Prosecutors Who Use Their Office To Thwart The Prosecution Of Criminal Cops Do More Harm To The Process Than The Cops They Seek To Protect..

After 9 parish­ioners were sum­mar­i­ly slaugh­tered as they sat in Bible study in their Church base­ment in Charleston South Carolina by deranged beast Dylan Roof, the head of the FBI James Comey said he had already dis­count­ed ter­ror­ism. According to Comey, the lack of polit­i­cal moti­va­tion for the killer’s actions mean’t the alleged shoot­er was not a domes­tic terrorist. 

Comey went on to say ‘Terrorism is act an of vio­lence done or threat­ens to in order to try to influ­ence a pub­lic body or cit­i­zen­ry so it’s more of a polit­i­cal act and again based on what I know so more I don’t see it as a polit­i­cal act. Doesn’t make it any less hor­rif­ic the label but ter­ror­ism has a def­i­n­i­tion under fed­er­al law,’.

The FBI direc­tor’s own char­ac­ter­i­za­tion is an astound­ing indict­ment of him, it goes to the heart of how race fac­tors into every aspect of the jus­tice sys­tem from the low­est munic­i­pal­i­ty to the high­est cor­ri­dors of the supreme court.
♦Dylan Roof went to the Church that evening to kill Black people.
♦ Roof’s stat­ed inten­tion was to do the killings which he hoped would spark a race war.
Comey said ter­ror­ism is an act of vio­lence done or threat­ens to in order to try to influ­ence a pub­lic body or citizenry.
Dylan Storm Roof exact­ly intend­ed and expect­ed that the killing of 9 inno­cent peo­ple as they sat in Bible study that evening would influence(a pub­lic body or cit­i­zen­ry), Black peo­ple to retal­i­ate against whites spark­ing a race war.
The only log­i­cal rea­son one could deduce from Comey’s own words that Dylan Roof does not qual­i­fy as a domes­tic ter­ror­ist is that Comey does not believe Black Americans are (1) A pub­lic body or (2) qual­i­fy as cit­i­zens of the United States.

THIS IS BARACK OBAMA’S (FBI)DIRECTOR…
Addressing cops in Chicago Comey would blame Black Lives Matter activists for cops not doing their jobs.

Comey described a “chill wind” that had gone through law enforce­ment in the wake of viral videos of the police over the past year. Comey’s remarks seemed to be an endorse­ment of the so-called “Ferguson effect,” which sug­gests that exces­sive scruti­ny of law enforce­ment is to blame for the uptick in crime. Comey said offi­cers in one major city felt “under siege” because they were being record­ed when they exit­ed their vehi­cles. “They were hon­est and said they don’t feel much like get­ting out of their cars,” Comey said accord­ing to the Huffingtonpost​.com Ryan J Reilly.

First off Cops who do not feel like get­ting out of the tax­pay­ers cars should find alter­na­tive employment.
The idea that hold­ing police offi­cers account­able for their actions is tan­ta­mount to plac­ing them under siege is incred­i­bly insult­ing to the intel­lect of Black peo­ple who have for hun­dreds of years have been the vic­tims of police abuse and ter­ror in this country.
What are black and brown cit­i­zens to do then sim­ply shut up and look away as their sons and daugh­ters, moth­ers and fathers are being killed with­out offer­ing up any resistance?
It is insan­i­ty on the part of the Black pop­u­la­tion to have faith in the FBI to con­duct fair and impar­tial inves­ti­ga­tions on their behalf in light of this entrenched racial intran­si­gence and lack of empa­thy com­ing from the very mouth of the direc­tor himself.

TAMIR RICE
After tak­ing a whole year to make a rul­ing on the mur­der of (12) year old Cleveland Ohio child Tamir Rice, Prosecutor Tim McGinty in the peace quite and seren­i­ty of the Yuletide sea­son announced that his Grand Jury has decid­ed that there will be no charges against Timithy Loehmann the offi­cer who shot and killed twelve year old Tamir Rice.
Now as a father or four sons and mul­ti­ple nephews all of whom are strap­ping black men my heart bleeds for this family .
As a for­mer Police offi­cer , the broth­er of a for­mer police offi­cer, the Uncle to a young California Police Officer and cousins and friends who are still serv­ing police offi­cers, I am painful­ly aware of the police offi­cers side of the sto­ry as well.
There is an old say­ing in America which goes like this , “If a pros­e­cu­tor wants to indict a ham sand­wich he can”.
The grand jury process was cre­at­ed to pro­tect the integri­ty of the process pre­vent­ing inves­ti­gat­ing offi­cers from being biased when they inves­ti­gate inci­dents involv­ing their col­leagues. It has become just a tool for pros­e­cu­tors, (Mark Garagos defense Attorney).

Tim McGinty did not want those cops pros­e­cut­ed so he used his office as defense coun­sel for Timothy Loehmann, that is the gen­er­al con­sen­sus by a large per­cent­age of ratio­nal thinkers who watched this process play out.
When the Prosecutor goes out of his way to use the office to hire wit­ness­es to argue against an indict­ment which he is sup­posed to be seek­ing it is a gross insult to the process and a slap in the face of the fam­i­lies which are left behind to grieve for their loved ones.
If Prosecutors are going to sub­vert the very process they are sworn to pro­tect where does it leave cit­i­zens whom are abused by the Government?
Prosecutors have a respon­si­bil­i­ty to do their jobs fair­ly and objec­tive­ly. There is nev­er any hes­i­tan­cy or con­flict when they have the oppor­tu­ni­ty to pros­e­cute mem­bers of the pub­lic, and there is a cer­tain glee when they get to pros­e­cute Black citizens.
It fol­lows there­fore that if they can­not pros­e­cute cops for com­mit­ting crimes they should step aside. If pros­e­cu­tors can­not extri­cate them­selves from the cozy rela­tion­ships they share with police to effec­tive­ly uphold the laws as is required by their oath then the very oath they take is a lie.
Standing in the way of the appoint­ment of spe­cial pros­e­cu­tion just so they can pro­tect crim­i­nal behav­ior by cops is crim­i­nal conduct.
A pros­e­cu­tor who is over­ly chum­my with the police should nev­er have the pow­er to cir­cum­vent the process with his/​her own bias­es to pro­tect a guilty police offi­cer from prosecution.
It is incred­i­bly harm­ful to the process, the fam­i­lies who are left behind to grieve and it is harm­ful to police offi­cers who have to go out dai­ly and patrol dan­ger­ous neighborhoods.

