In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On April 22 2015 11:09 cLutZ wrote: Day fines are clearly just a revenue generating tactic where cities hope to hit the "lottery" when an out of town rich person is speeding in a school zone or a rich kid pisses on the side of town hall. Net worth calculations are always ridiculous in any form, because most of it is illiquid even for rich people.
And good god, it would be even worse with the Feds involved, the IRS would basically become an FBI referral service.
saying they are "just" that when there are good, ethical reasons already stated for them is utter rubbish.
Officials are investigating a shocking video that purports to show a U.S. marshal destroying the phone of a recording bystander.
The video was uploaded to YouTube on April 19 in South Gate, California, within Los Angeles County. In the clip, recorded from a building across the street, a bystander appears to be filming and talking to uniformed officials responding to a report of a biker gang meeting. A man wearing a bulletproof vest and carrying a weapon then grabs her phone, slamming it to the ground before kicking it down the street.
The U.S. Marshals Service identified the man as a U.S. marshal, but his name has not been released.
“The U.S. Marshals Service is aware of video footage of an incident that took place Sunday in Los Angeles County involving a Deputy U.S. Marshal," a spokesperson for the Marshals Central District of California office told The Huffington Post in an emailed statement. "The agency is currently reviewing the incident."
It's unclear whether the individual recording was affiliated with six people arrested during the police response, according to NBC Los Angeles. But it's perfectly legal to film officers in all 50 states as long as you don't interfere with their work.
And there you go. If I was the second person recording I would of been like "Seriously!?? Did you not just see what they did to your shit? Then you're gunna holler across the street 'did you record that!?'... Are you out ya' mind bitch?!"
What would you have done if it was your camera/phone he was smashing sheep? Presumably you wouldn't of 'let him' like she did?
Any idea what came of that? if im not mistaken you are completely within your right to film law enforcement, those cops at least owe that lady a new phone..
The typical "we'll investigate ourselves", which basically means 'damage control'.
It's just dumb... If it had been another civilian armed with a rifle charging her and stealing then destroying her camera they would of been arrested without even needing a video. So sure, she'll probably eventually get a new camera but the terror the second woman feels for recording something the police obviously didn't want recorded sticks with her as well as the first woman. Now every cop on the block, every one in traffic, they have to worry whether they are plotting some sort of revenge.
On April 22 2015 11:09 cLutZ wrote: Day fines are clearly just a revenue generating tactic where cities hope to hit the "lottery" when an out of town rich person is speeding in a school zone or a rich kid pisses on the side of town hall. Net worth calculations are always ridiculous in any form, because most of it is illiquid even for rich people.
And good god, it would be even worse with the Feds involved, the IRS would basically become an FBI referral service.
saying they are "just" that when there are good, ethical reasons already stated for them is utter rubbish.
The stated moral reasons may exist, but the reality is that revenue generation is the only motivation that is plausible given how every local government I've ever seen operate operates. Plus, the particular strategy I outlined of targeting those who hail from outside your own jurisdiction. This already is a civil asset forfeiture strategy. How it would be implemented, in reality, would not be 12 hours of pay = your fine, it would be $250 (or whatever they already charge) + X%.
Should fines be lowered for poor people? Yes. They should be lowered for everyone. But not because of your reasons, because there are way too many laws.
On April 22 2015 10:13 zlefin wrote: What do people think about switching US fines to a day-fine system? That's one where fines are scaled by the person's income (with some minimum and possibly maximums); so a fine might be 1 day's pay. the intent is to ensure fines are not ruinous, but still hurtful to poor people, that fines actually hurt rich people, and to ensure fines adjust appropriately over time.
I looked into it some awhile ago and feel it represents an improvement over the existing system, and should in general be adopted (there are a variety of known specifics and issues that need to be worked out).
It also helps with a common complaint I have: fines and other values are often set by statute, and while 5 years in prison and/or a $5000 fine may make some sense a hundred years ago, they're very unequal now. Looking through law codes it's a common issue in the US that values were set at the time the statute was made, which is often many decades old
I like the idea, of course updating fines is one of those things that's just doing the very basics of their jobs (like actually flipping a burger as a burger flipper) and shouldn't take specific motivation from the people. Apparently several countries in Europe already do it.
