[Cap'n Tightpants]

As I said a while back, situations like this show how distorted the media spin surrounding these cases has been. They lie and try to ratchet-up feelings against the police, but when it all finally comes to trial and the evidence is shown, more often than not there's an acquittal.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

As I said a while back, situations like this show how distorted the media spin surrounding these cases has been. They lie and try to ratchet-up feelings against the police, but when it all finally comes to trial and the evidence is shown, more often than not there's an acquittal.

Ignoring the [citation needed], why wouldn't you expect a system to protect itself? Of course the dash cam footage was lost, the K9 definitely marked the suspect, and there was crack sprinkled all over the place.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Citations? Mike Brown, Trayvon Martin, David Kassick, Freddie Gray (I can give more). The media spins a narrative, activists latch on, and then the whole thing crashes down when actual evidence is brought to trial and a jury looks at it all. Then that feeds the 24-hour news cycle on the networks and Twitter, riles up the activists, and sets the country on edge... until the next instance comes along. It's insanity.

[Captain Obvious]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

So the guy who took Freddie gray into custody is not liable for his death. Interesting.

You're being dense.
There were no credible first hand witnesses who saw Gray get apprehended when he may have potentially gotten injured and Nero was not the driver of the vehicle who could have possibly taken Gray the scenic way to the police station. There needed to be actual evidence that Nero was the one who injured Gray. It could have been his partner or Gray could have become injured as he fled... surmised circumstances of what likely transpired and who is directly to blame isn't going to get a conviction on criminal charges when a judge is the sole arbitrator.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by Captain Obvious 

You're being dense.
There were no credible first hand witnesses who saw Gray get apprehended when he may have potentially gotten injured and Nero was not the driver of the vehicle who could have possibly taken Gray the scenic way to the police station. There needed to be actual evidence that Nero was the one who injured Gray. It could have been his partner or Gray could have become injured as he fled... surmised circumstances of what likely transpired and who is directly to blame isn't going to get a conviction on criminal charges when a judge is the sole arbitrator.

The court of social justice is not interested in due process of law.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The court of social justice is not interested in due process of law.

Or perhaps it's a matter of "justice" and the "law" being two very different things? US history is rife with things that were legal but ultimately not right.

OAW

[BadKosh]

"Justice" is mostly emotion driven.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The court of social justice is not interested in due process of law.

Yep. It's time we treat elements of Social Justice like valid domestic threats. Vigilantism is illegal, and that's essentially all it is.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by BadKosh 

"Justice" is mostly emotion driven.

You're deflecting from the issues at hand.
Law is an attempt to abstract what society deems moral or immoral (or good or bad) in order to attain justice. In many instances, the way laws are put into practice is equally, if not more important. None of this has to do with emotion. If laws and their implementation conflict with what people perceive as just, they can petition their government to change laws and implement them differently. That's just the normal flow of society: Laws were changed to give women the right to vote, to start and end prohibition, and to end segregation. But it's a non sequitur to equate “following legal procedure” with justice.

The police videos which surface thanks to the ubiquity of smart phones allows all citizens to make up their own mind. Laws will eventually change if citizens demand it.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

Yep. It's time we treat elements of Social Justice like valid domestic threats. Vigilantism is illegal, and that's essentially all it is.

In what bizzarro universe does it make sense to think of “Social Justice” as a form of vigilantism? Unless, of course, you change the definition of “Social Justice” and “vigilantism”. What are you so afraid of? That opinions put forth by “SWJs” catch on and become mainstream? And if they become mainstream, is it the “fault” of SWJs?

[BadKosh]

Triggly Puff.......?

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

In what bizzarro universe does it make sense to think of “Social Justice” as a form of vigilantism? Unless, of course, you change the definition of “Social Justice” and “vigilantism”. What are you so afraid of? That opinions put forth by “SWJs” catch on and become mainstream? And if they become mainstream, is it the “fault” of SWJs?

At Milo Y's latest talk, protestors got up on stage and did things like yell directly in his face, blow whistles when he was talking, and grabbed the mic out of his hands.

This scares me because the winner should be who has the best ideas, not who's most willing to use force.

