Slashdot Mirror
Philly Court Convicts 2600 Staffer on Minor Counts
McGuckin was held in August for a week on a half-million dollars bond. The four charges that were dropped include the infamous accusation that his cell phone was an instrument of crime. The two counts he was convicted of were disorderly conduct and obstructing a highway.
His sentence is three months' probation and a fine of $135.50. He says he will appeal.
According to 2600, despite having a great deal of videotape, the prosecution used none of it, and convicted McGuckin entirely on the testimony of one police detective. Detective Angelo Parisi says he saw McGuckin talk on his cell phone, then point in a particular direction. A small group of people then moved in that direction to block an intersection for about twenty minutes.
Though Parisi was walking through the city capturing video of protesters' activities, this action was not caught on video.
Ironically, the protesters demonstrating to block the intersection "dispersed after getting a warning from police," with no arrests, says 2600.
Another protester arrested at the same demonstration was John Sellers, an environmental activist who was described in court as sowing "violence and mayhem." According to the Philadelphia Inquirer, "prosecutor Martelli spoke ominously of the massive dossier that federal and local authorities had built against Sellers."
Because of such comments, Sellers was held on $1 million bond, which is unheard of for misdemeanor charges. He was released Tuesday because, according to the prosecutor, there was no evidence against him. The same police detective who testified against McGuckin had been observing Sellers.
I think I used to know a friend of this guy when I lived in Philly. This friend would say "I'm going out to meet with Shapeshifter" and he'd leave, and his girlfriend and I would make fun of him and call them "the Superfriends". Get it? 70's cartoon reference. These guys used to hang out at the so-called "Rainbow Gatherings" which were popular in the early 90's.
Life is weird.
Don't post on slashdot. Get back to work.
I am suprised. I don't trust the police at all. There have been many cases of crooked cops etc in the past. Plus, cops are just people, with the same defects other people have. That would be the same as someone trusting a millionaire, or a priest, just because of thier status. Trust based on that status is misplaced.
And the cop does have a motive for lying; if he admits to a wrongful arrest, there could be no end of trouble to him and his precinct. You can sue for wrongful arrest/prosicution, can't you?
Because due to the unlawful voir dire jury-stacking prevalent since the days when judges decided they didn't have to tell jurors of their right and obligation to judge the law as the facts. To get on a jury, you have to pretend you are a moron who has no opinions about anything.
Fuck Slashdot
how many times must it be said that philly's mayor is john street, an ardent black liberal democrat? why is it that some people think that where the the rnc is being held, the local government just steps aside and lets the republicans "borrow" the police force? come on, get a brain.
tim and i a'hunting went,
and eyed three maidens in a tent.
as they were three and we were two,
Founder, Americans Allied Against Alliteration
Here's a look at Graham from a different perspective.
This is another view of the world.
Well, the money part is certainly true. Unfortunately, many groups get portrayed by popular culture as being "evil". After the OK City bombing, many people suspected Moslems (particularly Middle-Eastern ones). This comes from a popular perception of Islam which comes from the fact that the only thing Average Joe knows about Islam is when he hears about terrorism. If the only thing people heard about Catholics came from the UK press in Northern Ireland, he would probably have the same opinion of Catholics. This is my point: ignorance is the enemy. Because the ideals, beliefs, and values of non-mainstream people are largely unknown outside their own societies, mainstream people tend to have views of them which are not accurate; AND because these views come largely from the media, which has an interest in portraying the negative, these inaccuracies always seem to portray people as dangerous.
-- Rich
Free your mind and your Ass will follow -- George Clinton
Yeah, but we're also the country with the highest rate of execustions, so Amendment VIII is already out the window.
But executions are not necessarily cruel or unusual.
They certainly weren't considered such when the Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution. In fact, the 5th Amendment specifically allows for executions, as long as due process has been followed.
No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
So, it's perfectly legal to have exections.
Now, some methods of execution may be seen as cruel or unusual. Feeding someone feet first into a chipper-shredder, for instance.
But hanging, firing squad, lethal injection, gas chambers, and electrocution have all been found to be legal.
I like you, Stuart. You're not like everyone else, here, at Slashdot.
What, like the Boston Tea Party, or the UK democracy protesters in the 1830s, or the US War of Independence. What you're saying is that people should put up with the crappy status-quo, rather than make a bit of noise and try and get things changed. Welcome back to the British Empire. Don't forget to kneel when the local lord goes past.
As for the word of a police officer, no doubt some of them are honest, but I suspect they're in the minority. Commiting perjury to convict a suspect -- whether there's other evidence to support the charge or not -- is so common that cops themselves have a word for it ... "testilying".
In any case, it didn't really matter to the powers-that-be whether these people were guilty or not. I doubt they could care less about the final disposition of the cases. They simply wanted these people off of the streets (and the evening news), and used absurd bail to keep them off. Whether the charges were accurate and the bail was appropriate probably didn't matter to them.
...peaceful MOVE protestors in Philadelphia a few decades back.
peaceful? I think that is the last thing that you can call MOVE. They did not deserve to be bombed, but they were definitely not peaceful.Check the facts on that.
Arm yourself with knowledge.
It seems insane, but that is what was said. Perhaps this has to do with the 'speedy trial' provision of the law; perhaps not.
thad
I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
except for the fact that Mayor Wilson Goode, who ordered the police attack, was himself black...
According to this release from the Defence Attys there is no Jury at initial trial for Misdemeanors in Pennsylvania. There will, however, be a Jury for the Appeal. Don't ask ME to explain.
Ben Masel: 51,282 votes for US Senate in the Wisconsin Democratic Primary
Sure thing. 90% -- or even 95% -- of all officers are probably people who really want to help. But those 5% are the ones people notice.
The cops who are obviously out to give you a hard time, pull you over for 10 measly mph over the speed limit on an empty road, shoot unarmed immigrants, and storm the wrong house killing innocent people are more dangerous to the nice cops than any number of Guys On Drugs With Guns.
I'm reminded of greg bear's queen of angels, in which the police officers are unarmed. The idea being that cops carry networked surveillance equipment. So it's acceptable to let a suspect escape -- just i.d. them and bring em in later.
Knowing a cop poses no leathal threat would drastically reduce the amount of violence directed towards them. The elian case in particular highlight exactly the wrong way to approach confrontations.
I think it would be very appropriate if the prosecutor, detective and judge were caned after this case is reversed on appeal. Nothing would be more appropriate for such a gross violation of the Constitution.
--
Time is Nature's way of keeping everything from happening at once... the bitch.
Please a little perspective, how many of you would condone Shapeshifters entire town held under curfew for two months where violating it means death if you are spotted.
Or shooting Shapeshifter DEAD on the spot with bullets (real bullets, not rubber bullets, not water cannons - real metal bullets).
I suspect not many of you will condone this whereas many of you will ignore the situation in the middle east where soldiers shoot children.
This is a little off topic I know but I thought it was ironic that this story comes after today I came across the site ptimes.com.
I am not palestinian or Israeli - the strange reason is I was on holiday and the only english channel I could watch was CNN and I started paying attention to something I had previously just ignored.
no sig.
Realize that bail is not necessarily keyed to the status of the crime. It's a rough estimate of the cost of a potential future commission of the same crime by letting this person out of jail, together with the probability that the person will actually do it again. I think that the judge probably thought that "hackers" hack all the time with impunity and figured the cost of damage of the probable hacking would be high.
I did not say destruction of property was O.K., only that it is possible in a protest (also see the WTO protests in Seattle).
Don't get your panties in a bunch! If you take offense because you think you have been misinterpeted, then maybe next time you will take extra care to CLEARLY say what you mean. That way people will understand what YOU are trying to say, not what WE think you are trying to say...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
Anyone have a more "newsy" source?
- I don't care if they globalize against free speech. All my best free thoughts are done in my head.
Assuming that he was coordinating efforts of mass protests, I have a suggestion.
For the comm link use a headset with your cell phone in your pocket(more descrete).
Instead of pointing in the direction of the intersection, use two GPS receivers to coordinate your efforts. It seems like if you can afford a cell plan, you shouldn't have any problems buying the GPS. Just call coordinates back and forth. If you don't want to keep the GPS, then just return it before the 30-day money back guarantee expires.
If you get a map program included in your GPS, you can set up waypoints and marching routes simply and easily.
Carrying the GPS does have its problems. It might be used against you in court as evidence of you organizing efforts to disrupt.
Regrettably, it's all too true--there's nothing in there I'd really disagree with, but I would like to take a moment to plug the Japanese classic film, Rashomon, which tells the same sequence of events from many different perspectives--all of them true and accurate, even though they show many different things and sequences of events.
It's been imitated in Courage Under Fire and to a lesser extent in Run, Lola, Run, but the original has never been exceeded.
If you want to see how uncertain eyewitness testimony can be, and see some great cinema in the process, watch Rashomon.
Well, they may have been found to be legal, but I don't have to like them
Ranessin
Half a million bond? What the hell was he supposed to do? Hack a nuke or something? That's the kind of bond you ask for murderers...
People replying to my sig annoy me. That's why I change it all the time.
>That's worth $500 000 bail? Remind me never to
:) It makes NYC look clean.
>litter in Philadelphia; they might shoot me on
>the spot.
You've never seen a Philly street have you?
Hm. Interesting.
I think you under-estimate the calming (read: frightening) effect of having a gun pointed at you, and over-estimate the calming effects of a camera (when wielded by someone you don't respect--ie, the cops as new-age paparazzi). People can get seriously pissed when someone is taking their picture without permission, and there's hardly any deterrent effect--how many tapes have you seen of stars popping photographers? They've got more to lose from the exposure than most of us would.
Furthermore, as I recall from my CJ coursework years ago, most police firearm fatalities do not result of a situation with guns getting out of control, but rather from ambush scenarios. I don't see how your argument would apply in such cases. Generally, police training favors officers over criminals in situations where escalation is occurring. And you might note that the increasing prevalence of dashboard cameras in patrol cars has not seemed to decrease the tendency to try to shoot it out with the officer who just pulled a criminal over, either. Plus, I think that most criminals realize that their tag number has already been recorded by the dispatcher before a stop is even initiated. Again, it doesn't seem to stop them from running or shooting it out.
In general, I think the problem with your argument is that it assumes too much in the way of rational thought from a criminal in the heat of the moment. The adrenaline that comes from almost being caught will be there whether an armed officer is involved or not. The difference is that a weapon can have an immediate effect on the outcome, whereas a camera's effect will be delayed... perhaps fatally.
No relation to Happy Monkey
I'm sorry about the run-on link...it didn't appear that way in the preview.
But Jebus...does a misplaced "ahref" result in "troll" status these days?
Sincerely,
Vergil
Insects and Grafitti Photos
Nothing in 2600's report says McGuckin is innocent or that he did not commit the acts alleged or that he even said he did not commit the acts. So, if the police officer testifies that he saw McGuckin pointing and people obeying his apparent direction and blocking an intersection, and McGuckin does not testify that he did not point or was not directing the people, and his defense does not present any evidence that he wasn't, then the jury is right to conclude he did.
From 2600's report, it seems likely to me that McGuckin did in fact direct people to block an intersection and is therefore responsible for obstructing a highway.
If he's innocent, let's hear him say so.
It seems to me that both McGuckin and Sellers have a suit against the City of Philadelphia for violations of their constitutional rights. To wit:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted."
Half a million and a million dollars (respectively) for misdemeanors seems excessive.
General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
he seemed itching to get arrested, and well, he got it. so why is everyone surprised?
jose nazario jose@biocserver.cwru.edu
I won't do the gruntwork of going to Google and searching for "John Timoney bicycle attack" for you, since it's not really all that hard. Plenty of people were arrested, many of them for the flimsiest of reasons, but only one was accused of chucking a bicycle at a cop, and other than your distrust of police in general, you don't seem to cite any reason to think that this incident didn't happen exactly as described.
With that said, I agree almost completely with the last paragraph of your post.
no, but in the case of a misdemeanor (and usually non-violent felonies) its irrelevant.
will be just as quick to crack down on radical protestors as the so-called moderate/conservative repoublicans. If there's anything this election farce has taught us, is that both parties don't want anything to change, just business as usual.
The idea that our Democrats are somehow liberal is a farce. Ask any European. Hell, I find the Greens obnoxiously authoritarian and the Libertarians foolishly materialist.
These protestors were radicals, and like me, a lot of them are anarchists (not JUST the ones dressed in black).
[pink beam of light]
You make good points... But I think it's unfair to make the claim that any particular defendent is not geting a fair trial without knowing the full details of the case.
Ranessin
Ok,
I'll have to admit that I wasn't aware of the ambush stats (that's a 3 on my list, which I thought was very rare). Nor was I aware of the fact that the dispatcher new the tag before the vehicle was pulled over. Is that why people seem to often get lowered tickets, but very seldomly get away with just a warning (the cop has to give 'em SOMETHING, he pulled them over for speeding, as the dispatcher as logged)?
But anyway, It would be in the officer's interest to inform me of that fact as soon as possible. They've never told me (not that I get pulled over often, but once in a while -- lead footed friends, ya know). Do you know why they don't?
As for the in-dash camera, I rather assumed that after killing the cop, the criminal trashed the tape. I know I would. That speaks against rational criminals too, I guess.
All the same, ta for the discussion, unusually interesting (and rare -- normally people just post and never respond).
I remember very clearly my legal instructor in the academy talking about this during the block when ethics and the "under color of law" crimes were discussed (false arrest, false inprisonment, 1983 actions for violation of civil rights). As a police officer a lot rides on your word alone since there are so many situations were it is the only evidence that may exist. I also remember the point being made that a jury will be influenced by recent events and that misconduct on the part of any officer will cost cases for the whole department or even the whole area since they always make news and the jury just sees a cop on the stand and we're all alike. I do believe and trust the word of my fellow officers over any other person since I have to trust them to save my life on any given day I also know the damage they can cause me and if its clear that an officer has crossed the line you'll find they get no quarter from the rest of us who have to go back out on the street after the evening news.
Think of the consequences on the individual officer too - no job, loss of retirement, decertification, criminal charges, pubic ridicule, civil lawsuits, and prison time (they love ex-cops in those places).... these risks are just too high for the average officer to take. I'll tell the jury what I saw and what I honestly think happened but I'd rather let a defendant I think is guilty walk away than risk all of those possibilities above, its just not worth it. In any case they will be caught some day if they keep breaking the law.
Thats true. Was Shapeshifter asked what he said on the phone? It seems a reasonable question. It wouldn't seem like an excessive amount of effort for the police to ask the phone company for records to find out who he was talking to. Did the defence make any effort at all to disprove the witness?
I think the fact that it was an off duty policeman probably helped. The arresting officer has an emotional attachment to the situation, and so is more prejudiced than perhaps he should be. A policemans word should still be considered as reliable as any other professional's
A roommate of mine, a real sweet quiet girl just out of college, was one of the protesters arrested in the philly warehouse. she said of all the hundred or so cops who raided the place there wasn't one who wasn't either spitting on them or hitting/kicking and just being overall abusive to them. Of course this all happened only before holding them in a crowded bus all day without telling them why they were being held. And eventually denying one girl her asthma (spellcheck?) meds. Yet I actually find this comforting: if the generally accepted 1/100 bad to good cop ratio holds true (popular wisdom is never wrong), there must be 10,000 good cops in philly (yea right).
They probably have no clue what 2600 is... Do most people out there besides geeks even know what DeCSS is? Try this, walk around your town and find 10 people at random and ask them if they know what DeCSS is, I guarantee that unless you live in some majot hightech city that maby 1 person will know, the others will jsut give you a stupid look. I doubt that the fact he was employeed by 2600 had anything to do with his arrest.
I remember reading an article about a family in NY, who sued the NYPD, the NYPD did not protect the family from a local gang.
Since it was/is (?) illegal to have a concealed weapons permit in NY, they had to rely on the NYPD for protection.
The outcome was the NYPD is not responsible for the safety of the public. So the case was dismissed.
Eyewitness testimony has two problems: it's unreliable and it's easily corruptable. Just something as simple as telling a witness, "You didn't really see that, did you?" is enough, sometimes, to plant a kernel of doubt in the witness' mind... and that doubt shows through on the witness stand... and the jury sees it... and decides "why is this person so doubtful, unless they really didn't see it?"
Circumstantial evidence has the advantage of being reliable. It's still easily corruptable; improper handling of evidence can get the entire thing thrown out, and lawyers often have considerable success demonstrating improper handling (as they did in the OJ Simpson case, with the DNA samples at the crime scene). And, given sketchy evidence, you can make it say whatever you want it to--which is why judges rarely let sketchy evidence be admitted.
Circumstantial evidence is far from perfect, but it's a damn sight better than eyewitnesses.
At least if you're going to flame me, use your real name. Fuckin AC's.
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
In summary: were his lawyers incompetent, or did he have something to hide? Yes, yes, I know that US law is supposed to be "innocent until proven guilty". In the real world, it's "guilty unless you have money and/or look respectable". It sounds like he didn't present much of a defense.
Well, at least according to California law, they are not supposed to be given that. The are supposed to be given no extra consideration as to trustworthyness just for being an officer of the law. And they are not even to be given extra consideration for training in observation, etc. The few times I have been called in for jury duty, this was made quite clear by the lawyers and the court.
Now, if Pennsylvania law is similar, and if the jury did give extra consideration for the witness being an officer of the law, then it sounds like at least grounds for a retrial.
Which is irrelevant. Blacks are not magically immune to racism, not even against other blacks.
Sorry - I should have put your point in there. Police offices are generally trusted by people becuase the vast majority of them across the US have repeated shown that they are deserving of that trust.
One of my best friends is a state trooper in Missouri. I can't think of a more difficult and stressful job. His first assignment was the night shift along one of the biggest Meth corridors in the country. Every time he stopped someone, there was the chance that this car was transporting and he was in over his head. He's now in St. Louis btw, much safer!
Thanks for pointing that out.
-- Ravensfire
"But we decide which is right, and which is an illusion"
Isn't the law supposed to be 'Innocent untill proven guilty', not 'Guilty untill you produce some proof that it wasn't you?' The burden of proof is on the prosecution.
From the article:
"The defense claimed that the "entire case [was] speculation" and pointed out that Parisi had even failed to mention any of these details in a report he had filed with the Philadelphia police the day the video was shot.
This, combined with his inability to capture McGuckin on videotape, strengthened the defense's allegation that McGuckin was not actually observed doing anything illegal."
They did defend themselves, there was no proof of any illegal action, only the word of one man that the defendant had talked on a phone and pointed. Seems mighty shaky to me.
Nessun maggior dolore, Che ricordarsi del tempo felice Nella miseria. -Dante
It's one thing to be an eye-witness to something like what you're talking about. It's not a violent or traumatic experience. It didn't happen quickly. It wasn't dark. You knew the people who were involved. It's quite another thing to try to testify that a complete stranger killed somebody and you saw them escaping, in the dark, and then try to positively identify that person. The police are also notorious for helping witnesses to "remember" by showing them pictures of their suspect and indicating that they believe that he did it and all the witness has to do is agree. They engage in other sorts of coaching as well. They also like to take suspects back to the scene, in handcuffs and ask people if that's the person who did it. This let's everybody at the scene get a good look at the suspect, which they will later pick out of a lineup. By doing this they have tampered with evidence, namely the witnesses memories. This is not even legal, but it's done, and it's usually covered up. Eye-witnesses are much too easy to tamper with.
I don't believe we should even have a death penalty. We, as people, and our legal system are much too fallible for us to be sentencing people to death based on the legal procedings they undergo. Yes, sentence them to life in prison. At least then we can release them later (and I believe it should be a bit easier to sue for wrongful imprisonment). People have on many occaisions come forward with information that clears the name of someone on death row. Once the person has been executed, nobody is likely to come forward with information because they feel they would be seen as complicit in the death of that person.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
Fine, if they found tire spikes, charge them with that. Don't make up a bunch of bullshit charges to go with it though. Bomb-making materials? Puppet-weapons? Any way you cut it, the police were the criminals in this case.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
I am going to quote nharmon's post from below:
:)
According to 2600, despite having a great deal of videotape, the prosecution used none of it, and convicted McGuckin entirely on the testimony of one police detective.
*cough* For starters, the prosecution does not convict people. That's the court's/jury's job.
And just because this guy is with 2600, does not mean he's in the right. Every American has a right to peaceable assemble. They don't, however, have a right to block intersections, and so forth.
And fwiw, $1 million bond is hardly unheard of. Seeing that... it doesn't mention the other 3 charges that were dropped were,... and whether the bond would be lower if paid in cash (which is usually the case).
Also, seeing that he DID make bail, it obviously wasn't an impossible hardship.
There was more going on there than you or your friends may have been advised of. Your drawing conclusions from 2600's (certainly unbiased!)article here.
Whenever you want to get back into the real world and realize that "the man" could really give a shit about you, me, or one "shapeshifter", the better off you will be. The guy was messing with a peaceful convention...I really don't care if he disagreed with what the convention was about...he broke laws and pissed off alot of people...trying to jam up streets and make a mess of things isn't going to make you many friends on a jury of your peers.
Gotta get back to work now...be happy to debate/annoy you more later.
What I don't understand is if there are so many people being wrongly accused and convicted, how are the prisons still populated with murderers and drug kingpins? Shouldn't it be "You have the right to spend the rest of your life taking it up the ass from other people just like you?"
Never trust a law enforcement official.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
According to an article in today's Philadelphia Inquirer, at least 6 state troopers were arrested at while blockading an intersection.
According to the article, the troopers and protesters were held on misdemeanor charges of obstructing the highway and conspiracy.
Assistant District Attorney Trevan Borum, who is one of the prosecutors in the cases, said the defense concerns about entrapment were groundless.
He said the troopers had not led any protests, but had responded to a request from demonstrators to join in the so-called "lock-downs" of an intersection.
I participated in several street blockades at R2K. I wasn't arrested (but was thrown in a paddy wagon for walking down a street the next day) Based on my experience, the troopers' claim that they "responded to a request" from protesters to join a blockade is specious. I seriously doubt that the 6 troopers simply plopped down in the street and linked arms with the demonstrators.
Each street blockade was composed of at least one "Affinity Group, (AG)" which had organized at least 24 hours prior to the actual sit-down. From my experience, no AG solicited recruits from passers-by during the blockades. Furthermore, each street blockade was planned through consensus of each of an AG's member. In other Words, they weren't spontaneous events as the Inquirer reporter seemed to assume.
So what probably occured was the troopers had infiltrated an AG, participated in planning meetings and strategy sessions and alongside "legitimate" protestors before the event. Hence, the entrapment argument proffered by defense attorneys representing the "real" protestors may have some merit.
Sincerely,
Vergil
Insects and Grafitti Photos
If by "circumstantial evidence" you mean finger prints, the murder weapon, dna evidence, and fiber samples, then yes. I don't think we should have any capital cases, but given the current reality of capital punishment, there has to be more evidence than merely one witness's testimony. Too much can go wrong. At the time, it was dark, the events happened too fast, and the witness had never seen him before. All she knew was that some black man had killed a white Texan, and she later convinced herself that it was Graham.
Eye witness testimony is only damning because people give it undue authority. Scientifically speaking, it's highly unreliable.
-- Anne Marie
I suppose we could have a war over semantics. But what's the fun in that? If you want to believe that the riots in Philadelphia were a "protest" then I will cede that argument because the true issue is whether or not the actions of the "protestors" can be justified?
Which liberties were the protesters defending that required their extremism? The protesters talked quite a bit about "freedom" and liberty, but apparently they believe that these values only apply to people that believe the same things that they do. Should the Republicans lose their right of assembly just because they believe differently than you do? The rioters apparently felt that the Replubicans didn't deserve this right. In pursuit of this goal, they broke all sorts of laws, damaged property, assaulted police officers, and generally ran over everyone else's rights. What principles of liberty and freedom were these misguided fools sticking up for? The freedom to wreck property and block roads illegally.
What a truly noble cause!
that eye-witness testimony is notoriously unreliable, and both of these cases involved a single eye-witness.
-- It only takes 20 minutes for a liberal to become a conservative thanks to our new outpatient surgical procedure!
My friend and roommate had har puppets and artwork destroyed by Philidelphia's police. She was building puppets and artwork for a political protest.
Their group was infiltrated by police detectives posing as activists. On August 1st, the warehouse was raided by the Philidelphia police (the police called her pupets weapons and considered the paints bomb-making materials). She was arrested along with 80 others in the warehouse (which was legimately rented).
Rather than roll over for the DA and take their slap-on-the-wrist plea bargin, she (and many others) have opted to go to court to not only clear their names, but flood the "justice" system which has so wrongfully screwed them.
This represents a major injustice -- the Philly DA publicly congratulated the police department for so efficently sweeping the undesirables under the rug for the duration of the Republican convention, effectively criminilizing orginization and peaceful protest (and I know this girl -- she's peaceful).