Just to put some numbers to the disparity...
Maximum fine for first speeding ticket in Georgia: ~$1000
Minimum wage hours (makes $15,080 annually) required to pay $1000 ticket : ~138 hours or, ~3 1/2 weeks of full-time work
(makes ~$52,000): ~40 hours to pay ticket or, ~1 work week (makes ~$100,000)~20 hours to pay ticket or, ~1/2 of a work week (makes ~$250,000)~8.33 hours to pay ticket or, ~1 work day .....
You get the pattern. For someone like Donald Trump, it's more expensive to get pulled over than it is to get the ticket. I say base it off net worth (though I suppose income would be easier to crunch out quickly and without much dispute).
As for milli how do you suggest we deal with traffic infractions?
You have a points system. Each infraction is worth a certain number of points. Get too many, and have your license reduced to a "to and from work only" license. If you're good, your point count will decrease over time. They already kinda do this anyways, its just you have to get an absolute mountain of tickets for it to happen currently. I suggest lowering the number, but getting rid of the preceding fines.
Or maybe they turn you in to your auto insurance, and they raise your rates?
I just really don't like the idea of people having incentives beyond pursuit of justice when it comes to law enforcement.
The disparate impact issue would not be resolved at all with the insurance fix
But I don't have a problem with switching from fines fully over to a point system. The disparate impact issue is greatly reduced, although obviously not solved (people who can afford paid drivers/biased officer discretion).
re: clutz You are simply wrong, the reality is, these laws aren't used in the US at all much of anywhere, and mostly come from some places in Europe, and the motivation was in considerable part, to make fairer laws. To assert that their primary motive is always and can only be revenue generation instead of discussing the merits of this, or alternate, systems is utter rubbish.
On April 22 2015 11:09 cLutZ wrote: Day fines are clearly just a revenue generating tactic where cities hope to hit the "lottery" when an out of town rich person is speeding in a school zone or a rich kid pisses on the side of town hall. Net worth calculations are always ridiculous in any form, because most of it is illiquid even for rich people.
And good god, it would be even worse with the Feds involved, the IRS would basically become an FBI referral service.
I mean, moving fine money to the federal level would reduce a lot of the pressure to fine from local police, obviously this compounded with changes to fine structure (especially for low income citizens) could be a decent idea.
On April 22 2015 10:50 zlefin wrote: Simple, we wait, then vote on whether or not to ratify the deal; instead of badmouthing a deal without knowing what's in it.
So we ratify it without knowing what's in it. That's a great idea.
On April 22 2015 10:50 zlefin wrote: Simple, we wait, then vote on whether or not to ratify the deal; instead of badmouthing a deal without knowing what's in it.
So we ratify it without knowing what's in it. That's a great idea.
(That's a terrible idea)
you are an idiot. Obviously once the terms are negotiated, the entire text would be available. The point is not to assert the deal is bad based on factually incorrect claims of what the deal is when you don't yet know what the actual deal is.
On April 22 2015 11:33 zlefin wrote: re: clutz You are simply wrong, the reality is, these laws aren't used in the US at all much of anywhere, and mostly come from some places in Europe, and the motivation was in considerable part, to make fairer laws. To assert that their primary motive is always and can only be revenue generation instead of discussing the merits of this, or alternate, systems is utter rubbish.
They aren't implemented because local governments would lose money, or find themselves defending $10,000 parking tickets. And the whole reason the system even works is because the people who know how to defend themselves from the BS tickets local governments constantly hand out can't be bothered to.
They aren't implemented because most people in the US haven't heard of/ don't know about/haven't even considered the idea. If they had, then maybe your reasons would apply, but it's not at that point yet. Also, since you largely refuse to discuss the actual merits and flaws of the system, I am not interested in talking to you anymore about it.
Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) admitted on Monday that he did not directly speak with Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) about holding Armed Services Committee hearings on whether soldiers should be able to carry concealed weapons on military bases.
