Here comes the Gestapo

[Darkstaff]

http://dailynews.netscape.com/mynsnews/story.tmpl?table=n&cat=50100&id=200101311752000213061

Good lord people. I dont know what to say about this... Well you know what they say people,

All men are created equal, but some men are created more equal than others...

And you know...I could understand the "he looks suspucious" line of reasoning (I've maced and shot people cause they did look suspicious), except for the sheer freakin volume of bullets lobbed at this man. You shoot suspicious people 3 or 4 times...you don't empty your goddamn clip into em! And please dont tell me he was still standing after 19 shots...a parrot could prosecute this case its so damn slam dunk...but yet Bush decides to drop it. Of course he's going for Yellow Star Racial Profiling (this time...the stars arent on our sleeves, they're in our records) and building up the Army. Why doesn't he just call himself the Fuhrer now and save everyone the suspense of waiting 2 years for the ATF to come storming down the street.

 

[Laurel]

I guess it's all right for cops to beat, shoot, &/or anally rape with broomsticks "suspicious looking" Black men. Who knew?

 

[DarkAngel]

I have to agree Laurel

 

[Siren]

I couldnt believe it when I heard it myself.

 

[Darkstaff]

You're right...this is a bad move no matter who the political party is. This is why I hate a UniParty Washington...if this were done with a Democratic Congress you can believe that someone would have ridden Bush's ass until something were done about it. As it is theres no check or balance for any of Bush's policies...so as we see Bush is fixin to do what he pleases and the Constution and unreasonable search and seizure be damned. Kinda sad really.

 

[Weird Harold]

As it is theres no check or balance for any of Bush's policies...so as we see Bush is fixin to do what he pleases and the Constution and unreasonable search and seizure be damned. Kinda sad really.

From the article:
"However on Wednesday, Manhattan U.S. Attorney Mary Jo White said that under federal civil rights law, prosecutors would have to prove that the officers acted with the specific intent to use force that they knew at the time was unreasonable"

How is this about Bush or Clinton.

I don't believe Mary Jo White is a political appointee. She is a civil service employee, probably hired during the Clinton administration, and ccan't have gotten any direction from a Bush appointee, because Ascfroft has not been confirmed -- The justice department is still under the control of Janet Reno and the Clinton administration.

The officers involved are most certainly guilty of of having bad judgement and using excessive force. They are not the kind of officers I would want on my local police force.

However, I do think this is the right decision for the US justice department. If nothing else, prosecuting them on civil rights charges violates the spirit of the double jeopardy clause of the constitution. Let the civil case against them proceed and don't waste taxpayer dollars prosecuting a political witch hunt because their horrible mistake involved a black man and a foreigner.

 

[Ian1]

Speaking of all this Nazi stuff, I saw on the news this morning that they are going to form a new agency for counter terrorism on US soil. It had a name like, The National Homeland Protection Agency, or something of the like. Sounds great, but I guess a little martial law never hurt anyone.

 

[Siren]

It does not violate the spirit of the Constituion under double jeopardy....

 

[Darkstaff]

Harold...whether the man was black or not isn't my reason for wanting to see those cops prosecuted. I want to see them prosecuted so someone can send a message to law enforcement that its not ok to blow the hell out of anything that moves. I mean hell...even if it wasn't racism, then if I were white I'd be scared that cops like that would come blow the hell out of me for no damn reason. Either way they need to face justice.

Ian...damn that is fucked up. Damn this is why Animal Farm should be MANDATORY reading in schools...this is SO much like Napoleon and Squealer going, "well you dont want Jones coming back do you? Then let us do whatever we please...oh dont worry its for your own good." Then one day we wake up and theres a curfew out for all citizens...armed guards are patrolling our schools, and suddenly goverment aint the safest thing to talk about; the last person who did dissapeared the next day. I remember someone made a quote about tyrants, and it went something like "the tyrant who wrests power from the people by force is always in fear of losing it, but the tyrant who convinces the people to give up their rights for saftey's sake is a terror; he is confident that no one can take power from him."

 

[Weird Harold]

Harold...whether the man was black or not isn't my reason for wanting to see those cops prosecuted. I want to see them prosecuted so someone can send a message to law enforcement that its not ok to blow the hell out of anything that moves. I mean hell...even if it wasn't racism, then if I were white I'd be scared that cops like that would come blow the hell out of me for no damn reason. Either way they need to face justice.

They were tried and aquitted, just not by the federal government. They also face a multi-million dollar wrongful death civil suit. How is wasting taxpeayer dollars to prosecute them again for the same act (even if it's called a different crime) going to do more to make them "face justice?"

You didn't answer my main question though: How is this case an indicator of Bush's policies?

