If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above.
You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.
To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Check out the most "illuminating" commentary you see amongst self-described "/pol/acks" on Reddit and FB. Such fine, upstanding, people frequent there. Yeah that whole "White Supremacist" thing is just a "media narrative".
OAW
I can see why you don't find /pol/ funny, I can't say I find it funny myself, but these are trolls, not white supremacists.
I can see why you don't find /pol/ funny, I can't say I find it funny myself, but these are trolls, not white supremacists.
It's a difficult concept for many to process.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Trolling ain't illegal, no matter how much some want it to be. (Like with strip clubs) If people don't want to see it, they shouldn't go to those Reddits.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Just as a point of reference, I was a witness to a murder outside my apartment. A cabbie got into a fight with a fare. The fare (who appeared to have been on meth) tried to skip out on paying. The cabbie and the fare end up in a struggle in front of the cab. The fare gets into the driver's seat of the cab, and runs the cabbie over. The fare backs the cab up, and runs him over again.
There were at least 6 other witnesses. We all went down to the station and made statements.
The best they felt they could get him on was second degree.
I can see why you don't find /pol/ funny, I can't say I find it funny myself, but these are trolls, not white supremacists.
If by "not white supremacists" you mean not KKK or Neo-Nazi types then I can see how the denizens of such forums aren't necessarily that. But if you mean that a "troll" is inherently mutually exclusive with "racist" then I'll simply have to part company.
If by "not white supremacists" you mean not KKK or Neo-Nazi types then I can see how the denizens of such forums aren't necessarily that. But if you mean that a "troll" is inherently mutually exclusive with "racist" then I'll simply have to part company.
OAW
What I meant by "trolls" is /pol/ does not intend itself to be taken seriously.
Just as a point of reference, I was a witness to a murder outside my apartment. A cabbie got into a fight with a fare. The fare (who appeared to have been on meth) tried to skip out on paying. The cabbie and the fare end up in a struggle in front of the cab. The fare gets into the driver's seat of the cab, and runs the cabbie over. The fare backs the cab up, and runs him over again.
There were at least 6 other witnesses. We all went down to the station and made statements.
The best they felt they could get him on was second degree.
I know the feeling. I watched someone get their head crushed by a car door during a fight, the door (from a Ford LTD) actually shut (at least partly) with a guy's head in the jamb. I don't know if the perp was ever caught, I was in high school and after giving a couple police statements I never heard from them again. It kind of ****ed me up for a while and I still remember the sound and other things that happened. Gah, it's just bad.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
What I meant by "trolls" is /pol/ does not intend itself to be taken seriously.
It's home to some of the biggest edgelords in the world, for sure.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
What I meant by "trolls" is /pol/ does not intend itself to be taken seriously.
Perhaps. But I tend to roll with this ...
Originally Posted by Maya Angelou
When someone shows you who they are ... believe them. The first time.
I do believe that the perceived anonymity of the Internet results in people showing their true colors in ways that they may not dare otherwise. Just saying ...
I think it's fair to ask why someone sees being publicly offensive as entertainment, but if that's the discussion we're having, isn't it also fair to note we've gotten so far away from discussing the prevalence of white supremacy that maybe /pol/ wasn't the best example you could have chosen?
I think it's fair to ask why someone sees being publicly offensive as entertainment, but if that's the discussion we're having, isn't it also fair to note we've gotten so far away from discussing the prevalence of white supremacy that maybe /pol/ wasn't the best example you could have chosen?
My only point about "/pol/acks" was that the email thread showing these guys A) making all kinds of racist comments, and B) planning on disrupting the BLM protests before that shooting incident went down was mentioned as a forum they frequented. Furthermore, the email thread certainly wasn't meant to be for "public entertainment" as one of the responders even asked "does my real name show up" i. Yes Blake Holland ... it does. They were using mnchimpout@horsef*cker.org as either a shared email address or a distribution list to mask their identities.
