It took me many years of reading the news to figure out why grand juries exist in the American legal system. The prosecutor decides whether to prosecute. When that decision is controversial and he's afraid of criticism, he sends it to a grand jury. Then he persuades them to decide what he would have decided, by showing/omitting evidence and lines of argument. They always go his way since he controls the process, and he gets cover.
This article is about a prosecutor creating a grand jury to give him cover, then persuading them to vote his way. http://www.sportstwo.com/posts/3788596/
What the hell? This is an illogical exclusion. Either the Grand jury system is valid or it is not. It makes no sense to exclude one possible event but retain the system. If you are going to prosecute a police officer (or anyone else) for a crime, you must define the crime first before you put the dude on trial. If you can not do this because of a plethora of possible extenuating circumstances, that is what you have a Grand jury consider. It is either a valid process, due process, or it is not. Governor Brown is talking out his ass again.
"A prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich." A prosecutor can also get a grand jury not to indict a police officer. There is nothing wrong with more transparency.
As long as California replaces grand juries with some sort of process that is objective, independent and open I don't see the problem with removing a pretty obvious conflict of interest.
Ridiculous but popular with these guys, heh. "A prosecutor can also get a grand jury not to indict a police officer" Of course he can! As it should be when he doesn't think he can get a conviction or when he should not even try. Part of the process and rightly so. It should have been done with the six cops that are on trial in Baltimore. That is a ridiculous miscarriage of justice while the crowd call for their heads. I'll say it again, if you want the police to operate with a different set of rules than they currently do, you need to elect a mayor and hire a police chief that will carry out the new rules. Perhaps different laws are needed also. Expecting prosecutors and juries to intuit the new group think is irrational especially if you do away with the Grand Jury system.
Could you imagine if we were space mobile? We can't even accept everybody in our own race! Imagine what it would be like living along side lizard people. Black and White cops would be shooting lizard children like it was a video game.
In almost all cities, voters have no power to replace a police chief. With the system designed to be a police state, the elected Mayor has no power over the Police Chief. For example, the Chicago Mayor is currently in a power struggle with the Police Chief, with both releasing bad press about the other. People like Denny believe the Chicago media leaks against the Mayor. The same thing happened in Los Angeles a couple of years ago. You might say, the elected City Council can battle the police chief by cutting the pursestrings. Answer #1: This is as probable as Congress stopping a war. (That hasn't happened successfully since Congress accelerated the end of the Vietnam War. Congress voted 3 times throughout the early 1980s to stop funding Reagan's war in Central America, it continued, so they held hearings to discover the mysterious funding source. The CIA steered the inquiry focus to Oliver North's funding from sales to Iran, and the hearings are still mistakenly known as the Iran-Contra hearings. Media coverage of that snowed out the fact that the money had come illegally from the CIA under Reagan's direction, against Congress' repeated votes.) Answer #2: While American schools need voters to approve their spending every few years with new bonds, local police need no direct voter approval. Here in Bellingham when the police claimed a shortfall a couple of years ago, the Council simply voted for a sales tax increase. There was no public debate or vote. When the media considers something uncontroversial, it's as hard for voters to reverse as a war.
I believe the leaks by both sides equally. The mayor is incompetent and out of touch. The police are brutal and above the law until caught. Emmanuel hired police chief Garry McCarthy when he first became mayor, and fired him on Dec. 1. The mayor can be recalled and a new one elected. He or she would be able to replace the police chief. Prattle on. http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-M...11/Meet-Garry-McCarthy-Chicago-s-New-Top-Cop/ http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...rintendent-garry-mccarthy-20151201-story.html http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/12/09/3730423/rahm-emanuel-recall-legislation-introduced/
