|
The Warszawa posted:Filing fees exist to deter frivolous filings, and so on with all court fees. Judicial economy is a recognized interest. But how is that applicable when I am not the one filing the frivolous case? If I get a ticket for some minor crime that I did not commit, I get acquitted of the charges, in many jurisdictions I still am forced to pay for the pleasure of being hauled to court to defend myself. Shouldn't the city pay that cost since they are the one bringing the frivolous charges?
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 03:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
lfield posted:It's an open-carry state. Do you think police should shoot everyone they see with a gun? And when someone inevitably responds "But someone called 911": Should police tend to shoot people open carrying who are reported to 911? What happens when the white civilians routinely call 911, but only when they see a black person with a gun?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Here I bolded the part of my post where I specifically answered what you're curious about!: The only thing the Constitution says about bail is a limiting statement, there's nothing in there that requires the use of payment for bail. Eliminating paid bail in favor of, say, electronic monitoring for minor crimes as the article suggests is the goal the would not run afoul of the Constitution. I'm curious though, why doesn't the existing bail system run afoul of the 14th Amendment? The current bail system basically guarantees poor people facing trial stay in jail, while the rich get to go home - this cannot reasonably be called equal protection. Same goes for fines levied by courts, a $1000 fine may be crippling to someone without means while being irrelevant to someone who can pay. It's a two-tiered "justice" system that only further impoverishes the poor. Making bail/fines/fees a percentage of assets rather than an absolute amount would be a great step towards creating a legitimately equitable alternative. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 03:34
|
|
|
Those are some pretty terrible charts.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 03:38
|
|
|
lfield posted:It's an open-carry state. Do you think police should shoot everyone they see with a gun? Open carry has gently caress all to do with Tamir Rice. Especially if he obviously looked like a minor (as many of the same people are trying to claim).
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 03:40
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:But how is that applicable when I am not the one filing the frivolous case? If I get a ticket for some minor crime that I did not commit, I get acquitted of the charges, in many jurisdictions I still am forced to pay for the pleasure of being hauled to court to defend myself. Shouldn't the city pay that cost since they are the one bringing the frivolous charges? Are they actually criminal violations are administrative violations? That said, filing fees apply to all sorts of things, including pro hac vice motions, so it's basically a transaction cost of participatIon. They can usually be waived upon showing of need via an in forms pauperis motion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 03:44
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Does open carry mean that it's OK to point a gun at people, as described in the 911 call? Does open carry make motions towards the gunshaped object in your waistband (which would be concealed at that point but whatever I guess), possibly pulling it out, as cops approach a good idea? Open carry is all the police observed. I abso-loving-lutely do not want police to shoot black people who are reported by civilians as "waving guns around" because that is uniformly how white people will report black people open carrying. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/29/here-s-what-happens-when-a-black-man-open-carries-a-gun.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Are they actually criminal violations are administrative violations? A friend got a criminal violation of "Driving without Insurance," even though he had insurance. The letter of the law is that you need it "in writing" which a judge agreed meant that you could bring it up on your phone, but the officer who wrote the citation did not accept. My friend fought it, despite it being a far better option to just bring a printed version to the clerk and have them dismiss it, and they charged him a court fee. He paid the fee because for a fee it is not clear at all how to fight it. Was this just because there was an alternative to him going before a judge? Why is the police officer's mistake (not accepting a valid form of insurance information) a valid reason to charge a fee? It is still a defense and he wouldn't have been in the situation without the state bringing frivolous charges.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 03:50
|
|
|
Devor posted:Open carry is all the police observed. 2. Did you read the article you linked? Different jurisdictions, and it notes white open carry types get arrested as well.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 03:56
|
|
|
Stereotype posted:A friend got a criminal violation of "Driving without Insurance," even though he had insurance. The letter of the law is that you need it "in writing" which a judge agreed meant that you could bring it up on your phone, but the officer who wrote the citation did not accept. My friend fought it, despite it being a far better option to just bring a printed version to the clerk and have them dismiss it, and they charged him a court fee. He paid the fee because for a fee it is not clear at all how to fight it. Was this just because there was an alternative to him going before a judge? Why is the police officer's mistake (not accepting a valid form of insurance information) a valid reason to charge a fee? It is still a defense and he wouldn't have been in the situation without the state bringing frivolous charges. It's important to understand that just because a position doesn't prevail doesn't make it frivolous, so it's not necessarily correct to say the officer's position was frivolous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 04:00
