|
DrNutt posted:No disagreement here except that I and many others feel that many people who are "successfully" shot to death by cops in the US should not have been shot in the first place. People with knives and razors should be able to be apprehended by our police without murdering them. It's depressing that any suggestion of providing police with lesser means of subduing suspects is argued against (perhaps justifiably so) because police will resist any accountability, and merely use new methods as opportunities for further abuse, instead of reducing harm.
|
#
¿
Dec 6, 2015 19:48
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:This is egregiously disingenuous, in the last page two people have explicitly stated that cops should be punished/fired for unsubstantiated complaints if there's enough of them, and about three others have chipped in to support them by arguing that's how everyone else's job works. All claims should be documented so that when the 30th victim of the police officer isn't able to be silenced, that it's not just their word against the police officer, but their word against the police officer who has ten times the number of complaints than his peers. Second thought, I guess there aren't a lot better terms than unsubstantiated, but it has such a strong connotation of reading it between the lines as "lie". Devor fucked around with this message at 01:33 on Dec 20, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 01:29
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:It's not "prove wrong" it's "proved to be lying" These are the folks who decide if you have been "proved to be lying" and arrest you. Maybe you get the one bright shining DA who isn't buddies with the cops, so you only spend the weekend in jail. Maybe you get the DA who puts you in jail. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8v7lF5ttlQ
|
|
#
¿
Dec 20, 2015 04:08
|
|
|
Police union contracts really ought to have clauses that when firing decisions are reversed solely on procedural errors, but for cause, that the only remedy is shitloads of cash instead of reinstatement. It's not reasonable that an arbitrator has to come to the decision of "Well yeah, we really need to fire them because they're bad police officer. BUT, you waited too long. So to remedy this unfairness to the police officer, we have to punish the public too."
|
|
#
¿
Dec 23, 2015 14:19
|
|
|
lfield posted:It's an open-carry state. Do you think police should shoot everyone they see with a gun? And when someone inevitably responds "But someone called 911": Should police tend to shoot people open carrying who are reported to 911? What happens when the white civilians routinely call 911, but only when they see a black person with a gun?
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 03:28
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Does open carry mean that it's OK to point a gun at people, as described in the 911 call? Does open carry make motions towards the gunshaped object in your waistband (which would be concealed at that point but whatever I guess), possibly pulling it out, as cops approach a good idea? Open carry is all the police observed. I abso-loving-lutely do not want police to shoot black people who are reported by civilians as "waving guns around" because that is uniformly how white people will report black people open carrying. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/05/29/here-s-what-happens-when-a-black-man-open-carries-a-gun.html
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 03:46
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:1. That's simply not true unless you think having a gun tuckedin the waistband is open. 1. Google seems to indicate that states have various threshholds for 'concealed' for the purposes of open carry. Some would consider that open. 2. The bottom line is that race contributes to police failing at their duty, and shooting someone who was not a threat. White people get talked to or arrested, blacks get arrested or shot. It's obviously a continuum of responses, but you won't lose money betting on black when there's a shooting of someone who was not being a threat.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 04:06
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:1. What state's threshold isn't met by sticking a handgun in the waistband, especially when wearing winter clothing? I'm pretty sure Ohio's is (I certainly wouldn't recommend doing it without a permit; I also wouldn't recommend it with a permit but that's getting into a tangent). Someone being ignorant of their state's threshhold for open carry shouldn't be a reason for police to consider the individual to have an intent to commit murder, merely for their method of carrying a weapon that is otherwise legal. We're talking about shooting someone after a phone call, and no visible threatening acts observed by police. The police didn't see him point a gun at people. He had less than a second to 'motion'. The police murdered him when they pulled up, after they had apparently steeled themselves to shoot him if he moved.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 04:42
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Grand Juries have long been used for investigative purposes, particularly against public officials, though in this context its a little anachronistic. It seems DAs have started to revive the practice in order to try to avoid having to take political responsibility for not charging cops. We're making sure that he can't evade the political repercussions of not charging the officers. He does not get to say "Welp, that's what the grand jury decided". It was his decision to present evidence that left no other result. You say "absolutely nothing shady", but this whole process was a farce. You are perhaps technically correct that it was not illegal, but it was pointless. If he thinks no crime has committed, then don't charge the officers. Have an actual grand jury proceeding where you ask for an indictment, or don't have one. We have learned quickly that a prosecutor cannot be forced by the grand jury to indict. This was not an investigational grand jury - that would be awesome! Let the grand jury decide what experts to hire, what witnesses to call. That would be amazing. A different prosecutor could have indicted the ham sandwich.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 23:14
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:Yeah which is why I said if the DA was attempting to pretend otherwise it would be worthwhile bitching about the way the Grand Jury was handled to prove that he had punted it. He's not doing that at all though, he's happily telling everyone that he intentionally punted and that he brought it to the grand jury for the purposes of affirming his decision not to charge. There's no attempt to hide behind "welp the grand jury said no" here. The fact that he used the phrase "The Grand Jury's Decision", as if it could possibly have differed from his pre-determined opinion, is the problem. Congresswoman Marcia Fudge, emphasis mine: quote:"My thoughts and prayers are with the family of Tamir Rice and the greater Cleveland community. Despite today's grand jury decision not to indict the police officers in the shooting death of Tamir Rice at the request of Prosecutor McGinty, I ask the community to continue to support the Rice family and remain calm.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 29, 2015 23:46
|
|
|
Jarmak posted:It was the grand jury's decision to agree with the DA. That's the point, the DA didn't think charges should be brought and instead of just not bringing them he set out to convince a grand jury that he was correct that no charges should be brought. I will make my last point for anyone else still reading. A prosecutor asking a Grand Jury to return no indictment will always receive that result. Always. Pretending otherwise gives credence to this strange reverse-show-trial where the innocence of the killers has already been decreed by the state. Edited out some snark Devor fucked around with this message at 03:01 on Dec 30, 2015 |
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 02:58
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:That is a meaningless legal standard. While not binding, the American bar association does give out the following ethical guidelines for prosecutors , which makes sense to me: Your standard about refusing to pursue a case where conviction is not 'more likely than not' is dumb because juries can be dumb and acquit guilty people all the time. They love police officers and will hesitate to convict an abusive policeman. They may not care about violence against minorities and will hesitate to convict a lyncher. But both of these examples society should probably view going ahead with a doomed prosecution as a Good Thing. All the prosecutor needs is Probable Cause, and if the judge decides that he can't meet that burden then the judge can cut the trial short. Edit: Note that probable cause does not mean "more than 50% chance of a favorable verdict"
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 22:39
|
|
|
Monaghan posted:You don't use people being retards as consideration as to whether or not to bring forward a criminal charge. Here is the legal standard that I was talking about in full: I assume you're pulling from this page, which has as its preface that it's not a rigid formula. https://justice.alberta.ca/programs_services/criminal_pros/crown_prosecutor/Pages/decision_to_prosecute.aspx quote:However, to be clear, while each decision to prosecute must be supported by the established criteria, the exercise of this aspect of prosecutorial discretion cannot and should not be reduced to something resembling a mathematical formula for which there is always a clear and obvious answer. You are correct that it should not be a lower standard for prosecuting police officers and other racial crimes. But it should also not be a HIGHER standard, which is what you would be arguing if you argue that once you hit 49% chance of conviction that the prosecutor has to be waved off.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 30, 2015 22:57
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted: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. The prosecutor points to the emergency brake Grand Jury, and says, "Sorry guys, that emergency brake is the reason we're not moving", ignoring the fact that the car isn't running, his foot is not near the gas pedal, and he is still standing on the regular brake pedal.
|
|
#
¿
Dec 31, 2015 21:03
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 14, 2024 00:04 |
|
|
Jarmak posted:Could you please point out an instance of me making that argument? The prosecutor repeatedly made the argument that the Grand Jury's decision not to indict was meaningful, and not just an extension of the prosecutor's decision-making. http://prosecutor.cuyahogacounty.us/en-US/SYN//68177/NewsDetailTemplate.aspx quote:Although not required by Ohio law, I now have all evidence reviewed not just by the prosecutor or this office, but by the citizens of the Grand Jury sitting as an investigative panel. quote:But the Grand Jury lived with this case for more than two months, heard all the witnesses and was there to evaluate their credibility.
|
|
#
¿
Jan 2, 2016 02:18
|
|