In any case, this is just the short of it, please visit this site for more information.
You can also contact the Philly DA and mayor here to tell them how much this sucks.:
Mayor John Street
City Hall
Philidelphia, PA
(215) 686-2181
District Attourney Lynn Abraham
1421 Arch St.
Philidelphia, PA
(215)686-8701
-Turkey
How many times have you been passed by police speeding (without having their lights or siren on)?
I once brought this up on ne.transportation news-group and one fellow, an ex-cop, according to himself, insisted, they have the right to do so. He could not come up with the law allowing that, but I could not quote anything either.
Although, it is not clear, whose the burden of proof should be in this case, I'd appreciate a pointer to a law (of any state, but MA is most prefered) to support either point of view.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
In the case of DemocracyNow, "independent" simply means much more obviously biased. The interview with President Clinton appears to be a successful critique of President Clinton's administration, and a triumph of independent interviewers over a president weaned on soft, corporate interviews-- when you read the writeup on the front page. When you read the actual transcript of the interview, however, Clinton comes off as an extremely intelligent person with great points, who keeps getting interrupted by the interviewers as he answers their questions.
It's important to have independent media, but not crappy independent media. For these stories, check out the Philadelphia Examiner or AP stories, or (if you want a site that makes no bones about where it's coming from, because the guy works with them) check out 2600.org.
Nobody (except for Shapeshifter) has any idea of whether he broke the law or not. They just don't know. Even the prosecution and the cop don't know, and can only speculate as to whether or not he actually broke the law. And yet, through all that, somehow the court managed to find that he was guilty within a reasonable doubt.
But that's true with every case. Only the defendant ever truly knows their guilt or innocence. Why should this case be any different?
Ranessin
The cops in Philadelphia did their job, and they did a fine job of it as well.
...
Honestly, how many cops are being charged with Gestapo-like tactics?
The fact there were standing Federal injunctions (since '76) against Philly cops infiltrating, surveiling, and making pre-emptory strikes against protester, yet Philly cops shut down a puppet facility and state troopers infiltrated dissenting organizations takes any luster off of the police's behavior during the convention.
This story from this morning's Inky describes how state troopers infiltrated organizations deep enough to be arrested at an action. Were the cops aiming to keep the city moving smoothly, or prosecute persons with dissenting opinions?
Finally, I saw plenty of footage showing cops mistreating protesters, particularly at Broad and Locust, so I feel that your assertion that the cops did a fine job is unfounded.
If the protesters would have gotten a permit (and they could have gotten one)
I'm unsure if you're being disingenuous or simply ignorant, but many of the actions, such as the Kensingtion Welfare Rights Union march applied for permits and were denied. In addition, Philadelphia does not give the same show of support for leftist causes as they did for the Republicans. On one hand you have a $6 million budget and tax incentives to build new hotel rooms, and the MOVE bombing on the other.
you clearly spend too much of your time smoking dope and reading "alternative" (read extremely biased) news sources.
The role of the alternative media is to provide coverage of underreported stories. As you might remember there's a crisis in the Middle East, but you might not know that by reading the front page or turning on the television, since coverage is dominated by the Florida recount. The stories in alternative papers may reflect topics that threaten interests related to the mainstream media. Or the mandate of mainstream news outlets does not include topics related to social justice or the environment, but it seems that you at once closed minded and making an intellectually lazy ad hominem attack.
Somebody please, tell this machine I'm not a machine.
find out at r2kphilly.org about all 420 people facing prosecution in philly, the tactics the police used, what you can do to help, and find out what you can do to protect yourself in the future.
kellan
A Tim Horton's on every corner, and no guns or immigrants.
Exactly! We don't have immigrants--we have new Canadians!
James
I can't speak to tickets vs. warnings... it's completely at the officer's discretion, but the possibility certainly exists that they want to justify the stop. They call it in for two reasons, both for officer safety. First, where they are at and who they are with a regularly logged anytime they get out of the vehicle, so if they trigger an alarm or have time only to yell out their callsign people at least know where to start looking. Second, your plate is usually run by the dispatcher through NCIC (National Crime Information Center database) before or during the stop to see if the vehicle is reported as stolen or has any wants or warrants attached. That's why the officer may seem to follow you around for a while after you've gotten busted before actually pulling you over.
I don't know of any instances where the dashcam tape has been trashed after a shooting. Usually, the criminal just wants to get clear of the scene (and rightly so--time taken trying to find the recorder is time wasted getting away from a point that every other cop in the city is bearing down on at full speed). I would guess the reason you aren't typically informed that your plate was called in are twofold. One, for the officer, it's a matter of routine--I'm sure they don't give it a second thought. And two, it would probably seem a little intimidating to most people--'Yeah, pal, I've got your number, better not piss me off.'
Sure; I like getting decent threads going. Love seeing how other people think. Enjoy the rest of your day.
No relation to Happy Monkey
If you don't have the freedom to be crappy, then you also don't have the freedom to be critical. (Of course, the reverse isn't true.)
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
what you are saying is true as far you've gone, but there's more to the story than that, and I'll bet that's why we give it creedence.
I was a TA, proctoring an exam, and I began to notice a student peeping at another student's exam paper. Every time my attention was elsewhere, when I looked back he'd be peeping, and over time it became clear that she was allowing him to see her paper since no matter how much they shifted in their seats, this fact of their behavior remained a fact. I moved him to a new seat. After the exam, I reported the incident to the Professor who turned out to be a hardass, and he pressed the "charge" with the disciplinary committee. The students resisted the accusation, and I wanted to be very careful not to taint their records with any unfair allegations, so in describing the event I kept hedging and saying "I'm not sure", "I don't remember", etc. But then the professor asked a question that brought it all home to me. He said, "At the time it was happening, was there any doubt in your mind that they were colluding?" And I realized, no, at the time I was completely convinced that they were cheating. All of the doubt was after the fact. The doubt was the "taint".
From this experience I would say that eyewitness testimony from a number of people who each saw a little may not be that useful for reconstructing the puzzle pieces of an event because it can be hard to remember details, but the testimony of a single eyewitness who saw the whole thing is pretty compelling. And note, the anti-death penalty side here is trying to raise doubts. They don't say "he didn't do it", they say, "ooooh, look at all the possibility for doubt" but that's precisely how you taint eyewitness accounts.
If you want to believe that the riots in Philadelphia were a "protest" then I will cede that argument
"Riots"? They weren't even close to being riots. They were just protests... I think maybe one or two windows were broken, max. I think you most have them confused with the Seattle riots a few months earlier. Basically the Philly police were nervous after the Seattle riots and were basically arresting everyone in sight. Nothing even remotely approached "riot" status.
OtakuBooty.com: Smart, funny, sexy nerds.
Personally, I'd rather have armed cops than a government that can track me down anytime later from a surveillance photo.
Also, I don't understand your reasoning behind "Knowing a cop poses no lethal threat would drastically reduce the amount of violence directed toward them." Huh? Surely the other way around--more people are going to think twice about taking a swing at someone with a sidearm than someone with a camera.
No relation to Happy Monkey
Gary Graham
"It's all right, it's ok. There's something to live for" - Uncle Bill
It's quite simple. The cop proved nothing. The cop admitted that he never saw the guy at the blocked intersection. Why then was he convicted of blocking an intersection if nobody (including the cop) saw him do it?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
No great hardship?
A high bail is a real benefit to the bail bondsmen. Especially if it's from someone they're fairly sure isn't going to skip. They charge you usury rates for freedom. A bond is supposed to ensure that you show up. If you pay bail, then you loose 10% (15%?) of the bond no matter what you do. Innocent or guilty doesn't matter. So to get out of jail he had to pay $100,000 before he was convicted.
Caution: Now approaching the (technological) singularity.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Many if not most? What exactly are you basing THAT on? If your going to make accusations of them, at least have the decency to back it up.
The guys they let go on a warning don't make the headlines. The bad situations they set straight OUTSIDE of a courtroom don't make the headlines. The cops who die in the line of duty get a brief mention in the headlines, along with the ones who pull people out of wrecked cars and burning buildings. The cops who take down a murderer or rapist really don't get much in the way of headlines either...the murderers and rapists sure do though.
Try giving a cop a BIT of respect and you might find they aren't out for you like you seem to think. I've known a few...they are generally pretty much like you and me and everyone else. They aren't all some different breed of human who gets off on power (well...it's not racism or sexism...what is it? Jobism?)...or at least they are no different than any other groups, including geeks.