Moreover, I'm not the one who initially used the term "white supremacist". That was a quote from the article. CTP responded by saying that was a "media narrative" ... to which I replied by using the term "racist" and backed it up with another article. Yeah at the end I certainly used the term when I mocked CTP's contention that it was just a "media narrative" for obvious reasons. But I purposefully don't like to equate "white supremacist" with "racist" because while all "white supremacists" are "racists" .... not all "racists" are "white supremacists". That being said, I do recognize that many people use there terms interchangeably at times or may perceive them to be such.
The Alabama Justice Project has obtained documents that reveal a Dothan Police Department’s Internal Affairs investigation was covered up by the district attorney. A group of up to a dozen police officers on a specialized narcotics team were found to have planted drugs and weapons on young black men for years. They were supervised at the time by Lt. Steve Parrish, current Dothan Police Chief, and Sgt. Andy Hughes, current Asst. Director of Homeland Security for the State of Alabama. All of the officers reportedly were members of a Neoconfederate organization that the Southern Poverty Law Center labels “racial extremists.” The group has advocated for blacks to return to Africa, published that the civil rights movement is really a Jewish conspiracy, and that blacks have lower IQ’s . Both Parrish and Hughes held leadership positions in the group and are pictured above holding a confederate battle flag at one of the club’s secret meetings.
The documents shared reveal that the internal affairs investigation was covered up to protect the aforementioned officers’ law enforcement careers and keep them from being criminally prosecuted.
Several long term Dothan law enforcement officers, all part of an original group that initiated the investigation, believe the public has a right to know that the Dothan Police Department, and District Attorney Doug Valeska, targeted young black men by planting drugs and weapons on them over a decade. Most of the young men were prosecuted, many sentenced to prison, and some are still in prison. Many of the officers involved were subsequently promoted and are in leadership positions in law enforcement. They hope the mood of the country is one that demands action and that the US Department of Justice will intervene.
The group of officers requested they be granted anonymity, and shared hundreds of files from the Internal Affairs Division. They reveal a pattern of criminal behavior from within the highest levels of the Dothan Police Department and the district attorney’s office in the 20th Judicial District of Alabama. Multiple current and former officers have agreed to testify if United States Attorney General Loretta Lynch appoints a special prosecutor from outside the state of Alabama, or before a Congressional hearing. The officers believe that there are currently nearly a thousand wrongful convictions resulting in felonies from the 20th Judicial District that are tied to planted drugs and weapons and question whether a system that allows this can be allowed to continue to operate.
Members of the Henry County Report have spent weeks analyzing the documents. The originals, secured at an N.G.O. in Canada, are being shared directly with attorneys in the U.S. Dept. of Justice Civil Rights Division, and are being made available to the lawyers of those falsely convicted that seek to clear their names.
There are two federal lawsuits currently pending by former police officers Keith Gray and Raemonica Carney against the Dothan Police Department. They will be given access as well as they substantiate their claims of racial discrimination and city’s violation of a federal court decree.
The documents serve as irrefutable evidence of criminal activity at the highest levels of the Dothan Police Department.
Beginning in early 1996, the Dothan Police Department received complaints from black victims that drugs and weapons were being planted. Specifically young black men who had clean records were targeted. Police Chief, John White, allegedly instructed senior officers to ignore the complaints and they willingly complied.
One of the women assaulted by former Oklahoma City police officer Daniel Holtzclaw said she feared for her life when he pulled her over and forced her to perform a sex act on him.
"In my mind, all I could think of was he was going to shoot me, he was going to kill me," the woman told reporters at a news conference Friday. "I kept pleading, 'Don't make me do this, sir.'
"All I could see was my life flashing before my eyes and the holster on his side," she said.
Holtzclaw told her he wasn't going to kill her but he made her perform oral sodomy, she said.
She was one of two victims who addressed the media a day after a jury found Holtzclaw guilty of 18 of the 36 charges he faced, including four counts of rape in the first degree and four counts of forced oral sodomy.
The jury deliberated for more than 40 hours before reaching its verdict late Thursday.
For about six months, Holtzclaw preyed on women -- all African-American -- in one of Oklahoma's poorest neighborhoods, exploiting his police badge to intimidate them into keeping quiet.
Prosecutors say the Oklahoma City officer selected his victims based on their criminal histories, figuring their drug or prostitution records would undermine any claims they might make against him.