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:1. That's simply not true unless you think having a gun tuckedin the waistband is open. 1. Google seems to indicate that states have various threshholds for 'concealed' for the purposes of open carry. Some would consider that open. 2. The bottom line is that race contributes to police failing at their duty, and shooting someone who was not a threat. White people get talked to or arrested, blacks get arrested or shot. It's obviously a continuum of responses, but you won't lose money betting on black when there's a shooting of someone who was not being a threat.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Devor posted:1. Google seems to indicate that states have various threshholds for 'concealed' for the purposes of open carry. Some would consider that open. 2. The bottom line is that appealing to open carry in this situation is ridiculous. No open carry law I'm aware of would condone pointing a gun at people or making incredibly ill advised motions towards the waistband where the gun is located.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 04:21
|
|
|
Good thing Rice never pointed a gun at anyone. It is amazing how quickly people show off how little they know about something.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 04:28
|
|
|
AreWeDrunkYet posted:The only thing the Constitution says about bail is a limiting statement, there's nothing in there that requires the use of payment for bail. Eliminating paid bail in favor of, say, electronic monitoring for minor crimes as the article suggests is the goal the would not run afoul of the Constitution. What? The lawsuit is alleging something about bail violates the constitution, no one is trying to say the constitution requires bail. Also the current bail system does take assets into account, what are you talking about?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 04:37
|
|
|
I have a legal question. Didn't the cops falsify their police reports? Wasn't that a big part of this, that the video disproved their account of what happened? So isn't that illegal when a citizen does it? If I go and file a police report that's untrue aren't I probably going to get in trouble for it? So why aren't these cops at least in serious trouble for that? That's what I really don't understand. I get that a piece of poo poo prosecutor played defense attorney for a couple of cops who murdered a black kid because he cares more about the cops than the kid. I get that, totally. Its evil and hosed up but in a way I can wrap my mind around. But how is "oh yeah, they lied about it too" just brushed under the rug? Because like my thinking is "hey, idiots, you shouldn't have told a lie. You should have just trusted the corrupt system to protect you because it usually does." But once you get caught in the lies shouldn't that make you the sacrificial lamb? Save your corrupt system resources on smarter murdering or corrupt cops. Am I just totally off on this or misremembering something?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 04:39
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:1. What state's threshold isn't met by sticking a handgun in the waistband, especially when wearing winter clothing? I'm pretty sure Ohio's is (I certainly wouldn't recommend doing it without a permit; I also wouldn't recommend it with a permit but that's getting into a tangent). Someone being ignorant of their state's threshhold for open carry shouldn't be a reason for police to consider the individual to have an intent to commit murder, merely for their method of carrying a weapon that is otherwise legal. We're talking about shooting someone after a phone call, and no visible threatening acts observed by police. The police didn't see him point a gun at people. He had less than a second to 'motion'. The police murdered him when they pulled up, after they had apparently steeled themselves to shoot him if he moved.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Pretty much every case discussed in this thread had a massively incorrect police report. It doesn't matter because reasons and if you want to change that you hate workers rights.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 04:44
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:1. What state's threshold isn't met by sticking a handgun in the waistband, especially when wearing winter clothing? I'm pretty sure Ohio's is (I certainly wouldn't recommend doing it without a permit; I also wouldn't recommend it with a permit but that's getting into a tangent). Um....a lot of concealed carries carry them in a holster under the waistband. But its an open carry state, you do not need a permit. I don't think you understand what Open Carry means if you are mentioning permits. Especially if we are approaching this from the angle the police did: That he was a lot older than we know he was. Waco Panty Raid posted:2. The bottom line is that appealing to open carry in this situation is ridiculous. No open carry law I'm aware of would condone pointing a gun at people or making incredibly ill advised motions towards the waistband where the gun is located. He didn't point the gun at anyone. And the cops didn't give him any time to POSSIBLY even make a motion, considering that less than a second after he noticed them, he was shot and on the ground. Did you even watch the film?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 04:49
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:What? The lawsuit is alleging something about bail violates the constitution, no one is trying to say the constitution requires bail. The lawsuit appears to be alleging that using bail for minor crimes rather than releasing people on their own recognizance or using electronic monitoring, etc is inequitable. The article is really light on details though, so perhaps you're right. Jarmak posted:Also the current bail system does take assets into account, what are you talking about? It's arbitrary as far as I'm aware. Judges can take into account the means of a defendant when setting bail, but ultimately pick a number based on some combination of precedent and what feels good. I'm proposing that if and when cash bail is deemed appropriate, it should be set at a percentage of the defendant's assets and the dollar amount owed be based on the determination of that figure. And fines are generally codified as absolute figures, which certainly inequitably target the poor.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 04:55
|
|
|
Devor posted:Someone being ignorant of their state's threshhold for open carry shouldn't be a reason for police to consider the individual to have an intent to commit murder, merely for their method of carrying a weapon that is otherwise legal. We're talking about shooting someone after a phone call, and no visible threatening acts observed by police.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 05:02
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Who said his method of carry was evidence of intent to murder? I'm saying that open carry has nothing to do with Tamir Rice because it doesn't make him pointing a gun (or a close facsimile of one) at people or his motions towards his waistband somehow OK. Got it. Shoot to kill at all times. That is not how this works. Go watch the video and shut the gently caress up about him pointing a gun at anyone until you do so.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 05:05
|
|
|
Is there really a big difference between standing around in a public place pointing a gun off camera at who knows what, and pointing it at "someone"? There IS a pretty big difference between open carry of a gun in an open holster/slung/low ready and having it up and waving it around.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 05:13
|
|
|
Yey! Puppies!quote:Bush is now the North Port Police Department’s senior K-9 handler. His K-9, Tomy, has accumulated more than 25 bites since the start of 2012.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 05:15
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Got it. Shoot to kill at all times. Meanwhile, Old white woman goes to a police station, points a gun at civilians and officers, says "What are you doing? Shoot me!" & "What are you, scared?". They took her in alive. http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-points-bb-gun-cops-yelling-boom-boom-boom-article-1.2477494
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:Is there really a big difference between standing around in a public place pointing a gun off camera at who knows what, and pointing it at "someone"? There is also a big difference between apprehending a suspect and driving up on the grass less than 3 feet from him and shooting him point blank with no attempt to de-escalate the situation. But whose counting right? Better to shoot first and ask questions later. This is not judge dredd.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 05:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Um....a lot of concealed carries carry them in a holster under the waistband. But its an open carry state, you do not need a permit. I don't think you understand what Open Carry means if you are mentioning permits. You need a permit for concealed carry in Ohio (unless you want to try your hand at the old affirmative defense, I think that's still on the books, but you're still getting arrested and going to trial at that point). Carrying a gun in your waistband is at the very least skating close to the edge (and that is with the shirt tucked behind the gun, Tamir was wearing loose clothing). CommieGIR posted:He didn't point the gun at anyone. And the cops didn't give him any time to POSSIBLY even make a motion, considering that less than a second after he noticed them, he was shot and on the ground. Hell even in the frames where a person wasn't visible he still wouldn't be covered by open carry. What open carry system permit you to have a raised pistol in hand?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 05:30
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Yes he did? That blob they blurred out was a person he was walking next to, right? No, it wasn't, but nice wishful thinking Waco Panty Raid posted:Hell even in the frames where a person wasn't visible he still wouldn't be covered by open carry. What open carry system permit you to have a raised pistol in hand? You heard it here folks: If you are black, no playing with toy guns, because its shoot first, ask questions later. Waco Panty Raid posted:Did Tamir have a IWB holster? Would you recommend carrying a gun in the waistband without one? But this is exactly the kind of digression I didn't want to get into. Again, toy gun. No attempt to apprehend the suspect, just bang, dead, done. I don't want to live in your world of law enforcement, because that is dystopian as poo poo, and you're an idiot for pushing for it as an acceptable solution. Go troll somewhere else where you are not obviously proposing absurd dystopian futures.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 05:35
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:There is also a big difference between apprehending a suspect and driving up on the grass less than 3 feet from him and shooting him point blank with no attempt to de-escalate the situation. Yeah but you said, "He didn't point the gun at anyone."
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 05:37
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:Yeah but you said, "He didn't point the gun at anyone." No no, keep telling me how the police driving up on him and shooting him point blank from the comfort of their car was a legitimate method to use in this situation. No attempt at desecalation. No attempt at apprehension. We just shoot and kill on sight now for 911 calls. Got it. Elendil004 posted:Yeah but you said, "He didn't point the gun at anyone." Shut up and go watch the video. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xIvQVU_pmBg He goes from sitting at a bench, to wander to the other side of the patio and then the cop car pulls up and they shoot him point blank through the passenger window. No pointing. No waving. No reaching. No warning. You guys are actually arguing that they were justified in shooting a 12 year old without attempting to defuse the situation that they probably actually knew nothing more than the 911 call told them at this point. CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 05:42 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 05:40
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No no, keep telling me how the police driving up on him and shooting him point blank from the comfort of their car was a legitimate method to use in this situation. No attempt at desecalation. No attempt at apprehension. Hahaha what the gently caress are you even talking about? The only thing I'm rebutting is your claim that he "never pointed the gun at anyone" and even then only to say "well he pointed the gun at stuff, in public, that's still pretty bad right?" But you can keep having a masturbatory fantasy where I am some cop-defending madman cackling at this kids death.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 05:42
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:Hahaha what the gently caress are you even talking about? The only thing I'm rebutting is your claim that he "never pointed the gun at anyone" and even then only to say "well he pointed the gun at stuff, in public, that's still pretty bad right?" But you can keep having a masturbatory fantasy where I am some cop-defending madman cackling at this kids death. He didn't. I posted the video for you. Show us where he did it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 05:43
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:No, it wasn't, but nice wishful thinking CommieGIR posted:You heard it here folks: If you are black, no playing with toy guns, because its shoot first, ask questions later.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 05:44
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Really? Then what was it? Not in that video, because there are not blobs and no other people other than the cruiser, the two officers, and Tamir Rice. Waco Panty Raid posted:What does this have to do with everything Tamir Rice did was okeedokee under open carry? The point about Open Carry is that in a state where its legal, police show up and shoot a suspect in less than 5 seconds arriving on scene? No deescalation? No attempt to dissuade the perp? Just wham, bam, thank you mam? How is open carry possibly supposed to work in such a state?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 05:47
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:He didn't. I posted the video for you. Show us where he did it.   He's even in a shooting stance in the first shot. Also note a clear other person in the second shot. Is that one of the cops because for someone who watched the video so much you're pretty adamant that it only shows three people... To compare, something like this would probably be OK under open carry laws, the top shot, not so much.  I want to say that I think the entire thing from the lovely dispatch to the grand jury is indicative of the systemic problems in American policing. Maybe we should focus on that instead of pedantry. Elendil004 fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 05:48
|
|
|
Elendil004 posted:
 Must be a different video. Got me.Elendil004 posted:I want to say that I think the entire thing from the lovely dispatch to the grand jury is indicative of the systemic problems in American policing. Maybe we should focus on that instead of pedantry. Maybe. Either way, changing the way police approach situations is something we need to get on. Their method was incorrect and crude.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 05:53
|
|
|
Yeah to be fair to this whole situation, the kid wasn't being very responsible or smart with that toy gun that looked very much like a real gun. That isn't a death sentence though and the officers who responded, and police in general, should remind themselves that their job title doesn't include "executions."
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 05:57
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:Not in that video, because there are not blobs and no other people other than the cruiser, the two officers, and Tamir Rice. CommieGIR posted:The point about Open Carry is that in a state where its legal, police show up and shoot a suspect in less than 5 seconds arriving on scene? No deescalation? No attempt to dissuade the perp? Just wham, bam, thank you mam?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 05:58
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Don't carry concealed when it'd be illegal, don't carry your gun in an irresponsible manner (like pointing it at people or in inappropriate directions), and don't make quick movements to your gun when the police show up sound like good places to start. gently caress you (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 05:59
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Don't carry concealed when it'd be illegal, don't carry your gun in an irresponsible manner (like pointing it at people or in inappropriate directions), and don't make quick movements to your gun when the police show up sound like good places to start He wasn't carrying a gun
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 06:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
Exclamation Marx posted:He wasn't carrying a gun An airsoft gun with the tip removed may as well be a gun and I believe in some states is considered one for crimes. Though: Stereotype posted:That isn't a death sentence though and the officers who responded, and police in general, should remind themselves that their job title doesn't include "executions."
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 06:06
|
|