Ongoing U.S Police Brutality and Corruption Discussion Thread

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.

Also, semi-relatedly -- Kyle looks a lot like one of the sons of neo-Nazi Vern Schillinger in the tv show OZ

https://www.armytimes.com/news/your-army/2021/10/27/i-just-wanted-to-die-homeless-veteran-loses-service-dog-during-arrest-for-panhandling/

i did a little more poking around because i was curious about the judge's ruling in the rittenhouse case. i have concluded this has been pretty badly covered and framed to maximize outrage, as is usually the case. per washington post, this was about closing argument. i also saw a video clip of the judge making the ruling and he specifically said if the evidence shows x he is not going to bar the defense from saying x. if their case is weak enough to be harmed because they can't say "victims," they have other problems, but it's probably not (though it could fail for other predictable reasons).

thanks harbl. as a total legal ignoramus i’d like to retract my snarky and probably fp-worthy post upthread

not to derail this one, but is there a thread for wtf court/ legal shenanigans in our sundowning empire? or has the Steven Donzinger case been discussed in any depth on ILX?

i don't begrudge anyone wanting to dispense with trial and just draw and quarter this one i just sometimes feel like i am on the BadLegalTakes twitter account

there was a brief exchange about donziger somewhere and there is at least one thread about the criminal justice system somewhere but i would enjoy a law thread

Yeah, thanks for your takes harbl. It's not helpful when the reporting is designed to maximize a misreading of the situation, particularly in an inflammatory case like this one. For me, it just fed into the sinking sense that this kid is gonna walk without even a slap on the wrist and spend the rest of his life propped up and trotted out by the right wing media outrage machine.

this one is interesting:
https://oaklandside.org/2021/10/21/retired-oakland-police-captain-wounded-1-suspect-dead-following-robbery-attempt/

It doesn't seem clear that was a case of police brutality? Although based on the info provided apparently the retired officer did draw first.

Rohrer was standing on a median near a Gastonia shopping center with Sunshine on Oct. 13 when a 911 caller contacted police. While Rohrer wasn’t bothering anybody, having Sunshine with him was his way of using sympathy to get money from people, the caller said, according to a copy of the audio call.

Fuckyoufuckyoufuckyouihopeyoudiefuckyou

fuck arresting people for 'panhandling'

No offense to you, harbl, but I truly don't give a shit what any judge says about anything, or what the law says. Fuck the law, and fuck the judge.

Ok but other people do!

but this holiday season, table is...

https://i.imgur.com/sYr8ZBG.gif

above the law

(seagal is a cop in that movie, it fits)

fits with the thread, i mean.

sorry

https://bplusmovieblog.files.wordpress.com/2019/03/andjusticeforall.png?w=590

your honor, under the traditions of the time-honored Magna Carta, i believe that as the defendant in these proceedings i am entitled to a

Trial by Combat

what does "no offense to you" even mean lol. if you think i care about judges or what the law says i don't know what to tell you

I mean it's easier for us to dismiss the law when the case involves a privileged alt-right kid who fessed up to killing both people right after he did it and was publicly witnessed doing it by everybody that was there...

vs if someone of lower income who can't afford a lawyer and has to go with a public defender is accused of something they didn't do.

if conservatives had their way, it'd be easier to convict people on trivial evidence, and that's not something I want to gravitate towards. we already know of scores of people who were wrongly put on death row in the current system.

I want to pay wergild for my murders.

But if we all don't believe in the law then it will just fuck off and the prisons will disappear

The point is that there is quite literally nothing redeemable about the US legal system as it is, so while knowing its ins and outs is valuable, I don't actually put any faith in it. It's a field based in pain and death. Fuck it.

the problem with the legal system though is that it unfairly penalizes non-violent crimes that pose little harm to the community with stiff penalties, is weighted in favor of people with money who can afford rockstar legal representation as opposed to poorer individuals who can only receive the services of an overworked public defender. and that it punishes people of color disproportionately to Caucasian individuals. the issue with the legal system is that it is locking up too many people that do not belong locked up at all, locking people up for too long, locking the wrong people up, executing the wrong people, etc. Meaning the deck is stacked against the average civilian who runs afoul of the law. Suggesting more legal protections are needed for the average individual.

Yes, there are also people who aren't incarcerated who should be, but I've never understood the argument against our legal system to be that "more people need to be locked up", but that we need to overhaul and rethink the entire prison system, which encourages recidivism and makes it impossible for prisoners to re-enter society.

the example that harbl is talking about is an actual protection offered to civilians accused of a crime, mostly to prevent prejudicing the jury and resulting in an unfair trial that puts them away for many years. I wouldn't see this as an emblem of an unjust legal system because it's a protection that actually seeks to give defendants a fighting chance to defend themselves if they are wrongfully accused. and in this case, I don't think it's one that's going to have a significant role in the outcome of the case.

table i understand that, in fact i agree with you. i'm just not sure why you directed that at me like i'm proud of the legal system

yea, sorry. i apologize for that.

table i understand that, in fact i agree with you. i'm just not sure why you directed that at me like i'm proud of the legal system

― certified juice therapist (harbl), Thursday, October 28, 2021 3:02 PM (yesterday)

yeah ... it's a challenge to work within the system you have misgivings / major problems with to try and do harm reduction. I think you are awesome harbl, for what you do and being able to maintain your values and criticism of said system. Also Happy Birthday.

only complaint re: harbl is I miss the "superdeep borehole" display name.