Jump to content

When Defending Cops Becomes Impossible


Cinaruco
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Ssnake said:

No, I mean intra-US cultural differences. Besides, rural Texas, while among the highest gun ownership ratios on the planet, typically has a murder rate below that of European countries. Something that it usually overlooked by fellow Europeans in discussions about gun ownership. Heck, most aren't even aware of the differences within Europe, like Switzerland, Austria, Serbia, Finland.

Certainly, and that's why I was alluding to two-bit discussions. OTOH, other countries have internal cultural differences too, some between the same groups as in the US, definitely between urban and rural areas, often between groups of different ethnic background etc.; but national cultures still have an impact.

Statistics are not always comparable due to diverging definitions and counting methods, however there are clear distinctions in stats of crime and use of force by police officers between broadly comparable cities. Say, Berlin as an example I'm familiar with, and Los Angeles, both with populations close to four million of very diverse ethnic makeup and, for the respective country, left-leaning local government. Same for rural areas. 

Beyond the stereotypes of gun-happy Americans and law-abiding Germans (though stereotypes of course often have a core of truth), there are broader factors of national culture at work, like the belief in individual vs. common responsibility, or liberty vs. security. Which for example may inform the choice whether to spend more on crime prevention (including welfare and healthcare to keep the social peace) or crime fighting (law enforcement and corrections to deal with the failures and excesses of individual responsibility) to keep society working. Different approaches towards the same end, probably with the same overall expense, but different effects due to diverging cultural preferences. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 1.9k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

In Germany, if you rob a bank, how long before you're released from prison? Do German prosecutors/judges routinely release charged suspects who are out on bond for previous offenses? 

If you have a fellow who's robbed a bank and committed a string of robberies, how often are they released from prison early with only a fraction of the time served? 

Also, I have been given to understand that fighting with German Police is a very good way to being very badly injured. Is this incorrect? What happens if you fight with the Polizei or shoot at them? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Chauvin found guilty of 2nd degree murder, 3rd degree murder, 2nd degree manslaughter. 

Prosecution apparently slipped in a lie in closing arguments;

https://lawofselfdefense.com/chauvin-trial-the-big-lie-of-the-3-minute-plus-restraint-while-pulseless/

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm liking how guilt of the 2nd degree manslaughter gains them the crimes he committed while causing the death of the victim. It's a self licking icecream cone charge set. 

I predict an appeal that sets the convictions aside on a variety of points. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IANAL, but if the Minnesota courts work at all, overturn and retrial should be likely.

Followup question is whether Chauvin gets better representation next time.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, rmgill said:

In Germany, if you rob a bank, how long before you're released from prison? Do German prosecutors/judges routinely release charged suspects who are out on bond for previous offenses? 

If you have a fellow who's robbed a bank and committed a string of robberies, how often are they released from prison early with only a fraction of the time served? 

Also, I have been given to understand that fighting with German Police is a very good way to being very badly injured. Is this incorrect? What happens if you fight with the Polizei or shoot at them? 

These are, well, very American questions. I don't fault you for it, it just illustrates that you're starting off from premises which do not necessarily apply.

Robbing a bank, and the sentencing - it totally depends on the circumstances. But lt's say you brandishes a pistol or something, demanded money, and ran off with the little that the cashier had available (note that bank robberies are effectively a thing of the past, only very stupid criminals still pull these kinds of stunts), well, my expectation would be a sentence between four and eight years, depending on whether it's a first-time or repeat offense, out in two to six, depending on your performance in prison.

"Out on bond" means a part of a sentence suspended, not the bail money to get you out of prison during the investigation, I presume? I'm not entirely sure about the practice. I wouldn't rule out that it happens with some regularity, "but"... I think the general approach in Germany is best described as giving pretty much everybody a second, third, fourth chance but to harden up on every subsequent fuck-up that you get yourself into. Especially when it comes to drugs, murder, use of guns, kidnapping and the like, the police will usually be pretty effective in tracing you down and getting you docked. Generally the system in Germany is "bleeding hearts liberal", but the societal consequences are different from the US. I'll put a Youtube link below to illustrate some differences.

Likewise, fighting with the police - not advisable (but where in the world is it?). OK, in the US you'll get shot or tasered, less likely over here. But they have no problem with subduing you physically in painful and typically rather quick moves, and the legal system here makes it next to impossible to sue the police or the city or anyone for more than a pittance in compensation for physical or, heh, "emotional trauma". That may be the biggest difference, the scum here can't leverage litigation to force chickenhearted bureaucrats to restrain the police from doing what's necessary.

