Jump to content
KJP

Police Use of Force

Recommended Posts

Also the angle of the story that is missing. All that I have seen is the "you aren't in our shoes" stories basically defending the actions.

 

Elie Mystal: Good cops, how can you be quiet now?

ELIE MYSTAL

3 Dec 06:23 PM

 

JENNIFER BROWN/FOR NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Will cops speak up?

We are going to hear a lot of talk from people in power — even from liberals in power — about how “most police officers” are hardworking, upstanding, pillars of the community who do not choke unarmed black people to death in broad daylight.

 

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/elie-mystal-good-cops-quiet-article-1.2032266?cid=bitly#bmb=1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also the angle of the story that is missing. All that I have seen is the "you aren't in our shoes" stories basically defending the actions.

 

Elie Mystal: Good cops, how can you be quiet now?

ELIE MYSTAL

3 Dec 06:23 PM

 

JENNIFER BROWN/FOR NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Will cops speak up?

We are going to hear a lot of talk from people in power — even from liberals in power — about how “most police officers” are hardworking, upstanding, pillars of the community who do not choke unarmed black people to death in broad daylight.

 

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/elie-mystal-good-cops-quiet-article-1.2032266?cid=bitly#bmb=1

 

"Even liberals in power"

 

Given this is the NY Daily News so I have about as much faith in them as the NY Post (reading them is entertainment, not education), but the irony of that statement on the heels of a lack of charges brought against the NYPD officer recently is almost funny. NYPD is managed and occupied almost entirely by liberals, and has one of the most oppressive police forces in the country.

 

Looking past the recent few cases, the greater issue of the militarization and overbearing nature of some police forces is something that the far right and left libertarians should seemingly agree on, but the movement (not unlike the Occupy groups) has been hijacked and led by groups of off-putting characters. In Cincinnati (where I would say we don’t have an oppressive force at all since the 2001 riots), the protest are all led by a former boy band member and a ragtag group of perpetual victims, almost all of whom were at the Occupy protests, and few of whom actually know what they’re talking about.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Looking past the recent few cases, the greater issue of the militarization and overbearing nature of some police forces is something that the far right and left libertarians should seemingly agree on, but the movement (not unlike the Occupy groups) has been hijacked and led by groups of off-putting characters.

 

In fairness, the issue has been drawing diverse backers for a while now, from both the Cato crowd and the ACLU and NAACP crowds, and far beyond, and long before the recent episodes, but the depth of feeling has probably pretty contained to narrow slices of the electorate. Maybe that's changing now, we'll see.  Even on Fox News there were several commentators who were dissatisfied with the Garner grand jury outcome.

 

And while I'm sure you're right about the media-anointed leaders being off-putting, I think that's related to another problem: some of the "far right" is partly defined by it's racial paranoia and tribalism, which means obsession over Obama's true religion and birthplace, and with Clive Bundy's cattle, but not a lot of interest in "black issues," and some instant identification with the police side, even among those who might fancy themselves as libertarian-ish in many other contexts.  I'm sure there are similar critiques of the far left on other issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also the angle of the story that is missing. All that I have seen is the "you aren't in our shoes" stories basically defending the actions.

 

Elie Mystal: Good cops, how can you be quiet now?

ELIE MYSTAL

3 Dec 06:23 PM

 

JENNIFER BROWN/FOR NEW YORK DAILY NEWS

Will cops speak up?

We are going to hear a lot of talk from people in power — even from liberals in power — about how “most police officers” are hardworking, upstanding, pillars of the community who do not choke unarmed black people to death in broad daylight.

 

http://m.nydailynews.com/opinion/elie-mystal-good-cops-quiet-article-1.2032266?cid=bitly#bmb=1

 

"Even liberals in power"

 

Given this is the NY Daily News so I have about as much faith in them as the NY Post (reading them is entertainment, not education), but the irony of that statement on the heels of a lack of charges brought against the NYPD officer recently is almost funny. NYPD is managed and occupied almost entirely by liberals, and has one of the most oppressive police forces in the country.

 

Looking past the recent few cases, the greater issue of the militarization and overbearing nature of some police forces is something that the far right and left libertarians should seemingly agree on, but the movement (not unlike the Occupy groups) has been hijacked and led by groups of off-putting characters. In Cincinnati (where I would say we don’t have an oppressive force at all since the 2001 riots), the protest are all led by a former boy band member and a ragtag group of perpetual victims, almost all of whom were at the Occupy protests, and few of whom actually know what they’re talking about.

