What if explaining your rationale would end up with you imprisoned or worse, though? I'm curious what you think about this situation. What it really comes down to is only being able to say 'you wouldn't understand' or 'there are things I'm not telling you.'

Basically, sometimes you really can't handle the truth!

Avenger figured it out already.

Plus, if he thinks:

means:


There's nothing I can do.

Simply saying "you missed my point" without elaborating is like saying "I don't care if you understand my views."

And if explaining your actions lands you in prison or worse, odds are good you did something to deserve to be in prison or worse. Deal with it.

EDIT: Ok, Jlee. I just thought it would be helpful for him to understand if you... you know... explained what he didn't understand hehe.

WTF are you talking about?

He's talking about what I said, and no, that's not always the case.

...carefully sidestepping the hilarious meta-thread about this discussion, I think this is an important point. It is easy to point at redundancies in an institution and claim it is 'waste' (and so much political discourse today is aimed at 'reducing waste' in public services), when really they are important safeguards. The one 'loophole' on its own may seem silly, and so the existence of dozens may seem multiply silly, but together they form a safety net to mitigate errors in human judgement. And there will be errors in any human institution, but with sufficient redundancy we can try to reduce those errors and the effect of those errors.

If the state regularly incarcerates innocent people, it loses the legitimacy to incarcerate anyone - not only is it a miscarriage of justice for that one individual, it undermines the entire institution.

Avenger already gets it...

So the part that I see Avenger getting seems to be addressed in the post I made.

I understand fully that you're frustrated that lawyers use the system to get the obviously guilty off without conviction.

But the point that Joncy is making, and that I tend to agree with, is that it's better to let some slip as long as people who are genuinely innocent are being saved by the same system and loopholes than to have a police state where guilt is predetermined.

Yeah the part in bold was in response to freelancer's post. Sorry for the confusion.

I remember reading in an article by one of my professors that the conviction rate in American criminal cases is about 90%, even though the standard for a criminal conviction is guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Given that, do we really believe that defense attorneys are regularly successful at getting "obviously guilty" defendants acquitted?

Legal technicalities and loopholes aren't built into the system just to protect the innocent. They are in the system to protect everyone's constitutional rights.

Flooding the court with motions with the intention of slipping one by the prosecution takes advantage of the system.

I agree; however, I will clarify what I'm talking about. A prior DUI arrest of mine (took almost a year, but it's done) was continued repeatedly and eventually had several motions presented (and promptly denied by the judge). These motions were alleging that I conducted an unlawful detention, I did not have the right to ask the operator to step out of the vehicle, so on and so forth. The judge denied them and the defendant took a guilty plea instead of going to trial.

I don't see how an attorney can, in good conscience, file paperwork that is blatantly factually false. I know it's their job to defend their clients to the best of their ability. However, when I have to take the stand and tell the truth, how can they file a legal document stating, in plain English, that what I did was wrong - when anyone with any knowledge of the state laws would immediately know otherwise? It bogs the system down, the judge has to take time listening to argument after argument, only to throw it out.

Some people need the **** beat out of them.

Even if it is for no reason.

Yay Rob

I elect rob to carry out the sentence.

I'm kind of frightened at the thought of getting Steven, Bill, and Rob in a room together. In the sense of—the crap they'd come up with and possibly carry out.

Goddamn cops. I got a parking ticket for parking my car with a "for sale" sign on the street in front of my house. IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE.

Bye bye $55.

They've been doing that near me as well. There's a park-n-ride lot that people have been using as a good place to sell their cars for literally DECADES. The cops suddenly decided to enforce an unknown (or maybe recent?) clause in some obscure law that says you can't have a for sale sign on your car at a park-n-ride.

I know I always throw this same two cents in, but here it is again:

Just because you've BEEN getting away with something doesn't mean it's not against the law. If a police officer gives you a correct citation for violating an actual law, then that is completely valid, even if you've never gotten one before. If you have a problem with getting a ticket for a for-sale sign, it's not the police who make the law, so you shouldn't really be mad at them. I know, it's not that simple, and cops can be dicks about stuff, but they can only work with the laws they are given, so you should take issue with silly laws in that case.

And with things like Brain mentioned, the directives are more than likely coming from someone at city hall or the county office or something like that to start ticketing.

