For those of you who disagree with the Kentucky Grand Jury . . What would you prefer . . . a Kangaroo Court?
Remember, a Grand Jury, much like a regular jury is made up of everyday, average people.
A grand jury is a one sided presentation by the prosecutor ONLY. Legal representation of the accused not allowed. The jury must only find it likely that a crime was committed to issue an indictment.
Now imagine if all charges were referred to trial today. At that trial ALL court rules of testimony and evidence are followed. Not only that, the defiance attorneys are able to challenge evidence, and testimony, as well as offer their own.
Oh, and the criminal jury has a much much higher burden of proof - - beyond reasonable doubt.
If you prefer a kangaroo court, does that also apply to others accused of breaking laws?
Kangaroo Court. Trhey are guilty and laws and the judicial system be damned
Every defendent regardless of who shuold be treated to the same rules
This goes both ways though. Cops are not special when it comes to when they can discharge a firearm.
You can’t be the aggressor and then claim self defense. Kicking in a persons door at 1am is an act of aggression whether they yelled something first or not.
It’s a perversion of the self defense laws to state otherwise.
I’ve been trained to kick in doors. It’s called assaulting an objective. You can’t be the one assaulting and claim defense. You can claim the assault was justified, and yes if shot at, you return fire. But to claim defense afterwards is just absurd.
I disagree. When you actually read most of the laws they are not different. They are allowed to fire to protect their own life or the lives of others, just like any other citizen.
But we have created the precedent of treating them differently, and that is the problem.
I do agree that current law and policies do allow the raid type warrants. So no, they can’t be charged with a crime there. But I do think those laws and policies need changed. Personally I would only ever allow them if hostages were involved. Not “potential hostages”… actual full blown threatening to kill people type hostages.
Every now and then even my wife has to admit I’m right. It’s about as often as an eclipse hits Idaho, but it has been known to happen. Though after the fact she will vehemently deny it ever occurred.
A no-knock warrant is a search warrant authorizing police officers to enter certain premises without first knocking and announcing their presence or purpose prior to entering the premises. Such warrants are issued where an entry pursuant to the knock-and-announce rule (ie. an announcement prior to entry) would lead to the destruction of the objects for which the police are searching or would compromise the safety of the police or another individual.
According to the Department of Justice, “Although officers need not take affirmative steps to make an independent re-verification of the circumstances already recognized by a magistrate in issuing a no-knock warrant, such a warrant does not entitle officers to disregard reliable information clearly negating the existence of exigent circumstances when they actually receive such information before execution of the warrant.”
I can see the justification for a no knock warrant. They probably happen multiple times per day/night throughout the country without any issues.
However, there have been instances of wrong addresses and/or innocent people being killed.
I’m not sure how difficult it is to get a no knock warrant but the parameters to justify one should be gone through with a fine tooth comb and the evidence to obtain one should be rock solid before being issued.
But here is the problem. Without defense present and therefore no discovery, the prosecution is free to offer only the evidence they want. I have heard multiple lawyers say that a Grand Jury can indite a innocent ham sandwich. And by the same token, not indite a guilty ham sandwich. I heard lawyers saying that yesterday after they heard how the Kentucky AG talk about the case they were skeptical on what was presented to the GJ about the officers actions.
One difference between the run-of-the-mill concealed carry (or even open carry) citizen and a LEO:
Cops deliberately insert themselves into some potentially very dangerous situations. And that’s especially where the “I-felt-that-my-life-was-endangered” dynamic comes into play. They’re always confronting potentially dangerous people. They never know what’s on the other side of the tinted window or what the suspect has in his pocket. They have to stay on the edge and vigilant, and they have to expect danger.
Now, this is a general statement. It doesn’t justify bad no-knocks (or maybe all no-knocks), or lots of other misapplications of police power. But I’m willing to give cops more leeway for claiming self-defense because they enter into plenty of situations where self-defense is crucial.
An example of a citizen doing what cops should be doing: Kyle Rittenhouse. I’m not a fan of vigilante death-wish citizens inserting themselves into dangerous situations. His shots were self-defense, and I fully expect him to get exonerated of all charges, just like a cop in the same situation would (except for the underage possession of a firearm.)
(Actually, seeing some of the videos I’ve seen of that night, I think he conducted himself better than some cops have in these riots. But I digress.)
I don’t want to see wannabe heroes playing Dirty Harry. He shouldn’t have been there.
Though after the fact she will vehemently deny it ever occurred.
Peace, S-W.