|
Kalman posted:In Missouri grand jury disqualifications are explicitly the same as petit jury. Given that the guy was involved in suits directly against the prosecuting attorney, a strike for cause would be totally normal. How so? http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/54000000701.html quote:540.070. No challenge to the array of grand jurors, or to any person summoned as a grand juror, shall be allowed except as provided in section 540.045 and in section 540.050. 540.045 talks about residency requirements http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/54000000451.html quote:540.045. 1. The provisions of sections 494.400 to 494.505 relating to the qualifications and disqualifications of petit jurors and exemptions from service as a petit juror are applicable to grand jurors drawn and selected under the provisions of this chapter. 540.05 talks about a juror not being qualified by law / nonattendance http://www.moga.mo.gov/mostatutes/stathtml/54000000501.html quote:540.050. If any person is summoned as a grand juror who is not qualified as required by law, he may be challenged and discharged if such challenge is verified according to law or by his own oath. In such case, and also in case of nonattendance of any grand juror after he shall have been qualified, or in case any grand juror is excused by the court from further service for any cause, the court shall cause another grand juror to be summoned and sworn.
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 01:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 04:30 |
|
|
Radish posted:I hosed up my sentence and meant that both that we are in this situation where that happens is is grotesque as well. Don't worry, I gotcha. I'm a very welcoming fire that will accept all, even radishes, which aren't tasty. Still, I wonder whether Dead Reckoning posted:He wasn't killed for failing to follow instructions, he was killed because the cop thought he was pulling a gun on him (so he says.) is the new 'Dead Reckoning' cops driving under obscured conditions is the reason they failed to prevent one of their own from gunning down not once, but twice, the wife of their fellow officer. Because, well, driving reaction times. Both times with a young girl watching a family member killed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 01:45
|
|
|
nm posted:Not after they are empaneled and grand juries are different than regular juries. I'll defer to you completely on that because my jury selection knowledge comes strictly from trial juries, I was assuming the process was the same.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 01:51
|
|
|
Kalman posted:In Missouri grand jury disqualifications are explicitly the same as petit jury. Given that the guy was involved in suits directly against the prosecuting attorney, a strike for cause would be totally normal. Some article quoted an aclu brief that seemed to say different.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 02:10
|
|
|
nm posted:Some article quoted an aclu brief that seemed to say different. I am SHOCKED the petitioner made their case sound good and didn't cite to 540.045. "540.045. 1. The provisions of sections 494.400 to 494.505 relating to the qualifications and disqualifications of petit jurors and exemptions from service as a petit juror are applicable to grand jurors drawn and selected under the provisions of this chapter." 494.400-494.505 includes 494.470, which is definitely about challenges for cause. Kalman fucked around with this message at 02:22 on Oct 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I am SHOCKED the petitioner made their case sound good and didn't cite to 540.045. Still weird that they kicked him after empaneling. Can't see how that would be legal unless he lied or something.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
nm posted:Still weird that they kicked him after empaneling. Can't see how that would be legal unless he lied or something. Omitted that he was the guy who had sued McCullogh, possibly? It's not impossible, just weird. Be interesting to see the DA's answer when they file it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 02:46
|
|
|
This one is still hilarious to me, the kid was clearly panicking and trying to stop the over aggressive officer from brutalizing him further (because a routine traffic stop (which the officer was basically baiting people into) clearly warrants screaming at someone to get out of their car and then tazing them in the back), but no the demon teenager ATTACKED the BRAVE officer UNPROVOKED and thus needed to be put down like a dog. Oh well, justice served. This here is a great example of unnecessary escalation, but you know, no legal obligation, bang bang take that kid. Mavric fucked around with this message at 04:13 on Oct 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 04:11
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Omitted that he was the guy who had sued McCullogh, possibly? It's not impossible, just weird. Be interesting to see the DA's answer when they file it. Honestly, the ACLU generally doesn't file frivelious bullshit. They may pick close legal cases sometime, but they do vet the poo poo out of their cases.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 04:58
|
|
|
nm posted:Honestly, the ACLU generally doesn't file frivelious bullshit. They may pick close legal cases sometime, but they do vet the poo poo out of their cases. I mean, this is close in that there's no clean "for cause" reason in the statute that would apply - that said, it does raise a potential appearance of conflict to have a party opponent to one of the lawyers as a juror so it's not like it's a bad challenge to make. It definitely doesn't appear to be the sort of prosecutorial misconduct it's being presented as - I'd certainly ask to strike a juror if they'd been involved in a lawsuit against counsel on either side and would expect it to be granted.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 06:32
