Last week I posted on the fatal police shooting of Dean Gaymon and said that the orgs working on that were asking for a federal investigation. Shortly after Bill Dobbs emailed to correct me - they were asking for the New Jersey attorney general to investigate.
Well, the state attorney general said no:
After meeting with her top officials today afternoon, Dow concluded there was "no indication of a conflict with the Essex County Prosecutor's Office handling this case fairly and impartially," said her spokesman, Paul Loriquet. "That was never called into question."
Afterward, the attorney general called the Acting Essex County Prosecutor Robert Laurino to discuss the decision. The prosecutor's office will present its investigation to a grand jury, which will take several weeks.
Considering the county prosecutor was already acting like the police department's defense attorney last week when the shooting happened, hiding the name of the officer (which was later leaked) and accepted the officer's incredibly suspicious version of the facts before an investigation was conducted, I really doubt that they'll handle the case "impartially." Consider the prosecutor talking to the press:
"The plainclothes officer was bending down to retrieve his handcuffs," [Acting Essex County Prosecutor Robert] Laurino said, "when he was approached by Mr. Gaymon, who was engaged in a sexual act at the time." Words were exchanged that the prosecutor said "would lead one to believe that" Mr. Gaymon was propositioning the officer.
"The officer pulled out his badge, identified himself as a police officer and informed Mr. Gaymon that he was under arrest," Mr. Laurino said. Then, he said, Mr. Gaymon shoved the officer to the ground and ran, ignored the officer's demands to stop, and repeatedly threatened to kill the officer if he approached. The officer cornered Mr. Gaymon beside a pond and tried to handcuff him, Mr. Laurino said, but again Mr. Gaymon resisted.
"Mr. Gaymon reached into his pocket and lunged at the officer in an attempt to disarm the officer," Mr. Laurino said. The officer, "fearing for his life," the prosecutor said, shot Mr. Gaymon once, and he died at the hospital three hours later. [emph. mine]
Is that the language of someone who's "impartial," willing to conduct a thorough investigation and present the results to a grand jury hoping that they'll give the green light to prosecute the officer if that's what's warranted?
Last week I said that the officer was sly in saying that he feared for his life when he killed Dean Gaymon, since that's, surprise surprise, what he'd need to be feeling to justify killing Gaymon. Considering the prosecutor's actions now, I'm not so sure. It was the prosecutor who used those specific words, and there's no reason to believe that the cop came up with that himself. Was the prosecutor, the day this shooting happened, already trying to sell the public on "self-defense"?
The story was already suspicious for several reasons. First, there was the fact that the police officer said he returned to where he made a cruising arrest several minutes later, alone, to retrieve his handcuffs that he had apparently not used in the arrest. Dean Gaymon was there "engaged in a sex act" in this same place the cops just busted and made arrests (no one shouted "run"? What kind of cruisers are these?). Then he said that Gaymon walked over to him while "engaged in a sex act" and propositioned him, then that Gaymon ran when he saw it was an officer and he chased after him (for a misdemeanor). Then he said that he couldn't handcuff the CEO, and that the super-villain Gaymon tried to disarm him, lunge at him, and reach into his pocket at the same time (how many arms did he have again?) and so the officer just had to kill him.
That could all be true, and maybe it's generally factual and a few details got mixed around in the heat of the moment. But it should be enough to make an "impartial" prosecutor suspicious (if anyone else killed an unarmed man a prosecutor would be at least suspicious) and not automatically accept and relate to the press the police officer's version of the events, instead of using the exact terms needed to get the officer off the hook. That's what a defense attorney does, not a prosecutor.
So there's going to be a cover-up here. The prosecutor and the police officer may have known each other already, and if they didn't the prosecutor probably golfs with the cop's boss. No one wants to be the narc here sending a decent man to prison, especially when they think it was just a faggot who got killed. Too bad the state didn't investigate, because now no one's going to be satisfied with the process.