|
Wow the answer for a disenfranchised minority group facing systemic oppression is to simply vote out the people supported by the majority? It's so simple I wonder why no one else has thought of that.
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 21:40
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:22 |
|
|
grand juries are transparently a show trial and it's insulting to people's intelligence to be told that it's "working as intended", even outside of cases where a DA puts on a dumb circus. come the gently caress on. it's also rather tangential to the overall Rice case compared to having elected DAs and the DA/police relationship so im no more interested in posting about it than you are. Tiler Kiwi fucked around with this message at 21:49 on Dec 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 21:47
|
|
|
Radish posted:Wow the answer for a disenfranchised minority group facing systemic oppression is to simply vote out the people supported by the majority? It's so simple I wonder why no one else has thought of that. Tiler Kiwi posted:grand juries are transparently a show trial and it's insulting to people's intelligence to be told that it's "working as intended", even outside of cases where a DA puts on a dumb circus. come the gently caress on. Dead Reckoning fucked around with this message at 22:03 on Dec 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 22:01
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:A majority voting against the interests of a minority or having a different idea of what constitutes justice without actually violating any enumerated checks on the power of the state or promised protections is sort of one of the fundamental downsides of democracy so IDK what sort of answer you were expecting. You could make the DA an appointed position, but I don't think fewer racists are going to turn out for the election of the governor or whichever state official appoints him. Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice: this quip about a ham sandwich has convinced me My two cents- independent of the Rice case, appointed judges are usually considered a better idea than elected ones-at least by lawyers. Elected judges are often terrible and underqualified. My understanding is DA appointment/election varies in quality of outcome depending on the electorate and other political concerns in the jurisdiction. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 22:07 on Dec 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 22:04
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:
He's not wrong. That you think the US justice system isn't overwhelmingly a hosed up piece of poo poo speaks volumes. And no, being slightly better than previous decades does not mean much of anything either. The constitution in question has been the source of power for systemic issues over the last 200 plus years so holding it up as some shining beacon of infallibility just whitewashes all the problems with it that don't impact you. You don't seem to mind saying "thems the breaks" to this fundamental downside directly impacting poor and minority groups, in fact you're joyfully trying to perpetuate them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 22:09
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Christ I knew that was a mistake. The indictment rate is 98-99% Do you really think there was anything spectacularly out of the ordinary about this case that would put it in that 1-2% on its own merits? From my own experience serving on a grand jury, out of hundreds of charges we were presented during our term, we only failed to indict on a single one. And it was so loving outlandish that everyone was embarrassed for the DA for trying. By the way, tons of charges we were relatively certain people were innocent of, but since the burden of proof is so low, the majority voted to indict anyhow. You're asserting that this case was so textbook cut and dried that no reasonable person could even consider the shoot was anything but good. That is a crazy stance to take. Hail Mr. Satan! fucked around with this message at 22:23 on Dec 31, 2015 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 22:19
|
|
|
Not that high when it's involving police violence. I wonder why.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 22:20
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Boy howdy, this quip about a ham sandwich has really convinced me that a legal institution with hundreds of years of history, that is literally enshrined in the constitution, is a ridiculous farce. a "check on DA authority", run entirely by the DA, that DA's openly admit is a farce, turns out to be really old and thus immune to mockery e: v 
Tiler Kiwi fucked around with this message at 00:03 on Jan 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 22:25
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:a "check on DA authority", run entirely by the DA, that DA's openly admit is a farce, turns out to be really old and thus immune to mockery  " I'm not even saying you're wrong, I'm saying that you need to cite something more substantial before you start acting like your position is a settled fact.joeburz posted:You don't seem to mind saying "thems the breaks" to this fundamental downside directly impacting poor and minority groups, in fact you're joyfully trying to perpetuate them.
|
|
#
?
Dec 31, 2015 23:45
|
|
|
Downsides such as cops not being able to get away with murder.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 00:04
|
|
|
joeburz posted:That you think the US justice system isn't overwhelmingly a hosed up piece of poo poo speaks volumes. Whoa there. It sounds like you're suggesting a system created hundreds of years ago by a bunch of power tripping rich white slaveowners might not benefit the poor or non-white. Surely you jest, good sir.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 00:10
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:If you have some sort of magical way to make a DA's performance in front of a grand jury available to publicly scrutiny without revealing any of the evidence against the accused that he presented, or otherwise make it trivially easy to determine the identity of the accused, I guess I would be OK with that, but I'm going to say it's a bad idea until you can explain how such a system would work, because I don't think it's possible. Seeing as how arrest records are public except in special circumstances, DAs love to get in front of cameras to list how they're going to charge Joe Smith with X,Y,Z I don't get this identity of the accused must be protected at all costs. And blocking out potentially identifying info when needed doesn't require magic. Yes sometimes it would result in very little info being related but as I already said, being able to see if McBrdie told the grand jury the family is just looking for money would be pretty loving damning. Or prevent them from doing it since now transcripts are available. quote:Also, if people are losing faith in the system, not because the system has a problem, but because they aren't getting the results they want, that isn't a problem with the system. It's not to "get the results you want" it's a check on if the DA is doing his job. It works both ways, if the transcript shows he presented the case neutrally and presnented all the facts available and didn't leave out anything then people would have very little to complain about. The system was followed, no questions of impropriety. Leaving things in the dark fuels speculations, remove that and while people still may not like the outcome they have little to point fingers at. quote:If you think he's full of poo poo and improperly throwing the case, you don't have to prove that to vote against him. This is literally already a solved problem in our system of government. This is the biggest issue I have with your logic (and the logic of people who think like you do.) You see a problem, and instead of looking at what remedies are available, you assume that the only way a bad outcome can occur is due to a corrupt or unjust system. You're all about how Something Must Be Done and Something Has To Change, but you don't actually care enough to understand the system you want to change or why things are the way they are, because you only care about an emotionally satisfying result. If you don't think you can convince a majority of voters to throw out a DA who has basically said, "I don't think this is worth pursuing", why do you think that is, and why do you think unsealing GJ proceedings as a matter of policy will change it? Right now the only thing people have to base who to vote for is their win/loss record. Giving them more information would allow the, to make a more informed choice, yes? And what's with this veneration of the GJ system. It's like that because that's the way it's been done since the 1600's. "Because that's how it's always been done" isn't a good enough reason to just leave it be. quote:The GJ is meant as a check on over-zealous prosecution. Complaining that they don't sometimes indict anyway over the wishes of the prosecutor is like complaining that your brakes can only slow your car down, not speed it up. All were talking about is oversight. Is this official doing their job? Edit: Since Rice is the case that started this, whose identity needed protecting? We know who the victim was, we know who the cops were. If the 911 caller and operator want to be anonymous then don't mention their names. Everyone's known the identity of every important person in this case so what information are you worried about being released? If a witness wants to remain secret no problem but all the key people are already widely known. Toasticle fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Jan 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
Talmonis posted:I'm wondering how long it's going to take for reprisal attacks on individuals responsible to start, and the subsequent use of masks on police like the third world does. If something isn't done soon in the legal sense by the Feds, that's where I see it going. I know this was a few pages back, but it's been something I've been wondering about, too. The U.S. should thank its lucky stars that minorities are still very much vested in changing the system through non-violent, "official" channels and methods, otherwise it would have been all too easy to end up with a Provisional IRA-type form of homegrown terrorism. Then again, the powers that be did manage to neutralize the Black Panther Party and a host of other black activist groups most poised to be just that, IMHO.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 02:53
|
|
|
Off-duty police officer accidentally shoots relative in North Las Vegasquote:North Las Vegas, NV (KTNV) - An off-duty Las Vegas police officer and her husband shot at a relative just before midnight in North Las Vegas.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 03:20
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's more your hilariously galling attitude that not only is your position correct, it's so self-evidently correct that anyone can see that a Grand Jury is "transparently a show trial" based on 1) GJs usually indict and 2) some lawyers have written critically about the GJ process. "Geeze, what were the people who sat down to write the basic legal codes of our country thinking, don't they read DailyKos? Get it together, James Madison, everyone knows a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. You conveniently ignored my 98-99% indictment rate figure.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 03:26
|
|
|
Tubesock Holocaust posted:I know this was a few pages back, but it's been something I've been wondering about, too. The U.S. should thank its lucky stars that minorities are still very much vested in changing the system through non-violent, "official" channels and methods, otherwise it would have been all too easy to end up with a Provisional IRA-type form of homegrown terrorism. If the non-violent, official channels turn out to not be listening or actively resist positive change you're going to end up seeing more violence. The 1960's had militant black groups and violent student groups specifically because the official channels went "lol nope" or just outright attacked peaceful protests. Peaceful protests are a threat of violence. I know some people are going to argue with that but it's true. Peaceful protests are "hey here is a large number of people who are very unhappy about something." If you ignore peaceful protests long enough some of the people doing the protesting are going to resort to less peaceful means to get attention or force things to change. One of the reasons militant black groups went away is because things actually started to change. Desegregation happened, the civil rights act happened, it became illegal to prevent blacks from voting...poo poo got better and the people in power finally said "ok yes racism is a problem here have some fixes." There's still a long way to go but really that was the core of it; violence was part of why the government finally paid the gently caress attention. As much as people like Martin Luther King were like "no violence is always wrong knock that poo poo off" a 100% peaceful movement could have been ignored. Now, everybody on both sides would certainly like it if nothing became violent but that's one of the unspoken threats. "Address our concerns or some of us will begin to break things." If the movement is large enough that bears a great deal of weight.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 03:34
|
|
|
the powers that be were very concerned about that kind of thing, hence the constant monitoring, infiltration, subversion, and prosecution of minority civil rights groups. nowadays, the sort of minority "dregs of society" orgs you'd expect would cause "let's smash the state" problems out of desperation make enough money with the drug trade that getting involved with politics would just give themselves grief, and they dominate the lives of the most disenfranchised, basically incapacitating them. course, there's always opportunity for a sort of Mao/Triads style relationship, but theres not many politically motivated groups that really want much to do with criminal organizations in America. least, that's one theory I saw put forward.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 03:35
|
|
|
27 rounds and only one hit in the leg? Sounds like police and their spouses have the same trigger discipline.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 03:50
|
|
|
The spouse is attending the Police Academy, so his marksmanship has degraded enough for that to be within acceptable limits for an officer of the law.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 06:15
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:You conveniently ignored my 98-99% indictment rate figure. That number isn't meaningful for your stated claim when it's a sample of cases the prosecutor chooses to bring before the grand jury. The grand jury is a check because it limits the set of cases and evidence that prosecutors indict on.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 07:10
|
|
|
^fuckin' duh. The cost and hassle of a grand jury filters cases that DA's even file. Our entire CJ system is about  and low hanging fruit  . gently caress. Stop posting, you idiot.ToxicSlurpee posted:Now, everybody on both sides would certainly like it if nothing became violent but that's one of the unspoken threats. "Address our concerns or some of us will begin to break things." If the movement is large enough that bears a great deal of weight. Yes. State diplomats don't personally drop bombs, either. Cyberpunkey Monkey fucked around with this message at 07:21 on Jan 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 07:18
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That number isn't meaningful for your stated claim when it's a sample of cases the prosecutor chooses to bring before the grand jury. The grand jury is a check because it limits the set of cases and evidence that prosecutors indict on. are you certain they are deterred by an inability to indict, as opposed to an inability to get a conviction? e: or plea bargain
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 08:32
