|
Also, big surprise, ActusRhesus told another lie:ActusRhesus posted:well, those are the cases I deal in....so since your comment was directed at me personally, and the glee I feel in "breaking up families" it's not inappropriate. Let's take a look. ActusRhesus posted:Here's the rundown of my cases this year: When accused of breaking up families, you picked the most emotionally charged and seemingly noble case to point out. You say "these are the cases you deal in" but that looks to be about 10% of your cases this year...cases which include a drug conspiracy case. You break up families and sorry to say, they are not all bogeymen.
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 02:02
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
SedanChair posted:Sure, everyone should comply if they think that's what's going to ensure their safety. If it's looking like that's not going to do it, you should be prepared to kill your aggressor with anything to hand, including a chair or your bare hands. As a statistical matter, you are far more likely to survive an encounter with a larcenous aggressor by de-escalating the situation than you are by fighting. That having been said, violent attacks should be defended and deadly attacks should be repulsed with deadly force if necessary. Assuming that every act of aggression is the prelude to murder makes even the most slightly dangerous situation a life or death struggle.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 02:04
|
|
|
amanasleep posted:As a statistical matter, you are far more likely to survive an encounter with a larcenous aggressor by de-escalating the situation than you are by fighting. That having been said, violent attacks should be defended and deadly attacks should be repulsed with deadly force if necessary. Assuming that every act of aggression is the prelude to murder makes even the most slightly dangerous situation a life or death struggle. Why make it a struggle? If they threaten you with bodily harm just shoot them, there's no need for a struggle. It cracks me up when people talk about statistical probability in violent situations. How would you know what part of the statistics you're going to be in? You should rely on your ability to assess an individual threat, not statistics.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 02:09
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Also, big surprise, ActusRhesus told another lie: Or it was the one that leapt most immediately to mind because the decision came out yesterday. Happy holidays. By the way, your claim is invalid because my actual words were thus: ActusRhesus posted:yes, that's exactly right. Murder was the majority of my case load. that was the first example I gave. "these are the cases" referred to both murder and pederasty which do make up the bulk of my cases (mostly murder). And before you go finger wagging that there are more armed robbery cases on the list...true. but there are more sexual assault victims, as two of those cases were multiple victim cases. You are deliberately excluding context. So your claim that I cherry picked the most "noble" case is simply inaccurate. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 02:33 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 02:14
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Why make it a struggle? If they threaten you with bodily harm just shoot them, there's no need for a struggle. This is the mindset that has both led to our cop problem, and stand your ground laws.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Yeah well I'm not going to belabor it too much but there is a difference. Police seek people out and accost them, they initiate the contact under color of law. They should be held to a higher standard of lethal force, not a lower one. Stand your ground laws are not especially problematic and had no application in the case of George Zimmerman, who was a pretend cop who accosted Trayvon Martin and would be in prison for manslaughter if the jury had been properly instructed. The problem with police violence is a lowered standard of accountability, far below that of any private citizen who uses lethal force. At least Zimmerman was (finally) tried. ActusRhesus posted:Or it was the one that leapt most immediately to mind because the decision came out yesterday. Happy holidays. Who cares? You're still using misdirection to make us see you as the noble anti-pedo paladin, totally divorced from anything so tawdry as destroying families over non-violent crimes. But that isn't the case. You're a disingenuous, oily liar.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 02:24
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:It cracks me up when people talk about statistical probability in violent situations. How would you know what part of the statistics you're going to be in? You should rely on your ability to assess an individual threat, not statistics. Isn't that the point? Only, the other poster is advocating for a less violent approach to the situation by trying to de-escalate potentially violent situations more often than not. Dravinski fucked around with this message at 02:28 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 02:26
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Yeah well I'm not going to belabor it too much but there is a difference. Police seek people out and accost them, they initiate the contact under color of law. They should be held to a higher standard of lethal force, not a lower one. Stand your ground laws are not especially problematic and had no application in the case of George Zimmerman, who was a pretend cop who accosted Trayvon Martin and would be in prison for manslaughter if the jury had been properly instructed. see above edit. you seem to have left out the part where I said murder and pederasty...not just pederasty. And, as you so kindly cut pasted, murder was the bulk of my case load so your entire claim is invalid. Also, please cite to where, exactly, I have lied.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 02:27
|
|
|
Still not talking about that drug conspiracy case I see.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 02:32
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Still not talking about that drug conspiracy case I see. so to rebut your claim that I was cherry picking a non representative category of cases...you want me to discuss the single, non-representative drug conspiracy case? Do you realize how hypocritical that is? OK, fine. Seeing as the co-defendants in that case are running a heroin factory, one co-defendant is also wanted out of state for the kidnap and rape of a minor (there I go being the anti-rape paladin again) another, when he's not manufacturing heroin, is beating his wife, and the third is engaged in large quantity trafficking...no. I don't feel bad about breaking up that family either. Please tell me how you would handle them. I'm very interested in your thoughts. The sad thing here, is that I actually agree with the need for police reform in many areas. But I don't think you and I will ever be able to have an honest discussion about it because you refuse to acknowledge that there are people in the world for whom diversionary programs and hugs are just not appropriate, and sheer retribution is a valid sentencing philosophy for some offenders. Can you just admit that some people loving need jail time? ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 02:39 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 02:37
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Can you just admit that some people loving need jail time? Why would I do that? That's your job. The other stuff aside, why are you so concerned about "large scale trafficking?"
