|
Now that we have a new thread, 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 complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On April 10 2018 10:18 Introvert wrote:So I'm pretty agnostic on this Stormy Daniels garbage floating around but if I may, Erik Erickson actually has an excellent point I hadn't thought about. Now is the time for me to revive "bring on President Pence." + Show Spoiler +No, I don't think that's going to happen. I don't know what the result of all this will be even if Trump knew the whole time. Problem is we've had so much of "this swung the election!" vs "no it didn't!" that I think we are beyond the point where anything actually happens. We already knew Trump cheated on his wives, would it have killed his chances if he illegally paid off a mistress? I say no. And that's what this is all about. To me everything even tangentially connected to Mueller is about re-litigating 2016, and there it will die.
The Mueller investigation is an FBI criminal and counterintelligence investigation of Trump and the goons that surround him. It's no joke.
|
I wonder if Trump is going to go after Mueller. I'm honestly surprised they are going so hard on Cohen. Seems like a really big bees nest to swat. Kinda feels like a bad idea.
|
I guess the "War on Drugs" is old news from the mid-1980's. Now there is a "War on Science" instead. Uh, maybe they should have stuck with the "War on Terror" from the 1990's. Anyways, there are changes being made to science policy right now. I guess the Clean Air Act is being significantly revised by a conservative Republican who is the chairman of the House Science Committee. It is difficult the decipher the jargon in the news article but I guess the Science Advisory Board, or SAB, bans any scientists who receive money from the EPA from advising him on science-related issues. Instead, he listens to industry spokespeople who tend to favor more of a wild west approach to science policy. This is sad news for anyone who wants clean air and a healthy city environment. https://newrepublic.com/article/147729/war-science-over-republicans-won
|
On April 10 2018 14:46 Mohdoo wrote: I wonder if Trump is going to go after Mueller. I'm honestly surprised they are going so hard on Cohen. Seems like a really big bees nest to swat. Kinda feels like a bad idea. Politically, it's an obviously terrible idea. Why would they do it?
Well, we don't know. But considering the ramifications and political bullshit, I'm sure their reasons were really, really good. The acting AG approving this warrant was a Trump-appointee. The evidence has to be strong, and I'd bet all my rubles Michael Cohen gets arrested soon. And I bet it has nothing to do with Stormy, btw.
edit -- Some at Fox News might defend him, but the GOP has already removed Michael Cohen from his RNC finance position. The writing is on the wall for Cohen. The question will be to what extent Trump tries to protect him. How worried should he be. Cohen is loyal as much as one can be to a person like Trump, but I don't think that actually says much.
|
On April 10 2018 10:15 hunts wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 10:05 KwarK wrote:Good news/bad news story for accountability when police shoot black children. A jury finally decided that they were willing to return a guilty verdict when the murder of the sixteen year old by police officers came to trial. Unfortunately they decided to convict the victim's friend, also black, who was fifteen at the time and was not the shooter. But still, progress? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-43673331+ Show Spoiler +In the US, you don't have to kill to be a murderer
After police killed a burglary suspect in a shootout, the officer was not charged - instead a teenage boy who did not fire the gun has been found guilty of his murder. How do accomplice liability laws work?
Lakeith Smith was 15 years old when he went along with four older friends on a burglary spree. A neighbour called police when the group went into a home in Millbrook, Alabama, and the responding officers surprised the teenagers as they were coming through the front door.
The group turned and fled out the back door, and a shootout ensued. When it was all over, 16-year-old A'Donte Washington was dead with a bullet wound to his neck.
It's never been in dispute that a Millbrook police officer shot and killed Washington - officer-worn body cameras captured the fatal confrontation. A grand jury declined to charge the officer, finding that the shooting was justified.
Instead, Smith was charged and found guilty of his friend's murder. Last week, a judge sentenced him to 65 years in prison. Under Alabama's accomplice liability law, Smith is considered just as culpable in Washington's death as if he had pulled the trigger himself.
"It's sad in my opinion," says Smith's defence lawyer, Jennifer Holton. "The cause of death was the officer's action."
Alabama's law is an example of so-called felony-murder laws and they are very common throughout the US - only seven states do not have some type of law that expands the definition of murder to include an unintentional killing in the course of committing a felony. These laws also sweep up accomplices who, again, may not have directly caused harm, but were still a party in the felony that preceded the death.
While rooted in English common law, felony-murder is a rare concept outside of the US.
In the UK, the "joint enterprise" law can be used to convict an accomplice in a murder, but it applies mostly to gang-related crimes. The UK Supreme Court narrowed its application in 2016, ruling that the person must have "foresight" and "intention" to be found guilty of the killing.
