(02-04-2021, 08:39 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, more developments in the Rittenhouse saga. Apparently, he provided an incorrect address to the courts and they cannot find him.
You know, I was more willing than most of my ideological bent to give him the self-defense excuse. He is not helping his case, though.
His behavior and conduct after the incident has zero bearing on the facts of the case or the validity of his self defense argument. That being said, he's certainly conducting himself like an ass. I don't think being made a hero by a certain segment of the population was a good thing for this kid.
(02-04-2021, 06:42 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: His behavior and conduct after the incident has zero bearing on the facts of the case or the validity of his self defense argument. That being said, he's certainly conducting himself like an ass. I don't think being made a hero by a certain segment of the population was a good thing for this kid.
You and I know it doesn't change the facts of the case, but I say it isn't helping him because the optics of it all to a jury will be damaging.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(02-04-2021, 09:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You and I know it doesn't change the facts of the case, but I say it isn't helping him because the optics of it all to a jury will be damaging.
Absolutely, which is why I've always said if you're not guilty go with a bench trial, all day every day.
(02-04-2021, 09:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Absolutely, which is why I've always said if you're not guilty go with a bench trial, all day every day.
I almost said in my post that he should request a bench trial at this point. We're on the same page, for sure. My only concern if I were him is if the judge gets pissed off enough at him that it could impact things. I know most jurists will still hold to the law but maybe just make some snarky comments in the documents, but everyone is human.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(02-04-2021, 09:32 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Absolutely, which is why I've always said if you're not guilty go with a bench trial, all day every day.
I'm no law-talking guy, but I can't imagine how a jury of 12 could NOT include at least one person who thinks the guy is a hero. Own the libs, vote not guilty.
(02-04-2021, 09:34 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I almost said in my post that he should request a bench trial at this point. We're on the same page, for sure. My only concern if I were him is if the judge gets pissed off enough at him that it could impact things. I know most jurists will still hold to the law but maybe just make some snarky comments in the documents, but everyone is human.
Bench officers are human too, and some of them I've worked with can be downright nasty. I will say that I've seen very few instances when I thought one went way outside the scope of the law and in every instance but a few it was on the punitive side. That being said, a judge will be far less likely to be swayed by emotion than a jury, as we both agree.
(02-04-2021, 10:02 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm no law-talking guy, but I can't imagine how a jury of 12 could NOT include at least one person who thinks the guy is a hero. Own the libs, vote not guilty.
You're ignoring the voir dire process. The DA is going to nuke anyone giving the slightest appearance of being even a little so inclined with preemptory challenges. You are correct that it only takes one, but they're going to do their best to make sure no one obvious gets on that jury, if a jury trial happens.
(02-04-2021, 11:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Bench officers are human too, and some of them I've worked with can be downright nasty. I will say that I've seen very few instances when I thought one went way outside the scope of the law and in every instance but a few it was on the punitive side. That being said, a judge will be far less likely to be swayed by emotion than a jury, as we both agree.
While I am very much on the side of self-defense for Rittenhouse, he will be found guilty for some of the charges because of the whole illegal possession of a firearm situation. In addition, there can be a very convincing argument made that he was the initiator (not saying I agree with that argument, but it can be made) and it could be more likely to convince the judge when he has been acting like a little shit and been hanging out with white supremacist militia types.
(02-04-2021, 11:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You're ignoring the voir dire process. The DA is going to nuke anyone giving the slightest appearance of being even a little so inclined with preemptory challenges. You are correct that it only takes one, but they're going to do their best to make sure no one obvious gets on that jury, if a jury trial happens.
Not only that, but it takes only one to hang a jury. That can often mean a retrial. So even if there is one in the mix it doesn't automatically mean it will get Rittenhouse off the hook.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
(02-04-2021, 11:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Bench officers are human too, and some of them I've worked with can be downright nasty. I will say that I've seen very few instances when I thought one went way outside the scope of the law and in every instance but a few it was on the punitive side. That being said, a judge will be far less likely to be swayed by emotion than a jury, as we both agree.
You're ignoring the voir dire process. The DA is going to nuke anyone giving the slightest appearance of being even a little so inclined with preemptory challenges. You are correct that it only takes one, but they're going to do their best to make sure no one obvious gets on that jury, if a jury trial happens.
I'd argue if there isn't at least 1 person out of 12 who thinks he's a hero who was attacked by terrorist leftists then it isn't truly a jury of his peers.
8.3% of peoole have to be on his side, but it's just a hypothetical.
