Community leaders bypass prosecutor to charge police .

Posse Comitatus may finally come into play under the true meaning of the words " Power of the community ". Leaders of the community in Cleveland plan on using a old Ohio law. In a attempt to get officer Timothy Loehmann, charged by bypassing the prosecutor .

By going directly to a judge, community leaders are trying to circumvent that process. Ohio law allows anyone with “knowledge of the facts” to file a court affidavit and ask a judge to issue an arrest warrant. If approved, the arrest would be followed by a public hearing, and community members said that was preferable to allowing prosecutors to make decisions in secret

You should Remember Officer Timothy Loehmann, as the man that fatally shot Tarmi Rice a 12-year-old in under two seconds when he pulled up . Rice was in a public park holding a toy pistol without the orange safety feature . I'm optimistic about the expectations for this group. Because this is going to be a big open to the public decision for which ever judge these affidavits are presented to . If the judge is a elected Democrat by refusing he might very well alienate his voter base .

Here we are taking some control of the process as citizens,” Mr. Madison said. “We are going to participate without even changing the law.” Tamir was fatally shot in November while he played in a park. A 911 caller had reported that the boy was waving a gun that was “probably fake.” When officers arrived, they pulled their car into the park, next to the boy. Within two seconds, an officer, Timothy Loehmann, shot Tamir in the abdomen. The boy’s gun, it turned out, was a toy replica of a Colt pistol and fired plastic pellets.

If this angle work's police in states with similar laws would also have to fear charges without any protection from the DAs office .


source

edit on 9-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

edit on 9-6-2015 by Greathouse because: (no reason given)

a reply to: Greathouse

If this angle work's police in states with similar laws would also have to fear charges without any protection from the DAs office .

Good. About time.

But probably not going to get to court anyway. The whole system is designed to protect the state, not the people.

Even if you go around the prosecutor, around the judge, around the court and around a verdict…

you are still convicted in the court of the Main stream media who will do whatever it takes to protect the Status Quo.

It's a beautiful thing..this is taking a stand, non violent and yet hard to ignore. It may get nowhere but it's an important start.

a reply to: intrptr

I agree.

You're always such a downer dude you must be really fun at parties . Lol

The beauty of this tactic is the pressure it applies to a single judge in a open public fourm. It brings a decision out into the open immediately. Not hidden from the public in secrecy like the prosecutors office currently does.

If the judge grants the motion it will also have to go to the grand jury and the grand jury will feel the full weight of the publics opinion with judicial backing prior to their decision .

The full extent of the pressure applies solely on the judge presented with the affidavits .

a reply to: Greathouse

You're always such a downer dude you must be really fun at parties . Lol

I did say good, about time. I'm also a realist. And too old to be fooled by any announcement of changing the way things are decided, currently.

The whole structure is rotten to the core. But pretending to go along with the notion of justice to save face whenever necessary.

Sorry about ruining your party.

a reply to: intrptr

I agree with your initial position. You do realize that second line was a joke don't you?




As for the judicial process I agree it's more like the good old boys network . But I am optimistic when a new angle to penetrate it is approached . Because to give up is to admit total failure .

a reply to: Greathouse

excellent. now, i know what i think will happen when the judge protects his own...... at least this will serve to wake MANY people up after he says "fu** you, useless eaters!"

a reply to: Greathouse

No problem, your party popper comment a joke, okay. (rolls eyes)

But I am optimistic when a new angle to penetrate it is approached . Because to give up is to admit total failure .

Who's "giving up"? I said you can't change the corrupt system by appealing to it or working with it. Thats what I meant. Any notion of that is lost on me, I been around too long to believe otherwise.

In the Soviet Union under Stalin rule or Germany under Hitler, Japan under the Emperor, whatever, they didn't profess any bill of rights, they just violated them. Over here we do the same thing under guise of protecting freedom, liberty, democracy, whatever. Its in name only.

At least other empires were more honest about their brutality.

You take this case, the boy was killed to protect the officers, they didn't care what happened to him or his family or their rights. They just took him out to protect themselves. The bravest, boldest killer made quick work of that boys rights, didn't he?

ETA: Whats done is done, good luck getting the system to prosecute one of its own, and if charged, go to court, and if so, get a fair hearing and if so, get sentenced and if if if fiffifif so, go to jail and actually serve time.

a reply to: intrptr

I said you can't change the corrupt system by appealing to it or working with it.

Um....., excuse me but that is giving up . ( Rolls eyes till they pop out ears )

You've given up completely on being able to reform it. Then you went off into a rant about Hitler to justify you opinion.


If you've been around as long as you claim you know things were far worse in the past as far as our rights go . You ever looked into the 20s or 30s and the communist roundups . Or did you bother to study McCarthyism and the house committees on un-American activities ?

The claims about this being the worst time in our history for oppression are ludicrous to anybody that studies the past .

a reply to: intrptr

while you are right based on history, what you should ask yourself here and now: are the lowered expectations going to apply the kind of accountability that will ever allow a difference to be made?

