Andy9o8

Not too different from the example in the thread about excessive force used by an Alabama cop. You'll notice that, culturally, Alabama is about 17 light years away from New Jersey. Yet the issue is the same: excessive force by cops. This is a thread about excessive force used by cops in the US. It's not about guns, and it's not about take-a-bash at New Jersey. Oh, and if it helps, it's not about take-a-bash at San Francisco or Massachusetts or Nancy Pelosi or Al Sharpton or goddam commie liberals, either. It's about cops.

I agree it was a thug tactic by Ayatollah Khomeini to scare people into silence. BUT. Here's the back-story that those who both haven't read The Satanic Verses (I have) or know the history of Khomeini (I watched it on the news at the time) don't realize: Khomeini's fatwa had nothing to do with Islam, at least its actual reason doesn't. You see, in The Satanic Verses, not only does Rushdie insult Mohammed (which he does, by portraying him as corrupt and decadent), he also insults Khomeni, by portraying him, too, as a greedy, corrupt and blasphemously self-serving character in the book. So next time you hear someone refer to Khomeni's fatwa as being because Rushdie insulted Mohammed or Islam, correct them: the fatwa was actually Khomeni's way of personally "reaching out and touching" Rushdie in retaliation for daring to publicly speak aloud that the corrupt Emperor (Khomeni) had no clothes. It had nothing to do with Islam - it was personal. The insult to Mohammed was just the cover.

Well, he was wearing a toboggan. Dead giveaway right there.

"Intent of the law" means the intent of the legislature that drafted the law. A key part of a legislature's due diligence is assuring that its intent is reflected in the legislation that it drafts, or to timely update legislation to assure that the legislative Letter evolves at the same pace that legislative Intent does. It's also a basic tenet of statutory interpretation that laws that are very specific are to be interpreted strictly, and not loosely. When the letter of the law is very specific and not ambiguous (like here), the letter must be followed, or the trial court will get reversed on appeal. Thus, the proper target of popular dissent should be the legislature, not the court.

Here's the law that the prosecutor tried to apply: http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.700 I guess "above the hemline of one's skirt" wasn't explicitly listed under "Places and circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of personal privacy." You have to read the entire statute - which is what the judge did. Assuming the girl was wearing underpants, it would appear not to fit the statute's specific definition of "nudity". If it did, there would also be a big problem at swimming pools and beaches. The judge's ruling was correct. The gap in the law is real, and it has to be up to the legislature to fill it in. That said, the prosecutors, when they were filing the charges, might have tried harder to find an Oregon statute to fit the misconduct. I don't like over-charging by prosecutors, but I don't approve of laziness, either. From my quick online search, it looks to me like maybe, maybe, maybe either Oregon's harassment statute or its disorderly conduct statute might have fit. If I'd been the DA I'd have included those 2 charges and at least given it a shot. DAs don't don't know ahead of time what judge will get the case when they file charges. Maybe some judge in that county might have been persuaded by a good argument on either harassment or disorderly conduct. (Though this judge might still not have been.) The guy (the perv) is lucky he got the benefit of the perfect storm of Oregon statutes, an unimaginative charging DA and an intellectually honest judge. On a human level, I do sympathize with the girl. Even though the ruling was correct, I'm sure she and her parents feel the overall system failed her.

Here's the law that the prosecutor tried to apply: http://www.oregonlaws.org/ors/163.700 I guess "above the hemline of one's skirt" wasn't explicitly listed under "Places and circumstances where the person has a reasonable expectation of personal privacy." You have to read the entire statute - which is what the judge did. Assuming the girl was wearing underpants, it would appear not to fit the statute's specific definition of "nudity".

High horse.

God only Knows - Beach Boys Losing My Religion - R.E.M.

Korean Air jet clips parked plane at night, still takes off

Yes, but it needs to go beyond just outside of the department. If/when it gets to the level of being investigated by prosecutors, that must be done a Prosecutor's office outside of the same local/county jurisdiction served by the officer/police dept being investigated. Prosecutors have a very close, repetitive relationship with the cops whose arrests they routinely prosecute. So in the case of possible police misconduct, this creates an impossible, and I think really obvious, conflict of interest if the DA's office that's investigating cops is the same one they work closely with every day. There are various ways this can be done. Some states have state Attorney General offices that are separate from county DA offices. In other states, the county prosecutors are under the general umbrella of the state attorney general, but each county has its own separate office run by a separate county-level supervising prosecutor. Either way, the local prosecutor's office should recuse itself, and the investigation should be done either by the state attorney general's office (if separate), or by a local prosecutor's office from clear on the other side of the state. If neither option is practical, then there's no choice but to appoint an outside special prosecutor to investigate the case and head-up the grand jury. This (recusal of the local DA) was not done in the Ferguson case, and if my memory's correct I'm pretty sure it wasn't done in the Staten Island case, either. How'd that work out for public trust and confidence in the objective integrity of The System?

