|
Dead Reckoning posted:More like, if you want to change the justice system for the better, you need to understand that system, and why it is the way it is in the first place. The common rabble do not need intricate understandings of legal frameworks to call for change.
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:00 |
|
|
Lemming posted:Ytlaya never said or implied the rules of evidence should be weakened. A few people suggested that pages and pages ago, it was pointed out what effects it would have, so people accepted that and started thinking about other alternatives. You are still acting as if everyone here is still arguing the original point. Nobody is. But these are the kinds of suggestions being made. Case in point, the "neutral charging body" below. Who are they accountable to? How are they chosen? Do you really want "the public" making charging decisions? Remember..."the public" can be irrationally afraid. And how do you structure it so you don't have charging by popularity contest? And what of the ethical rules prohibiting a prosecutor from bringing a case they believe is not supported? What happens when this magic panel says charge but the prosecutor thinks there's no evidence?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:52
|
|
|
Bob James posted:The common rabble do not need intricate understandings of legal frameworks to call for change. I'd settle for basic understanding.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:More like, if you want to change the justice system for the better, you need to understand that system, and why it is the way it is in the first place. Easy, Amendment 28 of the United States Consitution posted:Shut up Dead Reckoning, you know I'm not some legal expert who'd know how to draft the amendment so it'll help prevent future injustice against black people by the police. Next you'll tell me that a layman needs to be a car expert to be able to say that this new car that explodes if its driver is black should be redesigned.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I'd settle for basic understanding. We understand that the status quo is garbage.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:54
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:While tongue in cheek, I want this process to supplement and replace the grand jury/prosecutor decision. After this point it's a regular trial. But I want the decision to bring charges to be neutral and unable to be blocked by a potential bad actor. So you think police officers should be deprived the same human rights as everyone else because....
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:Yeah, lots of poor prosecutors nationwide brimming with excitement, eager to hold cops accountable for their crimes but gosh darn it, they just couldn't manage to follow through. All the applicable laws were followed and everything! Oh well, maybe next time. http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/07/cleveland_8_responds_to_appeal.html quote:The activists originally asked Cleveland Municipal Court Judge Ronald Adrine to review evidence compiled against Loehmann and Garmback. Adrine concluded in a decision June 11 that there is probable cause to charge the officers, but did not issue the warrants due to a conflict in the law. So the judge ruled, and says there is probable cause? Well, we can't be too careful when it comes to our boys in blue. Let's have a grand jury. I think I can convince the jury not to indict the officers for murder. blarzgh posted:So you think police officers should be deprived the same human rights as everyone else because.... Well letting them literally get away with murder is the status quo. I'm confident that smarter people than us can find a constitutional way to do it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:55
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:Yeah, lots of poor prosecutors nationwide brimming with excitement, eager to hold cops accountable for their crimes but gosh darn it, they just couldn't manage to follow through. All the applicable laws were followed and everything! Oh well, maybe next time. Actually there are plenty of cases where officers are prosecuted. It's just not news because there's nothing interesting about someone getting convicted for poo poo they did.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:57
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:While tongue in cheek, I want this process to supplement and replace the grand jury/prosecutor decision. After this point it's a regular trial. But I want the decision to bring charges to be neutral and unable to be blocked by a potential bad actor. Just so you understand, your proposal would be a de facto violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Actually there are plenty of cases where officers are prosecuted. It's just not news because there's nothing interesting about someone getting convicted for poo poo they did. No one talks about all the police that I put in jail, but you ignore the murder under the color of law of ONE black person, and the community goes insane!
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:58
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:But these are the kinds of suggestions being made. Again, no, they aren't. It was pages and pages ago and people dropped it once the issues were pointed out, so it was switched to there should be some improved framework for verifying police videos by a third party so they could be used if the police were uncooperative. Implying that the people here who are criticizing police are constantly spewing ideas that are unconstitutional is factually wrong. People make suggestions based on their understanding. The gist of it is clearly that the normal structure of the police and prosecutor who are friends should probably not be investigating police, since there's an inherent motivation there for them to be softer than they would be on normal citizens. I don't see how it's an awful suggestion. The pre-charging process seems to differ a lot by state, so setting something up like that doesn't seem too far of a stretch. blarzgh posted:So you think police officers should be deprived the same human rights as everyone else because.... They would still get a normal trial, the point is about determining who gets charged. See cases like the cop in the Eric Garner case where it was somehow decided behind closed doors that there wasn't enough evidence to even charge him, when there's a video of him killing Garner.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Bob James posted:The common rabble do not need intricate understandings of legal frameworks to call for change. Ytlaya posted:It isn't even necessary to understand exactly what changes need to be made to fix a problem in order to protest that it exists. This is why "people being upset" and shallow "awareness raising" are bullshit. "We have to do something" has been a sentiment that creates bad laws for as long as there have been governments. It's like saying that taxes are too high without agreeing on where to cut spending, or saying that we would be better off if we elected normal people to congress instead of politicians. Crafting good laws is hard, and requires sober judgement and careful consideration. Laymen who are twisting the knobs and yanking the levers because they had an emotional reaction to a Bad Thing are likely to vote for the first and most emotionally satisfying thing that enters the discourse, without regard for its efficacy or knock-on effects.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 17:59
|
|
|
Devor posted:Well letting them literally get away with murder is the status quo. Not all 800,000 LEOs in America are constantly murdering everyone, and not every one of 3000 prosecutors are helping them get away with it all the time.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Actually there are plenty of cases where officers are prosecuted. It's just not news because there's nothing interesting about someone getting convicted for poo poo they did. Thank god for our noble prosecutors. You just can't move for police being held accountable in this country. In the time it took you to read this post three bad apples were removed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Not all 800,000 LEOs in America are constantly murdering everyone, and not every one of 3000 prosecutors are helping them get away with it all the time. So your argument is that it doesn't happen enough to matter? I disagree, and I think many others disagree.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Not all 800,000 LEOs in America are constantly murdering everyone, and not every one of 3000 prosecutors are helping them get away with it all the time. Do you think it happens enough that it needs to be addressed? I sure do.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:02
|
|
|
Lemming posted:They would still get a normal trial, the point is about determining who gets charged. See cases like the cop in the Eric Garner case where it was somehow decided behind closed doors that there wasn't enough evidence to even charge him, when there's a video of him killing Garner. Equal rights in charging is part of the universal declaration of human rights, and the united state's constitution. Don't you think its problematic that you're more concerned with the result of a handful of isolated incidents, than an deeper understanding of human rights, and their interplay with politics, government and state agency? Are you really more interested in undoing several perceived unjust results than you are in our natural human rights?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Again, no, they aren't. It was pages and pages ago and people dropped it once the issues were pointed out, so it was switched to there should be some improved framework for verifying police videos by a third party so they could be used if the police were uncooperative. Implying that the people here who are criticizing police are constantly spewing ideas that are unconstitutional is factually wrong. Ok. So we've moved away from dash cam admissibility and onto citizens tribunals. Same problem. Suggestions that are inherently flawed.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Not all 800,000 LEOs in America are constantly murdering everyone, and not every one of 3000 prosecutors are helping them get away with it all the time. Lead in milk isn't a problem because nobody has ever ingested all the lead in the world. Why are you people complaining? Quit twitching.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:04
|
|
|
I don't think it happens enough to rewrite our most basic human rights, no.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:Lead in milk isn't a problem because nobody has ever ingested all the lead in the world. Why are you people complaining? Quit twitching. How about you suggest what can or should be done?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If you're unable to articulate what changes need to be made, how can you say that a problem exists? You can say that you don't like the outcome, but saying there is a problem implies that there are improvements to be made. A lot of the things in the justice system that at first glance appear to be "problems" are actually protections put in place for the benefit of the accused. They may not always deliver just results, but they are often more just than the alternatives. You seem to be stupid, or at the very least confused about where you are at. This isn't a Constitutional Convention where we lay out the specific wordings of law. This is somethingawful.com where we discuss things and call each other retards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Zanzibar Ham posted:Easy, Rofl like five posts later Dead Reckoning posted:If you're unable to articulate what changes need to be made, how can you say that a problem exists?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:I don't think it happens enough to rewrite our most basic human rights, no. No such thing as middle ground then, check.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:How about you suggest what can or should be done? You could save yourself time and just write "it's unconstitutional" now, rather than waste his time pretending like you're discussing in anything approaching good faith
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:How about you suggest what can or should be done? Anything I suggest would not be "the way things are done currently" and would immediately be dismissed as unworkable.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:10
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Just so you understand, your proposal would be a de facto violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:No such thing as middle ground then, check. This is literally the opposite of what my line of argument mean. And I mean 'literally'.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:11
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:How exactly? Article 10 guarantees equality in all phases of criminal prosecution, including charging.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:13
|
|
|
ozmunkeh posted:Anything I suggest would not be "the way things are done currently" and would immediately be dismissed as unworkable. Only if it's a flagrant violation of the constitution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Actually there are plenty of cases where officers are prosecuted. It's just not news because there's nothing interesting about someone getting convicted for poo poo they did. Look, I get it when you come in and people who don't know much about how things work are talking about poo poo. I hate it when people try to tell me how to my job too. But the point is that the people here think the system isn't working properly at all, so for you to say "well, you don't understand how the system works" is kind of frustrating for people who are explicitly trying to change that system. You're right, I don't, which is why I really don't offer specific solutions, because I know gently caress-all. I think there are serious problems with the relationship between police depts and prosecutor's offices that make it very difficult for police to be appropriately charged because they're essentially on the same "side". I also think there are major problems within police departments regarding targeted harassment of minorities and an emphasis on high-volume citations and arrests that essentially gently caress over the poor and minorities. The latter can be addressed by changing police dept policies and isn't as complicated, but if you, in your vaunted expert opinion, would deign to offer suggestions on how to decouple the police and prosecutor's office, I'm sure people would love to hear it instead of "nu-uh, won't work." I honestly don't mind hearing reasons why things won't work, but at some point it comes across as you saying "nope, system's fine, got no problems". If you feel that way, fine, but just say it. I think it works better than a lot of places, but that doesn't mean we can't make it better. blarzgh posted:Equal rights in charging is part of the universal declaration of human rights, and the united state's constitution.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:15
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Equal rights in charging is part of the universal declaration of human rights, and the united state's constitution. I'm not concerned with isolated incidents, I'm concerned that police as a whole in America are above the law and our legal system disproportionately targets minorities. I think their natural human rights are being violated by state-sanctioned murderers. I believe in equal rights in charging, which is why I think the cops shouldn't have extra protection. ActusRhesus posted:Ok. So we've moved away from dash cam admissibility and onto citizens tribunals. Same problem. Suggestions that are inherently flawed. So what suggestions would you make, then? Because you seem largely content with baiting people who don't know the particulars of the situation into saying something just so you can attack it.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
I've previously suggested a public integrity unit at the statewide level tasked with prosecuting all government officials including cops, and eliminating elected judges and DAs. That's where I would start.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:18
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:This is literally the opposite of what my line of argument mean. And I mean 'literally'. It's impossible to tweak the way we bring charges against peace officers without violating their human rights?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I've previously suggested a public integrity unit at the statewide level tasked with prosecuting all government officials including cops, and eliminating elected judges and DAs. That's where I would start. It sounds like blarzgh thinks that first part would violate basic human rights and be unconstitutional, since it would be violating article 10 of the constitution and not charging everyone equally. Does what he says have any merit as a criticism?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I've previously suggested a public integrity unit at the statewide level tasked with prosecuting all government officials including cops, and eliminating elected judges and DAs. That's where I would start. Elected judges are in my state's constitution. You are going to have to try again with something that isn't blatantly unconstitutional.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:22
|
|
|
blarzgh posted:Article 10 guarantees equality in all phases of criminal prosecution, including charging. I would argue that we already violate that on a daily basis since cops don't seem to get charged with the same frequency as civilians and statistics seem to belie a bias in charging patterns. But fine, remove the charging mechanism. Independent oversight that can unilaterally take administrative actions, including stripping civil immunity, disarming an officer, or straight up blacklisting officers from law enforcement. The biggest obstacle to reform is that officers are accountable to the same system that rewards their corruption. Thus an outside panel needs to be formed solely for hearing complaints against officers.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:23
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:How about you suggest what can or should be done? Do you think there are problems that need to be addressed? It be nice of you, with your extensive wisdom of both the law and the system itself, to post your ideas for changes that would improve the system, rather than constantly making GBS threads all over the thread like a poorly trained dog. Or do you think it's just peachy right now and nothing needs to change?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:25
|
|
|
Lemming posted:I'm not concerned with isolated incidents, I'm concerned that police as a whole in America are above the law If I could prove to you that statistically this was not true, how would you change your position?
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 31, 2024 05:00 |
|
|
DARPA posted:Do you think there are problems that need to be addressed? See above.
|
|
#
?
Jul 21, 2015 18:29
|
|