A President weighs in.

[lazarus]

Here's the text of a letter from an SDA Conference President. Excellent!

 

The Bible teaches us the "righteousness exalteth a nation: but sin is a reproach to any people". Proverbs 14:34

For millions of New Yorkers this was an anxious week. Many patiently awaited the results of a grand jury inquiry into the death of Staten Island resident, Eric Garner. The failure to indict the police officer, who is clearly seen on video applying the banned chokehold procedure on the victim, as he pleaded for his life, is a tremendous disappointment to millions of law-abiding citizens. There is a sense that justice has eluded us and that certain lives are valued less than others.

As I think of my own sons and the thousands of minority youths whose spiritual home is the Northeastern Conference, I cannot but be compelled to join our voice to those crying out for a more just society. I join those calling on the Federal Government to conduct its own investigation into the death of an unarmed black man. The Word of God urges us "Learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the fatherless, plead the widow's cause". (Isaiah 1:17)

I call on our Pastors and lay leaders to speak up respectably in support of the safety and civil rights of our young men and women. Engage the youth of your church and community in discussion, action and prayer. We encourage your participation in public forums, marches and non-violent events in which Seventh-day Adventists can speak up for peace and justice without compromising our religious convictions.

May the Lord bless you and keep you as you "do justly, and love mercy, and walk humbly before God".

 

Daniel Honoré
President

 

http://spectrummagazine.org/article/2014/12/07/northeastern-conference-president-issues-statement-eric-garner-homicide

[lazarus]

Will be lobbying my own Conference to make a similar statement.

[Gregory Matthews]

I can agree that there are wrongs that need to be righted.  I can agree that   sometimes racial minorities, for whatever reason, do not always get the same level of justice that other groups receive.  Disparate treatment  is given on the basis of age, gender, race (whatever that means), gender preference, sexual orientation, skin color and more.  In all of these cases the foundational cause should be discovered and rectified.  Root causes should be addressed.  Disparate treatment should not continue forever.

 

When the root cause is criminal, it should be addressed by a criminal process.  That process may include a so-called Grand Jury.   Many who are outside of active involvement in law enforcement do not understand how high the bar may be to return a criminal indictment.  A lack of criminal indictment does not translate to an inability to effectively address the root cause and institute changes.  Speaking frankly, I can understand how it is that in the two recent cases the Grand Jury failed to return indictments against the two police officers involved.

 

How can things be changed?  Well, one way might be   to change what in the military is called the Rules of  Engagement.  I will suggest that in both of those cases the  ROE under  which the police officers were operating need to be changed.

 

Self-disclosure of a possible bias:

1I have a son who is a correctional officer at a major prison.

2)  There have been multiple occasions when he has had to make a decision as to whether or not to pull the trigger on an inmate who was in the sights of his weapon.  In every case, when he actually fired  (He did not always fire.), his decision was to fire a non-lethal bean-bag round. 

3) On one occasion he formally turned in two other correctional officers for mistreatment of a prisoner in a case that drug on for several years and ultimately resulted in disciplinary action against both.

[lazarus]

I can certainly understand why these police officers were not indicted. There is no confusion in my mind. There is clear data that indicates the white defendants are given favorable consideration.There is that famous saying that a prosecutor can get a grand jury to "indict a ham sandwhich". Policies need to be changed.
 

[Woody]

Someone voiced an opinion on something he has no understanding of.

Unless I am mistaken .... this man was not in any of the Grand Juries so he knows not of that which he speaks.

I pray that our other leaders are not as foolish.

[Tom Wetmore]

Someone voiced an opinion on something he has no understanding of.

Unless I am mistaken .... this man was not in any of the Grand Juries so he knows not of that which he speaks.

I pray that our other leaders are not as foolish.

That seems to hold true of every single person here to have voiced an opinion here (including you) and everyone from their favorite "news" source that they are parroting...

Rather silly to base an opinion of the depth of others' knowledge and understanding of the matters in question on them not be on the Grand Juries themselves, don't you think? Rather limits the pool of who can speak up. Maybe that is the objective...

