薔薇語

While I would generally agree with you that we police a lot of minor issues we probably shouldn't, doing things like issuing summons isn't one of those things. And the fact the cops are using the tragic death of two of their officers as justification for this is seriously disrespectful. They want more money, plain and simple. They don't care about their lost comrades, they don't care about the citizens they police, and they don't care about showing some basic human decency. All they care about is cashing in all this tragedy for a quick buck. It is sickening. 

Pink slips should be flying out the door like donuts into cop cars. 
 
La Rose. 

La Rose. 

La Rose. 

So the NYPD in an act of defiance towards the Mayor have stopped doing their job.
 

 
Why exactly are we paying these people again? This is a unique situation where I actually genuinely agree with Cenk. 
 
La Rose. 

@ The "Young Turks"-clip: First, yes - police who is not investigating crimes, that is not acceptable.
 
But am I the only one who is reminded of "Sesame Street" when watching the clip: The guy and the gal keep repeating their argument over and over and over and then some more times AGAIN:
 
"The cops are not doing their jobs! They are not doing their jobs! The cannot do their jobs not! I am outraged at theim not doing their jobs and they should be fired! They should be fired because they don't do their jobs! Did I mention that I am mad because the cops don't do their jobs? Because they don''t!"
 
What is this show? Are the people who watch the show really mentally retarded or have the attention span of a gnat that the "hosts" (journalist they can't be!) have to repeat everything at least twice in each sentence and then the other has to say it again - for 6 minutes!?!
 
A pain to watch (I got the fisrt 4 minutes then I had to close the video). But now I really know what the meaning of the word "redundant" is ...
 
It seems to be a new style

I am doing many things but dehumanizing is not among them. 
 
I would really like to hear you defend some thug who tries to choke a perfectly innocent person. I mean, come one, that thug shouldn't be 'dehumanized' just because he choked someone. I mean we shouldn't be bitter and should feel empathy for that thug who committed assault on some young woman. And we should really open our hearts to that thug even though he and his partner tried to destroy the only evidence against him ASSAULTING an innocent young person. 
 
If that cop were anything other than a cop he would be in jail right now. But we have a nice and wonderful two tier justice system where you and I go to jail for putting a person in a choke hold and trying to destroy evidence but cops keep all their benefits and are simply asked to kindly go work somewhere else.
 
That isn't justice.
 
La Rose. 

Oh cry me a river. I am not going to feel sorry for an abusive nimrod thug and I am not going to feel sorry for an abusive nimrod thug with authority. 
 
La Rose. 

I think Markdoc's most recent post made an extremely good point. Justice needs to be done and needs to be seen being done. The public trust is extremely important and if the system ignores a fundamental aspect of our society (that people need to see justice being served), then it is no longer functioning.

 
 
You think a typical prosecutor knows the burden of proof can't be met in this case? Really? If that were the case, then why did the actual prosecutor have to hardball all witnesses for the victim, soft ball the murderer, swear in and accept obvious perjury (obvious in that he, himself, knew it to be 100% fake) just to get the murderer off the hook? Those aren't the actions of a prosecutor who is confident in his belief that he couldn't meet a burden of proof, those are the actions of a man afraid that he could. Those are the actions of a spineless swine who has had and will only continue to have a tradition of protecting murderous cops from justice at all costs. 
 
 
I like how you think the physical evidence only corroborates the murderer's story - it doesn't. First, there were three completely distinct autopsy reports done. None of which were in complete alignment. But all of which agreed that the boy was shot several times. Most of the shots were at a distance and that the killing shot was followed up by additional shots after he was already dead. We also have witnesses who at the time of the event were caught on camera talking about how the boy had his hands up and was surrendering when he was gunned down. And that video and their testimony is worth a whole lot more than the racist, mentally unstable, perjurer that the prosecutor decided to rely on.
 
