San Jose police union stalls officer cameras, cites ‘privacy’

San Jose police union stalls officer cameras, cites ‘privacy’

CA_-_San_Jose_PoliceBasic concepts of police professionalism were more or less born in Northern California, courtesy of a reform-minded police chief, as a history of law enforcement notes:

August Vollmer, police chief in Berkeley, California, from 1905 to 1932, advocated the hiring of college graduates and offered the first collegiate course in police science at the University of California. Vollmer is also famous for the development of the principles of modern police administration. Advocates of the concepts of administrative efficiency sought to “centralize the authority within police departments” and to “rationalize the procedures of command control.”

But now, the hottest police reform proposal in years — mandating that patrol officers wear cameras in response to concerns about police brutality — is being stalled in Northern California’s largest city. The Mercury-News has details:

SAN JOSE — Amid a national push for police officers to wear body cameras, San Jose’s efforts to equip its officers have stalled for years, most recently waiting for the city and its police union to agree on a policy covering the use of cameras. …

As of Friday, department and union officials say there is no clear timetable for when the first San Jose officers will be equipped with the tiny cameras. In 2013, the Santa Clara County Police Chiefs Association agreed on a use policy for body-worn cameras. But union leaders say the array of privacy issues posed by the devices means their deployment has to pair with the creation of a more comprehensive policy that protects officers’ rights by limiting who can access the footage. …

The next union-city meeting on the issue is set for Jan. 5. Even if an agreement was reached then and there, it could still be years before the cameras hit the streets. …

“There’s this race to get body cams on police as soon as possible, but it’s a very complex issue,” said Officer James Gonzales, incoming vice president of the San Jose Police Officers’ Association. “We realize these are law-enforcement tools of the future. Our goal is to make sure our process is thoughtful.”

‘Indict-o-cams’? Or police protection?

The idea that patrol officers’ conduct while on the job is protected by privacy rights is kind of a head-scratcher when it comes to their interactions with the public in general, not just with criminal suspects. The ACLU has made the obvious point that giving police broad discretion as to when to have their cameras on means that bad cops will just turn them off before doing bad things. This New York Daily News article cites worries about officers having to film themselves while using bathrooms. That seems like a pretty weak argument.

But the NYDN piece also makes a good point about why police officers are likely to eventually come around. The cameras don’t just capture their bad behavior. Cameras can protect them if they behave properly but witness testimony and physical evidence suggest otherwise:

Equipping police with cameras isn’t a new concept. For decades police have used cameras mounted to the dashboards of their patrol cars — initially referred to with suspicion by officers as “indict-o-cams” until they discovered the footage exonerated them in most cases.

55 comments

Write a comment
  1. Jack
    Jack 7 December, 2014, 08:50

    I think what you have to worry about is not the patrol officer that puts his/her life on the line everyday but police management that forces patrol officers to enforce laws that make no sense or to violate the Constitution. The word is INSUBORDINATION and if any officer refuses an order from a supervisor even if the order violates the Constitutional rights of a person he/she will be investigated for INSUBORDINATION and likely fired even though he/she is obeying their oath to uphold the Constitution. You have many Police Unions and Police Attorneys advise police officers to obey the unlawful order then file a complaint. Of course, this will put that police officer under the spotlight by police management and he/she will be harassed for standing up for their right and the rights of citizens.

    We need to rewrite the laws for INSUBORDINATION to protect officers from Nazi style management that disregard the Constitutional Rights of citizens and force officers to violate those rights under the threat of INSUBORDINATION.

    There are police commanders in this state that believe the end justifies the means even if means violating the Constitutional Rights of citizens to get the suspect or violate the suspect’s rights.

    REWRITE THE LAWS OF INSUBORDINATION TO PROTECT PEACE OFFICERS FROM LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS. THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO MINDSETS.

    Reply this comment
  2. Donkey
    Donkey 7 December, 2014, 09:45

    By “bad behavior” what the writer means is the criminality they engage in on a regular routine. Camera’s will do little to change the behavior of sociopaths with a badge. What is needed is accountability for perverse crimes against citizens, and that needs to be being fired and charged for their crimes, which is not the norm today. 🙂

    Reply this comment
  3. TheDA
    TheDA 7 December, 2014, 11:42

    Jack, how much fun is it to write about something that you know absolutely nothing about? Where in God’s name do you get your information? Rewrite the laws for insubordination? Just what laws are you referring to? Should we be checking the Penal Code or Civil Code or Code of Civil Procedure? Oh wait, there aren’t any such laws. Duh! And who are all those Nazi-style police managers you seem to be concerned about? Do any of them have a name? No, of course not. You seem to be living in the Land of the Whats-It where you pull all your less than amazing thoughts out of thin air. Time for you to get a clue.

    Reply this comment
  4. Timberrrrrr......
    Timberrrrrr...... 7 December, 2014, 13:32

    The cops will always find a way to circumvent transparency. Why? Because they are the King’s men and the King (POTUS, governors, legislators) will protect them. Eric Garner in NYC is just one example of thousands. Look what they did to Kelly Thomas. If a 2nd grader watched the video and listened to the recordings he would instinctively know that something very very wrong happened. Listen to the hyperbole from the King’s men after the fact. They will ALWAYS blame the victim. Just like they blamed Eric. Just like they blamed Kelly. It is truly stinking thinking. The problem is that the larger system protects them with laws like the Polic Officer Bill of Rights (POBOR). The larger system encourages concealment and perpetuates non-accountability. And when the civil courts determine huge injustices have occurred at the hands of cops – who gets punished? The taxpayers to the tune of many millions of dollars. Virtually nothing happens to the perpetrators themselves. Not only that. Once a settlement happens all the evidence (dashcams, recorders, etc…) gets buried from the taxpayers so we are forbidden from learning the truth about the incident for which we were forced to pay dearly. Ask yourself….is this really freedom??? Please, be honest.

    Reply this comment
  5. NorCalLibertarian
    NorCalLibertarian 7 December, 2014, 13:37

    Cameras are needed to prove the officers’ innocence and professionalism to elected officials like Kevin Johnson and Bill DeBlabio and their bosses, Al Sharpton, Eric Holder and this president. IF there’s misconduct, then that will be proved as well. However these ‘rush-to-judgment’ statements coming from mayors and others should be held in check until ALL THE FACTS ARE OUT!!!

    Reply this comment
  6. Timberrrrrr......
    Timberrrrrr...... 7 December, 2014, 15:00

    “However these ‘rush-to-judgment’ statements coming from mayors and others should be held in check until ALL THE FACTS ARE OUT!!!”

    The facts with regard to what? Eric Garner? Those facts are out. It was all caught on video and the autopsy report from the medical examiner is complete. Eric was choked to death by a cop with a technique that was banned by the department by which he is employed. What else do you really need to know? Michael Brown was a wobbler. No doubt about it. Lots of muddy water there. Eric Garner? Nah. The politicians were mad that he was taking pennies of their tax dollars away on cigarette sales so they told the cops to ignore the heroin dealers and go after the cigarette sellers! And this is after they jack up the price on a pack of cigarettes to $15 due to all the add-on taxes. The cops are worried that without the cigarette tax dollars to fund their pensions they won’t collect their multi-million dollar entitlements at age 55. And they will literally kill people over it!!! It’s a vicious cycle perpetuated by the kleptomaniacs!!!

    Reply this comment
  7. SkippingDog
    SkippingDog 7 December, 2014, 22:10

    Nice to see all you cop-haters out and about today.

    Reply this comment
    • Timberrrrrr......
      Timberrrrrr...... 7 December, 2014, 22:50

      I’m no cop hater. I’m just a citizen lover. IMO citizens trump cops. Without citizens cops wouldn’t collect those medical doctor salaries and pensions. We have to put our priorities somewhere. Don’t bite the hand that feeds ya! 🙂

      Reply this comment
      • SkippingDog
        SkippingDog 8 December, 2014, 11:23

        Naw, you’re much more a market-anarchist – like Donkey. If you folks spent less time over at Lew Rockwell and at your John Birch Society cell meetings, you’d feel much more patriotic.

        Reply this comment
        • Timberrrrrr......
          Timberrrrrr...... 8 December, 2014, 13:16

          America is only a shadow of what it used to be. Anybody with 2 brain cells that are firing should easily see that. The lies, corruption, manipulation, destruction of the middle class, inequality under the law, mandates from dictators, police state, Wall Street fascists, merger of corporate and state powers….all speak for themselves. I’m no anarchist. Anarchists promote the violent overthrow of political systems to replace them with other systems that are just as bad, if not worse. I am the opposite of an anarchist as night is from day. I simply want my old America restored. The one I was born into and learned to love. The one that represented a beacon of justice and hope to the rest of the world. It’s the leeches and the parasites who want the status quo in America. The ones who don’t give a damn about the next generations. The selfish ones who profited from avarice and gaming the system. The ‘me’ generation. 😉

          Reply this comment
        • Timberrrrrr......
          Timberrrrrr...... 8 December, 2014, 14:25

          I can’t remember the last time I went to the Lew Rockwell website and I have never attended a John Birch Society meeting in my entire life. So you are mischaracterizing me. Real patriots scrap for freedom. What we’ve seen in America for the past 6-10 years in no way represents freedom. The freedom wall has fallen apart brick by brick. I suspect I am 10 times the patriot you are if we broke down what ‘freedom’ really means. But keep blowing smoke out your porthole. The more you type the more you tell us what you really represent! 🙂

          Reply this comment
          • SkippingDog
            SkippingDog 8 December, 2014, 21:24

            You can always tell by the number of keystrokes and the amount of spittle on the screen when you’ve hit a home run. Two venomous rants in a row?

          • Donkey
            Donkey 8 December, 2014, 21:36

            How many citizens have been killed today Skdog? Parker and Randle are on the prowl for teenage girls, defend the two cowards that gunned down Ashley MacDonald for me Skdog, it just might raise my blood pressure, LOL!!! 🙂

        • Donkey
          Donkey 8 December, 2014, 21:29

          Timberrrr, Skdog is an old retired LE feeder who claims to have been a chief. He likes to label all that question the loyalty of any non-LE citizen that makes an observation that LE is behaving badly. In his RAGWUS mind we are the enemy because we view his dystopian world of LE for the corrupt oligarchy it has become.

          Crawl back to your gated community Skdog, I have told you for years that the people have had it with the Daryl Gates militarized policing tactics being used on citizens and now that most citizens have instant footage in real time on their person your LE RAGWUS is being exposed for the sociopathic cabal it has evolved. 🙂

          Reply this comment
          • Timberrrrrr......
            Timberrrrrr...... 8 December, 2014, 21:56

            Donkey, the only ones who would defend this corrupted system are the insiders who got rich off it. Even common thieves rationalize their behavior in order to justify it. Unsavory humans still need to find a way to feel good about themselves. Heck, common prostitutes justify their profession (ie. “What’s the difference between a man taking me to dinner and buying me a steak dinner for my body or just paying me the cash up front and getting the same outcome?”) Cops are no different. Don’t you think SK calls himself a ‘dog’ for a particular reason? 😀

          • Timberrrrrr......
            Timberrrrrr...... 8 December, 2014, 23:24

            I just read tonight that out of 179 NYPD fatal officer involved shootings in the last 15 years that only one cop was convicted of a wrongful death. Statistically that’s practically impossible. Oh, and 86% of those fatally shot were black or hispanic. Cops are a protected species. For they are the King’s men with the magic blue costumes. Can do no wrong. Immune to the law. Teflonized.

          • Donkey
            Donkey 9 December, 2014, 06:34

            They are the Praetorians of our day Timberrrr, just like in Roman times they are treated better than the people that pay their way. When a person with the ability to use logic and reason observes the behavior of those in LE it becomes clear their actions are in complete violation of the Constitution. 🙂

          • SkippingDog
            SkippingDog 9 December, 2014, 10:03

            Nice to see you two playing so well together in your little frot-fest. I guess when you get your “news” from places like “Cop Block,” the whole real world looks very threatening to you.

            MacDonald was shot after stabbing her own mother with a knife and then attempting to stab the officers who found her in the park. She certainly was a tragic human being, being exposed to drugs by her mother and having her own meth habit, but she caused her own death. Too bad she used the police to facilitate it that morning.

            The OC DA’s office and even the venerable libertarian OC Register concluded that MacDonald’s death was a tragedy for everyone involved, but it was a legal and justifiable use of force by the officers. Regardless of your own feelings, that’s the basic truth.

          • Timberrrrrr......
            Timberrrrrr...... 9 December, 2014, 12:04

            It was only legal and justifiable to the ringmasters. The ones who make the rules. The Court of Public Opinion (the taxpayers and general public) said quite the opposite. Go read all the public comments if you doubt what I say. The ringmasters use the phrase “legal and justifiable” anytime they wish to protect those of their own tribe, regardless of the FACTS. The Court of Public Opinion knows this. The Court of Public Opinion knows that the system is rigged to protect the insiders – whether they work in government or on Wall Street. The examples are so numberous it would take me a full week to name all of them. Just because you tell me that it’s night at 12 o’clock in the afternoon doesn’t make it so!!! 🙂

          • Donkey
            Donkey 9 December, 2014, 15:47

            Skdog, the biggest lie you have ever told is that Ashley MacDonald “stabbed” her Mother. The two cops, Parker and Randle, 28 & 26 years old, trained, wearing their “Batman belts”, used five different scenarios to justify their actions, finally asserting the 21 foot rule that has been fabricated by LE to legalize an action not condoned by the Bill of Rights. A ten year old with a hand full of sand could have brought the MacDonald episode to a simple ending, instead the state Praetorians cut her little body in half. Only a coward sociopath would defend what happened to that beautiful girl. 🙂

          • SkippingDog
            SkippingDog 9 December, 2014, 18:15

            The “court of public opinion” does not operate subject to either facts or the law. It is merely the expression of momentary emotion, so it doesn’t really matter what the “court of public opinion” thinks. If there is sufficient public opinion to change our existing laws, our elected representatives are charged with that duty.

            All you need to do to verify MacDonald’s stabbing of her mother is to read either the DA review of the event or the OC Register summation, Donk. Since you’re not one to ever let facts alter your opinion, I’m sure neither of those sources will satisfy you. That also means you’re incapable of having a rational position on MacDonald or any similar incidents.

          • Donkey
            Donkey 9 December, 2014, 19:09

            Skdog, the investigation into Ashley MacDonalds murder was a sham at best. OC Weekly interviewed four people that the police never used in their reports, but the truth can be seen from the five different stories that that changed every time a lie was pointed out. One example was that a third cop was going to his bat-mobile to get a pepper ball gun even though it is required that all HBPD officers carry pepper spray at all times. The whole investigation was a dog and pony show from Chief Smalls to T-rex, and the David Brents in between. Two men murdering a teenage girl that is 5′-4″ and weighs in at 120lbs by shooting at her 21 times and hitting her in the back 5 times while she was on the ground. Total and complete cowards both, and the fools that defend their actions. 🙂

          • SkippingDog
            SkippingDog 9 December, 2014, 19:34

            Right, Donk. A VAST CONSPIRACY supported by not only the leaders of HBPD, but also the OC Sheriff, the OC District Attorney, and the OC Register newspaper. Take a deep breath and face reality for a change. MacDonald was a troubled young woman with a meth addiction, cut and stabbed her own mother with a four inch bladed knife, and then attempted to stab some innocent citizen in the park before police arrived. She brought on her own demise.

