Some
have a strong sense of public duty, while a few probably ought to be locked up.
And the bulk of them are no more intelligent than the rest of us – even though
they’re doing a difficult job that many of us couldn’t handle.
BUT
IT DOES create a sense among many that they want to exist in their own world;
without the prying eyes of the public monitoring what they do. Just like the
Army – which often gives off a sense that they’d like to handle the public by
issuing a statement saying war was declared, then issuing a follow-up statement
years later saying the war was won!
So
a pair of news stories I stumbled across on Friday were not the least bit
surprising – the Chicago Tribune reported how police in Fox Lake are upset that
the coroner in Lake County, Ill., is giving out details related to the slaying earlier
this month of a police lieutenant.
While
the Chicago Sun-Times reported how the Cook County state’s attorney’s office is
now relying on the grand jury system to handle criminal cases involving
firearms, rather than bringing them before a judge for a preliminary hearing.
The
latter puts the early stages of prosecution under the control of prosecutors,
rather than judges who might find flaws with cases. While the Fox Lake police
have tried saying little to nothing about the case, only for reporter-types to
wind up getting details from the coroner’s office.
IN
THE CASE of the Fox Lake police, they have tried saying they want little
information to get out because they supposedly want to have details that only a
criminal suspect would know.
So
he (or she, I shouldn’t make assumptions) can inadvertently trap him/herself in
their own words.
So
while the police have said multiple shots were fired in the incident that
killed Joseph Gliniewicz, the coroner has said the officer was shot in the
torso. Although even the coroner has been hesitant to say much more.
It’s
not a flood of lurid detail coming from the coroner, but it is enough that the
Fox Lake police felt the need to issue a statement calling the coroner “unprofessional”
and “completely irresponsible.”
PROBABLY
BECAUSE THE police only want to have to make a statement saying that an arrest
has been made – something they haven’t been able to do yet.
According
to the Chicago Tribune, the coroner said one reason he has given out as much
detail as he did was because of some rumors that had become public. He wanted to
correct the record. Is that unprofessional?
Or
could it be a police department willing to let the public think nonsense so
long as it benefits them. Similar to one story I once covered where authorities
claimed to have the suspect on video tape committing an act of vandalism – and it
turned out during the bench trial that the video depicted 23 different people
doing various things!
Not
as specific as police wanted us to think.
OF
COURSE, THESE cases get into the court system, where there also are officials
who want things done their way, The Chicago Sun-Times said that State’s
Attorney Anita Alvarez told her staff earlier this year to take gun cases to
grand juries to get indictments – rather than having a judge hold a preliminary
hearing.
Such
a hearing gives a judge a chance to rule on whether the police were justified
in arresting someone – or if the charges before the court are totally bogus. A
judge can always be predictable, but grand juries give us that old cliché, “A
grand jury would indict a ham sandwich.”
The
state’s attorney’s office told the newspaper that they’re merely trying to be
more consistent with the way they handle criminal cases involving firearms.
Which sounds noble, particularly since police are interested in creating cases
that will wind up with convictions.
A
defendant being indicted for a gun offense sounds ominous. Unlike a case being
tossed out because a judge decided the evidence to support charges was too weak
to take seriously!
-30-
No comments:
Post a Comment