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's more your hilariously galling attitude that not only is your position correct, it's so self-evidently correct that anyone can see that a Grand Jury is "transparently a show trial" based on 1) GJs usually indict and 2) some lawyers have written critically about the GJ process. "Geeze, what were the people who sat down to write the basic legal codes of our country thinking, don't they read DailyKos? Get it together, James Madison, everyone knows a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich. The grand jury isn't really a hill you want to die on, it's really an artifact of a time before prosecutors were a thing. There's a reason probable cause hearings are now very common instead. Toasticle posted:grand jury stuff Keep in mind part of the reason for the secrecy is the relaxed rules of evidence. There's an interest in not tainting the jury pool with evidence that won't be allowed at trial.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
Tiler Kiwi posted:are you certain they are deterred by an inability to indict, as opposed to an inability to get a conviction? In both cases it's still performing its intended purpose, and doesn't demonstrate what A Fancy Bloke is claiming it for. High indictment rates at grand jury aren't evidence that they're not a check on indictment- I agree that there are other mechanisms operant in some jurisdictions (usually those are called prelim hearings, not probable cause hearings-the latter is a more ambiguous term), but Dead Reckoning's brakes metaphor is valid and relevant- it's a check on what prosecutors will try to charge and indict, and it still has that effect. Indictment rates in cases that go before a grand jury aren't a particularly salient statistic for arguments to the contrary. There are a bunch of potential problems with the operation of grand juries, but my posts were with relation to the specific back and forth and weight on A Fancy Bloke's invocation of the 99-98% statistic, nothing more. Sorry if that wasn't clear. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 10:09 on Jan 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 10:00
|
|
|
I was mainly disputing his insistence that the GJ isn't generally a show trial. I should have been clearer. I'd still like him to answer what he thought was so different about this case that it fit in the 1-2% range but I doubt that is a cherry he'll pick
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 12:32
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:In both cases it's still performing its intended purpose, and doesn't demonstrate what A Fancy Bloke is claiming it for. High indictment rates at grand jury aren't evidence that they're not a check on indictment- I agree that there are other mechanisms operant in some jurisdictions (usually those are called prelim hearings, not probable cause hearings-the latter is a more ambiguous term), but Dead Reckoning's brakes metaphor is valid and relevant- it's a check on what prosecutors will try to charge and indict, and it still has that effect. Indictment rates in cases that go before a grand jury aren't a particularly salient statistic for arguments to the contrary. That's what they're called here in MA. A Fancy Bloke posted:I was mainly disputing his insistence that the GJ isn't generally a show trial. I should have been clearer. I'd still like him to answer what he thought was so different about this case that it fit in the 1-2% range but I doubt that is a cherry he'll pick A show trial implies that there is no actual trial and you're just going through the motions for ceremony on a predetermined decision., I have no idea what you're getting at.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 16:50
|
|
|
I love that we're still appealing to the validity of the Grand Jury, despite the fact that its blatantly obvious, with the DA's comments post Grand Jury and the false police reports, combined with the video evidence, that the Grand Jury was in no way carried out with any intent of actually establishing the truth of the case.
CommieGIR fucked around with this message at 18:27 on Jan 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 18:14
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:That's what they're called here in MA. show tri·al noun a judicial trial held in public with the intention of influencing or satisfying public opinion, rather than of ensuring justice. Jarmak posted:Anyone else the DA didn't want to charge he just wouldn't have charged, the entire grand jury song and dance with experts was about attempting to prove to the public that he was right about the fact the cop shouldn't be charged. It seems you agree about the core concept
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 18:25
|
|
|
It seems that Miami's Bal Harbor police department have been very, very naughty boys.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 21:50
|
|
|
Is a grand jury proceeding considered a trial?A Fancy Bloke posted:I was mainly disputing his insistence that the GJ isn't generally a show trial. and the 99-98% statistic isn't evidence of that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 22:10
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:and the 99-98% statistic isn't evidence of that. How do you figure? You think 98-99% of cases that pass GJ are found guilty? Or even close to that amount?
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Just want to say thanks for this, as I decided to watch Eyes on the Prize this past holiday vacation, and I gotta say it was interesting seeing them interviewing many of the figures involved on both sides, but the documentary exploring the police tactics and actions just seemed all too familiar.
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 23:50
|
|
|
I mean it's easy to support an indictment: shot too quickly to establish reasonable belief of danger, and their statement contradicting the video means anything they describe can't be believed
|
|
#
?
Jan 1, 2016 23:52
|
|
|
A Fancy Bloke posted:How do you figure? You think 98-99% of cases that pass GJ are found guilty? Or even close to that amount? That's not what a grand jury indictment finds. The grand jury finds for indictment, not guilt. Not all cases that pass the grand jury are going to end in a finding of guilt. They're not supposed to. It's a different proceeding, for a different purpose. That's why it's not adversarial, and the standard is different.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 00:07
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:That's not what a grand jury indictment finds. The grand jury finds for indictment, not guilt. Not all cases that pass the grand jury are supposed to end in a finding of guilt. And yet that is what the past few shooting cases have used the Grand Jury to prove. Regardless of the purpose of the Grand Jury, its being used by the Right and by the Police as ways to absolve guilt, regardless of the evidence. You need look no further than the Grand Jury in Missouri over that shooting, where it was blatantly obvious after the DA came out of the GJ that they did not go in to indict, but to absolve the police of any responsibility in their actions. Especially this most recent shooting, where its directly flies in the face of the evidence we have, and then the actions of the DA post GJ against the victims family speaks differently of the GJs purpose.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 00:09
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:And yet that is what the past few shooting cases have used the Grand Jury to prove. Regardless of the purpose of the Grand Jury, its being used by the Right and by the Police as ways to absolve guilt, regardless of the evidence. You need look no further than the Grand Jury in Missouri over that shooting, where it was blatantly obvious after the DA came out of the GJ that they did not go in to indict, but to absolve the police of any responsibility in their actions. The grand jury isn't a means of determining guilt. That's not what the grand jury is for. In this and most modern contexts, it's to prevent malicious or openly invalid state prosecution. The thing you want to attack is prosecutorial discretion, or McGinty's specific use of prosecutorial discretion in this specific case, which is not the same thing as a grand jury. As Dead Reckoning said, complaining that the grand jury found insufficient means to indict is like complaining that a car's brakes don't make it go faster. Citing high indictment rates at the grand jury doesn't prove anything about grand juries or their use. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:21 on Jan 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 00:17
|
|
|
Discendo Vox posted:The grand jury isn't a means of determining guilt. That's not what the grand jury is for. I'm agreeing with you on this point But that has not stopped the Right, Fox News, and others for USING the Grand Jury results, and even people in this VERY thread from using the Grand Jury ruling as 'Well, you see, they were right to shoot him' Discendo Vox posted:The thing you want to attack is prosecutorial discretion, which is not the same thing as a grand jury. As Dead Reckoning said, complaining that the grand jury found insufficient means to indict is like complaining that a car's brakes don't make it go faster. I am attacking that, I am also point out that multiple people have, again in this very thread, jumped on the Grand Jury ruling as proof that the officers acted justly.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 00:21
|
|
|
CommieGIR posted:I'm agreeing with you on this point But that has not stopped the Right, Fox News, and others for USING the Grand Jury results, and even people in this VERY thread from using the Grand Jury ruling as 'Well, you see, they were right to shoot him' Discendo Vox posted:There are a bunch of potential problems with the operation of grand juries, but my posts were with relation to the specific back and forth and weight on A Fancy Bloke's invocation of the 99-98% statistic, nothing more. Sorry if that wasn't clear. A Fancy Bloke is attempting to argue that a high indictment rate at the GJ is proof that its standard is too low, which ignores the fact that prosecutors select cases for indictment based on the preexisting restriction that is the grand jury. Discendo Vox fucked around with this message at 00:25 on Jan 2, 2016 |
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Keep in mind part of the reason for the secrecy is the relaxed rules of evidence. There's an interest in not tainting the jury pool with evidence that won't be allowed at trial. Ignoring the concept that there can evidence used to indict you that can't be used to convict you  again, never once have said that some things need to stay secret either until the trial or forever. Yes, that means some transcripts will be essentially 90% blacked out but SOME oversight is needed. If a witness never wants their ID released, fine. But in this case you have DR freaking out over people identities being released. Whose are we talking about? Rice? The cops? Aside from maybe whoever called 911 everyone involved has been known since it happened. If all that was gleaned from the Rice GJ was he told them the family just wants to get paid, seeing as how he had no problem doing it after, that alone would be enough to show bias. Again, if someone wants to remain anonymous then any identifying info is withheld. If the accused wants to be referred to as John Doe, fine. All we are talking about is letting some view into the GJ to make sure there's no impropriety. And it works both ways, uncover the scum and show the good ones did the job as they should. Remove peoples speculations about what went on in a secret meeting and you help people regain faith in the system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 00:22
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 28, 2024 22:22 |
|
|
My point is more towards people like Jarmak and others.
|
|
#
?
Jan 2, 2016 00:24
|
|
