That's 2 in almost 4 years!
They're copyright trolls. The link is scrubbed by the forum to protect us from lawsuits. Please find another source for whatever it was saying.
That's 2 in almost 4 years!
They're copyright trolls. The link is scrubbed by the forum to protect us from lawsuits. Please find another source for whatever it was saying.
They sue people for... linking to them?
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
For quoting them in any way. The links are just the easiest way to detect it. If they see a link on our site, they start digging for anything actionable.
It's a bullshit lawsuit that they'd never win, but they target smaller sites that might not have the resources to mount a competent defence, in the hopes that the owner will just write them a check to make them go away.
I wouldn't go that far, but I do feel less safe with American cops. They (appear to) like using force to enforce compliance rather than self defense, and my main problem is that police violence is generally tolerated and hardly ever punished. And it's not just the Ferguson case (with the known facts it seems reasonable not to prosecute there) but in general, police brutality and police abusing other powers seems to go mostly unpunished. Hell , even today a cop was let off for strangling a suspect, using prohibited methods and not giving proper medical attention. You have to wonder what has to be done to actually get a punishment..Originally Posted by Hazir
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Fair enough. The essence of the story was that this year in Utah, being killed by a police officer was the most common form of violent death, and the second most common over a five year period, thus reinforcing the narrative that there's something seriously wrong with the police in America.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
If they are innocent of violent crimes then yes that is an issue. If they actually were committing violent crimes (then or in the past) I'm not seeing an issue.
First off, stop conflating all crime with riots. Then stop viewing all protestors as if they're like the small number of arsonists or looters (that frequently show up at mass events as opportunistic trouble-makers).
Glad you mentioned the "broken window" theory, since that seems to be what Community Police are using for policy and training -- even though it's an outdated and inefficient model. It's also often unfair and biased when policies like "Stop & Frisk" or "Papers, Please" becomes racial profiling.
To Hazir, Steely, Flixy (and other non-US posters) --- you have good reason to be confused, and even fearful, of our police.
It's hard enough for us to keep track of disparate laws between 50 states when we live here, so it's probably even more difficult for visitors and tourists to understand, and feel safe.
Wait, you think people should be shot for violent crimes they committed... in the past?Can police officers tell if someone's committed a violent crime in the past just be looking at them?
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
RoboCop could.
Hope is the denial of reality
Alright, I concede that Robocop should be allowed to shoot people whenever he wants, but no one else ok.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
You really hated those "show your work" type of questions in highschool didn't you?
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
I'm not really concerned about violent criminals being killed after the fact. I'm not necessarily supporting it but it probably does far more good than harm to the community at large.Wait, you think people should be shot for violent crimes they committed... in the past?
Also I consider any effort to use force to resist arrest a violent crime.
And what does that make the Garner case?
Congratulations America
Lewk, if I pick up a gun go out on the street, pick a person at random and shoot them in the head and it later turns out that the person I shot was a serial paedophile that does not mean shooting random people is a good idea, it just means I got lucky. What's at issue is how quickly police in America resort to lethal force - information they could not have access to when they're deciding whether or not to shoot is not relevant.
You don't think the resulting riots count as harm? You don't think a situation where no one in the community trusts the police because they keep shooting people counts as harm? Think, man.I'm not necessarily supporting it but it probably does far more good than harm to the community at large.
If you're going to have such a broad definition of 'violent crime', that kind of makes a mockery of your notion that lethal force is *always* an appropriate response to violent crime, doesn't it?Also I consider any effort to use force to resist arrest a violent crime.
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
I don't get the criticism of the grand jury system. Considering that the grand jury brings charges a vast majority of the time, but almost never against cops, surely the problem is with the culture that believes cops should be given a benefit of the doubt, not with the grand jury system itself.
Hope is the denial of reality
I bet Lewk's one of those people who think that people who're caught speeding while drunk in a residential should not be punished as long as they haven't actually killed someone
I'm more weirded out by the crazy prosecutors but I'm not sure what unique and vital function a grand jury serves that compensates for the consequences of leaving these decisions in the hands of angry dumb laymen who're easily manipulated by a prosecutor.
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Well, one of the things they do is reduce the burden on the courts. Grand juries aren't a part of the court system and using them reduces the congestion from requiring trial judges to sit for the probable cause hearings. That said, their original purpose is as a check on the government, they were to protect people from groundless/excessive government action. These days they're just a rubber stamp so no, they do not serve an important function anymore.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Um the opposite really. I'm in favor of harsh penalties on scum who drink and drive.I bet Lewk's one of those people who think that people who're caught speeding while drunk in a residential should not be punished as long as they haven't actually killed someone
I really don't see why police aren't camping out in front of bars EVERY night just to grab more people. Drunk driving deaths could easily be prevented if you locked the scum up BEFORE they kill someone.
I'm sorry, I didn't realize you were okay with hypocritical exceptions to your "no harm, no foul" philosophy
"One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."
Some American guy on the radio explaining the grand jury system for the benefit of confused brits (dot com!) said usually the reason the Grand Jury wouldn't give the case the go ahead was basically because the prosecutor didn't want to. True or false?
The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun
Well, the proceedings of a grand jury are kept secret.
Ain't that a fun system?
When the stars threw down their spears
And watered heaven with their tears:
Did he smile his work to see?
Did he who made the lamb make thee?
I'll admit that most I know about this is from wikipedia, but there it says that the proceedings are supervised by the prosecutor, and that the jurors do not get instructions on the law, and aren't screened for bias. Seems pretty unfair and open for rubber stamping, if you ask me. Can a grand jury result be overruled? Over here it's the prosecutor's discretion what cases to bring to court (which may be thrown out in a preliminary hearing), but if he decides not to the victim (or anyone with standing) can appeal that decision before judges, which may order the prosecutors to bring the case to trial.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Criminal grand juries, where they're used, are typically a replacement for or adjunct to prosecutorial discretion. Some counties simply don't allow prosecutorial discretion for certain cases and in a lot of the places it's the prosecutor fishing for whether they have a chance in hell of getting a conviction; if they can't even convince a grand jury they're never going to stand a chance at trial. And while I don't think a grand jury can be directly overruled, they're only one of the very early steps in criminal proceedings and serve the same function as a probable cause hearing presided over by a judge. When a case does go before a judge afterward, they'll be able to grant a summary dismissal if its warranted.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
As Flixy has already indicated; interested parties can ask a judge to review a decision to not prosecute. I'm certain the public prosecution overhere would rather not have to go to court over the same criminal case twice and thus are less likely to decide to not prosecute controversial cases. I think that in both recent cases justice would have been served better by a court case.
Congratulations America
If it's in the place of prosecutorial discretion, but apparently often a rubber stamp, in effect you still have prosecutorial discretion. And while I understand that a judge can grant a summary dismissal, instead of a preliminary hearing for probably cause (which would in effect do the same), my question is more about what happens when a case does not go forward. As Hazir and I said, over here with the discretion you can appeal the decision not to go forward, but if it's decided by a grand jury (which, with rubberstamping is in effect almost the same as discretion), can that be appealed? If not, options seem limited if a prosecutor isn't particularly interested in going forward. And considering prosecutors and the police are often on the same side, that could be seen as having a bias not to go forward. I'm not saying that's what happens, but it may appear to be so, and I think it's fair to say a large cause of the unrest recently has been because the public doesn't trust the policing of the police, and appearing to have a bias like this does not help.
Keep on keepin' the beat alive!
Ah, I see what you're talking about not. I wasn't thinking about the cases where things don't go forward but more about Minx's issues. Depending on the area, a grand jury would be the way around prosecutorial discretion leading to choosing not to prosecute, serving as an alternative means of bringing charges. That's getting rarer though and typically, the decision not to prosecute (either by grand jury or by prosecutor) is not challengeable. If you don't like the job your officials are doing you impeach them or refuse to re-elect them and get someone new in. The prosecutor (or a new one) can always change their minds and decide to level charges after all, the only limits are those provided in a statute of limitations and by the restriction against double jeopardy.
In my own state, which uses grand juries in an atypical manner, questionable decisions to not prosecute like the ones you're talking about is something a county's grand jury might actually choose to investigate and indict the prosecutor on. Ours are called civil grand juries and are for investigating actions by local government and bringing them to task for misfeasance.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
True. That "a grand jury can indict a ham sandwich" isn't just a stereotype, but a fact. The process might have started with good intentions, as a check-and-balance on prosecutors, or freeing up court time, but that's not how it's used today.
It's important to know that District Attorneys are political positions in the US, whether they're elected or appointed. And that they rely on the police to do their job of prosecuting crimes.
<It's a challenge for any US public servant to name their 'master', when it's based on a broken political system.>
Fuzzy, is there something preventing new criminal charges against police in Missouri and/or New York for wrongful death...even if grand juries said otherwise?
If you don't succeed, keep on making up new charges. What can possibly be wrong with that policy.
Hope is the denial of reality
Not sure what you're saying/asking. It's pretty clear that NYC police caused the death of Eric Garner. The Medical Examiner deemed it homicide. A grand jury didn't find "reasonable cause" to indict the police involved....but that doesn't mean a prosecutor can't proceed with new criminal charges.
I'm confused why the DA gave "immunity" to the other cops involved, and just wanted to prosecute one policeman, when it was clear that at least five cops (and several superiors who dictated policy) were just as responsible.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote