Texas grand jury decides not to indict off-duty police officer for the killing of unarmed young man

[Johan]

Jordan Baker Shooting: Grand Jury Decides Not To Indict Houston Policeman Juventino Castro


A grand jury in Houston decided on Tuesday not to indict a police officer in the fatal shooting of a 26-year-old unarmed black man in January. This is the fourth decision favoring police in the United States in recent officer-involved killings, which have triggered nationwide protests over the use of excessive force by law enforcement.

Officer Juventino Castro, who was off-duty and working as a private security guard at a strip mall, shot Jordan Baker in January after a scuffle broke out between the two, law enforcement officials reportedly said. Castro had reportedly said that he confronted Baker after suspecting him of being a burglar targeting the mall.

“Officer Castro, fearing for his life, discharged his duty weapon one time, striking Baker,” police reportedly said.

Baker's mother reportedly said that Castro had suspected her son to be a criminal based on his race and clothing.

"I know they are disappointed, but the grand jury's decision means they found that there was no probable cause to believe a crime was committed," Harris County District Attorney Devon Anderson said, according to the Houston Chronicle.

The Harris County grand jury decision comes amid growing tensions in the country over the killings of black people by white police officers. A Staten Island grand jury decided last month not to indict NYPD Officer Daniel Pantaleo in the chokehold death of Eric Garner. This was preceded by a Ferguson grand jury decision not to indict Officer Darren Wilson in the shooting death of 18-year-old Michael Brown. In another case, local authorities decided Monday not to criminally charge Milwaukee Officer Christopher Manney in the shooting death of Dontre Hamilton, another black man.

http://www.ibtimes.com/jordan-baker...ot-indict-houston-policeman-juventino-1766618

 

[Mr. Daystar]

Maybe he was justified in killing him. As far as I can see, you have a VERY unhealthy obsession with what goes on in a country you have nothing to do with. As far as I can see, YOU, are really Al Sharpton, posing as some clueless Frenchman. I suppose this is the white mans fault too, I mean after all, we gave this Latin guy a badge and a gun, right?

You, are a race bating, trouble maker, and all you do, is stir the pot, and make threads that cause further problems, and divide people. I don't suppose you EVER ONCE, made any effort to look for the hundreds, or thousands of cases where a black man REALLY did get shot, because he tried to kill a cop. I guess your next thread will claim this new shooting in Missouri was a blatant case of murder, as revenge for all of the protests.

 

[Mayhem]

*Grand Jury Decides* is where this story ends.

 

[Johan]

Maybe he was justified in killing him. As far as I can see, you have a VERY unhealthy obsession with what goes on in a country you have nothing to do with. As far as I can see, YOU, are really Al Sharpton, posing as some clueless Frenchman. I suppose this is the white mans fault too, I mean after all, we gave this Latin guy a badge and a gun, right?

You, are a race bating, trouble maker, and all you do, is stir the pot, and make threads that cause further problems, and divide people. I don't suppose you EVER ONCE, made any effort to look for the hundreds, or thousands of cases where a black man REALLY did get shot, because he tried to kill a cop. I guess your next thread will claim this new shooting in Missouri was a blatant case of murder, as revenge for all of the protests.

Al I say is that these cases need to go through a real trial that would establish wether the policeman is guilty or innocent and, if he is guilty, what is he guilty of : Murder ? Assault ? Man Slaughtering ?

I suppose this is the white mans fault too, I mean after all, we gave this Latin guy a badge and a gun, right?

You, are a race bating

Actually, on this case, you're playing the race card. I didn't.
I didn't mention the fact that the victime was black (just like Eric Garner, Tamir Rice and Micheal Brown). I could have done so. I restrain myself. Seems like I shouldn't have, since wether I do it or not does not make any difference to you and since you're using that same race card.

*Grand Jury Decides* is where this story ends.

Absolutely. And this is precisely what makes it outrageous.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

In the spirit of Christmas I will refrain from calling Johan a moron.

A grand jury doesn't determine guilt or innocence. They determine if there is enough evidence to indict someone. Generally cases that don't have enough evidence to prove wrong doing don't even make it to the grand jury because the prosecutor has enough common sense to see when a crime has actually been committed. But sometimes you get a race baiting AG, president or agitator like Al Sharpton who forces a prosecutor to present a weak-ass case and you'll get the same kind of results as with Zimmerman/Martin. Ergo, a case that should never have seen the inside of a courtroom.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

And that bullshit blurb about the killing in Milwaukee conveniently left out that the dead guy had the officer's baton and was attacking him with it. Regardless of the perpetrator's mental capacity, if someone grabs any of a copper's tools off his belt, he has signed his own death warrant. Just the biased media fanning the flaming bullshit of race hustlers again.

 

[Mayhem]

Al I say is that these cases need to go through a real trial that would establish wether the policeman is guilty or innocent and, if he is guilty, what is he guilty of : Murder ? Assault ? Man Slaughtering ?

A grand jury doesn't determine guilt or innocence. They determine if there is enough evidence to indict someone. Generally cases that don't have enough evidence to prove wrong doing don't even make it to the grand jury because the prosecutor has enough common sense to see when a crime has actually been committed. But sometimes you get a race baiting AG, president or agitator like Al Sharpton who forces a prosecutor to present a weak-ass case and you'll get the same kind of results as with Zimmerman/Martin. Ergo, a case that should never have seen the inside of a courtroom.

Johan, if you're going to be so enamored of the USA you better figure out what it is you're so in love with. The Grand Jury system is exactly what it's supposed to be. They don't determine innocence or guilt, only if a trial should happen. And especially in todays climate, if they decide not to indict, then I take it as sold that they know what they're talking about. And with the backlogged fiasco that is the American court system, anytime they are not wasting everyone's time, I'm pretty happy about it.

 

[Johan]

Johan, if you're going to be so enamored of the USA you better figure out what it is you're so in love with. The Grand Jury system is exactly what it's supposed to be. They don't determine innocence or guilt, only if a trial should happen. And especially in todays climate, if they decide not to indict, then I take it as sold that they know what they're talking about. And with the backlogged fiasco that is the American court system, anytime they are not wasting everyone's time, I'm pretty happy about it.

When someone has been killed, there should be a trial. Otherwise it means human life does not worth very much.

 

[Mayhem]

When someone has been killed, there should be a Grand Jury. And there was.

 

[bobjustbob]

You didn't mention that the victim was black? Look at the first sentence from the story you posted. And black is mentioned twice in the last paragraph with race mentioned somewhere in the middle of this small article. Give it up man. You can't hide behind cellophane.