Sheriff Doug Gillespie’s Reform Inquest Proposal is a Glorified Press Conference

For Immediate Release:

Steve Sanson President Veterans In Politics International 702 283 8088

Karen Steelmon Auxiliary Director Veterans In Politics International 702 238 5134

 

 

Sheriff Doug Gillespie’s Reform Inquest Proposal is a Glorified Press Conference

 

 

Clark County Nevada:

 

On December 4, 2012 a hearing on the Coroner’s Inquest was held at the Board of Clark County Commissioners on agenda item number 57.

 

Into the hearing Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Sheriff Douglas Gillespie addressed the County Commissioners on his version of the Coroner’s Inquest at 5:15 http://clark.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=17&clip_id=2960.

 

The Reform Inquest that was unanimously voted on two years ago by the County Commissioners was challenged by the Police Protective Association to the Nevada Supreme Court. The Nevada Supreme Court only made one change and that is to have a Hearing Master.

 

Now, Sheriff Gillespie proposed an Alternative Inquest we will show you the difference between the Reform Inquest voted on by the County Commissioners two years ago and the Alternative Inquest Sheriff Gillespie now wants to put in motion.

 

Change 1

 

Alternative Inquest: The only time an Inquest would move forward would only be “if” the Clark County District Attorney (CCDA) finds the Police Officer criminally liable on the report they receive from the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police (LVMP) Lead Investigator. If the CCDA does not find any criminal intent by the LVMP, then no inquest would be presented to the public.

 

Reform Inquest: Anytime there is an Office Involved Shooting (OIS) there is an Inquest presented to the public. So currently this should be in place however has not been implemented.

 

Change 2

 

Alternative Inquest: The only witness who would be called upon is the LVMP Lead Investigator.  No other witness would be called upon. Therefore the Police Officers that witness the shooting, the Police Officers that pulled the trigger and the public that witness the shooting would not be called to testify.

 

The only person that would ask questions would be the CCDA no other person could ask questions, no family members, no attorneys that represent the family of the deceased and no one from the public could ask questions.

 

Reform Inquest: All witnesses would be called upon to testify for example the Police Officers that witness the shooting, the Police Officers that press the trigger and the public that witness the shooting.  

 

Anybody could ask questions for example the family attorney, the CCDA, the Hearing Master. Currently this should be in place however has not been implemented.

 

 

Change 3

 

Alternative Inquest: The Ombudsman could only ask questions from the CCDA representative and the LVMPD Lead Investigator. No other persons could be questioned, not the LVMP Officers who witness the shooting, not the LVMP Officers who actually pressed the trigger and not the public who witness the shooting.

 

Reform Inquest: The Ombudsman or Hearing Master could ask questions from anyone involved for example the Police Officers that witness the shooting, the Police Officers that pressed the trigger and the public that witness the shooting.  Currently this should be in place however has not been implemented.

 

Change 4

 

Alternative Inquest: Sheriff Gillespie also introduces argument to change the name from the “Coroner’s Inquest” to “Police Fact Finding”, because he believes the word Inquest is “defensive”.

 

This is the definition of an Inquest:

An Inquest is a judicial inquiry in common law jurisdiction, particularly one held to determine the cause of a person’s death. Conducted by a judge, jury, or government official, an Inquest may or may not require an autopsy carried out by a coroner or medical examiner. Generally, Inquests are only conducted upon deaths which are suspicious, due to violence, involving law enforcement officials, or of persons held in state custody. An Inquest may be called at the behest of a coroner, judge, prosecutor, or in some jurisdictions, upon a formal request from the public. A coroner’s jury may be convened to assist in this type of proceeding. Inquest can also mean such a jury and the result of such an investigation.

In general usage, Inquest is also used to mean any investigation or inquiry.

Reform Inquest: This definition of an Inquest is fitting to the “fact finding” components that would be in conjunction to what an Inquest should accomplish.

The only persons that would find the word “Inquest” defensive is the guilty.

In Closing:

The President of the Police Protective Association (PPA) Chris Collins also made comments on the Alternative Inquest Process. Collins stated that his Officers would not participate in the Reform Inquest process. The reason why LVMP Officers are not participating in the Reform Inquest process is, because the PPA has told all LVMPD Officers “not to participate”.

Chris Collins is a LVMP Officer who is being paid by Clark County Tax Payers and he is President of the Police Protective Association, a Police Union. Collins loyalty is towards the Police Union and not to the Tax Payers of Clark County.  Since his loyalty is with the Police Union he should only be paid with union dues and not from Clark County Tax Payers.

 

The item that can be agreed upon is a comment made by Clark County Commissioner Steve Sisolak suggesting to televise the Coroner’s Inquest on the Clark County Channel 4.

 

Clark County Commissioner Larry Brown stated that the Inquest should “Impact the Public Trust” “Families Right To Know” “Fact Finding”.  These statements made by Commissioner Brown are laughable, if he is siding with Gillespie and Collins to establish an Alternative Inquest Process.

 

The Alternative Inquest Process limits the witness and places the entire process in the Clark County District Attorneys hands. The only witness would be a LVMP Lead Investigator and only if the CCDA decides a LVMP Officer is criminal.  Other than that no Inquest would be done. The only “facts” that would be presented would only be presented by LVMPD. There will be “no” fact finding, “no” public involvement. This would be a controlled environment that would only be controlled by LVMPD and only “if” the CCDA finds an officer criminal.

 

If an LVMP Officer refuses to participate in a Coroner’s Inquest procedure it would be grounds for termination, it would be the same disciplinary action if they refuse to participate in a LVMP Internal Investigation Process, no different.

 

This proposal by Gillespie is a glorified press conference that cannot be challenged.  This process is the total opposite of what was unanimously voted on in 2010 by the Board of Clark County Commissioners. This process would eventually harm the men and women of the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department and will completely rip this community apart; it sure does not protect the public and can lead to internal corruption quite easily. It is so evident that Gillespie and Collins are making drastic attempts to delay the process to cover-up their failed leadership.

 

 

##

www.veteransinpolitics.org

 

Advertisements

Tags:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: