Absolutely despicable behaviour by cops

[Sue U]

Advocating for jury nullification -- whether used for good or ill -- is tantamount to advocating for judicial anarchy or mob rule.

It worked for Johnny Cochrane...

That is exactly what he did in his closing argument in the Simpson case....

No, he didn't. He made the argument that the state's witness testimony and physical evidence were unreliable, perhaps manufactured, and that the state had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury was already primed to believe the police were racist and corrupt, and Mark Fuhrman certainly didn't help the state on that score. It was not a case of jury nullification, it was a case of the state misjudging the quality of its case and the defense exploiting those holes.

[Lord Jim]

Sue, in his closing argument, he told the jury that they should acquit Simpson in order to "send a message" against racism and police misconduct.

Jury verdicts are supposed to be about determining facts and deciding whether or not the state has proved it's case beyond a reasonable doubt against the charged defendant...

NOT about "sending messages" about social ills...

[Andrew D]

I made it very clear I was sharing my anecdotal experience.

... we see it all the time ....

So your minute anecdotal experience is sufficient to support a sweeping generalization.

But if I make a generalization that you don't like, it has to be supported with reams of evidence.

And even that won't be enough.

Glad we got that cleared up.

[Scooter]

"We see it all the time" is not a generalization; it is a statement about her own experience.

Now, if you had said something like "most prosecutors I have dealt with..." rather than "most prosecutors...", this would have been a completely different discussion.

[Andrew D]

"We see it all the time" is not a generalization; it is a statement about her own experience.

Really?

Who are "we"?

For whom, other than herself, is she presuming to speak?

[Scooter]

I think you knew exactly what she meant the first time you attempted to distort it, Andrew.

Now kindly go fuck yourself, unless you can find some two-dollar crack whore who would be willing to lower herself enough to oblige you.

[Andrew D]

Wow.

A gasket has blown.

I understand the words "we see it all the time" to mean rather more than one individual's sole experience.

You wrote:

Now, if you had said something like "most prosecutors I have dealt with..." rather than "most prosecutors...", this would have been a completely different discussion.

Is it not true, by the same token, that if she had written something like "I see it all the time" rather than "we see it all the time," this would be a different discussion?

Or am I missing something?

[BoSoxGal]

'We' = me and the two other prosecutors in my office. I already clarified that I was speaking ANECDOTALLY. I'm assuming you know the meaning of the word.

Now, how again do you, a lawyer not even practicing criminal law, justify making an assertion such as you did concerning the behavior of thousands of lawyers sworn to uphold the law across the country (if not the world; your accusation was rather sweeping, and one cannot be certain just how sweeping you intended it to be)?

I 'get' that you have an irrational hatred of prosecutors. But you simply haven't provided substantiation for your assertion. I don't think you can, and it's sad to see you so irrationally attached to an indefensible position.

[Sue U]

During cross-examination, Fuhrman, when asked by defense attorney F. Lee Bailey whether he had used the word "nigger", said he hadn't used the word in 10 years. The defense produced four witnesses to establish that Fuhrman had used the word "nigger" more recently; as well as an audiotape contradicting his testimony. This testimony eventually resulted in a perjury conviction. In one 1985 recording, Fuhrman gave a taped interview to Laura Hart McKinny, a writer working on a screenplay about female police officers. In another interview, Fuhrman talked about gang members and was quoted as saying, "Yeah we work with niggers and gangs. You can take one of these niggers, drag 'em into the alley and beat the shit out of them and kick them. You can see them twitch. It really relieves your tension." He went on to say "we had them begging that they'd never be gang members again, begging us." He said that he would tell them, "You do what you're told, understand, nigger?"[3]

Only limited excerpts of the tapes were admitted as evidence in the Simpson trial, but the content of the admitted portions were strong enough to cast doubt on Fuhrman's motives and credibility with the jury.

With the jury absent on September 6, 1995, the defense asked Fuhrman whether he had ever falsified police reports or if he had planted or manufactured evidence in the Simpson case. He invoked his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Fuhrm ... rder_trial

[Andrew D]

One need not be a lawyer at all, let alone a criminal lawyer, to observe the "justice" system. Anyone who cares to can watch it in operation. After all, bigskygal appears to have no problem with the total baselessness of non-lawyer Lord Jim's assertions on this subject.

Same goes for "law enforcement": Anyone who cares to can watch the police in action.

If, that is, they will let you.

If the police are so ethical, how come they take such exception to being observed by ordinary citizens? The California Supreme Court had to rule that simply watching the police interact with someone is not something for which one can be arrested. Why? If the police are so ethical, why did they even threaten to arrest the observer in the first place, let alone push the case all the way to the California Supreme Court?

Even years after that ruling, I have been threatened with arrest for stopping to watch, at a distance of more than fifty feet, police officers interact with someone. Why?

What are they so afraid that someone might see?

[Crackpot]

Probably the same reason why I don't like Engineers sitting over my shoulder when I'm doing my Job. It's a distraction that divides my attention and increases the possiblitiy that I'll make a mistake. (and that doesn't even get into the "advice" offered from the peanut gallery)

[Andrew D]

And if I had been near enough to them that "interfering with an investigation" (their words, not yours) could have been even remotely plausible, that would have been different. I am not referring to getting right in the middle of what they were doing. I am referring to observing them from across the street. Or down the block. Etc.

They are public servants. Many public servants work in full view of the public. Crossing guards at intersections work in full public view. Anyone can observe them. Public employees who fill in potholes work in full public view. Anyone can observe them. Public employees who build highways, who fix broken power lines, who deliver mail ....

The police are public servants. But they appear to be afraid of being observed, when they are working out in public, by members of the very public whom they serve.

Why?

We pay their salaries. What is wrong with our checking up on them by watching, when they are out in public, how they behave?

[Joe Guy]

There's a show on TV called 'Cops.'

It's a show about cops in cities all over the U.S. that don't like to be observed while working.

[Andrew D]

Those police departments get to choose which officers are being observed and when. I will not presume to speak for others, but I am not at all surprised that many police departments are happy to be observed when they can use their being observed as exercises in public relations.

[BoSoxGal]

Also First 48, and any other number of documentaries which have explored, largely unrestrained, the workings of law enforcement.

[Andrew D]

"Largely unrestrained"? Really?

Do you also believe that people on "Survivor" behave as they would if they did not know that they were being filmed?

[Crackpot]

There is a difference between being seen and being watched. I am seen by any nomber of people walking by oover the course of a day but the only ones that get any attention are the ones who stop and burn a hole in the back of my neck. Being actively watched is a stressor expecially to one not accustomed to it And people are likely to react in some form or another to being watched. Are all of them going to be particularly appropriate? No. but it is also going to be impacted by the demenor of the one doing the watching.

[Jarlaxle]

Advocating for jury nullification -- whether used for good or ill -- is tantamount to advocating for judicial anarchy or mob rule.

It worked for Johnny Cochrane...

That is exactly what he did in his closing argument in the Simpson case....

No, he didn't. He made the argument that the state's witness testimony and physical evidence were unreliable, perhaps manufactured, and that the state had not proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury was already primed to believe the police were racist and corrupt, and Mark Fuhrman certainly didn't help the state on that score. It was not a case of jury nullification, it was a case of the state misjudging the quality of its case and the defense exploiting those holes.

It seems to me it was, mostly, a case of a superb defence lawyer and a seriously bungled prosecution.

[Lord Jim]

It seems to me it was, mostly, a case of a superb defence lawyer and a seriously bungled prosecution.

I don't disagree with that Jarl...(though if the prosecution had presented their case brilliantly they would likely still have lost; that case was lost in the jury selection process) My point was that in his closing argument, Cochran called on this jury to acquit Simpson in order to "send a message" which is asking them to do something other than follow the law. As I pointed out earlier, the juries role is to weigh evidence, and follow the judges instructions in determining whether guilt has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt in the specific case before them....

Not "send messages"....

[Andrew D]

Given that the question was "Has the prosecution proved Simpson's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?" could any rational juror have honestly answered "yes"? I think not.