|
Untagged posted:It's ok no one actually read the entire decision except for the little excerpts that fit the narrative because oh boy there'd be nothing to post about. I'd like to hear your justification for evidence collection not being held to the same standard as getting prosecuted, ya' toady.
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 11:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It was a non-violent drug crime, I think we can all agree this is the sort of thing that prosecutors should ignore. Dead Reckoning posted:No, it was a sarcastic pisstake on AreWeDrunkYet's insistence earlier in the thread that prosecuting any non-violent drug crime was fundamentally immoral. You're right, prosecutors appropriately used their discretion not to charge him with marijuana possession because those laws are immoral. Stealing evidence and falsifying police reports on the other hand are serious corruption issues, and the prosecutor failing to file charges for those crimes is just more evidence of the lower standards that cops face when they break the law.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 13:15
|
|
|
Maybe he really did use two pounds to train his dog and he needed the rest just in case 
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
Pomp posted:I'd like to hear your justification for evidence collection not being held to the same standard as getting prosecuted, ya' toady. If a cop who knows the statute applies it in a way that makes sense to the average (cop or judge, tbd) and later turns out to be wrong, there is literally zero purpose served by finding it to be an unreasonable search. It's not going to deter police from making mistakes because they aren't going to be able to tell its a mistake ahead of time. It provides an artificial exclusion of evidence based on a cop doing something that, after the fact, is decided to be reasonable but incorrect. Also we do it all the time already in other contexts including arresting people!
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 15:37
|
|
|
Pomp posted:I'd like to hear your justification for evidence collection not being held to the same standard as getting prosecuted, ya' toady. It's ok you are not entirely sure what the differences between reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and beyond a reasonable doubt are or mean in a court case. I get that. No need to get snarky about your lack of understanding. Also the search was by consent, so the case had to go even more backward for an almost procedural appeal because welp he gave the cops the reason for his main conciction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 21:17
|
|
|
Untagged posted:It's ok you are not entirely sure what the differences between reasonable suspicion, probable cause, and beyond a reasonable doubt are or mean in a court case. I get that. No need to get snarky about your lack of understanding. It's a good thing criminals are dumb or we'd be in a lot of trouble.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 23:05
|
|
|
Pomp posted:I'd like to hear your justification for evidence collection not being held to the same standard as getting prosecuted, ya' toady. I'd like to hear your justification for why it is. The purpose of the exclusionary rule is to remove the incentive for misconduct by throwing out the evidence. No other country besides the US does this. It does not make sense to throw out evidence that is collected in good faith because the cop doesn't have a disincentive if he actually thinks he/she obeying the law. I'm concerned about the potentially abusive pathways that open up if you make it to easy to claim good faith, but from a purely legalistic standpoint there's a good reason it was 8-1.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 10:17
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I'd like to hear your justification for why it is. quote:the potentially abusive pathways that open up if you make it to easy to claim good faith
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 10:22
|
|
|
You know that Pat Lynch rear end in a top hat I brought up a while back? The one who's don of the NYPD mafia front known as the Patrolmens' Benevolent Association? I don't think it's that much of an exaggeration to say that he's committing the local-level version of treason.quote:Patrick Lynch, the president of the NYPD's largest union, is urging his 23,000 officers to police New York City differently in order to send a message to anarcho-syndicalists like Bill de Blasio, who has publicly suggested that there could be room for slight improvement (emphasis on slight) within the seventh biggest army in the world. At a catering hall in Queens last Friday, Lynch told cops they should use "extreme discretion" against their "enemies" in City Hall. One thing to keep in mind- the majority of the people that the PBA represents aren't white. Over 50% of the NYPD consists of black, Hispanic, and Asian officers. The more that Lynch continues to act like a Klansman, the greater the chance he risks a revolt among his ranks. Obviously I'm not holding my breath of that happening. I wonder what he thinks about this equally disturbing turn of events. He'll probably say that de Blasio is a pussy for not allowing them to fire live ammo at peaceful protesters.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 04:29
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:You know that Pat Lynch rear end in a top hat I brought up a while back? The one who's don of the NYPD mafia front known as the Patrolmens' Benevolent Association? Anything else you had to say just got forgotten because you decided to open with this drivel. There are serious problems with the police in America, but I hope they crack some heads in the liberal arts wings of community colleges across the nation just before they get reformed. Thanks for making everyone who wants actual police reform look just as immature as yourself. E: And apparently the editor at the Gothamist as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 04:47
|
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:There are serious problems with the police in America, but I hope they crack some heads in the liberal arts wings of community colleges across the nation just before they get reformed. Is this a drivel-off? Because you're winning by a pretty wide margin. It's still early going, best to pace yourself, man.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:Police pensions are a sacred cow, and even in right-to-work states like Louisiana and Texas, they don't get fired for taking things too far. So you admit that even without strong police unions the police still exercise incredible power over the political process?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:Is this a drivel-off? Because you're winning by a pretty wide margin. It's still early going, best to pace yourself, man. Eh you're right, I let him drag me down to his level. I apologize. My main point hopefully stands even after the stupidity I just posted: Acting like some stereotypical Che T-shirt wearer is just preaching to the choir, you won't convince anyone who doesn't already agree with you. E: And I know I've got no more traction here tonight, but that Gothamist 'journalism' is hilarious. This forum regularly mocks Fox News for doing the same exact thing, but apparently it's okay when someone you agree with does it. Journalism should be neutral in tone, and preferably as neutral as possible in bias. Journalism in the clickbait era is poo poo in general, but that's probably a thing for another thread. goatsestretchgoals fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Dec 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 05:31
