|
Thundercracker posted:So in your view, not holding sacredness of our current justice system how would you have liked the police officers be defended? By public opinion? Because at any point that someone is acquitted some people out there is going to think they "got away with murder" Since I referred to them as a by-product of the system we are forced to tolerate it's pretty clear I wasn't suggesting that we change how it works. The ideal outcome of our criminal justice system is that everyone is afforded a good and fair defense exists to protect people like Kelly Thomas. The reality is that system protects the police officers who beat him to death, and that is exactly why so many poor and cynical people have absolutely no faith in our legal system. While someone like Barnett should be reviled as human garbage it's kind of a waste of time because, as I said, he is just a symptom and not the disease itself. What I was making fun of was your claim that there is something inherently virtuous and moral about a defense attorney who does whatever it takes to get his client acquitted. What exactly is moral about that, when you consider our pay-to-play legal system that throws minorities and the poor into jail by the cartloads? Actually thinking that requires a naive belief in the justice of our legal system that is kind of funny to me.
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 17:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
Slavvy posted:Cops beat man to death in the street, public disorder and political lynchings leading to prosecution of the murderers described as 'encouraging'. Them being found not guilty has nothing to do with the government though, the jury just refused to convict.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 17:05
|
|
|
This isn't a defense of our legal system but what if there was no way those cops could have been convicted? Like society has accepted that certain people getting killed are just the price we pay for cops to get home safely even if those cops clearly are acting illegally. If those jurors could see the video and think that that man wasn't murdered isn't it more we as a population is busted and the court system is just reflecting that?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 17:06
|
|
|
Probably, but in that case thorough reforms must be made immediately, and the hell with what voters think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 17:15
|
|
|
Tias posted:Probably, but in that case thorough reforms must be made immediately, and the hell with what voters think.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 17:18
|
|
|
I'm almost 100% sure that's wildly misrepresenting what you are quoting.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
Tias posted:Probably, but in that case thorough reforms must be made immediately, and the hell with what voters think. How can we change the system when people's minds operate like this?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 17:23
|
|
|
pangstrom posted:For anyone else wondering what was up with Cicinelli's face, he was shot up as a rookie cop in 1996: They must not psych eval their cops. Or maybe in LA they're like "well are they at least intemperate? HIRED"
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 17:24
|
|
|
Radish posted:This isn't a defense of our legal system but what if there was no way those cops could have been convicted? Like society has accepted that certain people getting killed are just the price we pay for cops to get home safely even if those cops clearly are acting illegally. If those jurors could see the video and think that that man wasn't murdered isn't it more we as a population is busted and the court system is just reflecting that? This hits the nail on the head. Society does not value people like Kelly Thomas or Trayvon Martin and that is why we have a justice system that allows stuff like this to happen. Rent-A-Cop posted:It's kind of fun to watch for the guy in any ACAB thread who thinks the solution to America's authority fetish is "gently caress the voters, lynch 'em!" Perhaps the problem is not the authority fetish but the reactionaries who control that authority.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 17:28
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:They must not psych eval their cops. Maarek posted:Perhaps the problem is not the authority fetish but the reactionaries who control that authority. Rent-A-Cop fucked around with this message at 17:34 on Jan 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 17:29
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:Trusting any authority to police itself is a fool's game. You were implying it was inconsistent for a hypothetical person to be angry about America's authoritarian tendencies to say 'gently caress the voters'. In fact, if you are a person who believes that American voters are all cop and soldier loving reactionaries that's pretty much your only option. There are lots of examples of the state forcing reforms or social engineering on an unwilling populace that are undemocratic but far from right wing. Rent-A-Cop posted:I'm sure they do, but those evaluations really only catch the truly obvious nutters. Even really thorough examinations aren't going to uncover the guy who may go a decade before he cracks and does something horrible. That takes the kind of ongoing engagement in staff mental health that nobody is willing to pay for. This is pretty much the epitaph of our society. If we were willing to pay for it we wouldn't have someone like Kelly Thomas being homeless or the men who beat him to death having police powers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 17:42
|
|
|
Maarek posted:You were implying it was inconsistent for a hypothetical person to be angry about America's authoritarian tendencies to say 'gently caress the voters'. In fact, if you are a person who believes that American voters are all cop and soldier loving reactionaries that's pretty much your only option. There are lots of examples of the state forcing reforms or social engineering on an unwilling populace that are undemocratic but far from right wing. Maarek posted:This is pretty much the epitaph of our society. If we were willing to pay for it we wouldn't have someone like Kelly Thomas being homeless or the men who beat him to death having police powers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 17:51
|
|
|
Tias posted:I'm not American, so I wouldn't know, but: Isn't there some kind of overwatch decision that kicks in once a given lawyer has gotten a certain number of obvious manslaughter-by-psycho-cop cases acquitted? At some point it's clear the guy is just a huckster who makes money on making murderous pigs walk, I'd reckon. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqnHtGgVAUE
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:02
|
|
|
Maarek posted:This is pretty much the epitaph of our society. If we were willing to pay for it we wouldn't have someone like Kelly Thomas being homeless or the men who beat him to death having police powers. We could start by actually prosecuting violent/murderous cops. We already pay for the court and penal system.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:20
|
|
|
You start by funding outreach to the homeless and mentally ill instead of stripping funding, then you find a reasonable compromise on a set of laws that lets you address the problem without creating another Willowbrook. Then you prosecute the violent cops, but let's be realistic. Given our crazy system of 50 states with 10,000 different law enforcement organizations, that has to involve the DOJ and FBI. Johnny Law up in Michigan isn't going to turn tail on his partner and break the blue line.
ReindeerF fucked around with this message at 18:26 on Jan 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:24
|
|
|
Maarek posted:What I was making fun of was your claim that there is something inherently virtuous and moral about a defense attorney who does whatever it takes to get his client acquitted. It's my understanding that this is, in fact, the definition of a virtuousness and morality when it comes to defense attorneys. When the state pursues prosecution against another entity, it is that entity's right to have legal representation which will do anything to ensure that the state's case is convincing, cogent, and legal. There have been plenty of abuses and atrocities in the legal proceedings of our justice system, but this case's verdict (which, make no mistake, is absolutely deplorable) is not one of those. From the information available, this seems more symptomatic of an issue in culture - specifically, the Just World view of police always having 100% righteous actions and the perceived status of the mentally ill as lesser people. If anything, Barnett should be criticized for presumably being conscious to this viewpoint and exploiting it to leverage his arguments. All things being equal, the state should have been able to override this perception in the minds of the jury, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Whether this is a fault of the prosecution or, again, too endemic of a cultural belief, is the real question here.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:42
|
|
|
Maarek posted:What I was making fun of was your claim that there is something inherently virtuous and moral about a defense attorney who does whatever it takes to get his client acquitted. This is exactly what a moral defense attorney does. Doing anything less, within the limits of the law, is actually grounds for being sanctioned by the bar. I have a feeling you have no idea how our legal system actually works, or even like reality. I mean, seriously think about what your asking, which is for defense attorneys to represent clients without their best efforts because the results don't sit well with your armchair judgment. Thundercracker fucked around with this message at 18:49 on Jan 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 18:46
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:We could start by actually prosecuting violent/murderous cops. We already pay for the court and penal system. Which is exactly what happened here. I'm not sure what you think you're contributing. Radish posted:This isn't a defense of our legal system but what if there was no way those cops could have been convicted? Like society has accepted that certain people getting killed are just the price we pay for cops to get home safely even if those cops clearly are acting illegally. If those jurors could see the video and think that that man wasn't murdered isn't it more we as a population is busted and the court system is just reflecting that? I think a lot of people in this thread are underestimating the extent to which people in California (particularly those in the population of potential jurors) hate the homeless.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 20:08
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:This is exactly what a moral defense attorney does. Doing anything less, within the limits of the law, is actually grounds for being sanctioned by the bar. The ideal outcome is that a defense attorney gives his best effort to defend his client AND people like you are smart enough to realize that's not necessarily moral. I'm not sure if you don't understand what I'm saying or you're just trying to pretend I'm arguing for something else entirely but I am not suggesting that the bar not exist or not enforce its rules but instead I am telling you that you are an idiot for thinking that simply following those rules is inherently virtuous and moral. This is blindingly obvious to people who don't have a massive boner for the process that's so rife with inequality and discrimination.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 20:33
|
|
|
Maarek posted:The ideal outcome is that a defense attorney gives his best effort to defend his client AND people like you are smart enough to realize that's not necessarily moral. I'm not sure if you don't understand what I'm saying or you're just trying to pretend I'm arguing for something else entirely but I am not suggesting that the bar not exist or not enforce its rules but instead I am telling you that you are an idiot for thinking that simply following those rules is inherently virtuous and moral. This is blindingly obvious to people who don't have a massive boner for the process that's so rife with inequality and discrimination.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 20:37
|
|
|
Is he even an appointed representative? I mean, he actively chose to represent these officers, didn't he?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Maarek posted:The ideal outcome is that a defense attorney gives his best effort to defend his client AND people like you are smart enough to realize that's not necessarily moral. I'm not sure if you don't understand what I'm saying or you're just trying to pretend I'm arguing for something else entirely but I am not suggesting that the bar not exist or not enforce its rules but instead I am telling you that you are an idiot for thinking that simply following those rules is inherently virtuous and moral. This is blindingly obvious to people who don't have a massive boner for the process that's so rife with inequality and discrimination. Thundercracker's problem is that he either A) doesn't actually understand that morality and professional ethics are two completely different concepts, or B) thinks that strict adherence to your chosen profession's code of ethics is objectively so good and noble that it makes all your other actions also morally correct by default. A lot of people think this way, and it can be kind of a problem when they work in a field where morals and ethics don't always overlap 100%, such as criminal law or finance.