|
justsharkbait posted:That statistic is biased, though. You are saying they are murdered as if you know. There can be legitimate in-custody deaths. The number of actual true in-custody murders is much lower and probably less then the LEO's murdered, followed by most being negligent deaths, and then those that are justified. There is still a problem, but blanket calling it murder is in itself wrong. I'm using the Bureau of Justice Statistics numbers and they do account for legitimate deaths: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ard0309st.pdf  In 2009, 497 people were killed due to homicide by law enforcement personal in relation to an arrest. "In 2009, 48 law enforcement officers were feloniously killed in the line of duty." (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2009). Edit: In only 45% of cases where someone was killed by law enforcement had they assaulted the officer prior to being killed, so even if every instance of assault justifies use of deadly force, that still leaves 55% of the people killed by law enforcement. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 03:13 on Aug 4, 2014 |
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 03:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 11:28 |
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm using the Bureau of Justice Statistics numbers and they do account for legitimate deaths: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ard0309st.pdf Those are deaths in relation to an arrest, not while in custody. Like, also deaths while the cops are attempting to arrest them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 03:13
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Those are deaths in relation to an arrest, not while in custody. Like, also deaths while the cops are attempting to arrest them. I apologize those numbers include people killed by cops before they had the chance to get the handcuffs on you are correct.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 03:14
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I apologize those numbers include people killed by cops before they had the chance to get the handcuffs on you are correct. Great, it's always cool when someone can admit they were wrong. Did you see the five cops that I put up who were arrested and sentenced for various things on duty?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 03:17
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:I think it is more media bias. When you want to have the public keep up a certain perception, you cover what you want to cover. It is that way in everything from police issues, to global events. They cover what they want to on major news. On a more personal note, in my 5 years as a cop, at least 10 officers in the greater local area i policed in got sent to jail for offenses. None of them covered by any major news, and most not even a local paper article. Ah yes, the famous media bias against law enforcement agencies. Are you a cop?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 03:26
|
|
|
Let us also not forget this little known fact (because again, media does not cover it). The standard procedure for police-related homicide is to have a higher agency conduct an actual homicide investigation. The same procedure as any other homicide. So when, for example, an officer shoots someone and they die, the State investigators show up and conduct a homicide investigation as normal. And just like a normal investigation, it gets sent to a DA who presents to a Grand Jury. The Grand Jury decides to file charges on the officer or not. Not IA, not a Detective, not a politician. A Grand Jury of peers. The news does not tell you that and instead focuses on the IA or law enforcement side. It does not matter if IA clears the officer or not, it still gets presented to a Grand Jury. Is that the case when the subject does not die? most likely but not always. Do you hear about that part? no. So when an officer does not get charged it is because a Grand Jury did not charge him, not because IA is biased. Now, could the investigation be tampered with, yes, but that is why they are done by the State agency. There is one thing that all local officers have in common: There is no great love for the State investigative agency. Why? because they don't care about local politics, good ole' boy, or "let this one slide". They will come in and draw charges on whoever they need to and the local agency has no say. So, there are plenty of checks and balances that prevent the vast majority of police misconduct. The number of legitimate police misconduct cases compared to the number of citizens that have contact with the police is still in good shape--and under the current system that is the best that can expected. I believe the politicians say "working as intended". Trabisnikof posted:I'm using the Bureau of Justice Statistics numbers and they do account for legitimate deaths: http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ard0309st.pdf Again. Homicide is not murder. Also, out of 93 million arrests from 2003 to 2009 only 4,813 in-custody deaths of any kind were reported. That is extremely low. justsharkbait fucked around with this message at 03:40 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 03:28
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Ah yes, the famous media bias against law enforcement agencies.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Ah yes, the famous media bias against law enforcement agencies. Dude, he outright said he was a cop. quote:On a more personal note, in my 5 years as a cop, at least 10 officers in the greater local area i policed in got sent to jail for offenses. None of them covered by any major news, and most not even a local paper article.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
