That is the reporting, yes. Also 11 white jurors in a town that is I think 32% white. That upped the odds.
I often wonder what the actual jury pool they drew from was like when I see those numbers. It obviously does not excuse that in the slightest but it could point to a systemic problem of who is called up rather then the prosecution deliberately forcing such a jury.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
+2
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
Additional stuff regarding the Slager trial:
re: jurors
On the 30th, the judge added manslaughter to the charges.
On the 2nd, one juror wrote a letter to the judge saying that he cannot return a guilty verdict. Another juror said eleven were in agreement on a guilty verdict. Agreement on a specific charge and whether that one juror just meant murder is not clear.
On the 5th, the jury stated that a "majority" cannot agree on a verdict. What this means exactly is unclear.
re: the defense
There was apparently a struggle during which Scott obtained and fired Slager's Taser at him (I have not tracked this down definitively). As far as I can tell, the defense is that Slager both thought that Scott had his Taser and was in range to turn and use it on him when he shot him (neither of these were actually the case). Moving the Taser after the fact is "securing the weapon."
There is an incredibly thin defense that can be woven from the above, but given that 11 out of 12 were unconvinced by it, the 1 outlier is "surprising."
That is the reporting, yes. Also 11 white jurors in a town that is I think 32% white. That upped the odds.
I often wonder what the actual jury pool they drew from was like when I see those numbers. It obviously does not excuse that in the slightest but it could point to a systemic problem of who is called up rather then the prosecution deliberately forcing such a jury.
In this case it would be the defense who'd want a lopsided jury like that though.
That is the reporting, yes. Also 11 white jurors in a town that is I think 32% white. That upped the odds.
I often wonder what the actual jury pool they drew from was like when I see those numbers. It obviously does not excuse that in the slightest but it could point to a systemic problem of who is called up rather then the prosecution deliberately forcing such a jury.
In this case it would be the defense who'd want a lopsided jury like that though.
But the point still stands that there appears to be something wrong with the jury call up process. Having 91% of the jury be white when theoretically only 3 out of every 10 people called should be doesn't add up. The defense couldn't have struck that many jurors.
That is the reporting, yes. Also 11 white jurors in a town that is I think 32% white. That upped the odds.
I often wonder what the actual jury pool they drew from was like when I see those numbers. It obviously does not excuse that in the slightest but it could point to a systemic problem of who is called up rather then the prosecution deliberately forcing such a jury.
In this case it would be the defense who'd want a lopsided jury like that though.
But the point still stands that there appears to be something wrong with the jury call up process. Having 91% of the jury be white when theoretically only 3 out of every 10 people called should be doesn't add up. The defense couldn't have struck that many jurors.
5 strikes doesn't seem like that many. How many peremptory strikes do they get there? I can see 6 and 6, and you'd only need an excuse for one or two of them...
That is the reporting, yes. Also 11 white jurors in a town that is I think 32% white. That upped the odds.
I often wonder what the actual jury pool they drew from was like when I see those numbers. It obviously does not excuse that in the slightest but it could point to a systemic problem of who is called up rather then the prosecution deliberately forcing such a jury.
In this case it would be the defense who'd want a lopsided jury like that though.
Well, if the prosecution just did not want to object to it too hard because they did not really care... but yes I did have that reversed.
He's a shy overambitious dog-catcher on the wrong side of the law. She's an orphaned psychic mercenary with the power to bend men's minds. They fight crime!
re: jurors
On the 30th, the judge added manslaughter to the charges.
On the 2nd, one juror wrote a letter to the judge saying that he cannot return a guilty verdict. Another juror said eleven were in agreement on a guilty verdict. Agreement on a specific charge and whether that one juror just meant murder is not clear.
On the 5th, the jury stated that a "majority" cannot agree on a verdict. What this means exactly is unclear.
re: the defense
There was apparently a struggle during which Scott obtained and fired Slager's Taser at him (I have not tracked this down definitively). As far as I can tell, the defense is that Slager both thought that Scott had his Taser and was in range to turn and use it on him when he shot him (neither of these were actually the case). Moving the Taser after the fact is "securing the weapon."
There is an incredibly thin defense that can be woven from the above, but given that 11 out of 12 were unconvinced by it, the 1 outlier is "surprising."
If he moved the taser, his testimony is worthless. Even if the victim really did use the taser on him, the fact that he shot him in the back and planted the weapon on him makes him legally guilty of murder. If he demonstrably had nothing to hide, he wouldn't have had to plant the taser.
That is the reporting, yes. Also 11 white jurors in a town that is I think 32% white. That upped the odds.