[Woody]

For those who like to speak out of ignorance .... go for it.

[Sojourner]

Its good to know that President Wilson was given access to all the evidence that the Grand Jury looked at before making his accusations towards those in authority that made those decisions. There is no way at all that President Wilson would have simply made his comments on just having read and watched media reports on what was reported to have happened. Wilson would be openly aware of the many times that the media have savaged the Seventh-day Adventist church and openly made up lies and slander about the denomination to sell media such as in the Waco case and the Azaria Chamberlain case. Three cheers for the bald man, maybe next he could go and address the UN over the problems in Israel and Palestine and give them some similar insights there also? 

[Tom Wetmore]

Speaking of being sufficiently informed before one speaks ones' opinion.... The president in question is not President Wilson.

[phkrause]

Speaking of being sufficiently informed before one speaks ones' opinion.... The president in question is not President Wilson.

I was thinking the same thing! And am very interested as to who the bold man is!!

[Sojourner]

Speaking of being sufficiently informed before one speaks ones' opinion.... The president in question is not President Wilson.

 

True    It is in fact - Daniel Honoré, I do apologise for that statement regarding President Wilson! 

[hch]

True    It is in fact - Daniel Honoré, I do apologise for that statement regarding President Wilson! 

 

With the news glut as it is, it is easy to miss an important fact in a story.

 

Several years ago when a rookie white policeman (an SDA and son of my co worker) killed a black man (son of another coworker) in Collegedale TN, it tore me up. Our church prayed for mercy while the grieving mother prayed for justice.

 

The continuing needless deaths of black men and boys is a wake-up call

for the saints to point folks to a better land were such things will never happen.

 

Should the call be to community activism or for enhances Christian Service?

[lazarus]

 

Should the call be to community activism or for enhances Christian Service?

The two are not mutually exclusive. I believe they go hand in hand.

[Gerr]

 

Line of Duty Deaths: 108 in 2014

Assault: 2

Automobile accident: 24

Drowned: 1

Fire: 1

Gunfire: 43

Gunfire (Accidental): 2

Heart attack: 15

Motorcycle accident: 3

Struck by vehicle: 3

Vehicle pursuit: 4

Vehicular assault: 10

 

Read more: http://www.odmp.org/search/year#ixzz3Ltd8MN4c

 

Line of Duty Deaths: 108 in 2013

Assault: 2

Automobile accident: 24

Drowned: 1

Fire: 1

Gunfire: 43

Gunfire (Accidental): 2

Heart attack: 15

Motorcycle accident: 3

Struck by vehicle: 3

Vehicle pursuit: 4

Vehicular assault: 10

Read more: http://www.odmp.org/search/year#ixzz3Ltd8MN4c

 

Line of Duty Deaths: 126 in 2012

9/11 related illness: 4
Aircraft accident: 3
Assault: 1
Automobile accident: 22
Duty related illness: 3
Fall: 2
Gunfire: 48
Gunfire (Accidental): 2
Heart attack: 7
Heat exhaustion: 1
Motorcycle accident: 5
Stabbed: 5
Struck by vehicle: 6
Training accident: 1
Vehicle pursuit: 5
Vehicular assault: 11

 

Read more: http://www.odmp.org/search/year/2012#ixzz3Ltf0DqTd

 

 

As everyone can see, policemen live dangerous lives and need justice too.  When a citizen shoots at a policeman, is it with intent to kill a law officer?  When a policeman shoots at a citizen, is it with intent to kill an innocent person?

[phkrause]

As everyone can see, policemen live dangerous lives and need justice too.  When a citizen shoots at a policeman, is it with intent to kill a law officer?  When a policeman shoots at a citizen, is it with intent to kill an innocent person?

 

Excellent points. How many Policeman have been shot just approaching a car to ask for the drivers license and registration????? I think most policeman have itchy fingers because its never known what someone will do, or who's actually carrying a concealed weapon. If I remember correctly police have the most difficult job and have the shortest life span?

