|
Dead Reckoning posted:Has the manager actually provided names or badge numbers, or have any of the officers present come forward to say they were in Burger King? Even if the footage was unambiguously erased, it's hard to file charges against "unknown John Doe 1-5." It's actually pretty fixable. What might happen is the department or municipality would be a party to the suit along with however many Does and would be subject to an order to basically assist in identifying the Doe parties. In the Second Circuit, this is a consequence of Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1997), and while I haven't canvassed the other circuits for similar precedent it wouldn't surprise me if it's done elsewhere (though that certainly doesn't mean it is). At the very least, there's a practical procedural remedy articulated and implemented somewhere.
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:They wouldn't be, being a witness to a crime is not a crime. It's absolutely not a "gently caress those guys for being cops" crime. It was a "would the situation be the same if the shooter and victim were reversed?" crime. And apparently it would be, so there's nothing to do.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Its not a euphemism, when a cop shoots someone its not treated the same because cops have to shoot people sometimes as part of their job, I'm not sure why this is hard/controversial. I imagine it is controversial because that system is not working very well and a lot of innocent people have died because of it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 03:07
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:It's actually pretty fixable. What might happen is the department or municipality would be a party to the suit along with however many Does and would be subject to an order to basically assist in identifying the Doe parties. In the Second Circuit, this is a consequence of Valentin v. Dinkins, 121 F.3d 72 (2d Cir. 1997), and while I haven't canvassed the other circuits for similar precedent it wouldn't surprise me if it's done elsewhere (though that certainly doesn't mean it is). At the very least, there's a practical procedural remedy articulated and implemented somewhere. Except we're talking about a criminal case. Doe cases are sometimes filed for SoL reasons, but compelling criminal defendants to help the prosecution isn't gonna help. That said, some of you seem to think that one manager's testimony isn't enough for a charge and conviction, yet probably a majority of criminal convictions are based on a single witness. If the manager could positively ID the cops in a lineup, there would certainly be enough to charge.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 04:18
|
|
|
nm posted:Except we're talking about a criminal case. Ah, for some reason I thought we were talking about a potential civil suit. Serves me right for skimming on my phone. Edit: Obviously, there's already an investigatory body that's designed to help the prosecution with things like ascertaining identities of potential defendants. And like you said, identification testimony goes a long way, likely regardless of getting names or badge numbers before. The Warszawa fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 04:23
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The fact that some of the tape is missing does not by itself prove someone tampered with it. Who bought Nixon's secretary an account?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 08:04
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:The fact that some of the tape is missing does not by itself prove someone tampered with it. That shooting video looks really fake too, has it even been provedn this guy is actually dead in the first place? Probably loving SJWs trying to stir up poo poo against cops (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 11:18
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:
I don't know about accessory to murder bit there should definitely be conspiracy charges for every officer that lied on their report. Which is likely most of them. Funny story, when I was on Grand Jury, some lady found a purse on the side of the road while she was driving with a passenger. She stopped and picked it up. It had credit cards in it. The woman proceeded to user said credit cards. The DA tried to throw a conspiracy charge at the passenger simply because she was in the vehicle at the time. She didn't benefit in any way from the crime but she was simply there.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 13:30
|
|
|
Illegal Username posted:I agree. Would you prefer a justice system in which guilt is presumed of criminal defendants?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 14:38
|
|
|
Charging someone with a crime isn't the same as assuming they're guilty, hth
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 14:48
|
|
|
Why do cop apologists continually come back with "due process" when the due process of the cops' victims have usually been terminally abused in each instance? LIke "yeah, they totally blew that kid away for essentially walking down the road, but hold on... they're cops and we can't just jump to conclusions, that would assume they are guilty."
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 15:01
|
|
|
It's a wonder anyone is convicted of anything in this country as some people seem to think that you need an iron clad case before the police are even supposed to start looking into if someone took part in a crime. People aren't asking for mob justice where police are thrown in jail without trial, but the standard for even saying "hey maybe we should look into if these cops committed a serious offense like destruction of evidence as this witness claims they did blatantly in front of him and if there is a valid case try them fairly in a court of law" is so ridiculously high and not at all in line with everyone else in society. To me destroying the evidence is a huge issue here along with the murder. With a homicide you could make the case that the officer feared for his life, had bad training, the kid was dead and the extra shots TECHNICALLY didn't kill him and so don't matter since the first were valid, thought his gun was his taser, etc. There is absolutely no excuse for deleting a video that shows your co-worker in the process of a potential murder. It undermines the entire system when the police can do something like that and the system doesn't care. How are people supposed to believe the idea that everyone is treated equally when it's clear they aren't? Eggplant Squire fucked around with this message at 16:00 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 15:25
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:Why do cop apologists continually come back with "due process" when the due process of the cops' victims have usually been terminally abused in each instance? Are you addressing me? I have a visceral dislike of cops even stronger than my dislike of ersatz leftist poseurs, but I am a lawyer trained in the US and respect due process. Due process is not a thing you put in scare quotes - it's a constitutional guarantee here. Everyone involved in judicial proceedings gets it. We don't suspend it because it seems likely that dude violated someone else's rights outside of judicial proceedings. What are you suggesting? That this cop be burned at the stake NOW, because, like, leftist veganism?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 15:34
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:What are you suggesting? That this cop be burned at the stake NOW? No one is suggesting this but you, are you drunkposting, it's a bit early in the morning isn't it? E: All Radish is saying is they want an investigation into BK's allegations that the cops erased evidence. You don't have to presume anyone is guilty to investigate a complaint, and you don't need proof beyond a reasonable doubt before you start looking for proof (and I'm sure even you can figure out why that is). VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:55 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 15:50
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Are you addressing me? I have a visceral dislike of cops even stronger than my dislike of ersatz leftist poseurs, but I am a lawyer trained in the US and respect due process. Due process is not a thing you put in scare quotes - it's a constitutional guarantee here. Everyone involved in judicial proceedings gets it. We don't suspend it because it seems likely that dude violated someone else's rights outside of judicial proceedings. tbh, all the posters in here are asking is that this is properly investigated and that the prosecutor actually do his job. this means:
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 15:56
|
|
|
Condiv posted:tbh, all the posters in here are asking is that this is properly investigated and that the prosecutor actually do his job. this means: I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing some truly bloodthirsty, retributionist rhetoric. People are arguing that due process should be defined at the same standard as the acts which the penal system punishes.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 16:03
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing some truly bloodthirsty, retributionist rhetoric. People are arguing that due process should be defined at the same standard as the acts which the penal system punishes. That'll happen. You want to line it up against what cops are saying on cop forums? The kind of cop forums you have to send in a scan of your ID card to access?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 16:06
|
|
|
SedanChair posted:That'll happen. You want to line it up against what cops are saying on cop forums? I don't like cops. I expect much more of myself and my justice system than I expect from them. Why would you lower your standards to those whom you despise for their low standards? It makes no sense to me.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 16:11
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:Would you prefer a justice system in which guilt is presumed of criminal defendants? TheImmigrant posted:Are you addressing me? I have a visceral dislike of cops even stronger than my dislike of ersatz leftist poseurs, but I am a lawyer trained in the US and respect due process. Due process is not a thing you put in scare quotes - it's a constitutional guarantee here. Everyone involved in judicial proceedings gets it. We don't suspend it because it seems likely that dude violated someone else's rights outside of judicial proceedings.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 16:15
|
|
|
I'm really not seeing the bloodthirsty, retributionist rhetoric.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I'm not seeing that. I'm seeing some truly bloodthirsty, retributionist rhetoric. Could you quote it? I'm not seeing any of that. quote:People are arguing that due process should be defined at the same standard as the acts which the penal system punishes. My quote was simply about the inequality in which police suspects are handled as opposed to civilian suspects. Along with it was a question as to why no one who clutches their pearls at cops getting anything but the most favorable treatment legally bats an eyelash at a cop summarily executing a civilian for whatever imagined offense. There was no call to execute police.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 16:17
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:
This thread is absolutely replete with pearl-clutching about the possibility that a probably-criminal cop won't spend years being gang-raped in prison. If you don't see it, you need to step out of your echo chamber more often. By the way, 'summary execution' doesn't mean what you think it means. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 16:23
|
|
|
You want to quote some of these prison rape fantasies?Radish posted:I'm really not seeing the bloodthirsty, retributionist rhetoric. "Cops who commit murder should be investigated."
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 16:24
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:I don't like cops. I expect much more of myself and my justice system than I expect from them. Why would you expect less from the people who ostensibly protect and serve you
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 16:25
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:This thread is absolutely replete with pearl-clutching about the possibility that a probably-criminal cop won't spend years being gang-raped in prison. If you don't see it, you need to step out of your echo chamber more often. Perhaps a quote? Should be quite easy if the thread is just "replete" with them. quote:By the way, 'summary execution' doesn't mean what you think it means. "A summary execution is an executionin which a person is accused of a crime and immediately killed without benefit of a full and fair trial. This includes show trials, but is usually understood to mean capture, accusation, and execution all conducted during a very short span of time." Sounds about right. Usually a span of seconds.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 16:32
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:This thread is absolutely replete with pearl-clutching about the possibility that a probably-criminal cop won't spend years being gang-raped in prison. If you don't see it, you need to step out of your echo chamber more often. "I can't cite any examples, but you know how those people are!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 16:38
|
|
|
God I love this thread. "I hope someone investigates BK's claim that the police tampered with evidence to cover up a murder"  "Oh so you want to gangrape all cops! God you vegan liberalsliberalsliberalsliberalsliberals!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 17:00
|
|
|
TheImmigrant posted:This thread is absolutely replete with pearl-clutching about the possibility that a probably-criminal cop won't spend years being gang-raped in prison. If you don't see it, you need to step out of your echo chamber more often. If you want to thread poo poo it's up to you. But don't just make poo poo up, address the points presented and and show the thread why they are flawed like they did your points.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 18:05
|
|
|
Here's what A Fancy Bloke wrote:A Fancy Bloke posted:Why do cop apologists continually come back with "due process" when the due process of the cops' victims have usually been terminally abused in each instance? He can try to play it off with "oh what I meant to say was that people seem less concerned about the rights of ordinary people when the police violate them, because they don't agree with my skewed view of the legal system," but that isn't what the words that he typed mean. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 21:53 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 18:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Literally the only way to parse that is "why are some posters concerned about the civil rights of police when the police have violated the victim's civil rights?" That is a fundamentally insane question, because the whole reason the officer is being charged in the first place is because the state believes that he violated the victim's rights. TheImmigrant rightly called him on it. Maybe if you're trapped in Mental Copland you can take that away from it. The way I read it is that the cop apologists always cry about civil rights for police, and no one else ever.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 18:58
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Literally the only way to parse that is "why are some posters concerned about the civil rights of police when the police have violated the victim's civil rights?" That is a fundamentally insane question, because the whole reason the officer is being charged in the first place is because the state believes that he violated the victim's rights. TheImmigrant rightly called him on it. That's not what I read either. We're all okay with police having civil rights. We just don't understand why any time any one of them is accused someone jumps in with "but wait guys they have civil rights!" Especially since they are like the least likeliest people whose civil rights could be violated (I'm speaking strictly in terms of due process). When this happens to non-police, the same people either say "yeah serves em right!" or let the crickets chirp.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 19:20
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:That's not what I read either. We're all okay with police having civil rights. We just don't understand why any time any one of them is accused someone jumps in with "but wait guys they have civil rights!" It might be because any time one of them is accused a bunch of people start bitching about the fact they have civil rights?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 19:24
|
|
|
"Not having allegations against you of criminal activity investigated" isn't a civil right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 19:26
|
|
|
SSNeoman posted:That's not what I read either. We're all okay with police having civil rights. We just don't understand why any time any one of them is accused someone jumps in with "but wait guys they have civil rights!" People wouldn't point out that the police have rights as well if the legal strategies and proposed changes to the criminal justice system people suggest in this thread didn't involve curtailing or violating those rights.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 19:35
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:That may be what he meant, but it's not what he said, and the principle of charity does not require that we pretend he didn't say something stupid.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 19:41
|
|
God I fucking love Diablo 3 gold, it even paid for this shitty title
|
Yeah but you're pretending to believe that video footage of an alleged crime disappearing after cops are alone with the footage is just some odd cosmic coincidence and there's no point even investigating it. I mean, why even charge the cop for murder, can we ever 100% know that a wizard didn't kidnap McDonald right before the bullets hit and replace him with a physically identical but soulless homonculus? Sounds like a violation of the officer's rights to have a trial imo VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 19:43
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:It might be because any time one of them is accused a bunch of people start bitching about the fact they have civil rights?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 20:33
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
How strange that the only way to read the words are that I'm crazy and I lust for the blood of all cops, and yet somehow you were able to divine an alternate meaning that isn't crazy but I'd try to "sell them off as" A true vegan - whisperer you are. Dead Reckoning posted:That may be what he meant, but it's not what he said, and the principle of charity does not require that we pretend he didn't say something stupid. Well if we're not charitable, then you're a racist piece of poo poo for how you said armed black children were more threatening that white dudes in a restaurant wirh rifles in their hands and it's really appalling that you hang black children in trees. Lol watch him try to sell it as the white adults looked like dorks and he doesn't ACTUALLY long for RaHoWa Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 20:39 on Nov 26, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 20:33
|
|
, if the mods started cracking down on inane hyperbole and strawmanning, this thread would be a ghost town. Here's what A Fancy Bloke wrote:
|
tezcat posted:No one has done that. Can you quote "a bunch of people" saying "it's a shame that officers have civil rights" in this thread? This is the kind of thing shuts down & derails conversation. If your post was reported and a mod was genuinely curious if you had a point, do you think that they would be able to see what you are talking about? That's because people bitch about things like "why isn't that cop forced to file a report on his own shooting" and when its pointed out to them that this is a violation of of their 5th Amendment rights out comes the chorus of "stop trying to derail the thread with legal technicalities". Its almost as if people like me keep bringing this poo poo up because those "technicalities" are important civil rights. Ironically I did not go looking for a quote on that specific subject but look what just picking random pages of the thread from the last month turned up: Chalets the Baka posted:Of course the police apologizers are going to default to arguing semantics. gently caress off with that.
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 20:55
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 07:05 |
|
|
Wait, it's a civil right for cops to ignore their own policies and procedures?
|
|
#
?
Nov 26, 2015 20:59
|
|
