|
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. Do you have a source (or better yet a citation to a federal case) that says being a LEO is per se grounds to be struck for cause? I'm curious if it's really so definite if the officer says the magic words. Yes, I understand police are not always right. Yes, I can judge the case based on the evidence presented. Granted, most people (police included) are trying to get out of jury duty, so they'd probably answer those questions the other way.
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 13:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:30 |
|
|
I have testified many times for a Grand Jury. It is extremely easy. You walk in with your report and sit in a chair in the center of the room. You then talk to the jury and explain your report, what you did, why you did it, etc etc. They ask questions to you about the case and you answer unless the prosecutor objects. It is basically a "sit down and tell your story" type thing and then you get up and leave. The next witness goes in, etc. I would agree with some of the comments about how easy it is for prosecutors to manipulate them, though, and they could "indict a ham" if they really wanted to.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 16:32
|
|
|
justsharkbait posted:I have testified many times for a Grand Jury. It is extremely easy. You walk in with your report and sit in a chair in the center of the room. You then talk to the jury and explain your report, what you did, why you did it, etc etc. They ask questions to you about the case and you answer unless the prosecutor objects. It is basically a "sit down and tell your story" type thing and then you get up and leave. The next witness goes in, etc. Is there a defense in front of the grand jury to question the witnesses?
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 16:40
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Is there a defense in front of the grand jury to question the witnesses? There are some states where you can have a lawyer present to cross examine witnesses under certain circumstances, but there's really no point. The goal of the grand jury isn't to determine if you're guilty, just whether there's evidence of a crime and what the charge should be given the prosecutor's best possible case. Evidence supporting innocence isn't really relevant.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
He's not exactly police, but was anyone following this story before? A state department special agent was here in Honolulu for a diplomatic conference in 2011, got drunk, went to a McDonald's, got involved in an argument between two locals, and shot one of them. It was a hung jury and a mistrial. Given that apparently none of the things I just said are in dispute, I wish I knew more about how it turned out the way it did.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 16:56
|
|
|
KernelSlanders posted:There are some states where you can have a lawyer present to cross examine witnesses under certain circumstances, but there's really no point. The goal of the grand jury isn't to determine if you're guilty, just whether there's evidence of a crime and what the charge should be given the prosecutor's best possible case. Evidence supporting innocence isn't really relevant. Oh, I just figured the defense would want to be there to make sure the right procedures are being followed and everything is running in a fair manner.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:He's not exactly police, but was anyone following this story before? A state department special agent was here in Honolulu for a diplomatic conference in 2011, got drunk, went to a McDonald's, got involved in an argument between two locals, and shot one of them. It was a hung jury and a mistrial. Given that apparently none of the things I just said are in dispute, I wish I knew more about how it turned out the way it did. The defense is disputing whether or not he was drunk, and were claiming that he was acting in self-defense after being punched a lot. I don't consider 'being punched a lot' reason to be able to shoot someone else, personally, but in US law it often is. It sound like the original prosecution screwed up by not offering manslaughter to the jury which it seems like they would have gone for easily.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 17:10
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:The defense is disputing whether or not he was drunk, and were claiming that he was acting in self-defense after being punched a lot. I don't consider 'being punched a lot' reason to be able to shoot someone else, personally, but in US law it often is. It sound like the original prosecution screwed up by not offering manslaughter to the jury which it seems like they would have gone for easily. Yeah, in at least one version of the facts the shooter was on his back being ground-and-pounded at the moment of the shot and is very similar to the Zimmerman case in that regard (although obviously quite different in the events leading up to the fight).
