Prosecutor recommend no charges. Prepare for riots.

http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/28/us/tamir-r...index.html

But Christmas was last week... I guess they can stock up for Valentine's Day

No idea if this should have been handled this way or not, but I still firmly believe independent counsel should be tasked with making that determination for police officers, not the prosecutor's office. Prosecutors absolutely are dependent on the cooperation of the police department to do their jobs. Nearly every prosecutor I've had a case against defers to the police officer even when they think the charge isn't that great. Recently I tried a case where the prosecutor absolutely knew he had no case, but the police wanted him to proceed because the alleged victim was going to keep calling if he didn't. We won on a rule 29 Motion, but the case should have never even went forward. Prosecutors build relationships with the officers they try cases with and it's just not practical to believe they can consistently be impartial when it comes to charging criminal defendant police officers.

"Prosecutor recommend no charges. Prepare for riots."


Not yet, Cleveland's getting pounded with bad weather. They will wait 'till springtime. New 2016 TV models, cellphones and gaming systems will be out by then to get them

(12-28-2015 02:54 PM)CardFan1 Wrote:  "Prosecutor recommend no charges. Prepare for riots."


Not yet, Cleveland's getting pounded with bad weather. They will wait 'till springtime. New 2016 TV models, cellphones and gaming systems will be out by then to get them

It'll be 49 tomorrow.

Those Midwest storms are on their way !

Good. This was the right decision.

Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk

(12-28-2015 02:46 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  No idea if this should have been handled this way or not, but I still firmly believe independent counsel should be tasked with making that determination for police officers, not the prosecutor's office. Prosecutors absolutely are dependent on the cooperation of the police department to do their jobs. Nearly every prosecutor I've had a case against defers to the police officer even when they think the charge isn't that great. Recently I tried a case where the prosecutor absolutely knew he had no case, but the police wanted him to proceed because the alleged victim was going to keep calling if he didn't. We won on a rule 29 Motion, but the case should have never even went forward. Prosecutors build relationships with the officers they try cases with and it's just not practical to believe they can consistently be impartial when it comes to charging criminal defendant police officers.

Okay, so how do you find these independent prosecutors/investigators/lawyers? The details are not as easily resolved as you think.

It won't work as a full-time job, you can't pay what it requires to retain someone for the amount of work that is done. It's a position with no real future upside, so it's not going to be attractive to attorneys. If you use defense counsel, then you have the independence and objectivity issues turned around. Plus, yes prosecutors have to work with law enforcement, but so do defense attorneys if they are going to represent their clients effectively. There's a big difference between a policeman who gives you the absolute minimum he or she is required by law to divulge, and one who will actually talk straight with you and tell you what really happened. And believe me, you need the latter to put on a proper defense. So where are you going to find the angles to populate your independent investigative arm?

I find it disturbing that the prosecutor told the grand jury that he thought the case wasn't worth prosecuting and actively and publicly defended the officers. If you think that then maybe you shouldn't be working the case because that's your job.

(12-28-2015 06:13 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I find it disturbing that the prosecutor told the grand jury that he thought the case wasn't worth prosecuting and actively and publicly defended the officers. If you think that then maybe you shouldn't be working the case because that's your job.

Or perhaps that is is professional and unbiased opinion based upon a thorough review of the totality of the evidence. A lot of police officer shootings are taken to a grand jury because in some cases local laws require that. That's one reason why so many are tossed at that level. A case that wouldn't go to a grand jury if it didn't involve a police officer gets taken there because it has to be because it involves a police officer.

(12-28-2015 06:13 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I find it disturbing that the prosecutor told the grand jury that he thought the case wasn't worth prosecuting and actively and publicly defended the officers. If you think that then maybe you shouldn't be working the case because that's your job.

As a former prosecutor, I have to disagree with you. A prosecutor has a special duty among lawyers and that it to ensure that justice and the rule of law is upheld. It is not appropriate to file charges or prosecute because an angry public wants someone to pay. This is where Angela Corey and Marilyn Mosby have both gone wrong. I called the results of both of those trials (to be fair some of those that Mosby is prosecuting may be guilty of some crimes). The Chicago cases may also have enough evidence to warrant charges. But is important for a prosecutor to evaluate each case upon the facts and the law, not emotion or public opinion. There may be civil liability in several of these cases, but a shooting death at the hands of police doesn't always mean a crime was committed even if the shooting was ultimately determined to be wrong in hindsight. I tend to agree that no crime was committed in the Rice case, although it is a horrible and tragic incident.

(12-28-2015 07:08 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 06:13 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I find it disturbing that the prosecutor told the grand jury that he thought the case wasn't worth prosecuting and actively and publicly defended the officers. If you think that then maybe you shouldn't be working the case because that's your job.

As a former prosecutor, I have to disagree with you. A prosecutor has a special duty among lawyers and that it to ensure that justice and the rule of law is upheld. It is not appropriate to file charges or prosecute because an angry public wants someone to pay. This is where Angela Corey and Marilyn Mosby have both gone wrong. I called the results of both of those trials (to be fair some of those that Mosby is prosecuting may be guilty of some crimes). The Chicago cases may also have enough evidence to warrant charges. But is important for a prosecutor to evaluate each case upon the facts and the law, not emotion or public opinion. There may be civil liability in several of these cases, but a shooting death at the hands of police doesn't always mean a crime was committed even if the shooting was ultimately determined to be wrong in hindsight. I tend to agree that no crime was committed in the Rice case, although it is a horrible and tragic incident.

Isn't that what the grand jury is for? A solid honest argument should be presented on both sides. Both parties deserves as much.

(12-29-2015 12:20 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

Right on cue to blame the victim. All of them look alike.

(12-29-2015 01:07 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 12:20 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

Right on cue to blame the victim. All of them look alike.

Victim?

Of what? Who's a victim?

He ran around a school yard or playground with a gun and got what he was pretty clearly asking for.

Cops were rightfully cleared, so who's the victim again?

(12-29-2015 04:13 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 01:07 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 12:20 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

Right on cue to blame the victim. All of them look alike.

Victim?

Of what? Who's a victim?

He ran around a school yard or playground with a gun and got what he was pretty clearly asking for.

Cops were rightfully cleared, so who's the victim again?

At the very least he was the victim of an unfortunate series of errors (as the prosecutor said). A reasonable person can look at this event and think that the cops shouldn't be charged, yet still think it's a tragedy because a 12 year old child is dead. That is a million miles away from the "he got what was coming to him" attitude that you seem to have. It was a 12 year old playing with a pellet gun. No matter how you look at it, it's a tragedy that he's dead.

(12-29-2015 04:13 AM)JMUDunk Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 01:07 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 12:20 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

Right on cue to blame the victim. All of them look alike.

Victim?

Of what? Who's a victim?

He ran around a school yard or playground with a gun and got what he was pretty clearly asking for.

Cops were rightfully cleared, so who's the victim again?

You clearly have a bias. I've played on a playground with friends playing cops and robbers or cowboys and Indians countless times with toy guns without the cops rolling in and shooting one of us.

(12-28-2015 10:18 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 07:08 PM)Jugnaut Wrote:  

(12-28-2015 06:13 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  I find it disturbing that the prosecutor told the grand jury that he thought the case wasn't worth prosecuting and actively and publicly defended the officers. If you think that then maybe you shouldn't be working the case because that's your job.

As a former prosecutor, I have to disagree with you. A prosecutor has a special duty among lawyers and that it to ensure that justice and the rule of law is upheld. It is not appropriate to file charges or prosecute because an angry public wants someone to pay. This is where Angela Corey and Marilyn Mosby have both gone wrong. I called the results of both of those trials (to be fair some of those that Mosby is prosecuting may be guilty of some crimes). The Chicago cases may also have enough evidence to warrant charges. But is important for a prosecutor to evaluate each case upon the facts and the law, not emotion or public opinion. There may be civil liability in several of these cases, but a shooting death at the hands of police doesn't always mean a crime was committed even if the shooting was ultimately determined to be wrong in hindsight. I tend to agree that no crime was committed in the Rice case, although it is a horrible and tragic incident.

Isn't that what the grand jury is for? A solid honest argument should be presented on both sides. Both parties deserves as much.

They did present the evidence. There just isn't much evidence to support a crime was committed. There is a video that shows the shooting. FBI analysis of the video supported the officers as well as the experts hired by the prosecutor's office to review the case. The only thing that supported an indictment at all was that Rice was shot and that the police rolled up very quickly. This prosecutor has prosecuted police in the past, notably Michael Brelo, for shooting a black couple 137 times in their car. Unfortunately, a judge acquited the cop, but the prosecutor stated in that case he was "profoundly disappointed" and that the cops were "out of control." So it's not like he's a racist or something that doesn't prosecute the cops. They recommended no indictment because the evidence didn't support charges.

(12-29-2015 01:07 AM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(12-29-2015 12:20 AM)SuperFlyBCat Wrote:  

Right on cue to blame the victim. All of them look alike.

It's not about blame its about the whole story. If you saw someone reaching for one of those "guns" and had a split second to react what would you do?

(12-29-2015 04:57 AM)HappyAppy Wrote:  At the very least he was the victim of an unfortunate series of errors (as the prosecutor said). A reasonable person can look at this event and think that the cops shouldn't be charged, yet still think it's a tragedy because a 12 year old child is dead.