On Monday evening, McCain mocked Cruz's claim that the two had spoken about the issue.
"I’d be glad to discuss the issue and see if we need a hearing, but it came as a complete surprise to me that he had been pressing me," McCain said.
Cruz clarified on Tuesday that he spoke about the issue at Senate Armed Services Committee hearings, but not directly to McCain, the new chair of the committee.
"The question of concealed carry on military bases is an issue I raised repeatedly. I’ve raised it in open hearings of the Senate Armed Services Committee — hearings where John McCain was, I believe, present at those hearings," Cruz said on Fox News. "And I also urged the prior chairman, Carl Levin, in writing, to hold hearings on allowing our soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines to carry weapons on military bases."
"I will acknowledge, I may have misspoken in New Hampshire when I said that I had been pressing John McCain, and what I had been pressing is the Armed Services Committee. And John McCain is the new chairman of it," Cruz continued.
Cruz said he would raise the issue with McCain and keep pressing for hearings about Second Amendment rights on military bases.
In a stunning, abrupt end to the first trial in years of a Chicago police officer for a fatal off-duty shooting, a Cook County judge acquitted the veteran cop Monday on a legal fine point, drawing outrage from the black female victim's family and leaders in the African-American community.
Judge Dennis Porter ruled that prosecutors failed to prove that Dante Servin acted recklessly, saying that Illinois courts have consistently held that anytime an individual points a gun at an intended victim and shoots, it is an intentional act, not a reckless one. He all but said prosecutors should have charged Servin with murder, not involuntary manslaughter.
Servin cannot be retried on a murder charge because of double-jeopardy protections, according to his attorney, Darren O'Brien.
A chaotic scene erupted in the courtroom after the brother of the victim, Rekia Boyd, reacted to Servin's acquittal by standing and taking a few steps toward Servin, angrily shouting, "This (expletive) killed my sister." Family, supporters and sheriff's deputies quickly pulled Martinez Sutton from the courtroom amid shouts and cries over the ruling.
"He gets to walk out, he gets to go to his happy life — that's a slap in the face," Sutton, 32, said moments later as tears streamed down his face. "That's just telling me the police can just kill you, go through this little process, take a two- or three-year vacation and then get back on the force like nothing happened."
The trial marked a rare criminal prosecution of a Chicago police officer for a fatal shooting, the first trial in nearly two decades. The race of Boyd and the officer — he is white — never became an issue in the trial itself, but it still hung over the proceedings, coming amid a national outcry in recent months over the deaths of unarmed African-Americans at the hands of white police officers in Ferguson, Mo., New York City, Cleveland and elsewhere.
While Servin still technically faces potential disciplinary action by the Independent Police Review Authority, Dean Angelo, president of the union representing Chicago police officers, said the process to return Servin to active duty would immediately begin. He has been on paid desk duty since he was charged.
On April 22 2015 09:53 Lord Tolkien wrote: "Liberals stutter"?
As someone who's studied immigration policy extensively, these kind of policies are utterly retarded, with no realistic basis on the reality of immigration and its effects on economies. Jeb Bush and Rubio are at least recognizing that the classic Republican stance on immigration is both political suicide in any national election and, and harms the US economy as a whole.
ZZZZZ. I'll write a giant wall of text debunking all of this stupid shit that some Republican candidates are apparently saying.
After my DnD session with TLers.
That particular comment was directed at the HuffPo narrative that clearly ignored past Democrat positions that joined with labor unions: it could cost union jobs. It's popular now to support current amnesty, or pathway to citizenship, positions and oppose a fence, but rewind to the 90s and you'd find the Harry Reids and influential Democrats speaking against it.
I'll read any wall of text you care to bring. Go ahead and post substance of your vision of border security, legal immigration, current illegal immigrants policy, and future illegal aliens policy. I read enough news to have heard the top Democrat talking points aiming to debunk conservative immigration reform. If this is your study area, do share your views on chain migration and the '86 amnesty. (Rest assured I regard the mainstream liberal position with as much disdain as you hold for Walker's stated position in the article)
On April 22 2015 09:53 Lord Tolkien wrote: "Liberals stutter"?