WHERE HAVE WE SEEN THIS BEFORE?

Richmond County District Attorney Daniel Donovan, Jr did not want NYPD cop Daniel Pantaleo indict­ed for mur­der­ing Eric Garner in the process Donavan used his office as defense coun­cil for Pantaleo ‚all the time giv­ing the fam­i­ly of mis­ter Garner the impres­sion that the Grand Jury he impan­eled would be fair and impartial.
In the end we all know Donovan did the exact oppo­site, he made sure that the cop-apol­o­gist grand jury he put togeth­er would not indict. Cops are not held account­able on Staten Island a bas­tion for cops , and fire­fight­ers and their fam­i­lies. Is that Justice ?
In fact Donovan’s office did not even request an indict­ment , which is the sole pur­pose for pros­e­cu­tor impan­el­ing a grand jury in the first place.
Tim McGinty did not ask for an indict­ment either yet both char­la­tans came out and offered plat­i­tudes and nuanced cocka­mamie to the fam­i­lies of the mur­dered victims.
“There is no ques­tion that a grand jury will do pre­cise­ly what the pros­e­cu­tor wants, vir­tu­al­ly 100% of the time,” says James Cohen, a law pro­fes­sor at Fordham University who spe­cial­izes in crim­i­nal pro­ce­dure. “This was, as was the case in Missouri, orches­trat­ed by the prosecutor.”

According to the web­site Gothamist​.com While most legal experts believed that the grand jury did not have enough evi­dence to prove a mur­der charge, the grand jury could have charged Pantaleo with manslaugh­ter or crim­i­nal­ly neg­li­gent homicide.

“In this case, you had video­tape, and the video­tape is pret­ty darn clear,” Cohen says. “The video showed that the offi­cer engaged in a long-pro­hib­it­ed con­duct, a choke­hold, and it does­n’t seem to make any dif­fer­ence to the jury. And that’s because the pros­e­cu­tor decid­ed that there should be no indict­ment for any crim­i­nal behavior.”

Randolph McLaughlin, a law pro­fes­sor at Pace Law School and civ­il rights attor­ney, agreed.

“The grand jury is a tool of the pros­e­cu­tor. At a min­i­mum, it was neg­li­gent, it was reck­less, it was some lev­el of homi­cide. Surely they could have indict­ed this offi­cer on any num­ber of charges and let the pub­lic hear, let a tri­al hap­pen, expose to the light of day what went on here. This man is a pub­lic ser­vant, and he com­mit­ted these acts as a pub­lic ser­vant, wear­ing the uni­form of a pub­lic ser­vant, and he should be called to account for it.”

When a mem­ber of the pub­lic com­mits an offence whether it’s inten­tion­al or not that per­son gen­er­al­ly has to go before a court of law to answer for what he or she has done. It is through that process that infor­ma­tion is aired out , boils are lanced and anger sub­sides through the fair and equi­table dis­pen­sa­tion of justice.
It can­not be that some peo­ple , (sta­tion incon­se­quen­tial) are immune from that process when they break the laws.
No one should be above the laws, when that hap­pens anger brews and ani­mos­i­ty develops.
This has been the way white men in America does busi­ness for hun­dreds of years when it comes to deal­ing with oth­ers and par­tic­u­lar­ly their hat­ed Black Countrymen.
Is that inju­di­cious use of pow­er going to be sus­tain­able into perpetuity?
What do they expect will hap­pen when the peo­ple aggriev­ed rise up and say no more?

Whether a police offi­cer’s con­duct is crim­i­nal or not in sit­u­a­tions where pub­lic out­cry is intense it ought not be the pre­rog­a­tive of pros­e­cu­tors to cir­cum­vent the process by which jus­tice is arrived at. It makes a mock­ery of the process and a das­tard­ly lie that this is the best there is anywhere.
Best for whom?
Police offi­cers have an extreme­ly dif­fi­cult job . They are gen­er­al­ly asked to make split sec­ond deci­sions as a mat­ter of life and death. They are asked to deal with the worst of the worst , and they are asked to run to dan­ger when the rest of us run from it.
I know this all to well and it is with that knowl­edge that I speak fair­ly on the sub­ject , under­stand­ing both sides of the equation.

Laws in the United States are incred­i­bly lib­er­al in favor of police offi­cers . Additionally there is much pub­lic sup­port for the role and work of police offi­cers across the board even in cas­es where it clear­ly ought not be so.
It is with that in mind that police offi­cers should be mind­ful that they do not betray the trust and con­fi­dence placed in them . It is also impor­tant that polic­ing be done with open minds and a lack of prejudice.
It is nev­er okay to kill some­one and sim­ply say I’m sorry.
Sorry does not bring a dead per­son back.
Prosecutors who mis­use their office to short cir­cuit the process by pro­tect­ing crim­i­nal behav­ior does more harm to the process than the errant cops themselves.
This must stop.