Grand Juror in Michael Brown Case Asking Court For Gag Order Removed

[K_Z]

So, originally I thought this was a thinly veiled attempt to force some kind of changes to the GJ system. But I was clearly gullible to originally take this at face value from the headlines, as the voice of only one disgruntled Grand Juror. After I read and digested the whole lawsuit document, it’s now clear to me that it is not a thinly veiled attempt at all—it’s a quite OVERT attempt to force changes to the GJ process, using this Grand Juror’s “free speech rights” as the basis for exploitation.

I also think there is a specific group of people using this juror to further their agenda. Either this juror outed him/herself willingly, or worse, was followed and targeted by individuals with a specific “agitator” agenda, and persuaded that his/ her “rights” were somehow being infringed after the fact. (Never mind that this juror definitely knew exactly what the “gag” rules were at the inception of his/ her service last May.)

It’s also very clear to me that this lawsuit is designed to set circumstances in motion to identify and out the OTHER 11 jurors, as well as eventually reveal who voted which way. This attack on the secrecy and gag provisions is a collateral mechanism to achieve “transparency” as to who the Grand Jurors are, and how they voted—so they can be further attacked, IMO. (Social media, liberal news media, targets of the rioters, etc.) The absolute safety and privacy of the OTHER 11 jurors, IMO, demands that THIS lawsuit not go forward, or be concluded in favor of the plaintiff. You want to talk about a “chilling effect?”

If this lawsuit goes forward, and any of these Grand Jurors are “outed”, and attacked or harassed, getting reasonable, employed, engaged, law abiding citizens to agree to being jurors or Grand Jurors in the future will become even MORE difficult than it already is.

Imagine the fears of prospective jurors that groups of misfit sociopathic rioters will show up in their neighborhood to burn homes down if they don’t agree with the jury verdicts, or Grand Jury true bill/ no true bill decisions? Or that they and their families will be harassed and stalked by disgruntled thugs? Who is going to re-arrange their lives to serve on long GJ terms, or long jury trials? Already, the demographics of willing and available jurors for long trials (exceeding a week) is heavily skewed, and not a representative slice of the population.

I think Prosecutor McCullough should investigate how it is that this GJ’r is being “assisted” to file this lawsuit. Because the whole thing stinks, IMO. Read between the lines of the document. This is not the actions of one disgruntled Grand Juror, IMO. I’d bet my left arm that there’s some heavy influence behind this action by the “leadership” members of the agitator/ race baiter groups. That's my opinion. This isn't a free speech issue at all. This ranks right up there with shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, when there isn't one. This is a thinly veiled attempt to incite another riot, IMO, and bully and harass the other 11 jurors. IMO.

It's a trash lawsuit, IMO. It should be dismissed.

 

[tlcya]

I don't think it's veiled at all. Somewhere along the way I thought I read that that is one thing the grand jury is interested in - reform to the grand jury system.

I don't know if Doe will win or not but certainly the federal court can find that state law is unconstitutional in so far as it violates the grand juror's freedom of speech, in which case yes, suing the prosecutor can overturn state law.

I'm sure part of it is seeking their 15 minutes of fame, but I also don't doubt that it goes beyond that. If it was just 15 minutes of fame, write a book, make millions or hundreds of thousands, let the prosecutor charge you and pay the thousand dollar fine from the hundreds of thousands you made.

I doubt that they've broken any law by speaking to their attorney. No chance that anyone gets charged for speaking to an attorney.

Personally, I hope they are successful. I am most curious to find out how this case was handled and presented differently than all of the other cases presented during the term of the GJ. I think it is a major reason why local prosecutors and LE cannot and should not be responsible for investigating and presenting any officer involved shooting. I don't want to string cops up by the neck, but if, in fact, the case was treated differently in it's presentment, that's a problem and that has to be fixed. I would be all in favor of a new, elected position that handles all abuse of force and officer involved shooting cases that may end up in criminal charges. The public can then trust the individual to do their job in investigating and prosecuting those cases that warrant it or else they won't be re-elected and in turn that will give more legitimacy and trust by the public in those cases where the decision is made to not bring charges.

re your BBM and in light of what we have seen recently in this country, I tend to agree. I think the days of trusting LE to police itself are coming to an end. I say that not because I believe that there is a rampant problem of officer involved shootings that are actually murder. I say it because even the appearance or suggestion of impropriety is damaging to the nation at this point and if the appearance or suggestion of impropriety in investigating officer involved shootings can be avoided by assigning an independent more third party process at this point I believe that should happen.

