Posted on 07/15/2002 10:49:20 AM PDT by Donald Stone
Edited on 09/03/2002 4:50:45 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
sad.
On the other hand, seems to me that the police department and Special Agent Bragga are wide open to a humongous civil settlement.
Everybody get that? You know-it-alls who thought cops could only shoot folks who were armed and presented imminent danger to police or others should learn a lesson from this. You've been wrong. You've been wrong for years. You don't need to have a weapon. You don't need to present a danger. If you simply refuse to raise your hands, prepare to get a cap popped in you.
Braga had committed neither first-degree assault, second-degree assault nor reckless endangerment, the grand jury ruled after carefully considering the weighty matter for all of 20 minutes.
In a case such as this, where a party has been injured or killed, and there is NO question as to the identity of the individual who was directly responsible, the grand jury should be forced by law to explain what the actions did constitute if they dismiss the charges. I know, they are not the prosecuter, but you can not have a GJ say the perpetrator did not commit assault or reckless endangerment when an innocent person gets shot in the face. Civil penalties are fine, but the cop should be stripped of his bade and probably put in prison.
We definitely need more laws(ARGH!) governing the conduct of LEO's. One simple law is that and LEO who shoots a person innocent of any crime should immediately lose his/her job at a minimum. At that point, each should be treated on a case per case basis as to whether to criminally charge the officer.
Yeh, I know, LEO defenders will say something like, "But that puts undue pressure on the officer if he was to consider every action he/she makes may make them criminally liable". And I would say, "Yep! Whats wrong with that?" Its a breach of public trust if an LEO harms or kills the people he/she is sworn to protect. GJ's getting away with this stuff simply says that LEO's can shoot an innocent person, and suffer no recourse - not even losing his/her job!
This sh!t has to be ended.
You better not!...You could get "capped"!
What BS...
Keep yer powder dry!
FMCDH
I've made a similar comment before myself. I describe it as: If this stuff continues to happen, the normal, law-abiding citizen will adopt a policy of "shoot first, ask questions later" when approached by federal officers with guns drawn.
Remember, kids, when two or more LEOs give you contradictory commands, obey them all simultaneously, or die.
I expect that some will find the results not only *pretty,* but much closer to real justice than most of what's come from our courts in the last several dozen years.
-archy-/-
"I left town for a few weeks," said Gryniewski. "I was under armed guard."
Awwwwww. Poor baby.
Anyone other than me see the irony of this?
Grand juries are far from independent. They do what the DA asks them to. They will indict a ham sandwich if the DA wants it, and will turn loose a murderer if the DA tells them to. It appears that is what happened in this case.
Based on what I read in the news, there was definitely cause to indict this guy. No one, including the cops, has the right to use deadly force unless he or she has a reasonable belief that he or she is about to suffer death or grave bodily harm. The kid did what he was told to do, and was shot. This officer could not have had a reasonable belief that he was about to be shot when the kid reached down to unlock the door as he was instructed. End of story.
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.