Absolutely despicable behaviour by cops

[BoSoxGal]

In all fairness, the articles you cite incorrectly suggest this is a case of 'prosecutorial hysteria', yet at the same time the Sheriff is acknowledging that his deputies need further education on the applicable laws. As I said in my earlier post, this is a situation where deputies ticketed, or 'charged', the offenses - not prosecutors. It's a mistake of language that creates a misperception - had the Sheriff not dismissed this offense, it is very likely the prosecutor given the file would have. At the risk of reopening the floor to more prosecutor bashing, bottom line the State has to be able to prove all elements of the crime charged and thus any first-year prosecutor would have known to dismiss it.

For the record, in my experience cops regularly refer cases for charging on offenses where the evidence doesn't substantiate the offense they seek to charge; it's not typically nefarious - the cops just don't understand the law as intricately as the lawyers do, nor should they be expected to, given the difference in education.

Arguments between the police & prosecution on the issue of charging, or pursuing cases at all, are commonplace.

[Crackpot]

But I thought you all were in cahoots in order to railroad innocent people!

[Andrew D]

How many innocent people are rotting in prison right now because they drew the short straw and ended up with bigskygal defending them?

[The Hen]

Honestly. Is it necessary for you to be such a cunt Andrew?

Really?

[BoSoxGal]

Yeah, okay.

Bye y'all.

[@meric@nwom@n]

Honestly. Is it necessary for you to be such a cunt Andrew?

Really?

Yep, I believe he knows no other way.

Pity his wife living with that arrogant asshole.

[Jarlaxle]

Honestly. Is it necessary for you to be such a cunt Andrew?

Really?

Have you actually read his posts here or at the CSB? If you have, I do not understand why you are asking that question, since the answer is obvious.

[Andrew D]

I have been getting ass-raped for days over something I did not say.

Something I did not say.

I just didn't.

And I have been getting ass-raped for days for failing to provide "evidence" for something I did say.

By someone who has never given a shit about evidence when it comes to his own assertions. (And someone else who jumped right on his bandwagon. Go back and read some of the stuff she herself has posted about prosecutors. Back before she decided to become one.)

I don't remember which postings were here and which ones were at The Other Place.

But we are the same people here as we were over there.

Lord Jim insisted over and over that the detainees at Guantanamo are terrorists. ("High-value terrorists," etc.)

I pointed out that because we do not even know these people's names, we have no way of knowing whether they are terrorists or not. They certainly could be, but maybe they are not. Maybe some of them are, and others are not.

I asked him to produce evidence to support his claim. He produced nothing.

Nothing.

That is not really surprising, because how would he know whether they are terrorists? He, like me, like you, like everyone else here (unless someone has high-level clearance), does not even know their names, let alone what they are accused of having done or what the evidence to support those accusations might be.

But did that deter him from claiming that they are terrorists?

Not a bit.

Blithely on and on and on, making the same claim over and over and over, without providing a shred of evidence to support it.

And where was the clusterfuck of people demanding that he produce evidence?

Nowhere.

No fucking where.

So am I pissed off? Yes. Am I being an asshole? Yes.

Can you blame me? That's up to you.

But I feel that I have been turned upon.

I have spent years scrupulously amassing evidence for things I say. Many of my postings have been so evidence-crammed that people -- even people very much interested in the subject matter -- could not force themselves to read all the way through them.

How many people here or at The Other Place have posted something -- I mean something they wrote, not something copied and pasted from somewhere else -- with more than fifty footnotes?

But for once I decided to post an assertion without citing evidence to support it. And what happened?

People who had in the past complimented me on my devotion to backing up everything I said -- and I have produced postings in which every single sentence had specifically cited evidentiary support -- suddenly pretended that none of that had ever happened.

I suddenly became the guy who habitually posts things without adducing evidence to support them.

Did I post something this time without adducing evidence to support it? Yes.

(I later adduced evidence to support it, evidence which was widely ignored, but when I first posted it, I did not adduce any supporting evidence. I admit it. I have repeatedly admitted it.)

But I got a whole bunch of responses to the effect (not verbatim; to the effect) that "This is just another one of his claims not supported by evidence."

Another one? How many have there been?

And what happened to all those years of providing a public service?

Someone once referred to my postings, taken together, as a graduate course in law which I provided for free. Someone else not long ago remarked that one of my postings, with a bit of editing, could be a law review article.

And I did all that work, whether here or at The Other Place, for nothing.

