New York leads the way in police shooting resolution .

New York Governor Como just signed a bill making the state DA a special prosecutor is all civilians deaths by police. I like this move because it will remove city and county politics from the equation when determining guilt.

I don't think it goes far enough but I believe it is certainly a step in the right direction . Myself I believe the final step should be a rotating civilian review board that works with investigators during investigations and is privy to all evidence gathered . Not to mention a removal of police immunity from civil prosecution .

A day after activists and the families of civilians killed by police demonstrated outside Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s Midtown office, they joined him at John Jay College as he signed an executive order making Attorney General Eric Schneiderman the special prosecutor for all cases statewide in which an officer is responsible for a civilian’s death—making New York the first state to create such a role to oversee the controversial issue of police-involved homicides.

The order was slightly different from the one that Mr. Cuomo promised to sign last month, and which provoked some outrage among police reform advocates because it would have only remanded cases where police kill an unarmed person over to the attorney general to investigate. The one he approved today will additionally give Mr. Schneiderman power over cases where there is dispute over whether the deceased had a weapon.



Read more at observer.com...
Follow us: @newyorkobserver on Twitter | newyorkobserver on Facebook

But (and there is always at least one) only if the DA is constantly monitored by a group of their peers . Most DAs I know take on this sort of thing as about 80% either political or self-serving goals.

a reply to: Greathouse

I read about this earlier. It sounds like a good move. I wonder how political pressure will come into play though.

originally posted by: Skid Mark
a reply to: Greathouse

I read about this earlier. It sounds like a good move. I wonder how political pressure will come into play though.

Oh you can have no doubt the political pressure will still be there . But at least it is distanced from the local political pressure. The whole state will have a say in how the state DA handles the cases. It won't be dealt with by prosecutors that regularly meet and have developed local political affiliations with the local police union .


Like I said in the OP it's a step in the right direction. I would much prefer a rotating civilian review board to oversee everyone including the state prosecutor .

a reply to: Greathouse

Rotating would be good. It keeps anyone from becoming entrenched.

a reply to: Greathouse

How would you vet the citizens on the board?

How would you determine they possess the knowledge to be involved in such situations?

Would they have to go through training?

How do you mitigate people with bias against law enforcement joining the board?

Ultimately, what do you feel the purpose of the citizens on the board would be?

I am legitimately interested in your idea.

a reply to: TorqueyThePig

The citizens would be elected in the voters would vet them .


Just like a grand jury or regular Jury now .


Why would they have to go through training?


You don't have to exclude people with bias. In fact I would insist on at least one person on each board that had been through the judicial process .

The purpose of the citizens would basically be the same as the Grand jury .

a reply to: Greathouse

Isn't your idea little redundant?

We already have grand juries.

Isn't there an attempt to eliminate/mitigate bias during jury selections already?

Why wouldn't that be done in your process?

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: Greathouse

Isn't your idea little redundant?

We already have grand juries.

Isn't there an attempt to eliminate/mitigate bias during jury selections already?

Why wouldn't that be done in your process?

There would be absolutely no comparison between a grand jury and a civilian review board . Grand juries are secret civilian review boards can be open. Not to mention that a person that has been through the judicial system and has a felony would not be eligible for the grand jury .


Haven't you ever wondered why they exclude felons ? The reason is that felons are more likely to know all their tricks .

a reply to: Greathouse

A felon may hold a grudge against law enforcement, and not remain partial in the process.

At least that's the idea.

I can get behind the idea of a review board mixed with law enforcement professionals and citizens.

originally posted by: TorqueyThePig
a reply to: Greathouse

A felon may hold a grudge against law enforcement, and not remain partial in the process.

At least that's the idea.

I can get behind the idea of a review board mixed with law enforcement professionals and citizens.

Yeah I know that's the courts reason for excluding felons. I just don't buy it, a juror could have a gruge against the judicial system for a ticket he got that morning.


I honestly think a quicker fix would be the other option. Removal of immunity from police officers would check their aggression immediately . If they could be sued in civil court. Then the money would have to come out of their own pocket and not the cities .


That would be an instantaneous attitude adjustment for the police nationwide .