Jump to content

Defund the Police

406W30th

By 406W30th
in Cloak Room

 Share

Recommended Posts

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Replies 1.2k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

406W30th
406W30th

Our police state needs a complete overhaul – not just incremental reforms here and there. There's been lots of traction on social media about the idea of defunding the police and while it sounds a bit

Foosters
Foosters

I worked a couple years in a courthouse that served primarily a Latino area of town. All criminal fillings were misdemeanors in this particular courthouse. What I saw was a systematic war wa

Anastasis
Anastasis

Sadly, distributing tanks and humvees to local police department is a much more efficient political transaction than establishing assertive community based mental health care programs. Local police ge

Posted Images

Gap03

Gap03 3303

Posted
Posted

I did not expect a reasonable decision coming out of the Fifth Circuit, but fuck me runnin' ...

Cops Arrested Her for Exercising Her First Amendment Rights. They Got Qualified Immunity—but the Appeals Court Wasn't Having It. - Reason.com

Spoiler

But Villarreal found herself in a jail cell after breaking those two relatively benign stories concerning deaths in the community, charged with two third-degree felony counts of "misuse of official information" under Texas Penal Code § 39.06(c). That she asked for and obtained the information in typical journalistic fashion—from the Laredo Police Department (LPD) itself—didn't matter to the cops, who zeroed in on Villarreal as the first person they would ever seek to prosecute under that Texas statute.

The charges were eventually dismissed as baseless and the law ruled unconstitutionally vague. But those officers were given qualified immunity for violating her First Amendment, Fourth Amendment, and 14th Amendment rights when they arrested and detained her, thus preventing her from holding them accountable in civil court. The legal doctrine of qualified immunity protects public officials from facing civil suits if the precise way they went about violating your rights was not "clearly established" by the courts at the time.

Yet in a testament to the subjectivity of the decisions surrounding what should be objective liberties, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit Monday rejected the lower court's reasoning, removing qualified immunity from the cops on the bulk of Villarreal's claims and permitting her to state her case before a jury.

"This is not just an obvious constitutional infringement—it's hard to imagine a more textbook violation of the First Amendment," wrote Judge James C. Ho. "If the freedom of speech secured by the First Amendment includes the right to curse at a public official, then it surely includes the right to politely ask that official a few questions as well." Villarreal asked those questions of LPD Officer Barbara Goodman, who of her own free will provided the journalist with the information she requested.

The 5th Circuit likewise sided with Villarreal on her wrongful arrest claim, as well as her allegation that the cops violated the Equal Protection Clause to selectively enforce the law against her.

Much about the decision is noteworthy. Ho, for one, is by no means known for his opposition to qualified immunity; the judge previously said that police officers must retain the protections in order "to stop mass shootings." So it's significant that Ho emphasized that the 5th Circuit need not find a nearly indistinguishable precedent in order to show that the constitutional right at issue was "clearly established"—which is often the defining element of a qualified immunity case, and the reason why the doctrine has greenlit so much egregious government misconduct, like stealing, assault, and property damage.

To support his position, Ho cited the Supreme Court's 2020 decision in Taylor v. Riojas, which dealt with a group of prison guards who originally received qualified immunity after forcing a naked inmate into two deplorable cells swarming with human feces and raw sewage. The Supreme Court overturned that grant of qualified immunity and rejected the notion that the victim could not sue simply because he couldn't pinpoint a ruling that matched his experience almost identically.

That's not necessary here either, said Ho: The constitutional violation is just that absurdly apparent.

"Crucially, the decision also says that officers can't hide behind obviously unconstitutional statutes," says Jaba Tsitsuashvili, an attorney at the Institute for Justice, a public interest law firm that filed an amicus brief in support of Villarreal. "In other words…'we were just enforcing the law' is not a categorical defense against a civil lawsuit for violating" a constitutional right.

Perhaps ironically, the 5th Circuit's decision Monday coincided with the Supreme Court declining to hear Frasier v. Evans, a case in which a group of Denver police officers received qualified immunity after conducting a warrantless search of a man's tablet in an attempt to delete a video he took of the officers beating a suspect during an arrest for an alleged drug deal.

It doesn't feel like the courts are going to be able to find a way to apply this doctrine sensibly and consistently, but it's nice when even the blind pigs of the Fifth Circuit can find an acorn ...

  • Fuck Around and Find Out 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 34699

Posted
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, Bama Chick said:

Serving and protecting, y’all.

 

The video is real, the description is not. The cops were called about the aggressive dog that had bitten a child and mailman and was off-leash attacking people.

https://www.wrtv.com/news/public-safety/terre-haute-police-respond-to-video-showing-officer-kicking-dog
 

Quote

he post accompanying the video says a police sergeant responded after 7 p.m. Monday to calls about an aggressive pit bull in the 1700 block of Ohio Street that had been “charging at everyone that goes by.”