meat sweats posted:Ah yes, the famous media bias against law enforcement agencies. Was, yes. Also, it is an extremely obvious bias of media in general, not just toward law enforcement or even specifically targeting them. They just want stories. justsharkbait fucked around with this message at 03:47 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Great, it's always cool when someone can admit they were wrong. I actually didn't since I was But lets go through them: Obdicut posted:Francis P. Brevetti -- arrested for Class D felony and a misdemeanor, got 3 years suspended sentence and three years probation in a plea deal. For a class D felony, that's a normal sentence. I can't find a source for this, can you? So unfortunately, only one of these cops got close to an average sentence and that's only if you ignore the civil rights violations and only count the assault.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 03:46
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:Again. Homicide is not murder. Apologies for using murder instead of homicide. My point still stands that cops are far more likely to kill than get killed in an interaction with the public. This creates distrust in the community. Cops are far more likely to get a reduce sentence than the general public, this too creates distrust in the community. Also those numbers do not include deaths in corrections.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 03:49
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I actually didn't since I was quote:Francis P. Brevetti -- arrested for Class D felony and a misdemeanor, got 3 years suspended sentence and three years probation in a plea deal. For a class D felony, that's a normal sentence. I can't find a source for this, can you? A source for the class D felony claim, or for the case itself? quote:Average theft sentence length in Maryland (>$500 stolen): 22 Months. So this guy got off easy Where are you getting this average sentence length thing from, and are you taking into account past offenses? What is your methodology? quote:Well once again the average assault sentence is 72mo. If you read the actual offense, 72 would have been high for what he did--shoved a guy so that he fell and hit his head. It was an appropriate sentence. quote:He only got 30 months, average length of sentance for assault in Colorado is 72 months. None of the other COs got near 72 months either. Why do you keep quoting average lengths instead of looking at the actual case? In that one, the actual sentencing reasoning was quite clearly spelled out. One thing to remember is that any conviction of a cop is going to be a first felony conviction, because otherwise they wouldn't be a cop. So an average sentence length isn't appropriate measurement, it should be average for first offense of that type. In addition, several of these cases were pleas: pleas mean that you get a reduced sentence, that's what they're about. I'd also add that a random sampling of five is not any sort of way to determine an average treatment. I'm going along with this to show my good faith in argument; I could have spent longer and found 5 guys who got inarguably long sentences, but instead, because I'm lazy, I took the first five cops that had appropriate sentences. There are also cops who got lighter sentences. If you actually wanted to prove this, you'd have to do quite a bit of meticulous research, and take into account the confounders, like first offense, plea bargain, access to funds (and therefore lawyers) etc. Trabisnikof posted:Apologies for using murder instead of homicide. My point still stands that cops are far more likely to kill than get killed in an interaction with the public. This creates distrust in the community. I think it'd create a different kind of distrust if more police officers were killed than civilians, in US culture. They'd be considered incompetent, I think. And sadly, since the police-caused homicides tend to be clustered in areas and groups, it's only a subset of the community that is going to feel this distrust. There aren't a lot of suburban commuters being killed by the police, and when they are they tend to be holding a gun after killing their wife or something along those lines. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 04:01 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 03:58
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:A source for the class D felony claim, or for the case itself? I was using primarily BJS or state level statistics as I could find them. My point isn't as to why cops get an easier deal than an average felon but that so long as all these examples are combined with the numerous cases where cops don't even get punished at all (or get paid time off or desk duty) create a huge disconnect between how laws are applied to everyday people and how the law applies to LEOs. The fact still stands that more people are killed by LEOs while in their custody, who did not assault the officer first (160-200 a year), than LEOs are feloniously killed in the line of duty (50-100). There is a huge disconnect here, because I'm certain that LEOs get off easy in every step of the legal process. Sure some of them get treated as bad as the rest of us, but the norm is for leniency for LEOs. If you believe otherwise, there you're right that we're going to need a big study to resolve the difference.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I was using primarily BJS or state level statistics as I could find them. Okay. Do you undersatnd why that's not a good comparison? You have to at the very least compare average sentences for first-time convictions, and take into account the plea bargains. quote:My point isn't as to why cops get an easier deal than an average felon but that so long as all these examples are combined with the numerous cases where cops don't even get punished at all (or get paid time off or desk duty) create a huge disconnect between how laws are applied to everyday people and how the law applies to LEOs. Why did you ask for the cases if you were just going to dismiss them and say that your point was that there's all these other cases where cops don't get punished? What was the point in asking me to do the work in digging up these cases? quote:The fact still stands that more people are killed by LEOs while in their custody, who did not assault the officer first (160-200 a year), than LEOs are feloniously killed in the line of duty (50-100). Where is this figure from? quote:There is a huge disconnect here, because I'm certain that LEOs get off easy in every step of the legal process. Sure some of them get treated as bad as the rest of us, but the norm is for leniency for LEOs. If you believe otherwise, there you're right that we're going to need a big study to resolve the difference. I don't believe one way or the other. Or rather, I think that cops have huge advantages over the average person accused of a crime: They have assets, they have credibility from being a cop, to a jury, they are first-time offenders, and a lot of the time those testifying against them are going to be criminals. That combination is almost certainly going to lead to lower conviction rates and lower sentences. Whether on top of that there's a significant widespread amount of conspiracy among cops to actively cover up stuff, I don't know and it would take a broad-based and difficult survey to uncover. There's definitely far too much cover-up stuff, of course, and as I said you often get entire areas that are corrupted, like the towns using asset forfeiture predatorily. I'm not certain, though, what my takeaway from this should be: how do we get to a place where cops are more easily prosecuted for crimes committed, especially on duty? My solution for this is institutional change, especially by ending the drug war, but also by making prosecutors a non-political position and removing pressure from cops to make arrests rather than try to proactively prevent crimes. I also think that non-political prosecutors would do a better job at these prosecutions, as well
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Apologies for using murder instead of homicide. My point still stands that cops are far more likely to kill than get killed in an interaction with the public. This creates distrust in the community. Cops are far more likely to get a reduce sentence than the general public, this too creates distrust in the community. As of 2014 there are approximately 780,000 LEO in the US. Given the statistic of 93,000,000 arrest from 2003-2009 let us do some math. First, there were obviously fewer LEO during 2003-2009, but let us use the 780 number. From 2003-2009 4813 of all types of in custody death out of 93,000,000 arrests. 1090 deaths of all types out of 780,000 officers. LEO: .14% death rate IN-CUSTODY: .01% death rate. From 2003 to 2009 there were 415,925 assaults on ~780,000 officers. That is a 53% assault rate on officers for the period (or ~7% chance a year of getting assaulted). How come whenever a cop gets assaulted it rarely gets reported, but when a cop messes up that is all the media talks about? It leads to a perception that there is a greater problem then there actually is, and leads to erroneous claims that the job is somehow less deadly, b/c the numbers have actually remained close in recent years. About 50,000 - 60,000 officers are assaulted each year. Since there is only 255 officers per 100,000 citizens that is a lot of assaults on a small group of people. So again, you can talk about police reform, and i think it is needed, but there is some merit and even need to "us or them" since statistically you have a few hundred people trying to keep the peace for over a hundred thousand. That leads to a very close groups and family mentality. Most people protect their family because at the end of the day it is all you have. That mentality is in law enforcement as well and only major system-wide change can make that mentality not so needed. justsharkbait fucked around with this message at 04:33 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:21
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Okay. Do you undersatnd why that's not a good comparison? You have to at the very least compare average sentences for first-time convictions, and take into account the plea bargains. Those numbers are from BJS and FBI reports. I cannot find a source for first-time convictions only, but if you can please feel free to link it. I'd love to see it. Until then, averages are the best I have. Once again I'm not arguing that there's a conspiracy or anything like that, just that so long as this is the reality (or at least the perspective of the community) there is little similarities between the way cops get treated by the judicial system and the way everyone else does; then there are going to be fundamental issues with trust. USDAs aren't really political positions and while they're better than some state DAs, I don't know how much better they really are. justsharkbait posted:As of 2014 there are approximately 780,000 LEO in the US. Given the statistic of 93,000,000 arrest from 2003-2009 let us do some math. You're right about the death rates and I didn't say that LEOs were less likely to get assaulted or killed than the people they are arresting, just that more people are killed by LEOs while arresting them than LEOs are killed. However, "The rate of officer assaults in 2012 was 10.2 per 100 sworn officers." So that's much smaller than the 53% you're using (http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/leoka/2012/officers-assaulted/assaults_topic_page_-2012).
