|
Dead Reckoning posted:I disagree that such a thing is possible, because it would likely violate the equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment. I disagree that such a thing is desirable, because we shouldn't create special classes of defendant that we change the rules for because we really want to convict them. These aren't minutiae, I think the entire premise of what you want to do is bad and wrong, because it would open the door to greater ills than the one you hope to cure. If you don't care about the legal ramifications of what you propose, and think that desirable results are more important than a consistent legal process, why not just advocate for mob rule or vigilante justice? You complain about a hypothetical law of general applicability because other people could be swept up in it. You complain about a hypothetical law that would only affect people operating under the color of law because it singles them out. I hope that anyone else who might be otherwise be nodding along with you realizes that everything you have to say is worthless white, racist, noise, and adds you to ignore.
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
Devor posted:You complain about a hypothetical law of general applicability because other people could be swept up in it. You complain about a hypothetical law that would only affect people operating under the color of law because it singles them out. The fact that you can't understand the general applicability issue with singling a specific group of people out and removing their rights while in the same breath calling someone a racist is priceless.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 13:24
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The fact that you can't understand the general applicability issue with singling a specific group of people out and removing their rights while in the same breath calling someone a racist is priceless. http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/242fin.php We have specific laws that target civil rights deprivation under color of law. This is not a Jim Crow law. Do you think that this law violates the constitution? It's a shame that any law that has the effect of reducing police brutality is per se unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 13:52
|
|
|
Devor posted:http://www.justice.gov/crt/about/crm/242fin.php No, just the hypothetical ones that attempt to remove police officer's Confrontation Clause rights by changing the evidentiary standard only for them. Those are pretty unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 14:01
|
|
|
Police chief who pledged reforms fired amid crime spike http://www.washingtonpost.com/natio...9b78_story.html quote:BALTIMORE — Less than three years ago, Anthony Batts was hand-picked by Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake to combat crime and reform a troubled law enforcement department in one of America’s most violent cities. snorch fucked around with this message at 14:27 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 14:20
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, just the hypothetical ones that attempt to remove police officer's Confrontation Clause rights by changing the evidentiary standard only for them. Those are pretty unconstitutional. This is what he was claiming is inherently unconstitutional: quote:I think that it is possible, and desirable, that a law could be written such that police officers are more likely to be held responsible for bad acts caught on camera, that otherwise go unprosecuted or dismissed for specious reasons. This hypothetical law would target police officers specifically, who exercise immense power over the rest of society. We're trying to discuss from the ground up, starting with the goals of a change in law, since any detailed idea is immediately shot down because, surprise, we're not lawmakers and can't reasonably be expected to draft airtight laws. But starting from a point where we're identifying just a general purpose of a law, was immediately struck with a "nope can't do that" which I think is clearly wrong, given there are laws that are clearly written to focus on police already. Devor fucked around with this message at 14:40 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Frankly, I'm still not clear whether you think this is a fault with the Missouri rules of evidence, or some kind of thin blue line magic, the mechanism of which remains unspecified. For myself, I find it extremely difficult to believe that among the resources of an entire metropolitan police department or prosecutor's office there wasn't a single person who could authenticate a video taken by that same department, in one of that department's vehicles, which shows one of that department's officers hitting the suspect/victim in question, at the time and date that the incident was known to have occurred. How am I supposed to believe something that sounds, on its face, so utterly ridiculous? Okay, fine, the law has many mysterious and sometimes counter-intuitive ways. That's why we have lawyers, after all, because you can't be expected to understand it fully unless you devote a huge amount of study and time to it. So maybe there really wasn't a single person in the department who could authenticate a video taken by that same department, in one of that department's vehicles, which shows one of that department's officers hitting the suspect/victim in question, at the time and date that the incident was known to have occurred. If that's really the case, how is that not outrageous on its own? How is that not, in itself, a massive problem? If this is really the case, what's to prevent any department from simply saying, "Sorry, we can't authenticate the video," whenever it doesn't want to see its officers prosecuted? What protections are in place to prevent this from being abused? Or are we all simply supposed to trust that the prosecutor and police did the best they can? Terraplane fucked around with this message at 14:49 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
Sorry, but you're wrong. That's how the law works and that's how reality works. You're just too stupid to understand. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 14:46
|
|
|
snorch posted:Police chief who pledged reforms fired amid crime spike Welcome to Baltimore aka "The New Detroit"
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:02
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:The fact that you can't understand the general applicability issue with singling a specific group of people out and removing their rights while in the same breath calling someone a racist is priceless. The issue is not some great constitutional crisis. It's the systemic corruption of a system that let an officer off the hook for assaulting someone on camera. If that same prisoner had shot to death both officers on film would there even be a question about the prosecutor showing that at trial? Of course not, because the department and prosecutor would get someone in there to say "Yep, that's our tape and based on the blah blah blah it was from that time and from that vehicle."