.

I have to agree with Antony here. You deserved that parking ticket. I've gotten parking tickets for not moving my car for street sweeping....that was mere feet from my front door. Sign was clearly posted.

But we need more lawyers abusing the system and getting the obviously guilty off. This will erode the public confidence in the system and thus people will be calling for harsher punishments, looser restrictions on police, and the creation of a police state this nation so badly deserves.

I'm tired of this freedom ****. Freedom to do practically anything you want. We need order, obedience, and conformity. If we all unite behind one leader we can be a strong, glorious nation. We can destroy our enemies without compunction. One person can get things done instead of squabbling politicians.

DALF '12

I award this thread to JG for epicness above and beyond the call of duty.

Right, and all the motions were denied. You obviously did everything you were supposed to do, and you did it right. The purpose of those motions is to make sure of that. I understand it may be frustrating for you, and waste your time to some degree, but it protects against abuses. The role of the attorney is to explore every possible avenue, including mistakes that you may have made. You didn't, they were denied, a successful prosecution followed. Your story is exactly how the system should work.

If the attorney was not allowed to file those motions, it would open up the possibility of abuses.

Filing motions when there was some sort of wrong doing is one thing, but filing them for the sake of taking a shot in the dark is an abuse of the system.

You folks should read about a case in my city where a detective is being investigated for the following reasons.



The Courier-Journal recently did a front page story on this case (2.5 pages total).

• http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20100207/NEWS01/2070329/U-of-L-student-dragged-through-legal-system-for-crime-she-didn/-t-commit
• http://www.kentucky.com/news/state/story/1128965.html
• http://www.wlky.com/news/22495639/detail.html
• http://www.fox19.com/global/story.asp?s=11947772
• http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35286686/
• http://www.syracuse.com/newsflash/index.ssf?/base/national-105/1265587789264410.xml&storylist=health
• http://www.fox17.com/template/inews_wire/wires.regional.ky/2ad9716e-www.fox17.com.shtml

This is exactly why I love lawyers & their tactics. Unfortunately, cops are of the same species as criminals & are subject to the same issues (lying, manipulating, etc.).

As someone that has been accused of things that I didn't do (even arrested for something that I didn't do), by the police, on more than one occasion, I find this to be fascinating. There are probably some good cops out there, I've just never had the opportunity to meet any of them. JLee seems like a nice enough guy but I don't know him personally. I have never encountered a police officer or detective that wasn't a total ******* to me & treated me like an equal (they treat you like you're a potential criminal, possibly for their own safety, before they even ask their first question). Instead of "innocent until proven guilty" it's "guilty until proven innocent".

Not that I don't believe you personally, Mentat, I would never presume to judge your experience, but in MY experience with the police on both sides I find that usually when someone has a story like yours about police corruption, "i didn't do anything wrong", and being denied their legal rights....they're completely full of ****. Again, don't get me wrong, I don't presume to know your situation one way or another, and I have definitely heard verifiable stories very similar to yours (especially your particular one, domestic violence is always tough to sort out, especially for third parties like the police, even if they are being honest). I'm just saying that if you take 10 people who got arrested and asked for their story, 9 of them would sound exactly like yours, and 8 of them would be full of ****, intentionally or not.

Therein lies the problem. I think what matters is that it's possible that I'm telling the truth (whether or not I am). I was guilty until proven innocent. It's automatically assumed that I did something wrong just because the majority of people in my situation are lying. The police officer asked me if I had assaulted the person, I said no, but I was arrested anyways. Basically, there was no evidence of anyone being assaulted, so the police officer just arrested the person that the complaint was called against & made up a few lies to justify their arrest. I wasn't able to do the logical thing & just leave the situation because then there would've been a warrant for my arrest.

In my case, the person that I supposedly assaulted even went to court in my defense, but it was too late because the charges had been filed. I suppose that I could be blamed for not telling the police officer that the person had assaulted me, but at the time, the officer was in their home & I was afraid that they'd search the home & find their marijuana & shrooms operation & just wanted them to get in & out as quickly as possible. Luckily the officer didn't look around & my night in jail saved a family member from getting in to some serious trouble. I suppose the good thing about the situation, despite the lies from the police officer, was that I was forced away from said family member for 6 months & had to attend mandatory anger management (which the therapist dismissed after our first session), which resulted in family therapy, which ultimately resulted in said person going to in to rehabilitation for drug abuse & alcoholism.

