It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

California Becomes First State to Ban Grand Juries in Police Shooting Cases

page: 2
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
a reply to: Bedlam
Yikes parts of that are a bit harsh, but yeah...sorta like that.


If you want it to even approach neutrality, that's the only way to do it. A prosecutor who has to work with the same cops he's prosecuting will be thrown to the wolves by the cops and cop unions - it's an inherent and unsolvable conflict of interest.

You establish an independent commission whose job is to do this, now you have moved it at least out of peeing in your own bathwater. Not to say that these guys aren't going to be paid off by FOP, too. But at least it's a start.




posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:56 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

Exactly, the criminal justice system is so intertwined and needs a serious revamping. Private prisons and guaranteed federal funding only fuel inconsistency and corruption. The ONLY option is to take the prosecution part away from the state, and place it in the hands of the victimized party. Allow them to decide the person that seeks prosecution of indictment, and you will suddenly see a massive influx of police indictments.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:57 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

we all know exactly why they are doing it.

they will protect their own.

it seems to me it does.

the definition of due process is the legal requirement that the state must respect all legal rights that are owed to a person.

the last time i checked i had the right to hold my public officials accountable. and so does every person isnside that imaginary box they call california.

thanks for pointing something very important out to me. seriously.



edit on 13-8-2015 by fixitwcw because: expand



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: Vector99

I think I read somewhere that California is building a prison for the insane. That's kind of an adjunct statement to yours, isn't it? And another sign of what's going wrong here?

ETA: L.A. County to relocate some inmates, build jail to treat the mentally ill

It's just LA county I guess....
edit on 8/13/2015 by ~Lucidity because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:12 PM
link   
a reply to: ~Lucidity

LA County is a bit behind the times, mental wards are literal prisons for the insane.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Bedlam

Exactly, the criminal justice system is so intertwined and needs a serious revamping. Private prisons and guaranteed federal funding only fuel inconsistency and corruption. The ONLY option is to take the prosecution part away from the state, and place it in the hands of the victimized party. Allow them to decide the person that seeks prosecution of indictment, and you will suddenly see a massive influx of police indictments.


Actually I would expect the opposite would happen, indictments would go down considering how many systematic procedural indictments that are currently processed.
edit on 13-8-2015 by greencmp because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
It appears that with the new system, the prosecutors alone will make the decisions, which I'm not sure is all that much better in the end. Neither way seems all that ideal to me, so I don't know what the best situation would be. Panels of some sort maybe, maybe made up of more that just civilians and/or the prosecution.





1. They just politicized the decision to prosecute or not prosecute. I'd assume this goes before the SCOTUS before all is said and done, because it violates both due process and seriously violates the equal protection clause if California continues to roll Grand Juries for non-officer involved shootings.

2. This panel you mention already exists, it's the Grand Jury. What's happening here is the will of the People is getting railroaded by a very vocal small segment of society. This really does make a mockery of one of the more sanctified and functional components of the American Justice System: "A jury of your peers." Seems to me like Jerry Brown is making a highly politically motivated effort to appease some potential voters and not thinking this through.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:23 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Kali74

What would be a great solution is if the prosecuting attorney was chosen by the charging party rather than the same guy that works hand in hand with the police.


It would be great if you guys could use my pitcher at this weekends baseball game.




posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
It appears that with the new system, the prosecutors alone will make the decisions, which I'm not sure is all that much better in the end. Neither way seems all that ideal to me, so I don't know what the best situation would be. Panels of some sort maybe, maybe made up of more that just civilians and/or the prosecution.





1. They just politicized the decision to prosecute or not prosecute. I'd assume this goes before the SCOTUS before all is said and done, because it violates both due process and seriously violates the equal protection clause if California continues to roll Grand Juries for non-officer involved shootings.

2. This panel you mention already exists, it's the Grand Jury. What's happening here is the will of the People is getting railroaded by a very vocal small segment of society. This really does make a mockery of one of the more sanctified and functional components of the American Justice System: "A jury of your peers." Seems to me like Jerry Brown is making a highly politically motivated effort to appease some potential voters and not thinking this through.


So, I must be misunderstanding this.

I thought this was preventing these secret grand juries that I was under the impression were indicting too many normal people and almost no officials.

In general, I say remove bad laws rather than write new laws.




posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   
Now it's easier to set up the scapegoats.

And it's easier to set up the "lack of" evidence.

And it's easier for the Feds to step in when they want to, and for the local authorities to set up that scenario.




posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:31 PM
link   
For too long, Law enforcement has been given Cart Blanche without any real ramification in the name of the State.
Now comes the time where their private club gets Neutered and they become honest upstanding Citizens, instead of Hired Assassins of the Insurance Companies.

