|
FinalGamer posted:...god Don't worry, I'm sure the police will make sure that justice is served while they investigate the police. Don't ask for a trial though, that would be disgusting of you.
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:46
|
|
gently caress's sake. I really hope all these "less famous" cases get justice too, this poo poo is just awful.
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:36 |
|
|
Lemming posted:Don't worry, I'm sure the police will make sure that justice is served while they investigate the police. Don't ask for a trial though, that would be disgusting of you. I am very in favour of a law where all police officers must pass a test that has only one question: "Is this a tomato plant or a marijuana plant?" If they get it wrong, tase them until they get it right.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 22:55
|
|
|
Lemming posted:Don't worry, I'm sure the police will make sure that justice is served while they investigate the police. Don't ask for a trial though, that would be disgusting of you. I skipped over the last couple of pages but let me guess: "If we have to put every cop who kills someone on trial the next time there's a crazed maniac with bombs for hands and a knife in his mouth rushing at a baby the cops might hesitate too long for fear of going on trial and EVERY BABY WILL DIE!!. You know, for fear of going into the system that's fair and balanced and wonderful." Close?
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 23:01
|
|
|
Duke Igthorn posted:Close? 1. You need to respect The Process. If the police and the prosecutor don't feel like charging a cop it's disrespectful to protest The Process. 2. Officers kill so many civilians do you really think trials for all of them is a good use of public resources? 3. Demanding a show trial is a perversion of justice 4. Everyone should get a fair trial. Therefore police should be given all the benefits of doubt and all those poor people should be elevated to the same privileges as the police, rather than dragging the police down to be treated like a poor minority.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 23:07
|
|
|
I mean, outside of this thread I have heard plenty of "cops shouldn't have to fear negative consequences for shooting people inappropriately, or they might end up too hesitant to shoot people" sort of talk. But this thread has been surprisingly free of that. EDIT: ...recently.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
lotta lovely trolls and outright racists and police apologists itt as of late.
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 23:23
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Nope! More along the lines of: Add this to the OP
|
|
#
?
Nov 20, 2014 23:31
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=84phU8of02U "This is America. Nobody deserves to be treated as a black man!"
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Of course it isn't. Unarmed doesn't mean not dangerous. I really want to know why you think a cop gunning down an unarmed young adult in the middle of the street doesn't deserve a trial. Is it because people got angry over the color of the victims? Is that really a reason not to go to trial?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
Dyz posted:I really want to know why you think a cop gunning down an unarmed young adult in the middle of the street doesn't deserve a trial. Is it because people got angry over the color of the victims? Is that really a reason not to go to trial? I don't see the point of a trial if an investigation determined the shoot was good, the killed person being unarmed doesn't make this impossible. Similarly I wouldn't expect a trial if a grand jury did not indict the shooter. Unarmed people can still gently caress you up so I don't see the point of the distinction that means unarmed dead guy-> automatic trial.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Oh I don't think the shooter being a cop matters, I'd feel the same about a civilian shooter. Brown being that far away makes it close enough to impossible for him to be a threat, at the very least at the time the fatal shot was fired, that the only reason not to have a trial is racism in the justice system. Which we know is there, and can shown by things like analysis of sentencing or frequency of police shootings by race.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:Brown being that far away makes it close enough to impossible for him to be a threat, at the very least at the time the fatal shot was fired, It is possible for the law to be written otherwise. The rub is that then the law serves to oppress people rather than protect them by making them fear that they could be next on the consequences-free police chopping block. A gruesome little intersection of tough on crime laws and institutional racism. I expect at least one person to argue though that Wilson technically didn't break the law, so really he didn't do anything wrong. Missouri cops are allowed to fire at people who are running away who are quote unquote " ' dangerous ' ".
