|
I think Tamir Rice had his civil rights violated and I hope the DOJ people agree and take some historic action
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 09:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Change of pace: quote:The memorandum states that Bush’s messages to Dietz when responding to the call at the Lemay residence were “unprofessional” and violated the police department’s rules pertaining to its policies on using mobile digital terminals. So "don't put it in writing you idiots", basically
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 11:14
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:There's no mechanism for punishing an elected official for acting completely within the bounds of the legitimate discretion of his office because you disagree with his decisions. Just imagine for a second how much worse the justice system would be if DAs were compelled by law to try every single person accused of a crime to their utmost ability even if they thought they were innocent. You mean like they already do for everyone that isn't a cop? I "imagine" it'd be the same thing we have now, just that cops would actually face trials. DAs love prosecutions. They are numbers for their election campaigns. quote:I just don't understand what's not getting communicated here, the DA is under no obligation to present to the grand jury at all, if he doesn't think charges are warranted he can legitimately just say "nope, no charges". Its not misconduct for him to spike a grand jury, he doesn't even have to let the grand jury get a chance to indict at all. I can definitely see there being a concern if a DA was using the secrecy of grand jury proceedings to hide the fact he's spiking the case, but this guy isn't, he's being completely open with the fact he didn't think charges are warranted and that's within the discretion of his office. Yes the check to elected officials not using the powers of their office the way you like is to not vote for them. Abusing his office and saying he's abusing his office doesn't make it NOT an abuse of his office. It just means he's being open about it because voters are idiots. Personally I'd LOVE to know if he tried to indict on "Filing a false instrument" for the flat out lies on the police report because the DA on my Grand Jury loved pulling that one out.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 11:19
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:You mean like they already do for everyone that isn't a cop? I "imagine" it'd be the same thing we have now, just that cops would actually face trials. From everything I've seen about the US justice system, DA's don't love prosecutions. They love prosecutions they can win.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 11:38
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:There's no mechanism for punishing an elected official for acting completely within the bounds of the legitimate discretion of his office because you disagree with his decisions. Just imagine for a second how much worse the justice system would be if DAs were compelled by law to try every single person accused of a crime to their utmost ability even if they thought they were innocent. The level of discretion given to the DA is unjust. There is no reason to even have a grand jury if the DA is allowed to openly sabotage his own case. McGinty blatantly spiking the grand jury is the exact same thing as him secretly spiking it; a costly and time consuming way to cover his own rear end for deciding not to indict. As of now, the grand jury process functions only to provide the illusion of oversight and give the DA plausible deniability if they don't want to prosecute a high profile case. E: Zas posted:Tamir Rice had his civil rights violated and I hope the DOJ people take some historic action The Kingfish fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Dec 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 14:51
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Why would the police use lights or a siren during a tactical insertion? In Everett, WA they bargain in concert with the Firefighters and Public Works union, does that count?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 15:23
|
|
|
new Ta-Nehisi Coates piece on American policing: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/illegitimacy-and-american-policing/422094/
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 16:56
|
|
|
WhiskeyJuvenile posted:Change of pace: quote:The Police Department defended the unit, saying in a statement: “We have reviewed all current legal authority and have found our K-9 handlers and the animals which we rely on to keep our community safe, to have acted in accordance within the law and in keeping with best practices.” No, see, it's fine because the filth investigated themselves and found out that everything was above board, no laws were broken. The system works.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 17:45
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:There's no mechanism for punishing an elected official for acting completely within the bounds of the legitimate discretion of his office because you disagree with his decisions. Just imagine for a second how much worse the justice system would be if DAs were compelled by law to try every single person accused of a crime to their utmost ability even if they thought they were innocent. Except that's not what I stated. It's not that he should be compelled to pursue, it's that he has a clear conflict of interest and a repeatedly publicly displayed bias against pressing the case. And the DA is granted so many rights that the average citizen is not granted when it comes to a grand jury. Jarmak posted:I just don't understand what's not getting communicated here, the DA is under no obligation to present to the grand jury at all, if he doesn't think charges are warranted he can legitimately just say "nope, no charges". Its not misconduct for him to spike a grand jury, he doesn't even have to let the grand jury get a chance to indict at all. I can definitely see there being a concern if a DA was using the secrecy of grand jury proceedings to hide the fact he's spiking the case, but this guy isn't, he's being completely open with the fact he didn't think charges are warranted and that's within the discretion of his office. Yes the check to elected officials not using the powers of their office the way you like is to not vote for them. Do you see no issue here with the idea that the man is in fact burying the case as hard as he can, and basically telling the Tamirs to gently caress off with their whining about their son? An officer killed a child, lied about it, but the DA gets to cover for it? This is where we cross into "what is currently legal is not morally acceptable to the public at large", and thus we have the discussion here. Jarmak posted:Also I'm not sure what you mean by "there's no appeals process", double jeopardy doesn't attach as a result of a grand jury hearing. Then how does one challenge the decision of a grand jury? I'm going to guess there's no recall process for the DA, so are the Tamirs basically hosed until election time, and then they have to hope that their neighbors aren't going to vote for him out of spite? Jarmak posted:No, I think that's a horrible idea, the entire point the grand jury is protecting people from suffering the social sanction of unwarranted accusations. As of now there's absolutely nothing to gain by removing this protection, every DA who's played soft with the grand jury has owned it and/or gotten transcripts released. Because it's in the public's interest to know when the DA is exerting his influence at a grand jury, for good or for ill. The public needs to know that because the secrecy and appearance of impropriety undermines their trust in both the police and the court as a whole. And as I've constantly been drumming in both these threads, that lack of trust is going to bite both the court and the police in the rear end. Raerlynn fucked around with this message at 18:19 on Dec 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 18:16
|
|
|
Why does America have politicians as prosecutors? Doesn't that go against the whole impartial judicial system thingy?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 18:34
|
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Why does America have politicians as prosecutors? Doesn't that go against the whole impartial judicial system thingy? Wait till this guy finds out that some places elect their judges.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 18:38
|
|
|
America seems a bit hosed up tbh
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 18:50
|
|
|
It is hosed up, not just seems.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice: America seems a bit hosed up tbh
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
serious gaylord posted:From everything I've seen about the US justice system, DA's don't love prosecutions. They love prosecutions they can win. Is there something wrong with this? I don't think prosecutors should try cases in which they don't have a reasonably good shot of conviction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 19:01
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Is there something wrong with this? I don't think prosecutors should try cases in which they don't have a reasonably good shot of conviction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 19:03
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Is there something wrong with this? I don't think prosecutors should try cases in which they don't have a reasonably good shot of conviction. The issue here isn't that McGinty didn't think he had a good shot of conviction, it's that he transparently didn't want a good shot of conviction.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:The issue here isn't that McGinty didn't think he had a good shot of conviction, it's that he transparently didn't want a good shot of conviction. Yes. It's impossible to look at his statements about the police in this instance and his personal insults towards the family of the slain child and think that he handled that grand jury in an objective and impartial manner. The idea that we need to assume prosecutors and police are always acting in good faith unless overwhelming evidence says otherwise (and even then it's debatable and we probably should still air on giving them the benefit of the doubt) is one of the reasons they keep getting away with these ridiculous crimes that any regular person would be in jail for.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:It's an incentive against trying sexual assaults and the like. Okay, but prosecutors have an ethical duty to only go after prosecutions when they think a jury is more likely to convict a person than not. I don't see why sexual assault charges should get an exemption from the standard. If the proseuctors thinks he has little chance of conviction, why should he waste the court's and the defendants time? Not to mention the legal bills the defendant will have to rack up in defending the charge. I get that sexual assault is a touchy subject and notiriously difficult to prove, but I'm wary of giving different charges different standards. Captain_Maclaine posted:The issue here isn't that McGinty didn't think he had a good shot of conviction, it's that he transparently didn't want a good shot of conviction. I agree. Every statement he made after the grand juries decision confirms that he was throwing the case and at the very least, he should be fired. I think that the grand jury process is dumb as hell and I'm glad we don't have it in Canada. Either the prosecutor should take the heat for not charging the cop or he has to go in and obviously throw a case in a full trial. Grand Juries now provide cover for cop shootings and in pretty much every other case, the grand jury lets criminal charges proceed. They're loving pointless at best and actively obstruct justice at worst.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 19:46