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 17:12
|
|
|
Oh okay, I had trouble finding a collected article about the whole thing, so I didn't hear that. Anyway yeah, it was only as of the Zimmerman incident that I found out that there was any scenario where someone with a gun could shoot someone who is unarmed and not go to prison. I mean, other than being a cop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
In Hawaii:Hawaii Revised Statutes Vol. 14 §703-304 posted:The use of deadly force is justifiable under this section if the actor believes that deadly force is necessary to protect himself against death, serious bodily injury, kidnapping, rape, or forcible sodomy. But kidnapping does not apply to an illegal arrest by a police officer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:03
|
|
|
Samurai Sanders posted:Oh okay, I had trouble finding a collected article about the whole thing, so I didn't hear that. Anyway yeah, it was only as of the Zimmerman incident that I found out that there was any scenario where someone with a gun could shoot someone who is unarmed and not go to prison. I mean, other than being a cop.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:10
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:The pavement makes a pretty great anvil for pounding someone's head into and it doesn't take much of that to cause permanent injury or death. They were indoors and there is no allegation that the guy was pounding his head into pavement, but just that he was punching him a lot.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:13
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:They were indoors and there is no allegation that the guy was pounding his head into pavement, but just that he was punching him a lot. I'm assuming this wasn't one of those rare Burger Kings where the floor is made out of cotton candy and the guy getting punched didn't have neck muscles like the Incredible Hulk. If either of those were true I think I might reach a different conclusion.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:If you're on the ground with someone on top of you punching you in the head you're getting your head pounded into the ground. I'm not sure how being indoors makes a difference, the basic laws of physics don't change when you enter a Burger King. There's a lack of pavement. quote:I'm assuming this wasn't one of those rare Burger Kings where the floor is made out of cotton candy and the guy getting punched didn't have neck muscles like the Incredible Hulk. If either of those were true I think I might reach a different conclusion. I disagree with you that getting punched a lot, in a place with a lot of other people around, requires a lethal response. I also disagree that getting punched a lot without other people around requires a lethal response, but at least if you're in a MacDonalds and there's other people around, it's really unlikely you're getting beaten to death. Also, if you went ahead and interjected yourself into the argument in the first place, you're a dumbass. Back when I was a kid we could take ten or twenty punches to the dome without whipping out our gats.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:29
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Oh, I just figured the defense would want to be there to make sure the right procedures are being followed and everything is running in a fair manner. That's the insidious part. Grand juries are to decide if it's worth charging someone, not to determine guilt or innocence. So perverting them is the easiest way to avoid having to prosecute police if the local prosecution does not wish to do so. They can simply present a case that no one in their right mind would bother prosecuting, and unless they're incredibly obvious about it, the grand jury has no real reason to suspect that the prosecutor is deliberately not doing his job.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:32
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I disagree with you that getting punched a lot, in a place with a lot of other people around, requires a lethal response. I also disagree that getting punched a lot without other people around requires a lethal response, but at least if you're in a MacDonalds and there's other people around, it's really unlikely you're getting beaten to death. Obdicut posted:Also, if you went ahead and interjected yourself into the argument in the first place, you're a dumbass. Obdicut posted:Back when I was a kid we could take ten or twenty punches to the dome
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:In the interest of ending a derail I suppose we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one. I think getting mounted and repeatedly punched in the face is likely to result in serious bodily injury and I generally don't have a problem with laws that allow the use of lethal force to prevent serious bodily injury. Of all of the times I've witnessed where someone got mounted and punched (a lot) there were zero serious bodily injuries. It is really hard to beat someone to death with your hands. I accept that a lot of people think otherwise, which is part of what makes people who carry around guns tiresome: they can start a fight and then, when they lose, kill the other guy and be like "Well, he was punching me a lot." Thanks to Zimmerman and the general idea lethal force is an acceptable response to losing a fight you're probably better off taking away someone's gun and killing them if they get into a fight with you and they're armed. quote:I don't think the fact that other people were standing around watching the beating makes a difference considering how apathetic people can be to horrible poo poo happening. In general, people don't just watch someone getting beaten to death. quote:Yeah but your mom punches like a girl. My mom is a girl, so there. But anyway, yeah, this is a derail. The thing that weirds me out a bit is that a lot of people seem to not understand how dangerous strangulation is. That's the actual 'Oh poo poo gonna die' bit in a street scuffle, when someone starts actually choking you. I think TV has ruined our youngster's minds and they think choking works like "Guy goes limp, he is now unconscious and no further harm will occur to him. He will awake soon having learned his lesson." To try to get this remotely back on track, tasers vs. physical takedown vs. pepper-spray is an area that I don't have any position on because they all seem to have sucky sides. Obviously, the best thing is to just not use any of them and try to talk it out, but when they are going to be used, it really seems random which one would actually be safer in a given moment.