 

 

The only thing I’d really disagree with here is that the NYPD consists of liberals, and I’m not even sure you were trying to say their rank and file would qualify as such.  The part of the right that doesn’t really talk to anyone left of John Kasich is extremely concerned about the militarization of police forces, I can assure you of that.  Of course, the idea that "liberal" meant a belief in liberty went away long ago.

 

As for irony, we’re talking about people blocking traffic to protest police officers firing at a car that was being driven at them.  I’m not sure if what we have here is irony, gross ignorance of the laws of physics, or some weird combination thereof.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the far right is much more diverse (or perhaps the factions within it are simply more vocal than their counterparts) than the far left.  The far right is home to Biblical literalists, atheist anarcho-capitalists, outright anarchists, and the most extreme nativists, among other things, some of which only partially overlap, and some of which not only have essentially zero overlap but are viciously opposed to one another, particularly the hardline atheists and the hardline Christian fundamentalists.

 

You'll find some of the far right that might basically shrug whenever a black man dies (for any reason, not just overzealous policing), but you'll also find another "f*** the police" faction that basically shrugs (or cheers) whenever a private individual kills a police officer.  These are your anarchists that would basically believe, as a matter of moral first principle, that (a) any law that would have allowed the police to attempt to arrest or even interfere with Eric Garner selling cigarettes is null and void as a matter of natural law, (b) it is the responsibility of the police to recognize that and refuse to enforce any law that would interfere with the choices of individuals who are not being immediately and physically violent to the persons or property of others, and © to the extent that the police failed to accurately determine (as determined by the f***-the-police hard right) that any law interfering with Eric Garner's loosie sales was unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable and attempted to interfere with him in any way, he was fully within his right to use deadly force against the police officers and any police officers that survived his righteously lethal defense of his freedom should be legally punished for having attempted false imprisonment.  As insane as it sounds, I know a troubling number of the far right who sincerely believe that and have developed a maniacally durable mythos around it (wrapped in the flag, the Constitution, and a lot of Founding Father quotes that I think the actual Founders would be horrified to hear used in defense of such beliefs).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bosco rides so hard for the cops that it'd be impossible for him to concede an abuse of power.

 

Only when the right..... ummmmmm...... 'circumstances' are presented.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in Cincinnati a few years back. A cop drove through the grass in a public park. He ran over a cover on the ground but had people under it. One died. The cop was never charged.

 

Frustration is building on both sides. Cops and criminals. Sadly innocents has to pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recall that.  Homeless people who were sleeping in the grass, right?  That was a complicated case.  I'm sure the City/cop were civilly liable for that death.  Not so sure it was a 'criminal' act.  Just because someone dies of unnatural causes 'at the hands of another' does not mean a crime has been committed.  That is especially true when talking about police.

 

Of course, the idea that "liberal" meant a belief in liberty went away long ago.

 

Sort of like the idea that 'fiscal conservatism' was somehow connected to conservatives went away long ago, right?

 

The truth is that the left and the right have very different ideas of what constitutes true liberty.  The right focuses, perhaps to a fault, completely on the idea of 'individual liberty.'  The left focuses more, perhaps to a fault, on the concept of 'liberty for all.'  The right's focus leads its members to concentrate on what will bring them liberty individually, and given the overwhelmingly general homogeneous nature of that group (older, white, Christian), there isn't much thought about deprivations of liberty to others which don't affect them...... and there is even a lot of cheerleading and pining for deprivations of liberty to others (racial profiling, for example).  The left's focus leads its members to try to strike the right balance so that everyone has an equal amount of (or at least the opportunity for) liberty, even if it leads to some deprivations which some would call largely unnecessary or even terribly unjustified to them individually.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You'll find some of the far right that might basically shrug whenever a black man dies (for any reason, not just overzealous policing), but you'll also find another "f*** the police" faction that basically shrugs (or cheers) whenever a private individual kills a police officer.  These are your anarchists that would basically believe, as a matter of moral first principle, that (a) any law that would have allowed the police to attempt to arrest or even interfere with Eric Garner selling cigarettes is null and void as a matter of natural law, (b) it is the responsibility of the police to recognize that and refuse to enforce any law that would interfere with the choices of individuals who are not being immediately and physically violent to the persons or property of others, and © to the extent that the police failed to accurately determine (as determined by the f***-the-police hard right) that any law interfering with Eric Garner's loosie sales was unconstitutional or otherwise unenforceable and attempted to interfere with him in any way, he was fully within his right to use deadly force against the police officers and any police officers that survived his righteously lethal defense of his freedom should be legally punished for having attempted false imprisonment.  As insane as it sounds, I know a troubling number of the far right who sincerely believe that and have developed a maniacally durable mythos around it (wrapped in the flag, the Constitution, and a lot of Founding Father quotes that I think the actual Founders would be horrified to hear used in defense of such beliefs).

