View Full Version : Las Vegas Coroner's Inquest Changing
No need to dredge up the specifics of the case involving Las Vegas Metro and Erik Scott as people already have an opinion as to how they feel about that case. If you don't know what I'm referring to then try the search button or Google for more information.
However, due to Scott's family, there have been several changes to the coroner's inquest process that have just come to light. One of the key points is the fact that now families will have an ombudsman representing them during the process. The ombudsman will apparently be allowed to cross-examine the officers who are involved in future cases. I'm curious to know what others think about this, including our M4C LEOs, and what the positives and negatives will be.
The police union said officers won't testify if they are going to be questioned by the ombudsman and said they will plead the Fifth to avoid incriminating themselves.
Story link w/video: http://www.fox5vegas.com/news/26052664/detail.html
"If you pass this measure, I can tell you certainly that the officers I have talked to will no longer participate in the inquest process," says Chris Collins, Police Protective Association.
http://www.ktnv.com/story/13634068/controversy-surrounding-changes-to-coroners-inquest-process
Personally, if officers were to choose not to participate in the process then I think they should be fired. Accountability and cooperation are the name of the game and not creating an adversarial relationship between the police and their community. I belive that their paying customers have a right to ask legitimate questions when someone has been killed, regardless of the specifics.
Unfortunately I'll be working all day and won't have a chance to monitor this thread so please keep it on track. I'll try to log in via BB as much as possible and add my input as well.
Families can sometimes go crazy when you just arrest someone. I can see these interviews going really really bad. Ive had family members get seriously pissed when I arrested someone after they called 911 about the arrested person.
Watch the news, when they interview the family of a drug dealer who was murdered on the street corner, the dead guy was a saint. Most families dont want to think of their loved ones doing bad things and try to pass all responsibility off.
I just dont see what these interviews are going to accomplish.
Families can sometimes go crazy when you just arrest someone. I can see these interviews going really really bad. Ive had family members get seriously pissed when I arrested someone after they called 911 about the arrested person.
Watch the news, when they interview the family of a drug dealer who was murdered on the street corner, the dead guy was a saint. Most families dont want to think of their loved ones doing bad things and try to pass all responsibility off.
I just dont see what these interviews are going to accomplish.
I appreciate what you're saying. However, often times there are questions that go unanswered during the fact finding process. The reason that people want these changes is that the process is very one sided and no one has ever had the opportunity to ask questions that aren't filtered through the state.
Regardless of the circumstances and the professional occupation if you don't have outsiders question the incident or confrontation that has occured there is a tendency to have a one sided point of view.
I think that the people who are paying for a service should have the right to question the who, when, why, what and where of how it's being performed and especially when someone's lost their life in the process. Granted a lot of people don't understand the intricacies of the job, including myself, but clamming up and making yourself an adversary in the process does no good for anyone in my opinion.
As much as police oversight and "accountability initiatives" sound good, I don't think I have ever seen them result in better policing.
These things have a tendency to politicize the process and cause it to spin out of control, and never, ever benefit the public.
As much as police oversight and "accountability initiatives" sound good, I don't think I have ever seen them result in better policing.
These things have a tendency to politicize the process and cause it to spin out of control, and never, ever benefit the public.
Thats what Im worried about. I see this turning into a "pre trial" for the lawsuit the family is going to file.
I know every dept works diferently. In my dept when an officer gets in a shooting there are two different investigations. The criminal side done by Homicide and then an internal investigation to make sure you were in policy. The internal investigation goes to a review board that consists of citizens.
We have had shootings deemed good shoots by homicide and then deemed bad shoots by IA. We recently had homicide arrest the officer and had IA say its a good shoot afterwards.:rolleyes:
1. Thats what Im worried about. I see this turning into a "pre trial" for the lawsuit the family is going to file.
2. I know every dept works diferently. In my dept when an officer gets in a shooting there are two different investigations. The criminal side done by Homicide and then an internal investigation to make sure you were in policy. The internal investigation goes to a review board that consists of citizens.
I believe #1 is a very valid point. I also understand the fact that people want to ask questions that aren't entertained by the D.A. and that they feel are relevant. People are often frustrated by the process when they see the state as investigating itself and they don't think they're unbiased in the way that the facts, or lack thereof, are presented.
In consideration to #2 I believe that if more departments utilized an outside agency to investigate afterwards that it would remove a lot of the doubt that might be surrounding their conclusions. I know this may not always be feasible but it would definitely help stifle the naysayers. Again, many citizens often look at it as little brother did something wrong and big brother's investigating him and often times there may appear to be a bias, regardless of whether it truly exists.
Interesting discussion thus far.
Disclaimer: My frame of reference is the Las Vegas coroner's inquest process.
In consideration to #2 I believe that if more departments utilized an outside agency to investigate afterwards that it would remove a lot of the doubt that might be surrounding their conclusions. I know this may not always be feasible but it would definitely help stifle the naysayers. Again, many citizens often look at it as little brother did something wrong and big brother's investigating him and often times there may appear to be a bias, regardless of whether it truly exists.
Interesting discussion thus far.
Disclaimer: My frame of reference is the Las Vegas coroner's inquest process.
That is a good idea and I would be down for it.
Irish,
I like your idea but I also like you see the potential problems with it. I've always thought that a neutral third party would is critical in these cases, but isn't that what a town's Police Commission is supposed to be in a sense? Also if I take the UN as an example of a third party, it worries me that any such agency would just become a hollow sounding board for released reports that have no teeth.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.