I often wonder what the actual jury pool they drew from was like when I see those numbers. It obviously does not excuse that in the slightest but it could point to a systemic problem of who is called up rather then the prosecution deliberately forcing such a jury.
In this case it would be the defense who'd want a lopsided jury like that though.
But the point still stands that there appears to be something wrong with the jury call up process. Having 91% of the jury be white when theoretically only 3 out of every 10 people called should be doesn't add up. The defense couldn't have struck that many jurors.
5 strikes doesn't seem like that many. How many peremptory strikes do they get there? I can see 6 and 6, and you'd only need an excuse for one or two of them...
There may also be reasons why the jury isn't representative of a perfect sampling of the population because of registration or eligibility. It still seems like a really shitty thing that justice can be delayed or halted by one person with an agenda to make it out of the pools by being dishonest, though. As we saw with the Oregon Wildlife Refuge, this isn't an exclusive problem to the south or racism.
re: jurors
On the 30th, the judge added manslaughter to the charges.
On the 2nd, one juror wrote a letter to the judge saying that he cannot return a guilty verdict. Another juror said eleven were in agreement on a guilty verdict. Agreement on a specific charge and whether that one juror just meant murder is not clear.
On the 5th, the jury stated that a "majority" cannot agree on a verdict. What this means exactly is unclear.
re: the defense
There was apparently a struggle during which Scott obtained and fired Slager's Taser at him (I have not tracked this down definitively). As far as I can tell, the defense is that Slager both thought that Scott had his Taser and was in range to turn and use it on him when he shot him (neither of these were actually the case). Moving the Taser after the fact is "securing the weapon."
There is an incredibly thin defense that can be woven from the above, but given that 11 out of 12 were unconvinced by it, the 1 outlier is "surprising."
If he moved the taser, his testimony is worthless. Even if the victim really did use the taser on him, the fact that he shot him in the back and planted the weapon on him makes him legally guilty of murder. If he demonstrably had nothing to hide, he wouldn't have had to plant the taser.
Also, aren't most Tasers single shot weapons?
+1
Options
SurfpossumA nonentitytrying to preserve the anonymity he so richly deserves.Registered Userregular
I believe some Tasers have two charges, and he first moved the Taser closer and then picked it up and holstered it.
He also initially said that Scott spun around to face him with the Taser in his hand, and there was something about burn marks on his uniform that could have been from a Taser, so frankly I'm not putting a lot of faith in what he says (whether it's from shock or lying, meh).
Even under the absolutely most generous interpretation (which involves massively misjudging the situation on his part due to confusion/fear) I feel like he should at least be convicted of manslaughter.
re: jurors
On the 30th, the judge added manslaughter to the charges.
On the 2nd, one juror wrote a letter to the judge saying that he cannot return a guilty verdict. Another juror said eleven were in agreement on a guilty verdict. Agreement on a specific charge and whether that one juror just meant murder is not clear.
On the 5th, the jury stated that a "majority" cannot agree on a verdict. What this means exactly is unclear.
re: the defense
There was apparently a struggle during which Scott obtained and fired Slager's Taser at him (I have not tracked this down definitively). As far as I can tell, the defense is that Slager both thought that Scott had his Taser and was in range to turn and use it on him when he shot him (neither of these were actually the case). Moving the Taser after the fact is "securing the weapon."
There is an incredibly thin defense that can be woven from the above, but given that 11 out of 12 were unconvinced by it, the 1 outlier is "surprising."
If he moved the taser, his testimony is worthless. Even if the victim really did use the taser on him, the fact that he shot him in the back and planted the weapon on him makes him legally guilty of murder. If he demonstrably had nothing to hide, he wouldn't have had to plant the taser.
Also, aren't most Tasers single shot weapons?
There are different models, the Taser X3 has three shots.
But it can also be used as a contact weapon after the cartridges have been expended.
Follow-up on the black man who was shot in Iowa: a grand jury has recommended that no charges be filed against the officer.
What's important to note is that this decision was reached without any statement from the man who was shot, despite their attorney saying that they were scheduled to take a statement from him on the 13th. The attorney also disputes claims that the man was given "numerous occasions" to give a statement, saying that he was paralyzed and only recently regained his ability to speak.
There is dashboard video of the incident but the officer's body mic was "not operational" so this was decided solely on the word of the officer as to the exchange that went on.
Just a bump to let those who haven't seen it know, that the police officer that shot Walter Scott-- a black man 20 feet from him, running away, in the back-- and then lied about his life being in danger right up until the cellphone video came out; has returned a hung jury. State says it will retry the case.
Because apparently video evidence isn't quite enough to put a cop in jail.
