Posted on 09/17/2010 6:10:59 AM PDT by marktwain
LAS VEGAS -- A recent 8 News NOW-Las Vegas Review-Journal poll suggests the majority of southern Nevadans don't have much faith in the coroner's inquest process. As a result, local leaders are talking reform again.
This is not the first time public opinion has prompted reform. In 2006, the controversial shooting death of 17-year-old murder suspect Suave Lopez lead to a formal review of the coroner's inquest process.
Recommendations were made, public hearings were held, and changes were implemented. But in the words of one participant, if we're still taking about it the reform fell short.
Las Vegas police officers shot and killed Lopez as he attempted to escape from a squad car in handcuffs. His death, found justified by a coroner's jury, prompted a formal review of the inquest process.
"The controversy, if anything, has increased, not diminished," said Allen Lichtenstein with the Nevada ACLU.
---------------------------cut------------------------
Four years and 44 police shootings separate Suave Lopez from Erik Scott -- the latest catalyst for change.
Metro officers killed Scott earlier this summer in a Summerlin Costco. While the status quo will govern his inquest, Young and Lichtenstein hope future proceedings may take a different shape.
(Excerpt) Read more at 8newsnow.com ...
The Coroner’s jury found the shooting justified. You don’t want an “independent body”, you want a libertine Star Chamber.
Not to mention, the Costco shooting hasn’t been heard by a Coroner’s jury yet.
If the coroners jury hasn’t released a finding concerning the costco shooting what are you suggesting Marktwain want a “libertine Star Chamber” for?
How are you certain that marktwain want a libertine or any other star chamber type of proceeding for the Costco shooting case?
I am in awe of your powers of clairvoyance...
Did you show up to defend it?
lolumad?
Have we seen the store video yet? There’s the answer.
The police have indicated there are “problems” with the tapes. The problem may be they don’t back up the story line.
My guess is you knew that already.
There are always problems with moving footage from a store security system to another medium. Again, the footage is almost NEVER released until after an inquest. So why not wait for the inquest, instead of trying to influence the inquest with unsubstantiated rhetoric?
And the longer the wait, the worse the stench becomes.
So you consider opinion based on witness reports at the time “unsubstantiated rhetoric”?
What about the witnesses that corroborated the officers? Oh wait, we don’t get to trust them... right?
Not to mention, eyewitness “testimony” is extraordinarily unreliable.
Could you explain how the coroners inquest is something other then a star chamber for the police?
Read Nevada revised Statutes Chapter 259.
So the local government apparatus appoints whomever they want as jury and holds a privet hearing to determine the final decision.
Now...explain to me how this isn't a star chamber?
There were a few. Most I have read do not, including witnesses that were feet away. Something stinks.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.