|
effectual posted:The woman that was groped by a(n undercover? iirc) cop and reflexively elbowed him got a 3+ year sentence yesterday. That cop had a family who has been through enough.
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 17:00
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 22:19 |
|
|
Yesterday the New York Daily News had a short editorial mocking her and OWS, amounting to "haha this is what you get hippie."
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 17:13
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:Hell, sometimes you don't even need the police to beat homeless people to death, bored teenagers will do it themselves, because they've grown up in a culture that instills in them that the homeless are just parasitic scum. I don't think I'm being hyperbolic about this. My local paper did a story about homeless encampments a few years back, and almost everyone they interviewed had been assaulted at least once by groups of young people. Beatings, rocks/bottles/trash thrown from passing cars, etc. One guy fell asleep in a park and woke up to some kids trying to light him on fire.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 17:49
|
|
|
El Scotch posted:I'm having trouble seeing how it's not self-defence. If someone gropes you elbowing them away is perfectly fine in my books. You aren't allowed to defend yourself against cops. Where this really screws you is when you don't know it's a cop because they aren't wearing anything that would indicate that but legally you are somehow supposed to magically be aware of it.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 17:54
|
|
|
Radish posted:You aren't allowed to defend yourself against cops. Where this really screws you is when you don't know it's a cop because they aren't wearing anything that would indicate that but legally you are somehow supposed to magically be aware of it. You certainly are allowed, but the law has been perverted to the point where you de facto are not allowed.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 18:19
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You certainly are allowed, but the law has been perverted to the point where you de facto are not allowed. Yeah that's what I meant. I know legally you are allowed to but good luck trying to get that trial going in your favor. I know that one guy eventually did but it took a lot and if I remember correctly was especially egregious.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 18:28
|
|
|
So how do you know she was actually groped?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 18:33
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:So how do you know she was actually groped? There are pictures of her bruised breast but maybe she did that to cover up her vicious elbowing spree. How do you really know anything?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 18:41
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:There are pictures of her bruised breast but maybe she did that to cover up her vicious elbowing spree. How do you really know anything? Elbowing spree? Come on man. The real reason it bruised it's own breast is because it, like all females, takes every chance it can get to falsely accuse Upstanding Men of sexual assault. Even assuming it was not faking it was probably wearing some slutty, skin exposing clothing, thereby justifying anything that an Upstanding Man might be forced to do to it. 
|
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 19:11
|
|
|
Radish posted:You aren't allowed to defend yourself against cops. Where this really screws you is when you don't know it's a cop because they aren't wearing anything that would indicate that but legally you are somehow supposed to magically be aware of it. What state did this take place in? Because I can say that in my (hardly progressive) state, it's not considered battery on a law enforcement officer (and is generally just a misdemeanor battery unless there's genuinely severe injury inflicted or a deadly weapon is involved) unless you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant knew that the victim was a law enforcement officer at the time the battery took place. All similar "Batt. LEO" statutes that I'm aware of are written in the same way. Had this been tried in my state based on what you told me (undercover cop, defendant had no substantive reason to suspect otherwise) the defendant never would've been found guilty because the case would've been JOA'd before it ever reached a jury, due to a total lack of any evidence tending to prove an entire element of the offense. prussian advisor fucked around with this message at 19:33 on May 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
New York (City!)
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:There are pictures of her bruised breast but maybe she did that to cover up her vicious elbowing spree. How do you really know anything? Did a medical report accompany this picture?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 19:59
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Did a medical report accompany this picture? Do you have a point?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Do you have a point? I have no reason to believe the groping actually happened. Do you?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Do you have a point? To hazard a guess it's that we should extend every possible benefit of the doubt to cops no matter what and gently caress anyone who dares try to hurt the fist of one of our brave boys with her face. EDIT: Baron Porkface posted:I have no reason to believe the groping actually happened. Do you? Oh look, I was right. Cerebral Bore fucked around with this message at 20:10 on May 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:Did a medical report accompany this picture? Apparently there is one that says she was abused but doesn't specifically talk about where, at least according to some articles about the trial. Is there some evidence that makes you think it didn't happen?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 20:22
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:To hazard a guess it's that we should extend every possible benefit of the doubt to cops no matter what and gently caress anyone who dares try to hurt the fist of one of our brave boys with her face. I can tell the people reading this thread, from firsthand experience, that reporting on criminal cases is often truly poo poo and gives a totally incomplete picture of what the trial or evidence actually looked like. The actual trial itself often takes a completely different shape than the initial reports (usually due to lazy loving police requiring the prosecutor to complete the lion's share of the investigation) and those who report on criminal trials are often blissfully unaware as they simply quote from the publically available filings without bothering to show up to trial or even to bother to move themselves away from their desks or exert the herculean effort necessary to pick up a telephone. In the context of this thread, the press most breathlessly report the unsupported allegations of defendants most often when the defendants just happen to be police officers themselves. There's nothing wrong with doubting the unsupported and generally completely unfounded assertions of criminal law journalists when they report the claims of either the prosecution or the defense, and like it or not, this case is no different.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 20:32
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:Apparently there is one that says she was abused but doesn't specifically talk about where, at least according to some articles about the trial. Is there some evidence that makes you think it didn't happen? I'm guessing Baron Porkface is aiming towards the "she lies and probably liked being groped anyway" angle.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Baron Porkface posted:I have no reason to believe the groping actually happened. Do you? Then why do you think she elbowed the cop?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
I haven't seen that much about the case other than a few articles. Maybe there's something out there I haven't seen.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
"Did the cops take you to the hospital to allow you to document your abuse?"  
