|
Chichevache posted:Yeah, but shes sexually harassing cops, sooo.... Smith is a huge slice of poo poo. Google Michael Tyree for starters.
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
The Wiggly Wizard posted:Smith is a huge slice of poo poo. Google Michael Tyree for starters. I am very aware of that case, but i dont think you can put that on Smith. The jail wasn't part of the Sheriff's Department until shortly before the Tyree murder. Before that it was the Department of Corrections, which was not under the Sheriff's purview. Smith has had to clean up the mess that was leftover from the Department of Corrections, which means trying to bring in new personnel who do things differently. I think she has done a pretty good job of making those changes since the jail became a part of the Sheriff's Office. It takes a long time to replace the old guard which was responsible for that murder. Why do you think the Tyree case is her fault?
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 00:32
|
|
|
ACAB, just leave the line blank
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 01:13
|
|
|
I did my part to convince my parents to vote Yes on prop 10
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 04:00
|
|
|
I'm voting in my sheriff election because the department sent me an email begging me to vote for one of the candidates. So I'm gonna vote for the other, because gently caress cops.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 05:09
|
|
|
The Glumslinger posted:I did my part to convince my parents to vote Yes on prop 10 The omnipresent No on 10 signs all over the place are really depressing. I'm not surprised that so many have bought into the "yes we need a solution for high rent but Prop 10 is a bad solution, vote no! What is a good solution you ask? Uh... gotta go! Don't forget to vote no!" line, but still. 
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 05:24
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:I'm voting in my sheriff election because the department sent me an email begging me to vote for one of the candidates. So I'm gonna vote for the other, because gently caress cops. This was how I used https://judgevoterguide.com/ when trying to find information on the judges in my area. There was almost no information, so I just went the opposite way and voted for all of the  judicial activists
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 06:11
|
|
|
Boredumb posted:In a similar vein I am wondering how people are voting for DA in Orange County? From what I can tell Todd Spitzer is trash, but Tony Rackauckas is worse. Anyone have any ideas of who to vote for? OC DSA is leaning to Spitzer but marginally. I wrote in Brett Murdock FWIW.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 08:24
|
|
|
Sydin posted:The omnipresent No on 10 signs all over the place are really depressing. I'm not surprised that so many have bought into the "yes we need a solution for high rent but Prop 10 is a bad solution, vote no! What is a good solution you ask? Uh... gotta go! Don't forget to vote no!" line, but still. “Nobody is entitled to live here. Go to Fresno if you want an affordable apartment.”
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 20:27
|
|
|
Boredumb posted:In a similar vein I am wondering how people are voting for DA in Orange County? From what I can tell Todd Spitzer is trash, but Tony Rackauckas is worse. Anyone have any ideas of who to vote for? OC DSA is leaning to Spitzer but marginally. Todd Spitzer is an absolute garbage human being who shouldn't hold any office, ever. Vote for Rackauckas. But yeah, Murdock should have won on account of his Daredevil style signs alone.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 22:09
|
|
|
ProperGanderPusher posted:“Nobody is entitled to live here. Go to Fresno if you want an affordable apartment.” But please still commute ninety minutes each way so we can enjoy service in our quaint boutiques.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 23:18
|
|
|
In Riverside County the only real difference between the candidates in the sheriff's office race is incumbent Stan Sniff wants all the deputies to wear body cameras and the union is funding his opponent to stop it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 22, 2018 23:40
|
|
|
Darrish posted:In Riverside County the only real difference between the candidates in the sheriff's office race is incumbent Stan Sniff wants all the deputies to wear body cameras and the union is funding his opponent to stop it. That sounds like a pretty major difference.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 00:09
|
|
|
Both sheriff candidates in Santa Clara county look like dead eyed psychopaths to me.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 00:18
|
|
|
Darrish posted:In Riverside County the only real difference between the candidates in the sheriff's office race is incumbent Stan Sniff wants all the deputies to wear body cameras and the union is funding his opponent to stop it. Yeah, I ended up leaving that field blank. They're both just terrible. Stan Sniff: Endorsed by Ken Calvert, the biggest piece of poo poo congressman in the area Chad Bianco: Has a page on his website railing against "Sanctuary State" status.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 01:01
|
|
|
I’m sure they’re both horrible but absolutely no way id leave it blank if one was on record in favor of body cams. It’ll never happen either way but still.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 02:56
|
|
|
Stan Sniff butts heads with the union pretty frequently, whether that's a good thing or a bad thing is up to you. Personally I think it's a good thing since police unions are pretty much de facto Police State Booster Clubs now. Having said that, it's the best of the worst at this point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 04:19
|
|
|
life is a joke posted:I’m sure they’re both horrible but absolutely no way id leave it blank if one was on record in favor of body cams. It’ll never happen either way but still. Well, I didn't know that fact before I dropped my mail off in the box yesterday.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 04:25
|
|
|
Megaman's Jockstrap posted:Stan Sniff butts lol
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 04:46
|
|
|
I'm so glad you caught that
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 04:48
|
|
|
FCKGW posted:Well, I didn't know that fact before I dropped my mail off in the box yesterday. no ACAB so you did the right thing, excuse me I almost expressed support for a cop 
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 05:15
|
|
|
I'm about halfway through digging through cases for div 1 court of appeals. The judges have been surprisingly sane so far. Interesting/Potentially controversial Cases (click to go to opinion): People vs Eric Jones Maria Miller wrote this, James A. Richman concurred. Both are up for approval votes. Another justice who is not up for approval dissented. The defendant was accused of a series of car break ins. The prosecutor asked for and got terrible+confusing jury instructions in the trial that everyone now agrees were improper. The question is whether the jury instructions effectively told the jury to use a lower standard of proof (a structural error so that Jones automatically gets a new trial) or if it's evaluated on whether it reasonably could have changed the outcome (which he probably loses on, there's a whole lot of good evidence against him). Miller and Richman conclude it is not a structural error and did not change the trial outcome, so no new trial People vs James Samuel Bilbry James A. Richman concurred on this. The defendant attacked a guy outside a bar with a knife, blinding/paralyzing part of his face/almost killing him. He was convicted of attempted murder in trial court, and then successfully raised a habeus argument about ineffective assistance of counsel argument. The trial court ordered a new trial. The state appealed the habeus argument, but didn't move for a stay of the motion requiring a new trial and didn't schedule a new trial within 60 days. Bilbry moved to dismiss on speedy trial grounds after 60+ days went by with no trial scheduled and the trial court granted it. The prosecution appealed the dismissal. Richman concludes that the dismissal stands. Essentially the prosecution needs to not gently caress up. People vs Paige Tillie Linville Maria Miller wrote this This one would be an episode of Law and Order if they were still making those. Linville and her boyfriend picked up a homeless woman, drove her to a remote location, then shot and killed her. The morning after, they shot and killed a woman out walking her dog. They had no motive beyond wanting to see what it was like to kill someone. A few days later, Linville drove the car they used to another county and traded it. During the investigation while it was still focused on the boyfriend, Linville plead guilty to being an accessory after the fact for disposing of the car and served 2 years in jail. The boyfriend's murder trial was ongoing. Later, Linville was charged and convicted of murder. CA has a procedural rule that requires all crimes related to one course of conduct be charged in the same trial (i.e. if I break into a building, steal some stuff, and flee the police, the prosecutor can't have separate three separate trials for burglary, theft, and evading the police). Linville argues that the rule bars her murder trial. The prosecutor argues that A. getting rid of the car and the murders are separate enough that they can be separate trials, and alternatively B. they didn't have sufficient evidence at the time of the first trial (this is an exception to the procedural rule). [They evidence they didn't have is mostly Linville bragging in jail about getting away with it and her (ex)boyfriend testifying against her] The court ruled that the two crimes are sufficiently far apart, so they don't need to decide B. *dun dun* People vs LO Alison M. Tucher wrote this, Jon B. Streeter concurred A minor is objecting to terms of his probation after an assault conviction. Most of his objections are lost to procedural things because they weren't brought up in lower court. The surviving ones and the opinion's rulings are: - "the Minor shall obey all rules and regulations of said facilities in which he is placed" is not unconstitutionally vague - "attend school regularly without tardiness or unexcused absence or participate in a vocational training program or seek and maintain full-time employment, and shall behave at all times while in school" is not unconstitutionally vague - "The Minor shall not access or participate in any Social Networking Site, including but not limited to Facebook.com. All internet usage is subject to monitoring by Probation, parents or school officials" is not unconstitutionally vague regarding who is a school official, but is overbroad and gets a "subject to monitoring by Probation, parents or school officials" tacked onto the no facebook part People vs Elio Gutierrez Alison M. Tucher wrote this, Jon B. Streeter concurred This is about DUI and BAC testing. US Supreme Court has held that you don't need a warrant to force brethalyzer tests after arresting someone for a DUI but you do for a blood test. In this case, the defendant was arrested, told he had to do one or the other, he picked the blood test, and one was done without a warrant. Is this admissible? The court says yes, allowing a non-blood test choice nullifies the need for a warrant. People vs Jonathon Jackson Jon B. Streeter concurred This is about a grand jury where the prosecutor dismissed a juror at the beginning for knowing the victim in a kidnapping/rape/murder trial. This is improper. The foreperson of the grand jury is supposed to be the one to do it. The court rejects the argument that this is a sufficient violation of due process to throw out the indictment National Lawyers Guild vs Hayward Peter John Siggins concurred This is about a FOIA request for police bodycam footage at a protest against police violence. It's about whether the city or the requestor pays the cost of reviewing and redacting the footage. It turns on what "extract" means. The appeals court overrules the trial court and allow the city to charge the requester, mostly based on a legislative history argument that seems annoyingly legit. Also the Hayward police apparently use Windows Movie Maker to redact video. People vs Ramin Ahmed Peter John Siggins wrote this This is about a guy who ran a medical pot dispensary in Livermore. Livermore bans dispensaries by ordinance. The trial court barred him from raising a medical pot defense to the drug posession/transport/money laundering charges based on dispensaries being forbidden in Livermore. The appeals court overrules that essentially saying that Livermore's ordinance is irrelevant in criminal cases. He can be fined for violating the ordinance, but it is a valid defense criminally. Other random cases that seemed reasonably settled to me: - Indian tribe that signed a contract with a construction firm can be forced into arbitration. The arbitration clause they signed waives their soverign immunity. Also, the firm doesn't have to exhaust tribal court remedies first because no tribal court existed when they filed suit [also it is six years later, the tribal court still does not exist] (Richman) - If your parents take out a loan they know they can't repay and spend it on tuition, the creditor can't use fraudulent transfer law to say that the student is liable for it. (Margulies) - If you are convicted of "damaging a telephone line or mechanical equipment connected to the line" (which is apparently a particular crime) being too drunk to know better is not a defense, even though the statue says 'maliciously' (Humes)
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 07:34
|
|
|
Ron Jeremy posted:sheriff candidates ... dead eyed psychopaths
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 08:05
|
|
|
LA City Council just voted to support Prop 10, 13-1.
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 18:55
|
|
|
That's a little late, innit? I guess every bit helps
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 19:01
|
|
|
Cup Runneth Over posted:That's a little late, innit? I guess every bit helps perfectly timed to be two weeks after voting starts
|
|
#
?
Oct 23, 2018 19:37
|
|
|
Polling suggests Proposition 11 is going to pass handily Also if any of you haven't already, you should definitely check out donoteat's Cities: Skylines videos. They're an excellent historical and contemporary guide to city planning issues, exploitation, and oppression. Though they come from a more East Coast (Philadelphian in particular) viewpoint, they're still quite relevant to California. The standalone episode on gentrification in particular is very good and offers a lot of insight as to where the problem stems from and how we can fix it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LdeirDrinWk
|
|
#
?
Oct 24, 2018 19:30
|
|
|
got this poo poo in the mail today yep this sure seems like a complete list of all candidates for statewide elections the california democratic party officially endorsed at its state convention Shear Modulus fucked around with this message at 03:32 on Oct 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 03:30
|
|
|
Who?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 03:33
|
|
|
de Leon only blocked her endorsement he didn’t get it himself. still furious at him for squandering this campaign, hope he didn’t want his political career to go any higher cause gently caress if I’m voting him again ever
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 04:29
|
|
|
Raskolnikov38 posted:de Leon only blocked her endorsement he didn’t get it himself. That is inaccurate. https://www.mercurynews.com/2018/07/14/feinstein-de-leon-california-democratic-party-endorsement-executive-board-oakland/
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 05:14
|
|
|
fermun posted:That is inaccurate. quote:Neither Feinstein nor De León won the endorsement in the primary campaign at the Democratic convention in February, when De León got the support of 54 percent of the delegates — just under the 60 percent threshold necessary.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 05:41
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:got this poo poo in the mail today The disclaimer at the bottom says it specifically doesn't list any candidates for Federal office. Does state law have campaign finance rules regarding that or is that a last-minute copout?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 05:59
|
|
|
Wicked Them Beats posted:The disclaimer at the bottom says it specifically doesn't list any candidates for Federal office. Does state law have campaign finance rules regarding that or is that a last-minute copout? im pretty sure its a last minute cop out because im 90% sure harris was trumpeted as the official dem endorsee two years ago e: also the only federal statewide office is of course senator so couching it in "no federal offices" is total doublespeak Shear Modulus fucked around with this message at 07:47 on Oct 25, 2018 |
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 07:43
|
|
|
notice how that is the primary campaign whereas de leon won the endorsement for the general
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 07:45
|
|
|
I probably trashed it already but today I got a state party mailer with de Leon on it. I’ve also gotten that one before, too.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 08:27
|
|
|
Thank you for your service, friend. Thoughts and prayers that you one day experience linear time like the rest of us.
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 09:10
|
|
|
Shear Modulus posted:notice how that is the primary campaign whereas de leon won the endorsement for the general There has only been once state convention, the one in February. De Leon won the endorsement for the general from the executive board, not the convention. Shear Modulus posted:got this poo poo in the mail today Can you show me where the state convention, not the executive board, officially endorsed De Leon for Senate?
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 17:53
|
|
|
I'm pretty sure the actual salient point here is that de Leon does have the Democratic party endorsement
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 18:09
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 06:59 |
|
|
i dunno but here's a document on the official california democratic party website that took me all of two seconds to find titled 2018 Official Endorsements November 6, 2018 Elections with de leon listed as having received the official endorsement of the california democratic party for us senator https://www.cadem.org/vote/body/CDP-2018-Endorsements-Official-18-08-31.pdf
|
|
#
?
Oct 25, 2018 18:10
|
|