|
Toasticle posted:In a just alternate universe they should be able to use this douchbags statements during his disbarment for blatant bias in a job where he is supposed to be neutral. I would presume he's talking about laying the grounds for a civil suit Also what is it that you think he should be disbarred for? Deciding whether a case is worthy of charges is part of his job, he would have been completely within his appointed power to have just said "nope, this isn't a crime" and never bring a grand jury at all.
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
https://newrepublic.com/article/126...campaign=buffer Jamil Smith with a good summary of what's wrong with the no-trial decision, concluding that "The Tamir Rice investigation is the clearest example yet of why independent investigators and prosecutors must be assigned by state authorities to every case of police violence"
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:44
|
|
|
So was the police response of not aiding Tamir, checking for a pulse or anything after shooting him also correct? And tackling and cuffing his 14 year old sister while she watched her brother die, unable to help? What exactly was her crime?? I can't believe anyone is defending this poo poo unless you don a white ghost outfit in your off-time. It is the most outrageous example of blatant racist murdering of a child, committed by our government, the police know they hosed up and lied their rear end off in their reports, yet they still have a team of internet fuckoffs defending them. And I still have yet to see Tamir point his toy gun at anyone. I've seen him point a gun forward, above a gray blob and not even at it, or to the right, but not at anyone.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Hoho! The money grubbing parents thought they could use their dead 12 year old as a meal ticket. Timothy McGinty is on to their scam! Not in his town!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I would presume he's talking about laying the grounds for a civil suit I think he's referring to the DA insinuating that Rice's family is more interested in payout than justice. It's admittedly not illegal, and not really worthy of disbarring, but it is sleazy as gently caress.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:48
|
|
|
Meta Ridley posted:So was the police response of not aiding Tamir, checking for a pulse or anything after shooting him also correct? And tackling and cuffing his 14 year old sister while she watched her brother die, unable to help? What exactly was her crime??
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:49
|
|
|
Raerlynn posted:I think he's referring to the DA insinuating that Rice's family is more interested in payout than justice. It's admittedly not illegal, and not really worthy of disbarring, but it is sleazy as gently caress. I'll agree with you on that, that's pretty classless
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
McGinty being disbarred would probably be a net positive to society so I'd be fine with it regardless of if it's the correct procedure or not.Mr. Wookums posted:They blamed the sister's reaction to her brother being shot as to why the officers did not provide medical aid. Much like if he didn't want to be shot he wouldn't have had a toy gun in a public park, his sister should have known that grieving over her dying brother is reckless and forced the cops to neglect a child bleeding out on the ground.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:50
|
|
|
He's well enough connected that it won't happen.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:He's well enough connected that it won't happen. Oh course. I have no misconceptions that the justice system is able to police itself whatsoever but theoretically it would be a good thing if he wasn't able to practice law. VVV heh nice Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 20:55 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:52
|
|
|
Radish posted:Oh course. I have no misconceptions that the justice system is able to police itself whatsoever but theoretically it would be a good thing if he wasn't able to practice law. He isn't practicing law now.  
