Let's Debate the Police and Criminal Justice

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's Debate the Police and Criminal Justice

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Randbrick posted:

The pretense that it is an any respect useful or viable for a private citizen to go to a law library and conduct research through case book on an actual case with real world consequences is as ludicrous as pretending children are adults.

To the extent Gideon was a one in a million individual who produced a tenable appellate legal pleading through self-research, I estimate there are approximately 300 people in the country right now who can do that, assuming they have months to years in which to learn by doing what is handed on a platter by Lexis and Westlaw.

How on earth did people litigate before the internet! I mean, it's not like cases like Strickland, Miranda, Wong-Sun etc were decided in a pre digital age...

And we are not talking about self litigating. We are talking about public access to law. Which they have. If you don't know how, ask a librarian. They love that poo poo.

Or...you know...buy a westlaw subscription.

Pohl posted:

Then you have relegated a bunch of society into being nothing more than thieves because they can't get a job.
Also, who the gently caress hires a housekeeper?

Seriously, Rhesus, what are these people supposed to do if they have changed their life around?

Sure. Maybe they did turn their life around. Doesn't mean I have to give them unsupervised access to my stuff.

And I have a housekeeper. She comes once a week, is bonded, and a lovely person.

Go to law school!

# ? Aug 13, 2015 16:53

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 11:18

ozmunkeh: Feb 28, 2008; hey guys what is happening in this thread

LeJackal posted:

Maybe also that if a citizen recognizes that they are impaired before driving and sleeps it off in the backseat of their car instead of driving maybe they shouldn't get their lives ruined by a DUI conviction.

Haha I bet you drive better when you're a little buzzed, don't you.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 16:55

Radbot: Aug 12, 2009; Can't post for 3 years!

ActusRhesus posted:

Go to law school!

Proof AR doesn't have your best interests at heart

# ? Aug 13, 2015 16:56

Pohl: Jan 28, 2005; In the future, please post shit with the sole purpose of antagonizing the person running this site. Thank you.

LeJackal posted:

Oh you guys.

Driving is good and fun! You can go to a party!

Driving in a dangerous and reckless way is bad. The car might hit someone, or another car!

If someone is driving in a reckless and dangerous way, the police should stop them from driving so that everyone is safe.

It doesn't matter if they are driving dangerously because they are chemically impaired, putting on a toupee, exhausted, or just plain dumb. It is dangerous!

So the police should be vigilant and watch the drivers on the road so they can see who is driving dangerously and stop them.

Police should not set up roadblocks and checkpoints, and they shouldn't arrest people they think might drive dangerously - only those that are.

I agree, roadblocks are bullshit.

I can drink a ton and drive normally, is that ok?

I don't think that is ok, so gently caress your argument. I don't drive when I drink because I know OTHER PEOPLE are at risk. gently caress those people, right?
Honestly, you have never been drunk and wanted to drive even though you knew it was a horrible idea?
People go with the drunk ideal and drive. That is not ok. You are missing the entire point of the law, which is in many ways funny as hell since you are all about the law.

Pohl fucked around with this message at 17:20 on Aug 13, 2015

# ? Aug 13, 2015 16:57

Randbrick: Sep 28, 2002

ActusRhesus posted:

How on earth did people litigate before the internet! I mean, it's not like cases like Strickland, Miranda, Wong-Sun etc were decided in a pre digital age...

And we are not talking about self litigating. We are talking about public access to law. Which they have. If you don't know how, ask a librarian. They love that poo poo.

Or...you know...buy a westlaw subscription.

Why would you want public access to the law absent an actual need for such access? Idle curiosity? You have a day off from work and you're curious about Terry v Ohio?

And what is the relevance of how lawyers litigated before the internet have to the ease, accessibility, or viability of casebook research to an untrained layman?

And how much does a westlaw subscription cost?

And why are you trying to argue a point by begging questions?

# ? Aug 13, 2015 16:58

LeJackal: Apr 5, 2011

ozmunkeh posted:

Haha I bet you drive better when you're a little buzzed, don't you.

I wouldn't know, I don't drink and drive.

Pohl posted:

Honestly, you have never been drunk and wanted to drive even though you knew it was a horrible idea?

Yes, actually. I really wanted to drive, but I knew I was drunk...so I didn't. I called a sober friend and slept on his couch.

If I didn't have a friend available I would have likely just slept in my backseat, and then got arrested for DWI.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 17:00

Pohl: Jan 28, 2005; In the future, please post shit with the sole purpose of antagonizing the person running this site. Thank you.

LeJackal posted:

I wouldn't know, I don't drink and drive.

Yes, actually. I really wanted to drive, but I knew I was drunk...so I didn't. I called a sober friend and slept on his couch.

If I didn't have a friend available I would have likely just slept in my backseat, and then got arrested for DWI.

Then you are a good person because most people just get in their car and drive when intoxicated.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 17:02

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Randbrick posted:

Why would you want public access to the law absent an actual need for such access? Idle curiosity? You have a day off from work and you're curious about Terry v Ohio?

And what is the relevance of how lawyers litigated before the internet have to the ease, accessibility, or viability of casebook research to an untrained layman?

And how much does a westlaw subscription cost?

And why are you trying to argue a point by begging questions?

Even if westlaw were free if you waive your right to effective counsel you are an idiot. Someone said the law is not available to the public. He's wrong.

As for pre internet litigation: proof than one can be very effective without westlaw. See eg every attorney in my office over the age of 50.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 17:05

Randbrick: Sep 28, 2002

Welp I've been IDed in a show-up conducted 48 hours after the incident, and then interrogated with ambiguous indications I was free to leave, during which I made arguably inculpatory statements that may or may not be usable against me depending on a mixed fact and law inquiry.

And in the course of my arrest by warrant, the police found a plastic baggie hanging partially out of a box in my closet that may or may not be large enough to conceal a person, and it is ambiguous whether the discovery was made before or after my arrest, and I am uncertain when and where I was finally and formally under arrest while 5-6 police were in my home, several of whom were with the county sheriff, and two of which were with the city police.

On my way to the station house, I had an extended conversation with a very nice deputy about the dangers of substance abuse. I wonder what that was all about.

Good thing I've got a Westlaw subscription, like people do. Gonna figure this stuff out. Hopefully I'm not in jail without bond.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 17:06

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Randbrick posted:

Welp I've been IDed in a show-up conducted 48 hours after the incident, and then interrogated with ambiguous indications I was free to leave, during which I made arguably inculpatory statements that may or may not be usable against me depending on a mixed fact and law inquiry.

And in the course of my arrest by warrant, the police found a plastic baggie hanging partially out of a box in my closet that may or may not be large enough to conceal a person, and it is ambiguous whether the discovery was made before or after my arrest, and I am uncertain when and where I was finally and formally under arrest while 5-6 police were in my home, several of whom were with the county sheriff, and two of which were with the city police.

On my way to the station house, I had an extended conversation with a very nice deputy about the dangers of substance abuse. I wonder what that was all about.

Good thing I've got a Westlaw subscription, like people do. Gonna figure this stuff out. Hopefully I'm not in jail without bond.

If those are your facts free westlaw won't help you.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 17:08

Randbrick: Sep 28, 2002

ActusRhesus posted:

Even if westlaw were free if you waive your right to effective counsel you are an idiot. Someone said the law is not available to the public. He's wrong.

As for pre internet litigation: proof than one can be very effective without westlaw. See eg every attorney in my office over the age of 50.

You regard the fact that people trained to use case reporter books...can use case reporter books as an argument that people not trained to use case reporter books can use case reporter books?

And what on earth does "availability" mean to you? Clearly, "access" to the law, in your mind, does not come with any level of understanding or use of the law. It's like saying "I have access to a car," because you can visibly see a car.

Why would you want to pretend that John Q Layman has the tools to find cases and precedent because he can go hang out with the sovereign citizens at the county courthouse when you acknowledge that your definition of "access" precludes all utility?

# ? Aug 13, 2015 17:10

Pohl: Jan 28, 2005; In the future, please post shit with the sole purpose of antagonizing the person running this site. Thank you.

Freelaw is something you turn to when you the entire system has failed you. It isn't in anyway a good thing. (in terms of legal help if you have a freaking lawyer).

Pohl fucked around with this message at 17:15 on Aug 13, 2015

# ? Aug 13, 2015 17:12

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Randbrick posted:

Why would you want public access to the law absent an actual need for such access? Idle curiosity? You have a day off from work and you're curious about Terry v Ohio?

Yes? Half the case law I know comes from someone citing a case or a law, or getting in an argument, and deciding to look it up and read it so I understood it better.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 17:15

Pohl: Jan 28, 2005; In the future, please post shit with the sole purpose of antagonizing the person running this site. Thank you.