(02-05-2021, 07:33 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: While I am very much on the side of self-defense for Rittenhouse, he will be found guilty for some of the charges because of the whole illegal possession of a firearm situation.
He absolutely should be found guilty of illegally acquiring and possessing a firearm. But, as you and I know, this has no bearing on his self defense claim at all.
Quote:In addition, there can be a very convincing argument made that he was the initiator (not saying I agree with that argument, but it can be made) and it could be more likely to convince the judge when he has been acting like a little shit and been hanging out with white supremacist militia types.
I agree an argument can be made, I don't think it's convincing at all. Stopping someone from pushing a burning dumpster into a gas station is not provocation to assault that person. In any other situation that act would be viewed as heroic.
Quote:Not only that, but it takes only one to hang a jury. That can often mean a retrial. So even if there is one in the mix it doesn't automatically mean it will get Rittenhouse off the hook.
Yeah, no way the DA lets this go after a single hung jury. This is a political prosecution to begin with, so they won't let it go in the interests of justice. Rittenhouse has a self defense argument wet dream scenario. Virtually everything is on film and completely exonerates him. The fact that murder charges were filed at all really makes me disappointed in the DA of that county. But being disappointed with DA's seems to be the norm of late.
(02-05-2021, 09:22 AM)Nately120 Wrote: I'd argue if there isn't at least 1 person out of 12 who thinks he's a hero who was attacked by terrorist leftists then it isn't truly a jury of his peers.
8.3% of peoole have to be on his side, but it's just a hypothetical.
You should watch some videos on the voir dire process and how much they basically have it down to a science. Of course the defense has their measure of preemptory challenges as well.
(02-05-2021, 12:46 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You should watch some videos on the voir dire process and how much they basically have it down to a science. Of course the defense has their measure of preemptory challenges as well.
I was called for jury duty for a murder trial and the prosecution used one of his strikes to remove me in the basis of my having an advanced degree in psychology.
I was a bit disappointed but also amused by it all.
(02-05-2021, 01:26 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I was called for jury duty for a murder trial and the prosecution used one of his strikes to remove me in the basis of my having an advanced degree in psychology.
I was a bit disappointed but also amused by it all.
Interesting. I'd be very intrigued to know what element of their case made them exclude you. Or they could have thought with your "touchy feely" degree you'd be a let 'em go liberal. xD
(02-05-2021, 01:26 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I was called for jury duty for a murder trial and the prosecution used one of his strikes to remove me in the basis of my having an advanced degree in psychology.
I was a bit disappointed but also amused by it all.
Only time I got called it was "Jury Celebration Week" or some such thing. We had coffee and donuts every morning.
I got called for the first case the first day. We went out after we were seated. Came back and they had reached a plea deal. I didn't even have my name called until the last case on the last day...which would have meant I was there longer than the couple days we were called for if I got on the jury. Originally I wasn't in the box and then a couple got removed for personal reasons. I got on the jury for about 15 minutes and then the I got removed because I had two relatives that worked in law enforcement (one in a prison). Can't say I was disappointed because I didn't want to miss any more work, but the case was pretty interesting.
The entire few days was interesting as I love courtroom stuff. I enjoyed the "behind the scenes" view I got even if it was very limited.
Oh and turned out one of my cousins was there the same week along with someone my wife graduated with so we just hung out for a couple days!
(02-05-2021, 01:31 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: Interesting. I'd be very intrigued to know what element of their case made them exclude you. Or they could have thought with your "touchy feely" degree you'd be a let 'em go liberal. xD
Prosecution seemed to think my degree would mean I wouldn't listen to their experts where I argued having an advanced degree in psychology made me more likely to examine the viewpoints of others in the field.
The bottom line was likely that I was in my mid 20s in a county that skewed older and very red so it was easier to just get me out of there.
Quote:Law enforcement confronts an old threat: far-right extremism in the ranks. ‘Swift action must be taken’
By KEVIN RECTOR, RICHARD WINTON
FEB. 17, 2021 5 AM PT
After an Orange County sheriff’s deputy was spotted on a protest skirmish line wearing a far-right Oath Keepers patch last summer, the department started to look for ways to better address extremism in its ranks.
Last week, after sources confirmed that FBI agents had searched the Irvine apartment of another O.C. officer suspected of participating in the far-right insurrection at the U.S. Capitol, the agency again stressed efforts to improve — including by pointing to new training to teach personnel how far-right and other radical groups recruit, operate and pose threats to police and the public.