As someone who's studied immigration policy extensively, these kind of policies are utterly retarded, with no realistic basis on the reality of immigration and its effects on economies. Jeb Bush and Rubio are at least recognizing that the classic Republican stance on immigration is both political suicide in any national election and, and harms the US economy as a whole.
ZZZZZ. I'll write a giant wall of text debunking all of this stupid shit that some Republican candidates are apparently saying.
After my DnD session with TLers.
That particular comment was directed at the HuffPo narrative that clearly ignored past Democrat positions that joined with labor unions: it could cost union jobs. It's popular now to support current amnesty, or pathway to citizenship, positions and oppose a fence, but rewind to the 90s and you'd find the Harry Reids and influential Democrats speaking against it.
I'll read any wall of text you care to bring. Go ahead and post substance of your vision of border security, legal immigration, current illegal immigrants policy, and future illegal aliens policy. I read enough news to have heard the top Democrat talking points aiming to debunk conservative immigration reform. If this is your study area, do share your views on chain migration and the '86 amnesty. (Rest assured I regard the mainstream liberal position with as much disdain as you hold for Walker's stated position in the article)
translates to "don't talk to me as i can not be convinced"
In a stunning, abrupt end to the first trial in years of a Chicago police officer for a fatal off-duty shooting, a Cook County judge acquitted the veteran cop Monday on a legal fine point, drawing outrage from the black female victim's family and leaders in the African-American community.
Judge Dennis Porter ruled that prosecutors failed to prove that Dante Servin acted recklessly, saying that Illinois courts have consistently held that anytime an individual points a gun at an intended victim and shoots, it is an intentional act, not a reckless one. He all but said prosecutors should have charged Servin with murder, not involuntary manslaughter.
Servin cannot be retried on a murder charge because of double-jeopardy protections, according to his attorney, Darren O'Brien.
A chaotic scene erupted in the courtroom after the brother of the victim, Rekia Boyd, reacted to Servin's acquittal by standing and taking a few steps toward Servin, angrily shouting, "This (expletive) killed my sister." Family, supporters and sheriff's deputies quickly pulled Martinez Sutton from the courtroom amid shouts and cries over the ruling.
"He gets to walk out, he gets to go to his happy life — that's a slap in the face," Sutton, 32, said moments later as tears streamed down his face. "That's just telling me the police can just kill you, go through this little process, take a two- or three-year vacation and then get back on the force like nothing happened."
The trial marked a rare criminal prosecution of a Chicago police officer for a fatal shooting, the first trial in nearly two decades. The race of Boyd and the officer — he is white — never became an issue in the trial itself, but it still hung over the proceedings, coming amid a national outcry in recent months over the deaths of unarmed African-Americans at the hands of white police officers in Ferguson, Mo., New York City, Cleveland and elsewhere.
While Servin still technically faces potential disciplinary action by the Independent Police Review Authority, Dean Angelo, president of the union representing Chicago police officers, said the process to return Servin to active duty would immediately begin. He has been on paid desk duty since he was charged.
The guy has been on paid vacation the whole time and will likely get back to active duty...
prosecuters done fucked up.
Judge Dennis Porter ruled that prosecutors failed to prove that Dante Servin acted recklessly, saying that Illinois courts have consistently held that anytime an individual points a gun at an intended victim and shoots, it is an intentional act, not a reckless one. He all but said prosecutors should have charged Servin with murder, not involuntary manslaughter.
In a stunning, abrupt end to the first trial in years of a Chicago police officer for a fatal off-duty shooting, a Cook County judge acquitted the veteran cop Monday on a legal fine point, drawing outrage from the black female victim's family and leaders in the African-American community.
Judge Dennis Porter ruled that prosecutors failed to prove that Dante Servin acted recklessly, saying that Illinois courts have consistently held that anytime an individual points a gun at an intended victim and shoots, it is an intentional act, not a reckless one. He all but said prosecutors should have charged Servin with murder, not involuntary manslaughter.
