|
Rent-A-Cop posted:
BattleMaster posted:It varies greatly based on jurisdiction. I guess it must, because in lots of places, entry level police officers are looking at 40-50k a year plus overtime. In Fullerton, trainees make 64k...
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 00:58
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:24 |
|
|
How much of this can be blamed on the TV show COPS that has been glorifying the police for the last 25 years on prime time television? You know the type of people that get selected to serve on a jury are the type of people that watch COPS, because as was said before smart people don't serve on juries unless they actually want to.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:Why is a competent defense attorney detestable? Would you rather he did a terrible job? Yes, I wish that the John Barnetts and Mark O'Maras of the world did a terrible job of helping people to get away with murder. You will find that many people who don't share this forum's massive boner for the sacred process of our judicial system do not approve of an attorney 'just doing his job' when that job is aiding people escape justice for the violent murder of others. People like John Barnett are a detestable by-product of our legal system who should be tolerated, not respected.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 01:02
|
|
|
the chip posted:If you want to murder someone in Orange County, just make sure you are wearing a badge. You will get away with it. You don't even have to wear a badge anymore. A gun license will suffice. e: Maybe a jury should be held in criminally accountable if their case gets picked up and gets a different ruling in federal court. Job Truniht fucked around with this message at 01:11 on Jan 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 01:07
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I guess it must, because in lots of places, entry level police officers are looking at 40-50k a year plus overtime.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Job Truniht posted:
Should that go both ways? Way to disincentive people from doing jury duty even more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
I think the primary reason the jurors let the cops off is authoritarianism. People with a penchant for such are just not capable of believing someone in a position of authority, especially law enforcement, can do something so wrong and evil. For a lot of juries it's likely childs play to make a convincing presentation to get someone in a position of authority off because the jury members already completely willing to believe it. Hate to be all godwin here, but this is the same reason a lot of people were willing to completely go along with whatever orders they were given during WWII, because their superior officers could just not possibly be wrong. See also: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment Mercury_Storm fucked around with this message at 02:46 on Jan 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 02:41
|
|
|
Microcline posted:I get the idea that a defense attorney is morally obliged to defend anyone put in front of them regardless of apparent innocence or guilt, but that gets kind of shaky when your specialty is getting acquittals for cops who get filmed committing racially charged murders. It undermines the "I'm obliged to defend anyone" excuse when your clientele consists solely of white authority figures in positions of power. Without even looking him up, I am absolutely certain that his clientele does not consist "solely" of cops accused of committing murders. Rather, it's more likely that cops specifically seek him out because of his involvement in a very high-profile police violence case in which he was able to get the cops off the hook despite video evidence clearly showing the abuse. It's not a matter of him explicitly specializing in police violence cases, it's that he's got a record of being good at getting cops acquitted, so cops continue to come to him because who doesn't want a good lawyer with a proven record in exactly the kind of thing you're being charged with?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 02:45
|
|
|
The guy has defended cops beating the poo poo out of unarmed poor/minority people on camera repeatedly. He's clearly making the world a measurably worse place by 'just doing his job', but that's more of an indictment of our ridiculous judicial system than anything else. It doesn't change the fact that he's a scumbag or somehow make what he does noble, it just means he's a symptom and not the disease itself.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 04:25
|
|
|
This is a deliciously depressing spotlight on the perception of class and mental illness in contemporary American society. Wheeeee.  Amused to Death posted:"This victim wasn't a white person living in the suburbs" Bad apples = ACAB until they actually even acknowledge the need to reform their corrupt organizations. Anukis fucked around with this message at 06:32 on Jan 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 06:28
|
|
|
Anukis posted:
I agree in general, but they fired these guys and pursued charges against them.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
I feel like there's got to be a successful balance somewhere between "martyred on the street" and "DIE MOTHERFUCKER DIE MOTHERFUCKER DIE"
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 08:38
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:Why is a competent defense attorney detestable? Would you rather he did a terrible job? I'm fine with his competance and I applaud it, I just find it detestable that he's effectively notable for having people see something and then somehow managing to convince them that they didn't see what they saw. I can't help but find that, at best, a very sinister talent for a person to have.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 08:41
|
|
|
quote:Ramos' attorney, John Barnett, told reporters: "These peace officers...they did what they were trained to do." Yea they did. What a grotesque verdict.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 08:52
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I agree in general, but they fired these guys and pursued charges against them. This is true, but it required a great deal of community pressure. Two city council members were recalled and there were repeated and large demonstrations. The authorities would have been very happy to just sweep this under the rug, that they finally did something in response is encouraging however.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 08:56
|
|
|
The Insect Court posted:This is true, but it required a great deal of community pressure. Two city council members were recalled and there were repeated and large demonstrations. The authorities would have been very happy to just sweep this under the rug, that they finally did something in response is encouraging however. Cops beat man to death in the street, public disorder and political lynchings leading to prosecution of the murderers described as 'encouraging'. The american public is like a battered wife I swear to god.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 09:54
|
|
Slavvy posted:Cops beat man to death in the street, public disorder and political lynchings leading to prosecution of the murderers described as 'encouraging'. Yes, but it's better than them getting off scot free.  Oh wait, they did get off scot free.