So, Agent X, I don't think you really understand why people are so angry with this case and why it is so necessary that it goes to trial. Perhaps in the full course of a trial I could be shown to be wrong and the murderer could be shown to have been acting in the bounds of the law, but that is a little bit of justice we were all denied. The murderer is not obviously innocent and it is not clear that there is no way to meet the burden of proof. That is purely your opinion on the situation. And the best thing for the victim would have been to have an actual adversarial trial where his interests were given consideration - that did not happen. The best thing for society would have been to have an actual adversarial process where our basic need to see the system actively and righteously pursue justice did not happen. All that happened was that an old-boy prosecutor covered for his murderer friends as he has done so before. 
 
La Rose. 

The Prosecutor has prosecutorial discresion and can choose what he wants to take to court. If the prosecutor really thought that there was no chance in heck that the officer was guilty of any crime, then he should have never indicted him and stood up for his beliefs. But he didn't. No, he created a show trial of the Grand Jury for the sole sake of fooling stupid people who think a Grand Jury is anything like an actual trial - it isn't and is never meant to be. He purposely allowed people to perjure themselves in front of the court to throw the case. He purposely deflated every possible aspect of the state's (HIS!) case so as to destroy his case. He purposely made the entire event last longer than many trials just to wear down the jurors so that they would be too fed up to care anymore. 

Yes, it is true he has prosecutor discretion and he could have used it to never take it to trial. But he used it to convene a Grand Jury. Once he made that choice he should have had to follow through with it but he chose not to. He chose to cover for his murder friends and deny anyone of any chance of justice. 
 
If you so strongly believe that the officer was innocent, then he could have had his day in court where he could defend himself. As the old saying goes: innocent people don't need to fear the law. Darren wasn't innocent and the prosecutor knew it. That is why he did everything he could to prevent it going to trial.
 
Do you know whose case wasn't represented at the Grand Jury - the murdered boy. That boy had no one there to advocate for him. That boy was denied even the slightest semblance of justice. The officer would have had his chance to defend his actions with all the vigor the law allows had it gone to trial. But you know what is even better than that, having the prosecutor do that job for you at a Grand Jury hearing. 
 
La Rose. 

I think part of the problem with the police who themselves break the law or abuse their authority merely 'resigning' is there is little to keep them from heading to another area of the country and getting a new job with a new police department. Sure, their background might raise a red flag, but the new department might also just note that they 'quit their job' instead of 'were fired'. So you have Bad Cop #3 get caught using excessive force on year, and quitting. But in three years, he could be wearing another badge doing the same thing all over again.

Here is some good news:
 
The jerk that put a law abiding young woman in a chokehold for not respecting his 'authoritah' has resigned. He should have been fired and lost any benefits he had, but at least he isn't wearing the uniform anymore. Good riddance to filthy trash. 
 
La Rose. 

Oh cry me a river. I am not going to feel sorry for an abusive nimrod thug and I am not going to feel sorry for an abusive nimrod thug with authority. 
 
La Rose. 

"Know won't go anywhere"? Are you implying a fixed trial? A grand jury is not a trial, and with more time, more evidence, and a different procedure, might yield different results. So, you don't need to be certain of a conviction to proceed. The only thing required is "probable cause" - is there a case to answer? I'll admit I don't know. But experience shows, that if there is any doubt, sending a case to court tends to defuse the situation more often than it exacerbates it - even though that's not always the case: there's no certainty in life. A badly-handled trial *might* be as bad as a badly-handled grand jury - but the lack of a trial emphasises the feeling in the community that justice is not being done. That's the real cause of the trouble in Ferguson. This particular shooting is just a trigger - as you note, maybe not even a very good case - for underlying problems. 
And yes, it would have been hard for the cop in question - but then, so was deciding not to go to trial. He's lost his job and his home, so it's not clear that a trial would have been worse for him. And given the riots after the grand jury decision, it is clear that didn't work too well - an outcome that should have come as a surprise to no-one. So yeah, I think it could have been handled better.
 