|
|
|
Another thing is that grand juries don't even have to be unanimous so if you have one made up of five people you only need to convince three. So saying that the system didn't indict someone is really saying that a majority of a tiny subset of people with no oversight thought there was or was not evidence to go further. The intent is to make it sound a lot more conclusive than it really is. It's easier for people to claim that the system handled it fairly when it's technically a jury that exonerated the cop than when one prosecutor decided that kid was totally reaching for his toy gun.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 19:52
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:Okay, but prosecutors have an ethical duty to only go after prosecutions when they think a jury is more likely to convict a person than not. I don't see why sexual assault charges should get an exemption from the standard. If the proseuctors thinks he has little chance of conviction, why should he waste the court's and the defendants time? Not to mention the legal bills the defendant will have to rack up in defending the charge.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 20:45
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:The issue here isn't that McGinty didn't think he had a good shot of conviction, it's that he transparently didn't want a good shot of conviction. I don't think he wanted to take this case to trial either, but not because he "didn't want a good shot at conviction." He probably realized early on this wasn't as cut and dry as some still maintain and used the grand jury process to gather and then release information.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 20:58
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Why do you think that? This is the same McGinty who burned a lot of bridges with the Michael Brelo prosecution earlier this year (the cop who jumped up on the hood of a car to continue firing into two people). His history shows us he seems willing to take on controversial cases against police if he thinks he has a shot. So you're claiming that somehow the DA burned bridges by getting a cop who killed two unarmed people aquited?
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 21:36
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So you're claiming that somehow the DA burned bridges by getting a cop who killed two unarmed people aquited? You went to bat for another cop! How can any of us in the precinct trust you!
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:So you're claiming that somehow the DA burned bridges by getting a cop who killed two unarmed people aquited? And yes the local media was full of acrimony between McGinty and the police union head (Loomis) and defense counsel for Brelo. He even called out police for refusing to testify and tried to have them treated as hostile witnesses. But I guess because he lost none of that counts and they're all secretly in cahoots or something. Can't really blame him if he wasn't eager to take another political shellacking for a questionable case.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 22:06
|
|
|
Mr. Wookums posted:Prosecutors have an ethical duty to go after cases where a crime has been committed, nothing more That is a meaningless legal standard. While not binding, the American bar association does give out the following ethical guidelines for prosecutors , which makes sense to me: (a) A prosecutor should not institute, or cause to be instituted, or permit the continued pendency of criminal charges when the prosecutor knows that the charges are not supported by probable cause. A prosecutor should not institute, cause to be instituted, or permit the continued pendency of criminal charges in the absence of sufficient admissible evidence to support a conviction. I'm Canadian and my previous post had the legal standard they use up here. You can't just say " a crime's been committed." A prosecutor should only go forward if they can prove it in court. If they don't have enough admissible evidence to support a conviction they shouldn't prosecute. There are a ton of cases in which the prosecutor likely thinks something happened. However, given that they can't prove it, they don't go forward with the charges. That's how the system is supposed to work. Mr. Wookums posted:The GJ is meant to be the check whether or not there's enough evidence for the state to pursue the case. Which is dumb because it's a waste of time and the prosecutor almost always get's enough evidence to show there is grounds for charging the defendant. IMO this area is addressed in prosecutorial discretion. Mr. Wookums posted:. Court costs for defendants that are egregiously charged is another area of reform which should not be a consideration in regards to prosecutors' conduct as activism exists with jury nullification (lol) and judge discretion but should never reside upon the attorneys. I think that prospector's should consider the costs to a defendant in longshot cases. If a prosecutor goes forward with a case it knows has little chance of winning, it's costing the defendant a great deal of money. They don't get this money back if they are found not guilty. Pretty much only way they can get it back is if an abuse of process action is found. I have no idea why you brought up judge discretion and jury nullification as I can't see how they relate to this topic at all. Monaghan fucked around with this message at 22:24 on Dec 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 22:22
|
|
|
Solkanar512 posted:In Everett, WA they bargain in concert with the Firefighters and Public Works union, does that count? I considered saying "besides firefighters" but that might just have been too impossible to find. I was thinking more along the lines of a police union issuing a statement acknowledging and supporting the struggle of other workers to gain rights. Something like: quote:“The fight El Super workers are engaged in is the same fight that the farm workers have historically fought for: the right to belong to a union, the right to bargain in good faith, and the right to industry labor standards, which means wages that can sustain their families. I stand with El Super workers and their campaign to win respect in the workplace and dignity for their families,” said Huerta, longtime champion for labor rights and co-founder of the United Farm Workers union. Defending the special protections police enjoy with the "why do you hate labor?" argument just seems so hollow when police themselves have consistently came down as anti-labor enforcers without so much as a word of support.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:That is a meaningless legal standard. While not binding, the American bar association does give out the following ethical guidelines for prosecutors , which makes sense to me: Your standard about refusing to pursue a case where conviction is not 'more likely than not' is dumb because juries can be dumb and acquit guilty people all the time. They love police officers and will hesitate to convict an abusive policeman. They may not care about violence against minorities and will hesitate to convict a lyncher. But both of these examples society should probably view going ahead with a doomed prosecution as a Good Thing. All the prosecutor needs is Probable Cause, and if the judge decides that he can't meet that burden then the judge can cut the trial short. Edit: Note that probable cause does not mean "more than 50% chance of a favorable verdict"
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Devor posted:Your standard about refusing to pursue a case where conviction is not 'more likely than not' is dumb because juries can be dumb and acquit guilty people all the time. They love police officers and will hesitate to convict an abusive policeman. They may not care about violence against minorities and will hesitate to convict a lyncher. But both of these examples society should probably view going ahead with a doomed prosecution as a Good Thing. You don't use people being retards as consideration as to whether or not to bring forward a criminal charge. Here is the legal standard that I was talking about in full: The standard permits a prosecution to be commenced or continued only if the Crown prosecutor has sufficient evidence to believe that a reasonable jury properly instructed, is more likely than not to convict the accused of the charge(s) alleged. You shouldn't make different legal standards for crimes involving police officers and minorities. Monaghan fucked around with this message at 22:49 on Dec 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 22:46
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:You don't use people being retards as consideration as to whether or not to bring forward a criminal charge. Here is the legal standard that I was talking about in full: I assume you're pulling from this page, which has as its preface that it's not a rigid formula. https://justice.alberta.ca/programs_services/criminal_pros/crown_prosecutor/Pages/decision_to_prosecute.aspx quote:However, to be clear, while each decision to prosecute must be supported by the established criteria, the exercise of this aspect of prosecutorial discretion cannot and should not be reduced to something resembling a mathematical formula for which there is always a clear and obvious answer. You are correct that it should not be a lower standard for prosecuting police officers and other racial crimes. But it should also not be a HIGHER standard, which is what you would be arguing if you argue that once you hit 49% chance of conviction that the prosecutor has to be waved off.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:I'm Canadian and my previous post had the legal standard they use up here. You can't just say " a crime's been committed." A prosecutor should only go forward if they can prove it in court. If they don't have enough admissible evidence to support a conviction they shouldn't prosecute. There are a ton of cases in which the prosecutor likely thinks something happened. However, given that they can't prove it, they don't go forward with the charges. That's how the system is supposed to work. quote:Which is dumb because it's a waste of time and the prosecutor almost always get's enough evidence to show there is grounds for charging the defendant. IMO this area is addressed in prosecutorial discretion. quote:I think that prospector's should consider the costs to a defendant in longshot cases. If a prosecutor goes forward with a case it knows has little chance of winning, it's costing the defendant a great deal of money. They don't get this money back if they are found not guilty. Pretty much only way they can get it back is if an abuse of process action is found. quote:I have no idea why you brought up judge discretion and jury nullification as I can't see how they relate to this topic at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:08
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:No, I think that's a horrible idea, the entire point the grand jury is protecting people from suffering the social sanction of unwarranted accusations. As of now there's absolutely nothing to gain by removing this protection, every DA who's played soft with the grand jury has owned it and/or gotten transcripts released. I just agreed with you that protecting people's identity if there is no indictment is important? We can go back and forth as to whether transcripts with any potential identifying information redacted would be of any use but allowing the public to at least see some of how a DA acted would do nothing but help either show they did their job or they threw the case so they can use the "Welp the grand jury didn't indict  "And I don't know where you're getting DAs releasing transcripts. Even witnesses brought to GJ hearings are either limited or prohibited in what they can talk about. Sunshine law type lawsuits in California, Colorado and Florida have all failed in attempting to get GJ transcripts released. Afaik arrest reports are public with some restrictions, investigation info is protected. So finding out if someone was arrested and for what is already available anyway. Keep the presented facts sealed but even just seeing if the DA just presented them in a "The defendant is accused of blank blank and blank" or "The defendant is accused of these but he's a fine upstanding officer with and excellent record blah blah blah" would reveal if he's acting as defense. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 23:34 on Dec 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:27
|
|
|
In case anyone was wondering how law enforcement is dealing with all the social issues being talked about, I just got the latest issue of the fraternal order of police magazine and the cover article is about surviving an ambush and it blames blm and the new black panthers for encouraging people to target cops
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:48
|
|
|
B-Rock452 posted:In case anyone was wondering how law enforcement is dealing with all the social issues being talked about, I just got the latest issue of the fraternal order of police magazine and the cover article is about surviving an ambush and it blames blm and the new black panthers for encouraging people to target cops Watch out for them razor blades inside the brim of baseball caps. That's how they get ya.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:49
|
|
|
MariusLecter posted:Watch out for them razor blades inside the brim of baseball caps. This is more talking about how the threat of driving into a literal Clear and Present Danger style ambush is becoming more and more prevalent every day and you should always assume you are seconds away from being in a gunfight. The article also encourages you to carry multiple guns and the phrase "head on a swivel" is repeated a lot.
|
|
#
?
Dec 30, 2015 23:55
|
|
|
This article from earlier this month highlighted the degree to which officers are warned about things that are unlikely to be encountered. In particular, officers in the Chicago Police Department were warned about gunblades, which the officer who shot Laquan McDonald said he feared McDonald was carrying.quote:
William Bear fucked around with this message at 02:27 on Dec 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 02:19
|
|
|
Only Chicago PD can stop anime from becoming real.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
twodot posted:Openness is only good if there is a plan to provide openness which is also good which is why the back and forth matters for anyone sincerely interested in change. For your second paragraph, go ahead and read up on personally identifiable information, and think about why that may be complicated and needing clarification. I absolutely agree it would be complicated and difficult to implement but the first hurdle is at least agreeing it should be done. If we can't even agree on that how it works is just pages of pointless back and forth about how this or that or wouldn't work. The only way you can even begin to address corruption is to stop it from being hiddeen. Tamirs DA had no issue smearing the family as soon as the GJ didn't indict, if the GJ transcript had him telling the GJ the family is just pushing for this because they want to get paid that alone would be enough, no personal info to worry about.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 02:39
|
|
|
Not to be blunt, but aren't all the problems of your American Judicial system related to your inability to reform governmental structures that've remained unchanged for a century? For a society that cherishes democracy so dearly, it just seems rather ironic that you can't seem to change these structures. Like you're inmates in a prison of your own making. Or rather, an asylum with the death penalty... edit: seem to be lollontee fucked around with this message at 03:49 on Dec 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 28, 2024 10:39 |
|
|
Friendly Tumour posted:Not to be blunt, but aren't all the problems of your American Judicial system related to your inability to reform governmental structures that've remained unchanged for a century? For a society that cherishes democracy so dearly, it just seems rather ironic that you can't seem to change these structures. Like you're inmates in a prison of your own making. Or rather, an asylum with the death penalty... American Society doesn't cherish democracy at all. Nearly half of the people don't vote mostly because they don't want to and even those who do tend to still have a cynical view of the system. There are also many who support making voting more difficult, and plenty who at least oppose making voting easier. The system is mostly screwed up because the average person has little to no interest in participating in its maintenance.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 03:14
|
|
