| The people all have goals And we alone am stubborn and lowly We alone are different from them And value the nourishing highway |
 |
Posted on 07/14/2015 5:32:40 AM PDT by Prolixus
Earlier this year, the Texas Legislature passed a law outlawing what is known as the “pick-a-pal system” for grand jury selection. Unlike the trial juries we are all familiar with, in which the jury is picked randomly with attorneys questioning possible jurors for bias or prejudice, many grand juries had been picked by judges by offering friends or associates in the justice system the license of nominating prospective jurors or even serving as grand jurors themselves.
Research has shown that probation department employees, police officers, bail bondsmen and even court bailiffs decided who served on the grand jury. The problem? Though the grand jury serves as a “sword” determining probable cause that a crime has been committed — the decision eventually leading to a suspect’s actual trial — it also serves as a “shield” protecting us from injustice by the government, including the district attorney, the police, even judges. Having cops on the grand jury reviewing the actions of the police corrupts that process. It would be as if your daughter was arrested after being in a two-car accident and the jury was made up of the other car owner’s family and friends.
But McLennan County District Judge Ralph Strother doesn’t seem to see a problem in this.
With all the problems of the pick-a-pal system judge, Strother decided that he would all but ignore the reason for outlawing it when he decided not only to allow a Waco detective to serve on a grand jury expected to investigate the biker shootings at Twin Peaks but also appointed him as foreman. In doing so, the judge’s ignorance of the purpose of the grand jury was exposed when the Tribune-Herald reported that Strother stated, in justifying his appointment, “Who is better qualified in criminal law than somebody who practices it all the time?” If the judge’s logic was correct, why even have a grand jury reviewing police arrests? Simply let a cop arrest someone and then take him straight to trial without any citizen “shield” reviewing the arrest. Why even have trials, as police practice criminal law “all the time” and the police already supposedly know who’s guilty and who’s not?
Strother also seems to forget it is his responsibility to determine the competence of a grand juror, knowing that the grand jury may be reviewing not only the shootings but, conceivably, the actions of the Waco Police Department. The district attorney, of course, in pursuing a conviction, concurs with having a detective who previously has worked closely with his office serving on the grand jury, all but claiming he can’t be kept off the grand jury even if prejudiced against the arrested or biased in favor of his fellow officers.
With the possibility that one or more officers may have violated policy or the law by firing into a crowd and conceivably killing or injuring an innocent civilian or someone who was defending himself from an attack, having a Waco detective on the grand jury deciding if he is going to indict one of his fellow officers is more than problematic. It borders on judicial incompetence, especially after the Tribune-Herald reported that the detective stated that he was “not really” ever involved in the investigation. Let’s see: 177 arrests after nine dead and 20 wounded, a department working the most complex investigation imaginable and a Waco police detective was “not really” involved?
McLennan County bench
The judicial clown car of McLennan County just seems to continue down the road, consistently adding riders along the way. From Justice of the Peace Pete Peterson, a former state trooper, setting million-dollar bail amounts based on “cookie-cutter” arrest warrants to “send a message” — try finding that as a reason for bail in the law — to district court judges limiting bond hearings for their own personal convenience, a district attorney allowing the grand jury to be corrupted and a grand juror/police detective “not really” involved in the investigation making determinations as to who does and does not go to trial, the idea of criminal collusion between the bench, the prosecutor and the police is a viable belief, whether true or not.
The bench’s gross incompetence and continued hubris seem to be penalizing the innocent and could possibly even prevent those who may be guilty of murder from ever being successfully tried and punished. Which raises another question: Is the McLennan County bench itself guilty of subverting the course of justice?
“OTOH, perhaps biker gangs will need to develop a shoot first policy out of shear self defense in any contact with the police.”
They did shoot first.
Bingo...it makes you wonder about the true motivations of the people who are attacking Texas law enforcement and justice system doesn't it?
Scratch the surface paint and you will find some very liberal ideology...
| The people all have goals And we alone am stubborn and lowly We alone are different from them And value the nourishing highway |
|
Yes, I know. It's in the Texas constitution. My point was to the contention that a GJ is a rubberstamp of prosecutorial desire. The criminal conviction industry is annoyed by having to work through grand juries.
Inspirational poetry for trolls. I like it. Maybe it will change some hearts.
| "But resist him, firm in your faith, knowing that the same experiences of suffering are being accomplished by your brethren who are in the world." 1 Peter 5:9 |
 |
Not as a matter of policy, not at a “routine” traffic stop, nor on sight, nor against any member of the constabulary.
“Not as a matter of policy, not at a “routine” traffic stop, nor on sight, nor against any member of the constabulary.”
In lieu of other details in your post, I must go back my post you responded to. In the conversation, you stated:
“OTOH, perhaps biker gangs will need to develop a shoot first policy out of shear self defense in any contact with the police.”
Jimmy Graves said that bikers were not that stupid. It would be pure suicide to start shooting at cops as a matter of policy.
That's rather selective and flexible in your attitude...
“So NOW you think bikers are wise? That’s rather selective and flexible in your attitude...”
Please refrain from misrepresenting my posts. Thank you.
Care to translate that from lib-speak for us pardner?
My apologies, I did not mean to imply that you were selective or flexible.
Sorry.
So the government officials in question are all liberal headed Kalifornians and Yankees?
Huh.
You know that, how? You must have been there.
“You know that, how? You must have been there.”
Every biker and others that have voiced on the shooting have said the bikers started shooting first. Also, AP says the video they viewed showed the bikers shooting first.
“You know that, how? You must have been there.”
How about the testimonies of the bikers?
Jimmy Graves, Bandidos officer and TCOC president at the Waco shooting, says they respect the police for doing their job.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q_sCRg69TQE
(Big John Snyder, Vice president of the Boozefighters at the Waco shooting) “The police were professional, considering the situation they were in. They were professional and doing their job,” he said.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-nn-waco-biker-20150519-story.html
We have also heard from a biker family member that the police probably saved lives at Waco.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.