Man Dies After NYPD Chokehold

[T.Lex]

Thank goodness, common sense returns to this thread.

Hardee har har.

I dono, if I shoot and kill someone during the course of my duties, I'm required to testify at the Grand Jury if I am not mistaken. Then the jury can ask me whatever question they feel the need to. Maybe that is the key, the ability to ask and answer any question that comes to mind without objections by the lawyers.

You may be required for your job (Garrity isn't applicable to GJ, I don't think).

 

[Libertarian01]

I dono, if I shoot and kill someone during the course of my duties, I'm required to testify at the Grand Jury if I am not mistaken. Then the jury can ask me whatever question they feel the need to. Maybe that is the key, the ability to ask and answer any question that comes to mind without objections by the lawyers.

To Denny,

Perhaps out of ignorance I am unable to logically consider the argument due to my lack of clear facts in this matter. Are you saying that to your knowledge every time a law enforcement officer may be brought up on criminal charges through the course of his/her duty (such as the shooting of another person) that officer is required to testify at the grand jury investigation? If so, I see problems on both sides of this!

On the one side it gives the officer not just one (1) but two (2) opportunities to avoid punishment by allowing him/her the ability to defend certain actions.

On the other side it denies the officer fifth amendment protection by compelling testimony, which is NOT fair to the officer who may become a defendant in a trial.

This is where my ignorance will impact my ability to come to a logical and consistent conclusion. I am hoping someone will clarify the specifics here.

As a side thought is there any Federal law that compels grand juries to act in any way or is it a 100% state by state decision?

Regards,

Doug

 

[Denny347]

To Denny,

Perhaps out of ignorance I am unable to logically consider the argument due to my lack of clear facts in this matter. Are you saying that to your knowledge every time a law enforcement officer may be brought up on criminal charges through the course of his/her duty (such as the shooting of another person) that officer is required to testify at the grand jury investigation? If so, I see problems on both sides of this!

On the one side it gives the officer not just one (1) but two (2) opportunities to avoid punishment by allowing him/her the ability to defend certain actions.

On the other side it denies the officer fifth amendment protection by compelling testimony, which is NOT fair to the officer who may become a defendant in a trial.

This is where my ignorance will impact my ability to come to a logical and consistent conclusion. I am hoping someone will clarify the specifics here.

As a side thought is there any Federal law that compels grand juries to act in any way or is it a 100% state by state decision?

Regards,

Doug

All shootings by IMPD that result in a death are required to go to the Grand Jury and that we are required to testify. We are required by local law. A Grand Jury could decide to indict. I do not believe that Garrity Rights are applicable in a Grand Jury and I can be compelled to testify.

 

[T.Lex]

Mostly out of professional curiosity, can you find out what law/rule/regulation/GO requires it? I've never heard of it.

There's this couple of ordinances that require IMPD to forward "all evidence" in a police shooting to the GJ:
https://www.municode.com/library/in...of_ordinances?nodeId=TITIIIPUHEWE_CH641POLAEN

I'm just trying to wrap my head around how an officer can be compelled to testify to a GJ.

For those of you playing along at home, here's a quick reference guide to Garrity:
Quick Reference Guide to the Garrity Right

Of course, I completely understand that an officer and even the department may WANT the officer to testify to exonerate himself/herself and the department. It may be allowed or encouraged, but I'm not sure it can be compelled. I might email John Kautzman.

ETA:
I wonder if there's an understanding that the officer will get use immunity for anything said in the GJ. That would make sense.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Mostly out of professional curiosity, can you find out what law/rule/regulation/GO requires it? I've never heard of it.

There's this couple of ordinances that require IMPD to forward "all evidence" in a police shooting to the GJ:
https://www.municode.com/library/in...of_ordinances?nodeId=TITIIIPUHEWE_CH641POLAEN

I'm just trying to wrap my head around how an officer can be compelled to testify to a GJ.

For those of you playing along at home, here's a quick reference guide to Garrity:
Quick Reference Guide to the Garrity Right

Of course, I completely understand that an officer and even the department may WANT the officer to testify to exonerate himself/herself and the department. It may be allowed or encouraged, but I'm not sure it can be compelled. I might email John Kautzman.

The same way we are excluded from juries, by law. As if we're not citizens ourselves.

 

[Frank_N_Stein]

All shootings by IMPD that result in a death are required to go to the Grand Jury and that we are required to testify. We are required by local law. A Grand Jury could decide to indict. I do not believe that Garrity Rights are applicable in a Grand Jury and I can be compelled to testify.

Garrity only applies to statements given to Internal Affairs. SIU will read you Miranda, but not Garrity. When I testified to the Grand Jury I was not read Garrity, nor did I have an attorney present to counsel me.

 

[Denny347]

Garrity only applies to statements given to Internal Affairs. SIU will read you Miranda, but not Garrity. When I testified to the Grand Jury I was not read Garrity, nor did I have an attorney present to counsel me.

Right, that is what I was meaning I guess.

 

[T.Lex]

The same way we are excluded from juries, by law. As if we're not citizens ourselves.

Well, for as much as the citizens, the judge, and probably the prosecutor want you on the jury, ain't no way no how a defense attorney would let you on one.

(There may be some exceptions.)

Garrity only applies to statements given to Internal Affairs. SIU will read you Miranda, but not Garrity. When I testified to the Grand Jury I was not read Garrity, nor did I have an attorney present to counsel me.

Right, that is what I was meaning I guess.

If SIU is reading Miranda and not Garrity you need a lawyer.

Generally, witnesses testifying before a GJ can have an attorney available, but not in the room. So, the attorney waits outside and if the witness wants to consult, they can.

A couple things:
Just because you weren't read Garrity doesn't mean you didn't need to be. If a true bill had been returned, I have to wonder about the admissibility of the testimony.

I guess the corollary would be for any sort of escalation of force where there could be discipline or charges. Do they at least inform you of Garrity in those situations?

In the GJ setting with an officer shooting, it really seems like the officer needs to be informed they could be a target of the GJ, not just a witness. At that point, it is counter-intuitive to me to think the officer would still testify without consulting an attorney.

Color me stumped.

 

[ArcadiaGP]

sigh....

Indiana Police Dept Mocks Eric Garner Protests With '#WeCanBreathe' Tweet

 

[mrjarrell]

Stay classy, IMPD.

 

[Dead Duck]

Stay classy, IMPD.

Oh Hell -
It's appropriate and hilarious and you know it.

 

[mrjarrell]

It was neither "hilarious" nor "appropriate" and you should know it. The fact that you don't says a lot about you.

 

[Dead Duck]

You mean it was politically incorrect.
That's acceptable to any one with a sense of humor. I'm amusing because you're usually a "stick in the mud" you don't apply.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Stay classy, IMPD.

That's surprising, I know Kendale. He's a smart guy. Obviously he didn't think that one through.

 

[hornadylnl]

It was neither "hilarious" nor "appropriate" and you should know it. The fact that you don't says a lot about you.

Heaven forbid there's ever another IMPD death, I guess we can mock them through twitter.

 

[Blackhawk2001]

Heaven forbid the media go off half-cocked and make a "murder" where there hasn't been one. - As they've done twice so far in the past two years. Mockers are gonna mock, no matter who dies; and people who take themselves too seriously to ensure they have the relevant facts before they make up their minds are worthy of all sorts of mockery.

 

[Dead Duck]

Heaven forbid there's ever another IMPD death, I guess we can mock them through twitter.

Exactly my point.
You have that freedom to mock them and I have the freedom to think it's hilarious if I so choose.
Still cuious why this guys death is so special. Dirtbags die all the time.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Exactly my point.
You have that freedom to mock them and I have the freedom to think it's hilarious if I so choose.
Still cuious why this guys death is so special. Dirtbags die all the time.

You must have a very low bar when labeling people "dirtbags."

 

[BigBoxaJunk]

Am I the only one who, at first glance, thought the thread was "Man dies after NYPD Cuckhold"

 

[Kutnupe14]

Am I the only one who, at first glance, thought the thread was "Man dies after NYPD Cuckhold"

Not touching that one.