Murder will be tough to reach for a conviction. You'll have to show that this officer intended to shoot Mr. Grant with his firearm, and not his taser.
He is basing his entire statement here on the idea that the officer could mix both up.
Yes, because that is the cops defense, and what the prosecutor must argue against. Again, there is sever difficult in showing intent in this situation. Do you truly not grasp this, or are you simply to arrogant to admit you leaped before you looked?
Not at all. I still find the arguement fuck all stupid to suggest that a trained police officer will mistaken two completely different pieces of equipment.
Should I have jumped at Sith like that? Probably not. But after reading everything including his repeated attempts to argue that cops who either just commited murder or potentially are accomplices to murder then have the legal right to grab each and every recording device or potential recording device is beyond stupid. Grabbing every possible recording device after you just commited murder is obvious coverup. Sith arguing otherwise showed an incredible bias. So I posted more strongly than I should. Then there is the intentionally dense part of his statements, not realizing that the officers at the scene were the ones commiting the confiscating as opposed to a new group sent afterward.
Two years is not a long time to be a cop, especially a "low-action" type like a transit cop. City police in, say, LA or Oakland probably have to learn how to handle a lot of different calls a lot faster than a subway policeman.
It's easy for me, anyway, to imagine the policeman in question adopting a "stress defense" and contending that in the heat of the moment he reached for what he thought was his Taser and shot the man with his pistol instead. It's specious, and I'm not defending him, but a Glock and police-issue Taser are built of similar materials and have similar grip angles.
The only people who were safe were the legion; after one of their AT-ATs got painted dayglo pink with scarlet go faster stripes, they identified the perpetrators and exacted revenge. - Eleventh Century Remnant
Bilbo wrote:Not at all. I still find the arguement fuck all stupid to suggest that a trained police officer will mistaken two completely different pieces of equipment.
Because you haven't bothered to read up on the distinctions between Manslaughter and Murder like I have suggested.
Should I have jumped at Sith like that? Probably not. But after reading everything including his repeated attempts to argue that cops who either just commited murder or potentially are accomplices to murder then have the legal right to grab each and every recording device or potential recording device is beyond stupid. Grabbing every possible recording device after you just commited murder is obvious coverup. Sith arguing otherwise showed an incredible bias. So I posted more strongly than I should. Then there is the intentionally dense part of his statements, not realizing that the officers at the scene were the ones commiting the confiscating as opposed to a new group sent afterward.
His posts just scream Blue Wall.
Lets see. KS says that the cop is guilty as sin and deserves to be punished. When Ender brings up the possibility of the police covering things up, KS quite agrees that there is room for pessimism.
Blue Wall indeed.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Count Chocula wrote:Two years is not a long time to be a cop, especially a "low-action" type like a transit cop. City police in, say, LA or Oakland probably have to learn how to handle a lot of different calls a lot faster than a subway policeman.
It's easy for me, anyway, to imagine the policeman in question adopting a "stress defense" and contending that in the heat of the moment he reached for what he thought was his Taser and shot the man with his pistol instead. It's specious, and I'm not defending him, but a Glock and police-issue Taser are built of similar materials and have similar grip angles.
Watch the video. You see a bunch of punks/kids/guys call them what you want sitting against a wall. There are more cops than there are suspects. There is no violence. No indications that they cops are having to force anyone down or fighting with anyone.
Sure every possible arrest can be stressful but what is going on here to suggest so much stress that he mixes up taser and sidearm?
Another item I find amazing is that its a white cop who shoots and kills a young black man and yet to date Jesse Jackson's head has not exploded in outrage. Race, other than the race of the victim is not being mentioned at all here.
Alyeska wrote:
Lets see. KS says that the cop is guilty as sin and deserves to be punished. When Ender brings up the possibility of the police covering things up, KS quite agrees that there is room for pessimism.
Blue Wall indeed.
Yet continues his stance that the cops are allowed to seize anything they want in a situation like this when clearly the law does not allow such seizures.
Bilbo wrote:Yet continues his stance that the cops are allowed to seize anything they want in a situation like this when clearly the law does not allow such seizures.
Do you have a reading comprehension? KS detailed the specifics of the law and the allowances given to cops. He detailed specifically how the videos happen to be evidence of the one cop committing murder. The police have the right to confiscate this. Ender and others pointed out that the cops could be covering this up, but the legal right does exist. And KS correctly pointed out the cops could very well have taken said cameras as evidence against the cop.
Are you going to present more strawman arguments, or are you going to start discussing the issue?
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
That man is guilty as hell. Years latter he admitted to a friend that the murder was premeditated and very much intentional, no mitigating factors at all. He sure played the legal system with his defense.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Bilbo wrote:Yet continues his stance that the cops are allowed to seize anything they want in a situation like this when clearly the law does not allow such seizures.
