81–90 of 145 posts
I wonder if the offending DA can have his pants sued off his ass in a civil case by one of the victims. This might be the only option unless this gets enough national attention to get the DA fired.
You need a Duke Lacrosse[1] situation before anything would happen.
[1] Serious overreach coupled directed at camera-friendly victims with the resources to hire good, media-savvy attorneys.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is almost certainly not true, it's not just a lie its 'fraud' at best.
You can say it's not true all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that administrative subpoenas exist as a concept and are used regularly by governmental agencies. Your inability to distinguish between a document signed by a judge and one that is not doesn't automatically imply that it is fraudulent.
The difference is whether courts are going to back the document in question.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is generally sub-optimal. Domestic violence is rarely a one-time event, rather it is a pattern of the relationship (and often the violence is reciprocal, so arresting just one of the two doesn't make sense). Some form of social service intervention for the whole family would be far better than arresting one person. After all, somebody abusing someone else likely doesn't handle stress and anger appropriately: nob…
>After all, somebody abusing someone else likely doesn't handle stress and anger appropriately: nobody's life gets easier and more manageable after being arrested. So longer prison sentences for domestic abusers then? Put them away long enough so the other party is forced to start their own life and no longer be in a situation where they are dependent on the abuser and thus unable to leave.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The police couldn't do anything but take this woman downtown. Her daughter protested, "THIS IS NOT WHY WE CALLED YOU", but the officers were like, "whatevers". If all you've got is a hammer, everything is a nail. Sounds like her daughter might have had incorrect expectations for what it entails to call the police, though, unfortunately. The purpose and function of calling the police is generally to bring lawful for…
> Any time you call the cops on somebody, it should be done with the expectation that they may be arrested and taken to jail, regardless of your intentions when making the call. Correct that to: any time you call the cops on somebody, it should be done with the expectation that someone may die , not necessarily the person you are calling the cops on. Maybe the situation is bad enough that that's already a possibility…
How about if you get into a car crash but nobody's dying immediately, don't call the police?
There are lots of situations not serious enough to merit getting someone killed where I'd call the police. I don't think that's crazy. I'm sure it some areas the police are terrible enough that this would be unwise, but those areas are the exception, not the rule.
[1] http://www.mercurynews.com/2007/12/23/fake-lab-reports-were-...
[2] http://www.mercurynews.com/2007/12/16/sex-case-hinged-on-pho...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is generally sub-optimal. Domestic violence is rarely a one-time event, rather it is a pattern of the relationship (and often the violence is reciprocal, so arresting just one of the two doesn't make sense). Some form of social service intervention for the whole family would be far better than arresting one person. After all, somebody abusing someone else likely doesn't handle stress and anger appropriately: nob…
>After all, somebody abusing someone else likely doesn't handle stress and anger appropriately: nobody's life gets easier and more manageable after being arrested. So longer prison sentences for domestic abusers then? Put them away long enough so the other party is forced to start their own life and no longer be in a situation where they are dependent on the abuser and thus unable to leave.
Long prison sentences might help a few cases, but not most, because most won't be convicted in the first place.
It's important to help the victim directly, not just focus on removing the perpetrator, because the latter is likely never to happen.
Note also that because the situation is often so unclear to the police, sometimes both people involved to be arrested, or the victim is arrested and the perpetrator goes free. The latter is especially common when the victim is male.
So no, police arriving and arresting who they think is the attacker isn't necessarily desirable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I absolutely agree with everything you said with one exception. > "Protect and Serve" Everyone thinks that the police's job is their motto. It was some strategic messaging, but they came up with that. Police weren't created to protect and serve. Going back to the foundations of the country's policing strategy, police exist to maintain order. That's why they arrest protesters, shoot unarmed guys who are noncompliant,…
> Going back to the foundations of the country's policing strategy, police exist to maintain order Very un-Peelian policing. Could you give more background on how and when the foundations of US policing strategy were laid, because it seems to be very fragmentary and local?
https://itunes.apple.com/us/podcast/serve-protect-a-history-...
It's well worth a listen, the entire series is great as well
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the reality of an overwhelmed court system, they make choices to optimize. It's a system of trust, balanced by a Judge reporting abusive attorneys to The Bar, which means most subpoenas are actually what a Judge would sign. In the case of this Louisiana Prosecutor, it seems like perhaps the courts are so overwhelmed they can't even get stacks of pre-signed subpoenas so they write their own. And the article sta…
So people waive judicial oversight to make things go faster, and when that's not fast enough they just commit fraud, but it's not occurring to them that maybe they should break fewer laws themselves and choose fewer criminals to prosecute?
You see this pattern all over the place. Bosses want to break the rules but don't want to get in trouble for it. The solution is easy: give the workers goals that are impossible to meet without breaking the rules, while simultaneously telling them how important it is to follow the rules. Voila, your workers break the rules on their own initiative, and you're not culpable. Those who refuse to do so can be fired, totally legally, for not meeting their goals.
For example, you want your workers to put in a lot of overtime but you don't want to pay for it. If you tell them to do that, it would be illegal! So instead, you tell them that they need to produce this much output per week, and also tell them that if they clock in more than 40 hours per week they'll be fired. They'll start working off the clock on their own, and since they'll be fired if you find out about it, you'll remain safely ignorant!
It's no surprise that the same sort of thing would happen in prosecutors' offices. If they don't put away enough criminals, they'll be out of a job. They'll break the rules to do so, and keep it quiet so they don't get fired for that. And it's all according to plan, since the people in charge don't really like how the rules protect criminals.
> The notice came from District Attorney Leon Cannizzaro’s office. His prosecutors are using these fake subpoenas to pressure witnesses to talk to them — a tactic that defense lawyers and legal experts said is unethical, if not illegal. The fact that the DA's office, which does not issue subpoenas , can mail to witnesses a document which says "SUBPOENA" is bold lettering and threatens arrest, is not on its face obvio…
Sounds like this is an opportunity for a SVaaS (Subpoena Verification as a Service). (I'm joking -- right up until the point where I am not) I'm not even sure how one would verify that a subpoena is valid. I suppose the same goes for verifying badge numbers for police, fire marshalls, city inspectors, etc.
Thats not the issue, Lawyers and the like are extremely resistant to digitization. If you said we'll have a live database of all active subpoenas that anyone could read the types of fights you'd have with the legal profession would astound you. Everything runs on written signed letters and the post. Interesting fact, Barristers used to get paid by the inch of paper in their brief, so when you read old law and its ver…
If you have relevant insight, why is that? Digitization makes most information-oriented work easier and it stands to reason this would be true for law as well.