Just because you know your expectations won't be met doesn't mean you have to accept that. Regardless of how old you are. Maybe this is as simple as flooding the judges office with letters once they are chosen? Who knows....but that little boy sure didn't deserve to die that day. And someone needs to be held accountable. No free lunches, badge or no badge.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

And I respect your opinion, too. When I say I'm too old, what I mean is I spent a lot of time standing tall before the man during my outdoors phase, i.e., being woken up, pulled over, searched, and questioned… Got some ID, what you doing here, have any warrants, any guns, anything illegal, mind if we search?

I survived all that because I knew better than to stand on or insist on my rights. Its easy to sit behind a keyboard and do that.

Let alone get caught up in the system for resisting or disorderly and have fines, and or jail time for trumped up charges because I wouldn't submit to authority. I submitted because I'm not stupid, I'll let them do their job and both of us be on our way, rather than pick a fight with cops on a dark, lonely stretch of road.

I'd like to see your reaction put in that same position…

Pucker up.

a reply to: intrptr

In a one on one interaction...probably.

But to do what is being done in the OP....yeah, that is something I'd totally pull. Mostly because I enjoy being an asshole to people who deserve it, who bully other people. Cop or not....i don't have a chip on my shoulder regarding authority. Its all about how you treat people.

Im not old, but at 43 i've seen my fair share of days come and go. Anymore I have earned enough among the locals that I wouldn't expect too much push back if i were actually in the right.

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: intrptr

The beauty of this tactic is the pressure it applies to a single judge in a open public fourm. It brings a decision out into the open immediately. Not hidden from the public in secrecy like the prosecutors office currently does.

If the judge grants the motion it will also have to go to the grand jury and the grand jury will feel the full weight of the publics opinion with judicial backing prior to their decision .

The full extent of the pressure applies solely on the judge presented with the affidavits .

That isn't justice. You're just replacing one form of questionable justice with another form of mob-driven injustice that agrees with your goals.

Neither the judge nor the jury should ever be placed in a position where any weight, let alone "the full weight of the public's opinion", has any bearing on their decisions.

To extensively paraphrase an old saying, it's better for ten guilty men to walk free than have one innocent man sent to prison because the newspapers convinced the mob that "he MUST be guilty!" on the basis of sensationalist reporting and badly misrepresenting less than half the facts.

From the article it sounds like not too many states have anything like this on the books. What will be interesting, beyond simply how this plays out in Ohio, is the effect it has in other states. Will we see a push from citizens for laws like this to be enacted? If so, how will legislatures respond to that?

The whole thing will be interesting to watch for developments I think.

a reply to: EvillerBob

Neither the judge nor the jury should ever be placed in a position where any weight, let alone "the full weight of the public's opinion", has any bearing o

Excuse me the judges job besides justice is to represent the people of that state . Are you saying totally legal laws shouldn't be exercised to achieve that goal ? I didn't really get your point. The public is making an outcry about protection of the police. There is certainly no problem with this being addressed from another angle .

a reply to: Greathouse

I think the point he/she was trying to make was that the system shouldn't be making decisions based on what the public wants on any given day instead of going by the law.

The problem is that all too often the game is rigged so that the system can stay within the law and profess its own innocence in things while not carrying out justice.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I agree no one should be tried in the court of public opinion . But neither should they be protected or be perceived to be protected .


Actions like this could go along way to proving or disproving said protection . That was my point which he missed .

a reply to: Greathouse

I know. To be fair, I don't think a judge is really a representative of the people in more than a passive sense. The prosecutor in a case is the people's representative. Much of the problem lies at the door of the DA's office. Some judges will go along, and they are complicit in it. Others will call the prosecutor out on it, but they are still tied at the hands due to the law and the fact that the prosecutor is flouting it doesn't change things. All a judge can do is say "I know why you're doing this, I think you suck, but there's nothing I can do about it." And there isn't. Because if that judge resigns over something like that, what good has it done? It's taken a good judge off the bench. Anyway, sorry for the rant.

I just wanted to try and clarify what I thought the other commenter was getting at because...

I know you're old

a reply to: Shamrock6

Lol

Yeah I'm old I even found theme music .

originally posted by: Greathouse
a reply to: EvillerBob

Neither the judge nor the jury should ever be placed in a position where any weight, let alone "the full weight of the public's opinion", has any bearing o

Excuse me the judges job besides justice is to represent the people of that state . Are you saying totally legal laws shouldn't be exercised to achieve that goal ? I didn't really get your point. The public is making an outcry about protection of the police. There is certainly no problem with this being addressed from another angle .

There's nothing wrong with that at all. If the public think a matter is serious enough to be investigated, then it should be investigated. My issue with the post was that it went a step further - it suggested that the OUTCOME of the case should be determined by considering (among other things) the public opinion.

No.

The outcome in situation - especially a tense one like this - should never allow public opinion to become a factor. Otherwise, you have mob justice. I didn't think that, on this board of all places, I would need to point out why allowing yourself to be influenced by "the public" - who generally get all of their information from the sensationalist media hungry to turn any little thing into the next big story for the 24-hour news cycle - is a bad idea.

An individual is a sane and rational being. A group turns individuals into idiots. It has always been the way of the world.