Activists have a right to block an intersection. After all, driving is a privilege and free speech is theoretically a protected right according the Bill of Rights.
Silly me, I missed this. The 45th amendment says "Thou shalt have the right to drive across Center City as fast and quickly as possible."
Canadians really shouldn't care less who wins this little tug-of-war in the US over president. Why?
;-)
Simple. If Gore wins, then there's continued funding for the military, which means that active attempts to keep foreign governments from getting too war-like will continue.
If Bush wins, the US dollar will go in the toilet, and finally the Canadian loonie will get the value it so richly deserves..!
Go ahead and flip your coin, Florida; I'm a winner either way!
James
Hey, Bush is in. He and his pals paid plenty to get there, stomped all over your face to do it and managed to take a 200,000 deficit in the popular polls into a contested 300 vote majority in a rinky-dink senior's skating rink with 25 electoral college votes.
Do you think anybody's rights mean squat? He should be glad it was decided this year. Next year he could have been found guilty of committing Rocky movies.
For then next four years anybody stupid enough to get between them and the trough, where ever they think they see a dollar, is going to get stomped flat.
The man's a moron and his pals are going to manipulate him just like they did his daddy, President George Read my Lips! No, new, taxes Bush who tossed that for Read the page...
After four years they should have carved a billion dollar divot in the economy padding their own pockets, (make it two billion, the dollar will go down and the interest rates will rise, but since they'll be lending the money they won't mind.)
And Philadelphia has always been an embarassing oximoron anyway. They're not my phila and they certainly don't exhibit much delphia. You don't want to go there.
At least, here in New York, its only a member of any minority who doesn't to walk at night in a bad neighborhood (read one with cops in it.)
MSBPodcast.com The opinions expressed here are my own. If you don't like 'em... Think up your own stuff.
well.
If the cops got commission on convictions, maybe I could buy the "too much trust in police testimony" argument. But I doubt that a detective is getting any feathers in his cap for busting a $135 misdemeanor. So why would he lie? This would tend to make him a trustworthy witness. I doubt that a police officer's word would be enough for conviction in a murder trial (which might count as a feather), but IANAL.
The accused, tho, has a clear incentive to lie cheat and steal to get let off.
Tho in this case, the testimony sounds rather circumstantial. Even if what he said was completely true, it seems that unless he overheard the conversation, the prosecution would need to show that it wasn't just a coincidence (perhaps by producing phone logs to show that the defendant was speaking to someone in the intersection blocking crowd).
You might not have noticed, but the Boston Tea Party could very well be considered the first bit of organized violence on behalf of the American revolutionaries.
In other words, it was an act of Treason against the British government, and not a simple protest.
To put it more basically the difference between a protest and a riot is that in a protest no laws are broken. Even the Aryan nation crazies in Northern Idaho can figure that out. Which is why they don't get arrested when they demonstrate. If you are destroying someone else's property you are no longer protesting. If you are blocking roads illegally you are no longer protesting.
Your right to assemble does not give you the right to abridge other's right to property, nor does it permit you to put motorists at risk.
Part of the reason that I have no respect for people like "Shapeshifter" is that he deliberately is blurring the lines between riot and protest, and then he expects the law to be on his side. Protestors don't need training in how to get the local law enforcement agencies in compromising situations.
Besides, how many of you here actually believe that Mr. McGuckin wasn't, in fact, directing part of the Philadelphia riot? Apparently there was enough evidence for a jury...
That's like the police convicting someone for speeding because he was seen in LA one day and NY two days later. Sure, maybe he was speeding, or maybe he just took a plane. You can't convict someone on that.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
In fact, tampering with stuff after it's become evidence is a great way to get caught, both at the evidence tampering and the original crime.
And I have no idea where you came up with that 50% idea. Criminals 'evidence tamper' in maybe 2% of criminal cases. You do realize they lock up evidence deep in police stations, don't you? They don't leave it laying where they found it. Cops have a lot more access to it then criminals. It's the same when it gets 'discovered'. The criminal isn't standing there to quickly wisk away any evidence found, but the cops are there to quickly add any evidence they want.
Luckily, that doesn't happen very often, but cops still do it more then criminals.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Nope. There was evidence he was on a cell phone, and evidence he pointed. That doesn't add up to 'evidence he gave directions to have an intersection blocked'.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Um, no. If you 'misvote' you don't get another ballot, because they have no way of telling whether you voted correctly or not after you turn it in. If you asked for another ballot before you turn it in, they simply throw the first one away, and it doesn't get counted at all, in any catagory.
I think it would be interesting to find out how many people did ask for another ballot, which you could do by subtracting ballots turned in from the ballots used.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Second, he didn't have to present evidence he wasn't doing what they said he was doing for two reason. One, he's innocent until proven guilty, and second, what they claim they saw him do isn't a crime anyway. Talking on a cell phone and pointing isn't llegal. Even if they can prove he did that, which is basically a cop's word against his, they haven't proven he's done anything in the slightest bit illegal. They also have to prove he was directing people.
Without overhearding him, or incriminating documents coming to light, they have no proof whatsoever, not even their word against his.
Hell, if I were him, and I was simply taken in and had all charges dismissed, I'd sue their ass off. Much less convicted of something. He could have just as easily been reporting on the situtation, or telling someone where someone else was, or pointing to his favorite fast food place, or a billion other things. Maybe he was waving to a friend in the crowd and it looked like a point. They arrested him because they didn't like how he looked, pure and simple. Add to that the fact that they didn't arrest people in the crowd he was 'directing', and I'd say he has a good chance of winning any lawsuit he chooses to file.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
But it's not unfair for people to exercise free speech and base their conclusions on the credibility of their sources,
This is what I'm talking about. People seem to trust the police so much that they forget that they all too often DO commit crimes such as evidence tampering. People seem to take a conviction as proof that the person is guilty. That seems to be why we haven't abolished the death penalty yet. People put too much faith in the "justice system." The system is flawed and we should not be killing people as a result of the outcome of a flawed procedure. You may think that the system is good enough, but ask any wrongfully accused person if they think the system is good enough. Maybe one day it will be you ending up accused of something you didn't do.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
people say stuff like you are saying, but that just makes me think, actual evidence is just as easy to tamper with too! It's awfully easy to plant a weapon or drugs, or to grab clothing fibers. If you can't rely on honesty by law enforcement you are sunk.
More directly to the point of eye witness testimony, I would not be so quick to dismiss it (once again, assuming honesty). Let me give the positive spin scenario to the lineup case (and, I don't want to go back and forth forever, I just want to present the best case for both sides): if an eye-witness picks somebody out of a "clean" lineup, I'd put some credence on it (assuming stuff like the person picked has no alibi, was placed at the scene, had motive, etc.). That witness may later be unable to remake the same pick or may grow doubtful: by then, all the faces have become familiar. But at that moment, only one face looked familiar, and I think that's worth something.
.technomancer
.technomancer
"basically a cop's word against his"
It isn't a cop's word against his. He apparently chose not to testify. It's a cop's word against nothing.
"they saw him do isn't a crime"
What the police officer saw him do very well may constitute a crime. The police officer surely did not get on the stand and say only "I saw him talk on a cell phone and point." If that were all, no judge would have convicted. There was undoubtedly more testimony about the context, about how people responded to him pointing, and other information showing a pattern in his conduct, and 2600 didn't report that.
The burden of proof is on the plantiff to prove that the crime took place. Sure, *maybe* Shapeshifter did it. But we can't prosecute people on maybes. At least, I don't think we should.
-- juju
It seems the Man won the battle (short-term tactical victory) but lost the war (long-term strategic defeat)...
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
NO doubt the article could have been more informative. I would like to see this bail vs similiar situations and vs things like murder, man slaughter. That way we will have a better persective on the relative circumstances.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Why bother?
As soon as we make it obvious that we have a brain one of the lawyers on either side will use one of thier seven hundred million "get rid of that juror, I don't like him" options so they can pair down the jury to a pile of hollow mindless flesh.
Maybe the state's highest function is to grind out insoluble problems. (Zelazny, Hall of Mirrors)
Like I said, to a lesser extent. It's the same story told from multiple different perspectives, and each time you see a different version of the same story.
It's not Rashomon, but I see a similarity there.
A more "newsy" source is needed? By now, everyone should know that Independent Media Center provides live coverage of the anti-globalization, anti-corporatization protests, as well as continuing coverage of local issues that are censored by corporate media.
See: Philadelphia IMC
See: R2K Support Site
See: Independent Media Center
bjord.org
news from the revolution
It's awfully easy to plant a weapon or drugs, or to grab clothing fibers. If you can't rely on honesty by law enforcement you are sunk.
I wonder how many times we'll have to encounter police lying and tampering with evidence before we realize that they DO lie. They DO tamper with evidence. Why do they do this? To get the conviction. Even if the person didn't commit the crime. Maybe the cop thinks that person committed another crime, so it's ok to frame him for this one. Maybe the cop just doesn't like the guy. Maybe the cop wants to get promoted. Maybe the cop thinks that drug users are evil and should be locked away forever, so he plants a gun on the guy too. There are tons of reasons.
Right now in California, over a hundred cases (and quite likely more to come) have been overturned due to the exposure of police corruption. The cops were trusted in those cases. I think we should wake up and realize that cops are just people like everyone else. They have the same flaws and predjudices. They are just as fallible as any other person on the street. There is no reason to believe them over someone else without evidence to back it up. The cops already have more than enough trust placed in them in that they are the ones that gather and hold the evidence. Let's not put even more trust in them. That just sets us up for a bigger fall like what's happening in California.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
You make it seem like these are isolated cases. Like the man said ealier, do you know the term DWB? If you were black, you would....
Cases like the shutdown of Rampart in L.A. (which by the way might end up costing a billion dollars when everybody gets their day in court agaim...and were talking thousands of cases), were police systematically lied and killed arent news but should be....
Or in NY were cops can butt-fuck a man with a plunger, kill another with 40-50 bullets or murder another in the street because he told undercover cops that he wasnt interested in their drugs (Giuliani should have been charged because he opened sealed juvenile documents to 'prove' that the police were right in murdering),....
These are the cases that somehow made it to light....There thousands of others that dont.
Or how many people have died because of botched drug raids....(Ooops....wrong house...sorry for your death).
To be black or latino in this country is no different than being in a third world country. You can deny it all you want but its not gonna change the facts.
Have you ever driven while black down south, in a new car? No? Then dont poo-poo others who have.
BTW, how many percentage of the population do you think are assholes? 10? 20%? You have to then figure that at least that many are in the police force. Then throw in afew more % for the gung-ho testosterone overflow that comes with being omnipotent and then arm them, give them absolute and total permission to abuse the laws and you have a recipe for disaster.
And jails?
Well,.. we truly enjoy rape in this country, dont we?
Police use it all the time to get confessions or to get back at individuals and the governments dont do anything about it. LAst time I checked, it was something like 70-80,000 sexual assaults in jail every day...now multiply that by 365.....
But that's ok...they deserve it, right? Just like the girl who walk in a mini-skirt at 3am?
Again, if this was ANY other country in the world we would condemn them.
Actually, Amnesty International made the mistake of condemning the US...Boy, thats a mistake they'll never make again! (Actually, France didnt allow an Amnesty video to be played in France because it was too critical of the US justice system. Didnt say it was wrong, just overly critical. Just like we didnt allow that anti-nuke movie in the country in the early 80's even when it won an Oscar for best documentary.) ANd that's not to mention the War on Drugs in this country which is an even more dangerous facet of police work. Forfeiture laws are really nothing more than temptations for corruption. You can basically steal someones property based on, no hard evidence, but suspicion of criminal wrong-doing and then its up to the individual to prove their innocence (or plea bargain and maybe get half back).
Its really totally useless having all these amendments which are systematically aubsed by police and the courts.
What is the deal with this? "Courts & Police don't like Demonstrators Shock Horror Probe". Can anyone explain why this is news for nerds and stuf that matters, whilst at the same time everything else that sucks about the US way of life is not?
It was confirmed today at http://slashdot.org/users.pl?op=userinfo&nick=Anne %20Marie that slashdot user Anne Marie is not only Signal 11, but also a karma whoring slut who needs to leave it to the men!
yes, I'm sure that the police do routinely lie in court and under oath to ensure convictions, but that does not say anything about the liklihood of the defendant's innocence. And while it would be a better world if the police didn't lie, it is also true that the police do not routinely arrest people who behave, remain orderly, and mind their own business, even during demonstrations. They just don't. If you want to exercise your right to demonstrate, you are generally allowed to. But when things start to seem out of control in a large crowd, the smaller numbers of police get nervous, and if the police tell you to back away, disperse, etc., you should really expect that if you don't, you may (it's still less than likely) get punished, even if the punishment is not literally connected to the crime.
Every now and then I'll get a traffic ticket that is unfair. And when I get stopped, whether fairly or unfairly, the police are often unnecessarily rude. But I don't get huffy about it because if I'm honest to myself, I know that on balance I get away with plenty. I also feel like I got a good sense of what the Republicans were saying inside of the convention hall, and what the demonstrators were saying outside. I do not have the sense that free speech is being suppressed, nor that demonstrators are being locked up and/or fined simply for their beliefs. So, it's hard to get worked up about these allegations of police misconduct.
i'm replying to this to state that i did not set out to be a troll, and yet i end up one. oh, the vagaries of moderation....
"Before the wreck, I never knew how to type with my face."
And the police have the right, even the responsibility, to make sure that everyone, even pedestrians, obey the traffic laws.
BTW, Yelling fire in a crowded movie theater is not a protected right according the the Bill of Rights (or rather the Courts). Our right to free speech is not an absolute.
Ranessin
Today's Edition of Democracy Now (democracynow.org) covers this case, check it out.
They also have an amusing interview with president clinton from nov 8, in they're archives.
now ask yourselves whys its important to have an independent media.
Papa Smurf Says "When You Live In A Mushroom Everyone Looks Blue"
The only thing we can know for certain is that the outcome of this case has all the clarity of the American Presidential Election, i.e. none to speak of.
Then how can you say that it's unlikely he was guilty?
Ranessin
He choose not to testify because he's 'guilty' of what they said he did. He was on the phone,and he pointed. It's completely impossible for him to prove anything else. He can't prove he didn't direct those people. However, he doesn't have to. They have to prove he did. Which is just as impossible. Being unable to prove you didn't commit a crime does't make you guilty.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Nothing at all I said can in any be considered to mean 'more then half the criminals in jail are innocent'. I said merely that a lot move evidence tampering happens by cops then criminals, and tampering with evidence by the criminal is a very good way to get caught.
And saying I'm defining evidence to mean what I want, well excuse me for using the legal defination of it. I guess you want to lock people up who wander though crime scenes without noticing before the police get there? They tampered with your defination of evidence.
Evidence is only evidence, in every legal sense of the word, after it has been dubbed evidence by some legal authority. Calling it evidence before that is just something you're doing to make cops tampering with evidence seem better.
It's not even on the same scale. The 'tampering' that criminals do is already part of a crime, which is why we don't need laws against it. People really don't see anything worse morally with someone who rapes someone and leaves a semen filled condom on the ground, or someone who rapes someone, and takes the condom with them. One of them is easier to catch, but that doesn't make them morally better.
The tampering cops do, on the other hand, is usually to arrest someone they think is guilty, but can't prove (usually because of various constitutional rights, like the 4th and 5th amendment), or even to arrest someone they know is guilty, but don't like. Both these actions are morally reprehensibly.
I personally think cops should get a minimun of 10 years plus the max amount of time the criminal would have gotten whenever evidence tampering comes out.
P.S. You correct my then=than typo at the same time you didn't capitalize most of your sentences and had a competely ungrammarical 'think hard... speaking loosely' at the start of the sentence. Normally I don't even mention thinks like this, but get the plank out of your eye before you pick splinters out of mine. I don't care one bit about how you speak, but don't critize mine unless yours is better.
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Watch out the cops may be spying on you.
Well i'm sure there are plenty of countrys that would like to do just that, but the truth of the matter is that no counrty in the world right now has THE BALLS to try and fuck the USA! Don't get me wrong i'm a US citizen and I fell embarased of most of the thing that go on in our country.
A few hours grace before the madness begins again.
Actually, there are a hell of a lot of people who would like to get rid of the death penalty. Then there are also a lot that want to keep it. Of course I think if you confronted those people with someone who'd spent 10 years on death row for something they didn't do, they'd change their mind.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
If you make a mistake, you executed an innocent guy, while the real murderer is still around. Not a good thing to do.
The law says "Be a nitpick" ("beyond any reasonable doubt" and "innocent until proven guilty" in lawyerese) Why? Because no (democratic) society can afford to have the integrity of their legal process questioned.