Edit: No, actually, stronger than that. Given the pervasive and growing distrust of the police even among ordinary citizens, precisely *because* of the feeling that justice is not being served, I think it was handled really badly. The fact that the usual procedures for a grand jury were significantly altered in this case, indicates that the prosecutor knew what the issues were and fumbled it anyway. He gave the impression - even to me, who tends to give the cops the benefit of the doubt - that he was desperate to avoid a trial. Whether that is true or not, it's impressions and emotions that are fueling this.
 
Cheers, Mark

Oh cry me a river. I am not going to feel sorry for an abusive nimrod thug and I am not going to feel sorry for an abusive nimrod thug with authority. 
 
La Rose. 

The Prosecutor has prosecutorial discresion and can choose what he wants to take to court. If the prosecutor really thought that there was no chance in heck that the officer was guilty of any crime, then he should have never indicted him and stood up for his beliefs. But he didn't. No, he created a show trial of the Grand Jury for the sole sake of fooling stupid people who think a Grand Jury is anything like an actual trial - it isn't and is never meant to be. He purposely allowed people to perjure themselves in front of the court to throw the case. He purposely deflated every possible aspect of the state's (HIS!) case so as to destroy his case. He purposely made the entire event last longer than many trials just to wear down the jurors so that they would be too fed up to care anymore. 

Yes, it is true he has prosecutor discretion and he could have used it to never take it to trial. But he used it to convene a Grand Jury. Once he made that choice he should have had to follow through with it but he chose not to. He chose to cover for his murder friends and deny anyone of any chance of justice. 
 
If you so strongly believe that the officer was innocent, then he could have had his day in court where he could defend himself. As the old saying goes: innocent people don't need to fear the law. Darren wasn't innocent and the prosecutor knew it. That is why he did everything he could to prevent it going to trial.
 
Do you know whose case wasn't represented at the Grand Jury - the murdered boy. That boy had no one there to advocate for him. That boy was denied even the slightest semblance of justice. The officer would have had his chance to defend his actions with all the vigor the law allows had it gone to trial. But you know what is even better than that, having the prosecutor do that job for you at a Grand Jury hearing. 
 
La Rose. 

I think Markdoc's most recent post made an extremely good point. Justice needs to be done and needs to be seen being done. The public trust is extremely important and if the system ignores a fundamental aspect of our society (that people need to see justice being served), then it is no longer functioning.

 
 
You think a typical prosecutor knows the burden of proof can't be met in this case? Really? If that were the case, then why did the actual prosecutor have to hardball all witnesses for the victim, soft ball the murderer, swear in and accept obvious perjury (obvious in that he, himself, knew it to be 100% fake) just to get the murderer off the hook? Those aren't the actions of a prosecutor who is confident in his belief that he couldn't meet a burden of proof, those are the actions of a man afraid that he could. Those are the actions of a spineless swine who has had and will only continue to have a tradition of protecting murderous cops from justice at all costs. 
 
 
I like how you think the physical evidence only corroborates the murderer's story - it doesn't. First, there were three completely distinct autopsy reports done. None of which were in complete alignment. But all of which agreed that the boy was shot several times. Most of the shots were at a distance and that the killing shot was followed up by additional shots after he was already dead. We also have witnesses who at the time of the event were caught on camera talking about how the boy had his hands up and was surrendering when he was gunned down. And that video and their testimony is worth a whole lot more than the racist, mentally unstable, perjurer that the prosecutor decided to rely on.
 
So, Agent X, I don't think you really understand why people are so angry with this case and why it is so necessary that it goes to trial. Perhaps in the full course of a trial I could be shown to be wrong and the murderer could be shown to have been acting in the bounds of the law, but that is a little bit of justice we were all denied. The murderer is not obviously innocent and it is not clear that there is no way to meet the burden of proof. That is purely your opinion on the situation. And the best thing for the victim would have been to have an actual adversarial trial where his interests were given consideration - that did not happen. The best thing for society would have been to have an actual adversarial process where our basic need to see the system actively and righteously pursue justice did not happen. All that happened was that an old-boy prosecutor covered for his murderer friends as he has done so before. 
 
La Rose. 