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
prussian advisor posted:I can tell the people reading this thread, from firsthand experience, that reporting on criminal cases is often truly poo poo and gives a totally incomplete picture of what the trial or evidence actually looked like. The actual trial itself often takes a completely different shape than the initial reports (usually due to lazy loving police requiring the prosecutor to complete the lion's share of the investigation) and those who report on criminal trials are often blissfully unaware as they simply quote from the publically available filings without bothering to show up to trial or even to bother to move themselves away from their desks or exert the herculean effort necessary to pick up a telephone. This is a reasonable point, except that we all know that this isn't actually what's going on here.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 20:43
|
|
|
Cerebral Bore posted:This is a reasonable point, except that we all know that this isn't actually what's going on here. Except that we don't, really, and I say this as someone whose primary job responsibility is literally prosecuting bent cops. If the cop who got an elbow to the face in Cecily McMillian's case was undercover and plainclothes, how the hell did this case make it past the judgment of acquittal phase even after the close of the people's case-in-chief? I'm more interested to see how the appellate division opinion of the NY supreme court reads after they get done with their inevitable review of this trial far more than anything else. I also haven't seen a single description of the alleged battery victim in the McMillian case as an undercover/un-uniformed cop in any story on these events except on this specific thread. Every news story I've read about this case (on the internet at least) has emphasized the overwhelming injustice of how the NYPD treated other protesters that were part of the same movement at different areas on different dates and times, and how that wasn't allowed to be put in front of the jury. Well, no loving poo poo. Does anyone really think this should be probative evidence of how this particular cop acted under these circumstances? Has anyone actually even seen how a criminal trial actually works? You might as well argue that the average bigoted freeper's urban myth bullshit tale of "urban ferals" might as well be probative, admissible evidence in a case of a random white defendant accused of battering a black victim.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
The only way that analogy holds is if the random white guy is also a freeper
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 21:43
|
|
|
rscott posted:The only way that analogy holds is if the random white guy is also a freeper So, propensity evidence is fine in a criminal trial, so long as the defendant is a cop? Does that really seem like a door that we really want to throw open, as a society? How long do you think that policy would be good only against police defendants, rather than the population at large?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 21:45
|
|
|
Sucrose posted:The problem is that there's a large portion of the American populace that literally thinks the homeless are subhuman scum, and that if one of them was beaten to death by the police it must have been their own fault. And then the defense ensures the jury is packed with these sort of people. And so this is what we get.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
Spatial posted:Patrick Bateman, average American. This guy has figured out what the actual problem is, with cases like we've been recently discussed as well as the case in the OP--the problem is jurors unwilling and unable to arrive at societally upsetting conclusions to reach a verdict, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. And despite what people wailing about the jury selection process might think, actually ferreting out these sentiments in venirepersons is almost completely impossible in real life, for either the prosecution or the defense. This is doubly true in federal trials, where voir dire is almost always conducted entirely by the district judge overseeing the case, rather than the prosecutor and defense attorney.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 21:49
|
|
|
prussian advisor posted:So, propensity evidence is fine in a criminal trial, so long as the defendant is a cop? Does that really seem like a door that we really want to throw open, as a society? How long do you think that policy would be good only against police defendants, rather than the population at large? Hint it's already used against the population at large when they're minorities
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 21:51
|
|
|
rscott posted:Hint it's already used against the population at large when they're minorities Hint, it's not and would get you skinned alive and mistried in about five seconds by any judge I've ever practiced in front of, and I'm a prosecutor in the deep South who has practiced in front of dozens of different judges at both the misdemeanor and felony levels. Of course, if by "evidence" you're referring to racist preconceptions by jurors who refuse to admit to having such preconceptions during voir dire conducted by attorneys on both sides, then again, no poo poo. But what exactly do you propose to do about it?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 21:57
|
|
|
prussian advisor posted:Except that we don't, really, and I say this as someone whose primary job responsibility is literally prosecuting bent cops. If the cop who got an elbow to the face in Cecily McMillian's case was undercover and plainclothes, how the hell did this case make it past the judgment of acquittal phase even after the close of the people's case-in-chief? I'm more interested to see how the appellate division opinion of the NY supreme court reads after they get done with their inevitable review of this trial far more than anything else. I also haven't seen a single description of the alleged battery victim in the McMillian case as an undercover/un-uniformed cop in any story on these events except on this specific thread. Well, good thing we're not in a court of law here, then.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2014 22:19
|
|
|
So I figured I'd actually look up the case, since I hadn't heard about it, and what a surprise! Not one single reliable source saying the cop she hit was undercover. Which makes sense, since the incident happened in the midst of uniformed cops breaking up a protest and arresting random protesters by force. As for the alleged groping, descriptions of the chaos that night point to something more like a cop accidentally touching her breast at some point as he forcibly grabs and subdues her, handcuffs her, drags her over to the arrestee pile, and pushes her to the ground (which explains the bruising). As for the elbow, it's pretty reasonable to lash out in self-defense (or even just hit someone with an errant limb) when being forcefully subdued like that. I'm really not surprised the jury didn't buy her defense.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:So I figured I'd actually look up the case, since I hadn't heard about it, and what a surprise! Not one single reliable source saying the cop she hit was undercover. Which makes sense, since the incident happened in the midst of uniformed cops breaking up a protest and arresting random protesters by force. As for the alleged groping, descriptions of the chaos that night point to something more like a cop accidentally touching her breast at some point as he forcibly grabs and subdues her, handcuffs her, drags her over to the arrestee pile, and pushes her to the ground (which explains the bruising). As for the elbow, it's pretty reasonable to lash out in self-defense (or even just hit someone with an errant limb) when being forcefully subdued like that. I'm really not surprised the jury didn't buy her defense. To the point where you're fine with her being convicted of a felony? What the hell?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:So I figured I'd actually look up the case, since I hadn't heard about it, and what a surprise! Not one single reliable source saying the cop she hit was undercover. Which makes sense, since the incident happened in the midst of uniformed cops breaking up a protest and arresting random protesters by force. As for the alleged groping, descriptions of the chaos that night point to something more like a cop accidentally touching her breast at some point as he forcibly grabs and subdues her, handcuffs her, drags her over to the arrestee pile, and pushes her to the ground (which explains the bruising). As for the elbow, it's pretty reasonable to lash out in self-defense (or even just hit someone with an errant limb) when being forcefully subdued like that. I'm really not surprised the jury didn't buy her defense. If we assume what she said was true, would it matter if the cop was undercover or not?
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:So I figured I'd actually look up the case, since I hadn't heard about it, and what a surprise! Not one single reliable source saying the cop she hit was undercover. Which makes sense, since the incident happened in the midst of uniformed cops breaking up a protest and arresting random protesters by force. As for the alleged groping, descriptions of the chaos that night point to something more like a cop accidentally touching her breast at some point as he forcibly grabs and subdues her, handcuffs her, drags her over to the arrestee pile, and pushes her to the ground (which explains the bruising). As for the elbow, it's pretty reasonable to lash out in self-defense (or even just hit someone with an errant limb) when being forcefully subdued like that. I'm really not surprised the jury didn't buy her defense. I would actually like to see these sources. Ir would make things easier. CharlestheHammer fucked around with this message at 01:01 on May 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 00:59
|
|
|
Main Paineframe posted:I'm really not surprised the jury didn't buy her defense. Totally justifies the sentencing I'm sure. What's with certain legal cases that just makes people glaze over mentally? It's really weird.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 01:00
|
|
|
Given the way that cops get let off by the system, I'm not super interested in what prosecutors have to say.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 03:48
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Given the way that cops get let off by the system, I'm not super interested in what prosecutors have to say. Okay!
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
 Funny thing about cameras being everywhere. They are starting to catch the cops in action. Tell us some more about how the cops weren't groping women guys.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:
Those two cops that are physically restraining that lady sure look like they are deriving sexual pleasure from that contact.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 04:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 22:19 |
|
|
Slanderer posted:Those two cops that are physically restraining that lady sure look like they are deriving sexual pleasure from that contact. Spoken like someone who doesn't have breasts. You don't do that.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2014 04:35
|
|
