Why do obviously justified shootings still go to grand jury?

[seekinganswers]

Can somebody please explain this to me? Here's the latest example I ran across:

http://www.weatherforddemocrat.com/local/local_story_119095415.html

It really baffles my mind. In the cases I'm talking about, like the one I mentioned above, NOBODY thinks or argues it wasn't justified - there is some clear and obvious case under the law where it was justified (in this case, somebody assaulting another inside the home, which in TX would be automatically justified since it's trespass).

I understand going to the grand jury when some facts are in dispute. But when no fact is in dispute and it's crystal clear under the law, why drag them through this and waste time money etc?

Who is bringing these cases? Should there be some law to stop this? It seems like double victimization. Cops don't usually face grand juries when their shootings are clearly justified, they just get some administrative review and time off - talk about a double standard.

 

[Oro]

I believe the theory is that the people determine the law, not the administrators. For example, it may be either law or just common practice that the prosecutor collects the facts in every homicide and presents them to the GJ. Then the GJ decides if it's a justifiable homicide or not. I imagine this varies form jurisdiction to jurisdiction. I don't have a theoretical problem with that. It should help take politics OUT of the process. That every homicide in a county or state gets this level of scrutiny does not bother me.

I think the system is fairly parallel to what LEO's go through - a review. Since a civilian shooting is different than an LEO one, this is the review mechanism for them. I do not see a problem. Let's turn the tables a bit - let's say someone shot and killed YOU. Wouldn't you want to know it was thoroughly examined before it was ruled "justified"?

 

[bhk]

I think in many areas these cases do not go to a grand jury. I think one of the reasons they sometimes do is take to the decision-making stress away from the prosecuting attorney (by his choice). Politically, this is a wise move because these guys are usually elected rather than appointed. Even bad guys have friends and relatives that can really make a political mess of an election. And of course, what may be a 'clear cut case' for you and me might not be for a left winger.

 

[Jeff White]

Whenever there is a defensive shooting, the dead or injured person has a family. And they are going to want to think the best of their family member. So by taking the case to a grand jury or in some places a coroners jury and having it ruled justifiable, they get the family off the prosecutor's back. Remember in most places the prosecuting attorney is an elected position.

A grand jury provides political cover.

Or as was mentioned in an earlier post, it's just the way all cases like that are handled in some locations.

 

[Frog48]

Supposedly there is a TX state law that all fatal shootings go to the grand jury. Its probably buried somewhere in the code of criminal procedure.

 

[ADKWOODSMAN]

DA can CYA!

 

[skidmark]

Because every defensive shooting involves the commission of a crime - either aggravated assault/ADW, attempted murder, or some version of homicide.

State laws have affirmative defenses of justifiable or excusable homicide (which can include the lesser offenses of AA/ADW, AM) but in order to use those defenses you have to start out by admitting that you in fact committed the crime. Plea in esence would be "Guilty with extenuating circumstances."

Grand Jury has the power to hand up a direct indictment, as opposed to waiting for the state prosecutor to bring charges and arraign you in court.

Grand Jury also has the power to refuse to indict. In essence the GJ determines, as opposed to a court or jury trial, that you are entitled to the affirmative defense. Among other things, it is a way of saving the taxpayers money, as well as removing the political pressure on the prosecutor to indict in all cases and let the system sort it out (as has been noted several times).

Hope this helped.

stay safe.

skidmark

 

[ilbob]

I think it is a good idea, at least in the abstract.

We have grand juries for the purpose of making these kind of decisions and they ought to be used more often than they are.

 

[Quoheleth]

Let's turn the tables a bit - let's say someone shot and killed YOU. Wouldn't you want to know it was thoroughly examined before it was ruled "justified"?

At that point, I would truly be past caring.

Q

 

[DoubleTapDrew]

It's cases like this that are causing me to reconsider getting out of jury duty. I know if I was the defendant in a case like (hope I never am!) that I'd want pro-rkba people on the jury rather than mindless people with nothing better to do.

 

[damien]

In the end, I believe the thinking is that sending all fatal shootings to a grand jury is the best way of assuring Due Process for everyone involved. They send every police shooting to a review board. Fair is fair. It isn't like these grand juries have been unfair with Texas citizens. They no-billed the guy who shot dead two burglars leaving his neighbor's home in Texas. Texas grand juries almost always give honest people (and maybe honest but overzealous people) a fair shake.

http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/story?id=5283784&page=1

 

[Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow]

Because the DA gets to decide what is presented to a G.J., and some DAs are idgits.

And, on the bright side, it provides closure to the shooter AND the deceased's family (as mentioned).

 

[Art Eatman]

In Texas, all homicides are brought before a Grand Jury. It doesn't matter if the cops and the DA agree that it was a clean deal. Call it a review process in those events.

In states without a civil-suit protection law, it provides a structure wherein it's more difficult to bring a successful civil suit against the self-defender.

 

[JCF]

In Texas, all homicides are brought before a Grand Jury.

Including law enforcement shootings

 

[withdrawn34]

Not all states bring such cases before a grand jury. However, remember that the law is the law. "Everyone" and the responding LEOs are not judicial authorities; they can make recommendations, but generally the final determination rests with the district attorney in most areas, but in other areas it may also go before a jury of your peers.

If its a justified shooting according to the law, you shouldn't have anything to fear (unless you live in an area where the DA is just looking to lock away innocents). The process is there to ensure a murder doesn't get overlooked because it might look like self-defense at first.

And keep in mind, we're talking about the taking of a human life here. Even if they were bottom feeders intent on hurting you, they are still a life that was taken by you. Obviously such things should be investigated to ensure no foul play.

 

[1911 guy]

My Mother served on a Grand Jury for six months. She said several shooting, both LE and CCW were presented, along with the recommendations of the investigators and DA. She obviously gave no details, but the CCW shooting she said was pretty open and shut, it was presented with the recommendation that Mr. X had acted within the law and Mr. Y deserved what he got. The jury could opine otherwise and indict, but why punish someone the system had already traumatized enough by even sending it to GJ?

 

[Flintknapper]

Art (in post 13 above) is correct...as concerns the State of Texas.

Another reason this is done...stems from the manner in which most Texas law is written. Texas law tends to state what action(s) are illegal and then goes on to provide reasons/circumstances under which that illegal action (homicide for example) might be considered justified...or have "defense to prosecution".

In essence it doesn't matter (initially) if the homicide is justified. Homicide (all) is illegal under the law. A GJ "review" will determine whether or not the case should be persued and they will make their "recommendation".

This addresses and protects the rights/concerns of all parties involved. Some may view this as an inconvenience when the facts of the case clearly show a person acted reasonably. But, I still think it is a good process for many reasons.

Additionally, (in Texas) if you are ever involved in a situation that requires the use of deadly force (resulting in a homicide): If the totality of the circumstance is anything like "prudent/reasonable", historically... you will be "no billed" and sent on your way in short order.

Perhaps not the perfect remedy to all charges, but it works pretty well here.

Flint.

 

[GreyOne]

In Texas, there is also a legal factor involved. A Grand Jury "no bill" is a final action, and a bar to any further prosecution. By getting the Grand Jury to act, if the GJ returns a "no bill" the person cannot be charged later by a new and over zealous prosecutor.

 

[alsaqr]

In OK a prosecutor is not required to take a righteous shooting case to a grand jury. Our county prosecutor has exercised this right at least three times in the past two years.

If the prosecutor decides not to take the case to a grand jury: The family and/or friends of the deceased perp can go on the street and collect enough signatures on a petition to have the case heard by a grand jury. This never happens.