Then, he would subject them to assaults that escalated from groping to oral sodomy and rape.
On Thursday, his 29th birthday, Holtzclaw rocked back and forth in his chair, sobbing, as the judge read out the verdict.
The jurors recommended a total of 263 years of prison time for Holtzclaw's crimes. Formal sentencing is set for next month.
"We're going to ask the judge to make sure that this defendant never sees the light of day," District Attorney David Prater said. "And we're going to ask him to run consecutive, every count."
Holtzclaw was a former star linebacker on the Eastern Michigan University football team with a degree in criminal justice.
His ruthless scheme started to unravel after one woman told authorities he had assaulted her during a traffic stop in June 2014.
In the months that followed, investigators pieced together the horrifying scale of his pattern of abuse.
He was fired from the force in January after an internal investigation.
"Your offenses committed against women in our community constitute the greatest abuse of police authority I have witnessed in my 37 years as a member of this agency," Oklahoma City Police Chief Bill Citty wrote in the termination letter, according to CNN affiliate KFOR.
They should have just taken him out back and shot him, frankly. Not that he'll live long in prison anyway.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
This is what "self-defense" looks like for some police "officers" ....
UPDATE: 12:20 p.m.
Reputed civil rights attorney John Burris on Friday said his office expects to file a federal lawsuit against The City of San Francisco on behalf of the family of Mario Woods.
The lawsuit will allege police used excessive force and violated Woods’ civil rights when they shot him to death in The City’s Bayview neighborhood on Dec. 2.
The announcement was made during a press conference at City College of San Francisco’s south campus. The announcement of the lawsuit coincided with the release of previously unreleased video footage that appears to contradict police claims that they killed Woods in self defense.
“[The video] gives you a clear view that at the time of the shooting, Mario Woods’ hands were at his side,” Burris said. He added it was the officers who created the confrontation by “jumping in front of [Woods].”
Burris also had strong words for San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr, saying the chief’s explanation of the shooting was “bogus” and designed to protect the five officers involved. Burris also said a police chief who makes wrong statements about officers after a shooting should be fired.
UPDATE: 11:45 p.m.:
New video footage of the police killing of a twenty-six-year-old man in the Bayview appears to contradict police claims that officers were acting in self defense when they shot and killed Mario Woods Dec. 2.
Woods, 26, was shot and killed by five officers in the Bayview Dec. 2 after police responded to reports of a man with a knife who had allegedly stabbed someone. The shooting, caught on several cell phone videos, captured the killing and went viral on social media.
The new footage, taken by an unnamed woman inside a Muni bus who can be heard screaming and asking police why they needed to shoot Woods so many times, is the clearest video yet of the incident and may throw more flames on the already controversial killing.
Below is the new cell video released Friday by lawyers for Woods’ family. It appears to more clearly show that Mario Woods did not physically threaten officers before being shot. Warning, this is a graphic video.
Original story: 9:54 p.m.
Students at several San Francisco high schools are planning to walk out of class around 11 a.m. today and march on City Hall in protest over the police killing of Mario Woods.
In addition, lawyers for the Woods’ family say they are set to release video analysis showing he did not provoke police when they shot and killed him. Police today are also set to release the names of the five officers involved in the case.
Friday’s protest and announcement are part of the rising tide of reaction following the killing. Mayor Ed Lee this week directed the police commission to reform police policy around use of force, as many have been calling for the resignation of Chief Greg Suhr, who has renewed requests to equip police with Tasers.
The Woods’ family lawyer, John Burris, announced today that he will be seeking more than $25 million in a federal civil rights lawsuit, and that he has new evidence showing the claims that police were protecting themselves when they shot Woods more than 20 times are false.
“Here in San Francisco, African Americans and all other fair minded individuals are dismayed by San Francisco Police Chief Greg Suhr’s efforts to justify the shootings with a bogus interpretation of one of the cellphone videos that captured the incident,” said a Burris law firm news release.
“Mario was used as target practice by reckless and malicious San Francisco police officers. The killing is an outrage and an affront to the African American community.”
The new evidence, including a possible new video, is set to be released at a press conference at 11 a.m. today.
Meanwhile, a number of San Francisco high school students plan to walk out of class at 11 a.m. and march to City Hall in , according to separate announcements released to the media.
“Lincoln High School, June Jordan, Mission, Balboa, Galileo and many more schools are walking out this Friday to city hall to stop police brutality and justice for Mario Woods who was shot and killed by police men last week in the Bayview District,” noted one announcement. “This needs to come to an end and we will fight until its over.”
Assuming he even had a knife on him ... which I don't take for granted given the numerous examples we have of the police straight lying about such circumstances .... there was NOTHING about the officer's killing of this man that was "self-defense". At best they killed him for non-compliance. Period.
The killing of Mario Woods I just posted above in all likelihood will be ruled to be LEGAL. But this op-ed sums up everything that is just WRONG about it nevertheless in my view ....
Originally Posted by Franklin E. Zimring - Professor of Law at UC Berkeley
The killing of 26-year-old Mario Woods by five San Francisco police officers Dec. 2 was typical of many other such shootings in both its circumstances and likely legal outcome. The target of the shooting had displayed a weapon (a knife) and refused to drop it. At least five police officers fired at Woods at least 15 times. The police chief almost immediately announced that the killing was justified. This is also the likely outcome from the district attorney under California law. But the killing of Woods also was totally unnecessary to protect San Francisco police from a life-threatening attack or to allow them to disarm this suspect.
The fact that many cops are taught to do exactly what the San Francisco police officers did to Mario Woods means that the number of unnecessary deaths in the United States is measured in the hundreds every year. Sanctioning unnecessary killings by police is common. As many as 400 of the more than 1,000 killings by police each year are not in response to life-threatening assaults. Hundreds more killings involve “shoot to kill” shootings that result in multiple wounds to the victim and are not required to protect officer safety or law enforcement efficiency.
At issue in any fair assessment of the Woods shooting is the degree to which this suspect’s knife posed a threat to the lives of police. Here the statistics I and my research team analyzed for a forthcoming book are clear — and surprising. Knives are very dangerous when used in attacks against ordinary citizens (they cause more than 13 percent of all homicides) but not when they become instruments of attack against uniformed police officers. We analyzed every killing of police by assault over six years (2008-13) in the United States: There was a total of two knife deaths (that is, less than 1 percent of total police deaths.)
There was never any attack with a knife that killed an officer unless he was alone with his attacker, and there was never a fatal attack when the officer and the attacker were any distance apart. Based on these statistics, the death risk to the officers in the Woods encounter was zero.
A 2014 article by an expert in Police Magazine called the assumptions of knife-assault danger “speculative dogma that often goes unchallenged and becomes accepted as fact.” But police kill as many as 150 people a year because they display knives.
The reason uniformed police are at such minimum risk from every attack weapon (knives, clubs, bats) except guns is tactical training and bulletproof vests. On-duty death rates for uniformed police have dropped by 75 percent over the 39 years since 1976, when Kevlar vests were widely adopted by law enforcement. This huge decline in officer death has not produced any equivalent benefits for civilians, where less reliable statistics suggest, at best, a 9 percent decline.
So the first reason why Woods didn’t need to die was that five officers could have arrested and disarmed him without firing a single shot. There are a lot of kitchen knives in England and Wales (population 56 million), yet the police have shot to death only one citizen from 2012 through 2014. If it is unnecessary to kill in Manchester or Liverpool, then why is it necessary to shoot in the Bayview?
The second reason why Woods didn’t need to die: Five police officers fired “at least 15 shots” at him in a very brief time. There is only one reason this many shots are fired — the police are shooting to kill. Why not pause after the suspect is wounded to reassess the situation?
In police shootings, it turns out, each additional wound increases the chances of death rather substantially. In seven years of Chicago police shooting incidents, the death rate when one wound was inflicted was 21 percent; two wounds, 34 percent; three or four wounds, 56 percent; more than four wounds, 74 percent of all cases. The San Francisco police increased the chances of Woods dying fourfold by continuing to shoot him. Why, Chief Greg Suhr, were the second through 15th shots necessary?