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:33
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:How come whenever a cop gets assaulted it rarely gets reported, but when a cop messes up that is all the media talks about? Didn't you just say you knew of at least 10 officers that went to jail but there was no media coverage? Also how are you getting that 53%?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:34
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Those numbers are from BJS and FBI reports. I cannot find a source for first-time convictions only, but if you can please feel free to link it. I'd love to see it. Until then, averages are the best I have. Actually, its not. It is about a 7-10% chance you get assaulted each year. Which means if you are a cop for ~5 years that is about a 50% chance you get assaulted, which is accurate based on my experience. The chance that you get killed, however, is very low and you are correct on that. However, considering that 780,000 people dealt with at least 93,000,000 it stands to reason that more of the 93 mil would get killed then the 780 thousand. We are, in most cases, very well trained so we don't die if attacked. justsharkbait fucked around with this message at 04:37 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:
This isn't true--the cop messing up all the media talking about. The average unreasonable use of force in a big city isn't going to make the news, and as you stated above, many cops will get disciplined, arrested, and convicted without a news story about it. The statistics on this sort of media reporting are really hard to get at; in general, I think the media looks at each story on its own and sees how it can sensationalize it. A cop used excessive force against a guy accused of beating the hell out of two women? Meh. A cop used excessive force against an 18 year old kid who had a full ride scholarship to college next year? Now we're talking. A guy assaulted a cop? Meh. A guy assaulted a cop while wearing a Bieber costume? That'll get news.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:35
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:Actually, its not. It is about a 7-10% chance you get assaulted each year. Which means if you are a cop for ~5 years that is about a 50% rate. Are those 415,925 on unique people? Or could the same person be getting assaulted more than once?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:This isn't true--the cop messing up all the media talking about. The average unreasonable use of force in a big city isn't going to make the news, and as you stated above, many cops will get disciplined, arrested, and convicted without a news story about it. I agree with that. Dum Cumpster posted:Are those 415,925 on unique people? Or could the same person be getting assaulted more than once? To get that detailed would require more work that i am willing to do for an internet post. I don't actually know how it would be possible to gather that info without actually doing an entire report on it. The data did not specify, and when reporting statics of assault i don't think it filters by "repeat" assaults. I know what you are asking though, because many officers who work the higher crime areas get assaulted at least 2-3 times a week where the officers who work the lower-crime areas can go an entire year without a major confrontation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:41
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:Actually, its not. It is about a 7-10% chance you get assaulted each year. Which means if you are a cop for ~5 years that is about a 50% chance you get assaulted, which is accurate based on my experience. I'm pretty sure the FBI has their numbers right. I wouldn't try to multiply out a 1 year statistics to multiple years, but I get your point that LEOs are often exposed to risk over multiple years, but so is the public. But part of my point is, that 55% of the people killed by LEOs during arrests didn't attack the officer. justsharkbait posted:I know what you are asking though, because many officers who work the higher crime areas get assaulted at least 2-3 times a week where the officers who work the lower-crime areas can go an entire year without a major confrontation. Or alternatively the rate of assault may vary by officer behavior.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:42
|
|
|
Dum Cumpster posted:Are those 415,925 on unique people? Or could the same person be getting assaulted more than once?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:48
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm pretty sure the FBI has their numbers right. I wouldn't try to multiply out a 1 year statistics to multiple years, but I get your point that LEOs are often exposed to risk over multiple years, but so is the public. Right. But "didn't attack the officer" means that that they simply died while in custody of the officer and did not fit in the other categories. For example, negligence such as how they were seated in the car, or left on their stomach to long, etc. So "people killed by LEO" does not mean they actually killed them, but that the officer was responsible in all or some part for their death b/c they were in custody. It is not saying that those 55% of people were just arbitrarily killed by an officer. So i still agree there is a problem with negligence and lack of training, etc, but i was trying to fix the connotation that we just kill people in custody b/c why not. It is very rare that an actual in-custody murder occurs. Trabisnikof posted:Or alternatively the rate of assault may vary by officer behavior. Yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:52
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:Also are those self-reported because lmao. Not that i know of. There are ~57,000 assaults a year on officers. So about 7% rate. Those get documented in a report just like any other crime and sent to FBI or other reporting agency for collection and statistics.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:55
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:Right. But "didn't attack the officer" means that that they simply died while in custody of the officer and did not fit in the other categories. For example, negligence such as how they were seated in the car, or left on their stomach to long, etc. So "people killed by LEO" does not mean they actually killed them, but that the officer was responsible in all or some part for their death b/c they were in custody. To me that sounds like they actually killed them. If I left someone in a hot car or tied up in some awful position and they died, I would feel responsible for the outcome. Maybe I lost the point of what you were getting at, though.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:From 2003 to 2009 there were 415,925 assaults on ~780,000 officers. If there were a unified definition of assault that covered both when police do it to the public and when civilians do it to police this would be a meaningful statistic. Since I have personally had police attempt to bait me into assaulting them (I assume, maybe there's some legitimate reason to scream an inch from someone's face spitting on them other than hoping they flench and touch you), I take those numbers with some considerable salt. I've also had police push me out of their way just because, which I'm pretty sure 1) isn't assault when they do it and 2) would be assault on an officer if I had done it (or even attempted to remove their hand from me).