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:He wasn't killed for failing to follow instructions, he was killed because the cop thought he was pulling a gun on him (so he says.) Putting aside for a moment the fact that the video doesn't seem to show this, if someone is holding an unholstered handgun, or if they move their hand towards their holstered handgun, then I should be able to shoot them, right? edit: This kid looks like he's pulling a gun, so I should be able to shoot him, right?  This guy looks like he's trying to pull a gun, so same thing, I should be able to shoot him.  And based on your statements I shouldn't face criminal charges for either. And of course rifles are exempt from this...if Tamir Rice was carrying a toy rifle, by your own statement, that wouldn't, or shouldn't, be cause for someone to fear for their life. Sharkie fucked around with this message at 08:55 on Oct 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 07:12
|
|
|
Kalman posted:I mean, this is close in that there's no clean "for cause" reason in the statute that would apply - that said, it does raise a potential appearance of conflict to have a party opponent to one of the lawyers as a juror so it's not like it's a bad challenge to make. I believe the ACLU's beef is that it's being done after the grand jury's been impaneled, which they say law doesn't allow for outside of misconduct.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 08:33
|
|
|
Mavric posted:This one is still hilarious to me, the kid was clearly panicking and trying to stop the over aggressive officer from brutalizing him further (because a routine traffic stop (which the officer was basically baiting people into) clearly warrants screaming at someone to get out of their car and then tazing them in the back), but no the demon teenager ATTACKED the BRAVE officer UNPROVOKED and thus needed to be put down like a dog. Oh well, justice served. Yeeeah, nah. I'm no Kalman or Dead Reckoning but this one's got video of the kid attacking the cop (as in actually taking a poke at the cop's face, not "dropping into a bull stance" 140 feet away) after resisting being cuffed and held for identification following refusing to provide ID on request. Sure, the cop pulled him over for flashing his brights (and given the dialogue while Guilford was still in his car it was a stop to point out flashing your drat highbeams at someone is probably a violation in that state) and decided to take him in once he started being all shady about providing ID, I'd be right there with you calling for a pork roast if the kid took off running and got shot by the cop without busting him in the face first. There's plenty of evidence of cops doing everything they can to avoid harming one hair on a white person's head even with said white person actually shooting at them, and when poo poo like this pops up I'm inclined in light of that to give the cop the benefit of doubt.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 09:23
|
|
|
FAUXTON posted:Yeeeah, nah. I'm no Kalman or Dead Reckoning but this one's got video of the kid attacking the cop (as in actually taking a poke at the cop's face, not "dropping into a bull stance" 140 feet away) after resisting being cuffed and held for identification following refusing to provide ID on request. Sure, the cop pulled him over for flashing his brights (and given the dialogue while Guilford was still in his car it was a stop to point out flashing your drat highbeams at someone is probably a violation in that state) and decided to take him in once he started being all shady about providing ID, I'd be right there with you calling for a pork roast if the kid took off running and got shot by the cop without busting him in the face first. There's plenty of evidence of cops doing everything they can to avoid harming one hair on a white person's head even with said white person actually shooting at them, and when poo poo like this pops up I'm inclined in light of that to give the cop the benefit of doubt. I remember posting about this particular event at first, and I recall saying (and I think people agreed) that the problem was not the actual shoot itself, but that the situation escalated when it really didn't need to. The kid was being annoying and kind of shady, but he wasn't being really dangerous. Yeah, once it got to that point if I were the cop I'd have been shooting too, but the problem was how he handled it such that got to a point where gunfire was necessary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 09:40
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:I believe the ACLU's beef is that it's being done after the grand jury's been impaneled, which they say law doesn't allow for outside of misconduct. Again, while its not clear that it does for sure, 494.465(1) seems to contemplate juror challenges after the grand jury is empaneled. There's a "within 14 days of discovery or reasonably could have discovered" clause which is available for any of the cause challenge sections which, if satisfied, seems pretty clearly available after empanelment (since it's presented as an alternative to an "at any time before swearing in" clause.) Maybe the ACLU will win, but it definitely doesn't seem to be the kind of clearly illegal action it's being reported as. Absent more facts on why he was removed and what was known when, it doesn't seem like the best case for them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 15:37
|
|
|