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:54
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:In general, people don't just watch someone getting beaten to death. Source plz? I and many bystanders have watched some heinous poo poo go down on city streets.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Source plz? I and many bystanders have watched some heinous poo poo go down on city streets. I keep getting pulled off the people I'm trying to beat to death by do-gooders.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:57
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I keep getting pulled off the people I'm trying to beat to death by do-gooders. OK, that's what I thought. Carry on!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 18:59
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:In general, people don't just watch someone getting beaten to death. I was going to leave it alone, but are you loving serious here? People walk away from all sorts of awful poo poo just because they don't want to get involved. Bystander Apathy (occasionally called the Kitty Genovese Affect after a murder in Queens) is a very real thing. The probability of help is often dramatically lower the greater the number of bystanders, simply because the bystanders all start to consider it someone else's responsibility to step in.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:It is really hard to beat someone to death with your hands. http://www.onepunchhomicide.com/200%20list%20of%20OPH.htm Not really as much so as people think.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:14
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I was going to leave it alone, but are you loving serious here? Yes. quote:People walk away from all sorts of awful poo poo just because they don't want to get involved. True, but most fights still get broken up by bystanders, when there are bystanders. Bystander apathy is a real thing, but it's still more common for someone to act than to not. Bystander apathy is actually a much bigger deal for people who are having heart-attacks or whatever because people can tell themselves the guy is just drunk or freaking out or whatever. My favorite random guy interceding is the dude who wanders into frame at the end here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5TTMvY01Is (forgive the dumb music). One of the most common ways bystanders intervene is by calling the cops and then screaming "I've called the cops", which is actually surprisingly effective. Babby Formed posted:http://www.onepunchhomicide.com/200%20list%20of%20OPH.htm This is really, really a derail and I'm going to stop engaging it, but big random lists are not a way to establish anything. The number of fist-fights/assaults that don't wind up with a fatality are immensely greater than the list that do. \/ Rent-A-Cop posted:Well you're wrong. There isn't even an argument here. You're just boldly stating untruths. I suggest you do some reading before you get yourself or someone else seriously hurt or killed with your "Don't worry punches can't kill you and someone will do something anyway" attitude. I didn't say that punches can't kill you, though. And really, this is a derail, if you seriously want to call me dumb and poo poo about this PM me. Obdicut fucked around with this message at 19:23 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:17
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Yes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:21
|
|
|
I'm just glad he said "punches can't kill" and "no one walks away from someone being beaten" so I can discount everything he says in good conscience.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:28
|
|
|
Radbot posted:I'm just glad he said "punches can't kill" and "no one walks away from someone being beaten" so I can discount everything he says in good conscience. I'm glad I didn't say those things, because they would be silly to say.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:31
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'm glad I didn't say those things, because they would be silly to say. Obdicut posted:It is really hard to beat someone to death with your hands. Obdicut posted:True, but most fights still get broken up by bystanders, when there are bystanders. Obdicut posted:And really, this is a derail, if you seriously want to call me dumb and poo poo about this PM me.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:36
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:That's true. You said: The thread is back on track by making up poo poo I didn't say, true. Seriously, can we end the derail? It has gently caress-all to do with police reform, it's basically just Zimmerman V. Trayvon Part XIII.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:I'm glad I didn't say those things, because they would be silly to say. You sure say this a lot, though. People keep taking your comments the wrong way, as if you're implying something. What poor faith of them!