          • Timberrrrrr......
            Timberrrrrr...... 10 December, 2014, 00:15

            SK Doggy – you are trying to convince us to disbelieve our eyes, our ears and our common sense, re: Ashley Macdonald, Kelly Thomas and Manuel Loggins. Sorry pal. That might work with 2nd graders. But not with informed, honest and ethical adults. Your spin makes me laugh. Donkey claimed that you held a high position at the cop shop. Now it’s all making sense. You aren’t discussing these matters with 2nd graders, SK Doggy. Cut the spin. Signing off for the evening.

          • Skippingdog
            Skippingdog 10 December, 2014, 15:47

            No, Tim. I’m only trying to get you to pull your head out and take a look at reality for a change.

  8. Donkey
    Donkey 9 December, 2014, 07:31

    The way to end murders and assaults on citizens by LE is to end the practice of the police investigating the police when they commit crimes. It is obvious that the DA’s will do little to reign in the police, the NY Grand Jury called Garner’s death a murder and the officer was still freed from accountability. Doug Zerby was shot in the top of his head from a second story landing without even knowing the police were present, and one of the worst murders in my short life-span, the gunning down of Ashley MacDonald by Officers Parker and Randle of the HBPD. OC Weekly has a great article on her execution in the middle of Sunview Park. We don’t have a “Justice System” in America, we only have a system, and the last thing it is seeking is any kind of justice. 🙂
    🙂

    Reply this comment
    • Timberrrrrr......
      Timberrrrrr...... 9 December, 2014, 10:03

      Donkey, there are thousands of examples of bad police shoots and beatings that severely injured or took the lives of citizens who had no reason to suffer such abuse. In this light, it would be wrong not to mention Kelly Thomas who was brutally beaten to death by 6 big cops, or black Marine Sergeant Manuel Loggins who shot to death while unarmed (no drugs or alchohol in his system) while he sat in the front seat of his car only a couple feet in front of his 2 minor daughters. They watched their dad shot down in cold blood and lost their patriarch forever. Later, the taxpayers were forced to pay $4 million to the Loggins’ family (by government settlement) the act was so egregious and wrong. And afterwards all the evidence (dashcam and audio recordings) were buried so the public could not discover what REALLY happened on that violent morning. Oh, and the cop who shot him remains employed by the same departments – wears a badge and carries a gun. So there ya go. More evidence of a police state in the USA.

      Reply this comment
    • SkippingDog
      SkippingDog 9 December, 2014, 10:17

      The NY Grand Jury did nothing of the kind, Donk. In voting no true bill, the grand jury reviewing the Garner case determined that there was not probable cause to believe any crime had been committed. All murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murder.

      Reply this comment
      • Timberrrrrr......
        Timberrrrrr...... 9 December, 2014, 11:54

        The death video and the medical examiner report tells us all we need to know. An average 7th grader could view and read the autopsy report and come to a reasonable and rational conclusion of what that cop did to Eric Garner. Ask any prosecutor how many times in his career did he or she see a Grand Jury return with a ‘no true bill’. Then ask him or her what percentage of the time the Grand Jury came back with a ‘true bill’ in a criminal matter. Prosecutors froth at the mouth when taking a case before a Grand Jury. For they are the ringmasters and they can create the desired outcome. And anyone who has ever worked inside the court system understands that simple concept. This stuff really isn’t hard to figure out. It’s not nuclear science. All that is needed is honesty, an open mind and very average intelligence. In fact, someone with a 93 IQ could see through the fog. 🙂

        Reply this comment
        • T Mind of Ted Your God
          T Mind of Ted Your God 9 December, 2014, 12:14

          LOL

          Like Duncey or OC oddball know ANYthing about law or policing….Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

          go girls!

          Reply this comment
          • Timberrrrrr......
            Timberrrrrr...... 9 December, 2014, 13:36

            Notice T-erdball can’t refute any of my statements. Just more vacuous and untrue statements with no substance. A reflection of his shallow and empty thought process. When one poster gives logical arguments and then another unsavory poster rears his ugly head and can only offer an untrue and spiteful vitriolic response – the dialog speaks for itself. No explanation needed! 😀

        • Donkey
          Donkey 9 December, 2014, 15:49

          I agree with Timberrrr, on this post. 🙂

          Reply this comment
        • SkippingDog
          SkippingDog 9 December, 2014, 18:06

          Grand Juries are regularly used as investigative bodies, in addition to their day to day activities involving the rendering of indictments in jurisdictions where those are required instead of an “information.” As an investigative body, the grand jury is charged with reviewing all evidence and facts bearing on the case under consideration, including forensic evidence and operation of the law.

          Whether you agree with the NY grand jury or not, there is no criminal act committed by police when they are overcoming resistance to a lawful arrest with reasonable force – regardless of the outcome. Had the officers merely decided to use their firearms against Garner, as opposed to the physical restraint they applied, you may have an argument.

          Reply this comment
          • Donkey
            Donkey 9 December, 2014, 19:15

            In the mind of a LE RAGWUS feeders your view seems correct Skdog, but when the actions of your henchmen murder for no cause, as is the case with Ashley MacDonald, Doug Zerby, Kelly Thomas, Mr. Alexander, and Mr. Garner, and in direct violation of the Constitution then the little folk become angry, and things are going to change for the better. That is what is so nice about social media, the truth can not hide from its actions. 🙂

          • SkippingDog
            SkippingDog 9 December, 2014, 19:36

            You’re once again confusing murder with homicide. All murders are homicides, but not all homicides are murder.

          • Timberrrrrr......
            Timberrrrrr...... 9 December, 2014, 23:59

            Once again, the Court of Public Opinion vehemently disagrees with the findings of the NYC Grand Jury. The death video in conjunction with the Medical Examiner’s report told the public everything we needed to know to draw a rational and reasonable conclusion. The Chokehold was a banned technique at NYPD. The cop violated his own department’s policy. Even NYPD knew that the chokehold was a very dangerous technique and that’s the reason it was banned. That alone SHOULD HAVE drawn extreme ire from the Grand Jurors. Whether there was no crime committed by the police in the death of Eric Garner is a matter of opinion. And according to the public polls, the large majority of the citizens believe the NYC Grand Jury got it wrong.

            As I clearly stated above, prosecutors are the ringmasters of the grand jury hearing. By manipulating the information provided to the grand jurors a prosecutor can easily attain his desired result – which is usually a ‘true bill’. The very fact that in both the Ferguson and NYC cop cases the grand juries came back with ‘no true bill’ is HIGHLY HIGHLY suspect. Ask any prosecutor what percent of his grand jury hearings resulted in a ‘true bill’ and most would tell you nearly 100%, if not 100%.

            The Garner death video and the autopsy report say it all. And the verdict from the Court of Public Opinion has been announced. Something stinks in Denmark!!! 😉

          • Timberrrrrr......
            Timberrrrrr...... 10 December, 2014, 00:07

            SK Doggy – Donkey has a right to his opinion. And I happen to believe it’s an accurate one. You seem to be the one muddying the waters here with inaccuracies. The prosecutor does not present all the evidence to a Grand Jury in criminal matters. He has no obligation to present any potential exculpatory evidence whatsoever. He only needs to present a bareboned case that raises sufficient probable cause to make an arrest or to bound the defendant over for trial. And in most cases, that is exactly what is done. Surely you’re aware of the phrase “You could indict a ham sandwich” before. So please, don’t act so naive. You just look silly in the process.

          • Skippingdog
            Skippingdog 10 December, 2014, 15:42

            Something that is banned by department policy does not automatically become a criminal act. You can’t indict someone for a policy violation, but you can certainly discipline or fire them.

          • Skippingdog
            Skippingdog 10 December, 2014, 15:45

            Sorry Tim. Your support of Donkey’s opinion demonstrates your ignorance of grand jury duties and responsibilities. The fact that a grand jury proceeding is not adversarial – since the “target” can’t even bring his/her own lawyer into the jury room during testimony – requires the presentation of exculpatory evidence. Failure to do so would compromise any subsequent indictment or conviction.

