WHAT IS THE FUNCTION OF A GRAND JURY?

1. WHAT IS THE FUNCTION OF A GRAND JURY?

   It’s easy for me to sit here in the comfort of my home and weigh in on the situation unfolding in Ferguson. First and foremost we want to take this moment to send a shot out to the parents of Reginald Brown. It is a tragedy when we are still plagued with ignorance and racism at this day and age. What we plan to do is touch on a few topics which are in dire need of explanations. Lets look closely at what goes into a GRAND JURY and what its function is. We also are going to define what “DEADLY FORCE” AND WHY WE SHOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRACKING LANGUAGE OF IT’S MEANING RATHER THAN THE ACTIONS TAKEN BY BIAS POLICE OFFICERS.

   

   Justice or Just Us?

   GRAND JURY

   The purpose of the grand jury is not to determine guilt or innocence, but to decide whether there is probable cause to prosecute someone for a felony crime. The grand jury operates in secrecy and the normal rules of evidence do not apply. The prosecutor runs the proceedings and no judge is present.

             –  ORIGIN AND HISTORY OF THE GRAND JURY

   The grand jury has a long and honorable tradition. It was recognized in the Magna Carta, the first English constitutional document, which King John granted in 1215 at the demand of his subjects. The first English grand jury consisted of twelve men selected from the knights or other freemen, who were summoned to inquire into crimes alleged to have been committed in their local community. Thus, grand jurors originally functioned as accusers or witnesses, rather than as judges.

   Over the years, the hallmarks of our modern grand jury developed in England. For example, grand jury proceedings became secret, and the grand jury became independent of the Crown. As a result, a grand jury is able to vote an indictment or refuse to do so, as it deems proper, without regard to the recommendations of judge, prosecutor, or any other person. This independence from the will of the government was achieved only after a long hard fight. It can best be illustrated by the celebrated English case involving the Earl of  Shaftasbury, who, in 1681, fell under the suspicion of the Crown. Displeased with him, the Crown presented to the grand jury a proposed bill of indictment for high treason and recommended that it be voted and returned. After hearing the witnesses, the grand jury voted against the bill of indictment and returned it to the King,
   holding that it was not true.

               –  A GRAND JURY’S TASK

   The Grand Jury’s Tasks As stated above, the federal grand jury’s function is to determine whether a person shall be tried for a serious federal crime alleged to have been committed within the district where it sits. Matters may be brought to its attention in three ways:

             (1) by the United States Attorney or an Assistant United States Attorney;
   (2) by the court that impaneled it; and
   (3) from the personal knowledge of a member of the grand jury or from matters properly brought to a          member’s personal attention. In all these cases, the grand jury must hear evidence before taking action.

   

   What Is The Function Of A Grand Jury?

   After it has received evidence against a person, the grand jury must decide whether the evidence presented justifies an indictment, or “true bill,” which is the formal criminal charge returned by the grand jury. Upon the indictment’s being filed in court, the person accused must either plead guilty or nolo contendere or stand trial.
   If the evidence does not persuade the grand jury that there is probable cause to believe the person committed a
   crime, the grand jury will vote a “no bill,” or “not a true bill.” When this occurs, the person is not required to
   plead to a criminal charge, and no trial is required.

   DEADLY FORCE

   An amount of force that is likely to cause either serious bodily injury or death to another person.

   Police officers may use deadly force in specific circumstances when they are trying to enforce the law. Private citizens may use deadly force in certain circumstances in SELF DEFENSE. The rules governing the use of deadly force for police officers are different from those for citizens.

   During the twelfth century, the COMMON LAW allowed the police to use deadly force if they needed it to capture a felony suspect, regardless of the circumstances. At that time, felonies were not as common as they are now and were usually punishable by death. Also, law officers had a more difficult time capturing suspects because they did not have the technology and weaponry that are present in today’s world. In modern times, the courts have restricted the use of deadly force to certain, dangerous situations.

   In police jargon, deadly force is also referred to as shoot to kill. The Supreme Court has ruled that, depending on the circumstances, if an offender resists arrest, police officers may use as much force as is reasonably required to overcome the resistance. Whether the force is reasonable is determined by the judgment of a reasonable officer at the scene, rather than by hindsight. Because police officers can find themselves in dangerous or rapidly changing situations where split second decisions are necessary, the judgment of someone at the scene is vital when looking back at the actions of a police officer.

   The Supreme Court has defined the “objective reasonableness” standard as a balance between the rights of the person being arrested and the government interests that allow the use of force. The FOURTH AMENDMENT protects U.S. citizens from unreasonable searches and seizures, the category into which an arrest falls. The Supreme Court has said that a SEARCH AND SEIZURE is reasonable if it is based on PROBABLE CAUSE and if it does not unreasonably intrude on the rights and privacy of the individual. This standard does not question a police officer’s intent or motivation for using deadly force during an arrest; it only looks at the situation as it has happened.

   For deadly force to be constitutional when an arrest is taking place, it must be the reasonable choice under all the circumstances at the time.Therefore, deadly force should be looked at as an option that is used when it is believed that no other action will succeed. The MODEL PENAL CODE, although not adopted in all states, restricts police action regarding deadly force. According to the code, officers should not use deadly force unless the action will not endanger innocent bystanders, the suspect used deadly force in committing the crime, or the officers believe a delay in arrest may result in injury or death to other people.