So is yours. But my bias is towards justice and has come about in direct response to the all too common problem of cops in the US being awful people. 
 
La Rose. 

The Prosecutor has prosecutorial discresion and can choose what he wants to take to court. If the prosecutor really thought that there was no chance in heck that the officer was guilty of any crime, then he should have never indicted him and stood up for his beliefs. But he didn't. No, he created a show trial of the Grand Jury for the sole sake of fooling stupid people who think a Grand Jury is anything like an actual trial - it isn't and is never meant to be. He purposely allowed people to perjure themselves in front of the court to throw the case. He purposely deflated every possible aspect of the state's (HIS!) case so as to destroy his case. He purposely made the entire event last longer than many trials just to wear down the jurors so that they would be too fed up to care anymore. 

Yes, it is true he has prosecutor discretion and he could have used it to never take it to trial. But he used it to convene a Grand Jury. Once he made that choice he should have had to follow through with it but he chose not to. He chose to cover for his murder friends and deny anyone of any chance of justice. 
 
If you so strongly believe that the officer was innocent, then he could have had his day in court where he could defend himself. As the old saying goes: innocent people don't need to fear the law. Darren wasn't innocent and the prosecutor knew it. That is why he did everything he could to prevent it going to trial.
 
Do you know whose case wasn't represented at the Grand Jury - the murdered boy. That boy had no one there to advocate for him. That boy was denied even the slightest semblance of justice. The officer would have had his chance to defend his actions with all the vigor the law allows had it gone to trial. But you know what is even better than that, having the prosecutor do that job for you at a Grand Jury hearing. 
 
La Rose. 

Actually, sometimes you do. A core concept of the English justice system - on which the US system is built - is that justice must not only be done, it must be seen to be done. The justice system does not exist in isolation from the citizenry, and the prosecutor had the discretion to send this case to trial, if only to ensure justice was seen to be done. He should have done so, I think. After all his job - and the job of the system - is to maintain public order, and it does not look like that is what happened.
 
Our systems give prosecutors a lot of discretion, but the flip side is that we expect them to use it wisely.
 
Regards, Mark

But isn't that an argument for going to trial? In a trial, the evidence would have been given a thorough airing. You could argue that not only would it have given closure to the victims family, but would also have protected the officer in question. As it stands, he didn't go to trial - but he also had to quit his job amd apparently leave the area.
 
Cheers, Mark

This not about statistics, though. In Utah, with a population of about half that of Denmark, the cops shoot and kill 9-10 civilians a year. In Denmark, twice as many people, the cops shoot and kill about 0-1 people per year. No matter how you slice it, those two things are fundamentally different. And Utah is not even one of the worst states. Now sure - different rules, different cultures. For a start, criminals here rarely have guns, which fundamentally changes the situation. But still, you are looking at a real difference, and one of huge magnitude. It cannot be explained as different methods of assessing data, or similar. Dead is dead. So it's a real difference. The question is, what can or should be done about it? 
And that depends on you guys. I can guarantee, that here, if we had 18-25 police killings a year (a level equivalent to US states), the police commissioners responsible and the minister of justice would all be looking for new jobs, if not facing charges - unless there were some truly extraordinary extenuating circumstances
 
Cheers, Mark

I've served on a Grand Jury. Once, for an an afternoon. It was for a small county in rural Virginia when I was about 20, so a long time ago. In theory we were on call for a month, but in practice, we spent one day at it during our term of service. We the jurors sat in a room in the courthouse and prosecutors and cops would enter, tell us who the defendant was, what crime he/she was being charged with, and what evidence they had to support the charge. They did not present any exculpatory evidence, only the evidence for the prosecution. Our job was to decide whether they had enough evidence of the defendant's guilt to warrant a trial.
 
They say that a competent prosecutor can get a grand jury to indict a ham sandwich. In my experience, that's true. We okayed every case brought to us (everything from passing bad checks to one murder). And why not? They had a convincing case for guilt (at least in the absence of any defense); presumably, if they didn't think they had enough evidence to convince us, they'd have waited to find more and presented it to another grand jury later on. If they had fabricated evidence or the cops perjured themselves, would we have known? No--but that's why all we can do is okay a trial. The defense would be able to make those arguments in the actual trial later on.
 
This is why I have no doubt that the presecutor in the Ferguson case deliberately sabotaged his own case against Officer Wilson. He didn't want to prosecute but wasn't man enough to make that decision himself and stand by it in the face of public anger, so he used the grand jury process to engineer the same result while retaining barely-plausible deniability.

"I said "fear" the cops?   No, I suggested using a minimal level of common sense.  If your boss chews you out for making a mistakes, do you react by cussing out your boss, or punching your boss?  I hope not.  People who do spend a lot of time unemployed."
 
-- I said fear. You said we should act in a way consistent with fearing cops. Which we should because we need to fear the cops these days.
 
And there is a vast difference between a boss chewing you out when you make a mistake and a Cop brutalizing you when you have done nothing wrong. People should never have to worry about getting beat up, arrested, or killed by the cops when they have done nothing wrong. But in the world we live in we are expecting people to bend over and take it just because some jerk in a uniform wants to get their rocks off. And if we as the citizenry can't demand our rights be respect on the spot then there is a strong argument to made that we have NO rights. 
 
"How many dirty cops do you suppose there are though?"
 
You are right to assume that my opinion of the average cop is that low. I really don't think any cop is worth the time of the day these days. I will not go out on the extreme limb and say that the majority are murders but I will say that the majority have no moral qualms about covering for their murderous friends. Given how many daily stories we get about these jerks it isn't hard to have this view. We had the story I posted just a bit ago about a maniac cop. And there is no doubt that if the person he threatened with a gun wasn't a respected politician he would have gotten away with it. The person that filmed the Eric Garner murder found himself harassed and arrested by cops soon after - that isn't just a couple bad eggs, that is a culture of corruptions and complacency. We had the California highway patrolman who would steel nude and otherwise compromising photos of young women he pulled over and sent it around to all his cop friends because, to paraphrase him, "everyone is in on it". And he still didn't think anything was wrong with it after he was caught doing so.
 

  Cops, despite their B''''ing and whining are safer now than they have ever been. It is like how people these days complain about how violent the world is and how much safer it was back in the day - guess what, that is a lie. People are safer today than they have ever been. Cops are safer now than they have ever been - probably because enough people realize that cops are just one bad look away from executing you. 
 
Do cops have an easy job? No, they don't. That is why I always tried to give them the pass. But you know what, I don't care. They get stable job and are paid to deal with that stuff. They're big boys now playing with big boy toys. They need to be held to a high standard - and that includes accepting a certain amount of risk to make sure they aren't murdering a defenseless 12 year old. They need to accept some risks so they don't choke a clearly harmless man to death. They need to accept some risk and not shoot a boy who already surrendered like some Judge-Dread wanna be executioner. They need to accept some F'ing risks because at the end of the day, that is what they are F'ing paid to do. If they can't then they need to turn in their badge and get the F' out of the police force. 
 
La Rose.

I saw that news story earlier today. It is tragic. I wish the best for the families of the deceased officers.
 
----
 
From the article
 
"Some union leaders suggested the mayor had sent a message that police officers were to be feared"
 
Could it be because the police are to be feared? Not many other groups of people have free license to murder people.
 
"“There is blood on many hands tonight,” the head of the Patrolmen’s Benevolent Association, Patrick Lynch, said outside Woodhull Hospital. He added, “That blood on the hands starts on the steps of City Hall, in the office of the mayor.”"
 
This guy sounds like a big jerk. If anyone is to blame for the bad imagine the police have it is he and his ilk for harassing and killing the citizenry.
 
Is there a single police department in the US that has enough brains to recognize that the problem isn't protesters, it is that POLICE keep giving people reasons to protest.
 
La Rose.

Considering how many Cop (piss)ants claim they were "in fear for their lives" from a chihuahua or a person in a wheelchair, that's not saying much.