Jarmak posted:

Yes? Half the case law I know comes from someone citing a case or a law, or getting in an argument, and deciding to look it up and read it so I understood it better.

I do the same poo poo, no big deal.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 17:17

Randbrick: Sep 28, 2002

Jarmak posted:

Yes? Half the case law I know comes from someone citing a case or a law, or getting in an argument, and deciding to look it up and read it so I understood it better.

Here's the problem in a better analogous context, I think:

You can google up a state statute which provides, for example, that the cops can't enter a residence to perform an arrest for a misdemeanor committed outside their presence absent warrant. And you may think, intuitively, that an arrest conducted under those circumstances implicates the 4th Amendment and the exclusionary rule. Google can give you that level of understanding.

If you westlawed up the same statute, then Westlaw would provide you with the necessary treatise excerpts, case history, and law review articles to know that statute does not have a constitutional dimension and does not implicate the exclusionary rule. The text of the statute and basic intuition would never tell you that, and would in fact give you a false impression as to the state of the law.

That's what access means to me. It isn't merely the ability to find a statute, but the ability to find a statute contextualized in a way that's genuinely practical and useful.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 17:21

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Randbrick posted:

You regard the fact that people trained to use case reporter books...can use case reporter books as an argument that people not trained to use case reporter books can use case reporter books?

And what on earth does "availability" mean to you? Clearly, "access" to the law, in your mind, does not come with any level of understanding or use of the law. It's like saying "I have access to a car," because you can visibly see a car.

Why would you want to pretend that John Q Layman has the tools to find cases and precedent because he can go hang out with the sovereign citizens at the county courthouse when you acknowledge that your definition of "access" precludes all utility?

Giving a nonlawyer free access to westlaw won't make them a lawyer either.
The case law is available to the public. The fact you don't know how to read and interpret it as well as a trained lawyer is not the state keeping the citizenry ignorant. It's recognizing that training and education matter.

By your logic because I don't understand a medical journal as well as an MD the AMA is keeping me down.

Edit: also lol law review articles.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 17:23

Randbrick: Sep 28, 2002

ActusRhesus posted:

Giving a nonlawyer free access to westlaw won't make them a lawyer either.
The case law is available to the public. The fact you don't know how to read and interpret it as well as a trained lawyer is not the state keeping the citizenry ignorant. It's recognizing that training and education matter.

By your logic because I don't understand a medical journal as well as an MD the AMA is keeping me down.

Edit: also lol law review articles.

By my logic, there is a huge distinction to be had between the public interest in making our own laws clear and comprehensible, and making medical research generally clear and comprehensible. I do not expect people to understand medical research, because society does not hold people to account for their understanding of medical research.

The ignorance of the law being no excuse is still the law of the land. That we expect people to understand that law, and then point to google as their means of doing so, when that method is utterly inadequate and frequently misleading in practice, is the problem.

And....yeah, law review articles? They're a great way to mine case citations, particularly if your local precedent is ambiguous or unfriendly.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 17:28

ozmunkeh: Feb 28, 2008; hey guys what is happening in this thread

LeJackal posted:

I wouldn't know, I don't drink and drive.

Good for you. However, plenty of people do, and since the police are unable to monitor all cars on all roads at all times, having a random police presence when and where drunk driving tends to happen is a good thing because gently caress those people.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 17:31

Pohl: Jan 28, 2005; In the future, please post shit with the sole purpose of antagonizing the person running this site. Thank you.

ActusRhesus posted:

Giving a nonlawyer free access to westlaw won't make them a lawyer either.
The case law is available to the public. The fact you don't know how to read and interpret it as well as a trained lawyer is not the state keeping the citizenry ignorant. It's recognizing that training and education matter.

By your logic because I don't understand a medical journal as well as an MD the AMA is keeping me down.

Edit: also lol law review articles.

This is completely off topic, but I don't know what the hell classes they put lawyers through. I have a good friend that is a corporate lawyer and he talks just like you, and it drives me crazy.
I'm not trying to put you down right now, I hope you know. The way he talks is just really cold.

I see the same thing coming from you. I'm sure my choice of speech annoys the hell out of you as well.

