|
nm posted:He was answering questions about the case. So you don't *actually* have a right to remain silent, you just have a right to invoke a right to silence. That's a big difference - now instead of just not talking, you need to have a level of civics education that most Americans don't have.
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 14:15 |
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I can't respond to this with out invalidating all of my childish fit throwing. So I am going to make substance free rude remark! Translated that for you. No need to thank me. Happy to provide the service.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:
A good point.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:28
|
|
|
Radbot posted:So you don't *actually* have a right to remain silent, you just have a right to invoke a right to silence. That's a big difference - now instead of just not talking, you need to have a level of civics education that most Americans don't have. Ignorance of the law and all that poo poo...
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:29
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Ignorance of the law and all that poo poo... People say this about breaking the law not ignorance of your rights goof troop
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:3. As a legal person yourself, can known associations ever be used as evidence? Generally no. There are times when the defense can open the door. And in a gang homicide it could be relevant to motive. But as a general rule affiliation evidence is irrelevant. You know how easy it would be if I could just call the local gang detective to the stand and have him testify, for example, that the defendant is a gang member? Edit: however inadmissible in court doesn't mean worthless to investigators. Evidence vs intelligence.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:32
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:People say this about breaking the law not ignorance of your rights goof troop I'm saying ignorance of your rights apparently is also a thing, not knowing them means you don't have them.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:33
|
|
|
Radbot posted:So you don't *actually* have a right to remain silent, you just have a right to invoke a right to silence. That's a big difference - now instead of just not talking, you need to have a level of civics education that most Americans don't have. no, for fucks sake Salinas went down to the police station and voluntarily gave a statement, he was free to leave at any time. He didn't refuse to answer the question and he didn't even end the questioning (he kept answering more questions after the police gave up waiting for him to answer). Salinas was a lovely opinion but its narrow as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
Radbot posted:So you don't *actually* have a right to remain silent, you just have a right to invoke a right to silence. That's a big difference - now instead of just not talking, you need to have a level of civics education that most Americans don't have. That's not what he said at all.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:34
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I'm saying ignorance of your rights apparently is also a thing, not knowing them means you don't have them. There's many ways for you to not learn this. For example, if you're unschooled. That's why the Miranda warning exists.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Generally no. Wait.. You can't call a gang force detective and have them testify that the defendant was a member in a gang? Even if its relevant? Thats bullshit on a stick.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:35
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:I'm saying ignorance of your rights apparently is also a thing, not knowing them means you don't have them. Thank you Earl
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Literally The Worst posted:There's many ways for you to not learn this. For example, if you're unschooled. That's why the Miranda warning exists. I can't understand what you're trying to tell me, I'm too stupid, really. Jarmak posted:Thank you Earl I don't get it. ElCondemn fucked around with this message at 21:40 on Aug 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:Wait.. no its not, its prejudicial as poo poo and usually has gently caress all probative value.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:37
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:Wait.. If it's relevant you can (eg motive theory is victim was shot over gang dispute) but generally it's not relevant. (Eg he's in a gang so he's probably a rapist too) And even if it's relevant it still had to be more probative than prejudicial.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:38
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:1. It was overturned by the Internet Supreme Court last year, so no. Your opinion, along with several of the people in this thread's opinions, seem to be that absent any evidence, if a white cop stops a black person it's because of racism. This is plainly retarded.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:He doesn't need to justify pulling her out of the care using her behavior, he only needs to clear the bar of having a reason why the behavior triggered the response besides it being retaliatory. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here, arguing that her behavior wasn't actually objectionable weakens the argument that the action was unlawful more then it strengthens it. You can't retaliate against someone who hasn't done anything. Retaliation without just cause is a very real thing. And the broader point is not whether her behavior is or was objectionable by any given standard, but whether the officer perceived her to be a potential risk to her safety, and whether such concern motivated his order to exit the vehicle. The video shows that this was simply not the case, and that his conduct was a retaliation against her perceived provocation of smoking a cigarette, refusing to not smoke a cigarette, and being curt. And I point you back to Mimms and progeny, again -- he really does need a reason. That reason in this case needs to be officer safety, because there is just nothing else that can even be conceptually supportive of an order to exit. I think you've conflated the laughably lax standard of officer safety with no standard at all. Oh, and I apologize for presuming about your employment. (Not in a bad way or anything), but you just sounded like a guy who's done work in the legal area. And I still think that you know well as I do that the traffic cop's recourse for citizen rudeness comes when they get to burn you in front of a sentencing judge, and most certainly not by a show of force without cause. quote:Wait..
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
Well then. Thats... kinda dumb. But I'm sure they have a reason for it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Your opinion, along with several of the people in this thread's opinions, seem to be that absent any evidence, if a white cop stops a black person it's because of racism. This is plainly retarded. Yeah, it had nothing to do with how she was being treated at all...
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:Wait.. You remember all that stuff you were saying about how we should never even suspect a specific person of being/doing a specific racist thing just because he's in a racist organization Okay now imagine that's taking place in an actual court room and the person could actually go to jail instead of just having someone on the internet hold an unfavorable opinion of him.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:42
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Your opinion, along with several of the people in this thread's opinions, seem to be that absent any evidence, if a white cop stops a black person it's because of racism. This is plainly retarded. Hahahahahah. Hahahah. I keep wanting to type things other than laughing, but this is just so stupid I can't help myself. Here, how about this: Prove it. Make an actual argument. Provide evidence that this is my opinion. Show where I have argued this. Quote posts. Write out the logic of how you managed to come to this conclusion from the things I have said here in this thread. Instead of, you know, just assuming that every single person who has ever disagreed with you about anything all believes exactly the same convenient thing you want them to believe that would invalidate their argument, and angrily writing about how other people are wrong because they believe a wrong thing you've decided they believe. I know that is a popular strategy here among people on both "sides", but god drat does it make this cesspit of a thread tiring to read when everyone is busy arguing against people for opinions they don't hold. GlyphGryph fucked around with this message at 21:46 on Aug 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Actually, every time I have ever seen a "gang expert" talk in any capacity, it has been a laughable load of out of touch old white guy horseshit that wouldn't fly in a DARE presentation. It's mind-blowing to see that crap peddled as expert testimony in a courtroom. It's like an impression of Ice T's character on SVU, only it's an expert impression.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Your opinion, along with several of the people in this thread's opinions, seem to be that absent any evidence, if a white cop stops a black person it's because of racism. This is plainly retarded. You're not going to get that evidence because racism doesn't work like that. nm posted:The problem with this racist/ not racist argument is that at least some parties have a very narrow view of what racist is. gently caress, even I am racist towards somebody, but like NM said, you knowledge it and put effort into correcting it.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:You remember all that stuff you were saying about how we should never even suspect a specific person of being/doing a specific racist thing just because he's in a racist organization Difference is if someone is accused of a gang crime part of the burden on the prosecution, one would think, is proving he was a member of a gang. Calling a gang force detective who could say they were based on x, y, and z, would be a good way to do that. Someone isn't guilty of the crime for being a member of a gang. But proving that someone is in a gang could be a start in proving they were guilty of a gang crime. Edit: Or at least I would think, but I'm not a lawyer.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Randbrick posted:Actually, every time I have ever seen a "gang expert" talk in any capacity, it has been a laughable load of out of touch old white guy horseshit that wouldn't fly in a DARE presentation. It's mind-blowing to see that crap peddled as expert testimony in a courtroom. Yes. That's totally the same as calling the detective in charge of the city gang unit who can testify about origins of particular gangs, name changes, territory migration, membership, leadership, past and current beefs, and known organized criminal behavior Like our witnesses.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Generally no. Something that deserves repeating is that just because something is against the rules against admissible evidence does not make it not useful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:48
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Generally no. Thanks by the way, I didn't actually know how this worked and while my first two points were obviously not intended to be serious that one was an actual question. I find it amusing that it seems to upset GT at least. Also interesting that while it wouldn't be court evidence, you do seem to believe association makes it worth being suspicious of someone. (which is reeasonable, but does at least seem to mean you yourself find some level of judgement acceptable on an association basis)
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
Genocide Tendency posted:Difference is if someone is accused of a gang crime part of the burden on the prosecution, one would think, is proving he was a member of a gang. Right. If it is relevant it comes in. But it has to be more than "he's a bad person because gangs are bad"
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:50
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Yes. That's totally the same as calling the detective in charge of the city gang unit who can testify about origins of particular gangs, name changes, territory migration, membership, leadership, past and current beefs, and known organized criminal behavior Because what you described is a fact witness, and would be a fact witness in any other context.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:52
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Right. If it is relevant it comes in. But it has to be more than "he's a bad person because gangs are bad" Well yea. I figured you can't do that. And there had to be some sort of evidence that the detective had to present to link the person back to the gang. Seems like we are on the same page. I just thought you couldn't admit it at all. Makes sense.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
What is a "gang crime". Is it like a special criminal rite that summons all gang members with a dark compulsion to take part in it so all one has to do to prove they committed a gang crime is prove they were in the gang? Or is it just like a normal crime that was committed by gang members, where you'd still have to prove any given individual was actually there and took specific actions regardless of whether they're actually part of the gang or not.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:54
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What is a "gang crime". Is it like a special criminal rite that summons all gang members with a dark compulsion to take part in it so all one has to do to prove they committed a gang crime is prove they were in the gang? I'm guessing its a crime committed as part of an organized action by the gang, where the gang itself is the motivation. For example, ambushing and murdering members of a rival gang.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:What is a "gang crime". Is it like a special criminal rite that summons all gang members with a dark compulsion to take part in it so all one has to do to prove they committed a gang crime is prove they were in the gang? Gang war/turf war is a great example. Gang hits. Basically a crime that is committed because a gang leader told someone to do for the benefit of the gang. But there may not be a legal definition to separate it as a crime. Rather it winds up as being a motive. Edit: Think South Carolina shooter in terms of South Carolina law. Nationally its a hate crime. South Carolina doesn't actually have a "hate crime" charge. So its just 9 counts of murder in the state courts. Genocide Tendency fucked around with this message at 22:02 on Aug 5, 2015 |
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 21:58
|
|
|
Randbrick posted:Then he's a fact witness, and can testify as to his facts. The problem is the pretense that this accumulation of working knowledge constitutes a scientific body of expertise. Not quite. He'd still probably have to get qualified as an expert to testify about anything outside that specific investigation. GlyphGryph posted:I'm guessing its a crime committed as part of an organized action by the gang, where the gang itself is the motivation. For example, ambushing and murdering members of a rival gang. Correct.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Right. If it is relevant it comes in. But it has to be more than "he's a bad person because gangs are bad" This is why in CA, you charge everyone with a gang enhancement so you can claim a bicycle theft in the suburbs by a dude and his brother is *the loving crips* when the last contact he had with the *crips* was 10 years ago. Oh and because its a lily white suburb, they convict the scary black men who then get 10 years because its a strike. Gang experts here are also hilarious. All they have to prove is it is for the benefit of the gang. Apparently stealing a 100 bike from in front of the liquor store makesbthe gang scarier!
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:02
|
|
|
Randbrick posted:You absolutely can retaliate against people who have done nothing, and people who have done nothing wrong. Boss propositions a subordinate, gets turned down, retaliates with a firing. Retaliation without predicate wrong. People lash out against wrongs real and perceived, and they lash out when other people merely don't do what they want. There really isn't a standard to be met at all, the inherent danger of a traffic stop alone is enough to justify ordering someone out of the vehicle, belligerence isn't at issue, its would be the defense's job to argue that the actual reason she was ordered out was not in line with officer safety. "She was confrontational when questioned so I decided to pull her out of the care for my safety because I was concerned it might escalate" is all that would be required to clear that hurdle.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:03
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:There really isn't a standard to be met at all, the inherent danger of a traffic stop alone is enough to justify ordering someone out of the vehicle, belligerence isn't at issue, its would be the defense's job to argue that the actual reason she was ordered out was not in line with officer safety. "She was confrontational when questioned so I decided to pull her out of the care for my safety because I was concerned it might escalate" is all that would be required to clear that hurdle. Yes, the cop can just say "I was scared" and he gets a free pass on any actions. I agree the system is hosed.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:05
|
|
|
nm posted:This is why in CA, you charge everyone with a gang enhancement so you can claim a bicycle theft in the suburbs by a dude and his brother is *the loving crips* when the last contact he had with the *crips* was 10 years ago. We've established your DAs are awful.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:08
|
|
|
ElCondemn posted:Yes, the cop can just say "I was scared" and he gets a free pass on any actions. I agree the system is hosed. Cop can say "I was just kiddin' brah" when he is recorded proposing killing a black man and covering it up.
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 14:15 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:There really isn't a standard to be met at all, the inherent danger of a traffic stop alone is enough to justify ordering someone out of the vehicle, belligerence isn't at issue, its would be the defense's job to argue that the actual reason she was ordered out was not in line with officer safety. "She was confrontational when questioned so I decided to pull her out of the care for my safety because I was concerned it might escalate" is all that would be required to clear that hurdle. But it was in violation of the department's policy, so how could that be justified as a reasonable to protect the officer's safety? Do you think the court is likely to rule that the Texas DPS policy requires officers to needlessly endanger themselves at traffic stops by not ordering a woman out of her car after she refused to put out a cigarette at the conclusion of the stop?
|
|
#
?
Aug 5, 2015 22:10
|
|