“Obviously our thought process is our employees need to be informed,” said Sgt. Dennis Breckner, a sheriff’s spokesman. “The course is educational: This is what these groups do, and this is how they might try and ingratiate themselves with law enforcement officers and then use their participation for the group’s own means.”
In the wake of the Capitol attack and other recent incidents exposing far-right sympathies among law enforcement officers and the military — which is a big feeder of recruits into police forces — law enforcement leaders across the country are confronting anew an old threat: far-right extremism within their own ranks.
While leaders say they have long vetted for white supremacist, anti-government and other racist and radical beliefs and precluded recruits who harbor them, they also acknowledged that growing ideological fissures in the country have drawn an increasingly broad cross-section of the American populace, including cops, down conspiratorial rabbit holes and into the fold of radical right-wing militias and white supremacist organizations.
They noted growing court filings and evidence implicating individuals with military and policing backgrounds in the Capitol attack — which featured Proud Boys, Oath Keepers and other extremist factions — and said it has forced them to take a more careful look at the policies they have to prevent radicals from getting guns and badges.
In a response to congressional questions last month about police officers allegedly being involved in the Capitol attack, Major Cities Chiefs Assn. President Art Acevedo said law enforcement leaders nationwide would be reviewing the attack and looking for ways to root out extremism.
“To be clear, officers who subscribe to violent extremism, racism and hate have no place in our profession,” Acevedo wrote to Congress. “When officers with that mindset are identified, swift action must be taken.”
Days earlier, Acevedo — who is also chief of the Houston Police Department — announced that one of his officers had been identified entering the Capitol. That officer, Tam Pham, has resigned and been federally charged in the siege.
In an interview, Acevedo said the Capitol attack was “a wake-up call for the American people” and a moment of reckoning for police leaders.
“It is the first time in modern history that we have officers engaging in acts of sedition,” he said. “We have to do everything we can as police departments to weed out extremists who support violence, be it far right or far left.”
Similar efforts to address radicalism are also occurring in prosecutors’ offices and at the highest levels of government and the military.
Newly elected Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. George Gascón has said “extremist groups must be uprooted from law enforcement immediately.” President Biden’s administration has promised to expand the Justice Department’s power to investigate systemic police misconduct through the consent decree process. New U.S. Defense Secretary Lloyd J. Austin III last week said he had “met with senior leaders to discuss extremism in the military” and ordered a “stand down” over the next 60 days “so each service, each command and each unit can have a deeper conversation about this issue.”
“It comes down to leadership,” Austin wrote on Twitter. “Everyone’s.”
The new reckoning in some ways mirrors what Democratic lawmakers, academics and left-leaning activists have called on law enforcement to commit to for years — making it both welcome and overdue, some of those critics said.
The FBI highlighted the threat of white supremacist sentiment in police forces in a 2006 report released by Congress in September. Last August, the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan policy institute at the New York University Law School, found evidence the Oath Keepers and another group known as the Three Percenters had successfully infiltrated law enforcement, noting ties within at least a dozen states including California.
The issue has loomed in Southern California for decades.
In 1991, U.S. District Judge Terry J. Hatter Jr. found that a “neo-Nazi, white supremacist gang” of tattooed deputies existed within the Los Angeles County Sheriff’s Department, with the knowledge of department officials. In 1996, L.A. County paid $9 million in fines and training costs to settle a related class-action lawsuit. Today, the Sheriff’s Department says it takes allegations of bias or extremism seriously and roots out guilty deputies, but also faces new charges of harboring tattooed gangs — with the latest allegations landing just last year.
In a 2019 academic paper, associate Georgetown Law professor Vida Johnson found white supremacist ideology in departments across the country, noting “scandals in over 100 different police departments, in over 40 different states, in which individual police officers have sent overtly racist emails, texts or made racist comments via social media.”
Still, the issue has never been sufficiently addressed, Johnson said in an interview.
“It’s clear that extremist groups on the right and white supremacists have been agents of chaos, of violence in our community, and the fact that police are just now interested in training on this, I find more than disturbing,” Johnson said.
She said it is equally concerning when officers subscribe to some of the more modern conspiracy theories that circulate among the same groups — such as COVID-19 is a hoax or Biden stole the election from former President Trump.
“People who can’t separate fact from fiction probably shouldn’t be the ones enforcing laws with guns,” Johnson said.
Police officials say they are grappling with all of this.
Activists in L.A. have in recent years called out various individual LAPD officials for online comments and “likes” that the activists argued were radical and racist. Some critics say right-wing extremism runs deep in the department, and claim it has biased the department’s responses to protests where right-wing and left-wing factions have clashed. In recent weeks, social media accounts purportedly created and followed by LAPD personnel drew more scrutiny for their sexist, homophobic and otherwise crude tone.
Late last month, Los Angeles Police Chief Michel Moore sent a notice to his entire force reminding officers that their actions on and off duty must remain unsullied under the department’s ethics code, and that posting “harassing, discriminatory, and/or defamatory material” on social media could result in termination.
“Recent events both here and in Washington D.C., have shown the power and influence of social media, including how that power is not always used for good or legitimate purposes,” Moore wrote.
In an interview, Moore said last summer’s protests drove him and other LAPD officials to have renewed discussions about the best ways to vet for extremists and root them out when they’re found — lest they undermine their efforts to rebuild trust in L.A.'s diverse neighborhoods. He also said the LAPD is a diverse department, reflecting an array of political positions and beliefs, and rejected the notion that extremism was prevalent among his officers.
Moore said police departments deserve credit for diversifying their ranks for years, including by hiring more women and LGBTQ officers.
Still, he acknowledged the current cultural moment demands renewed attention to inclusion and fairness, and presents challenges.
Choosing where to draw the line between free speech and hate speech, between opinions an officer is entitled to and opinions that undermine the department’s mission, isn’t easy, Moore said. Separating dangerous extremism from political opinions that simply run counter to one’s own can also be fraught in today’s hyper-partisan atmosphere, he argued.
“What’s really critical I believe going forward is for America to ... recognize extremes and have no place for them in this democracy, but also to recognize views that are different from their own and not vilify or call them extremist,” Moore said.
Asked whether a member of an extremist group such as the Proud Boys — a misogynistic and xenophobic organization whose members were allegedly involved in the Capitol storming — could also be an LAPD officer, Moore at first suggested that the Proud Boys fell into a broad category of groups, along with Black Lives Matter, that many Americans were still trying to understand.
“America is struggling today with understanding whether the Proud Boys, some aspects of BLM, other groups including Heritage Foundation and others, represent ideology that’s counter to this democracy,” Moore said. “What I know is that this democracy is made best when there is discussion and there’s dialogue and debate.”
He added that determining when an officer crosses the line into unacceptable extremism largely depended on an assessment of whether their actions or comments could give the public an impression that they as officers would not be able to “act in a fair and impartial manner.”
“That’s where the line is,” Moore said. “I hate to use the analogy that’s overly used, but it’s kind of like pornography. You know it when you see it.”
Moore said that he personally considers the Proud Boys a group that “runs counter to this democracy,” and does not believe that “there is any place for a law enforcement officer to be a member of such organization or advocate for their existence.”
He said he is not aware of any LAPD officers who are members of the Proud Boys or any other extremist organization, but that the department is ready to investigate any such claims and fire individuals who cross the line of what is acceptable.
In Orange County, Sheriff Don Barnes also has expressed little patience for racism or radicalism in his ranks.
After the deputy was spotted with an Oath Keepers patch and a Gadsden flag patch on his vest last summer, Barnes announced an investigation, saying the symbols “contradict the values” of the department and that he was personally “deeply disturbed.”
Just two months later, however, the sheriff said the investigation was over — with the deputy, later identified as Russell Sison, still employed — because there was “no evidence” Sison had any “extremist views or racial views.”
Asked about the FBI search of Special Officer Monica Alston’s apartment last week, a sheriff’s spokesman said an officer had been placed on administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation but would not comment further.
Neither Sison nor Alston could be reached for comment.
(02-04-2021, 11:02 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: That being said, a judge will be far less likely to be swayed by emotion than a jury, as we both agree.
(02-18-2021, 03:21 PM)Rotobeast Wrote: Just talk about Jury Nullification.
I tell them that my religious upbringing in a peace church taught me that the only judge of man is God.
"A great democracy has got to be progressive, or it will soon cease to be either great or a democracy..." - TR
"The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little." - FDR
During the hearing, Allen told Durham he would murder his whole family. “I’ll cut your children up into pieces,” Allen said. “I’ll knock their brains out with a (expletive) hammer and feed them to you. … The babies will be going, ‘Daddy, daddy, help me.’"
Love the part where judge Durham is telling him to "Jack off right now!"
![[Image: 4CV0TeR.png]](https://i.imgur.com/4CV0TeR.png)
![[Image: giphy.gif]](https://media0.giphy.com/media/1kwsTjL8BNqlszNtnCE/giphy.gif)
![[Image: jamarr-chase.gif]](https://media.tenor.com/Ycw6u-nmw3AAAAAM/jamarr-chase.gif)
