Results 1 to 17 of 17

Thread: 23 CPD officers called before federal grand jury

  1. #1
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154

    23 CPD officers called before federal grand jury

    Among them are four officers whose initial accounts of the confrontation conflict with squad car video showing 17-year-old Laquan McDonald walking away from officers, rather than turning threateningly toward them. The names of the 23 subpoenaed officers appear on court notification logs released to the Chicago Tribune Friday in response to a public records request. Being called before a grand jury does not necessarily indicate the person is suspected of wrongdoing.

    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...d-before-gran/

    http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/c...115-story.html

    https://news.google.com/news/rtc?ncl...XiZnc9Gp-hgSZM 400+ Articles ATM

    This will be a new experience for them, testifying without their advocate present.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  2. #2
    Campaign Veteran MAC702's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nevada
    Posts
    6,520
    They will be well coached, compensated, coordinated, compliant with all laws and duties of testimony.

    I hate it when I stutter.
    "It's not important how many people I've killed. What's important is how I get along with the people who are still alive" - Jimmy the Tulip

  3. #3
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    earth's crust
    Posts
    17,838
    Oh the stories that they will tell .....

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Cherry Tree (Indiana County), Pennsylvania, USA
    Posts
    1,155
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    They will be well coached, compensated, coordinated, compliant with all laws and duties of testimony.
    But without their attorney present, I'm sure they'll slip up and contradict themselves in their testimony.

  5. #5
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,735
    Quote Originally Posted by Statkowski View Post
    But without their attorney present, I'm sure they'll slip up and contradict themselves in their testimony.
    But, remember for each question asked the officer can leave the jury room and consult with their attorney.

  6. #6
    Regular Member solus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Location
    here nc
    Posts
    6,880
    and as in grand juries past...nada, zip, zero will come of the grand gesture put on by the DA solely for the benefit of the community.

    i am sure the comment will be made, 'see i told you this was a waste of the community's scarce tax dollars!'

    and to be fair we shouldn't forget the windy city's mayor who fired the sacrificial lamb and now all is right with the world.

    ipse

    ps: remember the adage the DA could indict a ham sandwich in front of a grand jury...isn't going to happen in Richard J's city!!
    Last edited by solus; 01-18-2016 at 09:54 AM.
    I'm only human; I do what I can; I'm just a man; I do what I can; Don't put the blame on me; Don't put your blame on me ~ Rag'n'Bone Man.

    Please do not get confused between my personality & my attitude. My personality is who I am ~ my attitude depends on who you are and how you act.

    Remember always, do not judge someone because they sin differently than you do!

    Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain

  7. #7
    Campaign Veteran skidmark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    North Chesterfield VA
    Posts
    10,682
    Remember that cops are protected not only by the 4th Amendment right not to be compelled to incriminate themself, but by Garrity v NJ which protects them from being compelled to testify under threat of administrative action, whether that testimony would incriminate them or not.

    stay safe.
    "He'll regret it to his dying day....if ever he lives that long."----The Quiet Man

    Because stupidity isn't a race, and everybody can win.

    "No matter how much contempt you have for the media in all this, you don't have enough"
    ----Allahpundit

  8. #8
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Being cops, what are they worried about, lying on the stand, under oath, don't mean nuttin to them...ain't nuttin gunna happen.
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  9. #9
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Being cops, what are they worried about, lying on the stand, under oath, don't mean nuttin to them...ain't nuttin gunna happen.
    RSMo 575.040. Perjury--penalties. http://moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/statht...se%20statement
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  10. #10
    Centurion
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Pleasant Grove, Utah, USA
    Posts
    3,828
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    Forgive me if I am confused here but just how does a MISSOURI statute apply to a situation in ILLINOIS?
    RIGHTS don't exist without RESPONSIBILITY!
    If one is not willing to stand for his rights, he doesn't have any Rights.
    I will strive to stand for the rights of ANY person, even those folks with whom I disagree!
    As said by SVG--- "I am not anti-COP, I am PRO-Citizen" and I'll add, PRO-Constitution.
    If the above makes me a RADICAL or EXTREME--- So be it!

    Life Member NRA
    Life Member GOA
    2nd amendment says.... "...The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!"

  11. #11
    Accomplished Advocate color of law's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
    Posts
    3,735
    They can lie,cheat and steal, but if there is a contradiction in the testimony then katy bar the door. Contradictions will bury you in fraud.

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Fayetteville NC
    Posts
    751
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Remember that cops are protected not only by the 4th Amendment right not to be compelled to incriminate themself, but by Garrity v NJ which protects them from being compelled to testify under threat of administrative action, whether that testimony would incriminate them or not.

    stay safe.
    5th?

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2013
    Location
    Thru Death's Door in Wisconsin
    Posts
    13,154
    Quote Originally Posted by bc.cruiser View Post
    5th?
    ! Another 'grammarian' does well.
    I am responsible for my writing, not your understanding of it.

  14. #14
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by skidmark View Post
    Remember that cops are protected not only by the 4th Amendment right not to be compelled to incriminate themself, but by Garrity v NJ which protects them from being compelled to testify under threat of administrative action, whether that testimony would incriminate them or not.

    stay safe.
    I don't think that is quite true.

    Here is the holding from Garrity:

    We now hold the protection of the individual under the Fourteenth Amendment against coerced statements prohibits use in subsequent criminal proceedings of statements obtained under threat of removal from office, and that it extends to all, whether they are policemen or other members of our body politic.

    http://scholar.google.com/scholar_ca...en&as_sdt=3,47

    And, one or two cops over the years here on OCDO have made comments to the effect that a cop accepts as a condition of employment to answer all Internal Affairs questions truthfully. Refusal to answer can get a cop fired. Lying can get a cop fired. The important point being that cops cannot be later prosecuted criminally for anything incriminating disclosed in an Internal Affairs investigation. In effect, Garrity operates as an immunity statute.

    Separately, I've come across multiple references to "the Garrity privilege" over the years.

    So, taken all together, I come to a different conclusion: Garrity does not say a cop cannot be compelled to incriminate himself. It says the things he says [in an administrative investigation] cannot later be used against him in a criminal prosecution.
    Last edited by Citizen; 01-18-2016 at 08:27 PM.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  15. #15
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by MAC702 View Post
    They will be well coached, compensated, coordinated, compliant with all laws and duties of testimony.

    I hate it when I stutter.
    But, you do it so...um...meaningfully.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

  16. #16
    Regular Member OC for ME's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    White Oak Plantation
    Posts
    12,273
    Quote Originally Posted by JoeSparky View Post
    Forgive me if I am confused here but just how does a MISSOURI statute apply to a situation in ILLINOIS?
    MO has statutes that could be used to prosecute a cop who commits perjury under oath...if only a prosecutor would do such a thing. Illinois has a very similar statute. 720 ILCS 5/32-2 Perjury http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs...00050K32-2.htm why is not these cops being prosecuted under these types of laws that interfere with the administration of justice and have directly affected otherwise law abiding citizens.

    It is the hesitancy to commit to prosecuting every cop who crosses the line, and those cops/prosecutors who go with that cop across that line that enables, in every case, cops to continue to inflict tyranny on the citizenry at large. If a prosecutor will not hold cops accountable then the public must hold law breaking cops up for public humiliation.

    Does not UT have a similar statute?
    "I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson.

    "Better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer" - English jurist William Blackstone.
    It is AFAIK original to me. Compromise is failure on the installment plan, particularly when dealing with so intractable an opponent as ignorance. - Nightmare

  17. #17
    Founder's Club Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Fairfax Co., VA
    Posts
    18,766
    Quote Originally Posted by OC for ME View Post
    MO has statutes that could be used to prosecute a cop who commits perjury under oath...if only a prosecutor would do such a thing. Illinois has a very similar statute. 720 ILCS 5/32-2 Perjury http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs...00050K32-2.htm why is not these cops being prosecuted under these types of laws that interfere with the administration of justice and have directly affected otherwise law abiding citizens.

    It is the hesitancy to commit to prosecuting every cop who crosses the line, and those cops/prosecutors who go with that cop across that line that enables, in every case, cops to continue to inflict tyranny on the citizenry at large. If a prosecutor will not hold cops accountable then the public must hold law breaking cops up for public humiliation.

    Does not UT have a similar statute?
    Its a good bit ironic--the whole history of the right against self-incrimination in the West starts with an oath. In his Pulitzer Prize-winning book, Origins of the 5th Amendment: The Right Against Self-Incrimination, history professor, the late Leonard Levy explained that:

    In medieval times in England, before even royal judges, when trials were held by ordeal or combat at the manor of the feudal lord, someone accused of a petty offense could swear away the taint by taking an oath. It was called the oath of purgation. And, that was it. Swear under oath you didn't do it, and you were off the hook.

    Then along came Henry II. He wanted to expand his royal influence, so he sent his royal judges on circuit to take jurisdiction of certain cases. This would've been roughly the 1170's. No juries, yet. But, Henry's procedure planted the seed of the jury system. The judges ordered the local shire reeve (sheriff) to find twelve men who knew of the case. They were required to tell the judge what they knew of the case under oath.

    Fast-forward to Tudor England. Religious strife. Hunting for heretics and recusants (somebody who refused to attend Anglican services). The Anglican church. The power of the queen was asserted to be at stake. The oath ex-officio: the suspect was required to swear to tell the truth to every question before he was even asked the questions or even knew the nature of the suspicions against him. Mental torture. Violate the oath by lying and your immortal soul is eternally damned. Tell the truth, and your answers are twisted against you, and you're dispossessed of property, have your nostrils slit, ears cut off, or killed.

    That pesky oath business keeps coming up over and over and over again through-out history. To your detriment, of course. Government lies day in and day out, ten times a day. But, government wants to box you in with an oath. Hmmmmmm.
    I'll make you an offer: I will argue and fight for all of your rights, if you will do the same for me. That is the only way freedom can work. We have to respect all rights, all the time--and strive to win the rights of the other guy as much as for ourselves.

    If I am equal to another, how can I legitimately govern him without his express individual consent?

    There is no human being on earth I hate so much I would actually vote to inflict government upon him.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •