< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6441 OF 6441 ·
|Nov-27-14|| ||keypusher: <In cases such as this, where someone has died and evidence is ambiguous or conflicting, the result is often that the federal government steps in and prosecutes for a violation of the civil rights of the slain. This cannot reflect well on the (non-)prosecutor, who has failed his constituents.>|
Sorry, didn't I promise I was leaving? But the Justice Department already leaked that no civil rights charges would be forthcoming in this case.
OK, now I am really gone for today. Happy Turkey Day, wherever you are.
|Nov-27-14|| ||Softpaw: < <SF: Too bad the dead can't speak for themselves.>|
In Roshomon they could, but it didn't clear things up much.
|Nov-27-14|| ||Jim Bartle: Civil Rights prosecution: The all-knowing, all-seeing Jeffrey Toobin says it's highly unlikely, because the govt. would have to prove there was a racial motive to the shooting. And there's no evidence of that at all.|
|Nov-27-14|| ||Jim Bartle: <The facts of the case, even disregarding that the suspect was a cop, indicate nothing but self-defense. The DA felt compelled to put it before a GJ for political cover.>|
First part, false. there's a lot to indicate it was not self-defense. Evidence the other way, too. The investigation and evidence-gathering was so bad that serious analysis was impossible.
Second part, that is what I've been trying to say. He went to the Grand Jury for political cover. He didn't want to indict Wilson, and the way they conducted the Grand Jury.
|Nov-27-14|| ||Abdel Irada: <keypusher: <In cases such as this, where someone has died and evidence is ambiguous or conflicting, the result is often that the federal government steps in and prosecutes for a violation of the civil rights of the slain. This cannot reflect well on the (non-)prosecutor, who has failed his constituents.>|
Sorry, didn't I promise I was leaving? But the Justice Department already leaked that no civil rights charges would be forthcoming in this case.>
Often is not always. In this case, McCulloch cleverly co-opted the DoJ, tying any future federal action to the grand jury proceeding.
This does not absolve him from the moral duty to protect the welfare of his constituents.
Enjoy your roast dinosaur and don't OD on tryptophan. :-)
|Nov-27-14|| ||Travis Bickle: <Jim Bartle: <Nobody gave a damn when OJ Simpson almost cut off his wife's head, saved by her spinal cord...>
Everybody cared. It dominated the news for a year and a half. The six-month trial was on live TV. The car chase pre-empted the NBA Finals!> |
After an African American L.A. Police Commissioner when asked, do you plan to look for further suspects in this case, replied as far as the Police Department is concerned we had the perpetrator of the crime.
Everyone cared?? Then why when OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder was there no fires, looting & fighting in the streets?
|Nov-27-14|| ||chancho: Happy Thanksgiving, <Scott>.|
|Nov-27-14|| ||Jim Bartle: Well, that's a good question. but come on, the whole country was fixated on the trial, the great majority thought he was guilty (it couldn't have been more obvious). |
People wanted him to be prosecuted and convicted. When he was acquitted he became a complete pariah in society.
|Nov-27-14|| ||chancho: I was disgusted when OJ walked.
But he had the best legal defense money could buy.
In the aftermath of the not guilty verdict, I remember this young black girl getting interviewed by CNN who said that all that mattered was that OJ Simpson was found not guilty.
When asked about Nicole Simpson and Ron Goldman... their parents, and not getting justice, she answered: I don't care about them.
Says a lot, doesn't it?
|Nov-27-14|| ||Jim Bartle: The OJ verdict is the worst collective action I've ever seen in the US black population. The girl <chancho> mentions is all too typical.|
By the way, the verdict was the most-watched event ever on US TV, 150 million people. Don't know if it still is.
|Nov-27-14|| ||ljfyffe: <probable cause>the deliberate placing of much dubious evidence along with credible evidence before the grand jury was a means to ensure that no trial would ensue.. The policeman could well have been found not guilty at trial, but the abuse at the grand jury stage by the prosecution put the whole process into disrepute. Because the officer had a gun and the deceased did not surely required examination under public trial conditions since the dead person was already prevented from testifying.|
|Nov-27-14|| ||johnlspouge: < <HeMateMe> wrote: They won't allow cameras in the interrogation rooms. >|
From Aug 15:
"A new Justice Department policy requires the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and several other federal law enforcement agencies to videotape interrogations with suspects held in custody."
[ http://www.onthemedia.org/story/cam... ]
"Hundreds of police departments rely on recording interrogations, and at least 17 states require the practice by law."