The sergeant was told the dog previously “has bitten a child and a mailman and is very, very aggressive” and that the dog’s behavior was an ongoing problem.

In the body-worn camera video, the sergeant walked through the neighborhood where he encountered the white pit bull and a brown dog running at the officer. The sergeant spoke to a neighbor about the dogs before approaching the house depicted in the video posted to social media.

 

Edited by 956 Worldwide
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13029

Posted
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The video is real, the description is not. The cops were called about the aggressive dog that had bitten a child and mailman and was off-leash attacking people.

https://www.wrtv.com/news/public-safety/terre-haute-police-respond-to-video-showing-officer-kicking-dog
 

 

Was the dog acting aggressive towards the officer in any way? Sure didn’t look like it.

Also the person who tweeted initially disputes what the police have said and claims to have shown police evidence of the break in.

Edited by hobbes2702
Link to comment
Share on other sites
956 Worldwide

956 Worldwide 34699

Posted
Posted
7 hours ago, hobbes2702 said:

Was the dog acting aggressive towards the officer in any way? Sure didn’t look like it.

Also the person who tweeted initially disputes what the police have said and claims to have shown police evidence of the break in.

The police have released body camera footage that shows more. The dog owner also showed “break in evidence” a few hours after he’d been cited for having a non-immunized dog and allowing a dangerous animal outside, and he had been cited when the same damn dog bit a little girl while loose in the neighborhood. He said that the “intruders” let his dog out, in other words, bullshit trying to get out of a ticket. 
 

Every scrap of evidence here is garbage people with a biting dog with no shots they don’t keep penned up. Although I do agree, kicking the dog was not the right response. Animal control should have taken the animal, euthanized it, and sent the owner a bill. People who let dogs run loose in town can FAFO.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mywabashvalley.com/news/local-news/thpd-responds-to-viral-video-of-officer-kicking-dog-places-man-involved-on-administrative-leave/amp/

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13029

Posted
Posted
12 minutes ago, 956 Worldwide said:

The police have released body camera footage that shows more. The dog owner also showed “break in evidence” a few hours after he’d been cited for having a non-immunized dog and allowing a dangerous animal outside, and he had been cited when the same damn dog bit a little girl while loose in the neighborhood. He said that the “intruders” let his dog out, in other words, bullshit trying to get out of a ticket. 
 

Every scrap of evidence here is garbage people with a biting dog with no shots they don’t keep penned up. Although I do agree, kicking the dog was not the right response. Animal control should have taken the animal, euthanized it, and sent the owner a bill. People who let dogs run loose in town can FAFO.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.mywabashvalley.com/news/local-news/thpd-responds-to-viral-video-of-officer-kicking-dog-places-man-involved-on-administrative-leave/amp/

I agree with everything you said here. There’s no need for the cruelty. If the dog was violent and not up to date then scoop it up. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16918

Posted
Posted
3 hours ago, GopherRock said:

 

For those unfamilar with the Stallings case...

 

The POST board is Minnesota's police licensing board. It's a slow process to make the changes outlined in the first article, but things are moving in the right direction.

The article is crazy.  Where citizens are expected to use more restraint that the police, and the ex-military guy has a higher standards of rules of engagement than the police.   They need to be disarmed.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
GopherRock

GopherRock 1765

Posted
Posted

The jury is working their second day of deliberations on the case of Kim Potter, who was the Brooklyn Center cop who tried to tase a driver but drew her service weapon instead, shooting and killing the driver. She's facing 1st and 2nd degree manslaughter. She took the stand in her own defense, but couldn't explain her actions while there. That said, no one seems to have any idea what this jury is going to do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13029

Posted
Posted
8 minutes ago, GopherRock said:

The jury is working their second day of deliberations on the case of Kim Potter, who was the Brooklyn Center cop who tried to tase a driver but drew her service weapon instead, shooting and killing the driver. She's facing 1st and 2nd degree manslaughter. She took the stand in her own defense, but couldn't explain her actions while there. That said, no one seems to have any idea what this jury is going to do.

Not a lawyer but how the fuck is that not a murder charge?

”yea I thought the machete was a pool noodle and next thing I knew the guys head fell off”

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11362

Posted
Posted
11 minutes ago, GopherRock said:

The jury is working their second day of deliberations on the case of Kim Potter, who was the Brooklyn Center cop who tried to tase a driver but drew her service weapon instead, shooting and killing the driver. She's facing 1st and 2nd degree manslaughter. She took the stand in her own defense, but couldn't explain her actions while there. That said, no one seems to have any idea what this jury is going to do.

 

2 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

Not a lawyer but how the fuck is that not a murder charge?

”yea I thought the machete was a pool noodle and next thing I knew the guys head fell off”

i'm conflicted about this one. 

on the one hand, i think she panicked and made a mistake in the moment. on the other, you're a trained fucking cop, and step one of having a firearm is knowing you are holding it and where you are pointing it. i've never held a taser, but she did say "taser taser taser" before shooting the poor guy. so i think she just froze.

but that's still got to come with repercussions. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
hobbes2702

hobbes2702 13029

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, hayden_horn said:

 

i'm conflicted about this one. 

on the one hand, i think she panicked and made a mistake in the moment. on the other, you're a trained fucking cop, and step one of having a firearm is knowing you are holding it and where you are pointing it. i've never held a taser, but she did say "taser taser taser" before shooting the poor guy. so i think she just froze.

but that's still got to come with repercussions. 

I get all that but my point is if all you have to do to prevent a murder charge is claim you didn’t know you were using the murder weapon then we have a problem. Do we think anyone who’s not a cop could use the “I didn’t know” defense? Maybe I’m wrong but I sure as shot don’t.

  • Hook 'Em 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11362

Posted
Posted
Just now, hobbes2702 said:

I get all that but my point is if all you have to do to prevent a murder charge is claim you didn’t know you were using the murder weapon then we have a problem. Do we think anyone who’s not a cop could use the “I didn’t know” defense? Maybe I’m wrong but I sure as shot don’t.

no, i get all that too. it's why i'm conflicted about it. i mean, i've never held a taser, but i imagine it feels materially different than a handgun. and i believe they carry them on different hips to ease confusion.

i dunno. it's a weird one for me. i totally understand your point.

  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wildcat09

wildcat09 29345

Posted
Posted
20 minutes ago, hobbes2702 said:

I get all that but my point is if all you have to do to prevent a murder charge is claim you didn’t know you were using the murder weapon then we have a problem. Do we think anyone who’s not a cop could use the “I didn’t know” defense? Maybe I’m wrong but I sure as shot don’t.

You're not wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Foosters

Foosters 17828

Posted
Posted

From out west. Torrance PD is full of racist extremists, and now hundreds of convictions could be overturned:

Quote

The caption read “hanging with the homies.”

The picture above it showed several Black men who had been lynched.

Another photo asked what someone should do if their girlfriend was having an affair with a Black man. The answer, according to the caption, was to break “a tail light on his car so the police will stop him and shoot him.”

Someone else sent a picture of a candy cane, a Christmas tree ornament, a star for the top of the tree and an “enslaved person.”

“Which one doesn’t belong?” the caption asked.

“You don’t hang the star,” someone wrote back.

The comments represent a sliver of a trove of racist text messages exchanged by more than a dozen current and former Torrance police officers and recruits.

Through interviews with sources with direct knowledge of the investigation, public records requests and a review of district attorney’s office records, The Times examined some of the contents of the until-now secret texts and identified a dozen Torrance police officers under investigation for exchanging them.

The broad scope of the racist text conversations, which prosecutors said went on for years, has created a crisis for the Torrance Police Department and could jeopardize hundreds of criminal cases in which the officers either testified or made arrests. California Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta said Wednesday his office will investigate the department in the wake of the scandal.

 

Quote

The officers’ comments spared no color or creed: They joked about “gassing” Jewish people, assaulting members of the LGBTQ community, using violence against suspects and lying during an investigation into a police shooting, according to district attorney’s office records reviewed by The Times.

 

Quote

While no officers currently face criminal charges in direct relation to the text messages, the racist exchanges have led to the dismissal of at least 85 criminal cases involving the officers implicated in the scandal. County prosecutors had tossed 35 felony cases as of mid-November, and the Torrance city attorney’s office has dismissed an additional 50, officials said.

In total, the officers were listed as potential witnesses in nearly 1,400 cases in the last decade, according to district attorney’s records The Times obtained through a public records request. The officers did not necessarily testify in each case, so it’s unclear how many of those cases could be affected.

 

  • Rage+1 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
hayden_horn

hayden_horn 11362

Posted
Posted

honestly, and I'm not a law dog, but i don't get hpw you can guilty of both greater and lesser charges. she shit the dude. it's either first degree or second degree. i don't understand how both are a thing. i am sure there's some convoluted legal reason for it, but it's counterintuitive for me

Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31438

Posted
Posted (edited)
39 minutes ago, hayden_horn said:

honestly, and I'm not a law dog, but i don't get hpw you can guilty of both greater and lesser charges. she shit the dude. it's either first degree or second degree. i don't understand how both are a thing. i am sure there's some convoluted legal reason for it, but it's counterintuitive for me

In some circumstances, an offense will have an element, not present in the other, lesser offense, so one can be convicted of both, with the lesser offense being called a "lesser included offense."  If the defendant was convicted of both, for sentencing purposes, the lesser offense is ignored.  It is charged as a fallback.

Typically, the jury is instructed to consider the higher charge first, and, if answers "no" to any of the guilt questions, moves on to the lesser offense.  If it answers yes to all of the guilt questions, then it is told to stop.  So it is somewhat unusual to have convictions for both.

In this case, it doesn't make much sense.  This is 1st Degree. https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.20 And this is 2nd.  https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/cite/609.205

The only part of 1st degree that makes any sense at all is 2), which basically means you committed a misdemeanor assault and it went wrong and killed the person.  2nd degree, 1) makes perfect sense.

It does not appear to me that 2nd degree is a "lesser included offense" of 1st degree.  MN law may hold different.  I honestly think the jury fucked up by convicting of 1st degree.  Tasing, by a civilian, might be a misdemeanor assault, and it went wrong when she grabbed the gun.  But, tasing by a cop is not an assault at all, assuming it would have been justified.  And drawing a gun is not a misdemeanor assault.

Every time I read another state's statutes, compared to federal or Texas statutes, I am struck that their legislators have a case of incipient verbal diarrhea and their statutes could gag a maggot off a meat wagon.  Apparently, Minnesota's code of criminal procedure is fucked up, too, or the judge fucked up the instructions.

Edited by TwiceHorn
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TwiceHorn

TwiceHorn 31438

Posted
Posted
19 hours ago, elfenix said:

I would assume that's so that, if on appeal the first degree is overturned, the second doesn't have to go back to trial.

That could be true.

I know in federal practice, a lesser included offense is usually instructed in the jury charge as an option, rather than full questions on both offenses.  I thought Texas practice was the same way.  But my recollection may be faulty, or my initial knowledge of it.

It may vary, too, on the indictment and whether the lesser included offense is not charged in the indictment, but  is included in the jury charge because of a "trial amendment" made by the parties during the trial.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Brisketexan

Brisketexan 105061

Posted
Posted
https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/587211-evidence-believed-to-be-lost-in-west-memphis-3-case-reportedly-found-at
 
Lawyer has to get the court to provide him access to police where he promptly finds "lost evidence".

She was shopping for her quinceanera.
Evidence for police reform continues to mount...
https://news.yahoo.com/few-bad-apples-racist-text-125507456.html
Department previously sued for racism, continues to have issues..


From the story in the last post: “The whole apple orchard called American law enforcement is rotten to the core.”

If you believe anything other than that, you’re lying to yourself, and not even doing a good job of it.

They purposefully lie and conceal evidence. They unabashedly think, say, and act on shit that would make a Klan member blush. They openly side against democracy. American cops dream of being the SS, the Stasi, the Blackshirts, etc.

The awful truth we need to realize is that reforming American police is impossible. It’s like trying to make a bowl full of turds, splashed with a cup of punch, drinkable. It can’t be done. And that realization is awful. Because a functioning society needs a functioning law enforcement apparatus. I don’t see a path forward to having one.
  • Hook 'Em 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
0xdeadbeef

0xdeadbeef 1645

Posted
Posted
On 1/5/2022 at 2:23 PM, Zonahorn said:

What the fuck

How is this corrupt or inhumane?  I assume the only reason to go through this extra effort is to solve a problem of some type. Drug laced paper?  Hidden messages?  No mail at all would be cruel, but I don't get this guy's objection. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16918

Posted
Posted
16 minutes ago, 0xdeadbeef said:

How is this corrupt or inhumane?  I assume the only reason to go through this extra effort is to solve a problem of some type. Drug laced paper?  Hidden messages?  No mail at all would be cruel, but I don't get this guy's objection. 

I am sure it will be an excellent copy completely legible and not washed out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nivek

Nivek 16918

Posted
Posted
On 1/5/2022 at 2:17 PM, Zonahorn said:

Good, now throw his ass in prison.

We can't have that now. Nor can we take away his option to be a cop in another county.    If we try that, we might have to give him his job back, a promotion and backpay.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Celery Man

Celery Man 20931

Posted
Posted
21 hours ago, Bullneck said:

Cop Seen On Video Grabbing Fellow Officer By Her Throat

An officer in Florida tried to deescalate a situation between a suspect and her colleague. That's when Sgt. Christopher Pullease grabbed her by the throat.
 

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


Football ... Basketball ... Baseball ... Other Sports ... Futbol ... 🤫995🤫 ... Gambling ... Movies & TV ... Music ... Hobbies ... Lulz ... Food & Travel ... Daily Texan ... Business and Markets ... Cloak Room ... Help ... For Sale ... Board Discussion ... Subscribe!... Donate!... Advertise... COOKIE MONSTER!

×
×
  • Create New...