          • Timberrrrrr......
            Timberrrrrr...... 10 December, 2014, 18:23

            “The fact that a grand jury proceeding is not adversarial – since the “target” can’t even bring his/her own lawyer into the jury room during testimony – requires the presentation of exculpatory evidence. Failure to do so would compromise any subsequent indictment or conviction.”

            You must have been one sad cop, SK doggy. The SCOTUS ruled in the United States vs. Williams case that a prosecutor can withhold substantial exculpatory evidence from the Grand Jury because the Grand Jury’s role is not to determine innocence or guilt, but only to determine whether there is enough evidence of a crime that a conviction would be possible. Did you really run a cop shop??? God forbid!!! You don’t even know the basic law as it applies to the Grand Jury in the criminal justice system!!! PATHETIC!!! 😀

            There was MORE than enough ample evidence to bound the cops over for trial in BOTH the Ferguson and NYC cases. But the prosecutors went into the hearing NOT TO GET AN INDICTMENT – but to FREE THE COPS!!! Ask any prosecutor what percent of the cases that he took before the Grand Jury came back with “no true bill”. The answer would be close to 0%.

          • SkippingDog
            SkippingDog 10 December, 2014, 18:31

            You don’t seem to understand the difference between state and federal law. Williams applied only to federal grand juries, and even that case didn’t negate the ethical obligation of prosecutors to present exculpatory evidence in grand jury proceedings. It was decided solely on the basis of preserving the independence of grand juries from direct court supervision.

            California law and that of most other states, including Missouri, requires a prosecutor to present exculpatory evidence at the grand jury. Sometimes – often – there isn’t any, which is why grand juries routinely vote true bills on most of the cases brought before them. It is unethical for a prosecutor to seek an indictment unless he believes there is sufficient evidence to secure a conviction.

          • Timberrrrrr......
            Timberrrrrr...... 10 December, 2014, 21:47

            The large majority of states adhere to the US vs. Williams SCOTUS ruling that does not require the DA to disclose exculpatory evidence to a GJ. To my knowledge, both NY and Missouri follow the SCOTUS ruling. Both the MO and NY prosecutors basicially conducted a full-blown one-sided trial on the Ferguson and NYC killer cop matters. Prosecutors always use the GJ to get a ‘true bill’. In both the cop cases they did the exact opposite since the ones in the hot seat happened to be brother cops. This is so simple it’s stupid. Yet you continue to live in a world of denial and are only interested in protecting the home team. The proper avenue would have been to let the cases go to full-blown trials and let a jury of 12 decide guilt or innocence. This is especially true in the NYC case with video evidence of a man being strangled to death – in conjunction with the medical examiner’s report. The NYC GJ ruling had to be rigged. The fact that a full record of the GJ hearing is not disclosed to the public (kept secret) makes it even more suspicious. Few informed citizens trust this “Just Us” system. This same baloney happens time and time again. The cops kill someone and walk away unscathed with the taxpayers caught holding the empty bag after the huge civil awards come down. A sick and corrupted system.

          • SkippingDog
            SkippingDog 10 December, 2014, 23:16

            Once again, you forget the basic ethical requirement that a prosecutor must believe he has sufficient evidence to prove a charge beyond a reasonable doubt, before he/she ever charges an individual through an information or seeks an indictment from a grand jury. The Williams case was about the prosecutor’s error in not presenting exculpatory evidence. That a 5-4 Supreme Court ruled in favor of the prosecutor over the rule of law should bother someone like you, but it’s clear you don’t really understand the issues or the case.

          • Timberrrrrr......
            Timberrrrrr...... 11 December, 2014, 11:23

            “Once again, you forget the basic ethical requirement that a prosecutor must believe he has sufficient evidence to prove a charge beyond a reasonable doubt, before he/she ever charges an individual through an information or seeks an indictment from a grand jury.”

            You’re just too stubbornly ignorant.

            In the LARGE majority of states there is NO obligation on part of the prosecutor to disclose exculpatory evidence to a Grand Jury when seeking an indictment. Again, this was CLEARLY explained in the United States vs. William case. And 80-90% of the states adhere to this SCOTUS ruling. It not only applies to Federal courts. It can also be adopted by the states since it is a CONSTITUTIONAL ruling – that applies to ALL!!!

            Your ignorance on the workings of our nation’s justice system is overwhelming. Did you really run a cop shop? Please….tell me “no” to restore some of my faith in the system.

          • SkippingDog
            SkippingDog 11 December, 2014, 19:41

            Last post on this subject, Timmy –

            Read section 3-3.5 for the ethical obligations of a prosecutor before a grand jury. Every state ethics code reflects this requirement as well.

            http://www.ndaa.org/pdf/NDAA%20NPS%203rd%20Ed.%20w%20Revised%20Commentary.pdf

          • Timberrrrrr......
            Timberrrrrr...... 12 December, 2014, 11:27

            [EDITED] Didn’t you even read the prelude to your own cite in 3-3.5? Here it is:

            “Unless otherwise required by the law or applicable rules of ethical conduct of the jurisdiction, the following should apply to evidence presented to the grand jury:”

            IOW’s if the law (SCOTUS United States vs. Williams ruling) says that the prosecutor is NOT required to present exculpatory evidence to the GJ – it means HE DOESN’T HAVE TO!!!!

            90% of the states FOLLOW the SCOTUS ruling in their criminal legal proceedings!!!

          • SkippingDog
            SkippingDog 12 December, 2014, 12:22

            Required is a mandatory term. Williams articulated a permissive activity. It is you, once more, who doesn’t understand the difference.

          • Timberrrrrr......
            Timberrrrrr...... 12 December, 2014, 13:22

            It is YOU who can’t seem to comprehend that 90% of the states follow the United States vs. Williams SCOTUS ruling and do not require their prosecutors to disclose exculpatory evidence to their state grand juries. And 100% of the Federal district grand jury prosecutors (assistant US attorneys) do not disclose exculpatory evidence, per the Williams ruling. Let that SINK IN AND STICK, chief!!!! Did they give you any legal training during your career??? 😀

          • Skippingdog
            Skippingdog 12 December, 2014, 20:11

            You are hopeless, Timmy. No point in arguing with your belligerent ignorance.

  9. Timberrrrrr......
    Timberrrrrr...... 10 December, 2014, 18:24

    And who the hell is “Tim”???

    You’re really a goofball!!! 😀

    Reply this comment
    • SkippingDog
      SkippingDog 10 December, 2014, 18:33

      You – I just don’t feel like typing your whole sock-puppet nomme de nutjob each time.

      Reply this comment
      • Timberrrrrr......
        Timberrrrrr...... 10 December, 2014, 21:48

        You know nothing. 🙂

        Reply this comment
        • SkippingDog
          SkippingDog 10 December, 2014, 23:12

          I know enough about you to know you’re a crackpot. That’s all that matters.

          Reply this comment
          • Timberrrrrr......
            Timberrrrrr...... 11 December, 2014, 11:26

            And we know enough about you to know that your incredibly stubbornly ignorant and unwilling to concede the truth even when it is shoved down your pencil-necked throat!!! 😀

          • SkippingDog
            SkippingDog 11 December, 2014, 16:52

            See above.

Write a Comment

Leave a Reply



Related Articles

Bullet train’s unyielding new foe: Wealthy equestrians

When the California High-Speed Rail Authority surveyed the landscape and sought to determine the big obstacles to getting the state’s

Southern California country song

I was driving around yesterday morning with a country music fan. He had on our local country station, Go Country

CalSTRS bailout will be CA version of budget sequester

On April 10, 2012, I wrote an op-ed for the L.A. Daily News with an unusual take on what ultimately