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 04:57
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:Right. But "didn't attack the officer" means that that they simply died while in custody of the officer and did not fit in the other categories. For example, negligence such as how they were seated in the car, or left on their stomach to long, etc. So "people killed by LEO" does not mean they actually killed them, but that the officer was responsible in all or some part for their death b/c they were in custody. That is wrong. People that died that didn't fit in other categories is "unknown" on this chart. Homicide by law enforcement is very much because a LEO killed them, not just responsible for their care. I'm talking about the 55% of deaths during arrests where the person didn't allegedly commit assault beforehand. http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/ard0309st.pdf posted:Of reported arrest-related deaths, 45% of decedents allegedly engaged in assault either immediately prior to or during the process of arrest. justsharkbait posted:It is not saying that those 55% of people were just arbitrarily killed by an officer. So i still agree there is a problem with negligence and lack of training, etc, but i was trying to fix the connotation that we just kill people in custody b/c why not. It is very rare that an actual in-custody murder occurs. I get what you're saying, and I'm not trying to imply all these deaths are because of malice or even negligence. However, when we talk about trust issues between police and the people they interact with, I think its important to remember the risk goes both ways (and at the end of the day, the police still have the power).
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
Are you going to answer why you asked for five examples of convictions and then immediately said that those didn't matter, your point was all the cops who don't get convicted? Plus, y'know, the other stuff I said.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:
I agree.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
I always feel a good little bit awkward whenever the discussion of "law enforcement danger" comes up. This can be, as above, 'chance of getting assaulted' - or it can be actually being wounded, killed, etc. Isn't that the entire purpose of the police? To deal with danger? This isn't a sane and reasonable justification for *anything* they do. If you don't want to put yourself at risk for other people, maybe you should choose a profession that doesn't specifically involve putting yourself at risk for other people?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 05:17
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Are you going to answer why you asked for five examples of convictions and then immediately said that those didn't matter, your point was all the cops who don't get convicted? I did in fact respond to your examples. And I asked for them as a conversation started about this very issue. Unless we are talking about serial killers or murders from the 70s, it is rather difficult to come up with examples of criminal cops being sentenced worse than average criminals. Yes there are many structural reasons that is true, but it is also the cherry on the top of the easy treatment police receive in the judicial system. This easy treatment is part of what creates distrust of police in a lot of communities. Then combine that with the risk to regular citizens that an interaction with LEOs represents and it furthers this distrust. The risk that citizens present to LEOs is real as well, and multiplied by the vastly larger number of interactions on the LEO side of the equation. This mutual standoff widens the gap further as individual LEO abuses stick in the memory of the community and the individual, while within an LEO perspective it was one mistake among thousands of successes. I've chosen to focus on homicides committed by LEOs, but there is another great study from BJS about LEO behavior during arrests that will likewise echo the trend of LEO interactions presenting a slight but real risk of illegal force to individuals while receiving lighter punishments for the few cases where illegal force is prosecuted. I had a feeling that the premise: "LEOs receive easy treatment in the justice system" might meet some resistance, but if it isn't true the law enforcement community needs to better publicize the evidence in the communities they operate in. Or at least publish a study. (If someone can find that study, please, please link it.)
