Is Ted Cruz Satan? Discuss.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by Adder

When? Because I'm pretty sure that happens now after an indictment.

I'm not necessarily against more disclosure to the defense, but I'm just not sure what role they would play inside the grand jury room, unless you're going to have a mini-trial, in which case, why have a grand jury.

I don't remember these rules well enough, as my days being a crim defense lawyer were many years ago. It's possible that you get the evidence once an indictment issues. But even so -- I would want to see the witnesses who testify against my client. I don't get to depose them, after all.

All this obviously has nothing to do with the recent grand jury fiascos, of course.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

Reading it is the right thing to do. But what do you think about passing the law?

TM

[In case you assume my mood is where it actually has been over the past week, this is a weak attempt at a joke.]

It's ok -- I got it, and I fully understand your mood (to the extent I can, not being in your particular shoes).

I never watched the video of Garner's murder (yes, that's what it was) before today. I read enough about it to (1) know I'd find it sickening and (2) believe there was no way the cop wouldn't be prosecuted. I forced myself to watch it today, in the wake of this decision. I sincerely cannot believe that a person could watch this and not think that the cop was likely guilty of a crime. (I would think much worse, but I'm using a rough approximation of the indictment standard.)

I've read that the cop said he didn't mean to choke Garner. That is not possible. He choked him from standing position on down, and stayed on him. This is a cop with some degree of training (the choke was technically decent). He knew exactly what he was doing and knew that it was potentially lethal.

I really am at a loss for words. I don't think I have ever felt quite so ashamed to be a white man in America as at this moment.

[Sidd Finch]

Originally Posted by ThurgreedMarshall

http://www.newyorker.com/news/amy-da...NTgwNTA0MTk1S0

"A central issue in cases like this is a failure to fully value black lives. That alone can be deadly. But we should also ask about a companion problem, one that shows itself the most with regard to accountability: an over-weighting of white intentions. As any prosecutor knows, there are offenses on the books that don’t turn on a will to murder, or crude racism, or even unkindness. Officer Pantaleo says that he didn’t want to kill anyone; Officer Wilson was scared. Each of them might still have been charged with a crime."

This is an interesting point. We (or at least, I) focus so much on what the jurors think of the black victim in these cases and how so many Fox-fuckers require blacks to achieve perfect victim status in order to avoid deserving being put down like a rabid dog in the street. But this willingness to believe whatever white cops say to a jury is a problem probably of the same scale. Not all cops are bad, but jesus fucking christ. Not all cops are good. And the cops involved in shootings of unarmed people are probably the ones who trend bad and should not be given the benefit of the doubt on every fucking thing they say.

TM

I think it is definitely more about over-weighting white intentions, particularly white cop intentions, than about not valuing black lives (though the two are related).

Years ago I heard a radio show by Mumia Abu-Jamal on this particular subject. He called it, pardon the expression, "the 'Big Nigger' Defense."

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Once upon a time, part of the answer always suggested to this kind of crap was more training.

But post-broken-windows-policing, training often involves teaching cops that they have to be aggressive and establish they're in charge. In other words, they're being trained to do exactly this shit.

In Wilson's case, he even got training in Israel, where martial law means civil rights don't even exist to be ignored.

The Chris Lollie case in the St Paul skyways drove this home for me. Cops were called for trespassing (in an area that was arguably public - the city attorney concluded it was). He refused to show ID when questioned and walked away. A cop followed him for several blocks, demanding ID until backup arrived, who put his hands on Lollie and then ultimately used the taser to bring him down and cuff him.

Why? The alleged trespass was over. What possible need was there to keep pursuing him, much less subject him to violence?

Oh, right, he was a black man who did not comply with an officer. We can't have that.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

I don't remember these rules well enough, as my days being a crim defense lawyer were many years ago. It's possible that you get the evidence once an indictment issues. But even so -- I would want to see the witnesses who testify against my client. I don't get to depose them, after all.

All this obviously has nothing to do with the recent grand jury fiascos, of course.

How's this for insight: this week's Serial included a discovery issue.

None of my crim defense experience has resulted in an indictment (nominally there have been grand juries I guess, but practically speaking just federal lawyers and then closed investigation or guilty plea), but I had always understood that the prosecution in this type of case had disclosure obligations. These days I wonder - again in part because of Serial - whether that doesn't include taped police interviews.

But you have a point about seeing GJ testimony. No idea whether it's ever taped or if the tapes need to be turned over.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Sidd Finch

Are they really?

Charles Krauthammer, the only pundit over there with any integrity, called it "incomprehensible." Other less esteemed sorts there have echoed this sentiment, but I think it's just because Krauthammer said it first, so they felt the need to do so.

...But of course, even Krauthammer had to offer a caveat noting Obama's focus on the racial element of the story (what else is there to it?), was "not helping things."

[sebastian_dangerfield]

The entire purpose of the Grand Jury, as I understand it, is to see whether there is enough evidence to proceed to trial. Not to see whether any of the evidence can be explained or contradicted, but just whether there is enough to proceed.

Why not just go straight to a preliminary hearing?

I support having defense counsel present so they can hear the evidence that's being used, and so they can object to evidence that truly should not be used. But it makes no sense -- and unindicted defendants should not have this burden -- to have defense try to refute the evidence.

I think a lot would want this option.

This -- that the purpose is just to see if there is enough evidence to proceed -- is what makes me so suspicious of these two grand juries, where it seems certain that the so-called prosecutors put in defense evidence, and tanked their own cases.

A mix of that and grand jury nullification.

As for secrecy -- I've never fully understood it but I think part of the purpose is to protect the defendant from having a jury hear the evidence that was used to indict him, which came in without the protections a defendant would have at trial. I'm not sure that's a good enough reason, but baby, bathwater, etc.

I go back to my initial comment here. There is no defensible basis to conduct proceedings in which decisions are made about whether individuals will be subjected to potential loss of liberty and enormous defense burdens (emotional and $$$) without the target at least having the option of defending himself.

If you can't get a GJ to indict with the defendant and his counsel present, you don't have a case. I say we do away with GCs altogether and go straight to preliminary hearings.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

The last time I got called to jury duty, the judge asked everyone to consider serving on a grand jury, as there were some openings coming up. I think it was a three month term. I took the information sheet, thinking I'd give it to my mom, who was the only person I could think of who met the criteria.

The only people who could consider such a thing are people who don't work or school or small kids they're taking care of and have reliable transportation to the courthouse every day (or three days, or however long), and have nothing better to do. They see cops as good guys every single time they convene. They indict black men all of the time, so they wouldn't have any difficulty believing that cigarette sale/cigarillo theft is just the tip of the iceberg.

2. The daytime TV watching crowd shouldn't be deciding anything. They do quite enough damage at the voting booth already.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I think this shit has been going on forever, but it's a little easier to get the word out now with mass communication and media. I wish the Cosby thing surprised me more, but I should have known better than to assume that a cultivated persona was in any way similar to the real person.

People in power will abuse that power.

2 again. But the Cosby thing is a bit surprising. I'd not heard those rumors before, and that's some seriously disturbing shit. Mere "rape" doesn't cover it. The guy's a methodical serial rapist who's m.o. is drugging victims.

Lovable Dr. Huxtable in the funky sweaters is damn close to Dr. Lecter in the hockey mask. There's one more artifact of childhood dipped in shit.

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Why not just go straight to a preliminary hearing?



I think a lot would want this option.



A mix of that and grand jury nullification.



I go back to my initial comment here. There is no defensible basis to conduct proceedings in which decisions are made about whether individuals will be subjected to potential loss of liberty and enormous defense burdens (emotional and $$$) without the target at least having the option of defending himself.

If you can't get a GJ to indict with the defendant and his counsel present, you don't have a case. I say we do away with GCs altogether and go straight to preliminary hearings.

You realize that doing this is taking away a protection for the accused, right?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

2 again. But the Cosby thing is a bit surprising. I'd not heard those rumors before, and that's some seriously disturbing shit. Mere "rape" doesn't cover it. The guy's a methodical serial rapist who's m.o. is drugging victims.

Lovable Dr. Huxtable in the funky sweaters is damn close to Dr. Lecter in the hockey mask. There's one more artifact of childhood dipped in shit.

I know the right has been on a tear about "real rape" and charging that feminists like me are trying to make "borderline cases" where little George Will, Jr. just thought someone liked to say no during sex into something ugly, but I actually think the bulk of rapes out there are premeditated, disturbing acts by serial rapists, and that a lot of them involve alcohol and drugs as a way to make victims more pliable. I'm sure Cosby figured Polanski did it, why shouldn't he.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Once upon a time, part of the answer always suggested to this kind of crap was more training.

But post-broken-windows-policing, training often involves teaching cops that they have to be aggressive and establish they're in charge. In other words, they're being trained to do exactly this shit.

In Wilson's case, he even got training in Israel, where martial law means civil rights don't even exist to be ignored.

A cop on NPR last night said that the first suggestion is always "more training" but the NYC cops are the best trained in the world. Other agencies send their guys to be trained by NYC. He flat out said that it's that cops are racist.

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Two ways our justice system has broken down all over the front pages:

Cops shooting black men and boys without repercussion.

Women and girls getting raped, whether by Cosby, UVa preppies, or military brass, without repercussion.

Related? Unrelated? Vent at will.

The justice system hasn't broken down. It never worked. It is inherently flawed because it relies on the judgment of people and people have biases that make the system inherently unfair. It has always been that way. It will always be that way. We just see it more now because all information is now accessible in a way it never used to be.

The trick is to make an effort to get white people to understand the inherent biases in the system. The knee-jerk reaction, as I've said many times before, for many white people when confronted with the result of that bias is to look for any possible excuse why it might not be the product of racism (conscious or unconscious). If there's no smoking gun evidence of outright, in-your-face racism, it might as well not have happened.

You can point to all kinds of numbers (for the best example, the death penalty cannot and is not applied fairly, see "Black Defendants and the Race of the Victims" section in this link: http://www.deathpenaltyinfo.org/deat...-decides#Black), but it doesn't matter because the story told in people's heads is: Black men are dangerous criminals who need to be locked up.

That internalized idea influences the entire justice system from cops stopping black people and arresting them for possession when whites buy and use drugs at the exact same (or higher) rates, to who gets indicted, to how judges and juries view defendants and victims, to sentencing, to appeals, to parole review, to hiring after being incarcerated, etc., ad nauseum.

The question is, how do you get white people to recognize any of this? And how can you possibly effect any kind of change at all?

This is the best article I've seen on all of this so far: http://www.salon.com/2014/12/03/whit..._of_whiteness/

For rape and other assaults on, and general treatment of, women, just replace "black men" with "women" and "white people" with "men."

Originally Posted by Adder

All of the suck in the world is the fault of men. Nearly all of it is the fault of white men.

Historically? Probably. But let's be honest. People in positions of power are at fault for all the suck in the world. White men have just been in power the most.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by Replaced_Texan

I think this shit has been going on forever, but it's a little easier to get the word out now with mass communication and media. I wish the Cosby thing surprised me more, but I should have known better than to assume that a cultivated persona was in any way similar to the real person.

People in power will abuse that power.

Fuck. stp, TM. stp.

TM

[ThurgreedMarshall]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

But the Cosby thing is a bit surprising. I'd not heard those rumors before, and that's some seriously disturbing shit. Mere "rape" doesn't cover it. The guy's a methodical serial rapist who's m.o. is drugging victims.

I heard someone say he's the most successful serial rapist in the history of this country. And when you can't think of why that statement is wrong, it's very depressing.

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Lovable Dr. Huxtable in the funky sweaters is damn close to Dr. Lecter in the hockey mask. There's one more artifact of childhood dipped in shit.

So difficult to try to divorce his personal behavior from his professional work. But that show was so important for so many reasons that I need to leave it on a mental shelf as I sweep all the rest of his shit into the trash.

TM