Do you have a reading comprehension? KS detailed the specifics of the law and the allowances given to cops. He detailed specifically how the videos happen to be evidence of the one cop committing murder. The police have the right to confiscate this. Ender and others pointed out that the cops could be covering this up, but the legal right does exist. And KS correctly pointed out the cops could very well have taken said cameras as evidence against the cop.
Are you going to present more strawman arguments, or are you going to start discussing the issue?
The legal right to confiscate the cameras is somewhat dicey at best. Given the laws for "plain sight" vary from state to state and the tricky nature concerning digital evidence, we don't actually know for sure whether or not they had the legal authority to take those cameras. (However I'd be willing to lean towards "they didn't", given various interpretations).
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
Ale. the proper word is "Was" as the murders occured in 1979, not the other day. White killed himself in and what ever is left of his mortal remains can no longer be guilty, nor can we retry him. This is the United States, land of Double Jeopardy, and we don't dig up and execute the corpses of alleged murders or traitors. (refering to Cromwell's disinternment, though Jesse James, and some others have not had their final rest undisturbed)
Last edited by The Yosemite Bear on 2009-01-08 12:36am, edited 1 time in total.
The scariest folk song lyrics are "My Boy Grew up to be just like me" from cats in the cradle by Harry Chapin
General Zod wrote:The legal right to confiscate the cameras is somewhat dicey at best. Given the laws for "plain sight" vary from state to state and the tricky nature concerning digital evidence, we don't actually know for sure whether or not they had the legal authority to take those cameras. (However I'd be willing to lean towards "they didn't", given various interpretations).
Given that the cameras are evidence of murder, I would think they do have legal right, but I myself don't pretend to know the specifics of the law and its allowances.
However, the police must provide a receipt. If they refuse, you can then refuse to hand over the evidence (I think). That is one way to see just how truthful the police are being. If they are trying to cover up evidence, they might try and bullshit their way through the receipt.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
The Yosemite Bear wrote:Ale. the proper word is "Was" as the murders occured in 1979, not the other day.
He was guilty yesterday, he is guilty today. His guilt didn't vanish when he died. My use of the word "Is" happens to be correct.
He was guilty, and still is.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Unless you're looking for fingerprints, the cameras are not evidence. One specific data file on each camera is evidence, and it's beyond silly that the law doesn't yet mark that distinction.
Chronological Incontinence: Time warps around the poster. The thread topic winks out of existence and reappears in 1d10 posts.
Out of Context Theatre, this week starring Darth Nostril.
-'If you really want to fuck with these idiots tell them that there is a vaccine for chemtrails.'
Alyeska wrote:
Given that the cameras are evidence of murder, I would think they do have legal right, but I myself don't pretend to know the specifics of the law and its allowances.
In order to count under the plain sight law, the evidence must be inadvertently discovered and immediately obvious. It's impossible to tell whether a camera actually contains evidence without going through its files, whether it was pointed at you or not. Even in cases where it was a stationary camera that captured the crime, they still have to get a warrant to retrieve the footage if the owner of the camera isn't willing to just hand it over afaik.
However, the police must provide a receipt. If they refuse, you can then refuse to hand over the evidence (I think). That is one way to see just how truthful the police are being. If they are trying to cover up evidence, they might try and bullshit their way through the receipt.
There isn't a whole lot to indicate that they were going out of their way to actually provide receipts in the articles, making it smell like a coverup.
"It's you Americans. There's something about nipples you hate. If this were Germany, we'd be romping around naked on the stage here."
White Haven wrote:Unless you're looking for fingerprints, the cameras are not evidence. One specific data file on each camera is evidence, and it's beyond silly that the law doesn't yet mark that distinction.
If you are capable of removing the data from the device, the cops are supposed to accept that. When the police ask my bank for video captures of crimes caught on tape, they don't demand the entire server. We burn them a copy to CDR. But with a phone, the item is portable and the likely hood of an immediate device to copy the data is remote. However, the cops would be obligated to copy said data and return the phone immediately. If the person has a grievance over the potential short term loss of the phone (say it replaces a land line or is a business phone) the cops should have allowances to schedule a time to remove said data at the owners convenience.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
White Haven wrote:Unless you're looking for fingerprints, the cameras are not evidence. One specific data file on each camera is evidence, and it's beyond silly that the law doesn't yet mark that distinction.
If you are capable of removing the data from the device, the cops are supposed to accept that. When the police ask my bank for video captures of crimes caught on tape, they don't demand the entire server. We burn them a copy to CDR. But with a phone, the item is portable and the likely hood of an immediate device to copy the data is remote. However, the cops would be obligated to copy said data and return the phone immediately. If the person has a grievance over the potential short term loss of the phone (say it replaces a land line or is a business phone) the cops should have allowances to schedule a time to remove said data at the owners convenience.
That brings us back to my hypothetical of offering to copy the file and either hand the copy or the device with a copy residing in internal memory to the cop.
Personally, if the cop insisted on all copies, my 'coverup' alarm goes off.