Clean prisons don't breed better criminals. But the absence of inner-city ghettos, glorification of thug life etc. and a legal system that is less inviting to be weaponized (loser pays, no extortion of overcompensation, punitive damages etc.) provides a counterbalance to the otherwise somewhat lenient legal system, at least when it comes to one-time slip-ups or a (hopefully brief) period of juvenile delinquency. The goal is to bring criminals back on the path towards non-destructive citizenship.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get that the US system will be different. That's why I call out those examples to see, because I'm sure when the US cases are talked about in media, those differences aren't explained well. 

Bond in the US is that pre-trial or during the trial you can give a surety bond where you are let out of jail as your word that you will appear for the trial and or conviction. If you fail, you give up your bond, usually money. In general you have to put up 10% of the actual value of the bond. So a 100,000 bond will require you to front up $10,000. You can get a bail bondsman to front you the money in our system. 

Folks in our political sphere want to make bond cashless allowing more poor folks to get out, but then they have nothing they have put up as their word. 

In the US parole is after conviction, you're granted parole in agreement to not do it again. Naturally we have folks who are out on parole and who will commit additional crimes. When you commit such a crime, the parole is supposed to be revoked and you go back to prison as well as suffer consequences for those other crimes you committed. 

In the Atlanta DUI case that you probably saw, he was out on Parole for a previous crime. 


Suffice to say, we have examples of violent criminals who quite literally are able to go to prison, get out in very short order, commit more crimes and it's more or less a revolving door. Its even worse when they're able to commit a crime and the local court system releases them immediately because the act is deemed to be of little hazard, despite being things like assault and theft. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

IANAL, but if the Minnesota courts work at all, overturn and retrial should be likely.

Followup question is whether Chauvin gets better representation next time.

 

He had pretty good representation. However the 12 vs 1 legal team was a tall order. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, rmgill said:

Bond in the US is that pre-trial or during the trial you can give a surety bond where you are let out of jail as your word that you will appear for the trial and or conviction.

Okay, I wasn't entirely sure if I had it right. So, "it happens" here in Germany and the principle is the same, but it's still an exception and there's no industry of loan sharks and head hunters flourishing right next to each PD building or so. Typically you get released until the day of your trial unless you're deemed a danger to society of there's specific reason to believe that you might flee the coutry or otherwise go dark. Like, if there's a high prison sentence to be expected, if you have a place of residence or relatives living abroad, if it's to be expected that you go and mess up the ongoing investigation against you, or if you're particularly rich so that it's reason to believe that you could easily set up a new life somewhere else.

And right between "you go home and report every week to the local PD that you're still here until we have your trial in one or two years" and "no way we're going to release you, and if you don't like it go sue us" (which you can) there's those few cases where the court might decide that yes, you may be released but only if you pay a significant sum based on your general financial situation.

Can't comment much on the "revolving door prisons"; the trope is known in Germany and sometimes it feels like it over here too, but objectively speaking it does not seem to contribute much to the overall delinquency rate, as emotionally dissatisfying as it often is. I'm not saying that we have no career criminals, but what we don't have are gang, gun, and ghetto culture. And remember, rural Texas is doing better than Germany. It's not like this is something specific German or European thing. It just proves that incarceration rate has little to do with overall delinquency.

People who murder their spouse after decades of abuse are not a threat to their neighbors. That doesn't mean that in Germany your "first murder is free" or anything, but the main question is whether you're going to remain destructive or not. If not the time to spend in prison will be (comparatively) minimal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

IANAL, but if the Minnesota courts work at all, overturn and retrial should be likely.

Followup question is whether Chauvin gets better representation next time.

 

It will not be overturned, there will be no retrial.  No judge(s) will allow themselves to be responsible for setting the nation on fire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, rmgill said:

He had pretty good representation. However the 12 vs 1 legal team was a tall order. 

Pretty good representation in terms of addressing the facts, very weak on addressing the emotional framing. I have come to appreciate the analysis by Robert Barnes as seen on the Viva Frei channel on Youtube. My one experience on a jury (tort case) supports Barnes' POV.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, DKTanker said:

It will not be overturned, there will be no retrial.  No judge(s) will allow themselves to be responsible for setting the nation on fire.

You're probably right. I now have the impression the judge and jury threw Chauvin under the bus in order to get as far away from the case as possible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, Ivanhoe said:

You're probably right. I now have the impression the judge and jury threw Chauvin under the bus in order to get as far away from the case as possible.

 And BLM wins as the police will have to be defunded as nobody with an ounce of intelligence will want to be a police officer in that city.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, rmgill said:

He had pretty good representation. However the 12 vs 1 legal team was a tall order. 

