|
TheQat posted:http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/tulsa-sheriff-stanley-glanz-fbi-closed-investigation tulsa sheriff claims FBI exonerated his department in the reserve deputy shooting Nah, they don't have jurisdiction for that. They probably said that there was not enough evidence to bring charges for a civil rights violation and the sheriff is either confused or covering his rear end/his friends rear end.
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yeah but your message was completely wrong, we didn't use less restraint. Fine, I guess I either misremembered the article, or the author was incorrect. You win. The police are still too loving violent and no-knock raids are used way too loving often.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 17:21
|
|
|
Oopsy daisy! :iamafag:quote:The FBI has admitted "errors" in evidence provided by its forensics laboratory to US courts to help secure convictions, including in death penalty cases, over more than 20 years. The WP's more thorough report: http://www.washingtonpost.com/local...c310_story.html
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
The reporters who said that that reserve deputy's training papers were falsified resigned, reasons unclear
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
Murderion posted:Oopsy daisy! :iamafag: As a reminder, a ton(but not all) of forensics is poorly supported junk science.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 22:18
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:The reporters who said that that reserve deputy's training papers were falsified resigned, reasons unclear quote:Earlier, the newspaper's executive editor, Susan Ellerbach, told TPM by phone that the reporters left the publication on Monday. quote:Goforth told TPM in a direct message over Twitter that he, Branstetter and two other The Tulsa World reporters had another job offer in the works for a few months. The offer came from a local news website that hasn't been launched yet.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 22:32
|
|
|
Murderion posted:Oopsy daisy! :iamafag: Good thing the FBI is must more trustworthy then local police. (Not sure what point I'm trying to make here, just pissed off)
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
They've copped to it and are three years into the process of reviewing thousands of past cases, which is better than clearing themselves of all wrongdoing after a cursory investigation. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Murderion posted:They've copped to it and are three years into the process of reviewing thousands of past cases, which is better than clearing themselves of all wrongdoing after a cursory investigation. Yeah, I know and that definitely counts in their favor. Just feel very strongly about capital punishment.
|
|
#
?
Apr 20, 2015 23:58
|
|
|
Vahakyla posted:http://www.rawstory.com/2015/04/80-percent-of-police-force-resigns-after-missouri-town-elects-first-african-american-mayor/ The story about this is everybody who quit was a crony of the old mayor and the new one ran on an anticorruptuin campaign.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
So Dante Servin, the Chicago cop who shot Rekia Boyd while off-duty in 2012, has been found not guilty. The judge dismissed the case, saying the prosecution did not prove their case, so Servin didn’t even have to present a defense.quote:[Judge] Porter said that while he had no doubt Servin shot Boyd, he didn't think prosecutors adequately proved that Servin acted recklessly — one of the requirements for finding someone guilty of manslaughter. Edit: Looking into it more it seems like prosecutors tanked this case. The judge was visible annoyed announcing his decision and his judgement is basically an argument Servin should have been charged with murder. Atrocious Joe fucked around with this message at 00:52 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 00:16
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:So Dante Servin, the Chicago cop who shot Rekia Boyd while off-duty in 2012, has been found not guilty. The judge dismissed the case, saying the prosecution did not prove their case, so Servin didn’t even have to present a defense. So... It was murder? He didn't recklessly kill her, he killed her carefully? I don't understand. Is the judge saying they should have tried him for 1st degree murder but since they only tried him for manslaughter and he isn't guilty of manslaughter, he gets to go home free?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 00:20
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:So... It was murder? He didn't recklessly kill her, he killed her carefully? I don't understand. Basically. The prosecutors filed for Involuntary Manslaughter, not first/second degree murder. Because the prosecution didn't make a case for an actually accidental killing, the involuntary manslaughter charges had to go.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 00:25
|
|
|
Another actually promising person abandoned their dream of helping people via police work after realizing that many cops are murderous gangbangers and he wouldnt be able to change anything. http://www.alternet.org/police-cadet-quits-academy-reports-cops-after-witnessing-homeless-man-being-beaten-officers quote:Police Cadet Quits Academy, Reports Cops After Witnessing Homeless Man Being Beaten By Officers
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 00:33
|
|
|
