Ongoing U.S Police Brutality and Corruption Discussion Thread

This video is still up. Sickening shit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igoy0sq4noQ

Rutherford County is, unfortunately, not some podunk rural outpost. (Not that this would be more acceptable in those places, but it would affect fewer children.) It's the fifth-largest county in the state, and one of the fastest-growing. Home to a state university and several Nashville bedroom communities.

Although with due respect I do wonder why anyone of sound mind would move to TN.

Yeah. It didn't seem quite as suspect when I first moved here in '94. It still had a Democratic governor and two Democratic senators at that point. Not great ones, obviously, but it did not feel like the hard-right bastion it has since become. And it's getting worse. I wouldn't move here now myself, probably, even though I still love my city.

Capitol Police officer charged with obstructing Jan. 6 investigation https://t.co/151B05R4jp

— JJ MacNab (@jjmacnab) October 15, 2021

“Hey (Person 1), im a capitol police officer who agrees with your political stance. Take down the part about being in the building they are currently investigating and everyone who was in the building is going to (be) charged. Just looking out!" Riley wrote to the person, according to court documents.

I went to school at Murfreesboro, it was dangerous and racist as fuck back in the nineties and i'm not stunned that hasn't changed.
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/threats-swirl-in-town-sei_n_953997
https://www.murfreesborovoice.com/article/3913/opinion-stop-honoring-racism-remove-the-johnny-reb-statue

that article makes me want to hit so many people

I'm not a violent person but if you did it I'd be happy to commit "criminal responsibility."

very sad

More, per sources:
Upon arrival at HQ, officers are given the chance to comply w/ mandate. If they decline & refuse a subsequent order, the officer is then taken to HR where they are stripped of police powers and ordered to turn over their police ID, star and hat shield.

— Sam Charles (@samjcharles) October 18, 2021

not the hat shield!

now how are they going to protect their hats

"Keep yer gun though, still need that to kill."

Around 10% of Washington state police are no longer in the job as a result of the vaccine mandate there. https://t.co/q3xR33RhN7

— Ryan Haas (@ryanjhaas) October 19, 2021

very good

I'm guessing, if you asked them, those police would say they experience this vaccine mandate as a form of government "brutality" against them, or words to that effect. Very good.

Lol police literally decimated

lol PK

Since this seems to be the thread with the most discussion of this case...

Seems cool, this judge is definitely interested in a fair and unbiased trial:

Prosecutors in the criminal trial of Kyle Rittenhouse, the teenager who shot and killed two protesters last year in Kenosha, Wis., will not be able to refer to the people he shot as "victims," a judge has ruled, while defense attorneys may be able to call them "arsonists" or "looters."

In a proceeding about the ground rules for the upcoming trial, prosecutors and defense lawyers debated whether certain language, witnesses or evidence would be allowed. The trial begins next week.

"The word 'victim' is a loaded, loaded word. And I think 'alleged victim' is a cousin to it," Judge Bruce Schroeder said on Monday, asking prosecutors to instead use the terms "complaining witness" or "decedent" to refer to those shot by Rittenhouse. (Though not universal, it is not unheard of for judges to feel that the word "victim" presupposes the defendant's guilt.)

Meanwhile, the defense will be allowed to refer to the three people Rittenhouse shot as "arsonists," "looters" or "rioters" so long as they took part in those activities, Schroeder ruled — a decision prosecutor Thomas Binger called "a double standard."

more fun stuff on the guy in this thread:

1. So you're probably seething about the judge in the Kyle Rittenhouse case saying lawyers can't call the 3 people he shot "victims," while there's a chance they can be called "rioters" or "looters"

Did you wonder what's up with this guy? I did.

Buckle up

— Will Bunch (@Will_Bunch) October 27, 2021

"The word 'victim' is a loaded, loaded word. And I think 'alleged victim' is a cousin to it," Judge Bruce Schroeder said on Monday, asking prosecutors to instead use the terms "complaining witness" or "decedent" to refer to those shot by Rittenhouse. (Though not universal, it is not unheard of for judges to feel that the word "victim" presupposes the defendant's guilt.)

I'm sure this judge sucks and everything, but this seems reasonable as a general principle? if the defendant is arguing that he acted in legitimate self-defence then calling the people he killed 'victims' seems like pre-empting the decision on whether that's a valid defence. As for "a double standard" in terms of calling the guys who got shot arsonists, looters and rioters, Rittenhouse is the one on trial, so of course there are different rules about implying that he's guilty of a particular crime, why wouldn't there be?

bummer how nothing ever happens to these judges the way it does to, say, BLM activists in Ferguson

presumably part of the prosecution's argument is that they are in fact victims though

what is the standard of evidence for calling them arsonists or looters?

I don't know, but surely if you're conducting a trial then a lower standard of evidence is required for referring to people who are not on trial in a way that implies they're guilty of a crime, versus the standard required to refer to the defendant in a way that implies he's guilty of the crime he's one trial for?

not if it's part of evidence, I would hope (though am 100% a legal ignoramus)

If a judge allowed similar leeway to the prosecution over the defense, it would be instant grounds for reversing any conviction on appeal. But afaik prosecutors can't appeal losses due to judicial misconduct.

As for "a double standard" in terms of calling the guys who got shot arsonists, looters and rioters, Rittenhouse is the one on trial, so of course there are different rules about implying that he's guilty of a particular crime, why wouldn't there be?

So you're saying the defense can be allowed to taint the reputations of the people their guy supposedly "defended" himself against, but the prosecution can't call these people "victims"? Sounds like you're the one who is confused.

Imagine: the defense is allowed to call a woman who has been sexually brutalized by their defendant "a petty whore and thief," but the prosecution can't call her a "sexual assault victim."

Give me a fucking break.

Clearly we have the best possible judge for this trial

i know all the answers to these questions but i'm really tired

table otm, wtf surprised to see this defended at all tbh.

not a trial or criminal lawyer but rules of evidence prohibit or limit the prosecution's ability to bring in evidence of the defendant's unrelated bad acts.

I think everyone on ilx would be on board with this generally as this is what prevents a prosecutor from convicting a defendant of murder just on evidence that he sold a dime bag in an unrelated case.

In practice, things are much more complicated than the above because there are exceptions to many of these rules (for instance where the crimes are part of a pattern).

The above rules generally don't apply to non-defendants (i.e. victims), hence, this judge's decision.

NB, this judge is a total shitbag.

there are tons of valid reasons why the prosecution is not allowed to do certain things in criminal trials, this is just not a good case to help anyone understand them

the question of whether the prosecution can refer to someone as a victim is not novel, probably more common where the central issue is whether the offense happened at all, but this article or another one i read said this judge (who does indeed sound like a piece of shit) often doesn't allow it so it's not for this trial only.

I mean, clearly as a non-lawyer here, but... it seems to lack any kind of consistency though. Even if buy the argument of why they can't call them "victims", why is it okay to call them "arsonists" and "looters", particularly if that's not what they are being tried for? I guess chalk it up to reason #134268437743 that the US legal system is bullshit and heavily tilted towards allowing white perpetrators of violence to walk.

^^^ this. Were they convicted of arson? No, because they were fucking shot dead.

as a tv lawyer, let me just as you all a question: has any of this been proved beyond a reasonable doubt? and i'd like to remind you, you are under oath *smirks at the jury*

i'll allow it, but watch yourself counselor

ok i hope none of you guys or your family ever gets in trouble then

Lol

I think they’re just trying to inject the slightest bit of levity into what we all know is a really frightening and fucked situation

i should have xposted! i had typed a longer more lawyerly response but i know people are more interested in frying this guy and frankly i agree

i ctrl-xed my post i will put it on posts you had a second thought about so someone can pull it up when i'm nominated for the supreme court

Justice Harbl: please be seated

We’ve all watched too much Law & Order

Maybe this is or isn’t the best place to ask, but: what is the strongest sentence a Jan 6 participant has received?

i think the more serious cases have not reached that stage yet so the results are now skewed toward lower sentences

one of them was forced to be in Dear Evan Hansen

One of them might not get invited to the next Mr. Show reboot.

I absolutely understand there is legal reasoning behind this, but it doesn't make it any less outrageous seeming to an outsider. Hey man, as long as you claim self-defense, you can go ahead and paint the victims people you shoot and kill as whatever kind of monsters you want!

Repeat after me, "they were no angels."

Hey man, as long as you claim self-defense, you can go ahead and paint the victims people you shoot and kill as whatever kind of monsters you want!

― a superficial sheeb of intelligence (jon /via/ chi 2.0), Wednesday, October 27, 2021 3:16 PM (seven hours ago)

I would be more livid if it was decided that "rioting," "looting," and arson with no immediate risk to life were offenses deserving of murder.