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:17
|
|
|
DARPA posted:Nope! More along the lines of: I'm hearing a lot of "there is a trial" versus "there won't be a trial" to a grand jury as opposed to a...regular jury? I mean I admit I'm not up on American law at all and only have some semblance of my own country's laws so: Can someone give me a good timeline here of what the entire case has been legally, as in, from the moment Darren Wilson has been in the courthouse and the grand jury's been seeing the stuff, to the here and now? Just so I don't get too mixed up on any details.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:18
|
|
|
FinalGamer posted:Alright, so for curiosity's sake, what is actually going on with this case in particular? In Missouri, before you go to trial before a jury, you need to be indicted. This can be done by presenting a preliminary case in front of a judge, or by presenting evidence to a grand jury and asking them if they want to indict. This case is in the grand jury step. If the grand jury indicts Wilson, there will be a trial in front of a normal (petit) jury.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
FinalGamer posted:Alright, so for curiosity's sake, what is actually going on with this case in particular? The grand jury determines whether or not to indict Wilson - in other words, whether there will be a trial. Grand juries are understood typically to indict when the prosecutor says indict (in part because the grand jury only hears from the prosecutor - the defendant does not present an argument that he should not be indicted, and there is no judge present) and there is a perception that McCulloch, because he is taking a "present everything" attitude that comes off as noncommittal to many and because he has a history of sympathizing with the police, is punting this in hopes of a no bill. DARPA posted:Nope! More along the lines of: I think #2 is based off a misinterpretation of one of my questions, which was in reply to BGH citing countries where an officer goes to trial every time s/he fires his weapon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:Brown being that far away makes it close enough to impossible for him to be a threat, at the very least at the time the fatal shot was fired, that the only reason not to have a trial is racism in the justice system. Which we know is there, and can shown by things like analysis of sentencing or frequency of police shootings by race. bassguitarhero posted:Darren Wilson acknowledges shooting and killing an unarmed person. That in and of itself is enough to go to trial
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:27
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:Do keep in mind the context of the discussion: Turner drill presumes the defending shooter has his piece holstered, which, since Wilson had already fired a number of rounds, seems a wee bit unlikely to have been the case here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
Fair enough about me missing the context. An unarmed overweight person closing 30 feet and killing the officer is still an absurd scenario. There isn't even any contention that the Wilson thought he had a weapon.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid, enough with the generalities. Considering the specifics of this specific situation, and the fact that we have multiple witnesses, an audio recording, and forensics that all support Wilson having first fired upon a fleeing, unarmed and injured black man, and then shot him to death after he turned and raised his arms, do you think Wilson should go try to trial? Based on the evidence available. You were the grand jury, and you only know what's been made public, but you know that in its entirety. What would you decide? Should there be a trial?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:39
|
|
|
Adenoid Dan posted:Fair enough about me missing the context. Pretty sure he was about 100 feet away when the final shot happened.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
Spun Dog posted:Pretty sure he was about 100 feet away when the final shot happened. 100 feet from the SUV, 30 feet from Wilson was last I heard.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Waco Panty Raid, enough with the generalities. I'm not entirely sure why there isn't a trial every time a patrol Cop shoots someone. I mean that's a big deal isn't it?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:42
|
|
|
Fans posted:I'm not entirely sure why there isn't a trial every time a patrol Cop shoots someone. I mean that's a big deal isn't it? They don't usually shoot people with rich connected relatives. So, not really?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:43
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:100 feet from the SUV, 30 feet from Wilson was last I heard. If that's the case, then my mistake. I hadn't heard that Wilson left the SUV.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Fans posted:I'm not entirely sure why there isn't a trial every time a patrol Cop shoots someone. I mean that's a big deal isn't it? If they put him on trial, a dozen eyewitnesses might outweigh his "I thought he was coming right at me!" Testimony
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:45
|
|
|
Fans posted:I'm not entirely sure why there isn't a trial every time a patrol Cop shoots someone.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
FinalGamer posted:Alright, so for curiosity's sake, what is actually going on with this case in particular? To provide context for why this situation is structural bias Grand Juries basically never, ever fail to indict. Only the prosecution presents evidence and the bar for moving on to a trial is incredibly low. If there isn't an indictment it is almost certainly because the prosecutor threw the case (as a previous poster mentioned, there's more than enough public evidence to justify a trial to any reasonable person, but the prosecutor can easily just 'fail' to introduce evidence to the court and the jury is then not allowed to take it into account), which this particular prosecutor has done before.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:51
|
|
|
Fans posted:I'm not entirely sure why there isn't a trial every time a patrol Cop shoots someone. I mean that's a big deal isn't it? Every shooting results in an investigation; not every investigation results in a trial, because sometimes the investigation concludes that the shooting was lawful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:52
|
|
|
Captain_Maclaine posted:Turner drill presumes the defending shooter has his piece holstered, which, since Wilson had already fired a number of rounds, seems a wee bit unlikely to have been the case here. Adenoid Dan posted:Fair enough about me missing the context. GlyphGryph posted:Waco Panty Raid, enough with the generalities. But I doubt we've seen enough to really make that decision though. Which is why generalities are easier to deal with.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 01:55
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Every shooting results in an investigation; not every investigation results in a trial, because sometimes the investigation concludes that the shooting was lawful. In America with respect to Police officers, there are a lot fewer trials then there should be.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 02:16
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:I don't think the evidence available means that was the only possible scenario. But from what I've read yeah I'd vote to indict. Okay, a starting point! Considering the prosecutors past actions and statements, do you think it's fair to believe that he will not pursue this case as much as he should? Do you think its fair to believe that he will not serve the interests of justice but rather his own prejudices and political purposes?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 02:20
|
|
|
A hundred foot shot would be reaching for your standard cop, hell a 30 foot shot is hard while moving. I hope there is a trial though. Do they introduce ballistics at a grand jury? I'd imagine there are a lot unreported to the public.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
GlyphGryph posted:Okay, a starting point!
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 02:33
|
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:What does "as much as he should" mean? I think him basically punting it to the gj isn't the end of the world. We don't know what he knows, what the gj knows. It's all speculation. On the other hand if he pursued an indictment as much as prosecutors generally pursue indictments, they would be very likely to indict. Anecdotally, a grand jury basically boils down to the grand jury rubberstamping the prosecutor's desired indictments. There is no defense in a "normal" grand jury. You have the prosecutor making their case unopposed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Magres posted:On the other hand if he pursued an indictment as much as prosecutors generally pursue indictments, they would be very likely to indict. Assuming this to be true, is it a good thing that prosecutors manipulate grand juries to ensure indictments? (Also, McCullogh's failure to present unfavorable evidence in a prior case being pointed to as evidence he's trying to throw the grand jury in which he's presenting all evidence is hilarious.)
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 02:58
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Assuming this to be true, is it a good thing that prosecutors manipulate grand juries to ensure indictments? No, but it's also not a good thing that we even have grand juries and there is a very good reason no other country on earth uses them. quote:(Also, McCullogh's failure to present unfavorable evidence in a prior case being pointed to as evidence he's trying to throw the grand jury in which he's presenting all evidence is hilarious.) Grand Juries indict so ridiculously often that if they do not indict it is because he doesn't want an indictment, period. To steal a famous line, he's entirely capable of indicting a ham sandwich. Magres posted:Anecdotally, a grand jury basically boils down to the grand jury rubberstamping the prosecutor's desired indictments. There is no defense in a "normal" grand jury. You have the prosecutor making their case unopposed. There's also no constitutional right to a representative body or screening for bias like in actual juries, they're a farcical institution. atelier morgan fucked around with this message at 03:04 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 03:02
|
|
|
Kalman posted:Assuming this to be true, is it a good thing that prosecutors manipulate grand juries to ensure indictments? Would you say that defense attorneys manipulate juries to pursue non-convictions? Similarly, would you say that a prosecutor during a trial manipulates the jury to pursue convictions? Magres fucked around with this message at 03:05 on Nov 21, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 03:03
|
|
|
UFOTofuTacoCat posted:I think the thing people get hung up on in Zimmerman's and Wilson's cases is that they seem to get to kill black people legally.. They both killed a black legally, but that doesn't mean that the law is wrong. Contrary to what most believe here there is no evidence to support your theory that George Zimmerman started out trying to assassinate Trayvon Martin. All evidence backed up Zimmerman's claims, therefor he was let off, therefor the law was working as designed. The reason he wasn't initially arrested was because the initial investigation, which did happen because it came out during the trial, could not disprove Zimmerman's versions of events. This means that while both Zimmerman and Wilson killed a black, that was done within the context of the law. The fact that 10,000 blacks got murdered within the Zimmerman trial timeframe and you don't care about a single one of them, cannot name any names, and support the no snitch culture that stonewalls police into classifying many into unsolved because the witnesses are uninterested in giving justice to blacks when killed by other blacks but come out of the woodwork when a white does something. That should immediatealy make you suspect motives instead of rallying to any dead black who happened to be killed by a white. The correct cource of action when you hear any dead person, especially a dead black, is horror, outrage, and a desire for the victim's killers to receive justive. You don't want justice for black on black crimes, only perceived white on black ones, and that makes you the racists here. The fact you can't see that is all the more bittersweet because you are the very racists you try to hard to combat. The shadow you chase is the one you cast. (USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Caliph206 posted:They both killed a black legally, but that doesn't mean that the law is wrong. Contrary to what most believe here there is no evidence to support your theory that George Zimmerman started out trying to assassinate Trayvon Martin. All evidence backed up Zimmerman's claims, therefor he was let off, therefor the law was working as designed. The reason he wasn't initially arrested was because the initial investigation, which did happen because it came out during the trial, could not disprove Zimmerman's versions of events. I was right with you until the end. "Chasing shadows" is racist.
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 10, 2024 01:36 |
|
|
Waco Panty Raid posted:
quote:I think him basically punting it to the gj isn't the end of the world. quote:We don't know what he knows, what the gj knows. This is entirely unrelated to the question. quote:It's all speculation. Let's step back a bit then, since this particular question seems too difficult for you. You have been linked and had people explain the prosecutors behaviour in a previous case involving a killing by the police. Do you believe he acted appropriately in that situation? Did he do anything that was not appropriate? Did he demonstrate a bias that may interfere with the process of seeking justice? Do you feel, from the information available to you (this is a question of your emotional state or perception, not of reality), that he did his job as a prosecutor to the extent that you (again, this is your opinion) think a prosecutor should do their job?
|
|
#
?
Nov 21, 2014 04:52
|
|