A terrible but factually accurate answer to that question is that shooting to kill is accepted police practice — it’s what these police were trained to do. But this overkill response to knife, club and baseball bat attacks has not a shred of statistical support in the study of half-a-million assaults and killings over a decade’s time in the Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted reports published by the FBI. The awful truth is that police are taught that fostering the survival of the people they shoot has no value.
Until recently, San Francisco’s was a less deadly police department than many other big city forces. In the four years between 2009 and the end of 2012, the city reported a total of two police killings, the lowest rate of the 14 biggest cities in the nation. Those days are gone. The officers who opened fire and kept shooting should not be the focus for blame. This is approved police practice in the United States. And that is why unnecessary killings by police are an American epidemic.
Meh, the majority of these police shooting deaths a minority of people are getting riled up about happened while in the context of a crime where the weapon was used by the deceased. Its not as if they were sitting on their front porch whittling a stick with a pen knife.
In this Mario Woods' case the guy had just stabbed another individual and attempts to subdue him with pepper spray and bean bag shots were not effective. So while one opinion is that it was "unnecessary" to kill a criminal carrying a non-projectile weapon this one case could certainly be argued to be a suicide by cop. There was ample attempts made to get him to disarm and he made no effort to. There was no rational need for anyone else to take risk their well being at that point.
Barack Obama: Four more years of the Carter Presidency
They should have just taken him out back and shot him, frankly. Not that he'll live long in prison anyway.
Nah, I'd rather see him rot in the very same place he was using to hang over the heads as a threat to his victims. Plus, you know, hopefully he'll get raped.
Ramsey said Feaster drew his gun when Thomas “popped” out of the car, believing he would flee. As Officer Feaster moved towards Thomas, the gun discharged and struck Thomas in the neck. The shot hit Thomas in the C7 and T1 vertebrae and could lead to him being paralyzed for life.
When backup arrived on the scene, Feaster did not mention anything about having fired his weapon. According to Ramsey, Feaster notified his commanding officer about the discharge only after Thomas’ gunshot wound was found.
…
Ramsey said nearly 11 minutes passed before any other officers, medics or firefighters learned Thomas had been shot.
No way I'm watching that, but a lot of people find the DA's analysis wanting.
Lets make this short and concise.
Take notice that the officer took two controlled shots, did not react as though he were supprised by a negligent discharge of his weapon and spent every seccond that he was not breifing the other officers about what had happened, looking on the ground with his flashlight (most likley searching for the shell casings). Seeing as he shot the man twice and then clamed that the man refused to exit the vehicle (because he had been shot, left in critical condition) and then did not report the gunshots until he absolutly could not hide it any longer.
Seeing as the fiearm discharge was not reported until after the bullet wound to the neck and chest was discovered. Within 4-6 inches from eathother on the move in rappid seccesion suggest a controlled shot group. especially seeing the wrist control to bring the muzzle of the weapon return to the shooters line of sight before the seccond shot was fired. If there were no bullet wounds, they would have recovered the shell cases and the incident would never have been reported.
What happened to the audio? There was no audio from the radio durring the chase, or durring the inition confrontation of the suspect when he was shot. Whatever commands the officer gave to the driver before he shot him is important to the investigation, there is incomplete audio, and there is incomplete evidence. Likely this man will not face charges.
Im all for the police and their services, but no man is above criminal procesution of a violent crime. Regaurdless of his station in life.
The conduct of this officer is unjust, unbecomming of an officer of the law, and lacks the integrity that we expect to find in appointed person to uphold the law.
Meh, the majority of these police shooting deaths a minority of people are getting riled up about happened while in the context of a crime where the weapon was used by the deceased. Its not as if they were sitting on their front porch whittling a stick with a pen knife.
In this Mario Woods' case the guy had just stabbed another individual and attempts to subdue him with pepper spray and bean bag shots were not effective. So while one opinion is that it was "unnecessary" to kill a criminal carrying a non-projectile weapon this one case could certainly be argued to be a suicide by cop. There was ample attempts made to get him to disarm and he made no effort to. There was no rational need for anyone else to take risk their well being at that point.
Yeah, why would they leave out the rest of the story? Oh, right, the Narrative.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Nah, I'd rather see him rot in the very same place he was using to hang over the heads as a threat to his victims. Plus, you know, hopefully he'll get raped.
He won't, though, he'll be in a state penn, likely one where he can group with people who will make his racist and sexist views worse.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
Another example of how extraordinarily difficult it is to convict a police officer of misconduct.
In what is a perceived legal blow for prosecutors, the jury was hung and the judge declared a mistrial in the trial of Baltimore police officer William Porter in the case of Freddie Gray's death after sustaining injuries while in custody.
Porter was charged with manslaughter, second-degree assault, reckless endangerment and misconduct in office in the April 19 death of Gray, who died a week after his neck was broken during a ride in the back of a police van. Gray's death and the subsequent unrest in Baltimore brought to the fore long simmering tensions in Baltimore and across the nation over socioeconomic disparity and the relationship between law enforcement and the minority communities they serve.
Prosecutors considered Porter's case as key to help strengthening the case against van driver Caesar Goodson, Jr. It was also seen as a signal of how the trials of the other five officers could go.
The remaining trials are set for early next year. It is unclear how the mistrial will affect the prosecution's approach on the other trials, if at all.
Jurors began deliberating on Monday afternoon.
There will be an administrative hearing on Thursday to determine a new court date. The judge gave Porter the option to appear tomorrow, and Porter declined.
"You've been diligent," Williams told the jury, "thank you for your diligence." Williams dismissed the jury saying he will have more information for them in a bit.
Baltimore State's Attorney Marilyn Mosby was in court for the announcement, but she, like all parties in the case, is still under a gag order. The gag order extends until all six officers' trials are complete.
Porter, the defense, and the prosecution all looked tense when the judge spoke to them privately before making the announcement to the court. Deputy State's Attorney Janice Bledsoe could be seen shaking her head.
Over the past two days, the jury of four black women, three black men, three white women and two white men gave signals that they were locked in tense discussions. On Tuesday they told Judge Barry Williams that they were deadlocked and he sent them back to deliberate.
Earlier on Wednesday, the jurors asked for a transcript of witness testimony — a request the judge denied. Shortly after, jurors let the court know that they were hung.
The judge had previously said he wanted to be done with the trial by Dec. 17th and told the jurors to take as long as they needed to reach a verdict. The jurors weren't sequestered and have been under order not to discuss the trial.
During trial arguments, prosecutors focused on what they said was Porter's failure to take care of Gray while he was in custody by not getting him medical care or buckling his seatbelt.
I'm not an attorney ... but for the life of me I just don't understand why a judge would deny the jurors request to review a transcript of witness testimony. They are all supposed to just have perfect recall of everything every single witness said over a weeks long trial?
Jurors who take their job seriously write notes, I had a 50 page steno book full of notes just for a 4 day arson case.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I sure will. What kind of mental midgets don't take notes during a murder trial? Was it interfering with their nappy time?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
My only point about "/pol/acks" was that the email thread showing these guys A) making all kinds of racist comments, and B) planning on disrupting the BLM protests before that shooting incident went down was mentioned as a forum they frequented. Furthermore, the email thread certainly wasn't meant to be for "public entertainment" as one of the responders even asked "does my real name show up" i. Yes Blake Holland ... it does. They were using mnchimpout@horsef*cker.org as either a shared email address or a distribution list to mask their identities.
Moreover, I'm not the one who initially used the term "white supremacist". That was a quote from the article. CTP responded by saying that was a "media narrative" ... to which I replied by using the term "racist" and backed it up with another article. Yeah at the end I certainly used the term when I mocked CTP's contention that it was just a "media narrative" for obvious reasons. But I purposefully don't like to equate "white supremacist" with "racist" because while all "white supremacists" are "racists" .... not all "racists" are "white supremacists". That being said, I do recognize that many people use there terms interchangeably at times or may perceive them to be such.
OAW
There was a public thread associated with the discussion. It was equally racist.
This is their schtick, along with being sexist and homophobic. These are the same people who invented "OP is a faggot".
The basic profile for these idiots is socially awkward, libertarian (which is where the gun stuff comes from), mom's basement nerd with Asperger's.
They're jackasses, but most of them aren't actual racists.
(
Last edited by subego; Dec 17, 2015 at 01:52 PM.
)
It seems to me, if jurors are allowed access to transcripts of testimony, then they should be allowed access. Full stop.
Agreed. As for "taking notes" that's all well and good to highlight their impressions of certain testimony or to set a reminder to yourself about something you want to bring up during deliberations ... but it seems to me that jurors shouldn't be forced either remember every single bit of testimony or spend their entire time copying what witnesses say. There's a freaking court reporter for that! I'd rather see a system where jurors are able to give their undivided attention to the proceedings. And if during deliberations there is a difference in recollection among jurors about what Witness A did or did not say on the stand then the court transcript should be available to resolve the issue. Period.
Agreed. As for "taking notes" that's all well and good to highlight their impressions of certain testimony or to set a reminder to yourself about something you want to bring up during deliberations ... but it seems to me that jurors shouldn't be forced either remember every single bit of testimony or spend their entire time copying what witnesses say. There's a freaking court reporter for that! I'd rather see a system where jurors are able to give their undivided attention to the proceedings. And if during deliberations there is a difference in recollection among jurors about what Witness A did or did not say on the stand then the court transcript should be available to resolve the issue. Period.
OAW
My guess on this is the vast majority of court transcripts stay in steno form. Someone only goes through the hassle of turning that into English if something comes up.
Depending upon how much it costs, and how much time it takes, a bar will get set for when it's allowed. I have no idea if that bar is low enough if jurors can just ask for them.
The main concern for the judge is if they give a jury a transcript of witness testimony, then that testimony is suddenly going to hold a lot more weight than all the other testimony. Along those same lines, the jury will focus more on that testimony to the exclusion of the rest.
Likewise, for those reasons it's possible the prosecution, the defense, or both objected to the request.
The main concern for the judge is if they give a jury a transcript of witness testimony, then that testimony is suddenly going to hold a lot more weight than all the other testimony. Along those same lines, the jury will focus more on that testimony to the exclusion of the rest.
Likewise, for those reasons it's possible the prosecution, the defense, or both objected to the request.
Ok well now I'm confused. Isn't all testimony "witness" testimony? Do you mean "eyewitness"?
All the other testimony for which they haven't received transcripts.
If the jury asks for transcripts of witness A, providing it can mean the testimony of witnesses B, C, and D get devalued.
Ok I see what you are saying. At first I thought you were suggesting that there was some type of testimony that came from someone other than a "witness". But IMO this is a silly reason. If that's the case then make the entire trial transcript available and call it a day. That way no testimony is given any more weight than the other by a judge's decision. Better than than relying upon a juror's memory or note taking of every bit of testimony over a lengthy trial.
Why not provide transcripts of all the testimony to the jurors then?
Many venues do, my state provides them for capital crimes, if requested (I found that out today).
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
I understand the appeal of the idea, but I think you're both approaching this rather casually.
That would fundamentally alter how juries deliberate. There's no small chance jurors would use it as a crutch.
Yes, and? I'd much rather argue having access to all of the evidence that was submitted (including witness testimony) rather than relying on people's notes — especially given the huge stakes and that certain legal issues may be rather tricky.
Personally, I find it inane and unconscionable that jurors don't have access to anything that has been submitted to evidence. Having to rely on the juror's ability to multitask — listen intently while taking notes — seems like you're asking for trouble. (Humans cannot do both well at the same time, that's been a well-studied topic in the context of classrooms.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
Yes, and? I'd much rather argue having access to all of the evidence that was submitted (including witness testimony) rather than relying on people's notes — especially given the huge stakes and that certain legal issues may be rather tricky.
Personally, I find it inane and unconscionable that jurors don't have access to anything that has been submitted to evidence. Having to rely on the juror's ability to multitask — listen intently while taking notes — seems like you're asking for trouble. (Humans cannot do both well at the same time, that's been a well-studied topic in the context of classrooms.)
What you're doing as a juror isn't even remotely close to what you do as a student, nor are the notes of a similar type.
A transcript isn't evidence. The evidence was the live testimony. The transcript is, by its very nature, an incomplete picture of the evidence which was presented.
There is a non-trivial risk the jury will deliberate over the transcript, and not the testimony.
What you're doing as a juror isn't even remotely close to what you do as a student, nor are the notes of a similar type.
If you are attempting to listen intently and take notes at the same time, yes, then the two situations are similar in this respect.
Originally Posted by subego
A transcript isn't evidence. The evidence was the live testimony. The transcript is, by its very nature, an incomplete picture of the evidence which was presented.
If your argument is that a transcript does not have all the same nuances as the (spoken) witness testimony, you have a point. But then you could tape testimony and replay the tape if you think a transcript is insufficient. But a transcript is better than nothing. And I'd rather have arguments based on official court documents rather than relying on the memory and note taking ability of the individual jurors.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
If you are attempting to listen intently and take notes at the same time, yes, then the two situations are similar in this respect.
If your argument is that a transcript does not have all the same nuances as the (spoken) witness testimony, you have a point. But then you could tape testimony and replay the tape if you think a transcript is insufficient. But a transcript is better than nothing. And I'd rather have arguments based on official court documents rather than relying on the memory and note taking ability of the individual jurors.
I agree a tape would be an improvement in the quality of information it contains, but let's stick with transcripts for a second.
For the moment, I'll accept we can use students as a model for juror behavior.
Back when grandpa here was in school, there was something of a debate as to whether it was better for a student to take their own notes, or have a set of notes handed to them.
Has this been figured out? Is one provable as superior to the other? Honest question. I stopped caring once I dropped out of school. I hated school.
It strikes me this is the question we're dealing with. The transcript is like handing over the notes.
As a student, I preferred to be handed the notes, but kinda felt I learned it better if I took my own. There's a bit of the less positive side human nature in there, which isn't the worst idea to account for.
To put it another way, if we had a well-oiled machine, your argument would be unassailable. I'm worried we're working with rusted parts which aren't built to tolerance.
I agree a tape would be an improvement in the quality of information it contains, but let's stick with transcripts for a second.
Let's concede the fact that a transcript only includes part of the information transmitted, and compare the juror's notes to the official transcript: it's clear which contains more information and which is the “official” record. Imagine, for instance, where jurors disagree on what was said and they want to settle the dispute by looking it up.
Originally Posted by subego
Has this been figured out? Is one provable as superior to the other? Honest question. I stopped caring once I dropped out of school. I hated school.
The standard advice is that you need to insert pauses where the lecturer/speaker shuts up to let people take notes and think about what you have said a little. Initially, this is quite uncomfortable for the speaker. As far as I can tell, a trial doesn't work this way where jurors can pause the events to finish taking notes. Just imagine if you held lawyers, judges and prosecutors to the same standard as jurors …
And don't forget that what's going on here is much more serious than school: jurors are deciding whether or not to convict someone, and if they get it wrong, this can have disastrous consequences (either way).
Originally Posted by subego
As a student, I preferred to be handed the notes, but kinda felt I learned it better if I took my own. There's a bit of the less positive side human nature in there, which isn't the worst idea to account for.
What is more important here is that all of the other people in the trial prepare with the various documents (my dad is a lawyer, and I have a good idea how much effort goes into the preparation of the various filings.
Originally Posted by subego
To put it another way, if we had a well-oiled machine, your argument would be unassailable. I'm worried we're working with rusted parts which aren't built to tolerance.
It's not just rusted parts: systems that rely on jurors deliberately want (legal) amateurs, people who don't know the details of legal procedure, law and what is and isn't important. To have a well-oiled machine you need to have experience in how to build a machine in the first place. Imagine you place this stress on top of everything else.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
I agree a written transcript doesn't capture all the nuances of the testimony. Tone. Body language. Etc. So video all the proceedings and make all of it available to jurors. Problem solved.
They were using mnchimpout@horsef*cker.org as either a shared email address or a distribution list to mask their identities. 
Top