Siren, how does prosecution twice for the same singular act not violate the spirit of double jeopardy? It is still only one act no matter how many different names you apply to it. you said: "I suppose their constitutional rights under double jeopardy take precedence over a foreign black man's right to liberty under the constitution?" and I answer, that is what the law says. They have been tried and aquitted. Whether you agree with the verdict or not, the law says they are not guilty of the original charges. Renaming the act they committed to try them a second time is double jeopardy.

Let them face the civil suit and pay through the nose. Let the city foot the bill for its share of the responsibility for inadequate training. A huge cash award will do more for the man's family than all of the "justice" a civil rights charge could deliver.

 

[Darkstaff]

How is this an indicator of Bush's policies...hmmm...well let me see...Bush, (hell all republicans) have a policy of "white men took the country from the indians so the country is for us and us alone and anyone else be damned." So that Diallo thing is just a causality of war to Bush. If those had been 4 ethnic cops shooting at a white girl...oh my fucking god...I dont think we'd be here talking about it...they would have been ripped to shreds instantly by the lynch mob that formed 3 seconds later. Even if they hadnt Bush would want to personally want to head up the committie to investigate the obvious incompentence running rampant in the NYC Police Department, and you can believe that the US Goverment would be using every bullet in its legal arsenal to make sure those cops faced justice. As it is, well that was a kangaroo court anyway...kinda like when those 4 cops were accquitted of beating Rodney King or when OJ Simpson got off...I dare you to tell me Justice got served in any of those cases. Hey i'm sure youhave something to rationalize your next argument...and I'm glad...cause when it boils down to it...you're saying that its ok for cops to walk around with the itchy trigger finger. Hope all your logic stands up when those cops are lobbing bullets at you for fitting a description. Oh and its not Double Jeopardy...its trying them for a charge that NYC neglected to bring them up on.

 

[Weird Harold]

How is this an indicator of Bush's policies...hmmm...well let me see...Bush, (hell all republicans) have a policy of "white men took the country from the indians so the country is for us and us alone and anyone else be damned." So that Diallo thing is just a causality of war to Bush.

I suppose that the dmocrats don't have the same opinion? Experience and the fact that the justice department is still in Clinton appointees hands would seem to indicate that they do.

If those had been 4 ethnic cops shooting at a white girl...oh my fucking god...I dont think we'd be here talking about it...they would have been ripped to shreds instantly by the lynch mob that formed 3 seconds later.

I'm sure there is a large element of truth to that assertion, but it is a hypothetical situation that is quite distinct from the situation that exists.

Even if they hadnt Bush would want to personally want to head up the committie to investigate the obvious incompentence running rampant in the NYC Police Department, and you can believe that the US Goverment would be using every bullet in its legal arsenal to make sure those cops faced justice.

Actually, I seriously doubt that even GWB is that politically inept. The federal government bureacracy would be stepping very gingerly around the appearance of fairness if minority officers were involved.

As it is, well that was a kangaroo court anyway...kinda like when those 4 cops were accquitted of beating Rodney King or when OJ Simpson got off...I dare you to tell me Justice got served in any of those cases.

No, Justice was NOT served in those cases. The LAW was served -- or at least it was followed.

The four officers were subjected to a second federal trial for their actions that resulted in prison time.

OJ recieved a 30-some million dollar punitive judgement in a wrongful death civil suit.

What you seem to be saying, is that "12 men, good and true," a "Jury of their peers" and the rule of law is fine unless you disagree with the verdict. I don't know about NYC, but those officers were aquitted by 12 people selected at random from the rolls of registered voters if the juror selection process is anything like Nevada's.

I don't know why those jurors decided the way they did. What I do know, is they were presented the facts and were tasked with making the decision. The law says they are the source of that decision. I haven't had the facts presented, and the specific law explained to me, so I can't say whether I would have made the same decision. On the surface, it certainly appears that the force in this case was excessive -- 41 bullets from four officers (that hit the target) is much more deadly force than would seem reasonable.

Still, in a vaguely similar case that happened on the back side of my apartment building, six officers only hit the man with only 30 bullets. Of course, the major difference there was the "victim" started shooting first, severely damaging the ballistic vest of one officer and wounding another in the hand.

Hey i'm sure you have something to rationalize your next argument...and I'm glad...cause when it boils down to it...you're saying that its ok for cops to walk around with the itchy trigger finger. Hope all your logic stands up when those cops are lobbing bullets at you for fitting a description.

The problem is not with the verdict, the problem is that cops are human and not even the best training can prepare them for everything. I have been stopped for "fitting a description" and have even been hauled off in handcuffs once when I was a DFK. Thanks to a neighbor who was in charge of the local highway patrol office, I don't think I've got to worry about them lobbing bullets at me because I'm not going to just reach for my wallet without telling them what I'm doing.

Of course the fact that I'm also a mature white male reduces my risks a great deal.

Oh and its not Double Jeopardy...its trying them for a charge that NYC neglected to bring them up on.

However they choose to weasel-word things to call the same act by several different names, it is still being tried for the same actions. By a technical reading of the double jeopardy clause, it is legal because they are different crimes being tried. However, the spirit of the double jeopardy clause is severely strained by that technicality. The fact remains that people are being tried several times for the same action because the first verdict isn't "satisfactory" for some reason.

BTW, NYC didn't "neglect" to bring the civil rights charge, they didn't have the jurisdiction to try that particular charge.

There are a lot of things that should be changed about our legal system, but while the system remains unchanged, I'll stand by the decision of the "12 men, good and true" tasked with deciding a case. Whether they were swayed by expensive "dream teams," deceived by unscrupulous prosecutors, uninformed by incompetent defense lawers, or just decided on some esoteric personal bias, the jury has the job of deciding the case. Jurors, prosecutors, and defense attorneys are human beings and subject to human failings.

Until we build a way to remove the human element from policework and trials, there are going to be errors made -- some of them deadly errors. Second guessing the decisions of those who know the details of a case is counter-productive and wastes time that could be used to eliminate repetitions of the error.

Worse, ascribing dire motives to the President based on the decision of a civil service employee hired by his predecessor's administration is willful blindness to reality. The Attorney(s) who made this decision may be rabid Democratic party loyalists, but the decision was probably based on factors that didn't make it into the news reports and you will never know.

The solution to trigger-happy cops who shoot black people 40 times, is not persecution through specious additional names for their deadly error. The solution is better training and procedures to keep someone else from being shot for reaching for his wallet. The victim would probably not have been shot if he were white, or even a well-spoken, well dressed black man. However, what proportion of people shooting at police officers are white?

"Racial profiling" is not a good thing. Any decision made only on the basis of race, gender, ethnicity, or any other prejudice is bad. However, if most of the people shooting at me are wearing red bandanas, then I'm going to react a bit quicker to a perceived threat from a person wearing red. That's not racial profilingor prejudice; that's threat assessment based on experience.

 

[Darkstaff]

Extremely logical argument...Actual Guilt vs Legal Innocence and vice versa. (Preeceding sentence rife with sarcasm) For the record...I never said that a Jury always gets the cases right...and when someone is so obviously guilty then I do disagree with the verdict. Innocent until proven guilty was meant for situations like..."Someone turns up dead on a highway with no clues and no evidence and the local hick sherrif started pointin fingers till he found someone to take the rap." Anymore it seems to be used in cases such as "Well we saw them do it in broad daylight, and we saw their blood and stuff there...and someone even confessed to it...however the defense slandered one of their girlfriends so the jury didnt buy it so as far as we're concerned he's innocent." I think after a while a modicium of common sense should take over...if x person is so blantly obviously guilty/innocent and manipulation turns the case results contrary to the facts, then hell yeah I dont agree with the results. What would you have me say..."Well x person by all logic, reasoning, and evidence is a murderer...but his daddy bought the court and they said he was innocent so he must be so."

 

[Weird Harold]

Innocent until proven guilty was meant for situations like..."Someone turns up dead on a highway with no clues and no evidence and the local hick sherrif started pointin fingers till he found someone to take the rap."

"Innocent until proven guilty" was meant as the foundation of our legal system. It wasn't meant for any specific or range of scenarios. It means exactly what it says as far as the legal system is concerned.

Anymore it seems to be used in cases such as "Well we saw them do it in broad daylight, and we saw their blood and stuff there...and someone even confessed to it...however the defense slandered one of their girlfriends so the jury didnt buy it so as far as we're concerned he's innocent." I think after a while a modicium of common sense should take over...

I totally agree with this sentiment. Now how about some suggestions as to how to inject some common sense into the legal system. Rules of evidence that don't set people free because the officer who found it didn't have "probable cause" to look where he did.

Something like a law that lets evidence stand no matter how it was obtained, but punishes the officer for breaking the law to obtain it.

Or maybe something along the lines of "if it doesn't change the facts, slander of girlfriends is irrelevant."

There are far too many rules to protect the integrity of the process which are used to pervert it. Close the loopholes and give the victims a few more rights than the criminal.

My disatifaction with many of the loopholes and restrictions placed on law-enforcement doesn't change the fact that as the legal system stands now, "Legal innocence" (no matter how sarcastically you regard it,) is the law of the land. If we revert back to the "Vigilance Committees" of 19th century San Francisco, the rope slowing our handbasket to hell is going to break. I'd rather look for ways to reinforce the rope than fray it.