0
Amazon

California to ban secrecy in police shootings

Recommended Posts

Well it is a start in the right direction.

http://www.mercurynews.com/bay-area-news/ci_28621966/gov-brown-oks-nations-1st-ban-grand-juries


"What the governor's decision says is, he gets it -- the people don't want secrecy when it comes to officer-involved shootings," said retired judge and former San Jose independent police auditor LaDoris Cordell, the first African-American appointed as a judge in Northern California and a key supporter of the bill. "We're not trying to get more officers indicted. We're saying, 'Whatever you decide, do it in the open.'"

The governor Tuesday also signed a bill by state Sen. Ricardo Lara, D-Bell Gardens, that makes it clear it is legal to take a photograph or video of a police officer while the officer is in a public place or in a place the person photographing the action has a right to be. Both bills are the first of a wave of Ferguson-inspired criminal justice reforms now making their way through the Legislature.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So lets air all of the information about the actions of a suspect and an officer during the shooting investigation so it can make the news. THEN we will select a jury for the actual criminal case for what the suspect was charged fro and go to a trial using people that saw all the details filtered through the bias of their personal news source. Kinda hurts your chances for a fair trial doing this.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>So lets air all of the information about the actions of a suspect and an
>officer during the shooting investigation so it can make the news.

Better that than inaccurate half-truths that come from trying to conceal information. That's worse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anvilbrother

So lets air all of the information about the actions of a suspect and an officer during the shooting investigation so it can make the news. THEN we will select a jury for the actual criminal case for what the suspect was charged fro and go to a trial using people that saw all the details filtered through the bias of their personal news source. Kinda hurts your chances for a fair trial doing this.

How is this different from what every defendant who is not a police officer already has to go through? We just had a trial for a guy who was accused of shooting two police officers, killing one and critically injuring the other, as well as killing another person just to "send a message" to a friend of that person. Every detail of the evidence was so publicized in the local media far in advance of the trial that a jury had to be brought in from another county, to have a hope of finding jurors who had not already made up their minds.

There is (I think) an inherent conflict between freedom of the press and people's right to a fair trial. Historically we seem to have decided that the free press takes precedence. Why should the police be treated any differently than everybody else?

Don
_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It isnt fair for either side thats why my post specifically stated the suspects trial not the cops. I think people have a right to know what happened but the people who are going to court have the right to the most innocent fair trial possible. I also think it would be better if juries were completely blind to the facts or circumstances before a trial. Just come in as a blank slate with no knowledge the incident even happend and be presented evidence from each side and rule on that.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

"bias of their personal news source"

Juror dismissed, alternate moves over a few chairs.



If you hated trump and wanted to get on a jury to convict him of some crime I am sure you would try to play your cards right down the middle to look good to both sides to get selected. Only an idot, or someone trying to get out of jury duty would reveal some lop sided shit like I watch antitrumpnews.com and think he should get the electric chair if convicted.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>If you hated trump and wanted to get on a jury to convict him of some crime
>I am sure you would try to play your cards right down the middle to look good
>to both sides to get selected. Only an idot, or someone trying to get out of jury
>duty would reveal some lop sided shit like I watch antitrumpnews.com and
>think he should get the electric chair if convicted.

That's been an issue with juries for as long as there have been juries. They tell you what the case is; "police shooting." The people who hate cops and want them all to burn in hell can (and sometimes do) exactly what you mention and try to influence the outcome that way.

Voir dire helps weed such people out, but no one is perfect. Everyone comes in with their own prejudices and prior experiences. It's part of why selecting a jury is so important. (And why volunteering for jury duty is important as well, so they have as wide a pool as possible.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anvilbrother

It isnt fair for either side thats why my post specifically stated the suspects trial not the cops. I think people have a right to know what happened but the people who are going to court have the right to the most innocent fair trial possible. I also think it would be better if juries were completely blind to the facts or circumstances before a trial. Just come in as a blank slate with no knowledge the incident even happend and be presented evidence from each side and rule on that.



What you propose is actually the law in, for example, the UK, where there are legal restrictions on publishing certain facts about a criminal case (maybe any court case? I'm not sure) if that would unfairly prejudice the course of justice in the court proceedings. Newspaper publishers could be prosecuted criminally for breaching these laws.
By contrast, many of the legal restrictions on pretrial publicity that exist in the UK would be deemed unconstitutional violations of the First Amendment in the US.

Here's an article that compares free speech laws in the UK vs. the US.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Very cool, thanks for the info. Just to be clear I am not trying to limit any information from ever getting to the public. Just wait till a fair trial is over then release everything you could possibly know if you want to.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you are ok with a bunch of anti-jerry's publicizing all kinds of inaccurate and harmful posts, news stories, and articles about you tainting every jury members minds before you have your day in court?

I just find it unfair that

Public's right to hear gossip and sensationalized inaccuracies by news>A persons rights to a fair and impartial trial.\

Sure if its going to happen based of the the day we live in, and there is no way to change it then I guess it will happen. Why does the government feel the need to step in and add to that injustice and shit storm of gossip.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mostly agreed, so long as the 1st stays in place, but a TON of media crap could easily stop and not be missed by the social consumer I think.
There's still a volume of details in cases that should never be released in any way IMO.
Personal information, some photographic evidence, pretty much everything in a sexual case....plenty of information and details that never leave a court room yet still give the public enough.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anvilbrother

Very cool, thanks for the info. Just to be clear I am not trying to limit any information from ever getting to the public. Just wait till a fair trial is over then release everything you could possibly know if you want to.



Just for the record, I support the American / First Amendment rule rather than the British rule - not because I don't see both sides of the debate, but because I see it as the lesser of two evils. Erosion of Constitutional rights, as I see it, can lead to a dangerous slippery slope; and keeping the public timely and fully informed about the issues of the day is Rule Number One in a healthy, well-functioning democracy.

As I've said before, what in many other countries, including the other democracies, would be considered unlawful communications or publications, is considered to be "constitutionally protected speech" in the US. I think that's a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
:)
I will give a personal example. A guy here in a neighborhood was out at his parents house. The next door neighbors dog who had a history of being off the leash and aggressive came running towards him, crossed the property line leaving the dogs own yard barking aggressively and running towards him. He took off running to the porch and the dog chased him down in his parents yard. Right before the dog got to him he turned around and kicked it.

The dogs owner was an elderly lady who alot of people knew and liked. Cops came, dog had broken ribs etc etc. She claimed the dog was in the street, he claimed it was in his parents yard(who cares it was off the leash and against the law right?) He got charged with animal abuse. She started a media shit storm on FB, local news and PETA, and rallied the neighborhood against him. With in days he who also lives in the neighborhood, and his parents was the outcast of the place, and threats against his public job was made. PETA protested, and provided legal support for the lady, and he was forced to settle out of court for a couple thousand dollars due to pressure from her side, and the story that was already out there pretty much convicting the guy with no chance of a fair day in court his lawyer advised.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
>So you are ok with a bunch of anti-jerry's publicizing all kinds of inaccurate
> and harmful posts, news stories, and articles about you tainting every jury
>members minds before you have your day in court?

That's going to happen no matter what. Unless you have secret arrests with secret prisons, and a method to "hush up" someone's families and friends, the public will know when someone has been arrested and charged. The only question is - should all that smearing be done with inaccurate or accurate information?

>Public's right to hear gossip and sensationalized inaccuracies by news>A persons rights to a fair and impartial trial.\

That's a consequence of the first amendment. But given that the gossip will happen, you are better off with a public that hears sensationalized accuracies, rather than sensationalized inaccuracies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

keeping the public timely and fully informed about the issues of the day is Rule Number One in a healthy, well-functioning democracy.



I have no issue with. At 2000hrs Blank Police department responded to a shooting at 12345 address. One suspect is in custody the area is now safe.

I dont agree with At 2000hrs Blank Police department responded to a shooting at 12345 address. Tyrone was arrested for possession of crack, etc etc. Here is all of tyrones social media pictures showing him in a bad light, and over to white guy reporter with white guy citizen to blast tyrone with stories about how tyrone was always a thug, and he made verbal threats to such and such. Over to jessica with todays facebook comments where we will paint Tyrone in some more bad light.

I am just saying I dont like how its done, not suggesting anything be done against the constitution, just expressing my opinions.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
normiss

"bias of their personal news source"

Juror dismissed, alternate moves over a few chairs.



My bet is that they will be about the same level of transparent as the Obama admin is, not like they promised.
I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi Anvil,

Quote

publicizing all kinds of inaccurate and harmful posts



The reason that I brought up the 'fair' issue is because it really all depends upon whose ox is getting gored.

If your daughter had been raped, she told you who did it, you ( I think ) would want 'all kinds of inaccurate and harmful posts' out there so the SOB could not get off on some lawyered technicality. Now, maybe you are different than most dads; but you would be the exception.

That is why 'fair' is subjective.

Most people ( IMO ) who are of the 'string'em up' type sing a different tune when the shoe is on the other foot.

YMMV,

Jerry Baumchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
How about this my daughter accuses YOU of raping her. Now what do YOU want ME to do?


To answer your question honestly if this were to actually occur they better put me on a boat to a remote island to keep me from killing you if I had hard evidence.

Postes r made from an iPad or iPhone. Spelling and gramhair mistakes guaranteed move along,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Both bills are the first of a wave of Ferguson-inspired criminal justice reforms now making their way through the Legislature.



Politics at it's finest,
A knee jerk reaction to a completely false narrative, proven false by several layers of investigation (including the DOJ), and perpetuated as true by numerous media outlets.

Getting rid of municipal and Mayors courts, and switching to district type courts, making enforcement more revenue neutral. Would be an actual solution to problems found in Ferguson. The "other" problem was not true, and was a result of criminal/assaultive behavior.

But politics do not work that way, so things change, and they are directed mainly at the cops.

I hope many areas of the country enjoyed their historically low crime rates. They are about to become a thing of the past, and those most vulnerable will suffer the most. This is already happening in many urban areas throughout the country regarding violent crime.

"Just 'cause I'm simple, don't mean I'm stewpid!"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

0