Many of the people in the video were not helping their situation by disregarding what the officer is telling them.

Like the guy who's standing there with the camera, repeatedly saying "I've been here the whole time!" while the officer is telling him to put down the camera. Had he put the freaking thing down like she asked the first time, he probably wouldn't have been hit with the taser.

I think that most people would be hesitant to put the camera down when it's potentially the only evidence that'll be in support of their friend who is being beaten & potentially murdered. The fact that he was filming the entire thing seems to indicate that he doesn't trust the police to describe the situation accurately. I wonder how the Rodney King case would've turned out if the guy had put down the camera. This is just another case of "do what we say for absolutely no reason other than we're going to **** you up if you don't". We should be filming everything that the police do, outside of the bathroom.

Here's another interesting incident that just happened in my city. My grandfather was in his 60s when he knocked someone out with 1 punch that came at my father with a tire iron. These cops were incapable of subduing a mentally ill man with a hammer? Then again, maybe he was a retarded ninja.

If the police shot the guy he probably deserved it. A smart person would just put the hammer down like he was told. Everyone knows police are here to protect us and don't want to hurt anyone.

As far as the video, it's obviously grossly biased and some of it is probably even staged. If the woman hadn't indicated that she may have had suicidal tendencies they wouldn't have had to strip her for her own protection.

If someone is coming at me with a hammer, I'm not going to let him beat me to death because he has a mental illness. Apparently less-lethal tactics had already been tried and they had failed. I'm not sure what you would have liked for them to do.

The officer could've gotten back in to his vehicle & pulled away from the premises until backup arrived or until he thought that the man was a threat to someone else. However, the officer acted like a woman in one of the "Friday The 13th" films & fell while backing up, thus making a mistake that caused the unnecessary death of a mentally ill man. Even the military uses retreat as an option. Other states have already implemented similar tactics (backing off in car-chases, etc.). I don't understand why the only option many cops seem to know is taze/shoot first & ask questions later. Any entry-level mixed martial arts fighter could've taken this guy down in about 3 seconds, yet police officers that are supposedly there to "protect" us only seem to know how to kills us. I can certainly understand that there are situations where police may need to use deadly force but I think those are few & far between & too often they're simply getting away with murder.

You should read the whole article.



He slipped, another officer arrived and attempted to use nonlethal means, they failed, MORE backup arrived, the man threatened the backup (a SWAT team and other officers) and THEN he got shot.

Also, are you suggesting that police officers should not slip when being charged by a hammer wielding man? You know, that's a great idea, I can't believe they didn't think of it first!

Because that's the only option they are left with in a country where we fail to respect our authority figures.



You call it murder because you are some sort of anti-authoritarian anarchist and no cop can ever do good in your eyes. Normal human beings call it self defense or doing their job.

Edit: Double post

I think your assessment of entry level mma fighters is a bit optimistic, especially when a weapon is involved. When a cage fighter attempts a takedown and misses, he might get punched, or kicked. If a police officer misses a takedown, he might get hit in the temple with a hammer and killed. They don't generally allow hammers in cage fighting. Also, usually there's rules and stuff about not killing people, and doctors waiting just outside the ring. They also spend weeks preparing to fight one specific guy, and then spend weeks recovering (even if they win). They have weight classes that ensure that they're fairly matched with their opponents. Police officers don't have any of those luxuries.

So whose alt account are you?

Just a long time lurker who was upset enough by this thread to register an account.

It's not the hammer-weilding mentally retarded man's fault that the police officer was more experienced in wielding a gun than in running/walking. The officer made a mistake by slipping & unfortunately that mistake may have resulted in someone losing their life. Surely we're not going to assume that a mentally ill or retarded man is to blame for his actions. For all we know, he thought the 2 officers were moving pieces of wood & he was just going to help them by removing a nail from their faces. The fact that 2 officers weren't able to subdue a mentally ill man with a hammer shows that either their training is ineffective or that they simply like to use retards as target practice. I'll give them the benefit of the doubt & assume that they're not Arandaphobics.