|
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 10:33
|
|
|
I read a couple of linked articles, but I couldn't get a sense of what the argument was aside from retard strength. I mean even in famous trials like OJs or whatever there had to be some kind of Aha! moment with the glove not fitting or whatever for things to snap. Was there any particular thing that reporters noted about this case that really swung the jury? I'm curious about that aspect, because things are typically more complex than we give them credit for.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 10:44
|
|
|
God drat. How did we go from recalling well-established politicians because of this to deciding that actually, maybe, the police were justified? Maybe some miraculous argument was presented, or maybe the jurors were put off by Thomas' arrest record or his appearance or whatever. Fine, I can believe a jury not convicting on the murder charge. But not even excessive force? gently caress. I guess I was hoping for too much from my lovely town. Official comments on the verdict by Chaffee and Hughes refer to two and a half years of reform by the police department - is there publicly available documentation of those reforms?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 10:52
|
|
|
Steely Glint posted:God drat. How did we go from recalling well-established politicians because of this to deciding that actually, maybe, the police were justified? Maybe some miraculous argument was presented, or maybe the jurors were put off by Thomas' arrest record or his appearance or whatever. Fine, I can believe a jury not convicting on the murder charge. But not even excessive force? gently caress. "Thank god the cops were there. Imagine it was your child by themselves at the gas station when this animal set upon them and beat them into ground because of their delusions and abnormal strength. You should be grateful for the thin blue line that exists to keep these raving lunatics away from your family and loved ones." Really, it boils down to convincing people who've never experienced police brutality that cops are the only thing keeping the dangerous homeless and minorities from kicking in their doors and assaulting their family. You can really separate people into 2 categories regarding unnecessary police violence; those who've experienced it or known someone who has and those who haven't. Everyone in the latter category honesty believes that all polices actions are probably justified because of how "hard" it is to be a cop.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 11:23
|
|
|
Anyone know if they showed that horrible image of the guy in hospital on the previous page during the court case?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 11:44
|
|
|
Seaside Loafer posted:Anyone know if they showed that horrible image of the guy in hospital on the previous page during the court case? If the people in the jury were predisposed to believing that literally any amount of force deployed by the cops was necessary, I don't think they would've been swayed by that kind of evidence. And, really, I think that's the issue here. The people on the jury were willing to forgive the cops for literally anything they did and were willing to believe any claims made against the victim because he was a mentally ill homeless person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 14:14
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:I read a couple of linked articles, but I couldn't get a sense of what the argument was aside from retard strength. I mean even in famous trials like OJs or whatever there had to be some kind of Aha! moment with the glove not fitting or whatever for things to snap. Was there any particular thing that reporters noted about this case that really swung the jury? I'm curious about that aspect, because things are typically more complex than we give them credit for. Edit: skimming a few things it seems like the (already high) certainty bar was allowed float into the stratosphere and the defense argued that the victim would not have died if not for some medical condition. Maybe it was some crazy lawyering and a bad judge and a bad jury? I don't know, hopefully someone else does or it comes out in the future. pangstrom fucked around with this message at 15:40 on Jan 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 15:28
|
|
|
This result is similar to the Zimmerman one for me. I'm totally unsurprised but it still makes me angry and sad at the same time. So now I assume the police union will fight to have them reinstated right?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 15:30
|
|
|
There was a fair amount of warning with Zimmerman, though, that even though he was clearly guilty in a common sense way that legally the case was a bit of a reach. I didn't hear that this time around, this seems insane.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
Maarek posted:Yes, I wish that the John Barnetts and Mark O'Maras of the world did a terrible job of helping people to get away with murder. You will find that many people who don't share this forum's massive boner for the sacred process of our judicial system do not approve of an attorney 'just doing his job' when that job is aiding people escape justice for the violent murder of others. People like John Barnett are a detestable by-product of our legal system who should be tolerated, not respected. So in your view, not holding sacredness of our current justice system how would you have liked the police officers be defended? By public opinion? Because at any point that someone is acquitted some people out there is going to think they "got away with murder"
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 15:44
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:There was a fair amount of warning with Zimmerman, though, that even though he was clearly guilty in a common sense way that legally the case was a bit of a reach. I didn't hear that this time around, this seems insane. It may not be fair but personally I assume every cop will get off (if they are even charged) and it's surprising when then don't. Juries don't seem anymore willing to hold cops accountable than the system that protects them for whatever reason that is.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 15:51
|
|
|
redscare posted:As a matter of fact... I'm not American, so I wouldn't know, but: Isn't there some kind of overwatch decision that kicks in once a given lawyer has gotten a certain number of obvious manslaughter-by-psycho-cop cases acquitted? At some point it's clear the guy is just a huckster who makes money on making murderous pigs walk, I'd reckon.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 15:58
|
|
|
Radish posted:Juries don't seem anymore willing to hold cops accountable than the system that protects them for whatever reason that is. That's because lawyers do a very good job of hand-picking the jurors who will deliver the verdict they want. There is no mystique or sacredness about our justice system; it's a rigged game with quantifiable results that can be manipulated by people with the right experience, clout, and price. The only thing that's remotely surprising is how perverted American culture is to produce and encourage the whole chain of events to happen in the first place. Cops should not be executing people in the streets. They should not be getting away - rewarded - for murder. Americans should not be shrugging off every murder, school shooting, and false claim of self defense as business as usual. There is something seriously wrong going on, something that makes this murder not a localized incident but a part of a larger pattern.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 16:08
|
|
|
Radish posted:It may not be fair but personally I assume every cop will get off (if they are even charged) and it's surprising when then don't. Juries don't seem anymore willing to hold cops accountable than the system that protects them for whatever reason that is. I think MOST of the problem is that the cops/system can keep it out of the courtroom in the first place. After that, there is yeah the jury bias and some wiggle in the evidence or something and lawyers can run with that. But to a layman this specific case seems insane. Maybe there's more stochasticity in court cases than I thought. Anyway, being surprised or not surprised is a narcissistic approach to this, really what I should say is: this is a small scale travesty and I don't get it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 16:10
|
|
|
Tias posted:I'm not American, so I wouldn't know, but: Isn't there some kind of overwatch decision that kicks in once a given lawyer has gotten a certain number of obvious manslaughter-by-psycho-cop cases acquitted? At some point it's clear the guy is just a huckster who makes money on making murderous pigs walk, I'd reckon. Uh, no, they don't investigate defense attorneys for being competent.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 16:11
|
|
|
You'd think the prosecutors would be more prepared if he is known for a certain technique.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 16:14
|
|
|
For anyone else wondering what was up with Cicinelli's face, he was shot up as a rookie cop in 1996: http://articles.latimes.com/1998/jan/31/local/me-14005 I'm sure the defense brought that up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Radish posted:This result is similar to the Zimmerman one for me. I'm totally unsurprised but it still makes me angry and sad at the same time. This isn't really like Zimmerman though. Zimmerman was alone, and the court evidence at least indicated that he'd been attacked prior to draw his gun and his injuries sustained suggested that self-defense was justified (he was the ground, beating repeatedly beaten, etc etc) and the autopsy reports at least confirm that Trayvon had most definitely assaulted him at some point prior to getting shot. If Zimmerman had two or three guys with him and they all had guns and they rounded up on Trayvon and beat him to death, that'd be more similar here. Radish posted:You'd think the prosecutors would be more prepared if he is known for a certain technique. Defense Attorneys hate him! Watch how this disabled lawyer can win any case with one weird technique!
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 16:24
|
|
|
Xandu posted:I guess it must, because in lots of places, entry level police officers are looking at 40-50k a year plus overtime. Median is $56,980 according to DOL statistics http://www.bls.gov/ooh/Protective-Service/Police-and-detectives.htm Actual pay is going to vary widely by jurisdiction, rank, and years of service but for example, in NYC the range is 41K-90K/year. Keep in mind this is in city with a cost of living index about double the national average. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_York_City_Police_Department#Salary_and_retention_issues But cross over the Hudson, and you are in 90K median salary territory: http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/09/nj_police_salaries_rank_highes.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 16:25
|
|
|
Radish posted:You'd think the prosecutors would be more prepared if he is known for a certain technique. The prosecutor almost certainly never tried a case like this before, the defense has to great success several times before which is a huge advantage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
Radish posted:You'd think the prosecutors would be more prepared if he is known for a certain technique. Something like this. It goes beyond "durr, he so competent", when he consistently wins cases that have a snowballs chance in hell.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 16:27
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:This isn't really like Zimmerman though. Zimmerman was alone, and the court evidence at least indicated that he'd been attacked prior to draw his gun and his injuries sustained suggested that self-defense was justified (he was the ground, beating repeatedly beaten, etc etc) and the autopsy reports at least confirm that Trayvon had most definitely assaulted him at some point prior to getting shot. If Zimmerman had two or three guys with him and they all had guns and they rounded up on Trayvon and beat him to death, that'd be more similar here. I didn't mean that the cases were similar, just that I could see the verdict coming a mile away but it's still disheartening when it happens. This isn't the place for a Zimmerman trial rehash though so I apologize for bringing it up.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 16:33
|
|
|
Tias posted:Something like this. It goes beyond "durr, he so competent", when he consistently wins cases that have a snowballs chance in hell. In fairness, how many of these cases ever end up with cops in jail?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 16:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 8, 2024 03:24 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:In fairness, how many of these cases ever end up with cops in jail? This is what I'd like to really hear about. Like was this a case that was doomed from the start since statistically cops are almost never convicted even with video evidence of their crimes? I'm leaning towards that as the reason rather than this guy being able to turn poo poo into cream with his magical attorney abilities. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:43 on Jan 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 16:41
|
|