"Felony-murder is a lovely American fiction," says Michael Heyman, professor emeritus at the John Marshall Law School in Chicago. "It's a fiction in that it attributes a killing to you that you need not have done by your own hand."
For example, if a victim has a heart attack and dies while being robbed, the perpetrator can be charged with murder even if he had no intent to kill. If the robber's friend was sitting in a getaway car a block away, under accomplice liability, he too can be charged with murder. One of the most famous examples involved a man convicted of murder for loaning his car to friends who went on to murder an 18-year-old girl. According to prosecutors, it didn't matter that he was 30 minutes away.
These laws make cases like Smith's surprisingly common, where defendants are charged with the murder of their own accomplices, who can be their friends and even relatives. These often occur in the course of burglaries gone wrong, when the perpetrators are confronted by police or armed homeowners. Recent examples include cases in Georgia, Florida and Oklahoma.
The legal logic has expanded into the opioid crisis, where, in one case, a husband was charged with the murder of his wife for providing her with the heroin that killed her.
What makes Smith's case different, according to Scott Lemieux, a lecturer in the department of political science at the University of Washington, is that Smith went forward to trial instead of pleading guilty.
"These really long sentences are used to put pressure on people to plead," he says. "The risk of going to trial is so extreme."
Smith decided to take that risk, turning down a 25-year plea deal, and was found guilty by a jury. The other three surviving suspects have pleaded guilty and are awaiting sentencing. Randall Houston, the district attorney who prosecuted Smith, says he felt the charges and the punishment were appropriate.
"If you're gonna bring a gun and commit a crime and somebody dies, there's consequences in Alabama - it's felony-murder," he says.
Houston points out that at his sentencing, Smith laughed and smiled. Holton, the defence lawyer, says that only shows how young Smith is.
Andre Washington, A'Donte's father, attended Smith's trial, but he didn't sit on the prosecution's side of the courtroom. Instead, he sat with Smith's mother.
"I went there to show him and his family some support. What the officers did - it was totally wrong," says Washington. "I don't feel [Smith] deserves that. No. Not at all." That article title is what happens when the famously impartial and apolitical BBC editorial staff can't even anymore. The rest of the black teenagers there were tried collectively for the murder but took a deal to only serve 25 years each for the murder of their friend. But the dumb 15 year old actually believed in the system and thought he could fight the murder charge on the grounds that he didn't murder his friend, so he gets 65 years. So I'm not sure if I understand correctly. It sounds like those guys, and the one that is dead went and robbed houses together. Then police got involved, there was a shootout, and 1 guy died? Now his friends there were robbing houses with him are being tried for his murder? I can't seem to find the reason for the shootout in the article, were they armed or posing a danger to the police, or just shot at because? While that law is pretty dumb, if I understand this right I really have no sympathy for them, they went and robbed houses, they deserve whatever they get, even if in this case they're going to jail for something different than what they actually did.
You think that it's okay for the police to charge a man for the murder of the man THEY shot? You think it's okay for a man to be given 65 years for BURGLARY?
I... your country is fucked. Utterly fucked. If this is what you think justice is, there is no hope. Because this isn't justice.
Why not just execute every criminal for every crime? He's going to be 80 when he gets out of prison, if he serves the whole sentence. EIGHTY. For a burglary. In which the cops shot one of his friends.
|
Felony murder is a charge in the US that needs to be revisited. The intent of the law is to charge people who participate an activity that leads to someone’s death. Like robbing someone who then ends up dying of a heart attack. But I have never heard of it being used to charge a Defendant with the death of someone who committed the crime with them. This seems like an abuse of the law’s intent.
|
That's actually one of the few ways that Ohio and Michigan are ahead of the curve; both are among the group of four states that have abolished the felony murder rule.
|
I am trying to wrap my head around this accomplice liability law and how it is applied. I just don't see how it makes any sort of sense. I don't deal with legalese at all, but there doesn't seem to be any kind of logic I can follow in this case. I don't see how it can be argued that there was a murder in the first place, nor that he was an accomplice to said murder.
|
Well the posted article outlines the very edge of the rule's logic and shows how messed up it can be when applied to particularly situations. In its prototypical application, felony murder is what lets the prosecutor charge the bank robbing accomplice with murder even if he didn't pull the trigger on the theory that specific kinds of violent felony crimes justify a wide scope of liability given the inherently dangerous nature of the predicate crime (armed robbery). In practice, though, it's a way to throw people with only tenuous connections to crimes in jail once someone gets killed, and the above story figures as one among many where a basic sense of justice gets thrown out of the window.
|
Yes, I can see the logic behind the law, but I don't see the logic in this particular case. It appears fails at the first part; that it is a murder, nevermind the second part; that he is an accomplice. Of course if there it is a murder by a police, then that makes this case take a even more bizarre turn; that the police did unlawfully kill someone, but managed to get off free by laying the fault at the people they were shooting at.
