USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

«‹›995 »

Caros: May 14, 2008

GreyjoyBastard posted:

As an aside I'm not sure the prosecution did much in the way of inquiry into the officer's history, either. The dinky little paragraph on it smells an awful lot like the defense trying to make him more sympathetic (to the judge ) and officer history is, you know, relevant to recklessness. poo poo, we know for a fact he was injured in a bombing in Iraq, PTSD related inquiries would be the sort of thing that might be handy in a recklessness argument, you know?

Now I'm that much more irritated with the prosecution. If my dumb not-a-lawyer rear end can see this stuff there's no excuse.

Oh yeah, the prosecution seems to have fully hosed the dog here. They almost certainly could have gotten him on some variety of manslaughter what with the whole shooting a seated guy five times and not being required to prove premeditation.

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:20

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 17:34

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Caros posted:

It is for the prosecution trying to convict for pre-meditated murder. Yeah.

Yeah because "I'm gonna kill the guy" and planting a gun are completely destroyed by him not exiting his police car drooling and going "it's killing time" while stroking his drawn gun.

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:20

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Ok yeah not reading anything else from the opinion, that's a racist as hell judge

Literally "based on no actual evidence, gonna assume it was reasonable to assume a black kid was armed"

He even says "urban" right out

The judiciary is in no way ready to even comprehend how racist many judges are.

Is that judge elected or appointed?

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:22

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Just so people don't think I'm completely one-sided, there are a few cases where the cops could truly actually fear for their lives. Like this one where a dude pinned a cop between two cars and had his foot jammed on the accelerator. I think that's a pretty clear "okay he's trying to kill us" scenario.

https://www.arlnow.com/2017/09/12/report-police-justified-in-officer-involved-shooting/

ARLNow posted:

Report: Police Justified in Officer-Involved Shooting

A report released Tuesday by Commonwealth�s Attorney Theo Stamos found that Arlington County Police officers were justified in shooting a man near I-395 in May and will not face charges.

Two officers, Steven Yanda and Matt Chattillion, shot 28-year-old Daniel George Boak of Centreville on May 17 around 4:30 p.m. after he struck Yanda with his black pickup truck. The officers were attempting a traffic stop at the highway�s Glebe Road exit.

�The totality of the circumstances confronting Officer Yanda and Officer Chattillion at that moment presented an imminent danger of serious injury or death to Officer Yanda and potentially a danger to others at the scene, thereby justifying the use of deadly force to defend Officer Yanda and others,� Stamos wrote.

Stamos� report said that Boak did not comply with officers� commands to show his hands when he stopped, and he instead accelerated into Yanda, pinned him against a white Toyota sedan in front with his car and continued to accelerate.

�I could feel pressure on my leg increasing,� Stamos quotes Yanda as saying in his statement to investigators. �He wasn�t just bumping me and then reversing. He continued to come forward. So, it seemed he was trying to injure or kill me. I feared for my life.�

Both fired into the vehicle and struck Boak four times: in the head, neck chest and forearm. Another officer who arrived on scene then placed the car into reverse to free his colleague. Boak was pronounced dead at Virginia Hospital Center at approximately 5:30 p.m. that same day, after the officers attempted CPR.

Stamos said the officers� statements on the incident were consistent, as well as the statements from civilians in cars nearby. Stamos added that video from Yanda�s in-car camera and from a balcony overlooking the exit show him trapped between the two cars.

A blood sample found that Boak had traces of cocaine, morphine and heroin in his bloodstream, as well as a zip lock baggie in his car containing a small amount of cocaine and a glass-tube smoking device that contained cocaine residue. Stamos also noted that Boak�s family members said he had a heroin addiction and �problems with authority.�

Arlington had another one a while back where a cop accidentally tazered another cop, that cop tried to taze the subject again, the suspect smacked the cops in the face with a giant metal pole, was still vigorously swinging the pole around and only then did the cops shoot the guy.

https://www.arlnow.com/2015/11/16/report-use-of-deadly-force-in-officer-involved-shooting-justified/

ARLNow posted:

Report: Use of Deadly Force in Officer-Involved Shooting �Justified�

Prosecutors will not seek criminal charges against the Arlington County Police officer involved in the fatal shooting in Buckingham in May, concluding his use of deadly force was justified. According to the complete investigation report, Officer Michael Laird �acted consistent with ACPD policies governing use of force� and his actions were �justifiable and necessary to defend himself and others present.� The report includes this policy, which says officers can use force to �bring an incident or non-compliant suspect under control� and/or protect the lives or personal safety of themselves or others� so long as the force used is appropriate for the situation.

The deceased was 54-year-old Alfredo Rials-Torres, who was shot three times by police in the apartment he shared with his mother, 87-year-old Alicia Torres. After investigating the incident, the Commonwealth�s Attorney concluded the victim attacked police officers without reason and he presented an �imminent danger of serious injury or death� to those present at the scene.

On May 19, the day of the shooting, Officer Laird and two other officers responded to a call reporting a domestic disturbance in an apartment building at 4219 2nd Road N. The caller reported she could hear an elderly woman screaming in some kind of domestic altercation. In a later interview, she recalled hearing Ms. Torres tell her son, �I�m not your girlfriend and I will never have sex with you.� The officers arrived at the apartment, where Ms. Torres opened the door. Statements from all three officers at the scene describe Rials-Torres coming to the door shortly thereafter, looking visibly angry and verbally aggressive as he told officers he would not speak with them.

Rials-Torres then attempted to close the apartment door, and an altercation ensued as the officers tried to keep it open. Laird said in a statement they �did not want to be locked out of the room with her being stuck in there with him.� Laird unsuccessfully tried to use his Taser on Rials-Torres, instead striking and incapacitating one of the other officers on the small landing outside the apartment. As he prepared to try again, Rials-Torres struck Laird in the face with a metal pole, causing a deep laceration from his mouth up his left cheek. Bleeding profusely, Laird was able to push through the door. Rials-Torres was still swinging the pole wildly, the report says. It was then that Laird fired his service weapon three times, the first round striking Rials-Torres in the arm and the following rounds in the back as he spun around. The autopsy, conducted by a medial examiner named Dr. Jocelyn Posthumus, concluded one of the shots to the victim�s back caused his death.

In interviews after the shooting, Ms. Torres denied arguing with her son, insisted that he had not assaulted officers, but stated that he was schizophrenic and possibly off of his medications. The 9-1-1 caller recalled previous and recent problems with Rials-Torres acting aggressively. Another neighbor said she heard arguing on the morning of the shooting and cited incidents when the victim would threaten other residents.

Rials-Torres also had a criminal history and was convicted of felony assault and resisting arrest in 1997.

So two cases where the cops were literally in the process of being attacked and they still did other things before shooting.

Compare that to the typical case where the suspect hasn't done poo poo and the first things the cops do is shoot him.

Basically, more police departments need to act like this and truly use lethal force as a last resort.

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:22

atelier morgan: Mar 11, 2003; super-scientific, ultra-gay; Lipstick Apathy

Caros posted:

This isn't accurate. At no point in his ruling does the judge buy into the argument that the gun was planted.

His point here is both:

1. It would be reasonable self defense for an officer whose car was ramped and had just finished a high speed pursuit to fear that the suspect was armed, based on the fact that drug dealers do tend to carry weapons.

2. The fact that a weapon was found with the suspect is consistent with his criminal behaviour, which makes it less likely it was planted.

No his point here is to assure the police that he is on their side in assuming they're always right and will continue to work them by continuing to unreasonably presume their depiction of events without concern for facts

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:22

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

Jaxyon posted:

Yeah because "I'm gonna kill the guy" and planting a gun are completely destroyed by him not exiting his police car drooling and going "it's killing time" while stroking his drawn gun.

Keep in mind, homeboy was dual-wielding a Beretta in his left and an (unauthorized) AK in his right when he went mainac cop on Anthony Lamar Smith.

Spun Dog fucked around with this message at 18:47 on Sep 15, 2017

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:22

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

axeil posted:

simple change would be to change the burden of proof for crimes committed by state enforcement agents with the logic being that they should know what is and is not appropriate more so than the average citizen.

.

That would help but a larger issue is that a lot of people -- many of whom wear judicial robes and / or sit on juries -- are hella racist.

Look at the Walter Scott shooting in South Carolina. Mistrial. Caught on video shooting unarmed fleeing suspect in the back and then planting a weapon, arrested, charged with first degree murder, prosecuted, went to trial, mistrial.

The system worked right up until it hit a juror who thought a cop shooting an innocent black dude was a great idea. Our judicial system presumes good faith actors at every level, and that's a myth.

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:23

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

UberJew posted:

I really do like the line because it establishes exactly what was going on and why you're being a giant pile of intentionally dense poo poo defending the ruling.

nah

i'm defending the murder part of the ruling because the prosecution took a dive and/or were lazy morons

the judge makes a good description of why it wasn't proven to be first degree murder

and I've been saying over and over that even with the lovely prosecution I think he should have been whacked with involuntary manslaughter because he was clearly reckless / used excessive force

~~you dumbass~~

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:24

RaySmuckles: Oct 14, 2009; Grimey Drawer

Relentlessboredomm posted:

My idea for curbing police brutality is to recognize that arguing for increased punishments, however great it feels, won't work and creates even more conflict.

I'd love to see cops required to bring an accompanying, non police, party with them on the majority of their stops. Ideally it'd be social workers or mental health professionals who, barring a situation that's wildly out of hand, would always take the first crack at resolving the situation peacefully. This additional department would have an entirely different command structure and thus would not report to police, and would consistently rotate which officers they worked with to limit undue fraternization. Mainly it'd serve two purposes:

1. We would stop using a hammer for every problem.

2. A relatively impartial witness always on the scene.

You could pitch it as a way to keep cops from having to deal with poo poo that's not really their specialty, virtually every crime that doesn't involve a weapon, and create better paying jobs for social workers and the like.

denver has a team of social workers that travel around with police in conjunction with the mental health center of denver. my fianc� and i are friends of the guy in charge. seems to be a pretty good program that deserves to be copied throughout the country

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:26

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Democrazy posted:

Why would this defense not also apply to a cop killer who legally owns and open carries a gun? In a confrontation with police, they may also be jacked up on adrenaline and have legitimate concern for their life, yet I think they would face repercussions for their action.

The difference is that, in most states, citizens have an obligation to back down from armed confrontations with the police, while the police are under no such obligation. It has happened though: there was this case out of Corpus Christi where a man was found not guilty of shooting a SWAT team that was raiding his house. (It probably helped that the judge issued a spoliation of evidence instruction against the prosecution, which is like a gift from the prosecution to the defense wrapped up with a nice big bow. If you want to see a prosecution trip on its shoelaces, this is a good one.)

Mostly though, there isn't a jurisdiction where "I thought these identified police officers were going to unlawfully kill me, so I had to shoot first" is going to be a defense to homicide outside of some insanely egregious circumstances.

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:26

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

That would help but a larger issue is that a lot of people -- many of whom wear judicial robes and / or sit on juries -- are hella racist.

Look at the Walter Scott shooting in South Carolina. Mistrial. Caught on video shooting unarmed fleeing suspect in the back and then planting a weapon, arrested, charged with first degree murder, prosecuted, went to trial, mistrial.

The system worked right up until it hit a juror who thought a cop shooting an innocent black dude was a great idea. Our judicial system presumes good faith actors at every level, and that's a myth.

Yeah. I remember in the early 00s jury nullification being all the rage to fight the drug war except people don't realize the main way that gets used is so that racists don't get convicted for their crimes.

I don't know how you solve bad faith jurors who are not acting as arbiters of guilt/not guilt but instead walk in with an agenda and/or can never be convinced. Maybe switch juries from unanimous to 2/3rds majority?

RaySmuckles posted:

denver has a team of social workers that travel around with police in conjunction with the mental health center of denver. my fianc� and i are friends of the guy in charge. seems to be a pretty good program that deserves to be copied throughout the country

Arlington, VA also has a program like this. Those two reports I posted up-thread are the only officer-involved shootings in Arlington in at least 3 years despite it being one of the more populous areas of the state (it's right next to DC). They also have a specially trained crisis team that goes in if they think there's a suicide threat or anything like that and amazingly enough it's worked 100% of the time and they've gotten the person into psychiatric care rather than shooting them or sending them to jail.

I dislike cops in general but I give a lot of credit to my county for trying to do the right thing.

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:28

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

That would help but a larger issue is that a lot of people -- many of whom wear judicial robes and / or sit on juries -- are hella racist.

Look at the Walter Scott shooting in South Carolina. Mistrial. Caught on video shooting unarmed fleeing suspect in the back and then planting a weapon, arrested, charged with first degree murder, prosecuted, went to trial, mistrial.

The system worked right up until it hit a juror who thought a cop shooting an innocent black dude was a great idea. Our judicial system presumes good faith actors at every level, and that's a myth.

Right so, what do we do to make that less garbage? What could have fixed, say, the Walter Scott shooting in specific? (In that specific case I'm sort of leaning somewhere between "I dunno, an external review board for an extra fuckup-catching net, with ability to... fine the poo poo out of police officers?" and "absolutely nothing would have worked, everything is hosed")

edit: I guess I mean "assuming Walter Scott already got blown away" rather than something that would have made it less likely in the first place, although that probably would be even better

Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 18:32 on Sep 15, 2017

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:28

KickerOfMice: Jun 7, 2017; [/color]Keep firing, assholes![/color]

Spaceballs the custom title.; Fun Shoe

I know everyone is worked up and you are trying to make a point but-

axeil posted:

a cop accidentally tazered another cop

loving

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:29

atelier morgan: Mar 11, 2003; super-scientific, ultra-gay; Lipstick Apathy

GreyjoyBastard posted:

nah

i'm defending the murder part of the ruling because the prosecution took a dive and/or were lazy morons

the judge makes a good description of why it wasn't proven to be first degree murder

and I've been saying over and over that even with the lovely prosecution I think he should have been whacked with involuntary manslaughter because he was clearly reckless / used excessive force

~~you dumbass~~

The judge was acting in the fine tradition of American jurisprudence embodied by Scalia and wrote whatever fit the conclusion he wanted to reach. The exact same judge absolutely could and would have written an equally persuasive opinion to the contrary on the exact same facts if he cared to, but left that line in so the police know he has always got their back.

Based on his thirty years of experience, of course

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:29

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

RaySmuckles posted:

denver has a team of social workers that travel around with police in conjunction with the mental health center of denver. my fianc� and i are friends of the guy in charge. seems to be a pretty good program that deserves to be copied throughout the country

Oh right, I forgot to respond there. This is fantastic and even better than the stuff that's just nefariosity-reduction.

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:29

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

RaySmuckles posted:

denver has a team of social workers that travel around with police in conjunction with the mental health center of denver. my fianc� and i are friends of the guy in charge. seems to be a pretty good program that deserves to be copied throughout the country

Oh this is great thanks for telling me. Do you have a link to any articles about it or the name of the program?

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:29

Crowsbeak: Oct 9, 2012; by Azathoth; Lipstick Apathy

Caros posted:

That is, actually, how it works.

Self-defense isn't about reality in most states, which is why 'he was reaching for a knife' that he turns out not to have is often a defense.

It is about reasonable fears. In St. Louis it is reasonable for a police officer to be concerned that a heroin dealer who just led them on a high speed chase and who is refusing to exit the vehicle might, in fact, be armed.

The only parts of this whole thing that seem particularly egregious are the 'I'm going to kill that motherfucker' statement, and the planted weapon.

The judge seems to have chalked up the former to an excited utterance (80 mph car case and all) rather than a statement of intent. The latter wasn't proven to his satisfaction.

Is it a correct decision? Ehhh. From a legal perspective this judge has his head on a lot more straight than the jurors who refuse to convict someone who puts five warning shots in a fleeing suspect's back.

Could they still charge him with tampering with evidence?

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:29

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Crowsbeak posted:

Could they still charge him with tampering with evidence?

No, because they determined that they couldn't prove he actually planted it or not.

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:30

Hieronymous Alloy: Jan 30, 2009; Why! Why!! Why must you refuse to accept that Dr. Hieronymous Alloy's Genetically Enhanced Cream Corn Is Superior to the Leading Brand on the Market!?!; Morbid Hound

GreyjoyBastard posted:

Right so, what do we do to make that less garbage? What could have fixed, say, the Walter Scott shooting in specific? (In that specific case I'm sort of leaning somewhere between "I dunno, an external review board for an extra fuckup-catching net, with ability to... fine the poo poo out of police officers?" and "absolutely nothing would have worked, everything is hosed")

Well, they are scheduling a retrial. We also need about fifty more years of public art deconstructing the myth of the Noble Cop.

Another thing South Carolina has that other states don't, is SLED, a state level law enforcement body, investigates all officer involved shootings independently. So it got to trial the stars aligned, there was video, and there was an independent investigation. Those steps worked and give us a model for the first two thirds of the issue.

Hieronymous Alloy fucked around with this message at 18:33 on Sep 15, 2017

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:31

Taerkar: Dec 7, 2002; kind of into it, really

Dead Reckoning posted:

The difference is that, in most states, citizens have an obligation to back down from armed confrontations with the police, while the police are under no such obligation.

Do you think that this is a good thing or a bad thing?

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:31

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

KickerOfMice posted:

I know everyone is worked up and you are trying to make a point but-

loving

Yeah I remember reading the initial story and thinking it must've looked absolutely comical minus the whole part where a guy died and people's lives were in danger.

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:31

atelier morgan: Mar 11, 2003; super-scientific, ultra-gay; Lipstick Apathy

It's a hilarious confluence that everybody posting on this subject I've noticed in the scotus thread immediately knows what the judge was doing

truly, applesauce

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:31

Caros: May 14, 2008

axeil posted:

simple change would be to change the burden of proof for crimes committed by state enforcement agents with the logic being that they should know what is and is not appropriate more so than the average citizen.

other than that you might need to write specific "cop murder" statues for this to stop happening.

I'm fully of the opinion that we should have revised rules for officer involved shootings, particularly in light of self defense shootings against unarmed citizens.

I'm of the opinion that cops should actually be held to a higher standard, not because they know the law better, but because they are signing on for this poo poo.

The officer who shot Tamir Rice for example. He signed on to serve and protect, knowing the dangers involved. Perhaps it is just me, but I would rather get shot by the twelve year old, than risk shooting an unarmed child, and I feel our laws should reflect that.

If you are such a coward that you shoot first because you think you see a gun, you should be in jail and should never have been a cop to begin with.

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:33

Javes: May 6, 2012; ASK ME ABOUT APPEARING OFFLINE SO I DON'T HAVE TO TELL FRIENDS THEY'RE NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR MY VIDEO GAME TEAM.

Hieronymous Alloy posted:

Well, they are scheduling a retrial. We also need about fifty more years of public art deconstructing the myth of the Noble Cop.

Yep. People that watch police procedural shows on TV have a warped view of reality with regard to police (they're perfect, noble, and infallible creatures of justice).

http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0093854815604180

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:34

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

Crowsbeak posted:

Could they still charge him with tampering with evidence?

The prosecution was never able to prove Stockley tampered with evidence. If they had, their case probably would have been a slam dunk.

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:34

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

UberJew posted:

The judge was acting in the fine tradition of American jurisprudence embodied by Scalia and wrote whatever fit the conclusion he wanted to reach. The exact same judge absolutely could and would have written an equally persuasive opinion to the contrary on the exact same facts if he cared to, but left that line in so the police know he has always got their back.

Based on his thirty years of experience, of course

I remain unconvinced on the first degree murder charge based on the pattern of facts available (unless one of us feels like wading through the transcript to see if there's anything he left out about the gun-plantin', and I'm sure not :v:

) but I think I'm willing to accept that the judge was wilfully complicit with the prosecution in ditching the lesser included charges.

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:35

Caros: May 14, 2008

Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:

No, because they determined that they couldn't prove he actually planted it or not.

Eh, I've seem prosecutors get away with that.

If police can convict a man of murder for lending his car to someone who had been found innocent of the murder, they could convict this gut for planting evidence.

I mean, they won't.

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:36

Jaxyon: Mar 7, 2016; I’m just saying I would like to see a man beat a woman in a cage. Just to be sure.

Dead Reckoning posted:

The prosecution was never able to prove Stockley tampered with evidence. If they had, their case probably would have been a slam dunk.

Of course they couldn't prove it, the judge already knew that the suspect was very black and so he must have had a gun.

Kinda hard to change that kind of opinion.

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:37

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

Caros posted:

Eh, I've seem prosecutors get away with that.

If police can convict a man of murder for lending his car to someone who had been found innocent of the murder, they could convict this gut for planting evidence.

I mean, they won't.

wait what

edit: oh good, I found a footnote in the transcript re the murder verdict that wasn't mentioned on the manslaughter bit

quote:

The Court also believes the dangerous, highly stressful, and frenetic events during and immediately following the pursuit and shooting on December 20, 2011, are the antithesis of "cool" anything, much less reflection

Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 18:40 on Sep 15, 2017

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:37

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Caros posted:

I'm fully of the opinion that we should have revised rules for officer involved shootings, particularly in light of self defense shootings against unarmed citizens.

I'm of the opinion that cops should actually be held to a higher standard, not because they know the law better, but because they are signing on for this poo poo.

The officer who shot Tamir Rice for example. He signed on to serve and protect, knowing the dangers involved. Perhaps it is just me, but I would rather get shot by the twelve year old, than risk shooting an unarmed child, and I feel our laws should reflect that.

If you are such a coward that you shoot first because you think you see a gun, you should be in jail and should never have been a cop to begin with.

I agree.

I've calmed down a bit, these shooting incidents make me so mad.

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:38

OJ MIST 2 THE DICK: Sep 11, 2008; Anytime I need to see your face I just close my eyes
And I am taken to a place
Where your crystal minds and magenta feelings
Take up shelter in the base of my spine
Sweet like a chica cherry cola
-Cheap Trick; Nap Ghost

GreyjoyBastard posted:

I remain unconvinced on the first degree murder charge based on the pattern of facts available (unless one of us feels like wading through the transcript to see if there's anything he left out about the gun-plantin', and I'm sure not ) but I think I'm willing to accept that the judge was wilfully complicit with the prosecution in ditching the lesser included charges.

The prosecution did ask for lesser charges of murder to be brought, just apparently not involuntary manslaughter, and the judge tossed those for having the same self defense problem as murder 1.

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:39

Leon Trotsky 2012: Aug 27, 2009; YOU CAN TRUST ME!*

_{*Israeli Government-affiliated poster}

Caros posted:

Eh, I've seem prosecutors get away with that.

If police can convict a man of murder for lending his car to someone who had been found innocent of the murder, they could convict this gut for planting evidence.

I mean, they won't.

It's already done. The prosecution asserted that he had planted the gun, but the judge determined that there was no hard evidence that he did. There is already a court decision on this particular statement of facts. The prosecutor can't redo it and try it as a separate charge.

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:39

Dead Reckoning: Sep 13, 2011

axeil posted:

I don't know how you solve bad faith jurors who are not acting as arbiters of guilt/not guilt but instead walk in with an agenda and/or can never be convinced. Maybe switch juries from unanimous to 2/3rds majority?

That's a terrible idea that will have way more negative repercussions for the poor and minorities than it ever will for police.

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:41

Goatse James Bond: Mar 28, 2010; If you see me posting please remind me that I have Charlie Work in the reports forum to do instead

exploded mummy posted:

The prosecution did ask for lesser charges of murder to be brought, just apparently not involuntary manslaughter, and the judge tossed those for having the same self defense problem as murder 1.

It looks like it was auto-included and he chucked it without strongly addressing the "if reckless / excessive force, self-defense doesn't matter" clause. Second to last paragraph.

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:42

Ague Proof: Jun 5, 2014; they told me
I was everything

Spun Dog posted:

Keep in mind, homeboy was dual-wielding a Beretta in his left and an (unauthorized) AK in his right when he went mainac cop on Jason Stockley.

Stockley is the cop.

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:42

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

Dead Reckoning posted:

That's a terrible idea that will have way more negative repercussions for the poor and minorities than it ever will for police.

Make it only for cop shootings then

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:42

atelier morgan: Mar 11, 2003; super-scientific, ultra-gay; Lipstick Apathy

Dead Reckoning posted:

That's a terrible idea that will have way more negative repercussions for the poor and minorities than it ever will for police.

Yeah on this I actually agree, voir dire is so beneficial to racist idiots that usually the blatantly racist rulings are unanimous anyway

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:44

axeil: Feb 14, 2006

UberJew posted:

Yeah on this I actually agree, voir dire is so beneficial to racist idiots that usually the blatantly racist rulings are unanimous anyway

Maybe jury selection should be altered? No more ejecting people for any reason, you get a random sample and that's it. I dunno. It just feels like all the people with something better to do/jobs/etc weasel their way out of it and instead you end up with people who secretly really care about the case or people who may be easily mislead.

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:46

Spun Dog: Sep 21, 2004; Smellrose

Ague Proof posted:

Stockley is the cop.

Apologies, my brain substituted his name for Anthony Lamar Smith.

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:46

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ? May 20, 2024 17:34

Relentlessboredomm: Oct 15, 2006; It's Sic Semper Tyrannis. You said, "Ever faithful terrible lizard."

This sounds so good. Every city should do this:

http://www.denverpost.com/2016/09/02/mental-health-workers-join-denver-police-officers-to-help-divert-people-to-treatment-instead-of-jail/

quote:

The three agencies launched a test phase of the co-responder program in April, pairing social workers with police officers to see how well they worked together. It was a success: the first teams have responded to 427 calls and of those, 408 resulted in linking people to treatment or social services instead of booking them in jail. The program is now fully staffed at six, though officials hope to expand...

But co-responder teams have found that the mental health professional is often able to ask different questions that result in the person agreeing to treatment. In one recent case, a team responded to a person screaming on 16th Street Mall. Using his laptop, the mental health worker discovered the person was a current patient at the Mental Health Center of Denver and had been off medication for a week. The person�s case manager arrived and took him to the mental health center.

gently caress yea Denver.

# ? Sep 15, 2017 18:48

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > USPOL: Pulitzer Feeling Increasingly Out Of Place In New York Times Office

«‹›995 »