   Circumstances that are taken into consideration are the severity of the offense, how much of a threat the suspect poses, and the  to resist or flee the police officer. When arresting someone for a misdemeanor, the police have the right to shoot the alleged offender only in self-defense. If an officer shoots a suspect accused of a misdemeanor for a reason other than self-defense, the officer can be held liable for criminal charges and damages for injuries to the suspect. This standard was demonstrated in the Iowa case of Klinkel v. Saddler,211 Iowa 368, 233 N.W. 538 (1930), where a sheriff faced a WRONGFUL DEATH lawsuit because he had killed a misdemeanor suspect during an arrest. The sheriff said he had used deadly force to defend himself, and the court ruled in his favor.

   I don’t know how many times we have to revisit this situation and think for one moment it’s going to change itself. The laws in this country are written in a way that it always protects the hierarchy. It’s difficult to bring a civil action against individual operating behind the corporate veil, let alone mount a defense against an over zealous cop once he has set his mind a subject is a “threat”.  The laws in this country are too ambiguous and typically affect the poorest in society. It’s a damn shame a persons liberty rest in his or her ability to afford an attorney to represent them once the government has brought up charges against them. I realize the constitution of the United States guarantees each citizens an attorney in criminal cases. But when has it been customary for an employee to fight against the hand that feeds them? This is Maestro man…Amplify the Mumble!

POLICE BRUTALITY! POLICE BRUTALITY! POLICE BRUTALITY! IS TECHNOLOGY EXPOSING THE UGLY TRUTH OF WHAT BLACKS HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING ALL ALONG?

Shocking footage of police officer assaulting a family.

Trigger happy cops putting in work!

More police brutality caught on tape. The question is, “IS THERE MORE POLICE BRUTALITY OCCURRING OR IS TECHNOLOGY EXPOSING THE UGLY UNDER BELLY OF WHAT BLACKS HAVE BEEN EXPERIENCING ALL ALONG?

POLICE BRUTALITY! POLICE BRUTALITY! POLICE BRUTALITY! The sad fact that there isn’t enough time in a day for

ANOTHER LIFE TAKEN BY THE MEN APPOINTED TO SERVE

me to post ALL of the Police Brutality cases popping up all over the country is a damn shame!  For lack of a better word, I am PISSED OFF! We have criminals wearing police uniforms terrorizing the streets. With your permission I am going to free-style on this one. So please excuse me if I don’t use references or draw on statistics. This is raw footage and want to play it unedited. This is Maestro and I pray this post is not taken out of context. But with the way things are unfolding in this country, IT IS WHAT IT IS! For a long time in the early 80’s after the “War on Drugs” was declared, any young African American male driving an expensive car fit the description of a “Drug Dealer”. I remember friends and family members being pulled over in the hood for “Driving Black”. Law enforcement were debriefed and told what to look for as suspicious activity and the 4th Amendment was tossed out the window. As a result, hundreds of thousands of young black African Americans were illegally targets and no one cared.

After the horrific events of 911 unfolded, politicians worked diligently to find someone to point the blame and make public enemy number one. No long thereafter “HOME LAND SECURITY” was sanctioned and with it, profiling Middle Easterners traveling in and out of the United States. One thing the United States is good at is creating a monster to justify implementing their force and domination. What good is having the best arsenal and not having a cause to engage?  There is a saying, Not all Arab’s are terrorist but all known terrorist are Middle Easterners. This is the mentality that has festered in our society for too damn long and it’s time for reform.

POLICE BRUTALITY MUST END!

Your probably asking yourself, “Maestro what does any of this have to do with all of the Police Brutality going on in our cities?” PROFILING, that’s what. This is to demonstrate how prejudice our system is and that it is in serious need of an overhaul. Police are attacking citizens in practically every state and the first thing the media says is, “You can’t judge all cops by the action of a few.” I beg to differ. What we have here is a double standard. If a citizen breaks the law, he/she has a target on their backs along with studies to support recidivism.  In our current society a felon can’t catch a break, yet the cops who go out of their way to wrongfully convict individuals make it extremely difficult to have any confidence in law enforcement.

 

Here in American we live in a civil society. The populace in general are law abiding citizens. Most of the people residing in

WHO IS LEFT TO PROTECT US?

the boarders of the United States would stop if a police car signals to them and cooperate to the fullest with authorities. So why then are cops so pissed off and abusive? Is it that they are over worked and under paid? If that be the case, they should quit and find new employment. But the simple fact the office which vest the power in these unstable men, won’t handle these cases swiftly and impartially gives these offender cops a pass to act out on emotions rather than experience.

What if the citizens follow suit and start profiling officers? What would we look for…Officer’s wearing a police uniform? Guys dressed up and cruising around in police cars? Regardless of how bias this system is I am not stupid enough to think ALL police officers are bad people. But what do you think about if you’re pulled over one night on a dark and lonely road and out of nowhere police lights appear in your rear-view mirror?  With the current state of emergency at hand, the coin appears to have heads on both sides.

RATE THIS VIDEO FROM 1 TO 10!

SIMPLE WORDS CAN NOT EXPRESS MY FEELINGS! SO I WILL LEAVE IT TO YOU, MAKE COMMENTS AND SHARE YOUR OPINIONS WITH US.