|
ActusRhesus posted:The three big errors I saw were (1) giving the jury a copy of a statute that has been unconstitutional since 1986 I heard about this. Could you elaborate? Also, why are there seemingly no consequences for this?
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 06:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 23:33 |
|
|
when does their album drop?
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 06:36
|
|
|
Missouri Fever posted:I heard about this. Could you elaborate? Also, why are there seemingly no consequences for this? I wrote a long response and then my internet crapped out. Here's the short of it. Tennessee v. Garner says it is a violation of the fourth amendment to shoot a fleeing suspect unless there is probable cause to believe they pose an imminent risk to public or officer safety (has a gun, driving recklessly through a crowd, going for a weapon, etc.) Missouri's statute has the old fleeing felon rule, which lets you shoot a feeling felon or suspect regardless of risk posed. States don't always update their laws quickly after a SCOTUS case (though 30 years seems excessive) and even if a law isn't flat out found unconstitutional, court cases will explain, limit etc. so juries are not usually given the statute, they are given stock jury instructions that explain the law in layman's terms with all the terms and definitions explained and developments in the law accounted for. Probable case means blah blah blah, negligent means blah blah blah etc. The fact she gave them the statute at all is weird (Missouri has model instructions...they just aren't online.) The fact the prosecutor didn't know when she handed it to them that it was unconstitutional is also a problem. Tenessee v. Garner is a landmark crime pro case that every 1L knows about. (the fact missouri has taken 30 years to update its statute is also a problem) However, our system is built largely around protecting the rights of the accused, so when a prosecutor screws up, to the benefit of the defendant, there really isn't any recourse. Someone could theoretically file a grievance against her alleging incompetence, but it would probably result in a private reprimand at best. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 01:55 on Dec 20, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 14:21
|
|
|
OP can you elaborate on how bassquitarhero lied about the KKK attempting to abduct him? He's seems like a pretty disingenuous person trying to exploit an already terrible situation much like Al Sharpton.
|
|
#
?
Dec 19, 2014 16:29
|
|
|
Vaall posted:OP can you elaborate on how bassquitarhero lied about the KKK attempting to abduct him? He's seems like a pretty disingenuous person trying to exploit an already terrible situation much like Al Sharpton. To me it's just unbelievable that someone would make that bullshit up. For one, St. Louis does have a KKK chapter like many major cities, but never once in recent history have they ridden around in a truck abducting black people. The Klan was not even in the area of Ferguson (ever), probably because they are really a bunch of cowards. I walked WITH HIM several times around the QuikTrip and the church. I would like to point out that Mr. Guitar Hero preferred to stay in his hotel room while the actual clashes with police took place. It's a pretty big slap in the face when I gave him a flash drive with all of my photos on it to use in his video, as well as introduced him to one of my friends to interview. But I suppose some people would rather embellish than tell the truth when the truth is already powerful enough, which I just cannot wrap my head around at all.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:The three big errors I saw were (1) giving the jury a copy of a statute that has been unconstitutional since 1986 ... From what I read she gave them a copy of this unconstitutional statute and then told them to 'fold it in half' later on. She told them parts of it were wrong but refused to explain to them WHICH parts, even after being asked by jurors. That seems very strange and shady to me, but maybe that is normal attorney conduct?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 03:08
|
|
|
Maarek posted:From what I read she gave them a copy of this unconstitutional statute and then told them to 'fold it in half' later on. She told them parts of it were wrong but refused to explain to them WHICH parts, even after being asked by jurors. That seems very strange and shady to me, but maybe that is normal attorney conduct? Yeah no. None of that is normal. The whole reason model jury instructions exist is so that laypersons don't have to try to figure out what a statute means. Some of what you posted is a little inaccurate. She did iirc tell them what parts were no longer valid, but the take home point is they shouldn't have been given the statute in the first place. They should have been given model jury instructions.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 04:24
|
|
|
Lawrence O'Donnel said this a while back:quote:When one juror asked if “federal court overrides Missouri statutes,” O’Donnell says that she ignored a simple, clear, one-word answer, “yes.” Is that inaccurate? He is a person who talks about the news on television so I would not be shocked, but I haven't heard anyone comment on it until now.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 05:29
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:I wrote a long response and then my internet crapped out. Why the fourth amendment and not the one about cruel and unusual punishments?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 06:56
|
|
|
Lord Windy posted:Why the fourth amendment and not the one about cruel and unusual punishments?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 07:06
|
|
|
Shooting someone from fleeing the police isn't a cruel and unusual punishment? EDIT: If you kill them it would be an execution.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 07:09
|
|
|
Lord Windy posted:Shooting someone from fleeing the police isn't a cruel and unusual punishment? It was already settled law that apprehensions were seizures, and that seizures of differing severities require differing levels of justification. So an argument that lethal force is an extreme seizure requiring extreme justification is much easier to make than an argument inventing a whole new kind of 8th Amendment violation.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 07:16
|
|
|
Equine Don posted:To me, as someone with no legal training whatsoever, it seems McCullough didn't actually try to act as a prosecutor so much as give the jury as much evidence as possible and then back away into a dark corner, which is probably due to his very long history of being 100% on the side of the police in every case he's done. Yea, those dastardly lawyers giving the jury as much information and facts as possible.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 11:35
|
|
|
Re: Seizure and 4th Amendment, previous posters are right. It's only 8th amendment if it is "punishment" which kicks in after a finding of guilt. This is why, although his comments made the internet left collectively lose their poo poo, Scalia's comment on torture of detainees not violating the constitution was technically correct. (It still violates pretty much every known international human rights and law of armed conflicts law, so it's not like "hey, wooo hoo, constitution says we can torture people." It's still illegal, just under a different analysis.) Re: O'Donnell, first off, stop listening to O'Donnell. Citing O'Donnell is like citing Glenn Beck. He's not a journalist, he's a television agitator, and his comments are oversimplified and deliberately inflammatory. If you read the full transcripts, the ADA told them that after doing some research (which she should not have had to do because jesus gently caress, first year crime law, lady) she learned that parts of the statute were unconstitutional. She told the grand jury to fold it in half, and ignore it, then handed them a different explanation of the law and told them to use that. So, effectively, she corrected her error. (I personally would have collected the statutes from them, but that's just me. She told them to ignore the statute and rely on the new instructions) As for the "she didn't answer the juror's simple question" bit, a. it wasn't a simple question, and b. I wouldn't have answered it either. I'm going to address this in terms of a petit jury because my state does not use grand juries, but I imagine the rules are similar, albeit the standard and some procedures are different, The jury has to apply the law as it is given to them by the court. NOT make their own interpretation on the law. One thing jurors are instructed on, and sworn to, is to set aside their own views of the law, or their own understanding of the law, and apply the law only as given to them by the court. That question runs the risk of a juror having outside knowledge of a federal case (perhaps interpreting a federal law, not even a state law) perhaps a federal case that was later overturned by statute, whatever, and then applying, or misapplying their outside knowledge to this case, which is a no-no. So she gave a little bit of a punt of an answer, but it basically came down to "just apply this new legal explanation that we've given you" Which was the right thing to do. Now, as amateur hour as I think not knowing about Garner is, and as bad as it makes the prosecution seem overall (which is the biggest problem with what happened, it makes it look like amateur hour) in this case it did. not. make. a. difference. Wilson's testimony did not rely on his legal authority under the fleeing felon rule, either new or old. It relied on self defense. And there was no error with the first self defense instruction. The whole case boiled down, not to a nuanced definition of fleeing felon or imminent harm to public safety (and one could argue that even under the corrected statute, Wilson would have been justified because, if you believe Wilson, a person who has threatened an Officer with a weapon is a risk to public safety...I wouldn't argue that though, as he no longer had reasonable access to the weapon...still the argument could be made.) If you believe Wilson, which the grand jury appears to have done, the self defense statute controls and Wilson is not indicted.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 14:36
|
|
|
RonMexicosPitbull posted:Yea, those dastardly lawyers giving the jury as much information and facts as possible. Even information he knows is likely false?
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 19:33
|
|
|
foutre posted:We have 5% of the world population and 25% of the world's prison population. Every other first world nation with lower crime rates arrests a lower percentage of their population than we do. Is "what's up with this?" too general a question for this thread? Because, if not: what's up with this? (Please note: not American, may be missing something obvious)
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:Re: O'Donnell, first off, stop listening to O'Donnell. Citing O'Donnell is like citing Glenn Beck. He's not a journalist, he's a television agitator, and his comments are oversimplified and deliberately inflammatory. You can take this quote and replace O'Donnell with "anyone in cable 'news'". I don't really know who Lawrence O'Donnell is, I've only seen people quoting him second-hand. Dzhay posted:Is "what's up with this?" too general a question for this thread? Because, if not: what's up with this? Massive wealth inequality, draconian drug policies, and for-profit prison systems all contribute.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
Dzhay posted:Is "what's up with this?" too general a question for this thread? Because, if not: what's up with this? You should read the other thread in this forum about the guy who went to prison. That's a little too far from the point of this thread though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 21, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Lord Windy posted:Shooting someone from fleeing the police isn't a cruel and unusual punishment? Yes sure we'll just ignore everything and say that Brown was just shot in the back. This is off to a great start. RavenKrows fucked around with this message at 00:11 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 06:22
|
|
|
Gum posted:Even information he knows is likely false? It is not uncommon for prosecutors to hand over basically everything that is come into their office in such high profile cases. Should they be caught "withholding" information...event if they believe it to be not credible they'll be roasted. A lot of the problems with the mishandling of these grand juries is that they became such massive hot button issues that most everyone involved with them is afraid to even poo poo. Lord Windy posted:Shooting someone from fleeing the police isn't a cruel and unusual punishment? Wait, what? He wasn't shot in the back.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 15:57
|
|
|
Lord Windy posted:Shooting someone from fleeing the police isn't a cruel and unusual punishment? Shachi posted:Wait, what? He wasn't shot in the back. I assume that is what Lord Windy was referring to.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 16:19
|
|
|
Tibeerius posted:True, Brown wasn't wounded from behind, but there is strong evidence that Wilson fired at Brown whilst Brown was fleeing. It would help if you specified what evidence you meant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 16:59
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:It would help if you specified what evidence you meant.
With that being said, the question I'm addressing is, "Did Wilson fire on Brown as Brown was fleeing?". I believe he did, because of three corroborating pieces of evidence: The Witness Testimony Eleven witnesses testified that Wilson shot at a fleeing Brown, while only 3 witnesses testified otherwise. (Excluding one witness who testified to both  )http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/newly-released-witness-testimony-tell-us-michael-brown-shooting/ The Audio Recording  This audio recording - which started after the fight at the police car - shows a flurry of shots were fired, followed by a three second pause, followed by the final shots. Wilson claims that all of these shots were fired after Brown stopped fleeing and turned to "charge" Wilson. Assuming Wilson's story is true, what could explain the pause and resumption of firing? If Brown truly charged at Wilson, you would expect a fearful Wilson to fire without pause until Brown was definitively stopped. Therefore, it is very hard to believe that all those shots were fired after Brown turned. What seems much more plausible is that the first flurry of shots were fired as Brown fled (all missing), the shots paused as Brown turned and Wilson reassessed the situation, and the final shots were fired with Brown facing Wilson (some of which struck Brown). The Fact That Brown Stopped Fleeing in the First Place Assuming you believe Wilson's account, why would Brown stop fleeing from Wilson in the first place? If Wilson wasn't firing at Brown as he fled, why wouldn't Brown continue running and try to escape? Wilson's account would have you believe that Brown ran a good distance away from Wilson, only to stop, turn, and charge at an armed officer that had already shot him once, all without Wilson firing a shot as Brown fled. What seems much more plausible is that Wilson shot at a fleeing Brown, and that Brown stopped after considering the odds of getting shot again to be too high to warrant an escape attempt. Whether Brown stopped to attack Wilson or stopped to surrender to Wilson is beyond the scope of what I'm covering here. I'm simply trying to explain why I believe Wilson shot at Brown as Brown fled. I'm also not weighing in on the legality of firing on a fleeing Brown, as IANAL. Tibeerius fucked around with this message at 19:06 on Dec 22, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 18:06
|
|
|
All of the above seems to be based on what common sense dictates two people in a stressful situation should do. Common sense doesn't seem like it was in abundant supply on the ground in Ferguson though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2014 20:57
|
|
|
Hi, Equine Don, Thanks for the invite to be part of what has actually been a pretty worthwhile discussion here, and much credit for actually getting involved and trying to get a critical understanding of everything that happened in Ferguson. Unfortunately, I don't think I can participate in the discussion anymore as your token prosecutor. This comment from another thread: SedanChair posted:ActusRhesus this must be a nice relaxing break from all the real activism you do (and have been scrupulous to conceal and not discuss the details of in any way, unlike your actual job which you have given enough details about to be identified). "I need to blow off some steam," you muse. Then you post a bunch of petulant poo poo like this: has me genuinely concerned. I don't see how to read that other than as a not-so-thinly veiled threat to interfere with my career, and as my family depends on the income I receive from being part of the oppressive system of injustice loathed by so many keyboard warriors, I really can't take that risk. (For the record, the reform I suggested was "hippy bullshit" was a suggestion that murderers should be sent to therapeutic healing retreats rather than prison.) If people have legal questions, or want explanations about how things work, etc. Happy to answer them via pm, but I really can't jeopardize my career. Sorry. Hope the discussion stays fruitful. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 03:54 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 03:45
|
|
|
SedanChair ruins everything.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 04:11
|
|
|
SedenChair is a mentally ill piece of poo poo who been pretending to be black (he's not) on the internet for years now as part of his relentless one man brigade of social justice shitposting. He's always throwing the ad-hominems towards anyone who thinks he's loving retarded you're not the first I wouldn't worry too much about it
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
thanks, but the fact he is mentally ill doesn't help in this case. I've had internet nutcases try IRL stalking me in the past and it wasn't fun. Maybe I'll just lay low for a week or so rather than withdrawing all together. In the meantime, still happy to answer questions via pm.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:thanks, but the fact he is mentally ill doesn't help in this case. I've had internet nutcases try IRL stalking me in the past and it wasn't fun. He is a piece of poo poo and hopefully he will be permabanned soon. Please come back when you are ready.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 05:02
|
|
|
ActusRhesus posted:thanks, but the fact he is mentally ill doesn't help in this case. I've had internet nutcases try IRL stalking me in the past and it wasn't fun. Well that sucks. I don't really have an opinion either way but this thread is definitely interesting. It was refreshing to read some serious and informative posts and not have to sift through the normal idiocy and poo poo posting. Thanks for your contribution!
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
He came to our website and eventually started ranting about having "black people blood". Hes super mentally ill. My theory is he became so self hating reading all that poo poo on tumblr and dnd, noticed he had a minority relative, and just ran with it realizing he can beat people over the head and make people pay attention to him. Which is kind of sad that thats the case in the first place but w/e.
RonMexicosPitbull fucked around with this message at 07:16 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 07:02
|
|
|
Equine Don posted:He was a marine who came out to march with the protesters. I know no one cares any more, but I saw the conversation on the first page. I would be willing to bet the guy in the image is just using stolen valor to build some form of credibility. You can tell by his hosed up ribbons. The one on the bottom left is a Iraq campaign award, with what looks like 2 stars meaning he has been there 3 times. The ribbon to the bottom right is a sea service deployment, awarded for a deployment - there is no way you can have stars on your Iraq ribbon and not the same if not more on your sea service. Not to mention that the that the if he was over in Iraq 3 times he would have a lot more ribbons then that, at least at the unit award level. Due to the various campaigns ending and new ones starting. They are what we dub "starter kits". Also I doubt any marine, epically in the infantry (combat action ribbon) would ever wear that uniform again outside of service. Any ways just my two cents, and completely irrelevant to the case at large.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 09:58
|
|
|
That's not entirely accurate. A campaign ribbon with one star means you went at least once, but the campaign stars are awarded based on which campaigns you participated in, not how many times you went. And because for IA deployments, they made iraq eligible for either sea service OR overseas service, it's possible to have no stars on your sea service if, for example, the campaign switched over while you were still there. And not all units got unit awards. I'm more concerned about someone who was in long enough to participate in 2 campaigns having no personal decorations. I know marines are stingy about awards compared to navy but he should at least have an end of tour award by now. Edit to add: have slept on it. gently caress Sedan Chair. I just realized that given my boss's temperament, pissing off SJWs like him would probably get me promoted. And I'm union anyway. Though I'll probably stick to places like here where people seem genuinely interested in discussing rather than circle jerking. General G's comment about them being as bad as a fox news comment section was spot on. There's a lot to discuss and there's a lot to improve abut our system, but vilifying everyone who is part of it doesn't help. ActusRhesus fucked around with this message at 15:18 on Dec 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
Tibeerius posted:The Witness Testimony The Newshour article is interesting, but minor point of clarification for your The chart does not reflect testimony. The chart contains initial statements to the police. It does not contain the details about what the witness may have actually testified under oath to the GJ about what they saw. It is also incomplete and missing witnesses. A quick spot check would show Witness 40 (the bipolar racist diary writer) isn't included. Most of the interviews were completed within a day or so of the shooting and we'll before the GJ proceeding started. The article really isn't too great given the lack of methodology and misrepresentation of interviews as sworn testimony. OJ MIST 2 THE DICK fucked around with this message at 04:16 on Dec 24, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 04:13
|
|
|
Thanks for the clarification! My understanding is that initial witness interviews are just as accurate (if not more so) than testimony given months after the fact, but your point that key witnesses might be missing is well taken. It would be nice if there were a similar chart including all statements. It gets very difficult to debate this case without one or both parties handwaving toward "testimony" supporting their point, but (understandably) no one wants to wade through months of testimony to see who's actually correct. Tibeerius fucked around with this message at 19:31 on Dec 25, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 24, 2014 17:21
|
|
|
Vaall posted:SedenChair is a mentally ill piece of poo poo who been pretending to be black (he's not) on the internet for years now as part of his relentless one man brigade of social justice shitposting. He's always throwing the ad-hominems towards anyone who thinks he's loving retarded you're not the first I wouldn't worry too much about it RonMexicosPitbull posted:He came to our website and eventually started ranting about having "black people blood". Hes super mentally ill. My theory is he became so self hating reading all that poo poo on tumblr and dnd, noticed he had a minority relative, and just ran with it realizing he can beat people over the head and make people pay attention to him. Which is kind of sad that thats the case in the first place but w/e. ActusRhesus posted:I just realized that given my boss's temperament, pissing off SJWs like him would probably get me promoted Did I wander into the [Ask] me about SASS thread by mistake? I have a question about the grand jury proceedings. Recently McCulloch gave an interview where he said that he knew the crazy witness lady was lying about being there but she was called to give testimony anyway. I assume it's not counted as suborning perjury, but is it considered unethical?
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 19:46
|
|
|
No I believe this is the Ask me about Ferguson thread.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 20:02
|
|
|
Maarek posted:Did I wander into the [Ask] me about SASS thread by mistake? Can you link to the interview, I want to have the context of the comment before I opine. (Though generally yes, suborning perjury is bad. However, there are some variances by jurisdictions as to whether you have a duty to correct,or just aren't allowed to mention it in your summation. Also a difference between "I know it's a lie" and "I suspect it's a lie." A pretty important distinction for pretty much ever defense attorney who has ever called an "alibi" witness.)
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 21:56
|
|
|
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/...93587847c7.html http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/prosecutor-ferguson-witnesses-lied-27722154 quote:Clearly some were not telling the truth," McCulloch said. I listened to the interview itself and in it he says this woman was a well known crazy person and that everyone knew that she was lying about being there, but that he thought it was better to just throw anyone who claimed to see it in front of the grand jury and let them decide.
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 23:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 27, 2024 23:33 |
|
|
Double post 
|
|
#
?
Dec 27, 2014 23:35
|
|