I am glad you guys made me aware that trials, lawyers, judges, juries, and the Constitution are all superfulous, and we all have the right to hand out death penalties.
Actually we were pointing out that they should be allowed to do thier jobs, investigate and judge the incident on its merits and to do otherwise was a bad idea. We were cautioning against jumping to obsene conclusions...
the SWAT guy has already walked from the Grand Jury, as reported by the Omaha World-Herald, so there is no "legal" reason he cannot comment, unless the lawyers are already lined up for an excessive use of force payday.
You don't see the hypocricy here? The Grand Jury did its thing and due process was served - who in thier right minds wants to ignore the consitution and submit the cops to double jeopardy? (Hint: it wasn't us.) Lets try 'em again cause we didn't like the first result and I'll condem them on the internet since I can't convene the jury myself!
Seems to me all those details the original article didn't bother with or were not made public may have been important enough to the Grand Jury to come to a correct conclusion despite the little doper friend's squealing. Could have been she was lying? Surprise, surprise. The death was NOT criminal - so said the jury.
Anyway - lawyers are ALWAYS lined up for excessive use of force paydays, even when there wasn't any. That is the way real life is, not that cops are out to kill people at the drop of a hat.
That IS one of the reasons why they don't talk about it if they can help it.