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:40
|
|
|
Here's a good article from a former federal prosecutor about grand juries: http://www.popehat.com/2014/02/27/the-kaley-forfeiture-decision-what-it-looks-like-when-the-feds-make-their-ham-sandwich/ The article is focused on asset freezes and other pre-trial measures, but does lay out a lot about how grand juries operate. quote:With very few exceptions — usually involving touchy cultural issues — the grand jury is a rubber-stamp. When it's accusatory it's a very minor speed bump, a speed bump like the one your neighbor's 17-year-old son races over in his truck at 2 in the morning. When it's investigatory it's a tool and container to assist in prosecutions with a rubber-stamp on the end. The courts, as reflected in Kaley, tell us that it serves to protect rights. Perhaps with lightning-strike rarity it does. But in the overwhelming majority of cases the grand jury — and the courts' confidence in it — reflects the view that the purpose of the criminal justice system is to convict the people the government sees fit to accuse.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:43
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:I was going to leave it alone, but are you loving serious here? People walk away from all sorts of awful poo poo just because they don't want to get involved. Bystander Apathy (occasionally called the Kitty Genovese Affect after a murder in Queens) is a very real thing. The probability of help is often dramatically lower the greater the number of bystanders, simply because the bystanders all start to consider it someone else's responsibility to step in. This may be getting into a derail, but while you are right, the Kitty Genovese apathetic-bystander story was more or less spun from whole cloth and has been debunked. http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2014/03/10/a-call-for-help The New Yorker posted:The Times story was inaccurate in a number of significant ways. There were two attacks, not three. Only a handful of people saw the first clearly and only one saw the second, because it took place indoors, within the vestibule. The reason there were two attacks was that Robert Mozer, far from being a “silent witness,” yelled at Moseley when he heard Genovese’s screams and drove him away. Two people called the police. When the ambulance arrived at the scene—precisely because neighbors had called for help—Genovese, still alive, lay in the arms of a neighbor named Sophia Farrar, who had courageously left her apartment to go to the crime scene, even though she had no way of knowing that the murderer had fled. E: another good article about it: http://nypost.com/2014/02/16/book-reveals-real-story-behind-the-kitty-genovese-murder/ Cichlid the Loach fucked around with this message at 19:50 on Aug 4, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You sure say this a lot, though. People keep taking your comments the wrong way, as if you're implying something. What poor faith of them! True, it is lovely, but it happens a lot. The best thing to do, I find, is to point out that you didn't say the poo poo they're making up. Sometimes they actually have a slight sense of shame or personal responsibility and will start to feel bad, but often they're kind of nuts so it doesn't work. Oh well. On the topic of Police Reform: http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/nov/26/denmark-police-powers-copenhagen This is a good example of how police powers get expanded. Ahead of the climate conference in Copenhagen, the Danish police were given 'pre-emptive' powers to arrest people who they thought were going to break the law. They used it, and arrested a ton of people during the protests. They released most of the people--this wasn't real 'policing', it was using the police to protect politicians. The cops were obviously fine with going along with this, though they didn't actually charge almost anyone A similar law was passed in Ontario, and remains on the books. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/despite-promises-ontario-has-yet-to-scrap-public-works-protection-act/article13242018/ Laws like this are often passed and justified in the moment, but then stick around afterwards and change the justice system. A lot of the problem with police powers are extremely broad laws, drafted during a (real or perceived) crisis, and then never undone.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 19:54
|
|
|
I'm inclined not to second guess the DA on this one. He brought a murder charge against a federal agent for a shooting involving his service weapon. That's pretty near unprecedented in itself. This was a close enough case to result in a hung jury. Re-litigating it here is not likely to be terribly productive.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
For stuff like traffic accidents and medical-related things most people have no idea what to do, so they don't act and just stand around. However, in cases of violence it is more common that people attempt to break it up. It is also common, though, that people actually get involved on one side or the other and end up getting themselves hurt or in trouble. Given my experience it is still far more common that people don't get involved or just call the police. Now, when an officer is getting attacked there is a large number of people who will help the officer, but in general in all experiences i have the majority of people will just stand around or keep going regardless of what is going on or who is involved.
|
|
#
?