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 02:43
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Why would I do that? That's your job. In a vaccuum/in theory, I'm not. In practice, the illegal drug trade has a lot of collateral consequences. Murder being one of them. Which is one of the main reasons I think it's time to declare defeat int he war on drugs and legalize it. I suspect you'd see usage rates drop off as well, but that's speculation. However, until that happens... Also, still waiting for you to cite where I lied. And your continued refusal to acknowledge that there are times when prison is appropriate really undermines your position.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Why make it a struggle? If they threaten you with bodily harm just shoot them, there's no need for a struggle. I already allowed for the armed defenders to shoot whomever they want and see how that works out for them. Those who prefer not to keep guns in their home are much better off sitting tight rather than engaging a criminal in the act of committing a felony.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:In a vaccuum/in theory, I'm not. The collateral consequences are because of the illegality and for no other reason. So why prop it up? Why participate? You know you're not helping. So you put a murderer in prison, a man who made a business decision. Big deal! Do you think the guy who takes his place in the network is going to be less ruthless? You're the one who is operating in a vacuum, case by case. You've got tunnel vision, you think you're helping because a terrible crime is put in front of you and you set up the punishment. Nothing is gained. Law-and-order types strike me as very spiritualist, with this almost mystical concept of justice that has to be meted out. It doesn't have any bearing on things in the real world. That murderer should be put away in treatment, and his interactions with his family should be closely supervised and supported with case management. So you think "ah we reward them for bad behavior?" Yes. That would actually work. It might even keep his kids out of the game, which your vaunted justice system seems to fail at almost by design. quote:Also, still waiting for you to cite where I lied. It was a lie of selective emphasis and misdirection. I doubt a prosecutor would even be capable of recognizing it as dishonesty.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:01
|
|
|
so if we just...don't prosecute drug traffickers...they will stop killing people. Is that seriously your position? The decrease in collateral crime won't be because it's not prosecuted...it will be because, as a legal product, there will be government regulation and oversight and no one will be scoring back alley crack deals if they can go to a dispensary. Your argument really puts the cart before the horse. I'd respond further to your point about treatment and family time for murders except...at this point I really think I'm just being trolled. At least I hope so. god I hope so. this thread has gone from "simple possession shouldn't go to jail" to "dealers shouldn't go to jail" to "minor assault shouldn't be stigmatized with a conviction" to "murderers shouldn't go to jail either." If your position is sincerely that there is no validity to the idea of punishment for anyone, this isn't so much a "police reform" thread as it is a "WOO HOO ANARCHY" thread. Good luck with that. SedanChair posted:It was a lie of selective emphasis and misdirection. I doubt a prosecutor would even be capable of recognizing it as dishonesty. No. Really. What. Was. The. Lie? If you are going to call someone a liar, you really need to give more than that. Especially given how frequently you take things I say out of context to suit your own purpose.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
You said pedophilia and murder are "the cases you deal in." A lie, because you also work with drug cases, which was my point.ActusRhesus posted:The decrease in collateral crime won't be because it's not prosecuted...it will be because, as a legal product, there will be government regulation and oversight and no one will be scoring back alley crack deals if they can go to a dispensary. Yes, and instead of working on that you became a prosecutor. Truly I say, you have received your reward in full.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:11
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:You said pedophilia and murder are "the cases you deal in." A lie, because you also work with drug cases, which was my point. You deliberately took what I said out of context. Recall you initially zeroed in on the pedophilia case and hollered that it only made up roughly ten percent of my cases, therefore I was being dishonest. You conveniently ignored the murder reference...which makes up about 80% of my cases, and are only including it now because I called you on it. As for your claim that I am...I don't know exactly what you are claiming here...because I chose to be a prosecutor rather than a lobbyist for the narcotics industry, that's pretty weak sauce. I became a prosecutor, and specifically handle primarily victim cases, because despite your belief that prosecutors just revel in destroying lives, many of us join this field because we believe in the rights and the dignity of the victim (or the family of the victim in cases of homicide) these are the people you, and many in this thread, seem to have forgotten about. but please, continue to try to make me feel like that's an invalid life choice. by the way, what is it, exactly, that you do?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:19
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:OK, fine. Seeing as the co-defendants in that case are running a heroin factory, one co-defendant is also wanted out of state for the kidnap and rape of a minor (there I go being the anti-rape paladin again) another, when he's not manufacturing heroin, is beating his wife, and the third is engaged in large quantity trafficking...no. I don't feel bad about breaking up that family either. Prosecute the first two for the domestic abuse, kidnapping, and rape? It sounds like the third one hasn't done anything wrong other than operating an unlicensed business, but that would easily lead to tax evasion charges. Come on, this isn't difficult, the only reason to toss on bullshit drug charges is that's a shortcut to conviction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
Haha yeah that's how you would fight against the drug war, by being a lobbyist for the narcotics industry. Shake an opponent of prison for nonviolent offenders and El Chapo's business card falls out, I guarantee it.ActusRhesus posted:by the way, what is it, exactly, that you do? counselor & intake specialist at a youth homeless shelter
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:Prosecute them for the domestic abuse, kidnapping, and rape? Come on, this isn't difficult, the only reason to toss on bullshit drug charges is that's a shortcut to conviction. I wouldn't call operating a drug factory a "bullshit drug charge," but that's just me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:34
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I wouldn't call operating a drug factory a "bullshit drug charge," but that's just me. I would call any non-violent drug charges bullshit, but that's just me. Then again, you did say you are opposed to prohibition. If that's the case, is there any reason to prosecute these people except as a perceived shortcut to punish them for the other crimes you listed?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:35
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:I would call any non-violent drug charges bullshit, but that's just me. They should check the balance sheet imo
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:38
|
|
|
One thing that would probably help curtail violations of the Constitution would be disciplining officers for it as opposed to just making it a thing that can mess you up in court. If they were held personally liable for conducting illegal searches and such, they would be less inclined.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:40
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:If that's the case, is there any reason to prosecute these people except as a perceived shortcut to punish them for the other crimes you listed? People who produce large quantities of heroin don't do it because it's a political statement or they couldn't find an honest job. They understand the consequences of their actions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:43
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Professional responsibility? I know this this is a crazy concept, but most people willingly participate in systems they acknowledge are imperfect because those systems are, in the balance, better than bashing each others heads in with rocks over every disagreement. What ever happened to prosecutorial discretion? It seems to be a valid defense for every other decision prosecutors make, but bring up some drug charges and suddenly their hands are tied?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Professional responsibility? I know this this is a crazy concept, but most people willingly participate in systems they acknowledge are imperfect because those systems are, in the balance, better than bashing each others heads in with rocks over every disagreement. because that's the only alternative
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:48
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Professional responsibility? I know this this is a crazy concept, but most people willingly participate in systems they acknowledge are imperfect because those systems are, in the balance, better than bashing each others heads in with rocks over every disagreement. Ahhh, the "Just following orders" defense. Also lol@ the idea that there are no drug producers in the trade for economic reasons.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:50
|
|
|
Panzeh posted:One thing that would probably help curtail violations of the Constitution would be disciplining officers for it as opposed to just making it a thing that can mess you up in court. If they were held personally liable for conducting illegal searches and such, they would be less inclined. Once upon a time I worked with some judges in Iraq. I tried explaining the concept of the fourth amendment exclusionary rule to one judge. it went like this: Judge: But if it's evidence, I want to see it. What do you mean you have a rule that says I can't consider evidence? Me: It's to disincentivise police from violating people's rights. Judge: But just because the police did something bad doesn't mean it's not evidence. Why don't you just fire the bad police. And let me see the evidence. The man has a point. (though it's also the perspective of an inquisitorial system vs. an adversarial one) I think in cases of clear violations that would make a lot of sense, and I completely agree that cops who plant evidence, or play fat and loose with the fithe amendment etc. etc. should be dealt with severely and publicly...unfortunately there are some gray areas, good faith exceptions etc. Maybe the violation wasn't willful. Cops aren't lawyers and sometimes decisions are made in the field that later, upon reflection and with the benefit of hindsight, turn out to be improper. One of the reasons I hate pretty much every Sandra Day O'Connor criminal opinion (not necessarily the outcomes...but the way she gets there). She's a big fan of constitutional balancing tests...which are great in a retroactive analysis...but provide lovely guidance to cops in the field. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 03:55 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:53
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:What ever happened to prosecutorial discretion? It seems to be a valid defense for every other decision prosecutors make, but bring up some drug charges and suddenly their hands are tied? did you miss the many...many times I stated that most drug offenses get diversionary programs? Who do you think helps facilitate that?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:54
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Once upon a time I worked with some judges in Iraq. I tried explaining the concept of the fourth amendment exclusionary rule to one judge. it went like this: No he doesn't, you were sent to Iraq to teach them about civil liberties but they ended up convincing you that they were obsolete 
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:did you miss the many...many times I stated that most drug offenses get diversionary programs? I think I've been pretty clear in my position that non-violent drug crimes shouldn't be prosecuted, full stop. You claim to be against prohibition, but then defend your prosecutions of some drug criminals because they sold too much for your liking or they also happened to commit other crimes. So instead of (or at least in addition to) just prosecuting them for those other crimes, you press the drug charges. Maybe you can enlighten me, but this just sounds like either (a) laziness, because the other crimes are harder to convict or (b) unethical, because you are using drug crimes to extract harsher punishments than would have been possible with the other crimes you mentioned.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 03:59
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No he doesn't, you were sent to Iraq to teach them about civil liberties but they ended up convincing you that they were obsolete What the gently caress is wrong with you...the man's point was that firing cops who violate civil liberties would be a better deterrent than the exclusionary rule. And I explicitly stated that this was an inquisitorial perspective, not an adversarial perspective. How is that saying civil liberties are obsolete? Can you do me a favor and try to actually respond to the points that are made? I know that's harder than the fake arguments you've already rehearsed rebuttals to, but try. Assume the willful actor (good faith mistake issues don't really work here). when is a cop more likely NOT to conduct an illegal search: Sceanrio 1 where it will be up to the prosecutor to argue that it was legal, and hey, if they lose, there's probably other evidence of guilt too, so whatever? Scenario 2 where he will have his rear end fired? For the OP of the "police reform" thread, you really don't seem to want to talk about actual ideas for possible reformation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Assume the willful actor (good faith mistake issues don't really work here). Why can't it be both?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:03
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:What the gently caress is wrong with you...the man's point was that firing cops who violate civil liberties would be a better deterrent than the exclusionary rule. And I explicitly stated that this was an inquisitorial perspective, not an adversarial perspective. How is that saying civil liberties are obsolete? Can you do me a favor and try to actually respond to the points that are made? I know that's harder than the fake arguments you've already rehearsed rebuttals to, but try. Oh he was right about the firing the cop part, but they call it "tainted evidence" for a reason. He wanted to use trumped up evidence and you literally thought to yourself "this guy's got a point"
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:I think I've been pretty clear in my position that non-violent drug crimes shouldn't be prosecuted, full stop. I actually don't charge anyone...as my practice is primarily at the appellate/post conviction level. And as I have stated before...yeah, I do support legalization...but until it is legalized and properly regulated, the fact remains that there is a poo poo ton of violence associated with the drug trade and attacking the problem at its root is better than waiting for people to die. a. no. b. also no. Pretty sure dude man is going to go down harder for the kiddie rape than the heroin factory.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:Oh he was right about the firing the cop part, but they call it "tainted evidence" for a reason. He wanted to use trumped up evidence and you literally thought to yourself "this guy's got a point" ABOUT FIRING THE loving COP. hence the caveat about his perspective being inquisitorial. As in...that mindset (let me see all the evidence) doesn't work in an adversarial system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:06
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:ABOUT FIRING THE loving COP. That wasn't his point. He was hankerin' for that torture-evidence
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:07
|
|
|
he was looking at it from an inquisitorial system perspective...which we don't have. And we weren't discussing torture... or even coerced confessions...we were discussing illegal searches. The fact that I am advocating for termination of police officers who conduct illegal searches in the police reform thread...and I'm still the rear end in a top hat here pretty much tells me everything I need to know. This isn't a discussion on police reform. It's the "gently caress the man" power hour. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 04:11 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:08
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:No he doesn't, you were sent to Iraq to teach them about civil liberties but they ended up convincing you that they were obsolete We all understand how much you hate The Man, but this is pure threadshitting. If you're not gonna even try to comprehend what you're reading then what's the point?
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 06:25 |
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:What ever happened to prosecutorial discretion? It seems to be a valid defense for every other decision prosecutors make, but bring up some drug charges and suddenly their hands are tied? AVeryLargeRadish posted:Ahhh, the "Just following orders" defense. Here's the really hypocritical thing about this dogpiling of AR: not one of you would walk up to the defense attorney representing one of the murderers and kiddie fiddlers she prosecutes and ask why they didn't throw the case, or just refuse to defend such scum. Everyone accepts that even the lowest of the low deserve competent representation, because That's The System. But when a prosecutor Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Dec 10, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2014 04:11
|
|