Grand jury, or "Oprah"?
I'm reading the transcript of the grand jury proceedings in the May 12 police killing of Keaton Otis. I'm 14 pages into it, and so far all I've read is the officer who was shot by Otis giving a firsthand account of his own fascinating life. The cop even stops and cries a little -- quite a scene.
This is a fair and impartial proceeding? Maybe over the next 694 pages, but not so far. Grand juries are led by the nose, and so far, they've clearly been led to a no-bill.
UPDATE, 6/8, 12:25 a.m.: Here's a lighter moment from the grand jury's long day:
| Posted at 11:05 PM | Permalink |
|
Comments (3)
Otis refused to follow lawful instructions and then he shot a cop. That's the bottom line, unless you think it s possible the cops shot their buddy with a throwdown gun and then planted it on Otis. I don't think that is even a remote possibility, mainly because it requires a conspiracy. There is also the matter of the suspect's mental health.
Most cops don't want to kill people, especially people of color. It's a career limiting move, if nothing else.
Posted by Mister Tee | June 8, 2010 6:09 AM
Mister Tee never met a cop (straight or crooked) that he wouldn't defend.
Posted by LucsAdvo | June 8, 2010 7:28 PM
LucsAdvo,
What did the police officers do wrong here? They tried to make a traffic stop, and Mr. Otis' behavior required them to follow their escalation of force protocol to protect themselves and the public. They tried talking, then physical force, then Tasers, then lethal force.
I thought that's what the cop-haters wanted (don't shoot unless you're shot at)?
What would you have done differently? If you're going to advocate not subjecting racial minorites to traffic stops, you will lose your seat at the grown-ups table. That's utopian thinking and racist.
Posted by Mister Tee | June 9, 2010 11:27 AM