The Mattybee posted:I remember posting about this particular event at first, and I recall saying (and I think people agreed) that the problem was not the actual shoot itself, but that the situation escalated when it really didn't need to. The kid was being annoying and kind of shady, but he wasn't being really dangerous. Yeah, once it got to that point if I were the cop I'd have been shooting too, but the problem was how he handled it such that got to a point where gunfire was necessary. Yes, that's my point. It should have never gotten to that situation. But again, no legal requirement.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 16:54
|
|
|
The Mattybee posted:I remember posting about this particular event at first, and I recall saying (and I think people agreed) that the problem was not the actual shoot itself, but that the situation escalated when it really didn't need to. The kid was being annoying and kind of shady, but he wasn't being really dangerous. Yeah, once it got to that point if I were the cop I'd have been shooting too, but the problem was how he handled it such that got to a point where gunfire was necessary. Also, judging from the kid's dialogue he seemed to really think that he hadn't done anything arrest-worthy. The fact that he was recording the stop himself from the beginning suggests that he was fully aware of America's rampant police brutality problem and afraid that he would be the next victim. So of course when he started getting arrested when he didn't think he deserved it and then tased by a guy already kneeling on his back to better force his hands behind his back, he panicked and fought back. What should have been a completely routine stop ended up escalating to a physical fight that ended in the unarmed arrestee being shot dead because the officer approached with high aggression practically every step of the way.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 17:17
|
|
|
chitoryu12 posted:Also, judging from the kid's dialogue he seemed to really think that he hadn't done anything arrest-worthy. The fact that he was recording the stop himself from the beginning suggests that he was fully aware of America's rampant police brutality problem and afraid that he would be the next victim. So of course when he started getting arrested when he didn't think he deserved it and then tased by a guy already kneeling on his back to better force his hands behind his back, he panicked and fought back. What should have been a completely routine stop ended up escalating to a physical fight that ended in the unarmed arrestee being shot dead because the officer approached with high aggression practically every step of the way. I believe his family announced that he'd spent the last few months watching sovereign citizen/use this one weird trick to avoid arrest videos on YouTube to what they described an unhealthy degree. It is my opinion that he was deliberately trying to antagonise the police officer into a reaction that he could then put up on YouTube, hence why he was being so obstructive while recording the incident. Now the police officer should have just left him in the car until he had backup and could subdue him without use of the taser, but he didn't. That's the fault of the officer. As the guy who wasn't going anywhere suddenly flips from just being mouthy to punching his face in and getting shot. It was a needless escalation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 17:49
|
|
|
Also let's not forget this cop couldn't beat a 17 year old kid in a fight even with a Taser. By his own admission he's a pathetic wimp who thought a teenager was going to beat him into unconscious and then, for some reason, execute him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 18:35
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Also let's not forget this cop couldn't beat a 17 year old kid in a fight even with a Taser. By his own admission he's a pathetic wimp who thought a teenager was going to beat him into unconscious and then, for some reason, execute him. I'm not sure why you seem to think that a 17 year old athlete doesn't pose a legitimate threat, but I know at least one 17 year old paratrooper that would disagree with you.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 21:41
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Also let's not forget this cop couldn't beat a 17 year old kid in a fight even with a Taser. By his own admission he's a pathetic wimp who thought a teenager was going to beat him into unconscious and then, for some reason, execute him. Cops have weapons specifically so that it's not a fair fight. Do you think an arrest is an old tyme duel?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 21:45
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Also let's not forget this cop couldn't beat a 17 year old kid in a fight even with a Taser. By his own admission he's a pathetic wimp who thougby a teenager was going to beat him into unconscious and then, for some reason, execute him. I agree, OP; only the strong should have the right to enforce the law. No more women and noodle-armed girly-men. I'm sure policing will be improved when all departments are staffed with the most roided-out übermenschen we can find.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 21:57
|
|
|
The police just want to be the punisher you know. Wednesday night, an officer, responding to the City Hall protest that followed Kevin Davis' confirmation hearing, was seen wearing a patch with a skull stitched over an American flag. Commanders are probing why the patch was stitched on the uniform. Altering the uniform in any way is against departmental policy. "It doesn't send the right message," said George Harris who was at City Hall Friday, "especially not in this particular climate." http://foxbaltimore.com/news/local/out-of-step-baltimore-officers-altered-uniform-in-question  What the gently caress are they thinking?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Hooded Reptile posted:
The same thing that cop was thinking when he tazed a teenager while on top of him.