I don't know how to make this better because I'm not sure it ever will be good, but I appreciate your posts even if I have a strong disagreement to to them.
I don't think you are a horrible person. I probably should have sent this in IM, but meh.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 17:39

Solkanar512: Dec 28, 2006; by the sex ghost

ActusRhesus posted:

Giving a nonlawyer free access to westlaw won't make them a lawyer either.
The case law is available to the public. The fact you don't know how to read and interpret it as well as a trained lawyer is not the state keeping the citizenry ignorant. It's recognizing that training and education matter.

By your logic because I don't understand a medical journal as well as an MD the AMA is keeping me down.

Heh, kind of like those idiots on Facebook who think they can prove that vaccines or GMOs are evil just because they can google up random papers in Pub-Med.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 17:52

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Solkanar512 posted:

Heh, kind of like those idiots on Facebook who think they can prove that vaccines or GMOs are evil just because they can google up random papers in Pub-Med.

I like to think of corgis as genetically modified wolves.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 17:58

Jarmak: Jan 24, 2005

Randbrick posted:

Here's the problem in a better analogous context, I think:

You can google up a state statute which provides, for example, that the cops can't enter a residence to perform an arrest for a misdemeanor committed outside their presence absent warrant. And you may think, intuitively, that an arrest conducted under those circumstances implicates the 4th Amendment and the exclusionary rule. Google can give you that level of understanding.

If you westlawed up the same statute, then Westlaw would provide you with the necessary treatise excerpts, case history, and law review articles to know that statute does not have a constitutional dimension and does not implicate the exclusionary rule. The text of the statute and basic intuition would never tell you that, and would in fact give you a false impression as to the state of the law.

That's what access means to me. It isn't merely the ability to find a statute, but the ability to find a statute contextualized in a way that's genuinely practical and useful.

If you're so ignorant as to the basic structure of law that you don't understand the difference between a state statute and the constitution then access to Westlaw isn't what's holding you back.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 18:14

Hot Dog Day #91: Jun 19, 2003

ITT: people annoyed at the common law system.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 18:27

Vahakyla: May 3, 2013

Discussing about lawyering, law school, Westlaw and other such matters does not pertain to Police or the application of Criminal Justice.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 18:31

Radbot: Aug 12, 2009; Can't post for 3 years!

Why do we even have lawyers as long as people can look up case law?

# ? Aug 13, 2015 18:44

WhiskeyJuvenile: Feb 15, 2002; by Nyc_Tattoo

ActusRhesus posted:

As for pre internet litigation: proof than one can be very effective without westlaw. See eg every attorney in my office over the age of 50.

They had Westlaw (or whatever it was called). Shepard's Citations were actual books.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 18:44

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

Lets see if I can segue back..."don't wave your right to counsel" is not helpful advice if you (or your assets) are charged with crimes that don't get free public defenders and you can't afford an attorney.

Especially, if it is your money or means of transport to your employment that has been charged with a crime.

I wouldn't want to have to try to defend my car's innocence of a drug crime in court based on what I learned at the library.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 18:49

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

WhiskeyJuvenile posted:

They had Westlaw (or whatever it was called). Shepard's Citations were actual books.

And are still available at your public law library!

# ? Aug 13, 2015 18:51

fosborb: Dec 15, 2006; Chronic Good Poster

Trabisnikof posted:

Lets see if I can segue back..."don't wave your right to counsel" is not helpful advice if you (or your assets) are charged with crimes that don't get free public defenders and you can't afford an attorney.

Especially, if it is your money or means of transport to your employment that has been charged with a crime.

I wouldn't want to have to try to defend my car's innocence of a drug crime in court based on what I learned at the library.

This is what legal aid clinics are for.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 18:52

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

ActusRhesus posted:

And are still available at your public law library!

"Hi, Mr. Librarian, my personal vehicle has been charged with a drug crime, what books should I read to defend my car in court so that I can make it work without taking a taxi?"

:rolleyes:

fosborb posted:

This is what legal aid clinics are for.

you mean a charity not available to everyone? Also many legal aid clinics won't actually handle criminal cases.

Edit: Since we live in a world where the victims of a bomber can barely get free legal aid against the bomber's lawsuits, I struggle to believe that if my car got charged with a drug crime I could just waltz into a clinic and get represented.

Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 18:57 on Aug 13, 2015

# ? Aug 13, 2015 18:53

Laphroaig: Feb 6, 2004; Drinking Smoke; Dinosaur Gum

Pohl posted:

I have a good friend that is a corporate lawyer and he talks just like you, and it drives me crazy.

The way he talks is just really cold.

I see the same thing coming from you. I'm sure my choice of speech annoys the hell out of you as well.

http://users.rider.edu/~suler/psycyber/conflict.html

quote:

In online communications, we have no visual or auditory cues to help us to decipher the intent, meaning, and tone of the messenger.

All we have are the words on a computer screen, and we hear those words in our head.

All of our communications, online and in real-time, are filled with projections. We perceive the world through our expectations, needs, desires, fantasies, and feelings, and we project those onto other people. For example, if we expect people to be critical of us, we perceive other people's communication as being critical - it sounds critical to us even though it may not be. We do the same thing online; in fact we are more likely to project when we are online precisely because we don't have the visual or auditory cues to guide us in our interpretations. How we hear an email or post is how we hear it in our own heads, which may or may not reflect the tone or attitude of the sender.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 19:00

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Under what statute is your car getting charged with a drug crime?

# ? Aug 13, 2015 19:06

MariusLecter: Sep 5, 2009; NI MUERTE NI MIEDO

ActusRhesus posted:

Under what statute is your car getting charged with a drug crime?

You're precious. :allears:

# ? Aug 13, 2015 19:08

chitoryu12: Apr 24, 2014

Randbrick posted:

And how much does a westlaw subscription cost?

WestLaw pricing is done by negotiation. I'll copy and paste a blog post I found on 2010 of their prices.

quote:

Here�s what my Westlaw plan looked like as of early February (this month, a scheduled price increase brought the total cost up to $514):

All Cases & Statutes NY Gold w/Regs Plus $301.88
Law Reviews & Journals $ 54.61
Results Plus $133.35
Total $489.84

# ? Aug 13, 2015 19:09

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

MariusLecter posted:

You're precious.

No. Really. How is your car getting charged? In what universe are you going into court to defend your car?

# ? Aug 13, 2015 19:14

Lemming: Apr 21, 2008

ActusRhesus posted:

No. Really. How is your car getting charged? In what universe are you going into court to defend your car?

From a really quick google search http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/207/693/2263004/

It's all the asset forfeiture laws. They charge your stuff with a crime and then you have to go to court and prove it wasn't used to commit/the proceeds from a crime. At least that's my understanding.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 19:15

Trabisnikof: Dec 24, 2005

ActusRhesus posted:

Under what statute is your car getting charged with a drug crime?

Excuse my, the example should be that the car is getting seized using the process of civil forfeiture due to it being suspected of being related to a drug crime. Or the example could be that your saving were seized because you were driving with money or your home was seized because your child got caught selling weed on the front porch.

None of those have to result in you being charged, but you still need to hire a lawyer or get hosed.

Score one for proving the point of how stupid "look it up at the library" is as advice.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 19:19

LeJackal: Apr 5, 2011

ActusRhesus posted:

No. Really. How is your car getting charged? In what universe are you going into court to defend your car?

Don't you claim to be a prosecutor? Or a lawyer? Shouldn't you know this kind of information already?

I don't think anyone is misreading your posts, AR. Either:
A) You're a horrifically ignorant lawyer
or
B) You misrepresent yourself to assert some veneer of authority
or
C) You are a lawyer, and you know better, but you just post like an rear end in a top hat because you're an rear end in a top hat

# ? Aug 13, 2015 19:20

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

Lemming posted:

From a really quick google search http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/207/693/2263004/

It's all the asset forfeiture laws. They charge your stuff with a crime and then you have to go to court and prove it wasn't used to commit/the proceeds from a crime. At least that's my understanding.

That's not charging a car with a crime. It's an administrative proceeding because a person committed a crime.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 19:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 30, 2024 11:18

ActusRhesus: Sep 18, 2007; "Perhaps the fact the defendant had to be dragged out of the courtroom while declaring 'Death to you all, a Jihad on the court' may have had something to do with the revocation of his bond. That or calling the judge a bald-headed cock-sucker. Either way."

LeJackal posted:

Don't you claim to be a prosecutor? Or a lawyer? Shouldn't you know this kind of information already?

I don't think anyone is misreading your posts, AR. Either:
A) You're a horrifically ignorant lawyer
or
B) You misrepresent yourself to assert some veneer of authority
or
C) You are a lawyer, and you know better, but you just post like an rear end in a top hat because you're an rear end in a top hat

Asset forfeiture is not the same as charging an inanimate object with a crime.

# ? Aug 13, 2015 19:22

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Let's Debate the Police and Criminal Justice

«‹›378 »