I for one do not want to be having this debate as a nation for the next twenty years if it can be avoided.

 

[K_Z]

No. 9 were needed to issue an indictment. 8 people could have voted to indict. 7 could have agreed with this particular grand juror. Obviously, it's possible that none voted to indict as well, but that's not my point. It could be that only 4 voted not to indict and they walked that plank alone and that is sufficient to prevent an indictment from being handed down.

That's the whole point of the GJ system, and of jury verdicts. Are you trying to say verdicts should always be unanimous??

There is almost always some dissent. That doesn't make the verdict "wrong". And sometimes it goes the other way-- remember the Casey Anthony verdict?? Not guilty on ANY charge? Dissent is part of our system. We're going for the top of the bell curve here, not outliers on the right or left tails of the curve. That's why we have a jury system, to spread decision making over a group, and give less power to any one person.

I have some doubts and concerns with the current jury system myself, and believe there are a number of reforms that should be considered and discussed. But that's another discussion all together.

I don't believe this prosecutor did anything wrong. I don't think he should have had to bring this case to a grand jury at all, but he did, and I'm still ok with it. He was in a no win situation-- he had to make the best decision he could, and he did, within the framework of the GJ.

I have a lot of heartburn about how this case was tried BY the media, and how it was presented from the very beginning. The media framing of this case, IMO, is 100% responsible for inciting the riots and unrest that occurred, and kept it going on and on. This was a case of an officer on the job, shooting a suspect who had assaulted him, and just robbed a store and assaulted a shopkeeper minutes earlier. And yet, from day one, the headlines persuaded the public that an "innocent, unarmed black teenager" was gunned down by a big, bad white policeman for no reason at all, as he was walking to Grandma's house. A complete fraud perpetrated on a gullible public, IMO.

I'm sorry this GJ'r is upset with the laws in MO. He or she should have asked to be dismissed from the GJ, IMO, right from the start. That would have been the ethical way to proceed. Now he or she wants us to believe his or her "rights" to "free speech" have been suppressed ("chilled") by the big, mean prosecutor, whose job it is to uphold the laws of the state of Missouri. Nope. Not buying it for a minute. This juror needs to go back to his or her previous life and move on, while remaining silent about THIS case (and all the OTHER cases) he or she encountered during their term of service.

I hope this person is never chosen to serve on a jury again. He or she has no idea what their role is supposed to be, IMO.

 

[al66pine]

Meh. I get what they're saying. It's presented as if the GJ as a whole didn't favor an indictment, when in reality 8 could have and there could have been 4 hold outs. I do think if it was simply presented more clearly, as in at least 4 grand jurors voted not to indict, it gives it a more proper context than saying the grand jury voted not to indict.....

sbm bbm

Minimum # of G/J members required to return a true bill to indict LEO DW on any charge did not vote for true bill.

If G/J Doe feels -
--- diff # or diff majority (simple, super, 2/3, unanimity) is a better law, no need to blab about experience on this G/J.
--- special prosecutor should be appt'ed for all LEO involved shootings, no need to blab about experience on this G/J.

To help get law changed, G/J Doe can write Mo State reps & senators, contact pol. &social groups to advance the cause,
as others here have mentioned.

Was Doe forced to serve on G/J against his/her will?
Took the oath, swore to silence on the subject, now has changed mind?
No chilling effect on First Amendment rights, imo. Sorry.

ETA: If Doe believed G/J foreperson miscounted votes or misrepresented G/J's decision in certifying it to the court,
Doe should have spoken up then.

ETA: Sorry I have mistakenly bn calling the petitioning G/J 'Roe' instead of 'Doe.' My apologies to him/her and everyone reading here.

 

[reedus23]

I hear what you are saying. But I truly believe that there needed to be every effort made to give the appearance of no sides period in terms of this specific case going before the GJ.

I just honestly feel that no matter what, this prosecutor was going to be wrong. Literally no matter what. Don't take it to GJ, he is part of the problem.

Do take it to them but don't let the liars in to testify, then it becomes who are the liars and as we have seen on these boards opinions vary greatly.

IMO there were more liars from either stance than truth tellers, so then it would have been - well why is he keeping this one or that one I have seen on the news from testifying. Which would have been followed by demands to hear from those liars, again all JMO. And on and on it goes.

There was no way that the entire world was going to see the actions of LE, protesters, GJ, Prosecutor, and so forth as proper or agree with the action taken and decisions made. This case has quite literally divided a nation, so no matter what, lots of someones somewhere would be screaming injustice.

I can guarantee that had charges been filed against the officer by the state I would be in the streets protesting and screaming injustice right now.

I'll be honest with ya, as much as I have enjoyed reading every single page of those transcripts, the way it should have been handled is just like every other case. If McCulloch didn't think there was sufficient evidence in the first place to warrant an indictment, he never should have taken it to the GJ. He should have had the cajones to say no. It's not like he won't get re-elected in St. Louis County. Once he took it to the GJ, he should have presented it just like every other case, remembering that the defendant was Darren Wilson, not Michael Brown. If he didn't want to vigorously seek an indictment, while also presenting exculpatory evidence, then he never should have presented it in the first place. Once he vigorously put on the evidence, he shouldn't have started making exceptions to the rules himself, for example releasing the evidence.

So I don't disagree with you. No matter what, he was in a tough spot. All the more reason 1. for a special prosecutor in all cases such as this and 2. to do things by the book, not as was done.

 

[reedus23]

So, originally I thought this was a thinly veiled attempt to force some kind of changes to the GJ system. But I was clearly gullible to originally take this at face value from the headlines, as the voice of only one disgruntled Grand Juror. After I read and digested the whole lawsuit document, it’s now clear to me that it is not a thinly veiled attempt at all—it’s a quite OVERT attempt to force changes to the GJ process, using this Grand Juror’s “free speech rights” as the basis for exploitation.

I also think there is a specific group of people using this juror to further their agenda. Either this juror outed him/herself willingly, or worse, was followed and targeted by individuals with a specific “agitator” agenda, and persuaded that his/ her “rights” were somehow being infringed after the fact. (Never mind that this juror definitely knew exactly what the “gag” rules were at the inception of his/ her service last May.)

It’s also very clear to me that this lawsuit is designed to set circumstances in motion to identify and out the OTHER 11 jurors, as well as eventually reveal who voted which way. This attack on the secrecy and gag provisions is a collateral mechanism to achieve “transparency” as to who the Grand Jurors are, and how they voted—so they can be further attacked, IMO. (Social media, liberal news media, targets of the rioters, etc.) The absolute safety and privacy of the OTHER 11 jurors, IMO, demands that THIS lawsuit not go forward, or be concluded in favor of the plaintiff. You want to talk about a “chilling effect?”

If this lawsuit goes forward, and any of these Grand Jurors are “outed”, and attacked or harassed, getting reasonable, employed, engaged, law abiding citizens to agree to being jurors or Grand Jurors in the future will become even MORE difficult than it already is.

Imagine the fears of prospective jurors that groups of misfit sociopathic rioters will show up in their neighborhood to burn homes down if they don’t agree with the jury verdicts, or Grand Jury true bill/ no true bill decisions? Or that they and their families will be harassed and stalked by disgruntled thugs? Who is going to re-arrange their lives to serve on long GJ terms, or long jury trials? Already, the demographics of willing and available jurors for long trials (exceeding a week) is heavily skewed, and not a representative slice of the population.

I think Prosecutor McCullough should investigate how it is that this GJ’r is being “assisted” to file this lawsuit. Because the whole thing stinks, IMO. Read between the lines of the document. This is not the actions of one disgruntled Grand Juror, IMO. I’d bet my left arm that there’s some heavy influence behind this action by the “leadership” members of the agitator/ race baiter groups. That's my opinion. This isn't a free speech issue at all. This ranks right up there with shouting "fire" in a crowded theater, when there isn't one. This is a thinly veiled attempt to incite another riot, IMO, and bully and harass the other 11 jurors. IMO.

It's a trash lawsuit, IMO. It should be dismissed.

Told ya they said as much. There was nothing veiled about it.

As for outing the other grand jurors...link please. I didn't see that anywhere in there.

Do you condemn McCulloch as well for giving out information about the grand jurors? Do you condemn McCulloch from releasing the evidence, which gave enough information that multiple witnesses could be identified. Heck, in some instances, they flat out didn't even redact the names.

I'm gonna doubt that it's some grand conspiracy. My guess is that it's one of the black jurors, probably the black female. I'm gonna guess that the grand juror wasn't comfortable with how things were presented when compared to her experience with all of the other cases. My guess is she then went and talked to a lawyer, maybe one that referred her to the ACLU or one already with the ACLU. So now we want to infringe on people's rights to counsel? I mean, how would she even know if she could challenge the statute without talking to an attorney? So she have went her life dumb and blindfolded because lord forbid she seek out what her constitutional rights are?

Incite a riot? This doesn't meet any definition of inciting a riot. You obviously disagree with the lawsuit and you believe there are ulterior motives behind it, and it may result in further protesting, but I suspect that there isn't a prosecuting attorney in the country that would file charges for inciting a riot against a person who was merely seeking to have a determination of what their constitutional rights are.

 

[Steft50]

re your BBM and in light of what we have seen recently in this country, I tend to agree. I think the days of trusting LE to police itself are coming to an end. I say that not because I believe that there is a rampant problem of officer involved shootings that are actually murder. I say it because even the appearance or suggestion of impropriety is damaging to the nation at this point and if the appearance or suggestion of impropriety in investigating officer involved shootings can be avoided by assigning an independent more third party process at this point I believe that should happen.

I for one do not want to be having this debate as a nation for the next twenty years if it can be avoided.

BBM

I'm going to touch on the area I bolded then be done with this.

You bring up a point that I feel has been missing from our judicial system for sometime now. There used to be strong concern for the "appearance of impropriety" which seems to not be there anymore. The very idea that the majority of this Prosecutors family is involved in some way to area police departments should have had this prosecutor disqualify himself from hands on participation in this case to avoid any type of "appearance of impropriety". His bias, either real or perceived, towards police always being and doing right, would be avoided had he and those around and above him took "appearance of impropriety" seriously. I'm not even necessarily talking just about this one case but we see it all the time in the judicial world anymore.

I agree with those who say investigations and determinations of police shootings now need to be done by outside parties, if only to avoid the often ignored in todays world "appearance of impropriety".

Thanks for the civility folks, I don't usually comment on these types of threads cuz they can do downhill fast.

 

[reedus23]

re your BBM and in light of what we have seen recently in this country, I tend to agree. I think the days of trusting LE to police itself are coming to an end. I say that not because I believe that there is a rampant problem of officer involved shootings that are actually murder. I say it because even the appearance or suggestion of impropriety is damaging to the nation at this point and if the appearance or suggestion of impropriety in investigating officer involved shootings can be avoided by assigning an independent more third party process at this point I believe that should happen.

I for one do not want to be having this debate as a nation for the next twenty years if it can be avoided.

Hit the nail on the head. I don't think it's a rampant problem either. I do think that it happens. I do think there are problems inherent with LE investigating LE when they are that closely tied, along with the DA and LE. That's not just to say they always coverup, but what if a DA started charging a lot of cops for abuse of force? Think there might be problems with other cases? Or the relationship and cooperation needed between the two offices. And yes, perception and appearance is important as well.

 

[K_Z]

Oh my goodness--- really?? This has sunk to an even lower level of absurdity...really? They want a "do over"? These people really need to get a clue, IMO-- they are absolutely delusional, and out of touch with reality.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gr...y-in-ferguson-police-shooting-case/ar-BBhBrtG

The NAACP's Legal Defense and Educational Fund, citing "grave legal concerns," is asking a Missouri judge to convene a new grand jury to consider charges against the Ferguson police officer who fatally shot 18-year-old Michael Brown.

The letter submitted Monday to St. Louis County Circuit Judge Maura McShane also asks for a special prosecutor to oversee the case and an investigation of the grand jury proceedings that ended in November with a decision not to charge Officer Darren Wilson.

I hope Darren Wilson is able to move someplace obscure and stay in hiding. It's sick that he even has to. His safety continues to be in jeopardy, IMO, and that of his pregnant wife.

I cannot imagine why any person would ever want to become a police officer. They put their lives on the line every shift, and then have to deal with THIS kind of BS.

 

[tlcya]

So funny you just posted the respectfully snipped by me Steft50 I was just reading Readus23 a few posts up and was going to post a similar thought. I so appreciate when we can discuss our POVs in a civil way. I have enjoyed the exchanges of ideas, even those are not quite carbon copies of my own.

Thanks for the civility folks, I don't usually comment on these types of threads cuz they can do downhill fast. :loser:

 

[reedus23]

That's the whole point of the GJ system, and of jury verdicts. Are you trying to say verdicts should always be unanimous??

There is almost always some dissent. That doesn't make the verdict "wrong". And sometimes it goes the other way-- remember the Casey Anthony verdict?? Not guilty on ANY charge? Dissent is part of our system. We're going for the top of the bell curve here, not outliers on the right or left tails of the curve. That's why we have a jury system, to spread decision making over a group, and give less power to any one person.

I have some doubts and concerns with the current jury system myself, and believe there are a number of reforms that should be considered and discussed. But that's another discussion all together.

I don't believe this prosecutor did anything wrong. I don't think he should have had to bring this case to a grand jury at all, but he did, and I'm still ok with it. He was in a no win situation-- he had to make the best decision he could, and he did, within the framework of the GJ.

I have a lot of heartburn about how this case was tried BY the media, and how it was presented from the very beginning. The media framing of this case, IMO, is 100% responsible for inciting the riots and unrest that occurred, and kept it going on and on. This was a case of an officer on the job, shooting a suspect who had assaulted him, and just robbed a store and assaulted a shopkeeper minutes earlier. And yet, from day one, the headlines persuaded the public that an "innocent, unarmed black teenager" was gunned down by a big, bad white policeman for no reason at all, as he was walking to Grandma's house. A complete fraud perpetrated on a gullible public, IMO.

I'm sorry this GJ'r is upset with the laws in MO. He or she should have asked to be dismissed from the GJ, IMO, right from the start. That would have been the ethical way to proceed. Now he or she wants us to believe his or her "rights" to "free speech" have been suppressed ("chilled") by the big, mean prosecutor, whose job it is to uphold the laws of the state of Missouri. Nope. Not buying it for a minute. This juror needs to go back to his or her previous life and move on, while remaining silent about THIS case (and all the OTHER cases) he or she encountered during their term of service.

I hope this person is never chosen to serve on a jury again. He or she has no idea what their role is supposed to be, IMO.

I was correcting someone who believed that at most only 3 others agreed with this grand juror. Someone upstream had said this grand juror was dissenting from the majority and my point was that that dissent could have been a majority and the minority could have been those that didn't want to indict. We have no idea.

I agree about the media. Nothing but sensationalism to draw ratings. Whether it's Fox, CNN or MSNBC. They're all disgusting. Although, I think the original claims were of an unarmed, black teenager (not necessarily innocent) and to this very day, that remains a fact and is not a complete fraud. Michael Brown was unarmed. Michael Brown was black. Michael Brown was a teenager. But I do get what you're saying beyond that comment and I agree.

Maybe he/she is not upset. Maybe the constitutional right supersedes the state law. And we can't/don't know that without this lawsuit. Something tells me if he/she were that upset, he/she would have already hit the circuits, getting paid for every interview and pay whatever measly fine out of what she gets. Or even have the contracts written up that whatever news organization would recompense him/her for any fine in addition to any other amounts paid.

Can you link me to where he/she called him a big, mean prosecutor? I didn't see that.

 

[reedus23]

sbm bbm

Minimum # of G/J members required to return a true bill to indict LEO DW on any charge did not vote for true bill.

If G/J Doe feels -
--- diff # or diff majority (simple, super, 2/3, unanimity) is a better law, does not need to blab about experience on this G/J.
--- special prosecutor should be appt'ed for all LEO involved shootings, does not need to blab about experience on this G/J.

To help get the law changed, G/J Doe can write Mo State Reps & Senators, contact pol. &social groups to advance the cause,
as others here have mentioned.

Was Doe forced to serve on G/J against his/her will?
Took, the oath, swore to silence on the subject, now has changed mind?
No chilling effect on First Amendment rights, imo. Sorry.


ETA: Sorry I have mistakenly bn calling the petitioning G/J 'Roe' instead of 'Doe.' My apologies to him/her and everyone reading here.

I knew who you were talking about. No worries.

As to the rest, we'll agree to disagree. McCulloch opened that barn door. If McCulloch had handled this case like any other criminal case, I would tend to agree with you. But a letter saying "Please change the grand jury system and appoint special special prosecutors" is a tad bit different than being able to write about "I believe there needs to be change and here is why. This is what I experienced that leads me to believe that change is needed."

 

[reedus23]

Oh my goodness--- really?? This has sunk to an even lower level of absurdity...really? They want a "do over"? These people really need to get a clue, IMO-- they are absolutely delusional, and out of touch with reality.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gr...y-in-ferguson-police-shooting-case/ar-BBhBrtG



I hope Darren Wilson is able to move someplace obscure and stay in hiding. It's sick that he even has to. His safety continues to be in jeopardy, IMO, and that of his pregnant wife.

I cannot imagine why any person would ever want to become a police officer. They put their lives on the line every shift, and then have to deal with THIS kind of BS.

Wait now. The law provides for such relief. Are you saying the law should only be selectively followed? I doubt they'll be successful but I'm not sure I understand the agitation of seeking relief that the law allows for.

 

[Curious Guy]

Oh my goodness--- really?? This has sunk to an even lower level of absurdity...really? They want a "do over"? These people really need to get a clue, IMO-- they are absolutely delusional, and out of touch with reality.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/gr...y-in-ferguson-police-shooting-case/ar-BBhBrtG



I hope Darren Wilson is able to move someplace obscure and stay in hiding. It's sick that he even has to. His safety continues to be in jeopardy, IMO, and that of his pregnant wife.

I cannot imagine why any person would ever want to become a police officer. They put their lives on the line every shift, and then have to deal with THIS kind of BS.

Of course they do. I would have been more surprised if they had done the responsible thing and acknowledged the facts of the case.

 

[reedus23]

Of course they do. I would have been more surprised if they had done the responsible thing and acknowledged the facts of the case.

Which facts? I'm lost.

 

[reedus23]

I think I know what you're saying. Why don't they accept the facts that support Darren Wilson and no indictment and ignore the rest of the facts. I'm following ya so no need to answer.

 

[Curious Guy]

I think I know what you're saying. Why don't they accept the facts that support Darren Wilson and no indictment and ignore the rest of the facts. I'm following ya so no need to answer.

You really shouldn't put words in my mouth. The fact that a large man assaulted a store clerk during a robbery and proceeded to assault a LEO resulting in his own death. Those inconvenient facts.

 

[Minette]

I have major problems with how his office presented this case. While there are also instance where I have problems with what he presented, those pale in comparison to how they presented it. Certain witnesses were literally impeached by the prosecutors while others they helped to "clarify" their statements. Something as simple as how they opened the presentation. Lawyers choose their words very carefully, and from the very outset, it was described as the Michael Brown case or shooting. It was not referenced as the case against Darren Wilson. That tenor was set early on and built upon with nearly every single witness that was presented. The outcome was preordained before the first witness was called.

I do get that McCulloch was in an untenable situation. I don't think there was any chance in hell he would have ever gotten a conviction even if there was an indictment and if you don't believe there is enough to actually win at trial, what function does it serve doing so?

I think if there hadn't been such an immediate outcry with political 'push' behind it based on facts that were later proven untrue--'gentle giant,' 'shot with his hands up begging for mercy,' 'shot in the back,' etc. there would not even have been a grand jury. I think the prosecution bent over backwards to avoid the appearance of suppressing those eyewitnesses who testified to the 'hands up, shot in the back' story so that there wouldn't have been even worse rioting/burning/looting. In retrospect, it would have been better (IMO) to treat this case like any other in which someone assaults a police officer and gets shot as a result, but with the Justice Department swooping in and lending legitimacy to the notion that this was a racially based incident that was never going to happen. IMO, of course.

 

[tlcya]

Personally I feel this should not have and would not have been taken to the grand jury under the current system had there not been such an uprising of violence and protests largely based on what in my mind was spin, much of it false, in the early hours and days after the shooting. I also don't have an issue with the grand jury process in general.

I do feel that there is an inherent and unavoidable risk of impropriety or the appearance of it when LE polices it's own in allegations against an officer's actions in the line of duty. Which is why I am not at all opposed to a change in how allegations against officers and officer involved shootings are investigated and by whom.

 

[tlcya]

ah minette your thoughts in the first part of your post mirror my own, jinx.