Atrocious Joe posted:So Dante Servin, the Chicago cop who shot Rekia Boyd while off-duty in 2012, has been found not guilty. The judge dismissed the case, saying the prosecution did not prove their case, so Servin didn’t even have to present a defense. That ruling is amazingly messed up.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 00:41
|
|
|
Where is our resident law-defender to tell us how this is really not that uncommon and we should be happy that it exists because of _______.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 01:31
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Unclear? yeah quote:The executive editor of The Tulsa World newspaper told TPM on Monday afternoon that while she doesn't "have any reason to doubt" the sources of a blockbuster article the paper published last week she is now working "to verify" those sources after the two journalists who wrote it resigned earlier in the day.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 01:39
|
|
|
Agrajag posted:That ruling is amazingly messed up. From the reports it sounds like it was a deliberate tanking by the Prosecution and the Judge could smell the poo poo but technically his hands are too legally tied to wipe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 01:52
|
|
|
Berk Berkly posted:From the reports it sounds like it was a deliberate tanking by the Prosecution and the Judge could smell the poo poo but technically his hands are too legally tied to wipe. The judge outright says that aiming a gun and pulling the trigger cannot be considered reckless, meaning he couldn't rule on a charge of reckless behavior by the cop, so the judge was implying the cop should've been charged with deliberately murdering a human being. God the loving ego of these cops quote:After court, Servin told reporters he felt bad for Boyd's family, but that his family had also suffered since the March 2012 shooting. "Let's make sure everyone knows I'm also a victim"
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
I...can't parse how the fact that an act was intentional means it isn't reckless? I intentionally drove 30 MPH over the speed limit, so how could that be reckless driving? If the judge is right on the law...this is a pretty weird legal situation from the outside.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 02:14
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:I...can't parse how the fact that an act was intentional means it isn't reckless? I intentionally drove 30 MPH over the speed limit, so how could that be reckless driving? If the judge is right on the law...this is a pretty weird legal situation from the outside. quote:"It is easy to say, 'Of course [Servin] was reckless. He intentionally shot in the direction of a group of people on the sidewalk. That is really dangerous. ... Case closed,'" Porter said. "It is easy to think that way, but it is wrong. It ignores the law on this subject." The judge is saying the shooting was a deliberate act, and he couldn't ignore case law that established it as such. Basically "the prosecutor gave me an impossible case to try by setting the charges such that case law requires me to find them not applicable and dismiss."
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 02:17
|
|
|
pentyne posted:The judge is saying the shooting was a deliberate act, and he couldn't ignore case law that established it as such. Basically "the prosecutor gave me an impossible case to try by setting the charges such that case law requires me to find them not applicable and dismiss." Yes, I get that, but I don't understand what legal twists and turns get us to that point. "As a deliberate act, I drove 120 MPH down a twisty road in the middle of the night in the fog. Since it was deliberate, it is not reckless." As I understand the dictionary, not legal, definition of recklessness it's about a lack of concern for potential consequences just as much as it can be an act of thoughtlessness. "Even though I know my driving is dangerous, I recklessly did it anyway because I don't care if someone gets hurt because of it." If you intentionally shoot a gun off toward a group of people there can be a lot of situations where that can be reckless in the dictionary sense even if it is not in a legal sense. I understand dictionary definitions have no bearing here, but I'm still left with nothing but a WTF until there is some more reporting on how the legal determination was made that established this precedent. I mean, what if he was eating a hot dog as he shot and aimed one handed while also messing with his car radio. Is the only legal question regarding the charge of recklessness if he intended to shoot? FuriousxGeorge fucked around with this message at 02:31 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 02:28
|
|
|
The judge out and out says that the required elements of murder were proven by the prosecution if you read the full order. The ruling looks absolutely correct, the DA is the issue here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 02:30
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Yes, I get that, but I don't understand what legal twists and turns get us to that point. "As a deliberate act, I drove 120 MPH down a twisty road in the middle of the night in the fog. Since it was deliberate, it is not reckless." As folks above have said, I don't think the judge reached the wrong conclusion on the law, I think the prosecutors screwed the pooch, whether intentionally or unintentionally.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:I...can't parse how the fact that an act was intentional means it isn't reckless? I intentionally drove 30 MPH over the speed limit, so how could that be reckless driving? If the judge is right on the law...this is a pretty weird legal situation from the outside. Normally, a prosecutor would set charges of first degree, manslaughter: you're allowed to charge on multiple contradictory charges, so a jury can find a man innocent of first degree but guilty of manslaughter. This is to avoid exactly this situation. They can't find him guilty of both. The Supreme Court decision establishing this is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beck_v._Alabama. This is purely a choice by the prosecutor. It is either magnificently gross incompetence or corruption, neither of which is good. This case also shows that the balance of power in this system lies in the hands of the prosecutor, who can both tank investigations into cops and set the targets for the cops of who can be successfully prosecuted. In terms of criminal stuff--not traffic, riot control, etc, but crime--the prosecutors' office wields huge power and control over cops. Reformation of police makes no sense without reforming the prosecutor's' office; reformed police departments would just have pressure brought to bear on them until they resembled what the prosecutors wanted again, at least in terms of the criminal investigatory arm.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
reckless driving is going to fast, and possibly losing control of the car, the judge is saying he wasn't driving to fast, he was driving on the sidewalk, on purpose. does that make more sense?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
So on the other hand, he could still be tried for murder at a later time without invoking double jeopardy. Not that anyone will, but.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
It's the classic "off on a technicality". The prosecution set it up for a lower level of murder that was totally different, and they legally can't pin him during that trial for a more grievous charge than what they've decided to charge him with. Because the differing levels of murder have pretty strict definitions, they were effectively trying him for a crime he didn't commit and letting him get off. I wouldn't hesitate to pin the decision to charge him with involuntary manslaughter as corruption. While it's already pretty common with things like plea deals to try people for a lower level of crime as a measure of leniency, the prosecution took a guy who they had a really solid case to prosecute for murder and gave him a lower level that has a strict definition he didn't fit. And thus they were able to take a man who literally aimed and fired at a group of unarmed people for no apparent reason beyond a bullshit "I thought I was shot" excuse and have him declared not guilty.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Cichlid the Loach posted:So on the other hand, he could still be tried for murder at a later time without invoking double jeopardy.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 02:49
|
|
|
So the definition for "reckless driving" in Illinois is: "drives any vehicle with a willful or wanton disregard for the safety of persons or property" Sounds like aiming your gun at someone disregards the safety of those people and is reckless, I completely disagree with whatever bullshit previous case law he is talking about.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 02:53
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:So the definition for "reckless driving" in Illinois is: Yeah that's the sort of thing that is throwing me for a loop. I can't find any other legal or dictionary definition where a reckless act must be an unintentional act. You could easily be charged with reckless driving for driving on a sidewalk intentionally as far as I can tell. I'm sure the judge is on solid footing with the precedent but boy is it hard to parse for someone who doesn't know the applicable law. FuriousxGeorge fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 02:59
|
|
|
JohnClark posted:Again, not a lawyer, but I don't think this is correct. Even though he wasn't tried for murder, he was tried for the potential criminal acts surrounding the death of Rekia Boyd, and jeopardy attaches to the act rather than the specific charge a prosecutor chooses to levy. Otherwise prosecutors could keep you in court theoretically indefinitely while they charge you with each possible crime related to some sequence of events, one at a time. Its not quite that simple, the basis for double jeopardy is what required facts need to be proven for the charge, not the event the charges are based on. I'm not a lawyer so maybe there's more case law then Blockburger that would make this clearer (or maybe my understanding of that ruling is off, since it mostly deals with additional charges to a guilty or untried defendant), but absent that I'd almost think that could be issue that goes all the way to the Supreme court for resolution.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