|
|
|
bitcoin bastard posted:Eh you're right, I let him drag me down to his level. I apologize. Huh. That's never happened before.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 05:41
|
|
|
Everyone should be able to belong to a union.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 07:21
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:This is why I plead my case about how police unions are less like the Teamsters and more like organized crime
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 08:10
|
|
|
Y-Hat posted:stuff I think the NYPD union can be reformed if the NYPD members themselves choose to press for a different face to their organization, or whomever is in charge of electing/selecting their president. The elected guys in the city are never easy to deal with but disgruntled officers & pay/benefits issues? Sounds like a better way to approach Mr. Lynch than further destroying public unions because of cops actions and you fiddling and dancing to the tune of even bigger assholes with agendas that gently caress both not-cops and cops. Nonsense fucked around with this message at 08:31 on Dec 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 08:28
|
|
|
In 20 years the only people in this country with benefits, pensions, unions, et al might actually be cops. Good for them, I can't wait to be staring fifty in the face and nodding along happily as our hero cops are the only people left with any semblance of worker's rights.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 09:09
|
|
|
Not surprising since they actively work against other unions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 14:56
|
|
|
For real, it's fitting the group that oppress the other unions fighting for their own benefits is the only union with any at the end.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 15:50
|
|
|
Just in case you thought the police got better over the last few daysquote:New video has surfaced showing an NYPD officer beating a 12-year-old black boy. The clip was uploaded to Facebook on Wednesday by actress Sarah Doneghy. In it, three uniformed officers are seen holding the child against a squad car when a fourth officer runs up and punches him repeatedly. It takes place in broad daylight, and the officer is not wearing a uniform. http://www.dailydot.com/politics/nypd-beats-12-year-old-black-kid/?tw=dd quote:“This happened today on my way to the post office,” Doneghy wrote in her caption. “The kids were 12. They had supposedly pushed one of their classmates down. However when the victim was asked, he said those weren't the guys."
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 17:39
|
|
|
I assume there'll be a weepy "we're the heroes and real victims" styled press release if this one gains any traction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 17:41
|
|
|
Evil_Greven posted:Just in case you thought the police got better over the last few days Brilliant work there officer. How long until the bystanders in this sort of thing go from yelling and filming to jumping in and causing a huge escalation when they see a kid getting beat? Yea, probably never. I sure hope that the cop who dove in with fists on the kid at least loses his job, but that is probably too much to hope for, even though he should be up on assault charges.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Brilliant work there officer. How long until the bystanders in this sort of thing go from yelling and filming to jumping in and causing a huge escalation when they see a kid getting beat? "Jumping in" would get you charged with felony assault on an officer at best and shot to death at worst. Not the best idea.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 19:02
|
|
|
Even taking a video is enough for them to get some trumped up charges started and have you thrown into the meat grinder that is our justice system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 19:05
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:"Jumping in" would get you charged with felony assault on an officer at best and shot to death at worst. Not the best idea. Perfectly aware of that, but if they keep doing stupid poo poo like this, eventually it will happen in front of a parent or someone who snaps and trys to defend their child. Hence the 'escalation' part.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 19:08
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Perfectly aware of that, but if they keep doing stupid poo poo like this, eventually it will happen in front of a parent or someone who snaps and trys to defend their child. Hence the 'escalation' part. At what point is someone allowed to step in to defend someone else against being killed* by a police officer? I understand in situations were you are wrongfully arrested you're supposed to just go with the flow because "it should"solve itself in the courts, but I don't know of any judge that can bring your dead kid or your dead wife back to life. *I'm not talking about anything a reasonable person would call justified.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 19:12
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Perfectly aware of that, but if they keep doing stupid poo poo like this, eventually it will happen in front of a parent or someone who snaps and trys to defend their child. Hence the 'escalation' part. This already happens fairly often, but the police spin it as "aggressive drunk man attacks police without provocation" or whatever to the media.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 19:41
|
|
|
The Locator posted:Perfectly aware of that, but if they keep doing stupid poo poo like this, eventually it will happen in front of a parent or someone who snaps and trys to defend their child. Hence the 'escalation' part. Basically never. The cops standing around not doing anything while the "bad apple" murders or tortures someone while other people film it will snap into action the moment anyone comes close to intervening. Cop by him self? Unless you think you can subdue the cop and disarm him completely you may end up dead for your attempt, if you are successful you will have saved a life but will most likely end up in prison or at best harassed by police for the rest of your life.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 19:48
|
|
|
Forget the punching, disgusting and unnecessary as it is; if you can't solo take down any 12 year old child you're some kind of human being who should probably have been weeded out of the gene pool. The punching happened because the kid was successfully resisting being handcuffed. How? I am pretty sure I could wrestle down and handcuff any 12 year old child in the country, no problem. These people aren't just a bunch of violent limpdicks, they're not even good at being violent limpdicks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
Seeing how police and security guards are the most obese profession in America....
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 20:11
|
|
|
Baronjutter posted:Unless you think you can subdue the cop and disarm him completely you may end up dead for your attempt, if you are successful you will have saved a life but will most likely end up in prison or at best harassed by police for the rest of your life. This will cost you at least three or four serious felonies in most states, more in others. Rated 1 Star Do Not Attempt. Also, if you attempt to or actually do disarm an officer you will more than likely be shot. "Intervening" is not a recommended practice unless you intend to help the cop. The flip side is you may not know the context of a given situation and what "looks bad" to you might in fact actually not be and be completely justified. Then your completely boned in two directions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 20:17
|
|
|
Untagged posted:This will cost you at least three or four serious felonies in most states, more in others. Rated 1 Star Do Not Attempt. Also, if you attempt to or actually do disarm an officer you will more than likely be shot. "Intervening" is not a recommended practice unless you intend to help the cop. The flip side is you may not know the context of a given situation and what "looks bad" to you might in fact actually not be and be completely justified. Then your completely boned in two directions. On the other hand, save the life of your son ...
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 20:25
|
|
|
I'm not sure I have actually processed how terrible this is yet.quote:Certain witnesses who spoke before the grand jury investigating the Aug. 9 shooting of Michael Brown told obvious lies under oath, St. Louis Prosecuting Attorney Robert McCulloch said Friday.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 20:26
|
|
|
"Some of my witnesses committed perjury (a crime) but neither I (leading prosecutor in this region) nor the judge will charge them with perjury (a crime) because..."
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Am I reading that wrong or is that a prosecutor openly stating he allowed witnesses that were telling obvious lies that hurt his case into a grand jury?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
Radish posted:Am I reading that wrong or is that a prosecutor openly stating he allowed witnesses that were telling obvious lies that hurt his case into a grand jury? And that there's nothing wrong with that, and nearly claiming that he had to do it because he was going to be criticized either way! No, Bobby boy. Not allowing witnesses that obviously were not credible, whose version of events is impossible or implausible, etc. to testify would not, in fact, have gotten you criticized by the people who were afraid that you were going to torpedo this case. Also gotta get a laugh out of the "his office has investigated more than 50 cases where police conduct was in question" bit. And how many times have you found fault with the police? Funny number to leave out of that defense, isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
I mean I thought the whole charade was that *wink, wink* we can't know for sure he was purposely sinking his own case so LEGALLY nothing bad happened. If you are putting up witnesses that you admit are both not credible and also hurt your case I don't know how you can have that sort of plausible deniability anymore. I understand a lot of people here are lawyers, but how are non legal people supposed to have any respect for the process when it is so obviously broken in this regard and there is no reasonably way to fix it?
Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 20:52 on Dec 19, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 20:49
|
|
|
Kaal posted:On the other hand, save the life of your son ... My life, and sure as hell no cop's life is worth the life of my kid, my wife, or any other member of my family. I hope most people are the same.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 20:52
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 14:26 |
|
|
Didn't McCulloch single out the testimony of this witness when he gave his "You are all wrong and there's nothing to see here" press conference? and treat it as credible?Radish posted:I understand a lot of people here are lawyers, but how are non legal people supposed to have any respect for the process when it is so obviously broken in this regard and there is no reasonably way to fix it? Move along citizen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 20:53
|
|