If a state criminal system is to work, it must fulfil two criterias:
1) People must believe that the system finds the perp, or at least, that the official system does the job better than they can do themselves. Failure to comply with this criteria leads to vigilantism.
2) People must believe that innocent people have nothing to fear from the police. It is bad enough for the police to work against real criminals. the last thing they need is more of the "better not get involved", "the cops are the enemy" mentality.
In court, there is (should be) no such thing as "how the world works". There are only (should only be) a number of hypothetical ways it might. If the hypothesis "This guy did it" is so likely that it is beyond reasonable doubt the truth: Convict. If not: Acquit.
The principle is that it is (much) worse to convict an innocent man than to acquit a guilty. If you have a problem with that principle, start a lynchmob.
"he might have had a heart attack as the knife plunged" is just silly. *reasonable* doubt not hypothetical doubt.
Eye witness testimony is not 100% secure. Several witnesses is getting close enough. Witnesses backed up with facts is the best.
If you believe everything you see, never watch a magician.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
I really don't see the problem with this. He was doing what he had been accused of, no?
And, anything can be an instrument of crime. If you stab someone with a screwdriver, it becomes an instrument of crime. Something simply being a cellphone is no indication of its illegal usage.
-CoG
"And with HIS stripes we are healed"
-CoG
"And with HIS stripes we are healed"
Handel's "Messiah"
...Is a good thing.
(Parphrase of T. Jefferson)
According to 2600, despite having a great deal of videotape, the prosecution used none of it, and convicted McGuckin entirely on the testimony of one police detective.
*cough* For starters, the prosecution does not convict people. That's the court's/jury's job.
And just because this guy is with 2600, does not mean he's in the right. Every American has a right to peaceable assemble. They don't, however, have a right to block intersections, and so forth.
And fwiw, $1 million bond is hardly unheard of. Seeing that... it doesn't mention the other 3 charges that were dropped were,... and whether the bond would be lower if paid in cash (which is usually the case).
Also, seeing that he DID make bail, it obviously wasn't an impossible hardship.
And what did Shapeshifter presented as a defence? A whole bunch of nothing.
Last I checked, people in America do not have to prove they are innocent; they are innocent until the prosecution proves them guilty. He doesn't have to prove he wasn't directing the protest from his phone--some lawyer has to prove he *was*.
The point wasn't his guilt or innocense, but the fact he was convicted on flimsy evidence.
This sig is false.
This is just Fear Tactics thats it, nothing more, The authorities have always tried to use this against people they hated(yes hated) U dont really have to do anything wrong. Standing up for the right thing can get u hated by those doing wrong. Its a sad fact. Those in power will do anything possible to keep people from opposing them. A half million dollar bail for what he did was not called for, but it did get people attention and thats what matters to them ...
If we refuse to be flexible, we are in effect opting out of the game of life. The world moves on without us.
We need to accept that there is something wrong with people who want to be cops
Funny, I was talking to a girl I know last night and she was upset her previous boss had died. Turns out she's putting in an application for the State Troopers and she's afraid when they do an employement check his widow will tell them she was fired - for stealing.
She figured the guy who died (who she probably flirted with heavily if I know her) would give her a break, but apparently the wife didn't like her. Can't imagine why. I *really* hope they don't take her.
The revolution will NOT be televised.
Why? Well, consider what skills tech support requires -- the ability to get past witnesses' perceptions and look analytically at the issues behind them, the ability to absorb, analyze, and synthesize an understanding of the situation, and lots of patience in dealing with people who are more or less clueless. What better kind of juror could you possibly want? The deliberations did get a little animated (both counsels said they could hear us through the wall..
Besides, it was fun, and a judge was really nice to me for once.
So next time you get a summons, think of it as an opportunity -- and let the personal injury trial lawyers quiver in their boots
73 de N5VB (ex-KD5BIV) AR SK
Any questions?
--
No offense, but as a Philadelphian, I have to say you have no fucking clue what actually happened. They didn't put motorists at risk at all. Traffic sucked, but anybody who says that it put them at risk is full of shit. It was about as bad as oh say.... rush hour.
As for destroying property, okay, a couple assholes destroyed some property (some, not much. if you want property destruction, do a search on the MOVE bombing)... I saw a lot worse, like cops beating the hell out of protesters who only got violent after police started beating them. I wandered down the wrong street and had this one happen to me... had to run from the cops even though my only goal was to get to Monk's Cafe to have be some fine belgian beer.
Next point where you're a fucking idiot: 'apparently there was enough evidence for a jury' nope, this was a trial by judge, seeing as it was a misdemeanor, you don't get a jury til you appeal. you didn't even read the article.
Anyway, you might want to read the write-ups in Philadelphia newspapers which basically say that the police were out of line, that McGuckin didn't deserve it.
It was obvious that he did wrong? How? I don't care if he did or didn't, he didn't deserve $500k bail on a few misdemeanors. Sure it's convenient for the cops, but that's a really dangerous direction to tread. It's a slippery slope, and we're already sliding down it.
--
"Don't trolls get tired?"
Or was it an adjudicated decision?
It's confirmed in an AP story on yahoo.
-- Anne Marie
It wasn't a trial by Jury. A judge decided the case. She (the judge) convicted him based on the testimony of an out of town, off duty, police officer that could only say he saw him point in a certain direction before a lot of people moved in that direction. As someone who has been on the wrong side a police fudging information, I hate to see this kind of thing. Just think how many cops would be in jail if all it took was a citizen or two testifying against them to put them in jail.
That has nothing to do with freedom. That has to do with written laws. Hell...do you even know if it was a republican or democrat who MADE that law? Maybe both.
Those laws have to be in place for a reason...lines do have to be drawn somewhere. It's a reasonable figure in my opinion...and it has been to many politicians (otherwise it would have changed by now.) but now it doesn't suit gore, so lets sue our way out of it.
I dont care who it benefits...it's a pretty crappy way to deal with a reasonable limitation.
Yes, sometimes they do. Why? Because they are human, and all humans have moral weaknesses. But they don't lie and tamper with evidence as much as your run of the mill criminal does. And, I don't believe they are routinely harassing and locking up innocent people.
true democracy = mob rules?
The cops in Philadelphia did their job, and they did a fine job of it as well. Despite the fact that the protestors walked around armed with cam-corders and were trained in making the cops look bad, they almost completely failed. I saw a lot more scenes of rioting protestors than power-mad policemen. Honestly, how many cops are being charged with Gestapo-like tactics?
If the protesters would have gotten a permit (and they could have gotten one), and if they would have abstained from breaking the laws, then there wouldn't have been a "riot," and no one would have been thrown in jail. And perhaps someone would take their stance seriously.
The fact of the matter is if the roles would have been reversed and it was the protesters that had a permit (like the Republicans did), and it was the Republicans that were out breaking the law, then there would have been a a bunch of jail cells filled with Republicans.
If you think that the Man lost a war (or even had a strategic set back), then you clearly spend too much of your time smoking dope and reading "alternative" (read extremely biased) news sources. The actions of the protesters actually hurt their cause. The public rightly associates the rioters with loose thinking, long haired, punk kids looking for trouble.
heya chris! IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, we are more famous than any of these nerds! see you around my mane man!
- - My grandad was Socialist premier of Saskatchewan from 1944-1961!
I think the point is how he was treated because he is associated with a "hacking" group,not that he was innocent.
The bail was a little steep for his charges.
If he is guilty, then reasonable punishment is fine, but people who can even be remotely tied to using any electronic device are harshly treated.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
It's getting like Red China around here these days. We can't let shit like this happen! There ought to be protests in the streets until things change for the better. We've got rights!
At a PROTEST you usually don't DESTROY other peoples properity!!!!
Cops get caught lying and tampering with or withholding evidence fairly often. And that's just the times they get caught. There's also presumption of innocence. You seem to think that just because someone is on the stand it means they are a liar and willing to say anything to get off. I think many cops are just as willing to lie and play with the evidence to make sure that someone they think is guilty will get sent to jail for sure. They won't allow the suspect to get a fair trial.
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
While I was polite for a time, that time is over. At least for now. (Read my bio to find out why, and what happened to Open Source Sloth, yet again!) You and I have both been victims of the goddamned crack addled moderation system from fucking hell. So, whatever the fuck happens, give them hell!
You think your big time?
You think your big time?
I'll kick your ass so hard you'll be unbuttoning your neck button to piss!
