|
Everything I've seen about them says they were there to poo poo-stir and things escalated, nothing about them planning to shoot anyone.
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:37
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
KomradeX posted:Because it was part of their crime, they committed a crime and also entered into a conspiracy to go out and commit said crime. Why wouldn't they be charged with both?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:41
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:Everything I've seen about them says they were there to poo poo-stir and things escalated, nothing about them planning to shoot anyone. From "they were there to poo poo-stir" to "things escalated;" why the convenient and not-at-all leading switch to the passive voice, semper wifi?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:42
|
|
|
Are those weak-poo poo charges? What kind of felony is second-degree riot?
PostNouveau fucked around with this message at 22:56 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 22:51
|
|
|
PostNouveau posted:Are those weak-poo poo charges? What kind of felony is second-degree riot? Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 23:08 on Nov 30, 2015 |
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:04
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Riot in the second degree gets you up to five years and a $10,000 fine, assault in the second degree is up to ten years and $20,000. The shooter is facing five counts of the latter, don't know if or how they'll stack. Sounds pretty good. Is it only murder that the accessories get charged with the same crime as the triggerman? I just saw a story where a getaway driver took a murder charge on an armed robbery gone south.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:09
|
|
|
Those charges are a good thing. If we've learned anything from the past few years, it's that charges that seem aggressive are usually just the DA trying to get an acquittal.
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:19
|
|
|
KomradeX posted:Ugh, I'm sure this will be the actual rationale Clearly they are just big dorks. How could anyone like that be dangerous?
|
|
#
?
Nov 30, 2015 23:40
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:Clearly they are just big dorks. How could anyone like that be dangerous? Ownership of firearms.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 00:28
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:Clearly they are just big dorks. How could anyone like that be dangerous? PostNouveau posted:Is it only murder that the accessories get charged with the same crime as the triggerman? I just saw a story where a getaway driver took a murder charge on an armed robbery gone south.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 00:53
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Or, maybe it's because it's pointless to charge someone for conspiracy to commit a crime when you can charge them with the actual crime? That makes sense if conspiracy is an included lesser charge, and the jury could convict on it even if they acquit on the act itself. (I think someone said that's the case in CO.) If not, then charging with both seems like a good way to ensure that something sticks.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 00:58
|
|
|
Radbot posted:Those charges are a good thing. If we've learned anything from the past few years, it's that charges that seem aggressive are usually just the DA trying to get an acquittal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 01:08
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:From "they were there to poo poo-stir" to "things escalated;" why the convenient and not-at-all leading switch to the passive voice, semper wifi? Well because what evidence there is points to the protesters escalating things, not the shooters, but I figured I wouldn't take sides so early on.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 02:21
|
|
|
Grundulum posted:That makes sense if conspiracy is an included lesser charge, and the jury could convict on it even if they acquit on the act itself. (I think someone said that's the case in CO.) If not, then charging with both seems like a good way to ensure that something sticks. Be that as it may, I don't think the prosecutor's decision not to throw in a conspiracy charge is an attempt to let misunderstood white youth off the hook, as KomradeX and Dexo suggested at the start of this discussion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 02:34
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:Ownership of firearms. Turn left thread noooo
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 02:35
|
|
|
semper wifi posted:Well because what evidence there is points to the protesters escalating things, not the shooters, but I figured I wouldn't take sides so early on. Just post to the link to the video and blow your load already, that anticipation boner is unseemly. These guys got what they came for, it's just that when they actually realized in the moment what the reality of what it is they were getting was, they shot some folks and ran for it. This is after they shared that juvenile pump-up video. I think it's likely a walk for the prosecutors. These people don't have to be made to look crazy, they did all that work for themselves. The guy's own cop buddy basically described him as a crazed racist sovereign citizen in the politest way possible. The trial, if there is an ounce of justice in this world, is going to be loving hilarious.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 02:36
|
|
|
I would like to read what the cop friend said about the shooter. Do you have a link?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 02:47
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Be that as it may, I don't think the prosecutor's decision not to throw in a conspiracy charge is an attempt to let misunderstood white youth off the hook, as KomradeX and Dexo suggested at the start of this discussion. Whoops. I completely forgot which crazy-rear end shooting was under discussion.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 03:00
|
|
|
Silver Nitrate posted:I would like to read what the cop friend said about the shooter. Do you have a link? http://www.hennepinattorney.org/~/media/Attorney/NEWS/2015/scarsella-allen-cplt.pdf?la=en "During the early hours of November 24, 2015, investigators learned that a police officer from a police agency outside the Twin Cities was personally acquainted with Scarsella. This officer received a phone call from Scarsella on November 24, 2015 around 1:00 a.m. Scarsella told him he had just shot 5 people. The officer encouraged Scarsella to turn himself in and to also turn his guns over to police. The officer was aware that Scarsella owned and carried guns and that he had very intense opinions, which the officer described as being a sovereign citizen and pro-Constitution. He knew that Scarsella had negative experiences with and opinions about African Americans."
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 03:47
|
|
|
How the hell can you be a sovereign citizen AND pro-constitution?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 04:40
|
|
|
Mavric posted:How the hell can you be a sovereign citizen AND pro-constitution? The secret is to not question things too deeply.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 04:46
|
|
|
Anybody who proclaims to love the constitution has no idea what it means, or how it works. It's a fever dream, an abstract concept.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 05:16
|
|
|
lllllllllllllllllll posted:They were also serving food with rat poison and then denied the inmates medical attention. That is hard to believe. It isn't if you are familiar with the place. I don't even live in NYC but I know enough about Rikers not to be surprised by any kind of horror that comes out of it. One glance at pictures will show you the place is more run down than alcatraz, which doesn't even house prisoners anymore; and one glance at news articles about it from the last 20 years is enough to learn what its various administrations think about their responsibilities when it comes to keeping their inmates physically and mentally well. Place should have been nuked into the continental shelf years ago. Preferably with admin and the guards still inside. Vahakyla posted:Anybody who proclaims to love the constitution has no idea what it means, or how it works. It's a fever dream, an abstract concept. I enjoy linking this article. http://www.theonion.com/article/area-man-passionate-defender-of-what-he-imagines-c-2849
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 07:09
|
|
|
tezcat posted:Yeah. It honestly looks like those morons are going to see some time. Much better than your normal shitshow of take forever to bring charges and then let them weasel out of any real punishment. They aren't cops, though, so the DA has no institutional incentive to throw the case. I'd like to think that given the evidence, it wouldn't make a difference, but after the Eric Garner case, I have to wonder. I'm a bit surprised that didn't blow up more, given the evidence and facts of the case. Ferguson and Baltimore may have been better primed to explode, but the Garner decision was such an explicit, official devaluation of a life that it hit me harder.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 08:38
|
|
|
ClancyEverafter posted:Just post to the link to the video and blow your load already, that anticipation boner is unseemly. If you think the guys in the video are telling the truth (and obviously they would lie for the BLM side if they were gonna lie) how can you still think there's going to be a conviction? By their own account they attacked and then chased the 4chan guys for basically no reason, and only backed off when they started shooting. Though I guess the texts from the shooter telling his GF to hide his guns or whatever might gently caress him big time. I'm with you on the trial though, been waiting for Zimmerman redux. rockopete posted:They aren't cops, though, so the DA has no institutional incentive to throw the case. I'd like to think that given the evidence, it wouldn't make a difference, but after the Eric Garner case, I have to wonder. It didn't blow up because the entire movement shot itself in both feet when they wasted most of their capital and energy on Brown and Gray. How stupid do you have to make a guy who got caught on video robbing and assaulting a 5 foot nothing convenience store clerk the face of your movement? On top of that the initial witness statements about HANDS UP EXECUTION, nobody with a functioning brain believed that poo poo but it got turned into a thing anyway, god knows why. Then they followed it up by rioting in Baltimore over Gray but whoops nobody actually knows what happened at all even now. Over half a year later nobody even knows how or when he got hurt, and it's hard, for me at least, to care too much about a story that vague. Like, Garner should've been the perfect storm. NYPD on camera strangling a guy to death over cigarettes, imagine what might've happened if it had gotten the attention the Brown shooting did. Big name legislation or something. But instead everyone who cared had been loving up Nowhere, Missouri for months and was too tired to care and nothing got done.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 10:37
|
|
|
What are you talking about, did you somehow miss the giant Department of Justice report on Ferguson? quote:The department found that the FPD has a pattern or practice of: You should read the findings and report back to the thread
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 13:01
|
|
|
rockopete posted:They aren't cops, though, so the DA has no institutional incentive to throw the case. I'd like to think that given the evidence, it wouldn't make a difference, but after the Eric Garner case, I have to wonder. Yeah I'm not sure where all this expectation these guys would be given a pass is coming from, they're not cops. Has there been a basis for expecting anyone with pro-cop leanings is going to be given a free pass to shoot people without prosecution? rockopete posted:I'm a bit surprised that didn't blow up more, given the evidence and facts of the case. Ferguson and Baltimore may have been better primed to explode, but the Garner decision was such an explicit, official devaluation of a life that it hit me harder. I don't know I'm exactly the opposite, I think it might be because I've choked, and been choked out, way way more violently then it that video during sparring so many times I can't even begin to try to offer a number. As a result my reaction to the video was much more "holy poo poo you can die from that!?" and after finding out there was a policy against it for that reason its always felt like a cop doing something stupid and dangerous that resulted in a freak accident then the "that cop just choked that guy to death on camera" reaction that most people have had.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 14:40
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Has there been a basis for expecting anyone with pro-cop leanings is going to be given a free pass to shoot The Southern United States from 1776 - 19(whenever hand held video cameras were ubiquitous). The north too, though slightly less blatant.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 15:10
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yeah I'm not sure where all this expectation these guys would be given a pass is coming from, they're not cops. Has there been a basis for expecting anyone with pro-cop leanings is going to be given a free pass to shoot people without prosecution? I find it hard to believe that you were actually surprised that choking somebody can be fatal.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 15:13
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:I don't know I'm exactly the opposite, I think it might be because I've choked, and been choked out, way way more violently then it that video during sparring so many times I can't even begin to try to offer a number. As a result my reaction to the video was much more "holy poo poo you can die from that!?" and after finding out there was a policy against it for that reason its always felt like a cop doing something stupid and dangerous that resulted in a freak accident then the "that cop just choked that guy to death on camera" reaction that most people have had. I can understand that in isolation, but for me it was that plus the chain of events that followed. selling loose cigs -> cop's unauthorized escalation causes death -> No one is indicted or charged criminally, and testimony to the grand jury is sealed The DA chose to put only Pantoleo forward and not also the cops putting weight on Garner's back, who are probably more directly responsible for his death. Pantoleo used a chokehold which was explicitly forbidden by the department on a perpetrator who posed no threat to him, and which resulted in the death of this man. For that, he loses his badge and gun, nothing else. One other officer is assigned to desk duty. Some paramedics are temporarily suspended. No one is reprimanded for failing to stop Pantoleo from using the choke hold.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 15:53
|
|
|
rockopete posted:They aren't cops, though, so the DA has no institutional incentive to throw the case. I'd like to think that given the evidence, it wouldn't make a difference, but after the Eric Garner case, I have to wonder. I'm surprised that there aren't more DAs gunning for bad cops to nail to the wall. People are thirsty as hell to see cops going to prison when they assault and murder people. Every case of an indicted cop is national news. Actually convicting a cop would make any DA an overnight superstar.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 16:55
|
|
|
captainblastum posted:I find it hard to believe that you were actually surprised that choking somebody can be fatal.  I meant the manner in which the choke hold was executed and the level of force it was executed with, not that you can't choke someone to death, I have the sneaking suspicion you understood this but are deliberately misunderstanding me.That poo poo doesn't usually kill people Also if I remember correctly he wasn't choked to death, he died of inflammation caused by internal injury from the choke hold, which is specifically the risk I wasn't very aware of until this incident. rockopete posted:I can understand that in isolation, but for me it was that plus the chain of events that followed. The thing is breaking department policy is not the same thing as breaking the law. I understand that people's reaction to this is that if it breaks policy how can it be a legal/official/legitimate application of force so it must be a crime, but it doesn't work that way. What constitutes criminal behavior or legally allowable force is the law, which includes statute and case law. Departments can set policies that are more restrictive then what an officer is legally allowed to do, but unless we write into the appropriate statutes that violating department policy voids a justification defense the only means they have to enforce those more restrictive rules are professional consequences. Personally I don't think giving police chiefs the ability to unilaterally and arbitrarily define de facto criminal codes is a good thing, I think it would cause way more problems then it would solve, even if it would have allowed the DA to nail the cop that choked Garner. I understand the argument for negligent homicide but I just really don't think its a winner, if that chokehold had been uniformly banned then you'd have a strong case but since in other departments it would have been allowable under their policies I just don't think that case has a chance. Civil negligence is a different issue however, though you'd have to go after the department because there's no way that conduct pierces qualified immunity. Now that last bit would be a law I'm not sure is good(tm), I can understand both sides of the argument for QI but I'm very on the fence about it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 17:10
|
|
|
If I choke someone and they accidentally die it's probably manslaughter at least. Now you're going to say "Ah but cops are allowed to choke people as part of their job" but no these cops weren't.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 17:22
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:If I choke someone and they accidentally die it's probably manslaughter at least. I spent almost my entire post addressing this argument in depth, it was literally the point of the post. If you're going to just say "nuh uh" without addressing any of the points I raised at least spare us the sardonic "and now you're going to say..." because I'm not, but only because I've already said that.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 17:34
|
|
|
I read your post, police chiefs setting procedures is not "police chiefs writing criminal codes". It's police chiefs defining what is and is not part of their employees' job which is within the chief's purview. Choking someone and killing them accidentally is manslaughter. If choking them is part of your job I can see that being a defense, but since it wasn't part of their job or allowed on the job then why should that defense be available.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 17:43
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I read your post, police chiefs setting procedures is not "police chiefs writing criminal codes". It's police chiefs defining what is and is not part of their employees' job which is within the chief's purview. Again, I specifically addressed this argument already and you haven't done anything but repeat it without adding anything new, but sure lets try this again: Its not part of his job according to the policy of the NYPD, for violating internal policies the department has the option to punish him through professional means. In order to punish someone criminally the conduct has to be not part of the job of a police officer according to the criminal codes of the state of New York. If you want to revise that criminal codes to say "see: whatever department policy is" then yes you are giving police chiefs the ability to write de facto criminal code with no oversight.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 18:00
|
|
|
Does the criminal code of New York actually define that to such a nitty-gritty standard what the job of a police officer is and get into which maneuvers are okay and when? Could you link that, that sounds very surprising to me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 18:06
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Again, I specifically addressed this argument already and you haven't done anything but repeat it without adding anything new, but sure lets try this again: So are there any lethal actions police could have taken to kill Garner that you'd argue are illegal? If they had used a garrote to choke rather than hands, would that still be legal in your mind?
|
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 18:08
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Again, I specifically addressed this argument already and you haven't done anything but repeat it without adding anything new, but sure lets try this again: If this is what you were trying to say, then maybe you spent too much time getting choked in the military. Because this is not what people are up in arms about. This is exactly why people get up your rear end and exactly what you were criticized of before, that you will focus on diversionary poo poo that distracts from the main issue. The point is not "he was violating departmental policy", but "his loving chokehold (which also happened to be against department policy) killed a dude completely unnecessarily. The policy thing is not the important thing, which is why you're focusing on it. Again. As in: Jarmak posted:I understand that people's reaction to this is that if it breaks policy how can it be a legal/official/legitimate application of force so it must be a crime, but it doesn't work that way. No, people are saying it's not a legitimate application of force because, in addition to being against department policy, it killed a dude completely unnecessarily. Jarmak posted:In order to punish someone criminally the conduct has to be not part of the job of a police officer according to the criminal codes of the state of New York. So Jarmak, answer this. Should he have been killed via cop? It's a simple yes or no question. The Mattybee fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 18:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 07:11 |
|
|
Also, doesn't the legislature devolve authority to write regulations on the executive all the time, even if we had to write a statute that includes violating department policy as unacceptable use of force, why would that be a bad thing. We know the drawbacks of not doing that: cops can choke people to death and be immune from prosecution, I'm trying to think of what would be the drawbacks of jailing people who unnecessarily choke people to death and I can't think of one. Surely the danger of government overreach here is the status quo: the government actually killing people. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:20 on Dec 1, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 1, 2015 18:17
|
|