Menu
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
New profile posts
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
Eric Garner Case
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Help Support CattleToday:
Message
<blockquote data-quote="boondocks" data-source="post: 1198839" data-attributes="member: 20599"><p>Inyati,</p><p>Greybeard's view (that the prosecutor did not offer the lesser offenses for consideration) has been widely reported, and to my knowledge, not contradicted. The grand jury doesn't get to fish for other possible charges. It decides whether there's enough evidence to charge as to the crimes the prosecutor asks them to consider. One of the criticisms/conflicts prosecutors face is this:</p><p></p><p>In cases alleging police brutality (or excessive force), the prosecutor may be loathe to go too far out on a limb. Here, the prosecutor is taking heat (and in my view, and from what little I know, rightly so) for not offering a lesser charge. He basically presented the grand jury with an all-or-nothing choice: charge him hard or let him skate. Prosecutors have to work with their local cops day in and day out. If the local police force wants its revenge for one of "their" guys getting charged, all they have to do is start subtly shading their testimony in the rest of the prosecutor's cases. The prosecutor then comes to a complete stop, loses a bunch of cases. Note: I didn't say the cops LIE, just that maybe their memories get a little less clear, etc. Shoot, maybe they <em>did </em>forget to recalibrate that breathalyzer, as the defense counsel is suggesting...</p><p></p><p>This is why, in credible cases of police misconduct, we need either a federal, or a special prosecutor that isn't from the same town, and who doesn't have to work day in/day out with that police force. That's just common sense, and good governance.</p><p></p><p>As for me, I have no qualms whatsoever about second-guessing their judgment in this case, even as to the charges with which they WERE presented. Juries get it wrong. It happens. (OJ Simpson, anyone?). They are swayed by things they shouldn't be swayed by. (Ever seen a dog when it sees a squirrel? Every thing that came before the squirrel--poof-- leaves its brain).</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="boondocks, post: 1198839, member: 20599"] Inyati, Greybeard's view (that the prosecutor did not offer the lesser offenses for consideration) has been widely reported, and to my knowledge, not contradicted. The grand jury doesn't get to fish for other possible charges. It decides whether there's enough evidence to charge as to the crimes the prosecutor asks them to consider. One of the criticisms/conflicts prosecutors face is this: In cases alleging police brutality (or excessive force), the prosecutor may be loathe to go too far out on a limb. Here, the prosecutor is taking heat (and in my view, and from what little I know, rightly so) for not offering a lesser charge. He basically presented the grand jury with an all-or-nothing choice: charge him hard or let him skate. Prosecutors have to work with their local cops day in and day out. If the local police force wants its revenge for one of "their" guys getting charged, all they have to do is start subtly shading their testimony in the rest of the prosecutor's cases. The prosecutor then comes to a complete stop, loses a bunch of cases. Note: I didn't say the cops LIE, just that maybe their memories get a little less clear, etc. Shoot, maybe they [i]did [/i]forget to recalibrate that breathalyzer, as the defense counsel is suggesting... This is why, in credible cases of police misconduct, we need either a federal, or a special prosecutor that isn't from the same town, and who doesn't have to work day in/day out with that police force. That's just common sense, and good governance. As for me, I have no qualms whatsoever about second-guessing their judgment in this case, even as to the charges with which they WERE presented. Juries get it wrong. It happens. (OJ Simpson, anyone?). They are swayed by things they shouldn't be swayed by. (Ever seen a dog when it sees a squirrel? Every thing that came before the squirrel--poof-- leaves its brain). [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Non-Cattle Specific Topics
Coffee Shop
Eric Garner Case
Top