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea posted:I feel like there's got to be a successful balance somewhere between "martyred on the street" and "DIE MOTHERFUCKER DIE MOTHERFUCKER DIE" The problem is that every time we try to evaluate or monitor a cop's behavior, they complain that it might pose an actual physical danger to them in real life-or-death situations because they might act too passively for fear of their actions being second-guessed later. They complain that it's easy to complain about their behavior from our nice safe houses, and that allowing anyone to evaluate their actions after the fact would lead to stuff like punishing them for making split-second heat-of-the-moment decisions (like shooting people) without first going through all the required steps like "making sure the person you're pointing your gun at is actually pulling out a weapon and not just their wallet or something". Granted, that's a lovely argument, but so far it seems to be working! ReindeerF posted:I read a couple of linked articles, but I couldn't get a sense of what the argument was aside from retard strength. I mean even in famous trials like OJs or whatever there had to be some kind of Aha! moment with the glove not fitting or whatever for things to snap. Was there any particular thing that reporters noted about this case that really swung the jury? I'm curious about that aspect, because things are typically more complex than we give them credit for. This one covers it fairly well: http://www.latimes.com/local/la-me-0114-kelly-thomas-verdict-20140114,2652951,5446412,full.story#axzz2qPZW8Z2g quote:Two former Fullerton police officers were found not guilty on all charges Monday afternoon in the death of Kelly Thomas, a schizophrenic man they beat into unconsciousness as he cried out for help on a summer night more than two years ago. Main Paineframe fucked around with this message at 01:32 on Jan 16, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
Radish posted:I'm almost 100% sure that's wildly misrepresenting what you are quoting. That's true of nearly everything anyone posts, though 
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 09:22
|
|
|
So what countries are there where cops can't just murder you on a whim?
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 12:58
|
|
Forgall posted:So what countries are there where cops can't just murder you on a whim? Does  edit: I shouldn't post before coffee. 
AVeryLargeRadish fucked around with this message at 13:40 on Jan 16, 2014 |
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 13:30
|
|
|
Forgall posted:So what countries are there where cops can't just murder you on a whim? The Vatican.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 14:41
|
|
|
The Entire Universe posted:The Vatican. Iceland.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 15:08
|
|
|
Obdicut posted:Iceland. It's a lot harder to commit callous murder when everyone shares cousins. I mean, what an awkward Christmas it'll be when you have to explain to your nephew why you capped his grandad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 16:42
|
|
|
Yeah Iceland seems to be doing pretty good that department. Hell last month the police shot someone dead there and it made headlines not because of the circumstances, but because it was first time in Iceland's entire history that someone had been shot and killed by police. The police there don't even carry normally carry weapons, they had to call in a "special armed unit" to deal with a guy who had gone nuts and started shooting at anyone who approached his apartment. http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2013/12/regret-over-iceland-first-police-shooting-2013122223047476442.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Thundercracker posted:It's a lot harder to commit callous murder when everyone shares cousins. I mean, what an awkward Christmas it'll be when you have to explain to your nephew why you capped his grandad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:Yeah Iceland seems to be doing pretty good that department. Hell last month the police shot someone dead there and it made headlines not because of the circumstances, but because it was first time in Iceland's entire history that someone had been shot and killed by police. The police there don't even carry normally carry weapons, they had to call in a "special armed unit" to deal with a guy who had gone nuts and started shooting at anyone who approached his apartment. A good chunk of the first world has cops that don't carry guns, America is somewhat of an aberration in that sense. In New Zealand basically no one has guns outside of farmers and country loonies, so if an armed confrontation somehow occurs (usually happens once or twice a year, nationally) the special "Armed Offenders Squad" is called in, who are like swat lite, and they shoot people. Currently there's a debate raging about arming the cops more substantially than (limited) tazer usage and pepper spray, and the anti-brigade use the U.S. as an example of what happens when everyone has guns.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:A good chunk of the first world has cops that don't carry guns, America is somewhat of an aberration in that sense. In New Zealand basically no one has guns outside of farmers and country loonies, so if an armed confrontation somehow occurs (usually happens once or twice a year, nationally) the special "Armed Offenders Squad" is called in, who are like swat lite, and they shoot people. America's rapid arming of our police always reminds me of that Homer quote: "The blade itself incites to deeds of violence.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 22:38
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:A good chunk of the first world has cops that don't carry guns, America is somewhat of an aberration in that sense. In New Zealand basically no one has guns outside of farmers and country loonies, so if an armed confrontation somehow occurs (usually happens once or twice a year, nationally) the special "Armed Offenders Squad" is called in, who are like swat lite, and they shoot people. The only sensible argument I've heard against disarming the U.S. police force is that more Americans own guns than most other private citizens in first world countries, and this a disarmed police force would be too at a disadvantage (basically, while guns are still on the streets, we need guns to police the streets.) I don't necessarily agree, but it's the only argument I've heard that isn't "Well, how else are they gonna fight the gang bangers and crack heads?"