[ http://articles.philly.com/2014-06-... ]
< <Colonel Mortimer> wrote : Facts are useless to someone who doesn't [want] to understand. >
Truer words were never spoken. Myself, I prefer facts to opinions.
|Nov-27-14|| ||johnlspouge: < <hedgeh0g> wrote: Maybe the whole incident was staged to draw people's attention off Benghazi. >|
Thanks for the chuckle. You have been missed, <hedge> :)
|Nov-27-14|| ||Softpaw: <ljfyffe: <probable cause>the deliberate placing of much dubious evidence along with credible evidence before the grand jury was a means to ensure that no trial would ensue..>|
So, the grand jury, unlike you, was unable to distinguish dubious evidence and from credible evidence?
|Nov-27-14|| ||Strongest Force: Might and money got OJ off. The same thing led the u Supream Court to say that Corps are people. There was an Italian who said corps are totalitarian. I would like to see the words "everyone is equal" but I think only God can bring that about.|
|Nov-27-14|| ||ljfyffe: On the other hand, 0.J. Simpson had wealth enough that he could hire lawyers who knew how to exploit weaknesses in the judicial process; he proved that, yes, you can get away with murder, if you have the right people at your side.|
|Nov-27-14|| ||HeMateMe: sponge--municipal police departments are not required to tape interrogations/confessions. I think actions by people at the lower end are actually where more corruption takes place.|
|Nov-27-14|| ||chancho: <Softpaw> became a premmie right before my very eyes.|
|Nov-27-14|| ||johnlspouge: Police need to use lethal force in situations where someone could be an imminent danger to themselves or other. US police training, however, gears itself to speedy crisis resolution at the expense of human life. US police are actually trained to create life-threatening situations. |
Why all the whingeing debate, then, when they actually have to take lives in defense of their own?
From Oct, 2012:
"A 10-hour armed standoff between a distraught man and police at a posh hotel in downtown [city deleted] ended Monday afternoon after an emergency response team shot the gunman with a plastic bullet."
[ http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/1... ]
Did you really need to know the city I deleted, to know that it is not in the US? It is a powerful indicator of the lack of respect for human life, possibly in some cases, the lack of respect for black-black-black-black-black life vs white, that US policing policy remains unchanged.
< <OhioChessFan> wrote: Oh yeah, it takes a deep, deep thinker to suggest LEO should be trained to defuse violent situations. >
Apparently, a much deeper thinker than you are.
|Nov-27-14|| ||Jim Bartle: <ljfyffe: On the other hand, 0.J. Simpson had wealth enough that he could hire lawyers who knew how to exploit weaknesses in the judicial process; he proved that, yes, you can get away with murder, if you have the right people at your side.>|
The defense was helped by incompetent police and a mistaken prosecution strategy.
|Nov-27-14|| ||ljfyffe: <distinguish evidence> Of course, they could. That was the whole point...to put all witness testimony in a bad light by serving them a good portion of the obviously inaccurate--at the grand jury stage.|
|Nov-27-14|| ||johnlspouge: @<HeMateMe>: Here is the directive for Chicago municipal police enforcing cameras. I am not going to spoonfeed you further, but municipal police derive their authority from the corresponding state. Their state regulates them where appropriate, and it is hard to imagine a state deciding that state police should have cameras in interrogation rooms without imposing similar requirements on municipal police.|
[ http://directives.chicagopolice.org... ]
|Nov-27-14|| ||Tomlinsky: <municipal police departments are not required to tape interrogations/confessions.>|
In this day and age, for the protection of both police and accused, I can't think of any reasonable excuse as to why this would be. It isn't uncommon for an 'interview' to be videotaped in the UK and extremely rare that an audio recording isn't made. I believe that a recording may be demanded of any questioning when taken into police custody.
<One of the most important parts of a criminal trial is the police interview. It often shapes the way that a case is run. We’ve seen this on a hundred TV shows, sometimes the suspect sits there tight-lipped, saying nothing (often accompanied by a lawyer of less than perfect morality), sometimes they break down and confess all, sometimes the police ‘bend the rules’.>
<All police interviews (with only a few exceptions) are tape recorded (some are now videoed) so that there is no dispute as to what is said.
At the start, the police officer that is leading the investigation will introduce everyone who is there and explain to the suspect what their legal rights are. They will then be ‘cautioned’: “you don’t have to say anything, but it may harm your defence if you fail to mention when questioned something that you later rely on in court. Anything you do say may be given in evidence”. >
|Nov-27-14|| ||ljfyffe: <Jim Bartle>Yes, that is what I meant, in part, as weaknesses in the system|
|Nov-27-14|| ||cormier: http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings...|
< Earlier Kibitzing · PAGE 6441 OF 6441 ·