I think the “Why are Police so quick to Kill” thread is kind of a special beast. This is a thread where Shodan is the smart and reasonable person arguing on the minority side of the issue. Okay, that’s not quite fair - implying that his posts are smarter and more reasonable than Steophan’s or Hocus Pocus’s would be damning with very faint praise, and he really is all right in that thread. And those guys are not.
This inspired me to make this thread, because… wow. I honestly don’t remember the last time I saw an analogy that piss-poor and offensive. Yeah, claiming that juries got certain high-profile police brutality cases wrong is worse than wanting to lynch black people.
What the fuck is wrong with you?
What even the fuck is wrong with you?!
Of course, this is just the latest helping of shit sandwich delivered in that thread. These two statists, Steophan and Hocus Pocus, are some combination of dishonest and incredibly dumb. Here are some other gems from that thread:
When pressed on this, Steophan has this to say:
Yeah. Apparently juries are infallible conveyors of justice, and mere video evidence cannot stand up to their opinions. In hindsight, I should have taken this chance to say, “you’re crazy, I’m not debating you any more”. But I have this disturbing affinity for brick walls, so…
In any case, I explained to him at length that his definition of “murder” made him look, shall we say, like Bricker, if Bricker’s already bizarre “can’t-turn-off-lawyer-mode” tendencies were turned up to 11 by someone without even half the damn brain. And what happens just two pages later? Referring to the murder (yes, murder) of Terence Crutcher and Philando Castile:
Hey asshole, pretending to be a lawyer who insists that it couldn’t possibly have been murder because the jury didn’t convict them does not do you any favors. It just makes you look like an asshole. Everyone else knows what I’m talking about. Everyone else understands that sometimes, between the juries and the law, shit gets fucked up and people who committed murder don’t get convicted of murder. Everyone else understands that in those cases, it’s still murder. You’re just being a disagreeable fanboy moron for some utterly mystifying reason.
Also, shoutouts to the other moron in the thread, Hocus Pocus. Looking back, I notice that Steophan lowered the bar another few precious meters, and I can’t recall what got me quite so pissed at him at the time, so let’s just quote this:
and this:
and this:
And leave it at that. And on a side note, having read that third quote: I REMEMBER NOW. Yeesh.
Jesus, what a clusterfuck of a thread. Smapti, all is forgiven.
It’s quite ironic that Steophan’s arguments could well have applied to many lynchings, some of which were implicitly or explicitly (often with full force of law and some semblence of due process) endorsed and supported by the local authorities at the time.
The only thing worse than bad cops are bad cops who reflexively defend and support bad cops. I don’t know how they think they’re making good cases or how they’re not basically smearing all cops as being as horrible as they are.
I saw someone being called a statist and just assumed it was going to be WillFarnaby getting indignant that someone likes public schools. Boy was I wrong.
If you don’t have faith in the jury system to decide guilt and innocence, then yes, you are advocating for mob justice where we get to toss out the rule of law and lynch people because “everyone knows they deserve it”.
I endorse this Pitting. I browse the threads about unnecessary police force and am astounded at the red-necks endorsing extrajuridical murders. I don’t try to rate them, or put them on Ignore — when I chance on one of their posts I get to earn a cheap thrill (“Oooh! there’s a piece of shit; happy I didn’t step on it in real life!”) — but Steophan being the 1st or 2nd most egregious does ring a bell.
One poster I do have to double-click to see, and did given OP’s praise.
Yeah, you’re not so bad, Shodan!! When are we going to have that Go game?
I think the jury system (and more commonly the grand jury system) fails in the case of cops. If the Michael Slager mistrial doesn’t convince people of that, I doubt anything ever will. How many people do you know who can dodge a murder charge when video surfaces of them coolly pulling a pistol and shooting a fleeing, unarmed suspect in the back, then trying to cover up their crime by planting evidence on the suspect? How much more evidence will it take to convict a crooked cop of murder? Do we literally need a signed confession in the form of a vlog by the cop saying, “Ooh, I’m looking forward to killing again today!”? The jury clearly and obviously failed in the Michael Slager case. It seems like it might have failed in a handful of others.
And perhaps more importantly, it’s entirely possible to accept the validity and importance of the jury system while admitting that a random group of 14 civvies, who may or may not have any understanding of the law beforehand, can get things wrong. It’s particularly easy to make that statement in light of video evidence. Let’s please not pretend that rejecting a clearly flawed result of an imperfect system (seriously, holy fucking shit guys, they couldn’t convict Michael Slager) means a demand for a “return to mob rule”, or even a rejection of said flawed system as a whole. I don’t think all of science should be thrown out, but I do think The Lancet was wrong to publish that Wakefield paper. Similarly, I don’t think the jury system should be thrown out, but I think it’s pretty fucking obvious that the jury that failed to convict Michael Slager fucked up - and that it’s debatable that the ones covering the Castile and Crutcher killings did the same.
IANAL. My understanding is not great. That said, the charge was murder, and I (and every member of that jury) watched a cop shoot an unarmed, fleeing suspect in the back, then try to plant evidence to exonorate himself. If the law means that this man cannot be convicted on charges of murder for those actions, the law is utterly broken and should be changed.
Bullshit. I don’t have faith, period; I consider faith to be an intellectual failing. Juries generally do their best to decide guilt (not innocence), but of course there are all sorts of ways the system can fuck up. You want examples? Consider how few lynch mob participants were ever convicted (answer: almost zero). Consider how often black men during Jim Crow were convicted of trumped-up charges. Consider cases in which police extracted false confessions in cases overturned on appeal–not all such cases went to trial, but some have.
You’re setting up an inane false dichotomy: either I have “faith” in the jury system, treating it like the loas are riding the bodies of the jurors and imparting divine guidance, or I want mob justice. No. There’s a third way, which is that I generally think the jury process is a decent mediator between police and judge, but it’s a flawed process that will sometimes make mistakes. I don’t know of a better process, but that doesn’t mean this one is perfect.
IMHO, it is not the jury that is the problem, it is a lack of zealous representation of the state on the behalf of the victims. The jury can only make a determination based on the evidence presented them, along with the instructions they are given.
It is my very firm opinion that it is hard for one to properly prosecute one’s friends. If I had to try to convince people that my friend was a horrible human being that went out and murdered and planted evidence to cover it up, I could not do so with the conviction that I should have. It is human nature. Even if they believe in the principle of the matter, a prosecutor is still likely to pull his punches when it comes to his buddies in blue.
If the prosecution seems in doubt as to the guilt of the accused, how is the jury going to overcome a reasonable doubt themselves? If the prosecution lets the defense get away with lines of questioning that they would normally shut down, if they allow evidence that they would normally object to, if they are simply lackluster in presenting their arguments to the jury, then they are not representing the state on the behalf of the victims appropriately.
OK. Let’s discuss the attempt to plant evidence to exonerate himself. How does that relate to the crime of murder? The victim is dead already. Planting the evidence does not make him deader. If he did not plant the evidence, would he NOT be guilty of murder?
In your understanding, how is the planting of evidence related to the charge of murder?
The point I’m trying to illustrate is that while both you and the jury watched the video, the members of the jury were also instructed, in detail, about each and every element of the crimes charged, and told in detail what facts they needed to find as true in order to return a conviction.
I am NOT saying that the evidence was insufficient to do that. But it’s not as blatantly uncontroversial as you seem to suggest. The members of the jury also heard the officer testify; you did not. Is it possible that if you heard the officer’s testimony, you’d believe he was telling the truth about his perceptions of the events?
In other words, it seems to me you’re saying that the tape, alone, provides incontrovertible evidence of guilt. But that’s not correct. It provides strong evidence of guilt, to be sure, but the jury considered other evidence, other testimony.
In re-reading what I wrote above, it might seem I’m suggesting the jury unambiguously returned the “right,” answer, and I am not. I’m merely pointing out that a reasonable jury might well reach different answers, and that’s a feature, not a bug. We let guilty people go because we can’t convince twelve citizens of their guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Even then, sometimes innocent people are convicted. But the bar is set that high on purpose. Before we imprison someone, we force the government to show extremely strong evidence of guilt. If the government’s proof can convince only a subset of those twelve people, then we force 'em to do it again before imposing jail.
And on a side note, having read that third quote: I REMEMBER NOW. Yeesh.