BTW, I really hate being backed into a position where I have to defend this ****head.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by Snow-i 

The court of social justice is not interested in due process of law.

If wanting cops to be use force more judiciously and for them to face discipline if not justice for reckless use or abuse of such force makes me a 'social justice warrior' so be it.

[subego]

Originally Posted by The Final Dakar 

If wanting cops to be use force more judiciously and for them to face discipline if not justice for reckless use or abuse of such force makes me a 'social justice warrior' so be it.

From what I understand, this particular cop didn't do anything wrong.

I imagine you don't want this cop to face justice based on the actions of others.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

At Milo Y's latest talk, protestors got up on stage and did things like yell directly in his face, blow whistles when he was talking, and grabbed the mic out of his hands.

This scares me because the winner should be who has the best ideas, not who's most willing to use force.

Right. And on the other side asshats you listen to people like Milo Y are routinely sending death threats and other harassing messages their way. I don't think either behavior is acceptable, but I don't make the mistake of thinking this is representative of the population at large.

The derogative label Social Justice Warrior is applied to people (often women, but also men) who are of certain opinions, e. g. who think GamerGaters are routinely harassing and threatening women, and not just the protestors who stormed the stage to rip the microphone out of Milo's hands. Also these derogatory labels and the threats and harassment are no better than ripping the microphone out of someone's hands when that person is trying to speak. They stop discussion and split the world into black and white. So I find it hypocritical to complain about blocking Milo's access to the microphone but supporting the same type of behavior.

[subego]

Where do you get the idea I defend Twitter death threats?

That's a pretty hefty allegation there.

[The Final Dakar]

Originally Posted by subego 

From what I understand, this particular cop didn't do anything wrong.

I imagine you don't want this cop to face justice based on the actions of others.

I know the DA threw some bullshit arguments out. I'll have to double check which one he was, but I'm a little concerned this heading to a place where so many people were involved it's impossible to lay enough blame on a single person to get any kind of result.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Where do you get the idea I defend Twitter death threats?

That's a pretty hefty allegation there.

I didn't accuse you of supporting Twitter death threats, I accused people who resort to “Help, the SJW are coming!” rhetoric of bigotry because their own behavior stifles nuanced discourse in just the same way. If you see yourself amongst this group, then I levy that criticism towards you as well as a member of that group.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

From what I understand, this particular cop didn't do anything wrong.

I imagine you don't want this cop to face justice based on the actions of others.

No, it could not be established beyond a reasonable doubt that this particular cop was responsible — based on the laws in place at that time. That's very different from claiming he didn't do anything wrong or that by making changes to the law he could have been charged with a different crime.

[subego]

What did he do wrong, and/or what law should be enacted/changed to nail him on?

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

I didn't accuse you of supporting Twitter death threats, I accused people who resort to “Help, the SJW are coming!” rhetoric of bigotry because their own behavior stifles nuanced discourse in just the same way. If you see yourself amongst this group, then I levy that criticism towards you as well as a member of that group.

Well, that puts me in a weird position because I say "help, the SJW are coming!" to describe the situation where they take over a stage and shut down the proceedings. As someone who believes in freedom of speech as a principle being the fundamental building block of progress, I consider the above as an existential threat.

At the same time, I think someone who makes death threats on Twitter is a miscreant.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Well, that puts me in a weird position because I say "help, the SJW are coming!" to describe the situation where they take over a stage and shut down the proceedings.

You can only come to this conclusion if you only view this in isolation without acknowledging the flip side.

Originally Posted by subego 

As someone who believes in freedom of speech as a principle being the fundamental building block of progress, I consider the above as an existential threat.

It's exactly the same thing: resorting to bullying in order to silent dissent. If anything it take more courage to actually go on stage yourself instead of sending threats from your comfy chair.

Originally Posted by subego 

At the same time, I think someone who makes death threats on Twitter is a miscreant.

Not a miscreants, law breakers.

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

What did he do wrong, and/or what law should be enacted/changed to nail him on?