Whether it will ever come to pass is to be seen? But if the State cant control their Profiled Indoctrinated Thugs, nature Will take its course. and it ain't gonna be pretty



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Bedlam

Exactly, the criminal justice system is so intertwined and needs a serious revamping. Private prisons and guaranteed federal funding only fuel inconsistency and corruption. The ONLY option is to take the prosecution part away from the state, and place it in the hands of the victimized party. Allow them to decide the person that seeks prosecution of indictment, and you will suddenly see a massive influx of police indictments.


Actually I would expect the opposite would happen, indictments would go down considering how many systematic procedural indictments that are currently processed.

I'm confused. Systematic procedural indictments? That means some cops are indicted without a grand jury?



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6

originally posted by: ~Lucidity
It appears that with the new system, the prosecutors alone will make the decisions, which I'm not sure is all that much better in the end. Neither way seems all that ideal to me, so I don't know what the best situation would be. Panels of some sort maybe, maybe made up of more that just civilians and/or the prosecution.






2. This panel you mention already exists, it's the Grand Jury. What's happening here is the will of the People is getting railroaded by a very vocal small segment of society. This really does make a mockery of one of the more sanctified and functional components of the American Justice System: "A jury of your peers." Seems to me like Jerry Brown is making a highly politically motivated effort to appease some potential voters and not thinking this through.


Yes that panel already exists, but the person convincing those people is the discussion of change.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Kali74

What would be a great solution is if the prosecuting attorney was chosen by the charging party rather than the same guy that works hand in hand with the police.


It would be great if you guys could use my pitcher at this weekends baseball game.


Is the pitcher at this weekends baseball game a bar certified attorney? If so sure!



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Vector99

originally posted by: greencmp

originally posted by: Vector99
a reply to: Bedlam

Exactly, the criminal justice system is so intertwined and needs a serious revamping. Private prisons and guaranteed federal funding only fuel inconsistency and corruption. The ONLY option is to take the prosecution part away from the state, and place it in the hands of the victimized party. Allow them to decide the person that seeks prosecution of indictment, and you will suddenly see a massive influx of police indictments.


Actually I would expect the opposite would happen, indictments would go down considering how many systematic procedural indictments that are currently processed.

I'm confused. Systematic procedural indictments? That means some cops are indicted without a grand jury?


I'm still playing catch up to figure out exactly what this is.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:43 PM
link   
a reply to: xuenchen

Gobbledygook. There's a very bad problem going on with a bad solution just signed into law... this is a serious issue, let's leave propaganda in whatever form you're presenting it as, at the door.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:44 PM
link   
a reply to: SPECULUM

The private club definitely needs to be neutered but lets not make the cure worse than the disease. We can't stand for circumvention of the Constitution even for good causes.
edit on 8/13/2015 by Kali74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:50 PM
link   
a reply to: Kali74

Everything is subject to corruption and bribery.

It's the essence of failure.




posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: kellyjay
perhaps if body cams were implented in every state and were mandatory, then cases of police brutality or in instances where cops shoot a citizen there is video evidence.



Incidences would not necessarily stop, drop drastically yes but stop no. Simply because their are too many IDIOT cops out there with power/control problems (psychological problems) that think they are actually within the law when they do what they do. So they will do it then cry " I thought that was fair game, oh well couple weeks off with pay".

It is bad when a citizen knows more about the law than a cop and IT HAPPENS. Yet when the person tries to inform them of the correct policy it matters not or even makes things worse in some cases. This is just one more chess move towards complete police state. I believe some fellas straight out of Compton with a little bit of attitude once said something profound in regards to the police, hmm what was it again I wonder.



posted on Aug, 13 2015 @ 09:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: TrappedPrincess

originally posted by: kellyjay
perhaps if body cams were implented in every state and were mandatory, then cases of police brutality or in instances where cops shoot a citizen there is video evidence.



Incidences would not necessarily stop, drop drastically yes but stop no. Simply because their are too many IDIOT cops out there with power/control problems (psychological problems) that think they are actually within the law when they do what they do. So they will do it then cry " I thought that was fair game, oh well couple weeks off with pay".

It is bad when a citizen knows more about the law than a cop and IT HAPPENS. Yet when the person tries to inform them of the correct policy it matters not or even makes things worse in some cases. This is just one more chess move towards complete police state. I believe some fellas straight out of Compton with a little bit of attitude once said something profound in regards to the police, hmm what was it again I wonder.


agreed, but a drastic drop has got to be better than the current state



new topics

top topics



 
12
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join