On a positive note, from this morning:
At some level it’s “positive” but that counterexample is not much more that a distraction when you consider this from the article: (a tweet by @ cmclymer)
We can talk about exceptions all we want, but it’s like pissing in the ocean; gives you a warm feeling for a few seconds then back to normal.
And for black males, “normal” means something about as horrible as can be imagined.
The article highlights the desperate need for reform of the grand jury process, especially when applied to police officers.
The courts are rigged.
We need a special prosecutor today and a separate prosecutorial body tomorrow. We need criminal cops in jail ASAP.
From the article
The only people who actually think body-cams are a viable solution are the people defending the killings to begin with.
I strongly disagree with this sentiment. While I don’t think it’s a panacea, I do think it’s a necessary step in the right direction.
It seems to me we have another option not put forward in the article. D.A.s are elected. We need to send a message and get rid of any D.A. who can’t get an indictment when there is clear evidence of wrong doing. It’s simply a matter of the D.A. not doing their job properly either by choice or due to incompetence and they need to be held accountable for it.
Changing the law to ensure that outside special prosecutors handle grand juries might be another option but I suspect the end result would be the same systemic corruption from a different angle. Also, for people in states like Texas where there is no such thing as a ballot initiative, having the law changed takes action by a state legislator. In other words, it aint gonna happen.
If a cop kills someone there should be no Grand Jury. Proceed directly to trial.
If there are only 80 extra cases it can’t be a huge load, so make it goddamned happen.
When the cops get so bold as to be virtually untouchable even in the face of damning evidence, you know it’s bad. I’m wondering when we’ll see some sort of vigilantism against cops.
According to them, all the time and that it’s a “war zone” out there.
I’m getting my bingo board ready for police apologists in this thread alone.
“War zone”
“Drugs”
“Second Amendment”
“Do you want them to break into your house?”
“Not all cops are bad” is actually a free space in the middle.
Agreed. Even if the cameras don’t get any additional convictions of killer kops, there is evidence they cut down on overall use-of-force incidents.
Well said 
And if there is even only spoken or written speculation of the chance that some might possibly, sorta, maybe enact vigilantism against cops, the cops will use (and already have used) it as an excuse for their shoot first, second, and six more times before ignoring questions later behavior.
Agreed. Never said or meant to imply that the SC case invalidated the overall trend.
Hey, NYC. Remember that election in 2013 for NYC D.A. where [Cyrus Vance, Jr][1]. won by a landslide? You can let him know it was all a big mistake in 2017, when he runs again.
[1]: http://www.cyvanceforda.com/
edit : additional remarks
In 2011 and 2013 New York lawmakers introduced but failed to pass legislation which would allow recall elections. So, the only way to get Vance out of office is to wait another 3 years. Next time a bill to allow recall elections comes up, you might want to support it.
And meanwhile, Dan Donovan can escape the consequences of his actions?
That’s exactly my point. I want Dan Donovan to run free and wild.
Hey, not all cops are bad! Do you want them to break into your house? Because the Second Amendment has made our drugs into a war zone.
Do I get a plushie now?
I’m not sure if this has been shared on the other threads, but Al Sharpton has some powerful words on this topic:
http://on.aol.com/video/al-sharpton-speaks-after-no-indictment-in-eric-garner-case-518544226
Why’s that? Dan Donovan is the Staten Island District Attorney. Cyrus Vance is the Manhattan district attorney. Vance had nothing to do with this non indictment.
Close, you missed out on the dogleg there in the lower left.
Now, if you’d had “They’re out there protecting you!” that’s in the corner. And you would have only won a Get Out of Jail Free card.
I like the idea in a way, but I don’t think it would help. As noted, the reason the grand juries don’t return indictments is because the prosecutors make it that way. A prosecutor can throw a trial too.
I think the worry is that if cops currently think of themselves as above the law, and this cases like this reinforce the idea that they can get away with anything, then that little voice that says, “You’re being watched, behave” might go away in time. But also, wasn’t there an incident recently where a cop’s body camera just happened to be turned off when a shooting went down?
I’m actually in favour of cameras, I just worry they might not end up being as effective as I would hope.
They sure as hell can, but grand juries are convened in private, getting some newspaper coverage of trials might be of help.