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:The news does not tell you that and instead focuses on the IA or law enforcement side. It does not matter if IA clears the officer or not, it still gets presented to a Grand Jury. I found this story the other day that seems apropos. http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2014/08/01/houston-grand-juries-too-white-too-law-and-order-and-too-cozy-with-cops/ Needless to say, no former cop or law enforcement official would ever survive voir dire in an actual jury trial. That's literally defense voir dire question #1. Anyone who said they had or did work in that capacity would be struck for cause at the outset. If the judge declined to allow the strike, then that's a new trial on appeal, without exception. I don't have a whole lot of confidence in grand juries.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 08:16
|
|
|
This is a realm of law info that I totally didn't know about. Can someone summarize the difference between a grand jury and what would be a pop-culture idea of a jury?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 08:45
|
|
|
Randbrick posted:You have to bear in mind, though, that the grand jury is a closed proceeding where only the prosecutor gets to call witnesses and argue. And also bear in mind, judges and prosecutor will fight tooth and nail to keep grand jury proceedings sealed and to prevent the distribution of transcripts from them. Exactly why it's so rare, and notable, when a grand jury actually comes down against an LEO.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 09:01
|
|
|
When we talk about police assault statistics, how often does that include thrashing around resisting arrest?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 09:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I did in fact respond to your examples. And I asked for them as a conversation started about this very issue. Unless we are talking about serial killers or murders from the 70s, it is rather difficult to come up with examples of criminal cops being sentenced worse than average criminals. Okay. I asked you, when you changed from 'show me 5 cops getting sentenced who got appropriate sentences' to 'show me 5 cops in the past 15 years who, after committing a crime on the job, got a appropriate sentence', if there were any other restrictions you'd like to put on. That was your chance to say 'Find cops being sentenced worse than average criminals'. What you asked for was cops getting similar sentences to normal criminals, which is what I provided. So if, in fact, you wanted examples of cops receiving harsher sentences, why didn't you ask for that? Especially after I specifically asked for exactly what you wanted before I went and did the work? It's a little weird to be accused of not arguing in good faith, have you ask for examples, give them, have you ask for examples with new conditions, give those, have those argued against on the basis of average sentences, explain to you why an average sentence isn't a good comparison, and have you finally say that you actually want something different than you asked for. quote:Yes there are many structural reasons that is true, but it is also the cherry on the top of the easy treatment police receive in the judicial system. The putative easy treatment that police receive in the judicial system is a structural reason. quote:I had a feeling that the premise: "LEOs receive easy treatment in the justice system" might meet some resistance, but if it isn't true the law enforcement community needs to better publicize the evidence in the communities they operate in. Or at least publish a study. THe premise meets resistance because neither you, nor I, have done the large amount of actual work to prove this to be true. However, even with that, I listed the reasons why, compared to an average criminal, cops would get more lenient treatment, and I included among that their 'credibility' from being a cop. I could add to that a very deep knowledge of how the justice system works and therefore how best to use it to your advantage when on the defense. And again, I'm not sure what it is you want to change to address this, if not a systemic and/or cultural thing. If you think cops get easy treatment in the justice system from other members of the justice system, that's a systemic problem. If you think that cops get an easy treatment from the media and juries, then that's a cultural problem. So in what way are you not agreeing with me on this long train of thought? Obdicut fucked around with this message at 10:37 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 09:53
|
|
|
Grognan posted:This is a realm of law info that I totally didn't know about. Can someone summarize the difference between a grand jury and what would be a pop-culture idea of a jury? A grand jury decides if there's enough evidence to proceed to an actual trial. It is not a finding of guilt but a finding there is evidence to warrant a trial. It is where 'indictments' come from: you are indicted by the grand jury. They meet in secret so as to not tip off the person being investigated, to protect that person in the even they are accused by not indicted, to protect the witnesses until trial, and to allow full and frank testimony without worrying that, if he doesn't get indicted, your neighbor will know you suspected him of being a cocaine mule. There are arguments for and against grand jury secrecy, I don't have any particular feelings on it. Grand juries don't have a defense attorney to represent the accused, leading to the an old saying that a prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 10:42