 

To be fair, I don't believe there's any way we can know if Garner was breaking any law whatsoever in this instance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I didn't realize someone had to die on the scene for the person responsible to be held accountable. I guess all of those gunshot victims who later died in the hospital from their injuries died a natural death and no one should be held accountable?

 

When did I say that?  I was responding to the comment by SurfOhio that they should have applied CPR instead of letting him die on the sidewalk.  Well, he didn't.  So, medically, he wasn't choked to death.  If you really can't breath, you can't SAY you can't breath.  You must be breathing to speak.  How could it be proven that the cop didn't let up enough for him to breath?  Anyone actually read the autopsy report.  I haven't seen it.  As I said in the Mike Brown justified shooting, wait until all the data comes out.  I guess I was correct there too.  Anyone apply common sense here at all?

 

Bosco rides so hard for the cops that it'd be impossible for him to concede an abuse of power.

 

Only when the right..... ummmmmm...... 'circumstances' are presented.

 

WOW, just wow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When did I say that?  I was responding to the comment by SurfOhio that they should have applied CPR instead of letting him die on the sidewalk.  Well, he didn't.  So, medically, he wasn't choked to death.  If you really can't breath, you can't SAY you can't breath.  You must be breathing to speak.  How could it be proven that the cop didn't let up enough for him to breath?  Anyone actually read the autopsy report.  I haven't seen it.  As I said in the Mike Brown justified shooting, wait until all the data comes out.  I guess I was correct there too.  Anyone apply common sense here at all?

 

This is flawed logic. Was he supposed to say "I'm having difficulty breathing"? He didn't mean that no air was getting into his lungs. He meant that not enough air was getting in. You know, if you lose the ability to breathe in enough air, you can still breathe and say things, but it quickly limits your ability to function until you don't get enough oxygen and you die.

 

I'm sick of this argument about not being able to say he can't breathe. If you actually watch the video and listen to him, he speaks very clear and concise until the officers put him in a choke hold. At that point, he speaks very slowly and softly and his speech gets harder to understand. 

 

I agree with you regarding Mike Brown: in my opinion, there was not enough information to convict Darren Wilson. Despite that, I think it's irresponsible for a grand jury to fail to indict either of the officers and bring them to court. From the beginning I was saying that everyone was coming to conclusions too quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had 30 minutes to cross examine Wilson, the GJ would've indicted for manslaughter in the least. That is the issue I had with the proceedings. Nobody challenged him or the one witness who seemed to slightly corroborate his story. The witnesses who were unfavorable to him were challenged to the extreme by both the police investigators and the prosecutor

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really can't breath, you can't SAY you can't breath.  You must be breathing to speak.

 

Sorry that's just not true. Ever swim in a pool? You can actually talk under water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really can't breath, you can't SAY you can't breath.  You must be breathing to speak.

 

Sorry that's just not true. Ever swim in a pool? You can actually talk under water.

 

The media is really racing ahead with the "CHOKEHOLD" terminology.  Looked more like a headlock rather than a chokehold to me.  Regardless, the same technique could be used to arrest 1,000 people without any sort of injury.

 

The autopsy further noted that Garner died thanks to acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity, and heart disease, but that's really not being reported in the media. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really can't breath, you can't SAY you can't breath.  You must be breathing to speak.

 

Sorry that's just not true. Ever swim in a pool? You can actually talk under water.

 

Thanks for bringing common sense back into the discussion!  I think you proved my point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really can't breath, you can't SAY you can't breath.  You must be breathing to speak.

 

Sorry that's just not true. Ever swim in a pool? You can actually talk under water.

 

The media is really racing ahead with the "CHOKEHOLD" terminology.  Looked more like a headlock rather than a chokehold to me.  Regardless, the same technique could be used to arrest 1,000 people without any sort of injury.

 

The autopsy further noted that Garner died thanks to acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity, and heart disease, but that's really not being reported in the media. 

 

Agreed on all.  I don't feel in this instance the officer had any INTENT to cause this kind of harm.  If this was a young, healthy man this would have ended differently (as it would have it he had just put the cuffs on and not resisted). 

 

So if the tables are turned, and a police officer dies while trying to subdue a person resisting arrest due to health problems, does that make the suspect a cop killer? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

So if the tables are turned, and a police officer dies while trying to subdue a person resisting arrest due to health problems, does that make the suspect a cop killer?

 

Some here ride so hard AGAINST the cops that it'd be impossible for them to think this was a bad thing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really can't breath, you can't SAY you can't breath.  You must be breathing to speak.

 

Sorry that's just not true. Ever swim in a pool? You can actually talk under water.

 

The media is really racing ahead with the "CHOKEHOLD" terminology.  Looked more like a headlock rather than a chokehold to me.  Regardless, the same technique could be used to arrest 1,000 people without any sort of injury.

 

The autopsy further noted that Garner died thanks to acute and chronic bronchial asthma, obesity, and heart disease, but that's really not being reported in the media. 

 

Agreed on all.  I don't feel in this instance the officer had any INTENT to cause this kind of harm.  If this was a young, healthy man this would have ended differently (as it would have it he had just put the cuffs on and not resisted). 

 

So if the tables are turned, and a police officer dies while trying to subdue a person resisting arrest due to health problems, does that make the suspect a cop killer? 

 

I'm pretty sure I've seen that happen before.  But I really hate these "turn the tables" arguments.  There is no equivalence between a police officer making an arrest, and anyone else trying to "subdue" someone.  One is a necessary function of law enforcement, the other is an assault, unless self defense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You saying it doesn't sound as good as when I say it.

 

It's really not productive to the discussion when anyone says it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The media is really racing ahead with the "CHOKEHOLD" terminology.  Looked more like a headlock rather than a chokehold to me.  Regardless, the same technique could be used to arrest 1,000 people without any sort of injury.

 

Years of wrestling and ju jistsu here. This doesn't look like a headlock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really can't breath, you can't SAY you can't breath.  You must be breathing to speak.

 

Sorry that's just not true. Ever swim in a pool? You can actually talk under water.

 

Thanks for bringing common sense back into the discussion!  I think you proved my point.

 

You think?

 

Could have fooled me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I have.  And if true, I wonder what consequences that will bring.  Her testimony no doubt influenced the grand jury's decision to not indict Wilson.  If perjury charges could be brought against her (and she is found guilty)- what does that mean for the grand jury?  Would another be called together to hear evidence again? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

American police shot & killed >458 people in 2013. In England & Wales the police shot & killed no one, zero. The Economist.


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just as a point of reference for the statement that "American police shot & killed >458 people in 2013" while in "England & Wales the police shot & killed no one"

* The U.S. has five times the population of England/Wales

* 110 officers have died in the line of duty in the U.S. so far this year

* Police shot and killed ~0.00015% of the population in 2013

  By comparison 39,000 people died by suicide in the United States in 2011 ~0.013% (85 times more than police killings)

  Homicide claimed another 17,000 people in 2011 ~0.0057% (~38 times more than police killings)

 

I'm not saying there aren't reforms needed.  The proliferation of guns (especially illegal ones) in the United States makes it a much more dangerous than in other countries.  There are also reforms needed in many police departments to decrease ethnic biases.  However, there also needs to be some acknowledgement that being involved in illegal activity as well as resisting arrest are not acceptable and can result in injury or even death.


"Someone is sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago." - Warren Buffett 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Here are more numbers to clarify the above mentioned 110 officers dying in the line of duty.  Keep in mind that most of those deaths are not related to a suspect shooting or stabbing them.  There is no doubt in my mind that the number of people killed by police can be reduced through some pretty simple reforms and drastically reduced through some not so simple reforms.

 

http://www.nleomf.org/facts/officer-fatalities-data/causes.html

 

Additionally, I have no idea what the suicide and homicide statistics have to do with police shootings.  The question remains, why do police in the United States kill so many more people every year than most other countries?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^I don't think regular patrolmen in England and Wales carry guns.

 

^I have.  And if true, I wonder what consequences that will bring.  Her testimony no doubt influenced the grand jury's decision to not indict Wilson.  If perjury charges could be brought against her (and she is found guilty)- what does that mean for the grand jury?  Would another be called together to hear evidence again? 

 

Double jeopardy does not apply to Grand Jury proceedings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US has 5 times the population of England and Wales? So? 5 x 0 = 0. How can a proportional argument be made when the baseline is zero??

 

More...

 

Interactive map: US police have killed at least 3,100 people since 2000: http://t.co/6lhNlvUO2R.


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The US has 5 times the population of England and Wales? So? 5 x 0 = 0. How can a proportional argument be made when the baseline is zero??

 

More...

 

Interactive map: US police have killed at least 3,100 people since 2000: http://t.co/6lhNlvUO2R.

