Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
People are being phony. Nobody in their right mind want to live in a society where individuals walk around with badges, guns and a license to kill and can treat and talk to you like dirt, while you are expected to smile, don't get upset and let them walk all over your dignity and self respect. I call BS! You don't want that for yourselves.......you want that for black people.
I believe no one WANTS to, but they think they should let it happen under the guise of "Its a tough job", without even wanting to know what that entails, because of wanting the cops to do the dirty work of keeping the brown people away.
if you really think about it, I cant think of any other professional job that can treat people this way offhand, not even 1 occupation in the court system. I know the wealthy know they can demand better treatment from their police force. Police know they cant harrass the wealthy without getting a severe amount of heat. Wealthy people complain and call the right people when cops mouth off.
Why cant normal people demand this treatment on the regular?
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneill
You would think police officers would be demanding better training.
I think this doesnt happen because they might get trained by the department you start with, theres alot to learn, and you might not think you need more de-escalation training if they dont give it to you. Plus you might train with a cop thats been on the job for many years and teaches you to be as jaded as he is with the public. Once you learn how the culture of the department works and what you can and cant do against that department in fear of retaliation, you keep your trap shut. Ive seen numerous stories of departments turning against whistleblowers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lilyflower3191981
It’s the officer’s responsibility to create “time and space” in a potentially escalating situation, not jump to the far end of the use-of-force spectrum and start shooting,
You don’t use deadly force as your very first option simply because you are nervous.
Even the combat soldiers have to follow STRICT rules of engagement.
Once I read this story again something dawned on me.
Graham vs Conner virtually guaranteed that you absolutely cannot question intent if a cop thinks he/she was in fear for their life. You cant use hindsight against what happened in the moment, which covers up any feeling of panic or mistakes. They use it as jury instructions for every police involved shooting. Its a kill all for the cases. I believe now that any cops lawyer explains that he will get off for the shooting just because of this.
But in many cases of brutality with anything but a gun (night stick, taser, beating with fists) you can prove intent based on the number of blows or time spent in abuse. Many cops were convicted of this, even if they were given a slap on the wrist. Its easy to see the intent of a cop that tasers a subject that is already handcuffed.
Seems to me, based on the trend of shoot first, word got around that shooting someone first will always get you off and you can eventually get a job again. Maybe not as a patrolman, but you dont go to jail. Look at Shelby. Use any other means, and you'll likely get convicted, and your certification or chance at working as a cop again taken away. I also believe that the good cops naturally wouldnt try to go this route. I could be way off base, but Im just thinking out loud.
In this case I believe Prosecutor Choi didnt try to convict, he wanted the departments co-operation for further cases, and wanted to get re-elected. These cases need special prosecutors, but the D.A. doesnt want that either, because the cops will turn against them.
Maybe a special prosecutor will know what to charge and how to make it stick, showing the jury the right evidence to make the conviction.
The law needs to be put in place to guarantee a special unbiased prosecutor for these cases. Maybe we dont have to worry about Graham vs Conner if this happens.
Last edited by Harry Hemi; 06-19-2017 at 08:34 PM..
I've been talking about this ^ for 71 pages. Very few folks understand it. Even less accept it as reality.
Yanez is a culmination of about 40 years of court rulings/legislation all giving cops more discretion.
Yeah but you never explained it. Maybe I missed it. That might be why If you expounded on it a little bit, you might not have had to repeat yourself so much.
Wouldnt have prevented this thread from going 72 pages though
I'm an anarchist...as in no State so no. I don't want public police at all.
It's been happening. You pointed out Graham vs. Connor. That's just one of many cases.
People like preventative policing.
I changed my post after I found that you had been mentioning Graham vs Connor, but didnt really explain it. I know youre an anarchist, but how do you interpret these particular use of force laws and how they are used in these cases?
Regardless of the jury instructions, a jury can find the law, either codified statutory or via legal precedent abhorrent either in a specific instance or in general. This means a jury can acquit regardless of jury instructions AND it can also convict regardless of those instructions. The jury's decision is theirs and theirs alone to make. Judges often try to influence a holdout juror or a group of jurors pushing to convict but any attempt by the judge to influence the jury once they've been released to deliberate is considered extremely improper.