Servin cannot be retried on a murder charge because of double-jeopardy protections, according to his attorney, Darren O'Brien.
A chaotic scene erupted in the courtroom after the brother of the victim, Rekia Boyd, reacted to Servin's acquittal by standing and taking a few steps toward Servin, angrily shouting, "This (expletive) killed my sister." Family, supporters and sheriff's deputies quickly pulled Martinez Sutton from the courtroom amid shouts and cries over the ruling.
"He gets to walk out, he gets to go to his happy life — that's a slap in the face," Sutton, 32, said moments later as tears streamed down his face. "That's just telling me the police can just kill you, go through this little process, take a two- or three-year vacation and then get back on the force like nothing happened."
The trial marked a rare criminal prosecution of a Chicago police officer for a fatal shooting, the first trial in nearly two decades. The race of Boyd and the officer — he is white — never became an issue in the trial itself, but it still hung over the proceedings, coming amid a national outcry in recent months over the deaths of unarmed African-Americans at the hands of white police officers in Ferguson, Mo., New York City, Cleveland and elsewhere.
While Servin still technically faces potential disciplinary action by the Independent Police Review Authority, Dean Angelo, president of the union representing Chicago police officers, said the process to return Servin to active duty would immediately begin. He has been on paid desk duty since he was charged.
Judge Dennis Porter ruled that prosecutors failed to prove that Dante Servin acted recklessly, saying that Illinois courts have consistently held that anytime an individual points a gun at an intended victim and shoots, it is an intentional act, not a reckless one. He all but said prosecutors should have charged Servin with murder, not involuntary manslaughter.
Bruce Mosbacher, a longtime criminal-defense attorney, defended the judge's legal reasoning as sound and faulted prosecutors for charging Servin with involuntary manslaughter, calling that a "curious" move that led to a "very distasteful result."
"They didn't charge what they had," said Mosbacher, who contended the office typically brings first-degree murder charges against those who kill by firing into a crowd. "They charged this as a compromise in an effort to help an otherwise good officer ... (and) in an effort to split the baby, they had a very unjust result."
And still people wonder why there is so much doubt about the criminal justice system.
In a stunning, abrupt end to the first trial in years of a Chicago police officer for a fatal off-duty shooting, a Cook County judge acquitted the veteran cop Monday on a legal fine point, drawing outrage from the black female victim's family and leaders in the African-American community.
Judge Dennis Porter ruled that prosecutors failed to prove that Dante Servin acted recklessly, saying that Illinois courts have consistently held that anytime an individual points a gun at an intended victim and shoots, it is an intentional act, not a reckless one. He all but said prosecutors should have charged Servin with murder, not involuntary manslaughter.
Servin cannot be retried on a murder charge because of double-jeopardy protections, according to his attorney, Darren O'Brien.
A chaotic scene erupted in the courtroom after the brother of the victim, Rekia Boyd, reacted to Servin's acquittal by standing and taking a few steps toward Servin, angrily shouting, "This (expletive) killed my sister." Family, supporters and sheriff's deputies quickly pulled Martinez Sutton from the courtroom amid shouts and cries over the ruling.
"He gets to walk out, he gets to go to his happy life — that's a slap in the face," Sutton, 32, said moments later as tears streamed down his face. "That's just telling me the police can just kill you, go through this little process, take a two- or three-year vacation and then get back on the force like nothing happened."
The trial marked a rare criminal prosecution of a Chicago police officer for a fatal shooting, the first trial in nearly two decades. The race of Boyd and the officer — he is white — never became an issue in the trial itself, but it still hung over the proceedings, coming amid a national outcry in recent months over the deaths of unarmed African-Americans at the hands of white police officers in Ferguson, Mo., New York City, Cleveland and elsewhere.
While Servin still technically faces potential disciplinary action by the Independent Police Review Authority, Dean Angelo, president of the union representing Chicago police officers, said the process to return Servin to active duty would immediately begin. He has been on paid desk duty since he was charged.
Judge Dennis Porter ruled that prosecutors failed to prove that Dante Servin acted recklessly, saying that Illinois courts have consistently held that anytime an individual points a gun at an intended victim and shoots, it is an intentional act, not a reckless one. He all but said prosecutors should have charged Servin with murder, not involuntary manslaughter.
What the fuck. So a guy is on trial for involuntarily manslaughter, and his defense is "Well i murdered the woman so it isn't manslaughter", and he gets to walk away? How the fuck can that happen.
As to the fine debate, a reasonable solution would be a) to have day fines (though that probably sounds way too socialistic for americans, after all rich people must be able to buy of justice, it's the american way!), and have the people who issue the fines be different from the people who receive the money.
In a stunning, abrupt end to the first trial in years of a Chicago police officer for a fatal off-duty shooting, a Cook County judge acquitted the veteran cop Monday on a legal fine point, drawing outrage from the black female victim's family and leaders in the African-American community.
Judge Dennis Porter ruled that prosecutors failed to prove that Dante Servin acted recklessly, saying that Illinois courts have consistently held that anytime an individual points a gun at an intended victim and shoots, it is an intentional act, not a reckless one. He all but said prosecutors should have charged Servin with murder, not involuntary manslaughter.
Servin cannot be retried on a murder charge because of double-jeopardy protections, according to his attorney, Darren O'Brien.
A chaotic scene erupted in the courtroom after the brother of the victim, Rekia Boyd, reacted to Servin's acquittal by standing and taking a few steps toward Servin, angrily shouting, "This (expletive) killed my sister." Family, supporters and sheriff's deputies quickly pulled Martinez Sutton from the courtroom amid shouts and cries over the ruling.
"He gets to walk out, he gets to go to his happy life — that's a slap in the face," Sutton, 32, said moments later as tears streamed down his face. "That's just telling me the police can just kill you, go through this little process, take a two- or three-year vacation and then get back on the force like nothing happened."
The trial marked a rare criminal prosecution of a Chicago police officer for a fatal shooting, the first trial in nearly two decades. The race of Boyd and the officer — he is white — never became an issue in the trial itself, but it still hung over the proceedings, coming amid a national outcry in recent months over the deaths of unarmed African-Americans at the hands of white police officers in Ferguson, Mo., New York City, Cleveland and elsewhere.
While Servin still technically faces potential disciplinary action by the Independent Police Review Authority, Dean Angelo, president of the union representing Chicago police officers, said the process to return Servin to active duty would immediately begin. He has been on paid desk duty since he was charged.
Judge Dennis Porter ruled that prosecutors failed to prove that Dante Servin acted recklessly, saying that Illinois courts have consistently held that anytime an individual points a gun at an intended victim and shoots, it is an intentional act, not a reckless one. He all but said prosecutors should have charged Servin with murder, not involuntary manslaughter.
hopefully this thing goes to a court that realizes the prosecuter screwed up and realizes that a stupid prosecuter doesn't= a get out of jail of free card though. Hopefully they'll rule that the judge didn't have the right to acquit and instead could have only ruled that the case needed to be retried under the proper charges.I have no idea what the law actually says though. if this gets upheld then I've lost hope in our legal system.
On April 22 2015 14:03 zlefin wrote: Question: who was wondering why there is doubt in the criminal justice system?
I presume you mean here specifically and/or besides the cops/people who defend even incidents like the cop in SC shooting the unarmed man in the back.
My point wasn't that people do or don't wonder why there was doubt, but why there was soo much.
I don't think doubting to the point of questioning the integrity of the criminal justice system is as widely accepted as you make it out to be even here though.
Despite the rash of cases of members of the system getting caught red handed outright lying and falsifying evidence from podunk town sheriffs to chiefs of police, to the damn FBI. People think we should just trust the system... As if getting exonerated for crimes you never committed decades later while the criminal who put you there goes unpunished is supposed to make things better.
Rather than say some people here specifically think something about the criminal justice system I'll just ask...
Do we all agree that we rightfully doubt the integrity of the criminal justice system?
EPT
