The Laws and Rules That Protect Police Who Kill
Although 2015 will go down as the year when the United States began grappling with the problem of police violence, it ended with a trio of defeats for reformers.
First, a jury in Baltimore was unable to come to a verdict in the trial of Officer William Porter, one of several officers charged in the death of Freddie Gray. Several days later, a grand jury in Waller County, Texas, decided that there had been no crime committed in the death of Sandra Bland in a jail cell there. Finally, and most gallingly to many observers, on Monday a grand jury in Cuyahoga County decided not to indict two officers in the shooting death of 12-year-old Tamir Rice.
Taken together, these casesand particularly the Baltimore and Cleveland casesdemonstrate yet again the difficulty involved in holding police accountable when civilians are killed. Even as there is greater awareness about the toll that police killings take, police are seldom prosecuted, and when they are, they are seldom convicted. That was the case before Michael Browns death in August 2014, and it remains true today. The reasons for that are various. Prosecutors are reluctant to bring charges against police, because they rely on officers to gather information and serve as witnesses in other cases. Juries tend to be deferential to officers.
There are also legal protections: In Graham v. Connor, the Supreme Court ruled that events must be judged from the perspective of a reasonable officer, rather than with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. Finally, even when the facts seem clear-cut, the law grants police wide latitude. Although many people who watched dash-cam footage of Blands arrest were horrified by Trooper Brian Encinias conduct, police experts who reviewed the footage, including some who criticized Encinias judgment in no uncertain terms, generally felt he had acted within his legal authority. Many departments employ use-of-force matrices, which detail what steps an officer may take during an incident, in some cases giving them the right to use more aggressive action than might be necessary or seem justified to an outside observer.
more
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/tamir-rice-no-indictment-reform/422079/
villager
(26,001 posts)Literal, metaphorical.
niyad
(113,573 posts)malthaussen
(17,216 posts)... and it is a faint one, is that the deliberations at least took a little time and were not automatic dismissals. Which may indicate that there is an increasing number of people tired of this bull. Enough, at least, to keep a jury arguing a little while. A few more voices, and maybe some heads will start rolling. Maybe.
-- Mal
mgmaggiemg
(869 posts)it should kill grand juries