|
nm posted:Yes, they never have a coroner testify as to the cause of death being poisoning v. a heart attack or whatever. See, you are still not getting the difference between an opinion based on scientific fact and "opinion testimony" based on whatever a so called expert wants to pull out of his rear end and give as proof. A cause of death can be scientifically proven. The cop murderer not being a murderer because of things is an opinion that has no scientific basis at all. One of these has a legitimate place in a grand jury proceeding; the other is just a garbage attempt to unduly influence the grand jury process. nm posted:An expert witness is an expert witness. They testify as to opinion. I respectfully disagree. Yes they are both opinions but, one is based on scientific fact; it can be analyzed, measured and quantified in a scientific manner. The other is just bullshit that comes right out of the so called expert's rear end and directly into his report. radical meme fucked around with this message at 21:04 on Oct 11, 2015 |
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
radical meme posted:See, you are still not getting the difference between an opinion based on scientific fact and "opinion testimony" based on whatever a so called expert wants to pull out of his rear end and give as proof. It isn't loving manufacturing evidence. This is manufacturing evidence: http://www.bakersfieldnow.com/news/local/Kern-County-prosecutor-facing-suspension-probation-for-dishonesty-295271881.html nm fucked around with this message at 21:01 on Oct 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 20:59
|
|
|
The bottom line is that one year after Tamir Rice was murdered by a cop it is a guarantee that absolutely no one will be indicted for the murder because the prosecutor went out of his way to make sure that there was evidence to refuse to indict.Jarmak posted:
This is just wrong on so many levels. radical meme fucked around with this message at 21:21 on Oct 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 21:10
|
|
|
nm posted:Hiring expert witnesses is not "creating evidence." I think the point here is that, in our adversarial legal system, the fact that the prosecutor spent time and effort creating* evidence that gets the defendant off the hook looks a wee bit shady given that the defendant was a police officer. If prosecutors did that for every defendant, the legal system would break down, so why is it okay to do it for one defendant? E: And hiring expert witnesses 100% is creating E2: E2: Sorry, I was using evidence in a non lawyerly way, I see what you were saying now. goatsestretchgoals fucked around with this message at 21:29 on Oct 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 21:23
|
|
|
radical meme posted:See, you are still not getting the difference between an opinion based on scientific fact and "opinion testimony" based on whatever a so called expert wants to pull out of his rear end and give as proof. So is your failing here that you don't understand what science is? Experts disagree on "scientific facts" all the time.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 21:24
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:So is your failing here that you don't understand what science is? Experts disagree on "scientific facts" all the time. There is no science whatever involved in the report of the two so called experts in this case. Science isn't involved in their opinions at all. They are giving legal opinions, not science based opinions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 21:43
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The general practice in the US legal system is that juries are meant to decide issues of fact, not issues of law (such as whether or not a law is just). How could the court tell? Aren't jurors under no legal obligation to have to explain how or why they reached their decision? And can judges override any jury? I've heard of overturning a guilty verict in civil cases, but can they override a not guilty in say a criminal case? Edit: Back in 90's I spent 5 years as office manager for a small firm in Miami* and one of the defense attorneys who rented an office in their building explained it as the heart of the legal system is mens rea (intent). While the prosecution may prove the defendant did commit every action ultimately the job of the jury is to determine intent. Yes he killed the guy but was it intentional or a mistake or something in between. So while they may agree on the facts presented to them they ultimately are the final say in whether the defendants intent was to break the law in question. (This was 25 years ago so may have mangled it). I guess the relevant example are when they charge someone with first degree murder, the jury can agree he did kill the guy but did not do so premeditated so they bring back a not guilty. He claimed juriy instructions are not legally binding as that would essentially be telling juries what they are allowed to decide and the reason you are judged by a group of 'your peers' they are the final say in someone's guilt or innocence. Of course being a defense attorney I know he's biased towards it. *If you know the class action suit "Gary Cohen vs Bellsouth Mobility I'm the one who calculated the damages. The fact that my numbers were used over a guy from Arthur Andrson still blows my mind. Bellsouth tried to scare off my boss by demanding to interview every class member not knowing he doesn't give a poo poo and agreed. Spent two years, the ones who we found and showed up got around 2-6k, the ones who didn't got $500 and two free years of cell service. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 22:17 on Oct 11, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 21:44
|
|
Toasticle posted:How could the court tell? Aren't jurors under no legal obligation to have to explain how or why they reached their decision? Unless the juror admit it, the judge usually can't. I'm less knowledgeable than the practicing lawyers, but I don't think there are direct ways to override a not guilty verdict in a criminal case, unless there's cause for mistrial (such as defense attorneys trying to get the jury to rule based on nullification). My crim pro is rusty from complete lack of use and a poor professor, though. Jury nullification is basically a fundamental structural flaw in the jury system- that said, it's not a "right", or an "obligation" of jurors to do use it. It's really, really not supposed to happen; otherwise, any 12 people can effectively ignore or rewrite any law, defeating the purpose of the entire rest of the democratic republican system of law.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 22:13
|
|
|
radical meme posted:There is no science whatever involved in the report of the two so called experts in this case. Science isn't involved in their opinions at all. They are giving legal opinions, not science based opinions. The role of expert opinion isn't to give a science based opinion. Experts in typical procedures, including in legal arenas, are frequently employed and there's nothing wrong with that. Additionally, expert reports are never evidence and serve only to inform the parties of what they intend to testify to. The grand jury will never see the reports - unless they go find them online which they'll be instructed not to do - but will instead have to judge based on what the experts actually testify to.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 22:17
|
|
|
Re: expert shopping. You don't always know what a witness will say until you get their report. Counter: Lets say that during a swat raid of the wrong house, the home owner shot a cop and killed him. The DA hires an expert thinking he will be able to show this guy is not acting in self-defense. Unsing the video, the expert's report says that it is absolutely self-defense. Should the DA hide that evidence to get the defendant? I'm absolutely not saying that something similar happened here, but I have seen similar stuff happen, like with DNA.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 22:26
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:Unless the juror admit it, the judge usually can't. I'm less knowledgeable than the practicing lawyers, but I don't think there are direct ways to override a not guilty verdict in a criminal case, unless there's cause for mistrial (such as defense attorneys trying to get the jury to rule based on nullification). My crim pro is rusty from complete lack of use and a poor professor, though. How is the any different from a grand jury? A secret group of people get to determine whether or not to bring charges against someone, then at the end another group of people get to decide whether those charges were proven. As said defense attorney tried to argue the government including the justice system still work for the public and said public has the right to both decide whether to charge and whether to convict period.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 22:28
|
|
Toasticle posted:How is the any different from a grand jury? A secret group of people get to determine whether or not to bring charges against someone, then at the end another group of people get to decide whether those charges were proven. As said defense attorney tried to argue the government including the justice system still work for the public and said public has the right to both decide whether to charge and whether to convict period. Grand juries are still supposed to be making a decision about the evidence, not a decision about the law. At the federal level, grand juries just decide the same issue of charge-relevant fact to a lower standard. They're still supposed to apply the law to the facts, not to decide whether the law is appropriate as written.
|
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
nm posted:Re: expert shopping. You don't always know what a witness will say until you get their report. Your hypothetical doesn't hold in a world where Bill Lewinski is the number one expert for police agencies. Every department in North America has him on speed-dial as the go to for decision based fact-making.
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
Bill Lewinski, everyone! http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/training-officers-to-shoot-first-and-he-will-answer-questions-later.html?_r=0
|
|
#
?
Oct 11, 2015 23:41
|
|
|
RaySmuckles posted:Bill Lewinski, everyone! That guy's pretty lovely. Probably not the best expert for the DA to hire, which is what people should have gone with first instead of "manufacturing evidence."
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 00:10
|
|
|
nm posted:That guy's pretty lovely. Probably not the best expert for the DA to hire, which is what people should have gone with first instead of "manufacturing evidence." FYI, since it appears you haven't read the stories regarding these reports, that guy isn't involved in the Tamir Rice case.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 00:34
|
|
|
radical meme posted:FYI, since it appears you haven't read the stories regarding these reports, that guy isn't involved in the Tamir Rice case. The Tamir Rice case doesn't require manufacturing evidence under the guise of 'SCIENCE!'. It was probably justified through Connor v Graham, where you don't have to manufacture poo poo, you can simply ignore reality while driving a truck full of dead bodies through the holes in the legal reasoning. It's succinct and different brand of terrible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 01:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:I don't think you're accurately describing the role of a DA in a grand jury, it isn't just to mindlessly present evidence. Expert testimony/reports are fairly common in grand juries from what I understand. Do you have evidence otherwise? This is such an idealistic representation of the actual consequences of DAs taking such an action that I'm forced to question whether you're arguing in good faith. Are you seriously denying that the effects of a DA calling an 'expert witness' of their choosing on a case has an even-handed effect on the case's outcome??
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 05:34
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:This is such an idealistic representation of the actual consequences of DAs taking such an action that I'm forced to question whether you're arguing in good faith. Are you seriously denying that the effects of a DA calling an 'expert witness' of their choosing on a case has an even-handed effect on the case's outcome?? where did you get the idea that DAs are even handed in their effects on a case?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:where did you get the idea that DAs are even handed in their effects on a case? And if they aren't, that doesn't strike you as being a problem? Especially when the entire toolbox of Ye Olde Jury Influencing Tools is presented to them on a silver platter by the current system by a law enforcement system that makes imprisoning as many citizens as possible a main priority?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
Liberal_L33t posted:And if they aren't, that doesn't strike you as being a problem? Especially when the entire toolbox of Ye Olde Jury Influencing Tools is presented to them on a silver platter by the current system by a law enforcement system that makes imprisoning as many citizens as possible a main priority? ... No, I don't think that prosecutors should be even handed. I think they should be prosecutors. They shouldn't prosecute crimes that aren't actually crimes, but they also shouldn't be acting as defense attorneys. The problem is that in cases where you have defenses like justifiable use of force, the prosecutor needs to have some idea of whether the use of force was justifiable in order to understand whether a crime was actually committed. Hence doing things like asking use of force experts to opine on the constitutionality of the action.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 06:43
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Also the cops being reckless with their approach doesn't really have any bearing on whether he had a reasonable fear, so it is irrelevant in this context. I think it's very relevant. What's the point of having open carry laws if a cop can just rush up to you and then decide he's scared of your gun and shoot you. E: And just from a professional standpoint, being reckless ought to get you reprimanded or possibly fired, at least that's what happens in my field if people are reckless at their jobs, but there I go again making the mistake of applying professional standards to cops. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 08:05 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 07:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I think it's very relevant. What's the point of having open carry laws if a cop can just rush up to you and then decide he's scared of your gun and shoot you. The type of people Open Carry laws are made for are different then the type of people that cops will rush and shoot if they see a gun on. Basically they're for white people. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 07:51
|
|
|
Dr Pepper posted:The type of people Open Carry laws are made for are different then the type of people that cops will rush and shoot if they see a gun on. I suspect that VitalSigns is aware of this. He may be pointing to a problem with how laws are actually applied.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 09:57
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:I suspect that VitalSigns is aware of this. He may be pointing to a problem with how laws are actually applied. Those laws shouldn't be on the god drat books if some loving cockroach out in Bumfuck or some loving cockroach in the city can use them to shield their white trash comrades from justice when they murder minorities.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 10:14
|
|
|
A good read here, transcript of a 60 minutes segment on Glenn Ford, who spent 30 years on death row at Angola because a prosecutor with a bad case stacked an all-white jury on him. Good news though, he did get a $20 gift card from the state when he got out, so he got to enjoy a meal before lung cancer killed him a few months later.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 11:45
|
|
|
Kalman posted:... No, I don't think that prosecutors should be even handed. I think they should be prosecutors. They shouldn't prosecute crimes that aren't actually crimes, but they also shouldn't be acting as defense attorneys. So do you care to address why prosecutors will seemingly contort every which way to ensure that the typical suspect in a murder investigation is charged, while in effect acting like defense attorneys (calling in experts that will provide friendly testimony, trying to present the most favorable version of events to grand jurors, etc) when the suspect in question is a cop? The complaints you're hearing in this thread wouldn't exist if everyone got the same treatment. If every single murder case got this kind of thorough review before being presented to grand jurors, including the hiring of experts who specialize in justifying the use of force, then it wouldn't be a big deal if a cop was treated the same way. But of course that's not what happens. The usual suspect will get at best indifference from the prosecution, more likely the DA will be careful to present just the facts that make sure the suspect is charged. And again, this would be a totally different issue if cops also got railroaded the same same way. The tough on crime folks would object to the first scenario (everyone gets a thorough review that errs on the side of exoneration) and criminal justice reform folks would continue to object to the second scenario (DA can indict a ham sandwich). But a large part of the voices in this thread (at least speaking for myself, but it's the sentiment I get as well) are more concerned about the fact that there is clearly at least a two-tiered justice system where 'typical' (read: poor, minority) suspects are treated one way, while law enforcement has a totally different experience. And the police apologists in the thread point at the legal system law enforcement faces and say, "Well, that's how the system is supposed to work". Then when abuses of typical suspects are brought up, the tune changes to "Well, they do what they can with the resources they have. That's just how the system works". It's a duplicitous argument that repeats itself time after time in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 15:14
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I think it's very relevant. What's the point of having open carry laws if a cop can just rush up to you and then decide he's scared of your gun and shoot you. He was fired? Also this wasn't open carry and if someone is open carrying you can see the weapon before you get close so I don't know what you're rambling about.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:A good read here, transcript of a 60 minutes segment on Glenn Ford, who spent 30 years on death row at Angola because a prosecutor with a bad case stacked an all-white jury on him. Good news though, he did get a $20 gift card from the state when he got out, so he got to enjoy a meal before lung cancer killed him a few months later. quote:Dale Cox: ... the system did not fail Mr. Ford. Incredible.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 15:52
|
|
|
I don't know what word you can call that man except for "monster."
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 15:59
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Also this wasn't open carry and if someone is open carrying you can see the weapon before you get close so I don't know what you're rambling about. Actually we don't have to quibble about how visible it was or when they noticed it, it wasn't open carry because it was a toy. Are you really making the argument that they thought it was a concealed weapon therefore the death penalty is okay, because I'm pretty sure that's not the punishment for unlicensed CCW. poo poo, what if he had had a license, they didn't even check. I think if we are going to have the right to carry firearms, you have to be doing something more threatening than carrying a firearm for the police to be able to legally execute you on the street. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:18 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 16:07
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Actually we don't have to quibble about how visible it was or when they noticed it, it wasn't open carry because it was a toy. Can you point out the part of this post that has anything whatsoever to do with the statement I made about the relevance of how they approached too fast?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 16:19
|
|
|
It's relevant because if the reason they were scared is because they didn't assess the situation, then that is a pretty bad incentive to do bad police work. Why should police officers who do their homework and check things out before shooting have a harder defense than someone who just rushes in shooting up a kid and says he was scared. "I didn't bother to check things out before I rolled up and shot someone" should not be a defense to murder.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:It's relevant because if the reason they were scared is because they didn't assess the situation, then that is a pretty bad incentive to do bad police work. Why should police officers who do their homework and check things out before shooting have a harder defense than someone who just rushes in shooting up a kid and says he was scared. Yes it should, our entire legal system is based on the idea malice should be punished more harshly then idiocy. I'm sure you're not trying to use the word murder correctly there but it's pretty ironic that being an idiot is and should be a defense to murder, as its the distinction between murder and manslaughter.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 16:31
|
|
|
This was malice though, sorry, you know that and I know that. Not checking out the situation could be idiocy, but it could just be malice too if they wanted to shoot the kid and didn't care. I'd be willing to entertain the possibility of idiocy if they didn't falsify their police report afterwards. They clearly weren't actually dumb enough to think he was a threat, which is why they made up threatening things to say he did which didn't happen. E: Huh, there's a certain irony here in you defending idiocy as a mitigating factor, when every time an unarmed person gets executed for a "furtive movement" or touching his waistband you're in here saying the victim was too stupid to live and deserved it VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:39 on Oct 12, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 16:36
|
|
|
Radish posted:I don't know what word you can call that man except for "monster." That would be a insult to monsters: quote:According to Louisiana law, Glenn Ford was entitled to $330,000, about $11,000 for every year of wrongful imprisonment. But the state is denying him the money. Why? In the original trial, prosecutors said Ford knew a robbery of Rozeman's jewelry shop was going to take place. But he didn't report it. Ford was never charged with that crime, but the state says that's reason enough to deny him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
ratbert90 posted:That would be a insult to monsters: He's the person the law should be protecting us from, not petty drug addicts or whatever.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 17:05
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Hence doing things like asking use of force experts to opine on the constitutionality of the action. Genuinely curious here, but how is opinion on the Constitutionality of the action germane to a case concerning violation of Ohio law? As far as I am aware, this is not a federal justice department case concerning violation of civil/Constitutional rights, and this grand jury would have no jurisdiction over such a case nor would it be allowed to deliberate on such a violation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 17:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:This was malice though, sorry, you know that and I know that. Not checking out the situation could be idiocy, but it could just be malice too if they wanted to shoot the kid and didn't care. I'm defending idiocy as a mitigating factor compared to malice, that's not ironic or inconsistent. Also loving lol if you think they killed Tamir Rice out of malice. I'm not sure what's more ridiculous, the idea that you think some cops decided "hey lets go murder that black child for funsies" and staged the scene, or the fact that you actually watched the video of that sideshow and thought "yup looks like they planned that".
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 17:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 16:24 |
|
|
Also wasn't everyone just saying that you're not allowed to bring up crimes that someone wasn't convicted of in trial?quote:In the original trial, prosecutors said Ford knew a robbery of Rozeman's jewelry shop was going to take place. But he didn't report it. Ford was never charged with that crime, but the state says that's reason enough to deny him. How could they bring that up?
|
|
#
?
Oct 12, 2015 17:11
|
|