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Meta Ridley posted:And I still have yet to see Tamir point his toy gun at anyone. I've seen him point a gun forward, above a gray blob and not even at it, or to the right, but not at anyone. That last derail was because I asked if there was much difference between pointing a gun literally at someone, and taking a shooting stance in a public park pointing it off screen (at nobody, but still in a big public spot where there's no cause to be handling a gun that way even if you're an open carry nut). I don't really think there is.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
Yeah that makes sense. Sorry my brain started misfiring reading that. What an rear end in a top hat. No,they couldn't possibly want justice for their dead son they just want to get PAID.Jarmak posted:Also what is it that you think he should be disbarred for? Deciding whether a case is worthy of charges is part of his job, he would have been completely within his appointed power to have just said "nope, this isn't a crime" and never bring a grand jury at all. The first doesn't pertain to him, personally I'm against the concept entirely. I also realize there has to be some mechanism for not prosecuting cases where they have no chance in hell of winning, my only issue is DA's who use it to get their buddies off. My reason for disbarment is in an ideal world the job of the DA is present to the grand jury the facts of the case and nothing else. Here is what happened, here are the facts we have and why we think they point to the defendant committing the crime and actually leave it to the grand jury to decide. Opinions from paid 'experts' are for the trial, DA's acting as defense attorneys, letting (almost always a cop) give statements with no cross examinations is all horseshit. Grand jury hearings should also be available, the entire process should be as open as possible, only jury deliberations (grand or trial) should be off limits. The 'experts' thing alone needs to die. Who paid for them? How many times do regular defendants have the DA hire an expert much less multiple ones to try and sway the GJ into not charging? Toasticle fucked around with this message at 21:20 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 20:57
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:
I mean, at least that would have been honest of him, rather than using his duty to prosecute as an opportunity to defend in an arena that doesn't have the stringent standards of proof a jury trial is supposed to. Toasticle posted:
Clearly this would happen for any defendant, because remember: cops are subject to the same legal system as the rest of us. Or so certain posters have told us.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 21:25
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Yeah that makes sense. Sorry my brain started misfiring reading that. What an rear end in a top hat. No,they couldn't possibly want justice for their dead son they just want to get PAID. Anyone else the DA didn't want to charge he just wouldn't have charged, the entire grand jury song and dance with experts was about attempting to prove to the public that he was right about the fact the cop shouldn't be charged. Its politics .
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Toasticle posted:Grand jury hearings should also be available, the entire process should be as open as possible, only jury deliberations (grand or trial) should be off limits. Why shouldn't a prosecutor hire expert witnesses to testify to a GJ about precedent or complex legal issues?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 22:36
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Why shouldn't a prosecutor hire expert witnesses to testify to a GJ about precedent or complex legal issues? It's the prosecutor's job to make the state's case, not to convince a jury one isn't required.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:It's the prosecutor's job to make the state's case, not to convince a jury one isn't required. The state's case is that Tamir Rice deserved to die. Justice has been done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 22:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Why shouldn't a prosecutor hire expert witnesses to testify to a GJ about precedent or complex legal issues? With respect to those two specific things, neither strike me as being appropriate subject matter for expert testimony. The jury shouldn't be deciding what the law is. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 22:58 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 22:56
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:The state's case is that Tamir Rice deserved to die.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:It's the prosecutor's job to make the state's case, not to convince a jury one isn't required. I understand if the DA in this case felt a conflict of interest because he was forced to advocate for a position he felt was morally untenable. All the same, the state convened this grand jury through entirely legal means and any lawyer (DA or defense or otherwise) who feels unable to be a strong advocate for their client for any reason should recuse themselves. Then, if he wants to hit the talk show circuit arguing against charges, so be it. But a defense attorney who so willfully botched their client's case would be censured, and so should this DA.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 23:03
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:It's the prosecutor's job to make the state's case, not to convince a jury one isn't required. Grand Juries have long been used for investigative purposes, particularly against public officials, though in this context its a little anachronistic. It seems DAs have started to revive the practice in order to try to avoid having to take political responsibility for not charging cops. I could understand focusing on this grand jury stuff if people were trying to prove that the DA punted, but there's no need as he's readily admitting he punted. He's shouting from the rooftops that he told everyone so and the grand jury agreed with him. There was absolutely nothing shady about the way the grand jury portion of this was handled, If people want to be pissed at the DA for not thinking a crime occurred then that's valid but trying to make out the way the grand jury was handled to be some sort of corruption or subversion of the processes is ridiculous.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
The idea that a prosecutor is going to waste time in a grand jury getting experts that contradict his supposed case for anyone other than a cop is pretty absurd. I mean maybe they do that but it seems like if he was going to he wouldn't bother with the grand jury in the first place and just not attempt the prosecute the person. The point of tanking a grand jury intentionally (and that's exactly what happened here) is to create the illusion that the cop has been processed by the system fairly like everyone else when in actuality he is getting the special perk of having the prosecutor letting him off scot free. They've overused this trick so publicly though that people are catching on to the scam and understand what's really going on and they are losng their plausible deniability. Edit: sure is weird all these prosecutors are so up beat about their high profile they supposedly want to go to court getting stuffed in an environment where they have almost total control over evidence and testimony. I guess they are just happy to be bad at their jobs in very specific situations. Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 23:13 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 23:06
|
|
|
I'm wondering how long it's going to take for reprisal attacks on individuals responsible to start, and the subsequent use of masks on police like the third world does. If something isn't done soon in the legal sense by the Feds, that's where I see it going.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
PhilippAchtel posted:I understand if the DA in this case felt a conflict of interest because he was forced to advocate for a position he felt was morally untenable. All the same, the state convened this grand jury through entirely legal means and any lawyer (DA or defense or otherwise) who feels unable to be a strong advocate for their client for any reason should recuse themselves. It doesn't work like that, a defense attorney has an ethical duty to defend his client regardless of guilt, a DA has an ethical duty to not pursue charges against people they think are innocent.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 23:11
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Grand Juries have long been used for investigative purposes, particularly against public officials, though in this context its a little anachronistic. It seems DAs have started to revive the practice in order to try to avoid having to take political responsibility for not charging cops. We're making sure that he can't evade the political repercussions of not charging the officers. He does not get to say "Welp, that's what the grand jury decided". It was his decision to present evidence that left no other result. You say "absolutely nothing shady", but this whole process was a farce. You are perhaps technically correct that it was not illegal, but it was pointless. If he thinks no crime has committed, then don't charge the officers. Have an actual grand jury proceeding where you ask for an indictment, or don't have one. We have learned quickly that a prosecutor cannot be forced by the grand jury to indict. This was not an investigational grand jury - that would be awesome! Let the grand jury decide what experts to hire, what witnesses to call. That would be amazing. A different prosecutor could have indicted the ham sandwich.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:There was absolutely nothing shady about the way the grand jury portion of this was handled, If people want to be pissed at the DA for not thinking a crime occurred then that's valid but trying to make out the way the grand jury was handled to be some sort of corruption or subversion of the processes is ridiculous. So if it wasn't a cop that killed a child, the DA would also have brought in biased "expert" witnesses to avoid a prosecution? Surely there's plenty of examples of him having done just that if that's the case. And if not, his inability to handle cases equitably in his position as a public servant should be at the least grounds for recusal, if not outright disbarment. Also, gently caress Cleveland for electing this rear end in a top hat. If he manages to get himself re-elected that tells you all you need to know about those people. AreWeDrunkYet fucked around with this message at 23:24 on Dec 29, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 23:21
|
|
|
Devor posted:We're making sure that he can't evade the political repercussions of not charging the officers. He does not get to say "Welp, that's what the grand jury decided". It was his decision to present evidence that left no other result. Yeah which is why I said if the DA was attempting to pretend otherwise it would be worthwhile bitching about the way the Grand Jury was handled to prove that he had punted it. He's not doing that at all though, he's happily telling everyone that he intentionally punted and that he brought it to the grand jury for the purposes of affirming his decision not to charge. There's no attempt to hide behind "welp the grand jury said no" here. AreWeDrunkYet posted:So if it wasn't a cop that killed a child, the DA would also have brought in biased "expert" witnesses to avoid a prosecution? Surely there's plenty of examples of him having done just that if that's the case. And if not, his inability to handle cases equitably in his position as a public servant should be at the least grounds for recusal, if not outright disbarment. No, if it wasn't a cop he wouldn't have bothered going through any of that, he would have just not prosecuted at all. see: George Zimmerman before the public caught wind
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
lfield posted:Yes. A 12-year-old should not expect to be shot for playing with a toy gun in the park. lfield posted:Such as what? What would you have done? VitalSigns posted:No he's taking a risk that poorly-trained police would happen upon him. Why is it so hard to accept that Tamir Rice acted inappropriately, even for a 12 year old? Do you need this to be a slam dunk so bad you can't accept the slightest tarnish on your narrative? Spoke Lee posted:Either address this or drop this bullshit argument. Jarmak posted:Anyone else the DA didn't want to charge he just wouldn't have charged, the entire grand jury song and dance with experts was about attempting to prove to the public that he was right about the fact the cop shouldn't be charged.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
Why exactly did this case look weaker?
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
And he looked bigger and older. Stupid fucker should have known better.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 23:42
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I'm wondering how long it's going to take for reprisal attacks on individuals responsible to start, and the subsequent use of masks on police like the third world does. If something isn't done soon in the legal sense by the Feds, that's where I see it going. Have you seen the uniforms of some of those police officers in South America? They're pretty Judge Dredd.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 23:43
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yeah which is why I said if the DA was attempting to pretend otherwise it would be worthwhile bitching about the way the Grand Jury was handled to prove that he had punted it. He's not doing that at all though, he's happily telling everyone that he intentionally punted and that he brought it to the grand jury for the purposes of affirming his decision not to charge. There's no attempt to hide behind "welp the grand jury said no" here. The fact that he used the phrase "The Grand Jury's Decision", as if it could possibly have differed from his pre-determined opinion, is the problem. Congresswoman Marcia Fudge, emphasis mine: quote:"My thoughts and prayers are with the family of Tamir Rice and the greater Cleveland community. Despite today's grand jury decision not to indict the police officers in the shooting death of Tamir Rice at the request of Prosecutor McGinty, I ask the community to continue to support the Rice family and remain calm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:It doesn't work like that, a defense attorney has an ethical duty to defend his client regardless of guilt, a DA has an ethical duty to not pursue charges against people they think are innocent. You say that like the American legal system gives a single gently caress about ethics at this point. Some individuals might but the system does not.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 00:14
|
|
|
Devor posted:The fact that he used the phrase "The Grand Jury's Decision", as if it could possibly have differed from his pre-determined opinion, is the problem. It was the grand jury's decision to agree with the DA. That's the point, the DA didn't think charges should be brought and instead of just not bringing them he set out to convince a grand jury that he was correct that no charges should be brought. And consider me just shocked that a congress critter said something ignorant and politically advantageous. ToxicSlurpee posted:You say that like the American legal system gives a single gently caress about ethics at this point. Some individuals might but the system does not. Is there any substantive point that counters what I'm saying that you're making here? Cause all I'm seeing is a generic "gently caress the system man".
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 02:50
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:It was the grand jury's decision to agree with the DA. That's the point, the DA didn't think charges should be brought and instead of just not bringing them he set out to convince a grand jury that he was correct that no charges should be brought. I will make my last point for anyone else still reading. A prosecutor asking a Grand Jury to return no indictment will always receive that result. Always. Pretending otherwise gives credence to this strange reverse-show-trial where the innocence of the killers has already been decreed by the state. Edited out some snark Devor fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Dec 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:It was the grand jury's decision to agree with the DA. That's the point, the DA didn't think charges should be brought and instead of just not bringing them he set out to convince a grand jury that he was correct that no charges should be brought. So, the DA set out to vindicate an officer blasting a dude without even making an attempt to defuse a situation, or even really say anything, and then blatantly lying on their police report. And because the DA accomplished their goals of doing so, which was the easiest task in the world being that the DA essentially holds the power of indictment in these situations, everything checks out? How the gently caress are you not just probated over and over for this dumb rear end poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 03:01
|
|
|
joeburz posted:Why exactly did this case look weaker? It wasn't all good for the officers obviously (that no one corroborated their claims about yelling at Tamir comes to mind). However for what it's worth this doesn't seem to be when McGinty made up his mind. He claims he decided when enhanced video analysis obtained earlier this month proved to him Tamir pulled his airsoft gun out: http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/12/indisputable_images_of_tamir_r.html quote:It came down to a small point of contrast seen just after officer Timothy Loehmann shot Tamir. http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2015/12/tamir_rice_prosecutor_says_eth.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 03:16
|
|
|
Truly indisputable...
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 03:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 04:07 |
|
|
MariusLecter posted:The state's case is that Tamir Rice deserved to die. This to me is the inescapable conclusion, based on the behavior of every level of the state involved in this case, from the cops to the governor. I hope the feds actually do something this time.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 03:23
|
|