[lazarus]

 

 

 

As everyone can see, policemen live dangerous lives and need justice too.  When a citizen shoots at a policeman, is it with intent to kill a law officer?  When a policeman shoots at a citizen, is it with intent to kill an innocent person?

 

 

Police officers do get justice. How many people who shoot a police officer are never changed or convicted? I venture to say that 99% are caught and convicted. How many police are charged? Very few. It doesn't really matter if the person innocent because they know the likelihood is that they will not face any consequences.

[Gregory Matthews]

Lazarus:

 

1)  It is highly unlikely that a police officer who was following the so-called Rules of Engagement (ROE), could be convicted under criminal law of a criminal offense.  The remedy here is to change the ROE.

 

2) Under  civil litigation, a case against an officer who was following the ROE would have a limited chance of success.  Such litigation should probably be made against the civil authority that published the applicable ROE.

[Gregory Matthews]

I think that it would be helpful to consider the protections of the 5th Amendment and what it means.  NOTE:  The following is taken from a Cornell University website at:  www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fifth_amendment

 

The Fifth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides,

 

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

 

 

The following is an explaination of the 5th Amendment:

 

The clauses incorporated within the Fifth Amendment outline basic constitutional limits on police procedure. The Framers derived the Grand Juries Clause and the Due Process Clause from the Magna Carta, dating back to 1215. Scholars consider the Fifth Amendment as capable of breaking down into the following five distinct constitutional rights: grand juries for capital crimes, a prohibition on double jeopardy, a prohibition against required self-incrimination, a guarantee that all criminal defendants will have a fair trial, and a promise that the government will not seize private property without paying market value. While the Fifth Amendment originally only applied to federal courts, the U.S. Supreme Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment's provisions as now applying to the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Grand Juries

Grand juries are a holdover from hundreds of years ago, originating during Britain's early history. Deeply-rooted in the Anglo-American tradition, the grand jury originally served to protect the accused from overly-zealous prosecutions by the English monarchy.

 

Congressional statutes outline the means by which a grand jury shall be impaneled. Ordinarily, the grand jurors are selected from the pool of prospective jurors who potentially could serve on a given day in any juror capacity. At common-law, a grand jury consists of between 12 and 23 members. Because the Grand jury was derived from the common-law, courts use the common-law as a means of interpreting the Grand Jury Clause. While state legislatures may set the statutory number of grand jurors anywhere within the common-law requirement of 12 to 23, statutes setting the number outside of this range violate the Fifth Amendment. Federal law has set the federal grand jury number as falling between 16 and 23.

 

A person being charged with a crime that warrants a grand jury has the right to challenge members of the grand juror for partiality or bias, but these challenges differ from peremptory challenges, which a defendant has when choosing a trial jury. When a defendant makes a peremptory challenge, the judge must remove the juror without making any proof, but in the case of a grand juror challenge, the challenger must establish the cause of the challenge by meeting the same burden of proof as the establishment of any other fact would require. Grand juries possess broad authority to investigate suspected crimes. They may not, however, conduct "fishing expeditions" or hire individuals not already employed by the government to locate testimony or documents. Ultimately, grand juries may make a presentment. During a presentment the grand jury informs the court that they have a reasonable suspicion that the suspect committed a crime.

 

 

Here is the bottom line, a person being charged with a  criminal offense may have the right to have that decision made by a so-called Grand Jury.  In the recent cases most people would consider it more fair to have that decision made by a grand Jury than to be made be a single elected official.   I would agree with that. 

 

The function of the Grand Jury is not to determine right and wrong.  And, it is not to convict a person of a crime.  It is simply to determine whether or not there is  reasonable cause to bring a person to trial.  The idea is that no person should be subject to going to trial when reasonable cause did not exist to convict.     the standard required for a criminal conviction is rightly higher than the standard required for a civil conviction.  Why, because a criminal conviction may have consequences that are not the consequences of a civil conviction. 

