's an absurd patchwork of how officer-involved shootings are handled across the nation. I'm not sure I agree with the OP's particular solution but some kind of uniform rethinking of this would be good.

[merrily]

10. How do we know Brown was unarmed?

I'm all for re-thinking.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025866114

[WinkyDink]

32. WTH? SOMEhow, such a determination has been made since men threw rocks at other men. DUH.

[damnedifIknow]

3. Something has to change and fast

We have to see killer cops in prison not out on the streets coaching little league and getting married like nothing happened.

[Recursion]

6. Is the rate of officer-involved shootings lower or higher than, say, 20 years ago? (nt)

[merrily]

11. What is the point of your question?

[Recursion]

13. Because it matters if things have been getting better or worse over the past few decades.

If they have been getting better, we need to do more of what we've been doing. If they have been getting worse, we need to do something else.

(That wasn't a trick question; I really have no idea whether the rate of officer-involved shootings is lower or higher than 20 years ago. But pretty much all other homicides are much lower, so this gets to the dead horse that I keep flogging that we need to keep doing more of whatever made that happen.)

[merrily]

14. Either way, we need to do something else. A 12 year old just got killed for a toy gun.

[Recursion]

16. I remember that happening in the 1990s, too

So, again, are we doing more of that or less of that than back then? If we're doing less, we need to do more of whatever we did to reduce that.

[merrily]

18. You're thinking less or more of one thing. Think additional things.

BTW, the statistics you seek are very hard to come by. Or, so folks have been saying on TV since the Brown killing stirred up a lot of public discussion over this.

[badtoworse]

4. Sounds like Napoleanic Justice.

In our system of justice, you are presumed innocent and the onus is on the state to make a case. Cops are entitled to the presumption of innocence too.

[merrily]

12. Name a case where a cop in this kind of situation did not get a presumption of innocence in court.

[cali]

17. huh? presumption of innocence is a constitutional right for everyone.

[badtoworse]

51. The OP is suggesting that an indictment be required. That would be a presumption of guilt.

[merrily]

54. Not my question. Point is, in any proceeding, it does not seem to be LE that gets

the shaft.

BTW, shooting an unarmed person to death is also a presumption of guilt, a conclusive one, unfortunately, from which there is no appeal on this earth.

[badtoworse]

56. "Point is, in any proceeding, it does not seem to be LE that gets the shaft"

That is the way it ought to be - no one should "get the shaft" in a criminal justice proceeding. LEO's have the same rights as everyone else and the OP's suggestion that an indictment be automatic would lessen their rights.

[merrily]

58. Oh, please, spare me the sanctimony. Clearly, I was not suggesting that anyone get the shaft,

including the decedent.


The fact that you don't cite a single case where a cop was unfairly convicted in a case like this speaks much louder than any platitudes that you did post.

[badtoworse]

61. The unfairness of the OP's suggestion is obvious...

with or without citing a case where a cop was unfairly prosecuted.

[merrily]

65. Please see Reply 58. It seems to cover your reply 61 as well as your reply 56.

[badtoworse]

66. Sorry, I don't support automatic indictments - period. I think we're done.

[Recursion]

15. As it stands, presumption of innocence for police is not the problem we need to be worrying about

That's pretty solidly built in.

[WinkyDink]

27. Yes. And the dead are entitled to a trial of their killer. But we didn't get that, DID we?

[badtoworse]

53. IF the facts justify prosecution, then your statement is accurate.

[frylock]

72. IF the facts PRESENTED justify prosecution

FIFY

[badtoworse]

74. McCulloch stated that all of the testimony and evidence was given to the grand jury and the feds.

For a number of reasons, I believe him.

[cali]

5. body cameras are a better solution than automatic indictments. No indictment should be automatic

[WinkyDink]

28. I confidently predict: "Camera malfunction." "Lost/erased tape." "Forgot to turn on." "Stolen."

[cali]

44. I read an article last week about one town that instituted such a policy

and how the number of complaints about cops had plummeted. I'll try to find it.

[WinkyDink]

71. I hope the rate does plummet! But it sadly just goes to show that, without,......Ferguson.

[QuebecYank]

68. The new excuse is budget cuts

Some city (I don't know which one), said that the city doesn't have the money, to cover cameras. I'm not sure, if the cops already had them, or the budget cancelled the order to get them for the police.

[frylock]

73. they need that money for maintenance of their new MRAPs..

priorities, man.

[Hoyt]

69. I think that is the short-term solution, even though it might not help in every incident.

[pipoman]

8. As it is cities like St Louis

Have difficulty staffing with qualified people. ..particularly racially diverse qualified people. No, criminalizing police work and micromanaging necessary split second decisions is counter productive. Maybe a small federal task force to respond to claims of police racism, criminalizing rank and file police work is a terrible idea.

[merrily]

19. Where did you hear St. Louis is having trouble finding qualified people to hire?

[pipoman]

20. It is obvious in the racial makeup of

the Ferguson department that finding qualified black officers is difficult for them.

[merrily]

22. That was not my question. However, it's ludicrous to claim that a predominantly

white police force in St. Louis = "obvious" that qualified African Americans to serve as police are difficult to find.

[pipoman]

25. There has been a literal army of media in St . Louis county

since this incident. The entire army has been digging and scratching for any shred of a story. There hasn't been a single qualified black applicant come forward saying he/she was passed over for a position in favor of a white candidate. ..not one. Yes, it is obvious that St Louis county...along with most of the rest of the country. ..has difficulty staffing with qualified black applicants.

[merrily]

33. Again, your original comment was broader than African American applicants. But, never mind.

It's clear you are pulling the lack of qualified people out of nowhere.

[pipoman]

36. Isn't that what the claims have been?

[merrily]

40. What claims? I asked you where you heard it.

[WinkyDink]

29. "Finding" is not quite the same as "Wanting to hire."

[pipoman]

34. See post #25

[WinkyDink]

39. See yourself. Perhaps you've heard of "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence"?

[pipoman]

42. How convenient for your wishful thinking

[WinkyDink]

46. Your puerile insult hardly supports your claims. Moreover, it is nonsensical on the face of it.

"Wishful thinking" meaning what, exactly? What is it I am wishfully thinking of or for?

[merrily]

43. You pulled that out of the air.

Your claim is that, because media are there to cover the senseless death of a child, that would cause people who had been passed over to approach media. It's a scenario you made up to justify your original comment about the lack of qualified applicants for law enforcement positions.

[pipoman]

48. "a child", eh? LOL

I have never seen "a child" commit a strong arm robbery. Pretending that qualified black applicants passed over wouldn't have come forward or been sought out by the hundreds of hungry media people camped out in Ferguson is a game you are welcome to play...

[merrily]

50. Dude, you are the only one pretending. Again, you accuse someone of what you are doing.

Yes, a teen is a child Too bad some seem unable to deal with that--unless it's their own child.

[pipoman]

59. Thus lies the distinction

If a 40 year old is my offspring the 40 year old can be referred to as my child. "Child" is defined as:

a young human being below the age of puberty or below the legal age of majority.

18 years old is neither.

[merrily]

63. How did a teen suddenly get to be 40?

Calling a dead, unarmed teen shot to death makes you LOL. Really? And over what? a few months?

Clearly, the 12 year old was a child.

Go laugh yourself silly over dead kids between 18 and 19 years of age. I'm done replying to you on this thread. Last word is yours, if you want it.

[WinkyDink]

30. Apparently, the FPD has difficulty in "finding qualified" WHITE officers.

[pipoman]

31. Based on what?

[WinkyDink]

35. Is that you, OFFICER WILSON?

[pipoman]

37. That's what I thought. ..based on nothing. ..

[WinkyDink]

41. You are the thread expert on such. Your seem to confuse your use of the word "obvious" with "fact."

Are you of the opinion that if you (not "one"; YOU) say something it is ipso facto the objective truth?

[merrily]

45. Nothing like accusing winky of doing what you've been doing.

[merrily]

38. Good question, but I asked you first.

From your reply 8

As it is cities like St Louis Have difficulty staffing with qualified people. .

I asked you where you had heard that. Then, you acted as though this comment of yours had been only about qualified African Americans, but it wasn't. So, you had to mean difficulty hiring qualified people of all races.

[gollygee]

9. I don't think they should have the prosecutor who usually works with that police dept.

be the one who is the prosecutor for the case. There's a conflict of interest. The case should get moved to a different county with a different prosecutor's office.

[lovemydog]

21. I've been thinking something similar.

It just doesn't seem right that the prosecutor who most often works with the police be the person who is supposed present the evidence to a grand jury to determine whether the police officer committed a crime.

[gollygee]

23. And who has to continue to work with that police department afterward

and whose job will become more difficult if things don't go how the police want.

[lovemydog]

24. Precisely. I almost posted that too.

It'll be interesting to see if he gets reelected. I watched his entire press conference and wasn't too thrilled with his performance. I mean, I know it's a tough job. But he sure did ramble on and on about the media and the inconsistencies of eyewitness testimony. I think he kind of got what he wanted, with the grand jury verdict. That's the direction in which he steered the grand jury.

[ileus]

26. You don't have to have a weapon to be an extreme threat.

[merrily]

47. So Wilson and the prosecutor managed to convince the grand jury and so

Zimmerman managed to convince a court. The guy with the gun, so terrified of an unarmed teen that the unarmed teen had to die. Same with a 12 year old holding a toy gun.

Bullshit.

[pipoman]

49. Obviously not a cop

Or knowledgeable about self defense.

[merrily]

52. Really? LOL.

[pipoman]

62. Yep,

If you had a clue about either you would know that the absence of a weapon doesn't make someone harmless, especially if that person is attempting to overpower someone with a weapon.

[merrily]

64. If only I had said an unarmed person is harmless, your post might make sense.

Then again, going by past experience with your posts, probably not.

[pipoman]

67. Pretty sure you responded to #26 with nonsense

Which I was responding to. ..

[Hoyt]

70. The gun crowd always think they're experts in these sort of things.

[Lurks Often]

55. Then the office prosecuting has to pay for the defendant's legal bills

and does not get to choose the lawyer(s) or set limits on how much money the defense gets to spend.

[Vinca]

57. I heard someone say that Missouri law allows a cop to shoot a fleeing felon, armed or unarmed.

It's pretty much open season down there.

[Bjorn Against]

60. I think the concept of innocent until proven guilty needs to apply to shooting victims

The person who fired the fatal shot should have the burden of proving that the person they shot truly was a threat. Gunners should not have the power to judge a person guilty and sentencing then to death without offering any sort of proof that they actually were guilty.