|
VitalSigns posted:I learned from the Michael Brown thread that prosecutors never protect cops by setting up cases to take a dive, so whatever happened in this situation must be perfect justice. Lol learning something from the Michael brown thread. Because the opinions of people in the internet are way more compelling than the actual released case files.
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
Didn't you even say that the actions of the prosecutors were bizarre for the Michael Brown case? Along with numerous other public figures who were familiar with the process.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:13
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Lol learning something from the Michael brown thread. Because the opinions of people in the internet are way more compelling than the actual released case files.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:14
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:At least here anyway. We just limit you can't have multiple mental states for same act on same victim. Your state is weird.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:16
|
|
|
Boywhiz88 posted:Didn't you even say that the actions of the prosecutors were bizarre for the Michael Brown case? Along with numerous other public figures who were familiar with the process. The fact I think the prosecutors sucked doesn't mean they had an intent to suck. I'm going with inept, not malicious.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:20
|
|
|
Yeah, you don't make it to trial intending to throw the case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:23
|
|
|
It's amazing how inept prosecutors suddenly become when a cop is the defendant. poo poo happens though, nothing to see here.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Yeah, you don't make it to trial intending to throw the case. Then why did they not bring the murder charges that would actually have applied in the situation we are actually discussing? Now I'm terribly confused.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:28
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Yeah, you don't make it to trial intending to throw the case. I think people are failing to account for the fact that many top notch prosecutors don't end up in poo poo holes like ferguson. Or Missouri. I'm much more willing to believe someone is justly a lovely lawyer. And hell, even good lawyers can gently caress up charging decisions. Happens quite a bit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:30
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's amazing how inept prosecutors suddenly become when a cop is the defendant. No it happens more often than you realize. It's just not newsworthy when it does.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I think people are failing to account for the fact that many top notch prosecutors don't end up in poo poo holes like ferguson. Or Missouri. I'm much more willing to believe someone is justly a lovely lawyer. And hell, even good lawyers can gently caress up charging decisions. Happens quite a bit. "My heart and my best intentions still tell me that lawyers do not intentionally throw cases against cops..."
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:31
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Lol learning something from the Michael brown thread. Because the opinions of people in the internet are way more compelling than the actual released case files. So anecdotes are bad now?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:32
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Then why did they not bring the murder charges that would actually have applied in the situation we are actually discussing? Now I'm terribly confused. My guess? Because you can't raise a self defense claim with a reckless charge, and there was a fear that self defense claims raised by cops tend to be successful. But, you know...I'm sure things like that didn't factor into the decision.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:37
|
|
|
Radish posted:We really need to figure out how to deal with prosecutors that work with people in order to let them get away with murder. It seems like a huge failing of the justice system that it keeps happening and everyone involved is like "yeah that's hosed up but what can you do?" like the system is some kind of natural law that is totally immutable. Even more infuriating is when we all have to pretend that the prosecutors in question were doing their jobs honestly since to infer otherwise would tarnish the name of the Justice System and we can't have that. In the grand scheme of things that is wrong with the justice system, prosecutors not being aggressive enough in prosecution is an incredibly bizarre thing to focus on. This thread can be incredibly schizophrenic when it is trying to decide whether or not to be TOUGH ON CRIME or not. GlyphGryph posted:Now I'm terribly confused. Gonna guess this isn't an unusual state of affairs for you. tsa fucked around with this message at 17:41 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
tsa posted:In the grand scheme of things that is wrong with the justice system, prosecutors not being aggressive enough in prosecution is an incredibly bizarre thing to focus on. This thread can be incredibly schizophrenic when it is trying to decide whether or not to be TOUGH ON CRIME or not. Maybe the focus is on the huge differential in proscutor aggression when the defendant is a white cop vs when he is black civilian
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:My guess? Because you can't raise a self defense claim with a reckless charge, and there was a fear that self defense claims raised by cops tend to be successful. But, you know...I'm sure things like that didn't factor into the decision. Why not charge him with both? Does Illinois law prevent that? "He might put up a defense so we're not going to bother charging him" is a pretty lovely reason to let a killer go.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:42
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Why not charge him with both? Does Illinois law prevent that? "He might put up a defense so we're not going to bother charging him" is a pretty lovely reason to let a killer go. They may have wanted to prevent him from getting that "version" out at all. Also, the way most jury forms go, you have to be unanimous on the greatest charge before you can go on to lesser. So, at least here, if they had found the state proved nurder, but believed self defense, case is over. It looks like they made a charging decision based on trying to avoid jury sympathy and then he hosed it all up by going judge alone.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:47
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:They may have wanted to prevent him from getting that "version" out at all. Also, the way most jury forms go, you have to be unanimous on the greatest charge before you can go on to lesser. So, at least here, if they had found the state proved nurder, but believed self defense, case is over. It looks like they made a charging decision based on trying to avoid jury sympathy and then he hosed it all up by going judge alone. Or maybe his lawyers knew it was a dumb charge and recommended he go judge and not jury. But at least in this case, Justice was served. If by justice we mean following the letter of the law rather than the spirit.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
tsa posted:Gonna guess this isn't an unusual state of affairs for you. I know it must be an unfamiliar state for you, you probably just know exactly what the truth is right from the get go and you never change your mind or have doubts at all right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Well, yes. Presumably he chose bench trial on advice of counsel. My point though is that there are reasons why it may have been charged. As to your letter but not the spirit statement, you realize it's generally a "good" thing that convictions require more than "I want them convicted" right?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The fact I think the prosecutors sucked doesn't mean they had an intent to suck. I'm going with inept, not malicious. It's very deceiving to say "malicious". It's not malicious. It's "I want to protect my friend, a cop." That seems way more likely than ineptitude, especially when it's a pattern.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
I'm glad that these protections are built into the system, to be exercised at the discretion of a prosecutor whose murderer-cop buddy is on trial.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Like pretty much ALL criminal law comes down to the letter of the law. See e.g. OJ Simpson, Michael Skakel, etc.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:01
|
|
|
Lemming posted:It's very deceiving to say "malicious". It's not malicious. It's "I want to protect my friend, a cop." Except I don't think it is a pattern. I see the same kinds of errors all over the place. They just aren't news because it's cases no one gives a poo poo about except the immediate parties.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
I admit to murdering this person, your honor. In fact, I murdered him willingly. Thus I cannot be put in jail for this charge of manslaughter because I willingly slaughtered him. I rest my case.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Except I don't think it is a pattern. I see the same kinds of errors all over the place. They just aren't news because it's cases no one gives a poo poo about except the immediate parties. Goddamn black privilege and the biased negro-loving media! 
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I'm glad that these protections are built into the system, to be exercised at the discretion of a prosecutor whose murderer-cop buddy is on trial. This is a completely non substantive response. GreyPowerVan posted:I admit to murdering this person, your honor. In fact, I murdered him willingly. Thus I cannot be put in jail for this charge of manslaughter because I willingly slaughtered him. I rest my case. Pretty sure that confession did not occur here. So do you think in general a person should be able to be convicted of a greater crime than what was charged?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
I can accept that it is prosecutor incompetence. However, we are STILL doing nothing about that, either. This guy will probably continue to bumble along and mysteriously gently caress up cases.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:This is a completely non substantive response. This is not in general, this is a specific case where a man admitted to pointing a gun at a group of people and firing on the SUSPICION that one of them had a gun.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Goddamn black privilege and the biased negro-loving media! Straw man. That wasn't what was said and you know it. They are high visibility because they involve police.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
If the prosecutor wanted to shield their cop buddy, they'd just say "self-defense, no charges"
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:They are high visibility because they involve police. Why have police killings and the subsequent incompetent prosecution of them become so high visibility lately, do you think?
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:This is not in general, this is a specific case where a man admitted to pointing a gun at a group of people and firing on the SUSPICION that one of them had a gun. But you don't write criminal codes on an ad hoc basis. Here it really looks to me like they were trying to cut him off from claiming self defense and it backfired because of Illinois law. Prosecutors make mistakes. Judges make mistakes. Case I'm working on now had a major jurisdictional defect that no one noticed until I spotted it on appeal. Yeah. The system is flawed because people are flawed.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:09
|
|
|
GreyPowerVan posted:I can accept that it is prosecutor incompetence. However, we are STILL doing nothing about that, either. This guy will probably continue to bumble along and mysteriously gently caress up cases. Good news: Anita Alvarez is up for reelection in 2016. Get someone to run against her on the platform of "I'll fire the person responsible for this".
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:If the prosecutor wanted to shield their cop buddy, they'd just say "self-defense, no charges" Take your common sense elsewhere please.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Why have police killings and the subsequent incompetent prosecution of them become so high visibility lately, do you think? Lately? I can't recall a time when cop shootings weren't immediately high profile cases.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:If the prosecutor wanted to shield their cop buddy, they'd just say "self-defense, no charges" They literally did this with Eric Garner.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I think people are failing to account for the fact that many top notch prosecutors don't end up in poo poo holes like ferguson. Or Missouri. I'm much more willing to believe someone is justly a lovely lawyer. And hell, even good lawyers can gently caress up charging decisions. Happens quite a bit. When it comes to Ferguson, I absolutely believe malice by the prosecution played in. The prosecutor has all but admitted his biases and his lack of arguement at the grand jury was so weird as to not be incompetence. He's done it before. I agree; however, that this Chicago case was probably not malice. It wouldn't have gone to jury trial. That said, you should be reluctant to base your experences in the North East to all prosecutors. You're shocked by what happens in Commiefornia, the South is even worse. Chicago also has its own issues I guess. Edit: During both the BART and Kelly Thomas trials, a large number of DAs I spoke with were praying for a walk. If one of the who was less ethical got a police killing, I could see a select few throwing that case. Probably at prelim though, not trial. nm fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Apr 21, 2015 |
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
nm posted:When it comes to Ferguson, I absolutely believe malice by the prosecution played in. The prosecutor has all but admitted his biases and his lack of arguement at the grand jury was so weird as to not be incompetence. He's done it before. Fair enough. You're right there are some backwards shitholes in this country. Re: brown, I think the DA there was a putz who should have distanced himself, but he's not the one who actually presented the case. I think his deputies were incompetent. And you know I've been a huge critic of elected prosecutors in general.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 21:17 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Yeah, you don't make it to trial intending to throw the case. The phrase "show trial" exists for a reason. It's entirely possible (I have no idea if it's true or not) that the prosecutor, or just that particular system in general, needed a thing to point and and say "well, we want to charge murderous police but dadgummit look what happened!" One of the biggest issues here is that it's a situation where nobody can win no matter what happens. If the police keep getting away with literal murder poo poo just keeps getting worse and the police lose more credibility every time it happens. If this turns out to be a show trial/the result of corruption then we see more police murder because they know they can get away with it. If the cop does go to jail on a second trial you'll hear nothing but DOUBLE JEOPARDY AN INNOCENT MAN IS IN JAIL NOW AAAAAAAA  nonstop. If it turned out to be an issue of corruption or ineptitude and it gets investigated by higher levels of enforcement and enough detail gets public and it turns out that prosecutors do, in fact, loving suck overall it throws a spanner in the justice system as a whole. Suddenly you can't trust any of it.The justice system, as it stands, has massive issues that nobody is bothering to fix and I think this is a key example.
|
|
#
?
Apr 21, 2015 18:26
|
|
