Police Work, Politics and World Affairs, Football and the ongoing search for great Scotch Whiskey!

Friday, August 14, 2015

Who cares about the 5th Amendment

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

I've been looking at that over the last year really as the usual suspects want to have a DA judge by themselves what a cop does.

In the overwhelming majority of the country, to simply the process, if anyone uses "deadly force" a grand jury must evaluate it. Now if a cop uses deadly force, the DA investigates and it's presented to a grand jury to judge if the act was lawful. If it was justified, there is a no-bill. If it was not justified then an indictment is handled down and your proceed to a criminal trial.

Now California wants to end grand jury review of use of deadly force and if this article is to be believed, a DA will evaluate them alone. Based on the DA's judgement alone the officer will either be determined to have been justified or referred for criminal prosecution.

Anyone else got a bad feeling about this.
California Bans Use Of Grand Juries In Police Shooting Cases

Mollie Reilly
Deputy Politics Editor, The Huffington Post

The panels will no longer decide whether law enforcement should face criminal charges in use-of-force cases.

California will no longer use grand juries in cases involving police shootings of civilians after Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed a bill Tuesday banning the secret deliberations.

SB 227, authored by state Sen. Holly Mitchell (D-Los Angeles), makes California the first state to ban the use of grand juries to decide whether law enforcement should face criminal charges in use-of-force cases. The ban, which will go into effect next year, comes after grand juries failed to indict police officers who killed unarmed black men in Ferguson, Missouri, and Staten Island, New York, last year, heightening scrutiny of the process....

So knowing nothing more than what is in the media you are implying the officers were not justified in using deadly force. OK, I can see this is an objective piece of reporting. Hey Mollie, would you like to review how Darren Wilson was justified in shooting that sack of s$%^...oh, probably no. It's not in the picture.
...Mitchell argues that the grand jury process, during which evidence is presented to a panel of civilians in secret, fosters a lack of trust in the system.

"One doesn’t have to be a lawyer to understand why SB227 makes sense," Mitchell said in a statement, according to the San Francisco Chronicle. "The use of the criminal grand jury process, and the refusal to indict as occurred in Ferguson and other communities of color, has fostered an atmosphere of suspicion that threatens to compromise our justice system."

Under the new rules, prosecutors must decide whether police officers should face criminal charges for killing someone in the line of duty...

Just because you don't like the outcome doesn't mean the system is broken. I didn't call the system broken when OJ walked or the Black Panthers were not charged with voter suppression after 2008. But leftists are trying to stop police from proactively doing their jobs and the bad thing is that will affect minorities the worse.

No comments:

Post a Comment