1. #18401
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    66,766
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    Now we're getting into questions of intent, which is generally very difficult to prove. Especially when, if I understand correctly, lawyers are obligated to provide the best possible defense for their client. The unfortunate reality is you can never put that cat back in the bag once its out, and as the show/you point out "disregard X" doesn't really cancel out what the jury just heard and will likely have in their brains when discussing a verdict.
    Yeah, I'd pretty much only think a lawyer should face sanction when they bring up something COMPLETELY without basis, where there's a possibility it could be proven.

    If you want to argue that your client could have been elsewhere rather than the crime scene committing the crime, that's valid, as it calls into question how thoroughly the evidence places them there. Here, though, we have two autopsies both mutually confirming that Floyd died from asphyxiation due to pressure on the neck. That's like having video footage of your client committing the crime. If you want to argue that it's a twin he doesn't know he has, or a clone, or someone else in disguise, you should be expected to be able to justify that with actual evidence. If not, you should be sanctioned somehow, because you're wasting the court's time and trying to push an unjust resolution to the trial.

    If we didn't have two autopsies both confirming the same thing, and no autopsies suggesting otherwise, then there's no evidence either way and "maybe it was something else" is reasonable doubt. With the autopsies? Just fuck off, you're just lying.

  2. #18402
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    If we didn't have two autopsies both confirming the same thing, and no autopsies suggesting otherwise, then there's no evidence either way and "maybe it was something else" is reasonable doubt. With the autopsies? Just fuck off, you're just lying.
    At the very least it's worth a verbal/written reprimand for the lawyer (no clue if it actually is), seems reasonable. Get enough of those on your "record" and that starts showing intent and bad faith on the part of an attorney.

  3. #18403
    Void Lord Felya's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Location
    the other
    Posts
    58,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Jensen View Post
    DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING WINNER.

    This right here. "Oh he had fentanyl!" "he overdosed on drugs!" "He was obese and had a heart attack!"

    NONE OF THAT SHIT MATTERS. Derek Chauvin caused George Floyd's death by refusing to lift his knee from his neck even when Floyd was already subdued.
    It implies you can just strange people with asthma and their death wouldn’t be due to strangling.
    Folly and fakery have always been with us... but it has never before been as dangerous as it is now, never in history have we been able to afford it less. - Isaac Asimov
    Every damn thing you do in this life, you pay for. - Edith Piaf
    The party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command. - Orwell
    No amount of belief makes something a fact. - James Randi

  4. #18404
    Quote Originally Posted by Felya View Post
    It implies you can just strange people with asthma and their death wouldn’t be due to strangling.
    "Your honor, the victim died when their heart stopped. Given the victims history of heat disease and arrhythmia, we can't conclusively say that my client was responsible."

    "Your client put a bullet through the heart of the victim..."

    "Yes your honor, but we can't say conclusively that the bullet killed the victim, and not their underlying heart conditions. They died when their heart stopped, which could have been due to sudden cardiac arrest after being shot, which would indicate that my client did not murder the victim."

  5. #18405
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    It's one thing I found interesting in the TV show "Bull", which is mostly nonsense (I'm just a sucker for legal dramas even if they're crap). They pretty regularly will have their lawyer, or the opposition's lawyer will choose to, present evidence that immediately gets objected to and the jury gets told to disregard. And what makes this show almost unique, is that Bull will say, either smarmily or with regret depending, that "no, they won't disregard".

    Jury trial is not based on reason. It's fundamentally rooted in subjective emotion and opinion. If it were objective, you wouldn't need a jury; the facts would get tallied and the facts would give you your verdict. We insert a jury to allow subjective interpretation of those facts, and the application of emotion.
    I'm a 6' big brown man with a beard. When I was studying to be a trial lawyer, I took a class in my last year of law school called Trial Practice. It was all about practicing in-courtroom tactics and practices. We were assigned to partner up and practice direct examinations and cross examinations with your partner playing the witness. I partnered with a good friend of mine, who was a 5'1", petite blonde girl named Dawn from Dallas, Texas. The minute I approached her on the stand, our professors were like, "No, don't do that."

    "Why?" I asked. And he said, "You're a big dude, she's a small blonde lady. It'll be seen as intimidating by any jury." And my friend said, "Awww, but he's a giant softie!" To which the professors said something to the effect of: it doesn't matter what I am, it matters how they'll see me. In my career, I've never approached a woman on the stand, for that reason.

    And that's what happens; you introduce bullshit, and some members of the jury are idiots and don't realize it's bullshit, and they hang the jury even when told to disregard because they think the judge was wrong about that and they're still considering it.

    Sometimes, just objecting isn't enough. Lawyers need to be sanctioned for trying shit, sometimes. To the point of disbarment, if it's that significant or recurrent.
    U.S. law is different from Canadian and European law - we have an adversarial system, as opposed to a civil system. It's kind of a capitalist theory of justice: if the two sides go gung ho in the defense/prosecution of a defendant, this competitiveness will balance out to the "better, more valid" side winning the competition. Meanwhile, in the classical European civil system, both defense and prosecution work for the Court, and are managed by the judge. The defense is there to make sure the rights of the defendant aren't violated, but otherwise is working hand in hand to find the truth of the matter.

    American jurisprudence supporters suggest the adversarial system offers more rights to defendants (because they literally do get to throw shit at the wall in order to sow reasonable doubt) and thus more protection for defendants, but it's obviously not true. Because in a competition if one side has more resources, they're gonna have a leg up in the competition. When it's a public defender vs. an ADA, the ADA has more resources, and can dictate the competition. When the defense is private, and can throw 12 paralegals at one case and bury the prosecution in paper, they have the leg up in the competition.

    It's obviously broken, and should be changed - but I don't blame a defense attorney for literally playing by the rules set up by the system to get the best possible outcome for their client. The first rule of legal ethics is to be a zealous advocate for your client. The second rule is to not lie or obstruct justice. But then again, maybe I'm biased as a former public defender.
    Last edited by eschatological; 2021-04-15 at 09:17 PM.

  6. #18406
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    66,766
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    U.S. law is different from Canadian and European law - we have an adversarial system, as opposed to a civil system. It's kind of a capitalist theory of justice: if the two sides go gung ho in the defense/prosecution of a defendant, this competitiveness will balance out to the "better, more valid" side winning the competition. Meanwhile, in the classical European civil system, both defense and prosecution work for the Court, and are managed by the judge. The defense is there to make sure the rights of the defendant aren't violated, but otherwise is working hand in hand to find the truth of the matter.
    Canadian law is a bit more adversarial than you describe; the defense still works entirely for their client, and ditto the prosecution, but the difference comes in that they're not allowed to lie to the courts. If you client confesses that they are guilty to you, you're ethically bound to pursue the best outcome you can with a plea deal. You're not allowed to enter a "not guilty" plea, because you know your client's guilty.

    But the defense team still primarily works for their client's interests. When I hired my lawyer for my divorce, they were 100% on my side, not my ex-wife's. If I'd tried to pull something super shady, my lawyer would've smacked me and potentially reported me to the courts for trying that shit, but as long as I was playing ball, she was entirely focused on my interests. (The actual divorce was pretty much uncontested, but I needed to make sure we didn't overlook something).

    That's the step farther the US court system takes that I really can't see the justification for; they allow lawyers to lie to the courts about the facts. That's shitty regardless of whether it's a prosecution planting evidence, or the defense team pleading "not guilty" when the lawyer knows full well their client did it. It's a lie either way, and the same kind of lie, to boot. But somehow, you recognize the former is "bad", but the latter is just a good defense lawyer? C'mon.

    Same goes for prosecution teams trying to bury/ignore evidence that doesn't back them up; you're wasting the court's time to prosecute someone you know is innocent, why? That shit wouldn't fly, in Canada. And it isn't really because the lawyers work for the courts, but that they all hold to ethical principles of honesty and pursuit of justice.

    Also, note that Canada mostly follows common law practices (and that's what I'm describing above). It's only Quebec, specifically, that follows civil law as the basis of their legal system. And even in Quebec, it's only civil matters; criminal and federal law and such operates by Canadian common law.

    It's kind of a mess but fixing it is worse than the issues it creates.

