I’m smoldering. I started off in disbelief, as the judge foreshadowed his decision perfectly well; and commented when he said he wasn’t taking sides “You dismissed the charges.” As time passed, I talked to people about how bad the whole thing seemed procedureally, and listened to people break it down in different ways. and it really hit me on the train. JUst a wave of disgust, and nausea. An officer, of the LAW, of the PEACE, breaks down a door and kills an 18 year old kid, and finds a bag of marijuana, and goes free. No winners or losers the defense attorney says, a police officer has to live with that… but that dude gets to live, and go back to his job after breaking an entering and shooting someone in their house for a misdemeanor. What really set me off, was when I realized how dominant of a pattern this was.
That morning, I entered the courtroom, and sat in the press/attorney section, – while the Bronx courthouse was beautiful, shiny and new, this courtroom was ridiculously small 60 or so max capacity for a well publicized case. They later moved the press into the grand jury box; it was explained to me later that cops never get a jury- too likely that people won’t like them. The Judge started of describing what had happened and the role of the grand jury, so as to frame the written opinions by the lawyers on both sides.
The role of the Grand Jury in New York is to determine if there is enough evidence to go to trial. There was a motion to dismiss, based upon the judge’s finding that the instructions to the grand jury were incorrect; after 15 minutes of back and forth between the judge and the aDA on the precise legal procedure, we learned the assistant DA told the grand Jury to disregard whether or not another officer not on the scene had told Officer Haste about a gun, which was apparently the incorrect procedure, because the grand jury needs to understand the officers mindset in making a decision to proceed.
Frankly, this is all bullshit to me.
1. Dead kid, no gun= enough evidence to move through grand jury, in fact skip it all together
2. Breaking and entering. Police officers require a warrant to enter a premises. I don’t know of the
Where is the justification trial? Shouldn’t police have to explain their killings of citizens? Are they assumed justified?
Police, killing citizens, is assumed justified, unless you can prove otherwise, is my take way from this.
I spoke with Chuck Berkeley, retired detective, narcotics unit. He said, “We need the special prosecutor, expecting lawyers, judges and police, who work together on so many cases to go after one another is ridiculous” I would go a step further, and say that it should be federal oversight, with rotating local regulators on police cases, from other states, and the same for the Feds. Self policing doesn’t work- calling it corruption is failing to understand. People you know, you take care of, and generally treat less harshly. That’s how people work.
Frankly, with stop and frisk being clear violations of the constitution, 4th and 14th amendments, exceeding any and all established legal boundaries by far, it is a clear matter for investigation by Department of Justice.
Other than the really weird cannibal cop thing, all of the egregious, clear cut cases of police murdering people, shooting dozens of bullets into unarmed people, have produce no evidence of wrong doing
I don’t hate cops, or their role in society, but I have been beaten by them, while standing with my hands in the air. They cannot be exempt from punishment. That never ends well in anything.
Further, the same issues happen over and over again, in cities all throughout the United States. Our officers must be trained in the Constitution (how can you enforce the law if you don’t know the law?)
It’s past time for federal investigation