I stand by my points. Good night.

[ quote "Anvilbrother"]If they lift the gag all your gonna get is the ones who voted no saying the process was fair and just, and the ones that voted yes would be screaming racism, corruption, bias, etc. They are under no law to tell the truth at that point, you open the door to a few trying to make money off of being in the media and all your gonna do is start another riot. If they lift the gag there will be transparency rather than concealment. A free society governed by the people requires transparency. Government formed and run by the consent of the governed requires transparency. you will note that freedom of the press is guaranteed by the chronologically first amendment to the Constitution. That's no accident. Yes, it may very well be messy. Democracy always is. Let the chips fall where they may. any other alternative is a worse one.

Gag orders generally aren't lifted for the simple reason that nobody thinks to request it. 99% of GJ investigations are droll matters outside the public eye, so once the GJ's job is done, they just get on with their lives and that's that. That's the "norm". But in the Ferguson case one or more of the jurors wants to speak publicly and has requested to be allowed to do so. And, of course, there's the public interest in pulling back the curtain of the Star Chamber. So in this case, the "norm" is not very persuasive.

Gag orders on grand juries are common, but they're also very controversial. I've always been very leery of grand juries generally, because they are subject to being abused by prosecutors, who can force people to testify (unless they plead the 5th) without the aid of their attorney in the room with them. Cops and prosecutors generally like gag orders, because it enables them to use grand juries as "star chambers" to empower themselves, but without scrutiny. Another segment of the profession (including me) opposes gags on grand juries once their job is done, because dissolving the gag order acts as a counterbalance to prosecutor abuse. In a nutshell, gag orders on grand juries are rationalized to preserve the integrity of the investigation the GJ is conducting. But once the investigation is over, that "justification" usually ceases. Thus: The Ferguson and Staten Island GJs' investigations are long over. The gag orders should be lifted, and the individual jurors should be permitted to speak publicly should they wish to do so.

I'm saying let the grand jurors speak publicly if they so choose. The light of day is the best disinfectant. Let all the truth come out, and let the chips fall where they may. There's a basic rule of courtroom evidence that if you conceal material facts (or evidence, etc.), that concealment creates a presumption that the facts would be detrimental to you were they to come to light. So here: if the DA is so hot on keeping that gag order in place and the grand jurors muzzled, then that makes me strongly suspect that he fears what would come out. Doesn't seem quite right in a democratic republic governed by the rule of law, does it?

Complete separation between branches of government in the sense that someone who is a member of the Bar is Judicial Branch for life. Members of the Bar may not hold elective office in the Executive or Legislative branches. Those who practice the law are forbidden to write or enforce laws. A drop in the bucket, but it's a start. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/6/63/Cheers_cast_1991.jpg Hey! While we're at it: from now on, space flight mission checklists may no longer be written by engineers. Only by lawyers. Flight Director: EECOM, give me a reading on fuel cell A. EECOM: Roger that, Flight; but you'll have to sign this release first.

Love it. But I'm a blue cheese snob. Sometimes I spell it "bleu cheese" or call it "Roquefort" just to piss people off. Big chunks are mandatory. And if you water down my blue cheese, I will go all Chapel Hill atheist whose parking space got taken by Muslims on you. I will pay you 5 bucks for every such person you smack.

Ranch dressing. A vile, pestilent abomination.

I know you mean and wish well, but that's very naive. See posts #10, 11 and 12. What they said.

Ha. If the DA had no compunction about getting all the facts out, he wouldn't be fighting tooth and nail in court to preserve the gag order preventing grand jurors from publicly speaking about the proceedings. Oh, BTW, the Staten Island DA has followed this lead, and is also fighting to prevent his grand jurors from speaking publicly, either. Fish generally start to stink at the head.

That's why I always carry one on the International Space Station - no matter what, they're always legal! I assure you, cops everywhere do one form or another of this style of opportunistic chickenshit to jack people up. It's just a matter of method and opportunity. If you're going to move away from it, you'd have to move to, say, Belize. I'm not even sure where Belize is, but you'd have to move there.

It's often illustrated by "Hold my beer and watch this."

He seems to have quite a hard-on about this.

That's because only those within the moron class of drooling Neanderthal knuckle-draggers - by which I mean the author of that brilliantly-crafted article - would try to take that angle seriously, or expect others outside his pitiful little circle-jerk circle to do so, either.

FIFY. Ouchie.