  7. #18407
    Banned Themius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    38,118
    Quote Originally Posted by eschatological View Post
    I'm a 6' big brown man with a beard. When I was studying to be a trial lawyer, I took a class in my last year of law school called Trial Practice. It was all about practicing in-courtroom tactics and practices. We were assigned to partner up and practice direct examinations and cross examinations with your partner playing the witness. I partnered with a good friend of mine, who was a 5'1", petite blonde girl named Dawn from Dallas, Texas. The minute I approached her on the stand, our professors were like, "No, don't do that."

    "Why?" I asked. And he said, "You're a big dude, she's a small blonde lady. It'll be seen as intimidating by any jury." And my friend said, "Awww, but he's a giant softie!" To which the professors said something to the effect of: it doesn't matter what I am, it matters how they'll see me. In my career, I've never approached a woman on the stand, for that reason.



    U.S. law is different from Canadian and European law - we have an adversarial system, as opposed to a civil system. It's kind of a capitalist theory of justice: if the two sides go gung ho in the defense/prosecution of a defendant, this competitiveness will balance out to the "better, more valid" side winning the competition. Meanwhile, in the classical European civil system, both defense and prosecution work for the Court, and are managed by the judge. The defense is there to make sure the rights of the defendant aren't violated, but otherwise is working hand in hand to find the truth of the matter.

    American jurisprudence supporters suggest the adversarial system offers more rights to defendants (because they literally do get to throw shit at the wall in order to sow reasonable doubt) and thus more protection for defendants, but it's obviously not true. Because in a competition if one side has more resources, they're gonna have a leg up in the competition. When it's a public defender vs. an ADA, the ADA has more resources, and can dictate the competition. When the defense is private, and can throw 12 paralegals at one case and bury the prosecution in paper, they have the leg up in the competition.

    It's obviously broken, and should be changed - but I don't blame a defense attorney for literally playing by the rules set up by the system to get the best possible outcome for their client. The first rule of legal ethics is to be a zealous advocate for your client. The second rule is to not lie or obstruct justice. But then again, maybe I'm biased as a former public defender.
    I really dislike it... it's just like everything is a giant game.

    My mum used to work for a firm who's clients were some of the largest companies. Koch industries BP EXXON... one of the partners was the rainmaker... the celebrations over cutting down a settlement because someone had smoked at some point so the asbestos isn't totally culpable is detestable. Oh they're struggling to actually make bill payments? Great... that's the pressure needed to get them to settle. Can't have one of the largest companies on the face of the planet making a little less money... I can understand to an extent working for something detestable to make money... but being excited to do the work?

    The attitude around the BP spill when it happened (I used to visit the office a lot) like... some aspects of the industry are just opportunistic.

    Which I guess circles back to predatory prosecutors and misleading defence...treating shit like a game where the truth is subjective. The goal is only to win.

  8. #18408
    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/breon...54e81d262b?fqm

    Huh, apparently you can be part of a group that murdered someone in their sleep because your entire department appears incompetent, and still get a book deal. Go figure.

  9. #18409
    Quote Originally Posted by Edge- View Post
    https://www.huffpost.com/entry/breon...54e81d262b?fqm

    Huh, apparently you can be part of a group that murdered someone in their sleep because your entire department appears incompetent, and still get a book deal. Go figure.
    Jesus christ, he should be in jail, not making money off of this bullshit.

  10. #18410
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,208
    Quote Originally Posted by Adam Jensen View Post
    DING DING DING DING DING DING DING DING WINNER.

    This right here. "Oh he had fentanyl!" "he overdosed on drugs!" "He was obese and had a heart attack!"

    NONE OF THAT SHIT MATTERS. Derek Chauvin caused George Floyd's death by refusing to lift his knee from his neck even when Floyd was already subdued.
    I agree with what you said above.


    I would like offer one modest point, and humbly request that everyone doesn't kick my proverbial ass immediately (be gentle!).

    One of the issues with Floyd saying "I can't breath" goes back to a fundamental problem with law enforcement and incarceration in the United States. A lot of law enforcement encounters suspects they are attempting to detain who lie to them. "I can't breath" and "I have to pee" and countless other excuses. So any experienced officer hearing that will more than likely initially doubt the statement's truth.

    I'm NOT saying this is any excuse for the situation with Floyd - I want to be 100% clear on that.

