|
Darkrenown posted:Ah, that part of the thread cycle where nobody is actually defending an incident so you gotta work up some mad against imaginary arguments. This is when the real crazy comes out. Don't worry, someone will come out and defend the DA's decision or talk about how non-cops murder people and get away with it because the DA fucks up all the time. It just takes a little while since those posters have jobs.
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 21:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
Pohl posted:Did you say it was bullshit? I missed that? You posted a kneejerk reaction without even watching the video, why are you acting like everyone else here is the rear end in a top hat? Toasticle posted:Is it some kind of uncontrollable reflex for you guys? Find irrelevant incorrect item in a post and smugly point it out while throwing in a dick one liner? Kalman has a history of being an apologist in this thread, but posting "THEY DID IT BECAUSE HE WAS loving BLACK!!" immediately without even looking at the video makes the poster look like a retard and gives apologists something to point to when they say we're just looking for excuses to be anti-cop or turn an incident into a "race issue." bango skank fucked around with this message at 21:17 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 21:11
|
|
|
If I cared about guns, I'd definitely be on the pro-gun side because I can say "police officers need guns because America has a lot of gun violence" out of one side of my mouth, and "violence isn't caused by guns" out of the other.Trabisnikof posted:Don't worry, someone will come out and defend the DA's decision or talk about how non-cops murder people and get away with it because the DA fucks up all the time. It just takes a little while since those posters have jobs. lovely jobs that don't let you post at work? Agreed. Radbot fucked around with this message at 21:19 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 21:14
|
|
|
It's actually because some of them are probated.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
bango skank posted:You posted a kneejerk reaction without even watching the video, why are you acting like everyone else here is the rear end in a top hat? I did watch it. I did indeed post a kneejerk reaction and I was wrong, and I have rightly been called out on it because of that. I also am willing to say I was wrong and did indeed react and respond in a negative way. That doesn't change what happened in the video, but it makes it harder to talk about. I'm sorry I hosed up completely, and I wish I hadn't because I don't want to be the topic of conversation when we should be talking about that video. Pohl fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 22:21
|
|
|
http://www.abc15.com/news/local-new...le-she-is-naked Cop illegally (by his department's determination) barges into a woman's home while she's naked and handcuffs her. Officer ends up retiring. Police interview with the officer in question includes this gem: quote:I asked Officer Rose why he made Rossi look at him while she was in handcuffs. Officer Rose said he didn't want to look at Rossi's body because she was naked, and he wanted her to look at his eyes. I ask Officer Rose if suspect[s] have to look at police officers in the eyes. Officer Rose said, "No, but it's a sign of disrespect."
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 22:23
|
|
|
How long does it take before you can do whatever you want without any repercussions (worse than being allowed to retire/resign) in a normal police force? Is it a Day One thing or something you have to earn?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
It depends on how strong the union is, and how many superiors you've covered for in the past.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 22:31
|
|
|
DARPA posted:http://www.abc15.com/news/local-new...le-she-is-naked Interesting: quote:There was also no video from his body camera for the call, records show. Good on his partner for reporting concerns about what happened to his superiors, though, if true.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 22:33
|
|
|
DARPA posted:http://www.abc15.com/news/local-new...le-she-is-naked How is that at least not kidnapping?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
The fig leaf of internal investigations doesn't really hold up if they result in saying "yeah what the officer did was illegal and violated department policy. Therefore, we have decided to do absolutely nothing."
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 22:43
|
|
|
Pohl posted:How is that at least not kidnapping? It would probably fall under illegal detention or unlawful imprisonment. Don't think it fits the bill under kidnapping, generally. Big question is, has the DA pressed charges, and if not, why?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Shooting Blanks posted:It would probably fall under illegal detention or unlawful imprisonment. Don't think it fits the bill under kidnapping, generally. Because he values his life and career? Why didn't people cross the mob more often?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 22:48
|
|
|
Haha, so apparently while the officer has "retired" he's been running a side business of doing background checks for the last several years, and now just lists himself as CEO of said background check company.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Because he values his life and career? Why didn't people cross the mob more often? Don't be so dramatic, the cops aren't going to kill the DA. They're just going to stop cooperating on his cases and ruin his career.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 22:50
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:Out of curiosity, what makes it voluntary manslaughter instead of, say, second degree murder? From a quick google it sounds like voluntary manslaughter requires "circumstances that would cause a reasonable person to become emotionally or mentally disturbed," but the cop in that video obviously did not have any legitimate reason to flip his poo poo and want to shoot the guy in question. Voluntary Manslaughter in California includes imperfect self-defense which is self-defense when the fear of death or gbi was unreasonable. Honestly, you're going to have issues proving beyond a reasonable doubt he did not have an unreasonable belief that he was in harm. You can prove his belief was unreasonable, but harder to prove that he wasn't in fear. You might charge murder, but you'd expect the lesser. Vol. Man isn't the walk people think it is, max is 11 uears without any enhancements of which you'd probably have a firearm enhancement.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
Looking for judge in all the wrong places So whats the big deal about going to a different judge after the first one refuses to sign a warrant? Is that a major no no?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Dahn posted:Looking for judge in all the wrong places Don't go into those comments.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Dahn posted:Looking for judge in all the wrong places Haha, they are attacking her family, too. http://www.myfoxdc.com/story/29547831/exclusive-marilyn-mosby-police-family-members article posted:The Boston Police Department turned over a document that shows she violated the “substance abuse policy” in 2006. A source familiar with the incident said that Thompson tested positive for cocaine. It just gets worse from there. Pohl fucked around with this message at 23:26 on Jul 15, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 23:23
|
|
|
Dahn posted:Looking for judge in all the wrong places It isn't illegal (at least at the federal level), but it is considered bad form of the warrant isn't rewritten with more facts. Generally, they don't tell the judges that it has been rejected. Judges at the same level don't like to contradict each other because it leads to more judge shopping and political issues.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 23:28
|
|
|
Devor posted:Don't be so dramatic, the cops aren't going to kill the DA. They're just going to stop cooperating on his cases and ruin his career. Of course they wouldn't say they'd kill him, maybe just set up a few no-knock raids at the lawyer's house and whatever happens, happens. Maybe plant some child porn on his work computer or something.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2015 23:35
|
|
|
nm posted:It isn't illegal (at least at the federal level), but it is considered bad form of the warrant isn't rewritten with more facts. I don't know about the US, but in Canada there is a duty of an affiant to make full, frank and fair disclosure to the Justice. One can only assume that failing to mention that their colleague down the hall rejected it would violate that.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 00:05
|
|
|
nm posted:Voluntary Manslaughter in California includes imperfect self-defense which is self-defense when the fear of death or gbi was unreasonable. Ah, thanks. Overall I'd rather err on the side of giving people lesser sentences, so I don't really have a problem with this. This makes me wonder if the most correct verdict for the case I was serving on might have been voluntary manslaughter. All the information we had was: 1. He almost certainly* shot the guy and then chased him around a store for a minute before leaving. This was caught on video, but with no sound. 2. Both the victim and shooter claim they barely knew each other, with no motive asserted by either side (the victim had actually voluntarily gone to the defendant's lawyer's office and asked not to prosecute) I know that there's no 100% right or wrong for these things, but what do you think would have been the best verdict based upon this? My feeling was that there was no way to prove that the defendant didn't commit the crime while under the influence of alcohol or some other drug. Given what you said about voluntary manslaughter, it sounds like that would have been the best verdict to go with. I'm somewhat relieved that I ended up being chosen as an alternate before deliberations, because I was under the impression that most of the rest of the jury would have just gone with what the prosecutor said and found him guilty of attempted first degree murder. There was this one redneck guy who kept saying "heh, we'll be out of deliberations in 15 minutes!" On the other hand, it's possible that I could have saved a person from being given an unjust punishment.  *The only evidence it was the defendant is the word of the victim and the fact that the guy in the video doing the shooting seemed to be of similar build to the defendant. I was still inclined to believe the defendant was the shooter, since the victim didn't seek to prosecute him and as a result didn't seem to have any motive in lying about him committing the crime.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 00:09
|
|
|
I'm quite certain that a prerequisite for manslaughter (of any variety) is a person actually dying.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 00:17
|
|
|
Zarkov Cortez posted:I'm quite certain that a prerequisite for manslaughter (of any variety) is a person actually dying. You can get an attempt for vol man. However, his case involved intoxication and that is really complex.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 00:24
|
|
|
nm posted:You can get an attempt for vol man. However, his case involved intoxication and that is really complex. Isn't that then an aggravated assault? (or whatever an assault is called in a given state with serious injuries)
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 00:45
|
|
|
Zarkov Cortez posted:Isn't that then an aggravated assault? (or whatever an assault is called in a given state with serious injuries) No. Vol. Man requires an intent to kill. The intent to kill is just mitigated for a reason (like imperfect self defense, walking in on wife having sex with your dad). The intent controls. For example, attempted murder requires an intent to kill, that is what makes it different than assault. This requires the same intent as murder, but you had a reason to kill that the law recognizes. Invol. Man has no intent to kill, so it is not possible to have an attempt.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 00:50
|
|
|
.
tsa fucked around with this message at 01:38 on Jul 16, 2015 |
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 01:33
|
|
|
Zarkov Cortez posted:Isn't that then an aggravated assault? (or whatever an assault is called in a given state with serious injuries) To expand upon what nm said, I think that shooting a person (and them not dying) would generally be considered attempted murder/manslaughter because shooting someone is an action that can be generally expected to kill them. So shooting a person is, in an of itself, evidence of an intent to kill. Even if they happen to survive, there's no way that anyone would (reasonably) shoot someone else with the intent/expectation of them not dying. Let me know if I'm wrong about this, but this is the impression I got from the explanation they gave at my trial. Also, yeah, I meant to say "attempted voluntary manslaughter" in my post, not just "voluntary manslaughter." As a side question, I wonder if the common existence of TV procedurals/police dramas has had a significant influence on the way juries behave. From my limited anecdotal experience, it seemed like my jury had a far more positive default opinion of the prosecution than the defense. Like, they seemed to hang onto every word the prosecutor said, while some of the jurors visibly didn't care much for the defense's arguments. Given how immensely popular procedurals are, combined with the fact that they are nearly always from the perspective of the prosecution and end in a guilty verdict of some sort, I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of people had gained a strong bias in favor of the prosecution. That being said, since it only takes one juror who doesn't carry this bias to prevent a guilty verdict I could see how this wouldn't effectively make much of a difference. It's also possible (if not probable) that most people have always been more sympathetic to the prosecution, even before the existence of television.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 18:28
|
|
|
http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/justiceforsandy-sandy-bland-death-texas-jail-sparks-questions?cid=sm_tw_msnbc&cid=sm_fb_msnbcquote:#JusticeForSandy: Sandy Bland death in Texas jail sparks questions  This isn't an issue of class, or poverty, or income. This is an issue about race. What is wrong with us?! I don't like being the cop hater, I know they have a difficult and thankless job. We need police. But we have seen so many examples of police doing some truly appalling things that have no justification. A man runs during a stop so you shoot him and cover it up? A bunch of racists calls the cops about black people using the community pool that they had a right to be at so he pulls a taser and slams a young girl to the ground? How about finding out what is really happening given the history of racist abuse around pools? "I feared for my life" "they were resisting" are go to excuses but thank the gods for cameras. For black people, this has long been a reality, a single encounter with the police can be a death sentence, barring that it can lead to a traumatizing and life ruining experience as police demonize and make judgements about black people of all social classes and then cover it up or even when caught red handed face virtual impunity. Black communities are under served while simultaneously over policed for stupid bullshit that everyone does If there isn't a camera near by police have a license to kill black people and can get away with it even if there is a camera. What do we have to do to change this? This should be considered unacceptable by everyone. Maybe I am being to inflammatory but seeing the reaction on twitter really gets to me. We have got to ditch the "Well they must have been doing something wrong" attitude and really question the police perspective.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 18:32
|
|
|
Some crack reporting from MSNBC there. "Some people say a thing, others disagree." No further information or context.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 18:51
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Some crack reporting from MSNBC there. "Some people say a thing, others disagree." No further information or context. It's called reporting. What you're looking for is journalism/whatever fox news does.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:It's called reporting. What you're looking for is journalism/whatever fox news does. I'm actually going to disagree here and say that bullshit "say one side then say the other" is some of the laziest reporting out there. Real reporting actually provides the information and context that Rent-A-Cop was talking about. Fox news just instead uses "say one side then that same side again but phrased as a question".
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:It's called reporting. What you're looking for is journalism/whatever fox news does.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 18:59
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I'm actually going to disagree here and say that bullshit "say one side then say the other" is some of the laziest reporting out there. You might not like it, but that's what reporting is, reporting the facts.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 19:13
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:You might not like it, but that's what reporting is, reporting the facts. Which facts? Like if someone says "Gay people are more likely to abuse children", should the reporter report the fact "This is actually a lie"? The idea of purely objective reporting sounds nice at first, but if you drill down on it, it goes far beyond just blithely reporting what's been said. In this case, for example, a real 'objective' reporter would query how she killed herself in the cell, ask for video of the traffic stop, etc. etc. and note for any areas where this evidence was missing or not provided.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 19:22
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Which facts? Well, based on the report, I now know that a 28 year old died of what the waller county sheriff's office says was "self-inflicted asphyxiation". I didn't know that before, I also didn't know any of the other details the report had, it effectively reported the information of what happened and what the involved parties have said about it. Obdicut posted:Like if someone says "Gay people are more likely to abuse children", should the reporter report the fact "This is actually a lie"? You're asking for journalism, you want them to investigate and find out what really happened. I'd love that too, but going on some rant about how the report is actually not a report seems weird to me. Attacking MSNBC instead of focusing on what happened seems like a weird misdirect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 19:30
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Well, based on the report, I now know that a 28 year old died of what the waller county sheriff's office says was "self-inflicted asphyxiation". I didn't know that before, I also didn't know any of the other details the report had, it effectively reported the information of what happened and what the involved parties have said about it. Those aren't 'the facts', those are 'some of the facts'. It isn't actually the information of 'what happened'. quote:You're asking for journalism, you want them to investigate and find out what really happened. I'd love that too, but going on some rant about how the report is actually not a report seems weird to me. The horrible state of the media in our country and the way that they don't press to reveal coverups and otherwise investigate is a real problem. That you find it odd that people are annoyed that reporters aren't doing journalism seems very weird to me. It's part of the problem in this society in terms of our justice system: the way that the media portrays 'criminals', police, DAs, etc. etc. It is not all one-sided, it isn't that the reporters are 100% in the tank for the cops and DA, but in general their sensationalization and surface reporting tends to benefit the powers that be.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 19:36
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Attacking MSNBC instead of focusing on what happened seems like a weird misdirect.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 19:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 06:51 |
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Attacking MSNBC instead of focusing on what happened seems like a weird misdirect. Defending lovely reporting instead of agreeing that it is lovely and that more facts out in the air and investigative reporting would do wonders for most police departments is a weird misdirect. Part of the problem in America is how journalists automatically go to a "police said this, witnesses said this, who knows the truth" narrative anytime police misconduct occurs. Until we start getting the media investigating and outting liars in police corruption cases we'll still be missing a powerful tool for the truth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 16, 2015 19:39
|
|