At that point, I use the phone to call the local media and/or the nearest state police (in my state the ISP investigates local police wrongdoing) or FBI office.
"You say that it is your custom to burn widows. Very well. We also have a custom: when men burn a woman alive, we tie a rope around their necks and we hang them. Build your funeral pyre; beside it, my carpenters will build a gallows. You may follow your custom. And then we will follow ours."- General Sir Charles Napier
That man is guilty as hell. Years latter he admitted to a friend that the murder was premeditated and very much intentional, no mitigating factors at all. He sure played the legal system with his defense.
It helped that the Jury was full of homophobic cunts and that the prosecutor deliberately threw the case because he was also a homophobic cunt.
GALE Force Biological Agent/
BOTM/Great Dolphin Conspiracy/ Entomology and Evolutionary Biology Subdirector:SD.net Dept. of Biological Sciences
There is Grandeur in the View of Life; it fills me with a Deep Wonder, and Intense Cynicism.
Alyrium Denryle wrote:It helped that the Jury was full of homophobic cunts and that the prosecutor deliberately threw the case because he was also a homophobic cunt.
(nods) You are quite correct on that. I had forgotten these facts. Yes, everything surrounding White's case was corrupt as can be.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Glocksman wrote:That brings us back to my hypothetical of offering to copy the file and either hand the copy or the device with a copy residing in internal memory to the cop.
Personally, if the cop insisted on all copies, my 'coverup' alarm goes off.
At that point, I use the phone to call the local media and/or the nearest state police (in my state the ISP investigates local police wrongdoing) or FBI office.
Given my limited experience at work, I would have to say they must accept a copy and the only way to get the original is with a court order. Demanding the phone instead of a memory chip is like demanding our entire server instead of a CDR.
"If the facts are on your side, pound on the facts. If the law is on your side, pound on the law. If neither is on your side, pound on the table."
"The captain claimed our people violated a 4,000 year old treaty forbidding us to develop hyperspace technology. Extermination of our planet was the consequence. The subject did not survive interrogation."
Having seen the KTVU video of the shooting, a few things are clear:
1) The victim was not just laying peacefully on the ground; he was resisting the officers. Immediately before the guy was shot, it seems like the other officer (the one subduing him, not the one who shot him), let go and stood up.
2) The officer who shot him screwed up - you can see him put his hands up in an "oh shit" kind of motion.
These two actions make the claim that he was intending to shoot him with a taser, and fucked up, more plausible than the incendiary OP. For another, the victim was a fucking thug (he'd been in prison a few times) - that doesn't justify the shooting, mind you - he's hardly a saint and portraying him as such (father, peacemaker, he's the reincarnation of MLK Jr!) makes the writers appear deceitful, and in any case doesn't have anything to do with the officer's culpability and guilt.
I just saw a news article that the officer who shot the guy has resigned, there's rioting in Oakland, and they released his name. That stupid bastard is going to prison for manslaughter is my best guess.
In Brazil they say that Pele was the best, but Garrincha was better
White Haven wrote:Unless you're looking for fingerprints, the cameras are not evidence. One specific data file on each camera is evidence, and it's beyond silly that the law doesn't yet mark that distinction.
If you are capable of removing the data from the device, the cops are supposed to accept that. When the police ask my bank for video captures of crimes caught on tape, they don't demand the entire server. We burn them a copy to CDR. But with a phone, the item is portable and the likely hood of an immediate device to copy the data is remote. However, the cops would be obligated to copy said data and return the phone immediately. If the person has a grievance over the potential short term loss of the phone (say it replaces a land line or is a business phone) the cops should have allowances to schedule a time to remove said data at the owners convenience.
That brings us back to my hypothetical of offering to copy the file and either hand the copy or the device with a copy residing in internal memory to the cop.
Personally, if the cop insisted on all copies, my 'coverup' alarm goes off.
At that point, I use the phone to call the local media and/or the nearest state police (in my state the ISP investigates local police wrongdoing) or FBI office.
They dont actually have a legal right to sieze it at all, KS has frankly made that shit up.
They can request it.
They can get a court order to take it.
They cannot sieze it.
The plain view doctrine does not apply to anything but contraband. Something that is illegal in itself to posess. If it applied to anything that an officer felt was evidence of something then there would effectively be no 4th ammendment protection of a person and their effects.
KS has been bullshitting through this entire fucking thread and frankly I'm fed up with it. He has not actually posted anything to show that what he claims is in fact legal. The legal sources concerning constitutional law specifically state that he is wrong.
"Prodesse Non Nocere." "It's all about popularity really, if your invisible friend that tells you to invade places is called Napoleon, you're a loony, if he's called Jesus then you're the president." "I'd drive more people insane, but I'd have to double back and pick them up first..." "All it takes for bullshit to thrive is for rational men to do nothing." - Kevin Farrell, B.A. Journalism. BOTM - EBC - Horseman - G&C - Vampire