Mitchell, who had marijuana in his system at the time according to Vander Sanden, will not face charges.
Something isn't right here.
If Mitchell had enough on him to arrest for conspiracy to distribute and resisted arrest with force, why wouldn't he be charged?
I don't believe the story of the LEO necessarily, but even if we assume the LEO was being 100% truthful this doesn't make logical sense.
The article says that they found a bunch of stuff in Mitchell's car, so not charging him means either it wouldn't be admissible as evidence because of something that occurred, or they don't want people looking into it more deeply (which would occur during a criminal investigation).
Or I mean you could take a reading that the police aren't charging him in hopes that it will make him less likely to file a civil suit. That's about as charitable a reading as I can muster.
Vander Sanden[the DA] also said the grand jury was free to subpoena witnesses, but never asked.
It's the DA's job to present the states case to the grand jury. This much like the Michael Brown case just reeks of the DA helping out his buddy cop, rather than actually do his job.
According to the criminal complaint, the officers' body camera footage captured what happened next:
Heaggan-Brown and another officer gave chase. Smith, who had a gun in his hand, slipped and fell. When Smith stood up, he turned his upper body toward the officers. Smith then raised the gun, throwing it into a nearby yard. As he did so, Heaggan-Brown fired the first of two shots.
Smith never discharged his weapon.
"Heaggan-Brown is observed standing a short distance from Smith with his weapon pointed down at Smith when Heaggan-Brown discharges a second shot from his weapon at what appears to be Smith's chest," the complaint says.
Heaggan-Brown told investigators he fired the second shot because he believed Smith was reaching for his waistband.
"A review of the body camera footage shows that at no time after the shooting did Heaggan-Brown or any other officer search Smith for a second firearm," the complaint says. "In fact, when Smith demonstrably reaches for his waistband after being shot the second time, Heaggan-Brown does not discharge his weapon, but moves Smith's hand away with his own hand."
Er, is it just me having a selective memory, or are the very few police officers who are actually charged with a crime... not white?
You may be onto something there. In this case the fact that he is also being charged with several sexual assaults probably also made it pretty easy for the brotherhood to just let him be made an example of. No sense raising a stink over the shooting charge, when he's already probably on his way to prison on the other charges.
I mean, police officers who end up in the media spotlight because of shootings often do have records of misconduct, but those previous violations either ended up with slaps on the wrist or dismissal from a different police force (that did not stop them from being hired by the other police force).
There's so many examples of officers using deadly force from last year, I think we'd need a group of us to go through the incidents to see if there's any correlation between ethnicity and if charges were actually brought.
EDIT: To be clear, I'm not saying that the officers end up being found guilty of anything, but it's so rare for charges to even be brought against them.
There is a mathematical possibility that those morally inept enough to be blatant in the commission of violent acts against citizens are the sort of morally depraved individual to deny other laws.
That is limiting the discussion the violence against citizens and their rights are actions of individuals and not entire departments (which is another matter all together).
Well what I'm getting at, Royce, is that those departments are willing to throw their minority cops under the metaphorical bus, but willing to fight hard for white cops who do the same thing.
What is the educational requirement to become a Police Officer? In Norway its a 4 year college degree equivalent to a BA with on the job deployment during training.
Pretty hard to get into as well. Most cadets have millitary service to boost their chances. Its rare to Find anyone below the age of 24 thats a cop.
The sky was full of stars, every star an exploding ship. One of ours.
It's different per department, per city, per county, per state. Also if one police department fires someone, that someone often can find work at a nearby department without any issue.
Earlier in the thread I did the research, it's about 19 months last I remember.
As is in the states...
Less than two years training
Training in the job with a local department and their dogma
If you fail to learn their ways, you get drummed out
Then if you make it, start working up the ranks playing politics.
Once you're good with the union, even getting caught with a fuckton of drugs in your car and your blood cannot get you fired or hired at another department.
But if you fail to play your role in the corruption, expect explicit death threats against you and your family and subtle threats that you will not receive backup when you need it.
But even if you're caught dancing like a monkey and singing antebellum songs in response to a citizen's complaint of racism and reports confirming this from your fellow officers, expect to be allowed to retire with your full retirement package.
What is the educational requirement to become a Police Officer? In Norway its a 4 year college degree equivalent to a BA with on the job deployment during training.
Pretty hard to get into as well. Most cadets have millitary service to boost their chances. Its rare to Find anyone below the age of 24 thats a cop.
Madison PD officially has a high school diploma as minimum to start as that's the state requirement (along with a sub 14.5 minute 1.5 mile run, and 20 sit ups and 20 push ups in a minute, and a 19 inch vertical jump [yeah, that's ALL the true requirements in Wisconsin. Oh, and legally able to possess a gun]), but require at least 60 college credits within 5 years or you are dismissed. They also pay 100% costs to attain your first bachelor's in any subject, so in reality every officer does end up with a bachelors and most get masters dergrees. This is also one of the better departments in the country and often is used as examples for other departments around the nation to strive to be.
What is the educational requirement to become a Police Officer? In Norway its a 4 year college degree equivalent to a BA with on the job deployment during training.
Pretty hard to get into as well. Most cadets have millitary service to boost their chances. Its rare to Find anyone below the age of 24 thats a cop.
Madison PD officially has a high school diploma as minimum to start as that's the state requirement (along with a sub 14.5 minute 1.5 mile run, and 20 sit ups and 20 push ups in a minute, and a 19 inch vertical jump [yeah, that's ALL the true requirements in Wisconsin. Oh, and legally able to possess a gun]), but require at least 60 college credits within 5 years or you are dismissed. They also pay 100% costs to attain your first bachelor's in any subject, so in reality every officer does end up with a bachelors and most get masters dergrees. This is also one of the better departments in the country and often is used as examples for other departments around the nation to strive to be.
Holy shit, I've worked in kitchens where you need more than this just to be a prep chef!
Police departments have been woefully understaffed for an incredibly long time, it makes sense that the requirements are lax, they're mostly concerned with getting people in the door.
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
That was a pretty legit reason for those guys to quit though.
Most of them volunteered and had to deal with huge corruption and obstacles to them doing their job
Police departments have been woefully understaffed for an incredibly long time, it makes sense that the requirements are lax, they're mostly concerned with getting people in the door.
Also technical requirements don't always line up with the de facto requirements to actually get hired in highly competitive departments. I've known a couple departments that theoretically required nothing more than a high school diploma, but every single officer they hired had at least a two year degree.
Police departments have been woefully understaffed for an incredibly long time, it makes sense that the requirements are lax, they're mostly concerned with getting people in the door.
Also technical requirements don't always line up with the de facto requirements to actually get hired in highly competitive departments. I've known a couple departments that theoretically required nothing more than a high school diploma, but every single officer they hired had at least a two year degree.
any idea what it is that causes these police forces to be competitive, and others to not? or if competitive forces have better outcomes?
like can we take steps to encourage more competition or is it fairly strictly tied to them being desirable places to live with minimal crime and the tax dollars for good salaries?
Posts
The defense struck most of the black jurors for "reasons."
And the Prosc missed a cop supporter... or the juror lied about it.... im guessing the latter.
I often wonder what the actual jury pool they drew from was like when I see those numbers. It obviously does not excuse that in the slightest but it could point to a systemic problem of who is called up rather then the prosecution deliberately forcing such a jury.
re: jurors
On the 30th, the judge added manslaughter to the charges.
On the 2nd, one juror wrote a letter to the judge saying that he cannot return a guilty verdict. Another juror said eleven were in agreement on a guilty verdict. Agreement on a specific charge and whether that one juror just meant murder is not clear.
On the 5th, the jury stated that a "majority" cannot agree on a verdict. What this means exactly is unclear.
re: the defense
There was apparently a struggle during which Scott obtained and fired Slager's Taser at him (I have not tracked this down definitively). As far as I can tell, the defense is that Slager both thought that Scott had his Taser and was in range to turn and use it on him when he shot him (neither of these were actually the case). Moving the Taser after the fact is "securing the weapon."
There is an incredibly thin defense that can be woven from the above, but given that 11 out of 12 were unconvinced by it, the 1 outlier is "surprising."
In this case it would be the defense who'd want a lopsided jury like that though.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
But the point still stands that there appears to be something wrong with the jury call up process. Having 91% of the jury be white when theoretically only 3 out of every 10 people called should be doesn't add up. The defense couldn't have struck that many jurors.
5 strikes doesn't seem like that many. How many peremptory strikes do they get there? I can see 6 and 6, and you'd only need an excuse for one or two of them...
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Well, if the prosecution just did not want to object to it too hard because they did not really care... but yes I did have that reversed.
If he moved the taser, his testimony is worthless. Even if the victim really did use the taser on him, the fact that he shot him in the back and planted the weapon on him makes him legally guilty of murder. If he demonstrably had nothing to hide, he wouldn't have had to plant the taser.
There may also be reasons why the jury isn't representative of a perfect sampling of the population because of registration or eligibility. It still seems like a really shitty thing that justice can be delayed or halted by one person with an agenda to make it out of the pools by being dishonest, though. As we saw with the Oregon Wildlife Refuge, this isn't an exclusive problem to the south or racism.