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:28
|
|
|
Kalman posted:No, just the hypothetical ones that attempt to remove police officer's Confrontation Clause rights by changing the evidentiary standard only for them. Those are pretty unconstitutional. This. You can write a law that punishes a class more severely based on position. (E.g. A sentencing enhancement for crimes done while in a position of trust, like Dr. Sexual assault cases.) but you can't change the constitution as applied to a class. It's not really an equal protection thing because cop is not a protected class, it's a basic goddamn constitutional rights thing.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 15:47
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:This. You can write a law that punishes a class more severely based on position. (E.g. A sentencing enhancement for crimes done while in a position of trust, like Dr. Sexual assault cases.) but you can't change the constitution as applied to a class. It's not really an equal protection thing because cop is not a protected class, it's a basic goddamn constitutional rights thing. Then how would you recommend a lawmaker resolve this? This appears to be a situation wherein there is direct physical evidence of the crime in question, but cannot be introduced unless it is validated. The plaintiff fears for his life if he carries through, and the defendant claims that the video is not valid. The prosecutor claims he cannot find anyone to validate this video, which as noted above seems absurd on its face. How do we address this? On one hand the defendant does have rights as you've noticed, but the key witness appears to be coerced by fear of retaliation. The prosecutor's claim seems to a reasonable lay person to be unacceptable. Are you saying there's no possible way to resolve this, and that any video in these same circumstances is just as easily defeated?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:27
|
|
|
I like how this became a constitional crisis because taking a dude out of a paddy wagon and having a video record of it just ain't a regularly conducted activity. This was the one day they turned that camera on and maintained a chain of custody for the evidence. There are a hundred different ways to crack this nut. Whenever someone tells you this poo poo is ignorance, not malice, just remind them that it can be both. Smart enough to get away with it, dumb enough to think this type of behaviour is sustainable in a world where pretty much everything is recorded.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:29
|
|
|
The system is perfect though, so I am sure that if the prosecutor can't find someone willing to say "yes this video is from the date and time in question and shows the accused" then everyone tried their best and there's just no way to punish violent cops the way other countries seem to manage to do, for that is actually impossible.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:33
|
|
|
Countries with inquisitorial, not adversarial, justice systems. Apples and aardvarks. My job would be GREAT if I didn't have to authenticate things. Do you have any idea how many of my cases have witnesses with sudden cases of amnesia? Yeah. It sucks. But as people have pointed out, if you change the rules of evidence, they get changed for Everyone.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The system is perfect though, so I am sure that if the prosecutor can't find someone willing to say "yes this video is from the date and time in question and shows the accused" then everyone tried their best and there's just no way to punish violent cops the way other countries seem to manage to do, for that is actually impossible. They got fired. And other countries have inferior protections for defendants. E: and yeah, I mean, I would love it if the rules of evidence didn't exist and I could introduce any evidence I wanted without authenticating it. It would literally make my job 25% easier. Right up until the plaintiff introduced complete bullshit evidence that I could no longer rebut by pointing out that it was bullshit and couldn't cross anyone on because "I don't remember."