    What I want to point out is that our law enforcement and incarceration in the U.S. is so adversarial and punitive that it creates situations like this - where literally a cop won't believe a suspect when they say they can't breath. A number of factors play into this, institutionally speaking:
    Racism
    Prisons being so awful in the U.S.
    Incarceration being the first punishment for most crimes in the U.S. (partially due to their profit based nature)
    Law Enforcement Officers highly inadequate training.

    And the entire problem is so institutionalized in the United States, that it's almost impossible to break free of the vicious cycle. I'm not trying to detract from the horror of Floyds death nor the almost obvious guilt of the officer. I'm just offering another perspective.


    EDIT: Going to strikeout my comment. This isn't the right time nor the right thread for this.
    Last edited by cubby; 2021-04-15 at 11:09 PM.

  11. #18411
    Also, I don't see it posted here, but a 13 year old was just killed in Chicago by police, where they claimed he had a gun.

    https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...r-old/2487175/

    A fucking 13 year old. With his hands up, shot mere seconds, with nothing in his hands. Now, they claim there was a gun that was found behind the fence where he was standing, but that STILL doesn't give the cops the right to summarily execute another black kid, with nothing in his fucking hand.

  12. #18412
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    I agree with what you said above.


    I would like offer one modest point, and humbly request that everyone doesn't kick my proverbial ass immediately (be gentle!).

    One of the issues with Floyd saying "I can't breath" goes back to a fundamental problem with law enforcement and incarceration in the United States. A lot of law enforcement encounters suspects they are attempting to detain who lie to them. "I can't breath" and "I have to pee" and countless other excuses. So any experienced officer hearing that will more than likely initially doubt the statement's truth.

    I'm NOT saying this is any excuse for the situation with Floyd - I want to be 100% clear on that.

    What I want to point out is that our law enforcement and incarceration in the U.S. is so adversarial and punitive that it creates situations like this - where literally a cop won't believe a suspect when they say they can't breath. A number of factors play into this, institutionally speaking:
    Racism
    Prisons being so awful in the U.S.
    Incarceration being the first punishment for most crimes in the U.S. (partially due to their profit based nature)
    Law Enforcement Officers highly inadequate training.

    And the entire problem is so institutionalized in the United States, that it's almost impossible to break free of the vicious cycle .
    I think aside from training, lack of accountability and the blue wall, a lot of cops do not reside in the community they patrol. It's much easier to dehumanize everyone in a community when you are just visiting. The police officers are basically an invading force this may as well be deployment to Afghanistan. They might be less likely to kill and brutalize people if they had to live with them and send their children to schools where they patrol.

    Aside from that it would greatly help the neighborhoods economically too.

  13. #18413
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,208
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    Also, I don't see it posted here, but a 13 year old was just killed in Chicago by police, where they claimed he had a gun.

    https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...r-old/2487175/

    A fucking 13 year old. With his hands up, shot mere seconds, with nothing in his hands. Now, they claim there was a gun that was found behind the fence where he was standing, but that STILL doesn't give the cops the right to summarily execute another black kid, with nothing in his fucking hand.
    I'm seeing that now in the news. Un-fucking-believable. At this point cops should all be disarmed. Put their firearms in their vehicles, under lock and key.

    13-fucking-years old. What the fuck.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Draco-Onis View Post
    I think aside from training, lack of accountability and the blue wall, a lot of cops do not reside in the community they patrol. It's much easier to dehumanize everyone in a community when you are just visiting. The police officers are basically an invading force this may as well be deployment to Afghanistan. They might be less likely to kill and brutalize people if they had to live with them and send their children to schools where they patrol.

    Aside from that it would greatly help the neighborhoods economically too.
    Another great point - police your own community/area, don't get trucked in.

    And the history of policing is inherently racist - originally formed in the United States (at least in the south) to bring in freed slaves for violating laws that were designed to be almost immediately violated. So they could be imprisoned and then turned around to work in the fields they were just liberated.

  14. #18414
    The Unstoppable Force PACOX's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    ██████
    Posts
    22,965
    Quote Originally Posted by postman1782 View Post
    Also, I don't see it posted here, but a 13 year old was just killed in Chicago by police, where they claimed he had a gun.

    https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/loca...r-old/2487175/

    A fucking 13 year old. With his hands up, shot mere seconds, with nothing in his hands. Now, they claim there was a gun that was found behind the fence where he was standing, but that STILL doesn't give the cops the right to summarily execute another black kid, with nothing in his fucking hand.
    There's pictures from every angle. That kid was killed unarmed in another case of kill first, make some bullshit up later.

    The only other thing the kid could have done in that situation was...put his hands up with the gun in his hand

    What is a person supposed to do if they can't surrender unarmed? Shoot back?

    There needs to be federal intervention to fix the problem of gung-ho PDs. Not going to happen.

    Resident Cosplay Progressive

  15. #18415
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    There's pictures from every angle. That kid was killed unarmed in another case of kill first, make some bullshit up later.

    The only other thing the kid could have done in that situation was...put his hands up with the gun in his hand

    What is a person supposed to do if they can't surrender unarmed? Shoot back?

    There needs to be federal intervention to fix the problem of gung-ho PDs. Not going to happen.
    While the cop tried to do the right thing, AFTER he shot him, by rendering aid, the kid shouldn't have been shot in the first place. He might have had an argument if there was a gun in his hand pointed at the cop, but he didn't. This is almost like Tamir Rice, but Rice had a fucking BB gun in his hand, and the cops didn't give enough time to actually react to the cops.

  16. #18416
    The Undying cubby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    the Quiet Room
    Posts
    31,208
    Quote Originally Posted by PACOX View Post
    There's pictures from every angle. That kid was killed unarmed in another case of kill first, make some bullshit up later.

    The only other thing the kid could have done in that situation was...put his hands up with the gun in his hand

    What is a person supposed to do if they can't surrender unarmed? Shoot back?

    There needs to be federal intervention to fix the problem of gung-ho PDs. Not going to happen.
    They are showing the entire video, and I'm not sure at this point why the officer isn't already in custody. That's one of the most blatant murder-first-excuse-later situations I've ever seen, and the video makes it almost entirely clear.

    What is the department saying at this point?

    Agreed re Federal Investigation.

  17. #18417
    Quote Originally Posted by cubby View Post
    They are showing the entire video, and I'm not sure at this point why the officer isn't already in custody. That's one of the most blatant murder-first-excuse-later situations I've ever seen, and the video makes it almost entirely clear.

    What is the department saying at this point?

    Agreed re Federal Investigation.
    So, the police officer that killed the 13 year old, his statement goes CLEARLY against his body worn camera.

    From this article: https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...ed/7217787002/
    According to police, officers were dispatched to the Little Village neighborhood in the early hours of March 29 when the department's ShotSpotter technology detected eight gunshots. When police arrived, Adam and 21-year-old Ruben Roman fled, authorities said.

    An officer shot Adam once in the chest after an "armed confrontation" in an alley, police said. Adam died at the scene.

    Lightfoot and other city officials have offered various narratives around whether Adam had a gun or not. Earlier this month, Lightfoot suggested Adam was holding a gun, saying "an adult put a gun in a child’s hand." And on Saturday, prosecutors alleged Adam was holding a gun when the officer shot him.

    But on Thursday, a Sarah Sinovic, chief spokeswoman for the Cook County State’s Attorney, said "an attorney who works in this office failed to fully inform himself before speaking in court. Errors like that cannot happen and this has been addressed with the individual involved. The video speaks for itself."

    Also Thursday,Lightfoot's phrasing changed, and she said Adam was "a child who was in contact with an adult who had a gun." Asked whether Adam shot at an officer, she said: "I've seen no evidence whatsoever that Adam Toledo shot at the police."

    The officer has been placed on administrative leave for 30 days.

    A case incident report identified the officer who fired the shot as 10th district patrol officer Eric Stillman. Stilman, a 34-year-old white man, has been a Chicago police officer since August 2015, according to the report.

    Stillman has no prior complaints filed against him and was a 2016 recipient of the Superintendent's Award of Valor, according to the Invisible Institute, which records police interactions with the public.

  18. #18418
    Banned Themius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    38,118
    SO what do we think is the solution to police?

  19. #18419
    I am Murloc! Noxx79's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Kansas. Yes, THAT Kansas.
    Posts
    5,352
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    SO what do we think is the solution to police?
    Consequences for murder, just like any other job.

  20. #18420
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    SO what do we think is the solution to police?
    Idk, let’s look at other countries. Oh, and enact common sense gun control laws.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •