Police misbehavior thread

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Dauric
Posts: 3737
Joined: Wed Aug 05, 2009 6:58 pm UTC
Location: In midair, traversing laterally over a container of sharks. No water, just sharks, with lasers.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Dauric » Thu Mar 02, 2017 1:01 pm UTC

speising wrote:
elasto wrote:
pogrmman wrote:I support everybody getting a defense. It would be horrible to have a legal system in which this wasn't the case.

However, the defense they are using doesn't seem particularly strong here... Granted, I didn't see the event, so I don't know the full story, just what has been reported.

I agree, but what other defence could they invoke? It's clear the injuries occurred and it's clear that the police caused them; The only angle the defence team can possibly take is that the injuries were accidental. They'd be failing in their duty not to try.

They could claim it was necessary and justified self defense.


Given the injuries... That sounds terrifyingly worse.
We're in the traffic-chopper over the XKCD boards where there's been a thread-derailment. A Liquified Godwin spill has evacuated threads in a fourty-post radius of the accident, Lolcats and TVTropes have broken free of their containers. It is believed that the Point has perished.

elasto
Posts: 3025
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby elasto » Fri Mar 03, 2017 10:20 am UTC

Yeah. Given that the guy's clothes were removed and he was anally raped, claiming that doing so was 'necessary and justified' paints the officers in an even worse light than simply saying 'we didn't mean it to happen'.

Netreker0
Posts: 110
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2011 8:17 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Netreker0 » Wed Apr 12, 2017 5:09 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
pogrmman wrote:I support everybody getting a defense. It would be horrible to have a legal system in which this wasn't the case.

However, the defense they are using doesn't seem particularly strong here... Granted, I didn't see the event, so I don't know the full story, just what has been reported.

I agree, but what other defence could they invoke? It's clear the injuries occurred and it's clear that the police caused them; The only angle the defence team can possibly take is that the injuries were accidental. They'd be failing in their duty not to try.


I don't think you understand what an attorney's obligations are. An attorney of any sort has an ethical obligation not to submit any argument or defense that isn't factually or legally justifiable. This isn't widely enforced with sanctions--often, it happens because a young attorney or even an experienced one in a particularly complex area of law makes an honest mistake, and we don't want to punish that too harshly, but this also means that some (well, probably many) less honest attorneys can get away with very closely skirting the line of what is a plausible argument.

But the ethical obligations are clear. For a defense attorney, this means you're not supposed to let your client testify if you know he plans to lie, and you're not supposed to raise a defense that you know to be based on a lie, such as blaming someone else when you know your client did it. Their duty in general is not "do anything and everything possible, no matter how dishonest or illegal, to get their client off," but rather to provide the best legally and factually supportable defense possible. In the case of a client they know did something wrong, that means holding the prosecution to the very high standard of proof required by law. The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This means proving every single element of the crime. In theory, you don't need to prove your client innocent because, according to the law, it's the burden of the state to prove that you committed the crime, and we don't believe that a random person should be forced to jump through hoops to prove that you're a good person simply because someone, somewhere got it in their head to accuse you of a crime.

I know this doesn't sound like much, but in our system it's actually a tremendous value-added. There are bad convictions all the time (by that, I mean cases the prosecution legally should not have won, and not necessarily cases where the convicted person was actually innocent.) When you have a PD handling a few hundred cases a year, he might not notice that the prosecution hasn't actually provided evidence supporting their claim that a certain aspect of the crime happened, or do a great job pointing out that the shaky case was far short of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There are even appellate cases where a conviction was overturned, not because the crime was later found unconstitutional or the police did something wrong, but because a panel of judges looked at the evidence and concluded that, even if you assume take all of the prosecution's evidence to be 100% credible, it still didn't add up to a crime. Juries are human--sometimes they convict people because they're tired and want to go home, they can't get past their own biases and preconceived notions, or they don't really understand the law the trial is based on. Sometimes, they simply don't like the defendant. A good, honest defense attorney's job is to get the jury past any issues that would prevent them from giving the defendant a fair trial, and then do everything they can to convince them that in a fair trial, the government has fallen short.

elasto
Posts: 3025
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby elasto » Thu Apr 13, 2017 12:09 am UTC

Netreker0 wrote:I don't think you understand what an attorney's obligations are. An attorney of any sort has an ethical obligation not to submit any argument or defense that isn't factually or legally justifiable.

If the jury buys the argument, then by definition it was factually and legally justifiable. You are putting the cart before the horse here in attempting to pre-judge.

But the ethical obligations are clear. For a defense attorney, this means you're not supposed to let your client testify if you know he plans to lie, and you're not supposed to raise a defense that you know to be based on a lie, such as blaming someone else when you know your client did it.

Their duty in general is not "do anything and everything possible, no matter how dishonest or illegal, to get their client off,"

Therefore I'd assume that they don't know it to be based on a lie.

The defence team could of course be acting dishonestly or illegally - just as anyone, anywhere, at any time could be - but I (unlike you?) am presuming them innocent until proven guilty on this front.

User avatar
ucim
Posts: 5090
Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2012 3:23 pm UTC
Location: The One True Thread

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby ucim » Thu Apr 13, 2017 2:08 am UTC

elasto wrote:If the jury buys the argument, then by definition it was factually and legally justifiable.
Uh.... no. That's like saying that if the electorate votes in a blundering racist misogynistic egocentric factually challenged misspeller, that the resulting hairdo is by definition factually and legally Tremendous as the Leader of the once Free World.

If the jury buys it, then that is the decision. That doesn't make it justifiable. It just makes it over with.

Jose
Order of the Sillies, Honoris Causam - bestowed by charlie_grumbles on NP 859 * OTTscar winner: Wordsmith - bestowed by yappobiscuts and the OTT on NP 1832 * Ecclesiastical Calendar of the Order of the Holy Contradiction * Please help addams if you can. She needs all of us.

idonno
Posts: 21
Joined: Fri Apr 03, 2015 3:34 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby idonno » Thu Apr 13, 2017 3:04 am UTC

Netreker0 wrote:I don't think you understand what an attorney's obligations are. An attorney of any sort has an ethical obligation not to submit any argument or defense that isn't factually or legally justifiable. This isn't widely enforced with sanctions--often, it happens because a young attorney or even an experienced one in a particularly complex area of law makes an honest mistake, and we don't want to punish that too harshly, but this also means that some (well, probably many) less honest attorneys can get away with very closely skirting the line of what is a plausible argument.


I'm pretty sure that if this was done via the testimony of the defendants (I don't see how else it would have been introduced) and they want to give the testimony, this is actually a really tricky legal scenario with no clear answer. To report on the defendant would violate confidentiality rules and to refuse to present the defense would violate either the defendants right to a lawyer or their right to testify in their own defense. I don't know about you but I really don't want to live under a legal structure where any of those protections can be thrown out so I'll take the bad with the good.

http://www.law.ua.edu/pubs/jlp_files/is ... 3art11.pdf

User avatar
Sizik
Posts: 1119
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 3:48 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Sizik » Fri Apr 14, 2017 5:50 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Hands up, still shot.
On Wednesday, WSVN aired a cell phone video reportedly taken moments before caregiver Charles Kinsey was shot by North Miami police. In it, Kinsey, who survived, can be see lying on the ground with his hands raised, explaining that him and the autistic man he was assisting are unarmed.


The officer has now been charged.
Jonathon Aledda, a four-year veteran of the department, faces charges of attempted manslaughter, a third-degree felony, and culpable negligence, a first-degree misdemeanor, according to the Miami-Dade State Attorney's Office.
gmalivuk wrote:
King Author wrote:If space (rather, distance) is an illusion, it'd be possible for one meta-me to experience both body's sensory inputs.
Yes. And if wishes were horses, wishing wells would fill up very quickly with drowned horses.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: morriswalters, Rodion Raskolnikov, sardia and 18 guests