The main charge against this particular cop was that he was involved in an illegal arrest and failed to secure Gray in the van per department policy. But the judge seems inclined to think others were responsible.

In his verdict, Williams said it was reasonable for Nero to have assumed that his superior officer, Lieutenant Brian Rice, and Goodson would decide whether Gray should be seat-belted, the analysts said.

"I think he seemed to signal that the person who ultimately has responsibility for that is the van driver, who is coincidentally the next one up, Goodson," said Warren Brown, a Baltimore defense lawyer who has followed the case.

Williams also wrote that "the detention morphed into an arrest," a view that Jaros said could prop up prosecutors' argument that Gray was arrested without justification.

That view might have bearing on the case against Officer Garrett Miller, Nero's partner, who testified under immunity that he arrested Gray and handcuffed him, Jaros said. Miller is charged with second-degree assault, reckless endangerment and misconduct in office.

Jaros said that if he were Miller, "I would have been surprised and somewhat concerned that the judge seemed to accept the prosecution theory that this was an arrest without probable cause."

Acquittal in Freddie Gray case will not alter Maryland prosecutors' strategy | Yahoo News

But regardless of how all this shakes out as the lawyers bicker about who may or may not have actually received official department training about securing arrestees in a police van and who is or is not responsible for ensuring this is done ... Freddie Gray's neck didn't break itself.

OAW

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

What did he do wrong, and/or what law should be enacted/changed to nail him on?

Reckless endangerment of someone who is in custody. (I don't know the English legal term for this: police officers have special duties towards someone they took into custody like, say, parents have to heir own children; in German law this is encapsulated by the term “Schutzbefohlener“ which translates to ward.)

If we focus away from this particular case, the biggest problem is that misconduct of police officers (by a small minority) rarely if ever has any consequences. Even if you have police officers on video planting weapons or using unnecessary, excessive force with grave consequences, it is rare that the police officers gets convicted (and not even reprimanded). Here, the problem isn't that there aren't any laws in place, it's that they aren't enforced. And if you don't enforce laws, people stop taking them seriously.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

in German law this is encapsulated by the term “Schutzbefohlener“ which translates to ward.

If you keep using letters like that, one day you're going to run out.

[subego]

More serious response to follow.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Right. And on the other side asshats you listen to people like Milo Y are routinely sending death threats and other harassing messages their way. I don't think either behavior is acceptable, but I don't make the mistake of thinking this is representative of the population at large.

No, but it is representative of people who espouse Social Justice. It's literally a class teaching people how to abuse and manipulate the system to get what your group wants, no matter the consequences to the rest of society. And what's worse, taxpayers are funding it.

What else could you call coordinated actions that deliberately bypass the duely appointed justice system, to deal out punishment for perceived wrongs, without the benefit of due process? I'd really like to know.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

No, but it is representative of people who espouse Social Justice. It's literally a class teaching people how to abuse and manipulate the system to get what your group wants, no matter the consequences to the rest of society.

That's how any political movement works, from the NRA to the corn farming lobby to the colon cancer awareness society to what you call SJW. In and of itself none of this is a problem, it's not manipulation or abuse of the system, for it is the job of society to balance all these disparate and sometimes opposed interests.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

And what's worse, taxpayers are funding it.

If you disagree, you should petition your government to stop funding it.

Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants 

What else could you call coordinated actions that deliberately bypass the duely appointed justice system, to deal out punishment for perceived wrongs, without the benefit of due process? I'd really like to know.

Politics.

[Cap'n Tightpants]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

That's how any political movement works, from the NRA to the corn farming lobby to the colon cancer awareness society to what you call SJW. In and of itself none of this is a problem, it's not manipulation or abuse of the system, for it is the job of society to balance all these disparate and sometimes opposed interests.

What?? Are you trolling me? You realize that Social Justice deliberately, consciously destroys lives. It's not a byproduct, it's the result they work to achieve, via direct contact and/or social media. It's a class in "How to hurt others while getting what you want".

If you disagree, you should petition your government to stop funding it.

We have. I've been talking with my state legislators to do just that. Also: https://www.change.org/p/universitie...n-universities

Politics.

Absurd.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Reckless endangerment of someone who is in custody. (I don't know the English legal term for this: police officers have special duties towards someone they took into custody like, say, parents have to heir own children; in German law this is encapsulated by the term “Schutzbefohlener“ which translates to ward.)

If we focus away from this particular case, the biggest problem is that misconduct of police officers (by a small minority) rarely if ever has any consequences. Even if you have police officers on video planting weapons or using unnecessary, excessive force with grave consequences, it is rare that the police officers gets convicted (and not even reprimanded). Here, the problem isn't that there aren't any laws in place, it's that they aren't enforced. And if you don't enforce laws, people stop taking them seriously.

I agree with your points with regards to different cases.

So let's get back to the specific case, then. Assuming the system can go all sucky schutzbefohlener on his ass... what specific irresponsible actions did he commit?

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

I agree with your points with regards to different cases.

So let's get back to the specific case, then. Assuming the system can go all sucky schutzbefohlener on his ass... what specific irresponsible actions did he commit?

One of the crucial questions was whose responsibility it was to make sure that Freddie Gray wore a seat belt. Under this law the question of responsibility would be clear: if you have custody of Gray (e. g. because you drive him), it is your responsibility to make sure he is safe (e. g. buckled up). And you have to take responsibility for the consequences.

Just to give you an idea where this type of law applies in Germany: teachers, for instance, have special legal responsibilities towards their students (especially when they are young), and if they physically or sexually abuse their students, that's a graver offense than a stranger doing the same thing.

[OAW]

^^^^

To this point there seems to be a whole lot of legal "hot potato" going on. The judge acquitted Ofc. Nero because he thought it was "reasonable" that Nero would think his superior Lt. Rice and/or the driver Ofc. Goodson would decide whether or not Freddie Gray should be seat-belted. There also appears to be some legalistic gymnastics going when reference was made to his partner Ofc. Miller being the one who actually handcuffed Freddie Gray and arrested him ... thereby making him responsible for his safety. Even though Ofc. Nero was the one who put Gray in the back of the police van!

OAW

[subego]

No one sees how if a person dies bouncing around the insides of a paddy wagon, it's probably not a bicycle cop's fault?

[OAW]

Originally Posted by subego 

No one sees how if a person dies bouncing around the insides of a paddy wagon, it's probably not a bicycle cop's fault?

If the bicycle cop is the one who put him in the back of the wagon and he failed to put him in a seat belt as he should have I think that is an indirect negligence issue there. But I would agree the people in the van especially the driver are at directly at fault.

OAW

[subego]

"As he should have" is a procedural question.

I don't know their standard operating procedure, and I kinda get the feeling no one else does either, but it isn't stopping people from hurling accusations. It's not even getting people to qualify their accusations with a note they lack pivotal details.

If someone can point out where he violated procedure, I'll back off completely, and offer an apology for taking the wrong side.

[OAW]

^^^

A police officer charged with illegally arresting and failing to put a seat belt on Freddie Gray was never trained in arrest and transport procedures, according to testimony Tuesday.

Lt. Charles Sullivan, who trained Officer Edward M. Nero at Baltimore’s Police Academy in 2012, said the officer’s 10-week training period was unexpectedly cut short. In Nero’s file, the section titled “Arrest procedures, transporting prisoners, use of wagon” is left blank.

“I didn’t train him on how to do it,” Sullivan said.

Sullivan was one of four members of the Baltimore City Police Department who testified in defense of Nero, who is accused of assault and reckless endangerment for his involvement in Gray’s arrest last year.

Baltimore officer charged in Freddie Gray case wasn’t trained in arrest, transit procedures | WashingtonPost.com

It was definitely SOP. The guy got off because the Baltimore PD protected him in this manner. Because you know ... supposedly he wasn't officially "trained" on how to use a seatbelt.

OAW

[subego]

Well, that's closer, and I'd say it qualifies my argument, but I feel there are still a couple missing pieces.

First, as mentioned in the article, you had multiple officers testify they'd never belted someone in. I think it's a fair question to ask whether they just admitted to violating procedure throughout their entire employment with the department.