For no reason other than that I consider it part of my obligation as an attorney to try to make the law comprehensible to people who have not had the benefit, or the curse, of a legal education.

And what happened to all of that? What became of my long history of effort -- serious, time-consuming effort, effort that very few others in my position would have bothered to undertake?

It got flushed away like so much unwanted fecal matter.

So am I pissed off? Yes. Have I been an asshole? Yes.

Can you blame me? That's up to you.

[Andrew D]

Please notice, by the way, that I have said nothing about the nudge I got other than that it exists. I have said nothing about where the nudge came from, what it was, etc.

I have said that any of us can find out Scooter's surname -- if it is his surname -- by Googling nothing but the information he has given us.

And that is true.

Please notice my repeatedly having said "if it is his surname" (or words to that effect). It probably is; the search results I obtained make it appear to be his surname. But at this point, the best evidence that it actually is his surname is its having been edited away on that ground.

After I utilized the nudge I had been given, I wanted to be sure that what I was going to post did not depend on that nudge. So I did the searching without it.

I carefully constructed searches based entirely on information which Scooter himself has provided. I didn't even use information which others have posted about him. I went strictly on the information which he himself has provided.

It took maybe three minutes. Maybe five. A couple of Googlings, a few link-hoppings, and there it was.

Anyone here could do the same thing.

Easily.

[Andrew D]

Honestly. Is it necessary for you to be such a cunt Andrew?

Really?

You want to talk cunt? How about this:

Honestly. Is it necessary for you to be such a cunt Andrew?

Really?

Yep, I believe he knows no other way.

Pity his wife living with that arrogant asshole.

Where is the outrage?

What has my wife got to do with it?

She and I have been together for twenty years.

Twenty years.

Has @meric@nwom@n ever been with a man -- or a woman, if that is her orientation -- for twenty years?

Does she really know anything about building a long-term, stable relationship?

Or is she just spewing shit?

Why is there no pile-on demanding to know how she can have the gall to bring my wife into this?

[The Hen]

I am sorry your wife was brought into this.

Now stop being a cunt.

[@meric@nwom@n]

I still feel very sorry for the woman.

Twenty years of pure hell with that asshole. Poor thing.

[Andrew D]

Pure hell?

Why would she still be with me if it were pure hell?

She could divorce me today if she wanted to.

She does not have to stay with me. This is not some country where divorce is impossible. This is not some country where divorce is even difficult. We live in North California. You want to divorce your spouse? You don't even have to give a reason.

And she is not economically dependent on me. She does not need my income to survive; she does not need my income to live a comfortable life.

And yet, she is still with me.

Twenty years, and she is still with me.

Does that sound like pure hell?

Or does it sound like someone is being a cunt, and maybe it ain't me?

[The Hen]

There are a lot of cunts on this Board Andrew. I will put up my hand and claim my cuntishness myself.

I am the Hen and I am a right cunt .... not a left one mind you, a right one.

[@meric@nwom@n]

Pure hell?

Why would she still be with me if it were pure hell?

She could divorce me today if she wanted to.

She does not have to stay with me. This is not some country where divorce is impossible. This is not some country where divorce is even difficult. We live in North California. You want to divorce your spouse? You don't even have to give a reason.

And she is not economically dependent on me. She does not need my income to survive; she does not need my income to live a comfortable life.

And yet, she is still with me.

Twenty years, and she is still with me.

Does that sound like pure hell?

Or does it sound like someone is being a cunt, and maybe it ain't me?

Lots of abused women, whether it be psychological abuse or physical abuse they are enduring, stay with men for various reasons. I wouldn't know her reasons.

Maybe I will do a deep google search and find a phone number and call her up and ask her.

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

Just for shits and giggles.

[Rick]

I do not know Andrew or his wife.

However based on the length of time that I have read his posts I doubt very seriously if either suffers from spousel abuse.

I picture it nearly Rockwellian...

[@meric@nwom@n]

We have only what we know from here. Only those bits he lets
Us see. I could easily envision a psychologically battered woman in his world.

[@meric@nwom@n]

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

Sorry correction, that would be Ms.

edited to remove initial

[rubato]

I do not know Andrew or his wife.

However based on the length of time that I have read his posts I doubt very seriously if either suffers from spousel abuse.

I picture it nearly Rockwellian...

George Lincoln?

or

Norman?

yrs,
rubato

[Andrew D]

See?

See how easy it is?