Without getting into the politics of this issue, I want to look at the legal process behind police violence investigations.  Here are seven things to consider:

1.  Police and law enforcement are the only people in our country who are authorized to use violence as part of their jobs.  If you and I stopped at Super America and found someone robbing it, we have no right to stop and, potentially, kill the robber.  Therefore, police are held to a different standard than the rest of us if they happen to kill someone while doing their jobs.

2.  If there’s a question about a killing, such as occurred in Ferguson, Missouri, the local prosecutor could call a grand jury to look at the case.  The prosecutor would gather evidence from the officer, other police, and any citizen witnesses.  Each of these people would be called to testify before the grand jury to help the grand jury decide, like Ferguson, can cops can be held responsible.

3.  The grand jury proceedings are held in secret.  These aren’t jury trials like we’re familiar with and see on TV.  The statutes of all the states establish the process for grand juries and most, as far as I know, are always held in secret.  Why?  It’s to protect potentially innocent people since, before the grand jury meets, no one has been charged yet.

4.  The most important thing to understand is that the standard of proof for a law enforcement person is different from that used with any other citizen.  Since the officer is allowed to use deadly force, the question becomes: was he justified in using deadly force under the circumstances?  Can the cop be held responsible—only will happen if the grand jury decides he acted beyond a justifiable level.

5.  The system, as a result, is tilted toward law enforcement.  Even in the Rodney King case, where many of us saw the video and were flabbergasted that a jury found all the cops not guilty of excessive brutality, it was probably because the police are held to a different standard.  The same was true in Ferguson, Mo.

6.  Is this a good idea?  Can cops ever be held responsible for going beyond their legal bounds and killing people?  Many think that a cop’s job is so difficult and dangerous, we as a society should give them this wide-ranging power.  Others, feel the police abuse their powers all the time and should be reined-in.

7.  Here’s a good analysis for more ideas thttp://http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/08/nyregion/grand-juries-seldom-charge-police-officers-in-fatal-actions.html?_r=0

What do you think?

The post Ferguson–Can Cops be Held Responsible? appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

1.  Police officers always pushed me to get their cases charged.  When I met with them, they summarized the evidence.  In my mind, I thought of how I was going to prove each element of the crime and if the evidence supported it.  If not, I’d decline the case or ask for more investigation.  Even if the evidence was weak, most police officers pushed me to charge it out.  Makes sense, if they’ve spent the time investigating.

2.  Because of their desire to get their cases charged, some police officers would shade the evidence or exaggerate what they had.  It took me months to learn the “art” of charging the correct crime that really fit the evidence—regardless of what the police officer wanted.

3.  Does this mean that police officers lie?  I never met any that I knew were lying directly to me.  I did assume that some of their reports “stretched” the evidence at times.  Particularly, in controversial area like the right to stop and search citizens, I found lots of stretching of evidence for the police officer’s benefit.

4.  What about the “militarization” of local police officers?  Most cities have gladly taken the federal money and military equipment.  Most of the police officers I worked with had a “we versus them” attitude.  After all the difficult work of catching criminals, they often felt the system, the judges, defense lawyers, and juries all worked against them and for the protection of the guilty criminals.  The police officers I worked with certainly didn’t want to harm anyone unnecessarily, but the fancy equipment and its use was justified by their desire to even the odds that they felt were against them.

5.  I knew many police officers who worked endlessly on serious cases—even on their own time—because they felt a duty to the victims and the community.  These are the unsung heroes that the media rarely tells us about.

6.  Where did the most violence occur with police officers?  Without a doubt, it was the SWAT teams.  They usually broke into homes in search of drugs or to serve warrants for the arrest of suspects.  When they suddenly smashed in doors and broke into people’s homes, all kinds of things went wrong and people were needlessly hurt.  The action was always justified by the need for speed and surprise, but they left a lot of wreckage in their wake.

What experiences have you had with police officers?  Good or bad?

The post A Prosecutor and Police Officers appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.

1.  The level of violence on both sides—the community and the police—has gone up, unfortunately.  We saw that in Ferguson, Missouri with the shooting of the young man and the civil violence that followed.  I first started working in criminal law 30+ years ago.  I remember cops retiring and bragging that during their entire career, they’d never once drawn their gun.  They were proud to have avoided any tragedy as a result of a shooting.  I don’t know why violence has increased.  But cops feel unsafe on the streets and so does the community.  This probably causes the cops to sometimes shoot and “ask questions later.”

2.  Thanks to gifts to local police departments from the federal government, police now have many of the same weapons and armor used by the military in combat.  Perhaps, this equipment would be necessary in the event of a terrorist attack.  But against civilians, do the police really need all the firepower?  Does this give the police the wrong attitude?  Instead of policing neighborhoods cooperatively with citizens, it’s become a potential war zone—which is what happened in Ferguson, Missouri.  The photos I saw looked like combat in Iraq.  I get the feeling that after all the training in the use of these combat weapons, some police are even anxious to use them.  That’s wrong.

3.  The community bears responsibility also.  In my work as a prosecutor with minority communities, I saw tragic things happen.  We all know that minority communities are victimized more than others.  I worked on many cases where the police attempted to investigate serious crime but didn’t get cooperation from these communiites.  Of course, there’s a long-standing suspicion of the police and the system in these communities—for good reason.  But the bottom line is that those people most victimized are not getting help.

4.  The Ferguson, Missouri minority community is unhappy with the racial make-up of the local government and the police force.  The community doesn’t feel fully represented in either institution.  However, even though the minority community is about 2/3 of the population, only 6% of this community votes.  In the history of the United State, many minority groups have been similarly angry about discriminatory treatment.  But many of these groups went to the polls and took power in an effort to correct the problems.  Maybe the people in Ferguson, Missouri should do the same.

What ideas do you have about Ferguson, Missouri and what happened there?

The post Ferguson, Missouri—Some Ideas appeared first on Colin T. Nelson.