Aug 4, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Cichlid the Loach posted:This may be getting into a derail, but while you are right, the Kitty Genovese apathetic-bystander story was more or less spun from whole cloth and has been debunked. Yeah, Kitty Genovese's murder was highly sensationalized, and the news accounts are very unreliable. The name has stuck because it's still used as a parable when teaching sociology and psych on the concept.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Here's a good article from a former federal prosecutor about grand juries: http://www.popehat.com/2014/02/27/the-kaley-forfeiture-decision-what-it-looks-like-when-the-feds-make-their-ham-sandwich/ Thanks, that's pretty informative.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 03:51
|
|
|
What is the argument behind keeping police unions? Seems like the costs far outweigh whatever benefit exists. We should also allow police officers to be be sued personally, so taxpayers aren't on the hook for the poo poo they pull regularly. No skin off their back.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 05:11
|
|
|
Police should not have any special privileges from arrest or prosecution, nor should rules governing use-of-force come from anywhere other than through the democratic process, so police unions should not be able to negotiate for such things. Otherwise, I see no reason why police should be singled out as being prohibited from unionization. Police can be sued personally, but FTCA and its state-level equivalents permit the employer to step as defendant if the officer was acting within the scope of his employment. This is standard indemnification from agency law, and generally speaking I think is something employers should do. I see no reason to single out police for special treatment here either. I do think, however, that particularly in the case of civil rights abuses, law enforcement agencies and municipalities should be much more willing to say that an officer was not acting within the scope of his employment. I'm not how to effect such a cultural change though. I don't think legislative action would be enough.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 06:08
|
|
|
Best way to get the union and precinct to disown officers is to have them start losing cases and being given massive, punative fines and reparations to pay.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 18:30 |
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:Best way to get the union and precinct to disown officers is to have them start losing cases and being given massive, punative fines and reparations to pay. Of course if the cops had to negotiate their own insurance, the ones with lovely records who had been taken to court already would pay out the rear end for their insurance, just like a doctor who has claims on his malpractice would. But a union would probably pay a fixed rate per member, and that probably wouldn't increase every time someone went to court, it would be some contracted length of time between renegotiations. That's how every insurance product I've ever had from my union works, but I might be talking out of my rear end as I've never shopped for LEO insurance. I'm a proud IATSE member, I support unions as a general rule, but over the course of this thread I'm starting to agree that police unions aren't in our society's best interest. I can't decide where I want to draw the line though, because I think it would be absurd to dismantle teacher's unions, or deny union membership to government workers in any trade that exists both privately and publicly. Actually, that's exactly where I want to draw my line in the sand: if no private version of your trade exists and you rely completely on the government's existence, you can't have a union. You can't collectively bargain against the American public, because ultimately they decide what your job actually is. There's no one else you could work for in the USA and kick in a homeowner's door with guns drawn to enforce local or federal laws on private property, and that training won't help your career anywhere but the military and the police. The same is true of corrections officers, the only civilian job you could have in America where you are trained to don riot gear and extract uncooperative people from prison cells safely. Meanwhile a teacher could teach at any of 1000s of private schools with the same education and training they have for public schools, and their performance should be evaluated on the same metrics in either position. But deep down my gut is telling me that would be a bad law, because I'm having trouble deciding if I'm making a real distinction or just trying to figure out how to ban LEO and CO unions with a general statement. I can't think of anything else offhand I would definitely want it to apply to (certainly politicians if they wanted to have a union), maybe the IRS?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2014 20:51
|
|