How many people in England have been killed by civilians with guns, vs the same in the U.S.?  Do police in England have to protect the public against civilians with guns?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^Neither do the victims of our most publicized police shootings.

What about the unpublicized shootings of innocent victims by professional criminals that the Police are suppose to protect society against?

 

And a gun that looks like a gun being waved around like a gun is a gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... and another one bites the dust.

 

Meet the Pro-Slavery Fairview Park Auxiliary Cop

Posted By Doug Brown on Fri, Dec 19, 2014 at 11:57 AM

 

Aaron McNamara is a young auxiliary officer at the Fairview Park police department [update: "was" an auxiliary officer with Fairview police; he resigned less than an hour after this story was posted], climbing up the law enforcement ladder as he finishes his college degree this semester with dreams of becoming a federal agent, he says. On social media, he says he's gone through training with the Ohio State Highway Patrol, and this June he tweeted he was "Officially sworn in with the Fairview Park Police Department. Wow, this feels good. #DreamChasing."

 

He also has many thoughts about African Americans.

 

Over the past two years, McNamara has been commenting on YouTube videos — mostly about black people and law enforcement — regularly dropping racial and gay slurs, unambiguously expressing hatred towards minorities and anyone who dare not comply with what police say. He calls black people in videos "jungle monkeys," "spooks," and worse. He commented on a video of a young black child swearing, saying "This is how cop killers are raised my friends." He's also a fan of when police officers shoot and rough up non-compliant civilians. The comments appeared on his Youtube

 

...

 

http://www.clevescene.com/scene-and-heard/archives/2014/12/19/meet-the-pro-slavery-fairview-park-auxiliary-cop

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^This is absolutely disgusting and, while most cops are probably decent, the fact that guys like this, and Loehmann, even exist on local police forces says something really foul about this area, racially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NYPD AND citizens lining up to honor fallen cops.. More than half are POC... How confused RWNJs must be by this pic. http://t.co/QOuvbwxapg


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NYPD AND citizens lining up to honor fallen cops.. More than half are POC... How confused RWNJs must be by this pic. http://t.co/QOuvbwxapg

 

I'm confused....are the police the RWNJ? Or are RWNJ the police-can-do-no-wrong defenders? Or are they the maniacs that shoot police???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

NYPD AND citizens lining up to honor fallen cops.. More than half are POC... How confused RWNJs must be by this pic. http://t.co/QOuvbwxapg

 

I'm confused....are the police the RWNJ? Or are RWNJ the police-can-do-no-wrong defenders? Or are they the maniacs that shoot police???

 

It means "right wing nut job" and the fact is most of the people who the far left calls that would find that picture unsurprising and encouraging.

 

It's a lot like the Muslims who mourned 9/11.  Leaving aside basic human decency for a moment, these people are far more victimized by the thugs and extremists than any of us white folks will ever be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tweet from @ozchrisrock

Just found a new app that that tells you which one of your friends are racist. It's called Facebook. #FergusonDecision


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jon Stewart with lots of Cleveland in this awesome rip job:

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=OKjlCDh_99M


"Nearly every problem that we have in the USA -- unaffordable health care, prison overpopulation, hyper militarization, climate change, racism, gun violence, poverty, poor education, urban sprawl and others -- cannot be positively addressed because bribery and conflicts of interest are legal under campaign finance laws which protect the uber-wealthy and the narrow self-interests who grossly benefit from our afflictions."

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This just keeps getting more and more messy.  No doubt at this point that McCulloch should have handed the case over to a special prosecutor....

 

Grand juror in Missouri police shooting case sues prosecutor

 

(Reuters) - A member of the grand jury that declined to indict the white Missouri police officer who fatally shot an unarmed black 18-year-old sued the prosecutor in the case on Monday, criticizing the way evidence was presented to grand jurors and seeking court permission to speak publicly about the way the case was handled.

 

* * * * *

 

The lawsuit claims that evidence was presented to the grand jury in a manner markedly different than in previous cases heard by the same grand jury, with the "insinuation" that Brown was the "wrongdoer" rather than Wilson.

 

It also claims the prosecutor's office presented applicable laws to grand jurors "in a muddled and untimely manner" unlike presentations in other cases.

 

The grand juror also contends that McCulloch's public statements about the decision not to indict were not "entirely accurate," including the "implication that all grand jurors believed that there was no support for any charges," the lawsuit stated.

 

http://news.yahoo.com/grand-juror-missouri-police-shooting-case-sues-prosecutor-170237196.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

^without any expertise in this area, three things immediately popped into my head  standing, justisability (I know I did not even come close to spelling that right but it relates to standing) and immunity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...