Police Behaving Badly

[Vt-Freeheel]

Read more post less

[Benny Profane]

Trouble is, there's no appeal for a not guilty verdict in a criminal trial. I don't know what options the prosecution has to get the judge tossed--probably not many. I guess the prosecution has to hope for a mistrial because it seems unlikely that there won't be at least one closet white supremacist on the jury.

Yeah, this looks like a fuck it, Hail Mary by a judge who could give a fuck and maybe near retirement and a pension. Like the judge who was shopped for the sweet deal in the Sackler/Purdue settlement. He turned around and announced his retirement. Nah na nah na. How do you like me now?

[old goat]

Yeah, this looks like a fuck it, Hail Mary by a judge who could give a fuck and maybe near retirement and a pension. Like the judge who was shopped for the sweet deal in the Sackler/Purdue settlement. He turned around and announced his retirement. Nah na nah na. How do you like me now?

I think you're missing one "na". At least the way I learned it. Nah na na Nah na.

[riser4]

Smoke crack, then post.

fify

[Mazderati]

Supreme court refuses to hear case that could have removed any question about citizens' right to film police. So, when someone says they have the right to film police, well, that's just their opinion, man.

https://reason.com/2021/11/01/the-su...lm-the-police/


Lots of judges behaving badly as of late.

[old goat]

Maybe the court will reconsider after some cop kicks the shit out of Clarence Thomas.

[Harry]

Supreme court refuses to hear case that could have removed any question about citizens' right to film police. So, when someone says they have the right to film police, well, that's just their opinion, man.

https://reason.com/2021/11/01/the-su...lm-the-police/


Lots of judges behaving badly as of late.

That is a really fucked up decision.

Can you imagine the right wing outrage if the court applied that decision to the 2nd Ammendment ?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[Buster Highmen]

dark days in a declining democracy.

[dunfree]

That is a really fucked up decision.

Can you imagine the right wing outrage if the court applied that decision to the 2nd Ammendment ?


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

And you’d get it from hacks like Samuel “you need a gun to take the subway” alito first.

whole lotta legal/justice system shitbirds unused to scrutiny

[SumJongGuy]

Just saw video of the judge in the Rittenhouse case commenting on bible verses... Holy shit... same judge who ordered the unarmed people he shot can't be referred to as "victims"

[seano732]

And they just removed a juror……For telling a racist joke about the Jacob Blake shooting. JFC.
https://twitter.com/shannonrwatts/st...616362499?s=21

[old goat]

Question. When there is no legal recourse when the police abuse or kill innocent people, does that make the average cop feel safer? The reason we have courts is so that justice is not administered on the streets. When the courts fail to provide justice, what other alternative is there?

[Benny Profane]

Just saw video of the judge in the Rittenhouse case commenting on bible verses... Holy shit... same judge who ordered the unarmed people he shot can't be referred to as "victims"

Link?

[SumJongGuy]

Link?

You'll have to find it yourself. It was on the ABC11 noon news here in Raleigh/Durham. I saw it live there.. Not sure of the context but the judge clearly said to the entire courtroom on a hot mike something like.. 'This is what Paul The Apostle wrote about in the Bible..'

[seano732]

https://www.esquire.com/news-politic...d-arbery-jury/

[seano732]

ETA- Jeres the video, Benny.
https://twitter.com/ronfilipkowski/s...965107203?s=21

[Benny Profane]

You'll have to find it yourself. It was on the ABC11 noon news here in Raleigh/Durham. I saw it live there.. Not sure of the context but the judge clearly said to the entire courtroom on a hot mike something like.. 'This is what Paul The Apostle wrote about in the Bible..'

Well, you do swear to God that you won't lie in that room.

[Benny Profane]

ETA- Jeres the video, Benny.
https://twitter.com/ronfilipkowski/s...965107203?s=21

Oh yeah, this is going to go well.

[dunfree]

Question. When there is no legal recourse when the police abuse or kill innocent people, does that make the average cop feel safer? The reason we have courts is so that justice is not administered on the streets. When the courts fail to provide justice, what other alternative is there?

you seem to misunderstand the problem. There’s no legal recourse for some people if their rights are infringed, and that’s the way certain people want it. It’s a feature, not a bug.

[old goat]

you seem to misunderstand the problem. There’s no legal recourse for some people if their rights are infringed, and that’s the way certain people want it. It’s a feature, not a bug.

I understand the problem just fine. And it doesn't matter who the people are--although these days and for the last 400 years it's been particular people, as you say. But when you cannot look to the courts for justice you have to get justice by other means, and that should make the average cop on the street nervous.
Now what is it you think I don't understand.

[1000-oaks]

Live stream of Rittenhouse trial with attorney panel commentary: https://youtu.be/XZEdgcTbJ4Q

Really fascinating hearing what everything means, and why. Definitely listening to this stream tomorrow.

[1000-oaks]

Just saw video of the judge in the Rittenhouse case commenting on bible verses...

My take as an atheist, is that the (long-winded) judge simply explained the history behind why our legal system gives defendants the right to face their accuser.

Seems like a good right to have, IMHO. The origin of the right might be interesting, but is ultimately irrelevant.

There's plenty of actual history written in the bible, which remains true even if folks do or don't believe all of the deity stuff that's mixed in.

[old goat]

I guess the Bible is as good as English common law as a basis for the US legal system.
As far as history in the Bible--you have to get all the way to Samuel before there's anything historical. Solomon probably existed, maybe David.

[SumJongGuy]

My take as an atheist, is that the (long-winded) judge simply explained the history behind why our legal system gives defendants the right to face their accuser.

Seems like a good right to have, IMHO. The origin of the right might be interesting, but is ultimately irrelevant.

There's plenty of actual history written in the bible, which remains true even if folks do or don't believe all of the deity stuff that's mixed in.

I guess the Bible is as good as English common law as a basis for the US legal system.
As far as history in the Bible--you have to get all the way to Samuel before there's anything historical. Solomon probably existed, maybe David.

Agreed and the judge was talking about Paul the Philistine.. Way past OT history.. Regardless, the judge discussing religious overtones of anything with the jury present is certainly unethical and would be grounds for a mistrial if the defendant objected to what was said..

[neufox47]

I have a bad feeling Rittenhouse gets off and the Arbery jury hangs.


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums