[Police brutality] American injustice, yet again.

[IndianaJoe3]

2 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

That doesn't change the fact it was not operable when the police got their hands on it.  They'd have to prove that the gun - which is known to have been disabled in the past so that it could be brought into a courthouse as a prop - was subsequently repaired and they'd have to do that at the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt".  The charges can't be brought in the first place if the gun wasn't operable at the time.  They have no way to prove that it was at this point in time.

 

It's reasonably easy to remove or replace the firing pin on most modern weapons. It does not require a gunsmith or special tools (or, frequently, any tools). I suspect that the condition of the gun would be ruled inadmissable, because there is no way to confirm that it hadn't been changed between the incident and when it was turned over to the police.

[Lawnmower Boy]

2 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

 

I 100% agree with you on the valid evidence statement.  They have had days to mess with the weapon.

 

That doesn't change the fact it was not operable when the police got their hands on it.  They'd have to prove that the gun - which is known to have been disabled in the past so that it could be brought into a courthouse as a prop - was subsequently repaired and they'd have to do that at the level of "beyond a reasonable doubt".  The charges can't be brought in the first place if the gun wasn't operable at the time.  They have no way to prove that it was at this point in time.

 

Given the custody chain and delay in the police obtaining the weapon - I don't see how this can be done.

 

The whole case feels like a politically motivated activity.  Missouri has one of the strongest, if not THE strongest, Castle Doctrines in the United States and in normal times the couple probably could have shot the people breaking into their property without getting in trouble.

 

This seems like classic pretrial stuff. The DA's office says that the pistol was "substantially" capable of being fired. Obviously, if the pin was in wrong, it wasn't able to fire, but otherwise, it was fine. Hence, "substantially." The defence says that the "substantially" is doing a lot of work, tainting the jury pool with the idea that the pistol was capable of being fired. 

 

So is the prosecutor exploiting the baffling power of legalese to weight the scales of justice, or is the defence using this as a rationale to plant the idea the gun was disable when it maybe wasn't? Sounds like this is going to be one of those fun juries. 

[Pattern Ghost]

I wonder if this is going to be seen as an affirmative defense (we did it, but we had to because of X reason that exempts us from charges), thus shifting the burden of proof to the defense, or as a straight up not guilty plea (we didn't commit the crime because the gun wasn't capable of being fired on that particular day). It seems like the prosecution wants the former while the defense is angling toward the latter.

[ScottishFox]

Meanwhile at the federal courthouse protests in Portland the AP has done some brilliant journalism.  They put a reporter in the crowd AND one in the building so they could get both perspectives on what is happening.

 

Seriously great work.

 

The article:  https://apnews.com/1dd1bb39093a3691f4e78093787ab877

 

Some thoughts from the AP reporter inside the courthouse:

 

 

 

At the rate this is escalating I wouldn't be surprised to see live ammo fired at the protesters soon. 

They are doing real - in some cases permanent - damage to the federal officers who are inside the structure.

 

Honestly, I can't believe the level of restraint that has been shown so far.  This attack on the courthouse has been going on for weeks.

[Dr. MID-Nite]

Legitimate addressing of the issues (instead of token gestures) would end all this, but...as usual...America refuses to admit there is any problem.

[Ragitsu]

2 hours ago, ScottishFox said:

Meanwhile at the federal courthouse protests in Portland the AP has done some brilliant journalism.  They put a reporter in the crowd AND one in the building so they could get both perspectives on what is happening.

 

Seriously great work.

 

...

 

Thank you for being impartial by also including the perspective of the protestors.

 

  

25 minutes ago, Dr. MID-Nite said:

Legitimate addressing of the issues (instead of token gestures) would end all this, but...as usual...America refuses to admit there is any problem.

 

They're scared to death of losing their power. This is nothing more than a beast letting the moonlight glint off its claws.

[ScottishFox]

1 minute ago, Ragitsu said:

 

Thank you for being impartial by also including the perspective of the protestors.

 

You're welcome.  The article has a ton of great photos in it and I think the AP did a pretty bang on job of covering it.

 

The "inside the courthouse" side of the article stood out for me as I've seen the DHS propaganda, but I hadn't seen a press perspective on it.  What the reporter detailed were serious injuries that in most cases would justify lethal force.

 

And kudos to the reporter for getting in there and taking the ride.  Sounded very scary.

 

Honestly, I'm so tired of watching say CNN and then Fox and then trying to Frankenstein it together to get an actual story instead of a political opinion.  This AP story was award worthy.

[Cygnia]

 

[ScottishFox]

1 hour ago, Cygnia said:

 

 

Wow, that a scary hard hit.  Hopefully he makes a full recovery.

[Cygnia]

Officials Say White Supremacists Infiltrated Black Lives Matter Protest in Richmond to Instigate Riots

[Ragitsu]

One positive development out of all of this mayhem is the unmasking; specifically, the unmasking of too many people among us that are casually in favor of fascism. It truly is fascinating watching someone throw their fellow citizen under the bus while simultaneously wiping their ass with The Constitution*.

 

* Note that, unlike some, I don't treat the United State's Constitution as some sort of holy text; while there are some coincidentally good ideas contained within, it was - at the end of the day - drafted by a bunch of privileged slave owners that lived during a time when firearms could fire roughly one shot per minute. There needs to be some revision applied to The Constitution...if only to clear up ambiguity caused by centuries of linguistic drift.

[Lord Liaden]

Rule of thumb: any text which can be legally amended is not "holy."

[Old Man]

1 hour ago, Lord Liaden said:

Rule of thumb: any text which can be legally amended is not "holy."

I dunno, I can think of a couple amended holy texts that are pretty popular in the U.S.

[Lord Liaden]

Legally?

[Pattern Ghost]

22 minutes ago, Lord Liaden said:

Legally?

 

Not all laws are secular. 😉

[Pattern Ghost]

3 hours ago, Ragitsu said:

There needs to be some revision applied to The Constitution...if only to clear up ambiguity caused by centuries of linguistic drift.

 

There are plenty of supporting documents from the time of the writing of the Constitution to clarify the intent behind the document's wording.

 

I think the biggest issue is that a revision would require an immense level of control by one party or the other. I don't know if I'd like a revision framed by a single, and these days likely extremist, viewpoint, no matter which side of the aisle it fell to.

[Lord Liaden]

5 minutes ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

Not all laws are secular. 😉

 

Exactly.

[Old Man]

(deleted)

[Old Man]

U.S. forces appear to have begun a staged withdrawal from occupied Portland.

[unclevlad]

17 hours ago, Pattern Ghost said:

 

There are plenty of supporting documents from the time of the writing of the Constitution to clarify the intent behind the document's wording.

 

I think the biggest issue is that a revision would require an immense level of control by one party or the other. I don't know if I'd like a revision framed by a single, and these days likely extremist, viewpoint, no matter which side of the aisle it fell to.

 

There are going to be cases where even the intent has largely become moot...much less the core text.  

 

Even if 1 party had enough control to offer a revision...they couldn't.  Because neither side is monolithic;  they'd fall into factional fighting among themselves.

 

And even if it did get passed...all we'd have is "well ok, which laws are now in violation???" to the point of stasis.\

 

But I do agree that over-reliance on the literal text is a fundamental error.

[Matt the Bruins]

I can come closer to seeing the ERA getting bipartisan support than any other issue, and look how long people have tried and failed to get that amendment passed!

[TrickstaPriest]

 

 

[csyphrett]

10 minutes ago, TrickstaPriest said:

 

 

I didn't hear a command to kneel. I heard something like hands down, bend down, but maybe that was supposed to be get down, but officer number two turned a peaceful arrest into a fight in the parking lot. and then they try to take the girl's phone so she can't record it.

 

And then it is given to the news

 

CES  

[Tom Cowan]

was he hit with that taser?

[csyphrett]

50 minutes ago, Tom Cowan said:

was he hit with that taser?

I don't think so, but the guy shouldn't have initiated contact with it in his hand. Look at the other police. As soon as the victim starts cooperating, he puts his weapon away and begins to put on cuffs. If the other cop hadn't turned this into a fist fight, this wouldn't have been a thing

CES