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 22:40
|
|
|
Hooded Reptile posted:What the gently caress are they thinking? "I AM THE LAW"
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
-Troika- posted:Cops have weapons specifically so that it's not a fair fight. Do you think an arrest is an old tyme duel? And he used it. Is him having a weapon going to help him win if he doesn't use it?
|
|
#
?
Oct 17, 2015 22:52
|
|
|
Hooded Reptile posted:What the gently caress are they thinking? Maybe they just really liked 'American Sniper.'
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 03:23
|
|
|
hobotrashcanfires posted:There is a video of it. Has anyone else noticed that in a lot of these videos that the police seem to roll up like right on top of people? I mean if you have a gun, and are worried about a gun or getting your gun stonlen and used on you, why are you closing to punch and kick range? I get getting that close on traffic stops, but why are they putting themselves in more danger (other then, "now I can say I was scared and shoot a guy")? That seems like some lovely training.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 03:32
|
|
|
You're looking at the wrong way. Putting yourself in unnecessary danger is the perfect way to justify murdering a 12 year old/mentally ill person/non-compliant teenager/etc. you get the idea.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 04:26
|
|
|
Hooded Reptile posted:The police just want to be the punisher you know. I guess he saw that "are we the baddies?" sketch and got entirely the wrong message from it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 04:33
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I agree, OP; only the strong should have the right to enforce the law. No more women and noodle-armed girly-men. I'm sure policing will be improved when all departments are staffed with the most roided-out übermenschen we can find. Actually, we'd probably be better off with police officers who are physically fit and able to subdue most suspects without needing to resort to weapons except against armed individuals.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 04:38
|
|
|
yeah seriously, I know he thinks that was a sick burn but why the hell would you want a "noodle-armed" man in a job that requires physical force? More importantly did you notice how he equivocated said noodly-armed men to just plain old "women", that was an awfully sexist freudian slip there.
Mavric fucked around with this message at 04:47 on Oct 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 04:43
|
|
|
I think there's a difference between making sure that police officers are physically fit, and demanding that they be able to win every weapon-free fight on the basis of their own physical prowess. A size and weight advantage makes a giant difference, that's why women are, in general, at a disadvantage compared to men. That's not sexism, it's reality. There are legitimate reasons to make sure the police have an unfair advantage over the people they deal with; if it's being misused on a regular basis, which it is, the misuse is the problem which needs to be addressed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 05:45
|
|
|
It's called the continuum of force pyramid you sperg lords. An officer is supposed to by in good shape and trained in basic martial arts / self defense techniques, as well as verbal deesculation techiniques. If a person is getting rowdy, an officer should be able to calm them down, and if that doesn't work use joint locks or other submission techniques to force compliance. That's the way these things used to be done. Now the officers go straight to attack mode when they feel their authority isn't being respected enough. Police officers have batons, mace, and tazers. An officer should be able to beat down an average person without resorting to shooting them. If the officers judges that he or she can't do that, then you call and wait for back up. The problem isn't just some officers being racist fascist pieces of poo poo, its's also about some officers being too lazy to put in the work needed to get physical with a suspect, as well as being unwilling to deal with the added danger, even tho that's what they signed on for.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 06:08
|
|
|
Tasers have to be one of the worst things to happen to policing in the past few decades. My RCMP officer friend steadfastly refuses to carry one, because they can only be deployed in lethal-force situations according to the rules of the RCMP, and he doesn't trust the taser to work in any such situation. There are enough other options available to police officers that tasers simply shouldn't be necessary, and the use of a taser carries a significant risk as well.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 06:28
|
|
|
PT6A posted:Tasers have to be one of the worst things to happen to policing in the past few decades. My RCMP officer friend steadfastly refuses to carry one, because they can only be deployed in lethal-force situations according to the rules of the RCMP, and he doesn't trust the taser to work in any such situation. There are enough other options available to police officers that tasers simply shouldn't be necessary, and the use of a taser carries a significant risk as well. Tasers were always meant to be an easier and safer way for officers to subdue a violent or fleeing suspect without needing to resort to physical beatings or gunfire. The current problems with taser use stem from officers using it as a wholesale substitute for physical restraint or verbal de-escalation, tasing people if they resist putting their arms behind their back or start walking away from a cop who wants to make an arrest.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 06:33
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:I agree with you on (1), but most jurisdictions with that rule don't consider lawful behavior of any kind to be "instigating." Most of the time, when the police initiate a confrontation, it is in the course of their lawful duties. Department policies and best practices are not laws, and breaking them does not constitute unlawful conduct. I disagree with (2), because it isn't an objective standard, and invites a jury to start second guessing whether or not a defendant could possibly have avoided a confrontation with the benefit of hindsight, rather than focusing on what the defendant knew and reasonably believed at the time. Juries are bad at assessing legal standards that run counter to their intuitions: recall the juror from Serial who asked, "If he was innocent, why didn't he take the stand and defend himself?" If I leave my flat screen TV visible from the street and my front door unlocked, or walk through the wrong part of town wearing conspicuously nice clothes and a gold watch, it shouldn't matter that my behavior "created" a bad situation, when the people who are trying to victimize me have agency too, and chose to act unlawfully. As to your last point, no one disagrees, but the difficulty is in defining what constitutes "reasonable precautions," or more accurately, the minimum precautions necessary to avoid criminal liability. The whole point of recklessness though is that someone's actions didn't technically break any laws, but a reasonable person should have foreseen the danger and for that reason the reckless person has criminal liability for the results. Just saying "well it's not illegal for a cop to roll up onto a park and stop mere feet from someone who might be armed and then get scared he's now in point-blank range" doesn't mean that it's reasonable to do it or that he or that now he can kill the kid in self-defense. Tamir Rice wasn't breaking any laws at the time he was shot either. As for your scenarios about getting robbed or raped: those are totally different, the cop wasn't standing around in a short skirt when a little boy attacked him, the cop created the all of the circumstances that lead to his fear, and those circumstances were reasonably foreseeable. And we know the cops were trained to foresee these consequences because they were able to cook up all the right lies about proper procedures when it came to filing his false police report: the child was frightening and endangering imaginary bystanders, the cops gave him three chances to follow nonexistent orders to put his hands in the air, the cop didn't shoot until the child already had the gun in his hand, etc. They knew exactly how to properly handle the situation, and they disregarded it deliberately or out of negligence, but were sure able to include all the right moves in their false report.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 11:19
|
|
|
Filing a false report should be a firing at the least and criminal charges at the most.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 12:53
|
|
|
Radish posted:Filing a false report should be a firing at the least and criminal charges at the most. "Filing a false instrument" is actually a crime that could be leveled against them but it seems to be reserved for civilians. Personally I think cops should be held to higher punishments for breaking the law, but anytime someone brings that up, the pro-cop side starts their pearl clutching about how unconstitutional that would be.
|
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 13:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 04:30 |
|
|
Why would that be unconstitutional, nobody is drafted into being a cop. We hold people in positions of power and responsibility to higher standards of behavior than ordinary people all the time. Martha Stewart went to prison for selling some stock. E: Heck, could we even do it administratively, within the law? Make it an affidavit that anything of material relevance to a crime or to use of force on someone is sworn to be truthful to the best of the cop's knowledge so it's instantly perjury if a video comes out that blatantly contradicts materially important facts like the Rice case? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:04 on Oct 18, 2015 |
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2015 13:30
|
|