JohnClark posted:Again, not a lawyer, but I don't think this is correct. Even though he wasn't tried for murder, he was tried for the potential criminal acts surrounding the death of Rekia Boyd, and jeopardy attaches to the act rather than the specific charge a prosecutor chooses to levy. Otherwise prosecutors could keep you in court theoretically indefinitely while they charge you with each possible crime related to some sequence of events, one at a time. I believe this is correct. However, there's some legal gray areas and overlap regarding it. If a crime applies to multiple jurisdictions, it's possible for those jurisdictions to hold separate trials (the most common being federal vs. state courts). The US Supreme Court made a ruling after Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932): following acquittal, the government may bring a second prosecution on additional charges arising out of the same underlying events as the first prosecution so long as both the new crime charged and the prior crime each contain an element of proof that the other does not. Unfortunately, this wouldn't work here. A lower category of murder has the same elements of proof as a higher one, so if he was acquitted for manslaughter the federal government couldn't just plop him down and put a first or second-degree murder charge on his shoulders. Likewise they couldn't pin a lesser violence charge like assault and/or battery, as both of those are obviously elements of a murder. What they could do is charge him on a totally separate violation, like a weapons violation or violation of civil rights. And of course, none of this prevents a civil suit from being brought against him.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 03:03
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Yeah that's the sort of thing that is throwing me for a loop. I can't find any other legal or dictionary definition where a reckless act must be an unintentional act. You could easily be charged with reckless driving for driving on a sidewalk intentionally as far as I can tell. I'm sure the judge is on solid footing with the precedent but boy is it hard to parse for someone who doesn't know the applicable law. The difference is being charged with a reckless act vs. being charged with causing something as a result of a reckless act.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 03:04
|
|
|
Wasn't it an unregistered personal gun as well?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 03:08
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Yes, I get that, but I don't understand what legal twists and turns get us to that point. "As a deliberate act, I drove 120 MPH down a twisty road in the middle of the night in the fog. Since it was deliberate, it is not reckless." Think of it like this (THIS IS A SIMPLIFICATION AND NOT NECESSARILY THE LAW IN EVERY JURISDICTION): If you drove 120 MPH down a twisty road in the middle of the night in the fog, that would be a reckless act. If you saw Bob crossing the street and deliberately ran him down with your car, the act would be criminal but not necessarily reckless. If the prosecution charged you with accidentally killing Bob, but spent their time at trial demonstrating how you deliberately and maliciously ran him down with your car, the judge would dismiss the case because they never proved the "accidental" element of the offense. If you saw Bob brutally murdering Charlie with a machete while bystanders looked on in horror, and you drew your pistol and killed Bob with a single shot, you could not on that basis alone be charged or sued for recklessly endangering the bystanders because the act of aiming and firing the gun at a person you intended to kill was not inherently reckless. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 03:20
|
|
|
quote:If you saw Bob crossing the street and deliberately ran him down with your car, the act would be criminal but not necessarily reckless. The extra layer though is that this is a case about Jane who was killed accidentally in the course of my failed attempt to kill Bob. e: to note I see you addressed that. FuriousxGeorge fucked around with this message at 03:26 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 03:24
|
|
|
I'm reading the opinion state proved elements of murder, but court did not undertake self defense analysis as murder was not charged follow the citation to Eason and you get "[I]ntentionally firing into a crowd cannot be reckless." People v. Jefferson, 260 Ill. App. 3d 895, 912 (Ill. App. 1994). WhiskeyJuvenile fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 03:49
|
|
|
FuriousxGeorge posted:Yeah that's the sort of thing that is throwing me for a loop. I can't find any other legal or dictionary definition where a reckless act must be an unintentional act. You could easily be charged with reckless driving for driving on a sidewalk intentionally as far as I can tell. I'm sure the judge is on solid footing with the precedent but boy is it hard to parse for someone who doesn't know the applicable law. The judge stated that previous case law dictates that taking a gun, pointing it at someone and firing is not "reckless" but a deliberate act, meaning that he should've been charged as such. Since the DA didn't show "reckless" actions and those were the only charges the judge was forced to dismiss it. He was literally charged with something he could not have done according to the definition of the law and its hosed up but the judge only has so much power in this example. http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-police-detective-manslaughter-trial-0421-met-20150420-story.html#page=1 quote:Judge Dennis Porter ruled that prosecutors failed to prove that Dante Servin acted recklessly, saying that Illinois courts have consistently held that anytime an individual points a gun at an intended victim and shoots, it is an intentional act, not a reckless one. He all but said prosecutors should have charged Servin with murder, not involuntary manslaughter. Its as corrupt and disgusting as it could possibly be.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 29, 2024 23:59 |
|
|
Is there any way there can be consequences for the DA in this, or are we in another "it's not a murder when a cop"
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 04:13
|
|