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 22:42
|
|
|
Slavvy posted:A good chunk of the first world has cops that don't carry guns, America is somewhat of an aberration in that sense. There is a sizable chunk that is unarmed, but much more are routinely armed so they're in with the majority there rather than being an abberation. In the routinely armed category you have all of North America, almost all of Europe, Australia and more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 23:03
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:The only sensible argument I've heard against disarming the U.S. police force is that more Americans own guns than most other private citizens in first world countries, and this a disarmed police force would be too at a disadvantage (basically, while guns are still on the streets, we need guns to police the streets.) I don't necessarily agree, but it's the only argument I've heard that isn't "Well, how else are they gonna fight the gang bangers and crack heads?" It's funny to think about how quickly gun control would ramp up if we could somehow decree that police had to be disarmed.
|
|
#
?
Jan 16, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
BottledBodhisvata posted:The only sensible argument I've heard against disarming the U.S. police force is that more Americans own guns than most other private citizens in first world countries, and this a disarmed police force would be too at a disadvantage (basically, while guns are still on the streets, we need guns to police the streets.) I don't necessarily agree, but it's the only argument I've heard that isn't "Well, how else are they gonna fight the gang bangers and crack heads?" It's basically true and if you want to start tracing the militarization of the police in the US, it's because of a handful of examples where even police armed with pistols were outgunned by criminals and died. I'm not saying a New Zealand-type system would be a bad idea, but it would require other substantial changes first. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_Hollywood_shootout posted:Phillips and Mătăsăreanu loaded five rifles and approximately 3,300 rounds of ammunition in box and drum magazines into the trunk of their vehicle: two modified automatic Norinco Type 56 S rifles, a modified automatic Norinco Type 56 S-1, a semi automatic HK-91, and a modified automatic Bushmaster XM15 Dissipator...Phillips wore roughly 40lbs of equipment, including a Type IIIA bulletproof vest and groin guard, a load bearing vest and multiple military canteen pouches for ammunition storage, and several pieces of home made body armor created from spare vests, covering his shins, thighs, and forearms.[16] Mătăsăreanu wore only a Type IIA bulletproof vest, but included a metal trauma plate to protect vital organs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Xandu posted:It's basically true and if you want to start tracing the militarization of the police in the US, it's because of a handful of examples where even police armed with pistols were outgunned by criminals and died. I'm not saying a New Zealand-type system would be a bad idea, but it would require other substantial changes first. Well, as one poster noted, disarming the police would likely encourage/lead to more harsh gun regulations and control of the private ownership, but even if it doesn't, I'm not opposed to having our SWAT teams remain basically like commando units. If a situation requires SWAT to roll in with irons hot, that's much preferable to any swinging dick with a high school diploma putting a badge on and getting free reign to kill human beings.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 01:12
|
|
|
So. In USA, are "Peace Officers" different from Police Officers? Because they seem to be used interchangeably with each in the trial. I'm curious, since where I live, Peace Officers are not Police Officers, do not carry firearms, and are under actual public scrutiny (they're employed through Alberta Health Services, as opposed through the Government of Alberta).
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 01:35
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 26, 2024 14:17 |
|
|
Peace officer is the term used when they kill someone so they have to try and shape the narrative that they aren't thugs.
|
|
#
?
Jan 17, 2014 01:40
|
|