More good cops in the news.

[normiss 893]

BUSTED!
After almost being ran over, you can clearly see him reach for a blade of grass so I'm pretty sure the cops were just protecting themselves. You can do a lot of damage with grass.

[lawrocket 3]

Yep. I do like the interesting fact that the video was not used at trial - as if whether or not cops beat the shit out of him is relevant as to whether he committed a burglary.

On the other hand, I applaus the release of the video. Cops had no business beating the guy like that. He submitted. The cops should have their asses handed to them.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[livendive 8]

In b4 the usual suspects state that he was clearly trying to flee, or could have been reaching for the sawed off between his shoulder blades, or that's what he gets for burglary, or police work is stressful and they can't be too careful.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[livendive 8]

Quote

Yep. I do like the interesting fact that the video was not used at trial - as if whether or not cops beat the shit out of him is relevant as to whether he committed a burglary.

I'm torn on this. I agree it's wholly irrelevent to his guilt or innocence, however I could see reducing a sentence somewhat from whatever the standard is to account for the punishment already received, similar to a credit for time served.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Amazon 7]

Quote

BUSTED!
After almost being ran over, you can clearly see him reach for a blade of grass so I'm pretty sure the cops were just protecting themselves. You can do a lot of damage with grass.

Hey its Houston... He is lucky they did not think he was just another dangerous burglar that needed killin.

[Niki1 2]

At the end of the video the officers defence lawyer says that the tape will make it harder to get a fair trial. Those cops don't want a fair trial. They want it rigged in their favor.

If you're innocent, you want justice. If you're guilty, you want mercy.

Most of the things worth doing in the world had been declared impossilbe before they were done.
Louis D Brandeis

Where are we going and why are we in this basket?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

Yep. I do like the interesting fact that the video was not used at trial - as if whether or not cops beat the shit out of him is relevant as to whether he committed a burglary.

I'm torn on this. I agree it's wholly irrelevent to his guilt or innocence, however I could see reducing a sentence somewhat from whatever the standard is to account for the punishment already received, similar to a credit for time served.

Blues,
Dave

I don't - these are totally different crimes and shouldn't relate at all.

The attack victim has a civil action against the bad cops if he feels he's owed anything. The fact that the attack victim and the burglar are the same guy is inconsequential in terms of sentencing the burglary.

Justice for the beating is putting the attackers in jail for their separate crime(s). It has nothing to do with the victim other than seeing that the attackers are punished appropriately.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yep. I do like the interesting fact that the video was not used at trial - as if whether or not cops beat the shit out of him is relevant as to whether he committed a burglary.

I'm torn on this. I agree it's wholly irrelevent to his guilt or innocence, however I could see reducing a sentence somewhat from whatever the standard is to account for the punishment already received, similar to a credit for time served.

Blues,
Dave

I don't - these are totally different crimes and shouldn't relate at all.

The attack victim has a civil action against the bad cops if he feels he's owed anything. The fact that the attack victim and the burglar are the same guy is inconsequential in terms of sentencing the burglary.

Justice for the beating is putting the attackers in jail for their separate crime(s). It has nothing to do with the victim other than seeing that the attackers are punished appropriately.

Do you think the kid would have gotten life in a Texas prison for attempted murder and a long laundry list of other charges if he had aimed his car at a police office the way they did to him???

[livendive 8]

Quote

At the end of the video the officers defence lawyer says that the tape will make it harder to get a fair trial. Those cops don't want a fair trial. They want it rigged in their favor.

If you're innocent, you want justice. If you're guilty, you want mercy.

Agreed with all of this. However what I think is funny is what's between the lines when those attorneys say this will make it difficult to get a fair trial. What they're really saying is, "Jurors are too stupid to understand something as complex as raw video. Without us reminding them to ignore their eyeballs and forego common sense, they will become hopelessly confused."

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[normiss 893]

"The attack victim has a civil CRIMINAL action against the bad cops if he feels he's owed anything. "

FIFY.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yep. I do like the interesting fact that the video was not used at trial - as if whether or not cops beat the shit out of him is relevant as to whether he committed a burglary.

I'm torn on this. I agree it's wholly irrelevent to his guilt or innocence, however I could see reducing a sentence somewhat from whatever the standard is to account for the punishment already received, similar to a credit for time served.

Blues,
Dave

I don't - these are totally different crimes and shouldn't relate at all.

The attack victim has a civil action against the bad cops if he feels he's owed anything. The fact that the attack victim and the burglar are the same guy is inconsequential in terms of sentencing the burglary.

Justice for the beating is putting the attackers in jail for their separate crime(s). It has nothing to do with the victim other than seeing that the attackers are punished appropriately.

I do see your point, and played around with the same notion in my head before responding, which is why I used loosey goosey terms like "torn" and "could" and "reduce". Basically I can see that crime A deserves punishment B, regardless of crime C. However if it's clear after the fact that the person who committed crime A is being subjected to penalties B *and* D as a result, I could imagine a wise judge subtracting some amount from B to account for D.

Basically, the kid committed a crime that warrants a punishment. The cops dished out some punishment of their own. While I'd be ok with a judge just saying "the penalty for burglary is ...", I could also see the prudence portion of jurisprudence attempting to mitigate the second wrong. Justice may be blind, but it doesn't need to be deaf & dumb too.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Yep. I do like the interesting fact that the video was not used at trial - as if whether or not cops beat the shit out of him is relevant as to whether he committed a burglary.

I'm torn on this. I agree it's wholly irrelevent to his guilt or innocence, however I could see reducing a sentence somewhat from whatever the standard is to account for the punishment already received, similar to a credit for time served.

Blues,
Dave

I don't - these are totally different crimes and shouldn't relate at all.

The attack victim has a civil action against the bad cops if he feels he's owed anything. The fact that the attack victim and the burglar are the same guy is inconsequential in terms of sentencing the burglary.

Justice for the beating is putting the attackers in jail for their separate crime(s). It has nothing to do with the victim other than seeing that the attackers are punished appropriately.

I think each of your views can be reasonably harmonized.
Generally, the circumstances of arrest should be irrelevant to sentencing. An exception might be that if the defendant suffers a severe enough wrongful beating at the hands of the state, I can see a sentencing judge considering that a part of his "punishment". Take this case, for example. Let's say a judge might be inclined to sentence the burglar to, say, 12 months in jail, followed by 2 years probation, for the burglary. Might not be unreasonable for the judge to knock a month or 2 off the jail time as "punishment credit" for the cops beating the shit out of him at arrest.

As for categories of justice:
Justice for the people of Texas: fair trial of suspect; reasonable sentence if convicted.
Justice for the people of Texas: fair trial of cops; reasonable sentence if convicted.
Civil justice for suspect: reasonable opportunity to sue the cops and their employers for civil assault and possibly violation of his civil rights; fair civil jury trial, and let the chips fall where they may.

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

At the end of the video the officers defence lawyer says that the tape will make it harder to get a fair trial. Those cops don't want a fair trial. They want it rigged in their favor.

If you're innocent, you want justice. If you're guilty, you want mercy.

Agreed with all of this. However what I think is funny is what's between the lines when those attorneys say this will make it difficult to get a fair trial. What they're really saying is, "Jurors are too stupid to understand something as complex as raw video. Without us reminding them to ignore their eyeballs and forego common sense, they will become hopelessly confused."

Blues,
Dave

No. What the attorneys are saying is that by showing the video like that it contaminates the jury pool by prospective jurors havin already viewed the evidence and formed an opinion prior to presentation in court. There are things about it that may be inadmissible or admitted for a limited purpose.

We attorneys deal with this sort of stuff all the time. A fair trial implies an impartial jury. It'll be difficult to find one with this video out there - most will have seen it and already formed an impression.

Just like on here.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[livendive 8]

Quote

Quote

Quote

At the end of the video the officers defence lawyer says that the tape will make it harder to get a fair trial. Those cops don't want a fair trial. They want it rigged in their favor.

If you're innocent, you want justice. If you're guilty, you want mercy.

Agreed with all of this. However what I think is funny is what's between the lines when those attorneys say this will make it difficult to get a fair trial. What they're really saying is, "Jurors are too stupid to understand something as complex as raw video. Without us reminding them to ignore their eyeballs and forego common sense, they will become hopelessly confused."

Blues,
Dave

No. What the attorneys are saying is that by showing the video like that ("Like that" = "without attorney spinning it") it contaminates the jury pool by prospective jurors havin already viewed the evidence and formed an opinion prior to presentation in court i.e. in the absence of attorneys. There are things about it that may be inadmissible or admitted for a limited purpose.

We attorneys deal with this sort of stuff all the time. A fair trial implies an impartial jury. It'll be difficult to find one with this video out there - most will have seen it and already formed an impression. The attorneys don't have a problem with jurors forming an impression, they just want to have a hand in that formation...that's their issue with this.

Just like on here.

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[billvon 3,112]

>>No. What the attorneys are saying is that by showing the video like that

>("Like that" = "without attorney spinning it")

Right. Instead the news show put their own spin on it. Attorneys put their spin on it as well. In a courtroom, though, there are _two_ attorneys - and one is looking out for their client, and thus will prevent too much spin being put on it.

[livendive 8]

Quote

>>No. What the attorneys are saying is that by showing the video like that

>("Like that" = "without attorney spinning it")

Right. Instead the news show put their own spin on it. Attorneys put their spin on it as well. In a courtroom, though, there are _two_ attorneys - and one is looking out for their client, and thus will prevent too much spin being put on it.

I mostly agree with all of this. The prosecutor's spin will be along the lines of what an egregious wrong is being inflicted on the victim, the defense attorney's spin will be along the lines of how each blow was not that bad and clearly warranted anyhow due to the actions of the now-convicted criminal. I think both of those spins are necessary, but I think the average juror is mature enough to also handle watching the video without either attorney holding their hand...in fact of the three, I'd say that's the most important perspective.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

"The attack victim has a civil CRIMINAL action against the bad cops if he feels he's owed anything. "

FIFY.

no, society has the responsibility to direct the criminal action against the attackers - and society should do it regardless of whether the burglar presses criminal charges or not. Justice is about protecting society, not placating the victim.

if these individuals break the law, then they should be tried for assault and sentenced just like anyone else - so they don't get the chance to do it again

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Basically, the kid committed a crime that warrants a punishment. The cops dished out some punishment of their own. While I'd be ok with a judge just saying "the penalty for burglary is ...", I could also see the prudence portion of jurisprudence attempting to mitigate the second wrong. Justice may be blind, but it doesn't need to be deaf & dumb too.

I understand the rationalization, but ....IMO.....

Cops don't dish out punishment for crimes - judges do. Therefore, this wasn't punishment for the crime - and we don't want to get into keeping a tally in that fashion, it would really undermine the justice system.

Example - you are just minding your business and some punk attacks and beats you. Why should you get assaulted by someone and not get anything from society, but this guy gets a break in sentencing for a completely unrelated crime he committed. Just for being the exact same kind of victim except for his circumstances? no.

1 - burglar gets sentenced in accordance with his crimes (burglary, running, etc)
2 - the cops gets sentenced in accordance with their crimes (assault and anything else)

2 separate things - if we want to fix what people consider inbalances in justice, we have to do it correctly going forward, not overcompensate or over adjust. Equal consideration, equal justice.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

An exception might be that if the defendant suffers a severe enough wrongful beating at the hands of the state,

I understand you. I disagree.

The beating was NOT at the hands of the "state". It was at the hands of those individuals that just happened to be wearing uniforms at the time.

Quote

As for categories of justice:
Justice for the people of Texas: fair trial of suspect; reasonable sentence if convicted.
Justice for the people of Texas: fair trial of cops; reasonable sentence if convicted.
Civil justice for suspect: reasonable opportunity to sue the cops and their employers for civil assault and possibly violation of his civil rights; fair civil jury trial, and let the chips fall where they may

nicely put

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Southern_Man 0]

Quote

Quote

An exception might be that if the defendant suffers a severe enough wrongful beating at the hands of the state,

I understand you. I disagree.

The beating was NOT at the hands of the "state". It was at the hands of those individuals that just happened to be wearing uniforms at the time.

This is a distinction without a difference. He was beaten by "instruments of the state."

"What if there were no hypothetical questions?"

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

"The attack victim has a civil CRIMINAL action against the bad cops if he feels he's owed anything. "

FIFY.

no, society has the responsibility to direct the criminal action against the attackers - and society should do it regardless of whether the burglar presses criminal charges or not. Justice is about protecting society, not placating the victim.

if these individuals break the law, then they should be tried for assault and sentenced just like anyone else - so they don't get the chance to do it again

I think you mean excessive force.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

The beating was NOT at the hands of the "state". It was at the hands of those individuals that just happened to be wearing uniforms at the time.

This is a distinction without a difference. He was beaten by "instruments of the state."

my position is that the distinction is everything and treating citizens differently because of their job is morally wrong

cops are citizens and individuals, when they break a law, there should not be any lesser or increase in treatment just because of the job description on their W-2.

Just for perspective - I also think that when an athlete loses his temper and attacks another player, he should also be arrested for assault by the cops, not handled by his governing business league structure. Just like if your neighbor loses his temper and attacks you for mowing his lawn.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

I think you mean excessive force.

is there a real distinction between excessive force (only for law enforcement) and assault (anyone else) if your goal is to treat all individuals equally under law for attacks?

We could reasonably just have 'assault' on the books and it could cover that form of assault conducted when cops exceed a reasonable level to conduct their job.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Quote

I think you mean excessive force.

is there a real distinction between excessive force (only for law enforcement) and assault (anyone else) if your goal is to treat all individuals equally under law for attacks?

We could reasonably just have 'assault' on the books and it could cover that form of assault conducted when cops exceed a reasonable level to conduct their job.

No, i don't see it that way. Assault (putting hands on a person) is always part of the job. Searches, patdowns, and all other forms of safety measures would be considered assault . . . Unless you want to change the laws for everyone else and redifine what assault is.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Amazon 7]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I think you mean excessive force.

is there a real distinction between excessive force (only for law enforcement) and assault (anyone else) if your goal is to treat all individuals equally under law for attacks?

We could reasonably just have 'assault' on the books and it could cover that form of assault conducted when cops exceed a reasonable level to conduct their job.

No, i don't see it that way. Assault (putting hands on a person) is always part of the job. Searches, patdowns, and all other forms of safety measures would be considered assault . . . Unless you want to change the laws for everyone else and redifine what assault is.

I am curious as to what you call putting feet up side his head would be??