I don't agree. You for a start have to have aprox. same number of days for defense as there was for prosecution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, rmgill said:


So, still wondering. What's a proper number for the number of civilians killed by police in encounters? What should it be? 

 

The correct answer is None. Nobody should die in a police encounter, ever. Where nobody means any and all involved.

Does that provide anyone with enlightenment or advance the discussion at all? It's unachievable with any and all plausible strategies, so means nothing.

It's not a particularly meaningful question, it's not asked in good faith and you'll already have an answer to whatever anyone says in your pocket, and are probably squirming in excitement at the prospect of winning on the Internet when you trot it out. Why should anyone who might still be interested in a civil discussion bother to answer.

Fill your boots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mikel2 said:

 

Not surprisingly, Loury is on fire of late. His critiques are getting sharper and more direct.

When McWhorter does his homework, he is really insightful and both eloquent and concise. Sadly, he's a bit too cloistered in the ivory tower; he needs to get out more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, lucklucky said:

I don't agree. You for a start have to have aprox. same number of days for defense as there was for prosecution.

One of the Youtube videos I watched which analyzed the goings-on mentioned that the defense attorney looked worn out at the closing.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, lucklucky said:

I don't agree. You for a start have to have aprox. same number of days for defense as there was for prosecution.

I was just asserting that his attorney was operating competently. I agree the time allotted for prosecution and defense was more than slightly odd AND the fact that witnesses presented by the prosecution that were non-probative were an issue. I almost wonder ifa ll of that was structure TO give grounds for appeal. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, DB said:

 

The correct answer is None. Nobody should die in a police encounter, ever. Where nobody means any and all involved.

Does that provide anyone with enlightenment or advance the discussion at all? It's unachievable with any and all plausible strategies, so means nothing.

It's not a particularly meaningful question, it's not asked in good faith and you'll already have an answer to whatever anyone says in your pocket, and are probably squirming in excitement at the prospect of winning on the Internet when you trot it out. Why should anyone who might still be interested in a civil discussion bother to answer.

Fill your boots.

I'm trying to suss out that the contentions of what is an is not a good shoot for police work is often quite at odds with physical reality. There's a Rutger's professor ranting on Social Media today that the police who shot a black girl fighting with another black girl, and was about to stab her (I'm not sure if it was initially or again), was shot by the police. She seems to think that using guns in knife fights is wrong and that shooting legs or using tasers in deadly force encounters is reasonable. 

We have an entire body politic making arguments about things that they know nothing about and don't even take the time to know anything about. It's like peaceniks trying to tell E5M how to handle sniping of a guy planting an IED. 


Now...

The other point I'm making is asking what the ratio of blacks to whites killed by cops should be. It's an exercise in thinking to underscore the question of what is a correct ratio? 

 

Edited by rmgill
Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, rmgill said:

I was just asserting that his attorney was operating competently. I agree the time allotted for prosecution and defense was more than slightly odd AND the fact that witnesses presented by the prosecution that were non-probative were an issue. I almost wonder ifa ll of that was structure TO give grounds for appeal. 

We don't know yet whether the short defense closing was determined by the bench or by counsel.

I can definitely believe the judge wanted defense to wrap up before the weekend. I think its now obvious that defense gained nothing by pandering to the judge, because the judge demonstrated indifference to the rights of the defendant. So IMHO, defense should have told the judge that defense closing would finish when it finishes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, Wobbly Head said:

 And BLM wins as the police will have to be defunded as nobody with an ounce of intelligence will want to be a police officer.

FIFY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was listening to a podcast the other day I can recommend, Norco 80, about a bank robbery by a group of doomsday peppers in the town of Norco California. It was the first occasion CAR15s were used in a bank robbery. It resulted in the death of one officer, wounding 8 people, the damage or destruction of something like 30 patrol cars, and badly damaging one police helicopter which had to force land.

It uses the robbery as a base to discuss many other issues.One episode was an interview with a sociological scientist who had served as a reserve police officer and studied the use of violence in the police and the military. Her argument was that police had been educated that their own personal safety was more important than anything else, which resulted in approaches to situations that increased the risk to the public, to minimise risk to police. This was in marked contrast to the military ethos of risk that suggested the important thing was the mission, with risk second. According to her figures, adjusted for population, officer and public interaction resulted in a loss rate to the public 64 times that of the UK.

My point is this, what if the problem US police have is not race, but a zero risk culture to themselves? 

 

Podcast is here, well worth listening to, and very balanced before anyone jumps to conclusions.

https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/norco-80/id1543227602

 

 

Link to comment
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.

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.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...