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:39
|
|
|
Kalman posted:They got fired. And other countries have inferior protections for defendants. I didn't realize being fired from your job was equivalent to being convicted of a crime clearly caught on video tape. Really learning a lot from you lawyers in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:41
|
|
|
Kalman posted:They got fired. And other countries have inferior protections for defendants. Okay, but was there any barrier to rehire? If not all you've done is inconvenience the guy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:45
|
|
|
Kalman posted:E: and yeah, I mean, I would love it if the rules of evidence didn't exist and I could introduce any evidence I wanted without authenticating it The problem is not that evidence needs to be authenticated, it's that somehow a police force and a prosecutor cannot find someone able to say "yes this video shows the events at the date and time in question", which you'd think would be pretty bad from the standpoint of protecting police if their dashcams can never be authenticated as proof of crimes committed against them!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:46
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Countries with inquisitorial, not adversarial, justice systems. Apples and aardvarks. My job would be GREAT if I didn't have to authenticate things. Do you have any idea how many of my cases have witnesses with sudden cases of amnesia? Yeah. It sucks. But as people have pointed out, if you change the rules of evidence, they get changed for Everyone. I'll assume you're addressing the general hypothetical I posed, and not the specific law that has already been dismissed and beaten to death. Is there literally no constitutional law that can take one step towards making this sort of case have an outcome where the cop is found guilty? No way to create some sort of inducements for police to preserve, maintain, and produce adequate chains of evidence? We're just out of luck because there is literally no way to improve this situation, short of a constitutional amendment?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:48
|
|
|
DARPA posted:I didn't realize being fired from your job was equivalent to being convicted of a crime clearly caught on video tape. Really learning a lot from you lawyers in this thread. When you get arrested for doing something illegal and the prosecution presents a video tape that apparently shows you doing it, do you think you should have the right to force them to prove that the tape is a real recording of you at the time and place they say it is? Do you think that you should have the right to question the person offering up that proof that it is the tape they say it is? Other countries have answered that question differently than the US. I think our answer (yes and yes) is better on the whole, even if sometimes it leads to people who are apparently guilty not being convicted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:49
|
|
|
Kalman posted:They got fired. And other countries have inferior protections for defendants. It's clear, we have two options, allow bogus evidence to be submitted because nobody can verify it or we ignore valid evidence because nobody can verify it. So simple, only two things can be done, and we're already doing one, so problem solved!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Yes, I think you should have the right to demand the prosecutor prove the video is what they say it is. I don't think police departments should be able to stonewall the prosecution, commit perjury, mishandle evidence, and refuse to furnish anyone with the ability to authenticate the video though, didn't realize those were also constitutional rights we should probably amend that part out what were we thinking. E: it's weird that the cop apologists are completely ignoring the terrible danger it poses to cops if their own dashcam evidence is impossible to authenticate. Really weird that letting guilty cops off without prosecution trumps making sure those who attack innocent cops can be locked away...
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:51
|
|
|
Kalman posted:When you get arrested for doing something illegal and the prosecution presents a video tape that apparently shows you doing it, do you think you should have the right to force them to prove that the tape is a real recording of you at the time and place they say it is? So if the prisoner got out of the back of that van and popped both officers in the head and ran off you don't think the judge would have been able view the video as evidence? You don't think the cops would have put someone forward to authenticate it? Or that the prosecutor would just throw up his hands and saw "oh well, guess this edge case just can't be dealt with."?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:52
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:The problem is not that evidence needs to be authenticated, it's that somehow a police force and a prosecutor cannot find someone able to say "yes this video shows the events at the date and time in question", which you'd think would be pretty bad from the standpoint of protecting police if their dashcams can never be authenticated as proof of crimes committed against them! I don't know, there might be a reason that if the dash cam was being used to prosecute someone other than the officer that the officer might be willing to authenticate it. Probably. (They found not one, not two, but THREE people who were able to say it. None, including the victim, were willing to say it. At a certain point you kinda have to accept that sometimes evidence isn't coming in.)
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Kalman posted:When you get arrested for doing something illegal and the prosecution presents a video tape that apparently shows you doing it, do you think you should have the right to force them to prove that the tape is a real recording of you at the time and place they say it is? You're creating a false dichotomy, as if what we're asking for is to remove all validation of evidence. You are an idiot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
Devor posted:I'll assume you're addressing the general hypothetical I posed, and not the specific law that has already been dismissed and beaten to death. It's hard to say exactly what can be done because we don't know why they can't authenticate it. But yeah this is the right direction to be looking in.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
DARPA posted:So if the prisoner got out of the back of that van and popped both officers in the head and ran off you don't think the judge would have been able view the video as evidence? You don't think the cops would have put someone forward to authenticate it? Or that the prosecutor would just throw up his hands and saw "oh well, guess this edge case just can't be dealt with."? Absent authentication, the judge would not have been able to view it as evidence. I think the prosecutor probably would have attempted to find someone to authenticate, would have attempted to force them to testify if needed, and at a certain point would have thrown up their hands and said "I did my best but sometimes evidence can't be authenticated." I say that because that's what the prosecutor actually did. The big difference is that the police would probably have been more cooperative. That the police weren't cooperative in this case is a problem - but the judge's ruling and the prosecutors actions were not a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes, I think you should have the right to demand the prosecutor prove the video is what they say it is. You see, the law works best when those in power have complete discretion when it comes to enforcement. This time it's totally cool that nobody could validate the evidence, the next time when the evidence incriminates a black person there will be and endless amount of cops scrambling to validate the video. Justice!
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 16:59
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Absent authentication, the judge would not have been able to view it as evidence. So you think for a police murder on police dashcam video the justice system would not find someone to authenticate? Kalman posted:I say that because that's what the prosecutor actually did. No she didn't. She didn't give immunity to the prisoner (who ended up not being charged with a crime anyway). quote:The big difference is that the police would probably have been more cooperative. That the police weren't cooperative in this case is a problem - but the judge's ruling and the prosecutors actions were not a problem. Yeah, justice system corruption. Nothing to do with an officer's constitutional rights. Straight up corruption. DARPA fucked around with this message at 17:03 on Jul 9, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The big difference is that the police would probably have been more cooperative. That the police weren't cooperative in this case is a problem - but the judge's ruling and the prosecutors actions were not a problem. The police and the prosecutor are the same team, in this context. You can't divorce the actions of one from the other when considering the system.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:01
|
|
|
Kalman posted:(They found not one, not two, but THREE people who were able to say it. None, including the victim, were willing to say it. At a certain point you kinda have to accept that sometimes evidence isn't coming in.) I thought obstruction of justice and perjury were illegal, not constitutional rights. I'm learning so much.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:How do we address this? On one hand the defendant does have rights as you've noticed, but the key witness appears to be coerced by fear of retaliation. The prosecutor's claim seems to a reasonable lay person to be unacceptable. Are you saying there's no possible way to resolve this, and that any video in these same circumstances is just as easily defeated? Would like a response here Kalman, what do we do in a situation where the prosecution says he can't find anyone to validate the evidence when a lay person believes that to be absurd on its face? Can we compel the prosecutor to prove that claim? Remember that part of the mistrust of the police comes from the appearance of conflict of interest with prosecution staff and their apparent unwillingness to execute their duties in good faith against an officer. How does a prosecutor defend the claim that no one can validate this evidence?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:02
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I thought obstruction of justice and perjury were illegal, not constitutional rights. I'm learning so much. "That video doesn't match my memory" is only perjury when you can prove what they remember. So never. What, exactly, do you think was the obstruction of justice in this case?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:04
|
|
|
Kalman posted:The big difference is that the police would probably have been more cooperative. That the police weren't cooperative in this case is a problem - but the judge's ruling and the prosecutors actions were not a problem. So just to be clear, you are abandoning your previous position that this was an unfortunate necessity of the rights guaranteed in our constitution, and you are now agreeing that this is an example of corruption and cronyism in the police department, and those charged with upholding justice and law are deliberately perverting and obstructing it to protect their criminal friends, yeah?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:Would like a response here Kalman, what do we do in a situation where the prosecution says he can't find anyone to validate the evidence when a lay person believes that to be absurd on its face? Can we compel the prosecutor to prove that claim? By showing that as far as anyone can tell they actually did try, including tracking down the victim (who refused to testify) and going so far as to attempt to compel testimony from the other officer (who then proceeded to equivocate.) Like, there are problems with prosecutors not trying very hard to prosecute cops, but the assumption that a prosecutor who seems to have actually tried all reasonable avenues to do it wasn't trying seems, well, dumb.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:06
|
|
|
Kalman posted:"That video doesn't match my memory" is only perjury when you can prove what they remember. So never. Anything is only a crime if you can prove it happened. If I lie on the stand and get away with it, that doesn't mean I didn't commit perjury, it means I got away with perjury. Kalman posted:What, exactly, do you think was the obstruction of justice in this case? This, bolded just for youuuuuuu Kalman posted:The big difference is that the police would probably have been more cooperative. That the police weren't cooperative in this case is a problem - but the judge's ruling and the prosecutors actions were not a problem.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:So just to be clear, you are abandoning your previous position that this was an unfortunate necessity of the rights guaranteed in our constitution, and you are now agreeing that this is an example of corruption and cronyism in the police department, and those charged with upholding justice and law are deliberately perverting and obstructing it to protect their criminal friends, yeah? No.
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I thought obstruction of justice and perjury were illegal, not constitutional rights. I'm learning so much. It's only illegal if criminals lie on the stand, police aren't criminals, duh! Rest assured, these non-criminals lost their jobs, jail time and nullifying prior testimonies would be going too far (wouldn't want to risk prior convictions based on their testimonies being overturned).
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 09:08 |
|
|
Kalman posted:No. So it is not actually a problem, in your estimation, when the police department refuses to cooperate with a prosecutor who is investigating an alleged crime by one of their members?
|
|
#
?
Jul 9, 2015 17:10
|
|