|
Yeah it's fucked up and basically indefensible; the police would likely argue that the underlying crime is inherently dangerous enough to justify tagging perps with their having shot someone in the course of their duty. Of course, no one is really buying that save for idiotic blue line folk.
|
It is really stupid because they could have charged them all with first degree burglary because they were breaking into homes while armed. That carries a 10-99 year sentence. Like in most states, home invasions are treated with the same severity as attempted murder in Alabama. But apparently the DA wanted to test the limits of felony murder.
|
On April 10 2018 22:55 Plansix wrote: It is really stupid because they could have charged them all with first degree burglary because they were breaking into homes while armed. That carries a 10-99 year sentence. Like in most states, home invasions are treated with the same severity as attempted murder in Alabama. But apparently the DA wanted to test the limits of felony murder.
He'll spend 65 years in prison for felony murder, armed burglary, second-degree theft, and third-degree theft. So yes he was charged for it.
|
Another instance of Trump lawyers acting unethically without telling the Trump Org about the work they were doing. An interesting pattern. I’m sure Trumps business dealings are all above board though - he’s a very trustworthy guy.
|
I expect the FM conviction would be overturned in appeal, though? Or I'd hope so at least.
|
On April 10 2018 22:29 Dangermousecatdog wrote: Yes, I can see the logic behind the law, but I don't see the logic in this particular case. It appears fails at the first part; that it is a murder, nevermind the second part; that he is an accomplice. Of course if there it is a murder by a police, then that makes this case take a even more bizarre turn; that the police did unlawfully kill someone, but managed to get off free by laying the fault at the people they were shooting at. while I don't agree with the logic used in this particular case, and don't know the wording of the particular statute, I think it goes something like this: you committed a crime. as a result of that crime, someone died. you are therefore responsible.
it could also have to do with the homicide/murder distinction; murder is an unlawful killing, whereas homicide is just killing someone (covers both lawful and unlawful). the statute might be written such that if a homicide occurs during the course of the predicate crime, it counts as felony murder for the accomplices. and the guy that was shot definitely constitutes a homicide.
|
On April 10 2018 23:41 Doodsmack wrote:Another instance of Trump lawyers acting unethically without telling the Trump Org about the work they were doing. An interesting pattern. I’m sure Trumps business dealings are all above board though - he’s a very trustworthy guy. https://twitter.com/fahrenthold/status/983713970963058688
The trustworthyliest.
This seems weird. Lawyers of all people should surely be aware of the legal pitfalls they're in here? Why would they do something like this without at least telling Trump about it?
I refuse to believe everyone is willing to die on their swords for this man. He cannot possibly motivate people to loyalty. He is charismatic, but it's the charisma of a snake oil salesman. Everyone who works with him has to know he doesn't have their back.
|
My bet is still on the lawyers acting (mostly) correctly and Trump getting them into trouble by publicly lying.
Yes there are crooked lawyers who do illegal things on behalf of their client, but they do so with knowledge from the client. Not completely on their own accord.
|
On April 10 2018 23:40 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 22:55 Plansix wrote: It is really stupid because they could have charged them all with first degree burglary because they were breaking into homes while armed. That carries a 10-99 year sentence. Like in most states, home invasions are treated with the same severity as attempted murder in Alabama. But apparently the DA wanted to test the limits of felony murder. Show nested quote +He'll spend 65 years in prison for felony murder, armed burglary, second-degree theft, and third-degree theft. So yes he was charged for it. I need to dig into that to see how the sentencing was issued. The felony murder charge might make up a small part of those 65 years, since first degree burglary is a serious charge. But kid was still 15 years old, so can’t justify them throwing book at him with these charges when there were other people involved.
|
On April 11 2018 00:04 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2018 23:40 Gorsameth wrote:On April 10 2018 22:55 Plansix wrote: It is really stupid because they could have charged them all with first degree burglary because they were breaking into homes while armed. That carries a 10-99 year sentence. Like in most states, home invasions are treated with the same severity as attempted murder in Alabama. But apparently the DA wanted to test the limits of felony murder. He'll spend 65 years in prison for felony murder, armed burglary, second-degree theft, and third-degree theft. So yes he was charged for it. I need to dig into that to see how the sentencing was issued. The felony murder charge might make up a small part of those 65 years, since first degree burglary is a serious charge. But kid was still 15 years old, so can’t justify them throwing book at him with these charges when there were other people involved. The article didn't mention the individual terms but I saw 30 for felony murder, 15 for armed burglary and 2x10 for 2 counts of theft mentioned on a different forum. Edit:Source
|
|
|
|