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:A grand jury decides if there's enough evidence to proceed to an actual trial. It is not a finding of guilt but a finding there is evidence to warrant a trial. It is where 'indictments' come from: you are indicted by the grand jury. They meet in secret so as to not tip off the person being investigated, to protect that person in the even they are accused by not indicted, to protect the witnesses until trial, and to allow full and frank testimony without worrying that, if he doesn't get indicted, your neighbor will know you suspected him of being a cocaine mule. There are arguments for and against grand jury secrecy, I don't have any particular feelings on it. However, no defense attorney has any input into who can and cannot sit on the grand jury. This happens entirely at the discretion of the judge and prosecutor. So, a prosecutor could strike people with criminal records, people in a line of work he or she finds disquieting, i.e. a defense attorney or a left-leaning non-profit worker, or minorities. There is no analog to the "Batson Challenge" in grand jury selection, so a prosecutor could legitimately strike all the black and brown people, assuming the presiding judge is cool with it. Once the grand jury convenes, they hear only what evidence the prosecutor decides to hear. There are no ethical ramifications for presenting a lop-sided recitation of evidence. So, a prosecutor could present the fact that the defendant's fingerprints were found inside the house, but decline to present the fact that the defendant was a long-time friend of the alleged victim. In most jurisdictions, the grand jury presentation (the prosecutor's case to the grand jury) occurs after a preliminary hearing on warrant. Both are probable cause hearings. Probable cause, of course, is lower standard of evidence than proof beyond reasonable doubt. Many prosecutors and judges are very liberal with just how much lower probable cause really is. Note, though, that many jurisdictions invest in prosecutors the power of direct indictment, by which a case can be brought directly to a grand jury without a preliminary hearing. This is very bad for defendants -- in many jurisdictions the preliminary hearing is the only statutorily provided proceeding where a defense attorney can cross-examine and review evidence prior to trial. For a grand jury to decline to indict is remarkably rare in my experience -- with the notable exception of grand juries involving police officers. It is very difficult to assess how or why that is. Few people with direct input or experience being in front of grand juries are inclined to talk about it. That's why that WaPo story is so interesting to me, at least. One fun quirk, at least in this jurisdiction, of prosecutorial direct indictment is where a prosecutor nolle prosses (a voluntary dismissal of a charge or charges by a prosecutor, which permits the prosecutor to revive the charge within one year as a direct indictment) then immediately revives the charge before a grand jury. This has the dual effect of depriving the accused of a preliminary hearing, and of voiding any bond or time served the defendant has posted or accrued. The new charge is effectively an entirely "new" charge. Depending on the prosecutor and the judge, I've seen this used quite openly to accomplish just that. Although by statute nolle prosses require "good cause" to be shown, many judges will just roll over and let the defendant's bond get yanked or time served be lost, along with the preliminary hearing. It is also difficult to explain this to my clients at times. It is naturally very counter-intuitive that a prosecutor could do something so overtly sleazy. One thing they often try to do, at least in my jurisdiction, is to initially charge offenses xyz, then threaten the defendant with a new direct indictment or a nolle prosse and direct indictment of a pre-existing charge. They realize that few defendants can afford to fork over another 500 or 1000 or however many dollars to a bondsman. It's an effective threat. We need to get rid of grand juries and direct indictment. They serve no purpose except to create procedural opportunities for prosecutors to play lovely games. Maybe 200+ years ago, you needed a grand jury to shield fact-finders from local retribution. Nowadays, we have judges and attorneys who can hear evidence at a preliminary hearing. The grand jury is antiquated at best and injurious to due process at worst.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 11:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 11:28 |
|
|
Randbrick posted:
I completely agree, by the way. When I said above I had no feelings on grand juries meeting in secret, that was 'As long as we still have grand juries'. A lot of the power and fuckery of prosecutors comes from grand jury dickering around, and grand jury details against people in law enforcement, or who have political connections, normally get leaked and so they're able to start circling the wagons in a way that ordinary defendants can't. Do you think a single judge is enough for a preliminary hearing? I've heard arguments for a panel of three to avoid the 'streamlined' effect when you get prosecutors, judges, and cops who all know each other and have done stuff with each other before rubber-stamping their way through hearings, but of course getting 3 judges for every hearing would be a logistical nightmare and probably not sustainable with our current judiciary.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 11:46
|
|