|
I don't disagree with much in your post, Toasticle, but because of the derail potential you mention, I think it might be best to put that in a separate thread- even if it would nominally fit into this one. vvvv That's a very good point. My personal torture fetish is reading DnD. But I'm a sadomasochist, so I post here too. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 03:21 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 03:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:I don't disagree with much in your post, Toasticle, but because of the derail potential you mention, I think it might be best to put that in a separate thread- even if it would nominally fit into this one. We've tried that before, it just serves as a honeypot for morons who use it to detail their torture fetishes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 03:18
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:This is a great result for the defense, right? In general, a hung jury is basically a do-over. If it was a 1-11 split, that's better news for the defense than 11-1, and so on. From skimming the CNN coverage, they seem to think the bigger question is what to do regarding the other officers' trials, where the state reportedly wants to use this guy's testimony against those defendants. If his case still isn't resolved because of the mistrial when those deadlines hit, and his testimony would tend to incriminate him, he can plead the 5th and refuse to testify unless the prosecutor is willing to offer immunity for his statements. (If, on the other hand, he had already been charged, tried, and convicted/acquitted, he could be forced to testify.) In that sense the question would be how much they need him for the other cases and whether they can get him on the stand. I remember reading about the case back when and thinking that several of the charges sounded really, really thin, so anything that makes life more difficult isn't good news.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 04:13
|
|
|
I'll leave it at that post if people think it's a derail. It's a really touchy subject for me and as much as I may disagree with a lot of people here I do think this is probably the one thread where it could be discussed without the 'lol defending kidfuckers' assholes finding it and turning it into poo poo. I may be a dick but there are some people here that may have more useful insight on the legal side than in the other shitstorms this subject draws. But it still does have the risk of said assholes finding it and doing the typical 'bullet to the brain' shitposting so Ill drop it if people feel it's too off topic. I am curious what the lawyers think of the way the law treats those even just accused though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 07:54
|
|
|
Van Dyke Indicted on 6 Murder Counts for Laquan McDonald Shooting Piggy gonna fry.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:38
|
|
|
I'm a layman, can someone explain to me how the murder of one person can result in being indicted on six counts?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 17:56
|
|
|
snorch posted:I'm a layman, can someone explain to me how the murder of one person can result in being indicted on six counts? Yeah this seems like some state specific nonsense, can someone explain it?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:03
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yeah this seems like some state specific nonsense, can someone explain it? Only thing I can think of is that 6 of the gunshots were independently lethal and the prosecution is running with it to either spike the ball for political reasons or pressure the defendant for a plea bargain.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:Van Dyke Indicted on 6 Murder Counts for Laquan McDonald Shooting It says a lot about the state of US policing that everytime something like this comes up I have to google the name of the dead black guy to remember which of the executions we're talking about this time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
CommanderApaul posted:Only thing I can think of is that 6 of the gunshots were independently lethal and the prosecution is running with it to either spike the ball for political reasons or pressure the defendant for a plea bargain. Yeah but normally in order to charge someone with multiple crimes there has to be at least one element of the crime that is unique.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yeah but normally in order to charge someone with multiple crimes there has to be at least one element of the crime that is unique. I know, it's weird. I'd like to see the actual indictment, it should be enlightening.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:14
|
|
|
CommanderApaul posted:I know, it's weird. I'd like to see the actual indictment, it should be enlightening. Ask and you shall receive: http://www.chicagotribune.com/ct-jason-van-dyke-indictment-document-20151216-htmlstory.html Looks like they're variations of the same charge. Trabisnikof fucked around with this message at 18:21 on Dec 17, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
CommanderApaul posted:I know, it's weird. I'd like to see the actual indictment, it should be enlightening. Here is the full text of the indictment http://www.chicagotribune.com/ct-jason-van-dyke-indictment-document-20151216-htmlstory.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:19
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Ask and you shall receive: http://www.chicagotribune.com/ct-jason-van-dyke-indictment-document-20151216-htmlstory.html Holy gently caress the SC needs to quash this bullshit
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 18:20
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Holy gently caress the SC needs to quash this bullshit Is it actually possible for him to be convicted of all 6 at the same time? I'm under the impression that it's something like charging someone for 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder, and manslaughter so that the trial can determine which one is appropriate.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 19:34
|
|
|
Tubesock posted:Here is the full text of the indictment http://www.chicagotribune.com/ct-jason-van-dyke-indictment-document-20151216-htmlstory.html There are six charges, stemming from two underlying statutory provisions: 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) which requires intent, and 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2) which requires knowledge that the act reate a strong probability to kill (the "MURDER/INTENT TO KILL" vs "MURDER/STRONG PROB KILL"). The sentence for first degree murder carries a sentence from 20 to 60 years, ordinarily. 730 ILCS 5/5-4.5-20. This sentence can be enhanced for murders involving firearms (INJURE WITH FIREARM / INJURE DISCHARGE FIREARM / INJURE DISCHARGE FIREARM PROXIMATELY). The 20 to 60 year term is enhanced by 15 years if the defendant killed the victim while armed (INJURE WITH FIREARM), 20 years if the defendant killed the victim and fired a shot (INJURE DISCHARGE FIREARM), and 25 years if the defendant killed the victim with a shot (INJURE DISCHARGE FIREARM PROXIMATELY). 730 ILCS 5/5-8-1 These are, for some reason, six separate charges, but he's only facing possible conviction of one of them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 19:56
|
|
|
Honestly this article is pretty enraging. A teenage girl was coerced by police into recanting her rape accusation and essentially had her life ruined through public humiliation and legal prosecution. Later on, it turns out oops! She had been the victim of a prolific serial rapist who kept pictures of his assault of her on his hard drive.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 20:13
|
|
|
FourLeaf posted:Honestly this article is pretty enraging. A teenage girl was coerced by police into recanting her rape accusation and essentially had her life ruined through public humiliation and legal prosecution. Later on, it turns out oops! She had been the victim of a prolific serial rapist who kept pictures of his assault of her on his hard drive. Even the police admit that the investigators acted horribly and with no professional basis, yet no one was even disciplined: quote:After O’Leary was linked to Marie’s rape, Lynnwood Police Chief Steven Jensen requested an outside review of how his department had handled the investigation. In a report not previously made public, Sgt. Gregg Rinta, a sex crimes supervisor with the Snohomish County Sheriff’s Office, wrote that what happened was “nothing short of the victim being coerced into admitting that she lied about the rape.”
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 20:28
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Even the police admit that the investigators acted horribly and with no professional basis, yet no one was even disciplined: There's also this: quote:In 2008, Marie’s case was one of four labeled unfounded by the Lynnwood police, according to statistics reported to the FBI. In the five years from 2008 to 2012, the department determined that 10 of 47 rapes reported to Lynnwood police were unfounded — 21.3 percent. That’s five times the national average of 4.3 percent for agencies covering similar-sized populations during that same period. Thanks for posting the article by the way, that was a good albeit super depressing read.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:27
|
|
|
it's especially cool how the good Sgt. Mason thought minor discrepancies between his victim witness's statements had more bearing on the case than the abrasions on her wrists and within her vagina
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 21:30
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:These are, for some reason, six separate charges, but he's only facing possible conviction of one of them. Would that be the legal opposite of the cop who fired (over his shoulder?) into a crowd but got off because the only thing they charged him was intentional (whatever) so since it wasn't 'intentionally' aimed at anyone it got thrown out? Kind of a cover all bases thing?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
You got it backwards. The officer's defense was he intentionally fired into a crowd, therefore he was not guilty of being reckless when he killed that woman.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:Van Dyke Indicted on 6 Murder Counts for Laquan McDonald Shooting It's tumblr- sorry- but I think this is kinda relevant http://monkeyvillesockmonkeys.tumblr.com/post/135385448961/blackourstory-chrysalisamidst
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 22:16
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:There are six charges, stemming from two underlying statutory provisions: 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(1) which requires intent, and 720 ILCS 5/9-1(a)(2) which requires knowledge that the act reate a strong probability to kill (the "MURDER/INTENT TO KILL" vs "MURDER/STRONG PROB KILL"). Oh I misunderstood that as him facing conviction on all 6 because they they managed to turn each element of murder into its own crime.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 22:29
|
|
|
RareAcumen posted:It's tumblr- sorry- but I think this is kinda relevant It's not really though, because quote:It’s impossible to determine from the data whether individual complaints were dismissed for good reason, or whether investigators missed or failed to take into account evidence that would have resulted in more complaints being upheld. If you pursue the related Chicago Tribune investigation, it notes that quote:Nearly 60 percent of all the complaints were thrown out without being fully investigated because the alleged victims failed to sign required affidavits. What's more, investigators won't consider an officer's complaint history as part of the investigation, and many of the cases come down to the word of the officer versus the accuser. It appears that most of these allegations are being dropped because the complainant doesn't follow through, or because there isn't enough evidence to substantiate them, rather than because they're being improperly dismissed.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Except as was shown today in Lynnwood, police officers routinely bully women to retract their claims of rape.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 22:44
|
|
It would be interesting to see if, like habeas claims, some significant portion of the complaints are coming from a small number of crazy people flooding the system.Radbot posted:Except as was shown today in Lynnwood, police officers routinely bully women to retract their claims of rape. That...isn't particularly relevant.
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Except as was shown today in Lynnwood, police officers routinely bully women to retract their claims of rape. I don't think its very wise to use this as proof all police officers bully women into retracting rape allegations. That seems misguided at best.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 22:59
|
|
|
E:nmDiscendo Vox posted:It would be interesting to see if, like habeas claims, some significant portion of the complaints are coming from a small number of crazy people flooding the system. Here's the data, have at it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I don't think its very wise to use this as proof all police officers bully women into retracting rape allegations. That seems misguided at best. Proof was furnished long ago, this is just the latest example of a pattern that repeats itself over and over again. Some police don't do it but who cares?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:It would be interesting to see if, like habeas claims, some significant portion of the complaints are coming from a small number of crazy people flooding the system. He's drawing the comparison of witness intimidation, which is not unheard of in regards to police officers.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I don't think its very wise to use this as proof all police officers bully women into retracting rape allegations. That seems misguided at best. Yeah, stories like these totally don't undermine faith that police will actually pursue rape allegations in a crime already notorious for underreporting and peer pressure to let the offender slide. It certainly reassures people that are the victims of violent sexual assault and already mentally traumatized that there are brave police who actively discourage and ruin the lives of the accuser. Because not all cops.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:10
|
|
|
Hah almost none of the reports are available.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:13
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:I don't think its very wise to use this as proof all police officers bully women into retracting rape allegations. That seems misguided at best. Then I guess its good that nobody claimed that literally every single police officer does that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Look man, if not all police officers do it, it's not worth talking about. 100% of bad apples spoil the bunch, as the saying goes.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:17
|
|
|
I wonder why people trying to complain an officer violated their rights wouldn't want to risk their freedom over swearing an affidavit that carries a felony charge if the justice system decided to gently caress them (again)?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:18
|
|
|
DARPA posted:I wonder why people trying to complain an officer violated their rights wouldn't want to risk their freedom over swearing an affidavit that carries a felony charge if the justice system decided to gently caress them (again)? So the department should, what, punish officers on the basis of unsworn statements?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:20
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So the department should, what, punish officers on the basis of unsworn statements? Oh is that something somebody in this thread said? No? Then how about you shut the gently caress up
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
I'd say Yes? Why does a statement need to be sworn to investigate something internally? It isn't a criminal trial. It's an administrative punishment by their employer. If what the officer did gets elevated to a criminal matter then the statement can upgrade its sweariness.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 30, 2024 23:43 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:So the department should, what, punish officers on the basis of unsworn statements? Perhaps not, but people should certainly stop inviting cops to block parties or treating them like decent people until they get their poo poo together and figure out how to get rid of the bad apples.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2015 23:23
|
|