As to that question, let me put it this way. I'm not a professional journalist, but I think I understand enough to say if I had an authoritative source declaring being belted was a requirement... o boy, o boy would I put that in the article.

This journalist didn't put that in there, or if they did, I missed it. This by no means is proof it doesn't exist, but I think it's fair to assume they didn't find it.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

First, as mentioned in the article, you had multiple officers testify they'd never belted someone in. I think it's a fair question to ask whether they just admitted to violating procedure throughout their entire employment with the department.

Yes, but “everybody did it” is not a defense for a criminal case. However, it's important to know that this is a rampant rule violation and should be fixed.

Originally Posted by subego 

As to that question, let me put it this way. I'm not a professional journalist, but I think I understand enough to say if I had an authoritative source declaring being belted was a requirement... o boy, o boy would I put that in the article.

Yes, that's a good point — about how to properly write an article.

Originally Posted by subego 

This journalist didn't put that in there, or if they did, I missed it. This by no means is proof it doesn't exist, but I think it's fair to assume they didn't find it.

There is also the third level: even if there isn't a rule in place that people taken into custody have to be buckled up, there should be!

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

Yes, but “everybody did it” is not a defense for a criminal case.

Nor should it be. OTOH, lacking an authoritative source to the contrary, it is evidence procedure wasn't violated.

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

There is also the third level: even if there isn't a rule in place that people taken into custody have to be buckled up, there should be!

Unless I misunderstand you, this level does not, nor should exist in our current discussion, that of whether an individual officer violated the rules. It is a separate discussion entirely.

[OreoCookie]

Originally Posted by subego 

Nor should it be. OTOH, lacking an authoritative source to the contrary, it is evidence procedure wasn't violated.

It's not clear what your angle here is: do you want to know whether authoritative material on what the procedure is was admitted into evidence during the trial? Or are you referring as to whether the press has published authoritative material? The article OAW has linked to seems clear on the matter: the driver did not follow procedures, and used the excuse that “he wasn't properly trained.” This wasn't a claim by the WP, they quoted Lt. Sullivan who trained Nero.

Originally Posted by subego 

Unless I misunderstand you, this level does not, nor should exist in our current discussion, that of whether an individual officer violated the rules. It is a separate discussion entirely.

No, you're not misunderstanding me, but seeing as the current case is a done deal from a legal perspective, I meant to look beyond this very case.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OreoCookie 

It's not clear what your angle here is: do you want to know whether authoritative material on what the procedure is was admitted into evidence during the trial? Or are you referring as to whether the press has published authoritative material? The article OAW has linked to seems clear on the matter: the driver did not follow procedures, and used the excuse that “he wasn't properly trained.” This wasn't a claim by the WP, they quoted Lt. Sullivan who trained Nero.

If procedure allows one to be put in a van without a belt, one doesn't need to be trained for that.

That the article inarguably shows he was untrained gives us no insight into what his training was supposed to be.

Me saying "unless I misunderstood you" was an implied request for a quote from the article which definitively shows a lack of belt violated procedure. Likewise, it is why I noted procedure for journalists, which would be to include said detail explicitly were it to have presented itself in a legal proceeding it was my job to cover.

[OAW]

Seems appropriate. "Accident" or not. He shot a man in the back as he was on the ground behind handcuffed. You can't take a man's life like that and expect to walk with an "Oops! My bad!!!".

Tulsa County (Okla.) reserve sheriff’s deputy Robert Bates, who fatally shot an unarmed black suspect, was sentenced to four years in prison Tuesday.

The 73-year-old volunteer sheriff’s deputy maintained that he had been reaching for his Taser during an April 2015 undercover sting operation when he accidentally grabbed his gun and shot Eric Harris as he was running away, KTUL reports.

Although Bates’ attorneys attempted to delay sentencing, a jury recommended that Bates receive the maximum sentence, four years, after he was found guilty of second-degree manslaughter.

A statement from the Harris family read: “We do not believe that it is reasonable for a man who claims to have all the necessary training to mistake a pistol for a Taser. We do not believe it is reasonable for a 73-year-old insurance executive to be involved in a dangerous undercover sting operation. … We do not believe it is reasonable—or responsible—for [the sheriff’s office] to accept gifts from a wealthy citizen who wants to be [a] ‘pay to play’ cop,” the Los Angeles Times reports.

After Harris’ shooting, it was learned that before Bates became a reserve deputy with the department, the insurance executive donated thousands of dollars in cash, vehicles and equipment.

Bates’ attorneys are expected to appeal the decision, KTUL reports.

Okla. ‘Play’ Cop Sentenced to 4 Years in Prison for Fatally Shooting Unarmed Man

OAW

[OAW]

Another appropriate development. There was a time when even an indictment was unheard of. And it's yet another example of how the police statement released to the media doesn't line up with the facts.

The former Palm Beach Gardens Police Department officer who fatally shot 31-year-old musician Corey Jones on a Florida highway in October has been arrested, according to authorities.

A grand jury found that Nouman Raja's use of force was not justified, said Dave Aronberg, state attorney for the 15th Judicial Circuit, which covers all of Palm Beach County.

Raja subsequently faces two felony charges: one count of manslaughter by culpable negligence, punishable by up to 15 years in prison, and one count of attempted first-degree murder with a firearm, punishable by up to life in prison, Aronberg said.

Raja, 32, was arrested and taken into custody today, Aronberg said. He could not comment further since the case is now pending.

In the early morning hours of Oct. 18, Jones was stranded with car troubles on I-95 in Palm Beach Gardens when Raja pulled up around 3:15 a.m. to "investigate what he believed to be an abandoned vehicle," according to police.

When Raja exited the vehicle, he was confronted by an armed subject, police said in a statement. Raja shot Jones "as a result of the confrontation," police said, killing him.

Phone records showed that Jones had requested roadside assistance at 1:44 a.m., according to a probable cause affidavit released by Aronberg's office today. Almost an hour later, after the technician was unable to get his vehicle started, Jones told a bandmate that he was unwilling to leave her car for fear that his drum equipment may be stolen, the affidavit states. His bandmate drove away at 2:45 a.m. and was the last person to see Jones alive before Raja arrived on the scene.

Jones was on another call with roadside assistance when Raja arrived, and the exchange was recorded on the line, the affidavit states. After asking Jones if he was "good" more than once, Raja told him to get his "[expletive] hands up" twice before firing three gunshots in rapid succession, according to the affidavit. The call center operator that Jones was on the phone with could then be heard saying, "Oh my gosh!" while the sounds of pinging car door chimes rang in the background.

Former Florida Cop Faces Charges in Shooting Death of Musician Corey Jones - ABC News

OAW

[Chongo]

Not Guilty for van driver.
Freddie Gray Van Driver Found Not Guilty On All Charges « CBS Baltimore

[OAW]

Yeah. No judge has every convicted a police officer for manslaughter or murder in the line of duty in a bench trial. At least between 2005 - 2011. Apparently Freddie Gray's neck just broke itself.

OAW

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Yeah. No judge has every convicted a police officer for manslaughter or murder in the line of duty in a bench trial. At least between 2005 - 2011. Apparently Freddie Gray's neck just broke itself.

OAW

There has to be a significant amount of this due to people opting for a jury trial if they think they'll go down in a bench trial.

[The Final Dakar]

Depraved heart murder was a dumb charge.

I don't think it's coincidence he opted to let a judge decide versus 12 Baltimoreans.

[OAW]

Absolutely not a coincidence. I think a jury of 12 in Baltimore would have been more likely to convict the driver of something. A bench trial by a judge was a smart move because the system tends to protect itself.

OAW

[The Final Dakar]

Is that kind of judge subject to election? Because that only makes things worse.

[subego]

Originally Posted by OAW 

Absolutely not a coincidence. I think a jury of 12 in Baltimore would have been more likely to convict the driver of something. A bench trial by a judge was a smart move because the system tends to protect itself.

OAW

There's a correlation-causation link being claimed here I think it's fair to greet with at least a modicum of skepticism.

With prosecutors it's easy to show the causal link. I'm not as sure about judges.