Also, aren't most Tasers single shot weapons?
He also initially said that Scott spun around to face him with the Taser in his hand, and there was something about burn marks on his uniform that could have been from a Taser, so frankly I'm not putting a lot of faith in what he says (whether it's from shock or lying, meh).
Even under the absolutely most generous interpretation (which involves massively misjudging the situation on his part due to confusion/fear) I feel like he should at least be convicted of manslaughter.
There are different models, the Taser X3 has three shots.
But it can also be used as a contact weapon after the cartridges have been expended.
What's important to note is that this decision was reached without any statement from the man who was shot, despite their attorney saying that they were scheduled to take a statement from him on the 13th. The attorney also disputes claims that the man was given "numerous occasions" to give a statement, saying that he was paralyzed and only recently regained his ability to speak.
There is dashboard video of the incident but the officer's body mic was "not operational" so this was decided solely on the word of the officer as to the exchange that went on.
More detailed article here
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
Something isn't right here.
If Mitchell had enough on him to arrest for conspiracy to distribute and resisted arrest with force, why wouldn't he be charged?
I don't believe the story of the LEO necessarily, but even if we assume the LEO was being 100% truthful this doesn't make logical sense.
I thought we learned that in 1992?
Steam: pazython
The article says that they found a bunch of stuff in Mitchell's car, so not charging him means either it wouldn't be admissible as evidence because of something that occurred, or they don't want people looking into it more deeply (which would occur during a criminal investigation).
Or I mean you could take a reading that the police aren't charging him in hopes that it will make him less likely to file a civil suit. That's about as charitable a reading as I can muster.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
It's the DA's job to present the states case to the grand jury. This much like the Michael Brown case just reeks of the DA helping out his buddy cop, rather than actually do his job.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/12/15/former-police-officer-charged-homicide-milwaukee-shooting/95469216/
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
that's is an apparent trend which I have also noticed, but have not preformed statical analysis of.
You may be onto something there. In this case the fact that he is also being charged with several sexual assaults probably also made it pretty easy for the brotherhood to just let him be made an example of. No sense raising a stink over the shooting charge, when he's already probably on his way to prison on the other charges.
There's so many examples of officers using deadly force from last year, I think we'd need a group of us to go through the incidents to see if there's any correlation between ethnicity and if charges were actually brought.
EDIT: To be clear, I'm not saying that the officers end up being found guilty of anything, but it's so rare for charges to even be brought against them.
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
That is limiting the discussion the violence against citizens and their rights are actions of individuals and not entire departments (which is another matter all together).
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Pretty hard to get into as well. Most cadets have millitary service to boost their chances. Its rare to Find anyone below the age of 24 thats a cop.
As is in the states...
Less than two years training
Training in the job with a local department and their dogma
If you fail to learn their ways, you get drummed out
Then if you make it, start working up the ranks playing politics.
Once you're good with the union, even getting caught with a fuckton of drugs in your car and your blood cannot get you fired or hired at another department.
But if you fail to play your role in the corruption, expect explicit death threats against you and your family and subtle threats that you will not receive backup when you need it.
But even if you're caught dancing like a monkey and singing antebellum songs in response to a citizen's complaint of racism and reports confirming this from your fellow officers, expect to be allowed to retire with your full retirement package.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Madison PD officially has a high school diploma as minimum to start as that's the state requirement (along with a sub 14.5 minute 1.5 mile run, and 20 sit ups and 20 push ups in a minute, and a 19 inch vertical jump [yeah, that's ALL the true requirements in Wisconsin. Oh, and legally able to possess a gun]), but require at least 60 college credits within 5 years or you are dismissed. They also pay 100% costs to attain your first bachelor's in any subject, so in reality every officer does end up with a bachelors and most get masters dergrees. This is also one of the better departments in the country and often is used as examples for other departments around the nation to strive to be.
Holy shit, I've worked in kitchens where you need more than this just to be a prep chef!
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Not to mention being used in political games.
What's really scary to me is the thought of how many departments play ball with that kind of behaviour.
http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=16534
Most of them volunteered and had to deal with huge corruption and obstacles to them doing their job
Also technical requirements don't always line up with the de facto requirements to actually get hired in highly competitive departments. I've known a couple departments that theoretically required nothing more than a high school diploma, but every single officer they hired had at least a two year degree.
any idea what it is that causes these police forces to be competitive, and others to not? or if competitive forces have better outcomes?
like can we take steps to encourage more competition or is it fairly strictly tied to them being desirable places to live with minimal crime and the tax dollars for good salaries?