Absolutely despicable behaviour by cops

[BoSoxGal]

Hen, my work IS my personal life to a very large degree. I do what I do not to pay the bills - I could do a lot of other, easier things for that end.

So, it's okay for Andrew D to viciously attack my personal ethics & make the statements he has in the past few days (just a bit cunty, but ok) - yet nobody can make a mere reference to the wife or dead father, both of whom he has mentioned himself more than once?

I'm flummoxed. I guess I need to see a more detailed version of the rules of board etiquette so I will have a better understanding how much I am to be expected to tolerate on the receiving end (from someone who has clearly become unstable) versus what I am allowed to say in defense of myself, and yes, some attempt to retaliate.

Here's a truth: I don't even know if Andrew D has a pool - I just guessed he does, because he's upper middle class living in CA. I made a general statement about obituaries - I didn't bother going looking for any personal information about Andrew D, and didn't read his father's obit. I wouldn't even bet money that @w did, either - and we didn't 'plot' off-board; you are welcome to check my PMs to that end.

Andrew's gone for the moment? Boo fucking hoo. Perhaps if it had been you he'd been viciously attacking the past few days, or posting actual personal information about (like he did about Scooter) you'd be as glad of that departure as doubtless some of the rest of us are. The extreme nastiness he was willing to engage in far outweighs any positive value his other contributions were adding to the board.

[Lord Jim]

Boo fucking hoo.

I take it we can cancel your grief counseling session?

[BoSoxGal]

[The Hen]

Sorry bsg, of course it is. As it is for a number of us.

I will admit to have being overly occupied and concerned with Gob's issues a a bit totally confused as to why certain things have happened.

I really haven't got the time to catch up with it all either,

if anyone wants to issue Cliff Notes, I'd be more than happy to read 'em.

[Sean]

if anyone wants to issue Cliff Notes, I'd be more than happy to read 'em.

Andrew got arsey.
Quad got arsey again.
Andrew fucked off.
Quad remains.

The end?

[Long Run]

On the perception of the ethics of police and prosecutors, obviously where one lives and what one's experiences are play a big part. I have three friends who are prosecutors and they are all exceptionally ethical. That is my impression of the vast majority of prosecutors I have known or see in action. I have heard about a small few that did things that were outright or questionably ethical. But that is here and based on my limited experience. I don't have much experience with the police in a context outside of traffic issues or reporting of minor crimes; and I'm glad for such limited involvement.

[BoSoxGal]

I have three friends who are prosecutors and they are all exceptionally ethical.

Four.

[oldr_n_wsr]

I do have to call "bad from" on @meric@nwom@n if she in fact looked up AndrewD's personal info and posted it here and bringing up his relationship with his wife. Whatever he posts here, he could be a totally different person in RL. Heck, I could be a wife beater for all you know.

bigskygal seems to have guessed and I don't know where I stand on that. To guess and imply that you "found" that info, I think is bad form also. To guess and say it's a guess would be different. Waiting a bunch of posts to actually say that you were guessing is not right either as many could think hte info was legit.

Attacking each other, while I don't agree with it and try not engage in any of it, is part of posting. Family (non-posting) and personal info should be off limits.

But hey, that's just me.

[@meric@nwom@n]

Where oh where was the bad form call when AGD was repeatedly calling me a cunt and questioning BSG's ethics?

I will outright say yes I looked up his personal info. I published one letter of his (person who is not supposed to be mentioned) initials.

Big hairy fucking deal.

And fuck anybody who judges. You didn't have the contemptible asswipe following you from thread to thread calling you names.

So fuck you oldr and your judgment.

Fuck everybody.

[Jarlaxle]

Where oh where was the bad form call when AGD was repeatedly calling me a cunt and questioning BSG's ethics?

Maybe the same place it was while he was calling me a sociopath, my wife a slut, and my mother a prostitute.

Or when he was accusing Jim of molesting his daughter, and me of stalking children.

Ange is unstable. I truly worry he might go postal.

[oldr_n_wsr]

Where oh where was the bad form call when AGD was repeatedly calling me a cunt and questioning BSG's ethics?

I will outright say yes I looked up his personal info. I published one letter of his (person who is not supposed to be mentioned) initials.

Big hairy fucking deal.

And fuck anybody who judges. You didn't have the contemptible asswipe following you from thread to thread calling you names.

So fuck you oldr and your judgment.

Fuck everybody.

I judge no one, lest I be judged.

You want to attack AndrewD on what he posts here, I have no problem with that as I have no problem with anyone attacking anyone else on them or what they post here. But when you go and start to introduce info that you went out and actively looked up about them and their lives that has not been posted here (or as far as I know on any other forum) then you are out of line. and I think you know that
So you can go f%^& yourself as you have introduced info/stuff/bullshit that no one else (least of all the person you target) has introduced here (as far as I know). And I find that to be BAD FORM. If you don't, then you are less than I thought you were.
Sorry, that's the way I see it, convince me otherwise or not.

[BoSoxGal]

Andrew D has referenced his wife, his deceased father and his home office before, if not here then at CSB.

What info exactly do you think @w introduced to the board from off-board? I don't know that her posts were even substantiated by fact, or if she was just clever enough to push the right buttons to enrage Andrew D - she certainly has that right, given what he'd been posting to her.

Andrew D posted someone's IRL name. @w posted nothing of the sort.

[@meric@nwom@n]

You have not taken the time to look up the facts oldr, very bad form i would say

Again fuck you and the high horse you sit on.

[Rick]

I don't know how bigskygal conducts herself as a prosecutor. Her identity may be an open book, but if so, it is a book I have not read. Maybe I could find out about her by rummaging around here and elsewhere. I have seen no reason to do that.

All I know about her being a prosecutor is that she is new at it. If I recall correctly, she told us before that she began her career as a defense attorney with an idealistic view. Over time, that idealism faded, and she became disillusioned with that line of work.

That is a very common progression. Common on both sides of the criminal-law fence. What will she think five years from now about what prosecutors do? Only time will tell.

It bears noting that prosecutors rarely need to fabricate evidence. Most of the time, the police have done that for them. All they need to do is assume the truth of what the police say and present it as true.

But over time, most prosecutors become more and more jaded about the veracity of police testimony. That does not mean that they are actually suborning perjury; after all, they are not percipient witnesses to the underlying facts. It means that they have doubts about the truth of what the police claim, but nonetheless, they ask the court or the jury to believe that testimony.

"The court" is an important point. Most police perjury is not directed at juries. Most of it is directed at courts. The police are aware of the exclusionary rule, and they hate it. So they lie, not necessarily about the evidence itself, but about how they obtained it. They know perfectly well what their affidavits have to say to survive Fourth-Amendment challenges, so that is what they say. True? False? A consideration relevant only to tactics.

It is still true that in those instances where subornation of perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction, most prosecutors will do it.Emphasis mine And they won't think of themselves as "lying scumbags." They are convinced that the defendant is guilty -- and they are often quite right about that -- and they conclude that a little subornation of perjury is worth it to get some creep of the streets before he rapes and murders another victim.

Not all of them. I know a (former) prosecutor who, in my judgment, never did suborn perjury and probably never even seriously considered suborning perjury. He is devoutly -- and I mean way, way devoutly -- religious. He would not have suborned perjury both because he believes, on a very deep level, that such a thing would be inexcusably wrong and because he would not imperil his immortal soul.

Several years from now, perhaps we will see what bigskygal thinks of the veracity of police testimony. Or maybe we will not. Maybe she will not be inclined to tell us; maybe she won't be posting here at all. Who knows?

But one thing we do know is that she has been a prosecutor for a very short time. It seems to me that what people who have been prosecutors for a long time have opinions that are grounded in a much greater wealth of experience.

People will believe whatever they want to believe. There is an abundance of readily accessible information about prosecutorial misconduct. I think that people should read it so that they can come to informed conclusions. But whether they do so or not is not up to me. It is up to them.

It's my belief that this is the point where Andrew and LJ parted.

I've been wrong before...

[Andrew D]

Where we parted was where he twisted that into my supposed assertion that most prosecutors suborn perjury.

I made no such assertion.

His claiming that I had made such an assertion was a lie.

And he knows it.

[Gob]

Hey, I've got an idea...


What don't we drop this one...

[quaddriver]

Andrew D has referenced his wife, his deceased father and his home office before, if not here then at CSB.

.

that almost looks like a second vote that if someone references their offboard kin onboard, it is okay to re-reference them.

Not that I am counting or anything

[oldr_n_wsr]

"Mrs. D why do you stay with that asshole?"

Sorry correction, that would be Ms.

edited to remove initial

Well here you must have looked up AndrewD and his wife, and if you didn't and got the info on another board (as I have not seen him post it here) then it is still bad form. IMO what is said/posted HERE (Pland B) is fair game, what is said/found/looked up elsewhere is not.

You have not taken the time to look up the facts oldr, very bad form i would say

Again fuck you and the high horse you sit on.

I don't own a horse.

And cursing becomes you.

[Rick]

Where we parted was where he twisted that into my supposed assertion that most prosecutors suborn perjury.

I made no such assertion.

His claiming that I had made such an assertion was a lie.

And he knows it.

Andrew I can see that you are one that prides them self on the ability to eschew obfuscation.

However with that post I truly feel you failed.

The ability to read "Most prosecutors suborn perjury" is no mean [ETA=sorry, no great accomplishment] feat.

Circumstances for doing so not withstanding...

[Andrew D]

The ability to read "Most prosecutors suborn perjury" is no mean [ETA=sorry, no great accomplishment] feat.

I agree, keld feldspar. That assertion is not at all difficult to read.

It also happens to be an assertion that I did not make.

I have no inclination to rehash the whole thing. It is all out there for anyone to see.

So just two quick points.

First, the leap from this:

It bears noting that prosecutors rarely need to fabricate evidence. Most of the time, the police have done that for them. All they need to do is assume the truth of what the police say and present it as true.

But over time, most prosecutors become more and more jaded about the veracity of police testimony. That does not mean that they are actually suborning perjury; after all, they are not percipient witnesses to the underlying facts. It means that they have doubts about the truth of what the police claim, but nonetheless, they ask the court or the jury to believe that testimony.

"The court" is an important point. Most police perjury is not directed at juries. Most of it is directed at courts. The police are aware of the exclusionary rule, and they hate it. So they lie, not necessarily about the evidence itself, but about how they obtained it. They know perfectly well what their affidavits have to say to survive Fourth-Amendment challenges, so that is what they say. True? False? A consideration relevant only to tactics.

It is still true that in those instances where subornation of perjury is necessary to obtain a conviction, most prosecutors will do it. And they won't think of themselves as "lying scumbags." They are convinced that the defendant is guilty -- and they are often quite right about that -- and they conclude that a little subornation of perjury is worth it to get some creep of the streets before he rapes and murders another victim.

to this:

He makes an assertion he doesn't back up, gets called on it, and rather than either support the assertion, (an admittedly tall order when the assertion is that "most" prosecutors in this country suborn perjury) or retract or amend it, he instead tries to change the subject by erecting a complete straw man and trying to throw the person who called him on his ass gas on the defensive.

cannot be made by honest, rational means.

It simply cannot be done.

Fervently, desperately, flailingly as one might wish that it could be done by honest, rational means -- or even by what one might wish to mock up as honest, rational means -- it cannot be done.

Second, two widely respected posters here, neither of whose honesty or intelligence is (as far as I know) seriously disputed here, have given their own entirely independent assessments.

A far more accurate and fair reading of what Andrew has set out if that he has indeed produced evidence supporting his statements about prosecutors, and both he and I produced evidence supporting the statements he made regarding "testilying." The fact that you don't like that evidence, doesn't make it any less what it is: evidence. I also note that you have not produced anything in the realm of evidence which is contrary to Andrew's evidence. Other than your opinion of course, but you aren't being called as an expert witness in this matter. You've also tried to show that Andrew is biased regarding prosecutors, and perhaps he is. But again, that doesn't mean his evidence stops being evidence. If you have evidence to counter his assertions -- evidence which is something more than your own biased opinion -- please produce it.

Not that it "happens most of the time," but that most prosecutors would do it if required to get the conviction.

If five prosecutors each try 20 cases, and three of those prosecutors employ misconduct in one case each, you've got only 3 cases of misconduct out of 100 cases, yet more than half the prosecutors (60%) were willing to do it.

The fact that I understood what Andrew had actually written, rather than your re-(mis-)statement of his contention, and how the evidence he presented supported his opinion, hardly amounts to fueling whatever pissing match that you two already had going. Consider the log in your own eye, brother.

(Emphases added throughout.)

You will have to draw your own conclusions.