[Gerr]

Police officers do get justice. How many people who shoot a police officer are never changed or convicted? I venture to say that 99% are caught and convicted. How many police are charged? Very few. It doesn't really matter if the person innocent because they know the likelihood is that they will not face any consequences.

With so many policeman killed on the line of duty, put yourself in their shoes, what would be your state of mind as you approach a suspicious car, or a disrespectful person?  I know mine would be self-preservation.

[Gregory Matthews]

In mid-October (2014) Rocky Ford (Colorado) Police Officer, James Ashby (Caucasian) fired a bullet that killed Hispanic Jack Jacquez.  Officer Ashby was arrested on November 14 and fired from his position of Police Officer the same day.  He has been charged with 2nd degree murder and the case is working its way to trial.  The next court hearing will happen on January 15.  The Rocky Ford Community which did have some protests and marches is now quiet as the case proceeds to trial. 

 

The wheels of justice may turn slowly but regardless of the direction that they roll, they do turn.

[Sojourner]

Two white police men have been shot dead as they simply sat in their vehicle. Information suggests they were targeted for revenge because of the above case and because of their skin colour. 
 

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/news/world/two-nypd-officers-executed-in-apparent-revenge-attack-for-deaths-of-eric-garner-and-michael-brown/story-fni6um3i-1227163371502?sv=c860ad68ec6a697680d8605adea96dcf&net_sub_uid=34389350

 

 

 

 

[phkrause]

What do we think is gonna happen now?? First there will be no protests about getting justice for them, and secondly there will be no riots & looting by police officers!!

[lazarus]

Lazarus:

 

1)  It is highly unlikely that a police officer who was following the so-called Rules of Engagement (ROE), could be convicted under criminal law of a criminal offense.  The remedy here is to change the ROE.

 

2) Under  civil litigation, a case against an officer who was following the ROE would have a limited chance of success.  Such litigation should probably be made against the civil authority that published the applicable ROE.

I agree with you that policies need to be changed but there must be a recognition that attitudes must be changed.

 

Scores of defense attorneys in New York City and elsewhere protested the criminal justice system’s handling of police killings of unarmed black men by participating in marches and die-ins Wednesday.

In Brooklyn, public defenders and other lawyers marched at courthouses and a prosecutor’s office and staged a die-in outside a city jail. They later stood in front of a criminal court, chanting, “Black lives matter” and “I can’t breathe,” a reference to the last words of Eric Garner, a 43-year-old Staten Island resident who was killed in July.

In Philadelphia, a group of lawyers participated in a die-in at the Criminal Justice Center.

 

We believe that every police officer who takes a life wrongly should be indicted and convicted,” attorney Michael Letwin told 1010 WINS. “Moreover, we think that the police department needs to stop targeting communities of color for disproportionate and discriminatory arrests and prosecutions and convictions that all lead to the kinds of killings that we’ve seen with Eric Garner and Mike Brown in Ferguson.”

 

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2014/12/17/defense-lawyers-march-in-brooklyn-to-protest-police-killings/

[lazarus]

What do we think is gonna happen now?? First there will be no protests about getting justice for them, and secondly there will be no riots & looting by police officers!!

 

There will be no protests because the killer is dead and cop killers rarely get away with it. Whereas cops who kill people often do.

[lazarus]

 

In mid-October (2014) Rocky Ford (Colorado) Police Officer, James Ashby (Caucasian) fired a bullet that killed Hispanic Jack Jacquez.  Officer Ashby was arrested on November 14 and fired from his position of Police Officer the same day.  He has been charged with 2nd degree murder and the case is working its way to trial.  The next court hearing will happen on January 15.  The Rocky Ford Community which did have some protests and marches is now quiet as the case proceeds to trial.

Gregory: This officer is exception that proves the rule:

 

With his arrest last month, Ashby, 41, became the first Colorado law enforcement officer in more than two decades to face a murder charge in an on-duty death. A Denver officer was acquitted in a 1992 shooting.