If a jury nullification acquits a defendant (finds them not guilty) that defendant cannot be tried again for the same crime. In the acquittal scenario, these nullifications are permanent in that individual case. If a jury nullification convicts a defendant, despite the case not meeting the burden of proof required by law, the defendant still has the option to appeal and the judge, in some jurisdictions may have the authority to strike down the jury's verdict due to legal precedent. I am unaware of any codified statute that allows a judge to do this as this would undoubtedly be considered unconstitutional as it would have the power to invalidate any verdict by a jury, therefore removing the constitutionally protected power granted to a jury.
All this said, this means the jury could have convicted Officer Yanez of any or all of the charges he faced regardless of the jury instructions.
I changed my post after I found that you had been mentioning Graham vs Connor, but didnt really explain it. I know youre an anarchist, but how do you interpret these particular use of force laws and how they are used in these cases?
I already pointed it out somewhere between pages 1-70 but your link on the previous page with the jury instructions says it all.
The issue is that juries get these instructions and a huge deal is made by the judge and the lawyers on how you have to hold the officer to a different standard which inadvertently creates a mindset that the cops are an "other".
It's not the fault of the judges or lawyers. Just doing their jobs according to the law. But when juries are told that about the standards and it gets pounded into their heads that this isn't a regular citizen and forget what you've seen on Law & Order what inevitably occurs is that juries start to think of cops as being...well...above the law...in a legal way. If that makes sense.
So it's a recipe for disaster. Reasonable doubt + differrent standards + most folks like preventative policing to begin with because they feel it reduces crime = cops walking away not guilty.
In this case I think they over-charged Yanez anyway. Manslaughter and reckless discharge with no video and credible dissenting witnesses against a cop is beyond a long shot.
I already pointed it out somewhere between pages 1-70 but your link on the previous page with the jury instructions says it all.
The issue is that juries get these instructions and a huge deal is made by the judge and the lawyers on how you have to hold the officer to a different standard which inadvertently creates a mindset that the cops are an "other".
It's not the fault of the judges or lawyers. Just doing their jobs according to the law. But when juries are told that about the standards and it gets pounded into their heads that this isn't a regular citizen and forget what you've seen on Law & Order what inevitably occurs is that juries start to think of cops as being...well...above the law...in a legal way. If that makes sense.
So it's a recipe for disaster. Reasonable doubt + differrent standards + most folks like preventative policing to begin with because they feel it reduces crime = cops walking away not guilty.
In this case I think they over-charged Yanez anyway. Manslaughter and reckless discharge with no video and credible dissenting witnesses against a cop is beyond a long shot.
Not to mention many people already go into jury duty thinking they should give the cops leeway.
Actually I just saw by this article what they might have been able to charge them with. Fortunately, this victim lived to testify.
Cop was charged assault and battery of a high and aggravated nature. This happened in 2014 and the cop pleaded guilty but still hasnt been sentenced. Looks like theyre finding a way to help him walk.
Last edited by Harry Hemi; 06-19-2017 at 10:32 PM..
Funny how the jury, that actually heard facts, evidence and testimony that posters are only speculating about....saw things differently.
They didn't necessarily see things differently. They were given specific jury instructions that they could only judge the facts of the case within a specific scope. Jury nullification, a concept of natural rights going clear back to the Magna Charta has allowed juries to judge the facts AND the law itself. For over 100 years in this nation, jurors were given instructions on their natural right to jury nullification. Even John Jay, the first Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, instructed jurors that the jury has "a right ... to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."
They didn't necessarily see things differently. They were given specific jury instructions that they could only judge the facts of the case within a specific scope. Jury nullification, a concept of natural rights going clear back to the Magna Charta has allowed juries to judge the facts AND the law itself. For over 100 years in this nation, jurors were given instructions on their natural right to jury nullification. Even John Jay, the first Supreme Court Chief Justice John Jay, instructed jurors that the jury has "a right ... to determine the law as well as the fact in controversy."
Thats right, and if the prosecutor doesnt give all of the evidence, or doesnt want to convict the cop that he knows, he can frame the evidence in such a way that the jury has no choice but to acquit. And this is how its been happening since 1984.
As soon as you see a cop is charged with murder, you know they are working to get him off.
Last edited by Harry Hemi; 06-19-2017 at 11:39 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