From 2600's report, it seems likely to me that McGuckin did in fact direct people to block an intersection and is therefore responsible for obstructing a highway.
If he's innocent, let's hear him say so.
If he's guilty, let's see some evidence, and let them prove it. Pointing and talking on a cell phone is not "disorderly conduct", and he was never even in the intersection they convicted him of blocking. Those were the charges he was convicted of, by the way, on no evidence.
--
Communication is only possible between equals
I don:t know about big-city cops, but I think to call them ALL evil is overdoing it a little. (Course, it only takes a few to fuck things up for the public, and to completely destroy the reputation of the police in general) As for people who WANT to be cops...a couple of my friends from high school were/are studying to become state troopers (a college degree is required), and while one didn:t change much, the other gradually turned from a somewhat normal human being into a militaristic hardass. I haven:t talked to him enough to know whether he will become just that, or a hardass ASSHOLE (an untrustworthy, cronyistic liar), but considering how much he has changed, if he works anywhere that might breed cynicism (and AK is full of such places), he will be.
Its unfortunate, but this is the type of reception ANYONE who is in conflict with mainstream society should expect. Face it, the institutions of ANY society reflect the status quo, and in this country (USA) that means corporatism (along with at alot of other IMHO undesirable traits). Anyone who comes into conflict with the status quo, be it because they're an environmentalist, gay, pagan, moslem, or an employee of 2600, can expect that the institutions of that status quo will treat them as DANGEROUS. Because they are; but only to the status quo that these intitutions represent. And what are these institutions ? The police, the courts, news media, Federal, State, and Local governments etc. You know, the people you don't want hauling you off. If you want to change it, the ONLY way is to change the institutions themselves, and the only way to change the institutions is to change the status quo. Unfortunately, I don't know how to do that. Maybe someone else does.
-- Rich
Free your mind and your Ass will follow -- George Clinton
aaah. To once again ride the Cherry Beach express... I lost more shoes that way... my first pair o' DM's etc..
~ a low user id is no indication I have a clue what I'm talking about.
You`d be suprised at the number of cases in the U.K. that get thrown/laughed out of court when the only `evidence` is a policemans word. It just doesnt carry any credibility any more, or at least, much less than it used to.
Hey Bob! Here's a new nick for you to torment, you retarded piece of bloated and rotting monkey piss.
FUCK YOU YOU COCKSUCKING MOTHERFUCKING ASSLICKING SHITFUCKING BALLBREAKING LUBEJOBBING FUCKWIT!
You think your big time?
You think your big time?
I'll kick your ass so hard you'll be unbuttoning your neck button to piss!
The reason that yelling fire in a crowded theater when there is no fire is because there is no time for rational reflection, and not because somehow the right to free speech is protected.
You could've hired me.
> Here in Toronto, rather than be held for days with a huge bond, the cops just take you to the boonies, beat you up, and take your shoes
..
That happened to my friend here in Chicago, Illinois. He got drunk out at Navy Pier and they picked him up, took him down to the south side (where the gang activity is at a maximum), took his wallet, and left him there. He was able to panhandle for the $1.50 it costs to ride the "L" train back home, and actually a good laugh was had by all.....
Our cops are so crooked it's not even funny.
It's racism if white "street punks" aren't hassled the same way, or when black kids are hassled because cops assume that of course they're street punks, because they're Walking While Black.
I'm frankly tired of people buying into the propaganda that cops would never ever hassle anyone that they shouldn't hassle, and any reports that the hassling might be slanted is just so much whining.
How about doing some reading on this sort of thing?
Don't mess with Texas.. I mean the Republicans... I mean big business... Christ - half a million for using a cell phone. How much would it have been had he had internet access on the phone?
My sig left me for a younger user id.
Suppose you see me standing over a dead body with a knife in my hand. Would there be any doubt in your mind at the time that I was the killer?
Course not. That is the obvious conclusion.
But I might just have arrived, seen the body and (foolishly) picked up the knife. *I* would probably have believed that you was the killer. Probably I'd get scared and make a run for it further strenghtening your belief that I did it.
Any doubt at the time? No! Reasonable doubt to an impartial observer? Hell Yes!
In your exam case, you had the opportunity to double check at the time making sure you made no mistake.
"...and over time it became clear that she was allowing him to see her paper since no matter how much they shifted in their seats, this fact of their behavior remained a fact."
That is what made you a good eye witness in this case. A murder witness would not have the chance (or guts) to double check his or her first impression. Was there any blood on my hands or clothes? Yes there must have been, your honor, he had just killed someone with a knife hadn't he?
Under the law, *any* civilized law, you dont kill someone cause you *think* they murdered someone (actually I'm against the death penalty even then, but that is beside the point) If you merely *think* someone is guilty, there are tons or reasonable doubt. And just pray you wont be the guy who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time someday.
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Of course, I am not a lawer or an american, so I don't know and I shouldn't care (as much as you folk, at least)... MH
CNN says that videotapes taken by cops during the protests show undercover cops impersonating demonstrators. State and local governments have been strongly denying that any cops infiltrated the dissidents. Now that news of the video has leaked the Pennsylvania State Patrol admits that six of their undercover troopers were arrested along with the real protesters.
What far too few people seem to know is that Americans not only have the right to bail--we have the right to *reasonable* as opposed to *excessive* bail. This right is guaranteed in the U.S. Constitution, and most State Constitutions have provisions as well.
Fact is, if he could afford a very decent attorney, he could probably win a lawsuit against the city for violation of his Constitutional rights through imposition of excessive bail. If he had to stay in jail for some time due to this, there's also an argument for wrongful/false imprisonment that could be made. Any way you slice it, such high bail is excessive for a few minor misdemeanor charges. After all, I've known people to get $2000 bail for felonious assault, and $10,000 bail for production of child pornography.
So, how does the system get away with abusing us? We never, or at least quite seldom, fight back. Most of us lack the resources to sue over violations of our Constitutional rights, and so it becomes easy for the system to impose high bail for bogus charges just to get us off the street so that we can't exercise our Constitutional right to peacably assemble to petition the government for redress. So, of course they walk all over us.
What we really need is an organization with teeth and funding to protect our rights by vigorously suing police, prosecutors, cities, counties, and states whenever rights violations occur. There is no such organization. The ACLU is pathetically underfunded and unwilling to stand up except in very extreme cases, which means that the system has carte blanche to harass us and deprive us of our rights as long as it does so in small doses at a time.
It amazes me that, with all the wealth in America, especially with all the Internet billions that were made recently by many young libertarians and liberals, no enormously wealthy patron of rights has stepped to the plate and started a legal organization to vigorously defend us from abuses like this. It's pathetic that your rights can be ignored in this country unless and until the cops beat the shit out of you, and even then it'll probably take five years and tens of thousands in legal fees for you to get them back.
Maybe Bill Gates should stop founding charities to give computers to schools--c'mon, kindergarteners need to be focusing on things more basic than using a PC--and create a charity to protect our eroded Constitutional rights. If I had 1/10000 what he did, I'd give every last penny to such a cause. And what's with all these wealthy liberal Hollywood types, who talk the talk when it comes to rights but never get involved beyond flashing their ACLU card to interviewers, to make themselves feel good? Or how about the Oprah types, who come out in support of every right and cause, but still keep *obscene* amounts of money for themselves while donating a relative pittance? When I give $100 to a cause, it's a *real* contribution since I'm fairly poor. Oprah giving a cause $50,000 would be like me giving them my pocket lint, relatively speaking. These types are perfectly willing to make movies that take a stand, thinking that that means something. A movie never stopped a cop from beating someone, or a magistrate from imposing high bail. The only way to do that is to fight them in the Courts, and that takes $$$, which people with $$$ are seldom willing to donate to the cause since cops and magistrates and prosecutors usually abuse people who have no $$$.
It also amazes me how fashionable and trendy other causes are, even though they're far less important than out basic rights. Big bucks go to environmental causes and AIDS research, and to little else by comparison. Nevermind that unless we start defending people who have had their rights abused, there'll be no more environmental protests. Nevermind that without the right to protest, AIDS never would have gotten beyond its early/mid-80's lack of address due to the Reagan-Meese characterization of it as a disease for fags and pervs.
Even if our rights had financial backing, thanks to the fact that cops are willing to lie to protect one another behind the "blue wall of silence," your piggie perpetrators will seldom be found. Two police lost a civil case for using excessive force recently in my area, and they insisted that they didn't know the other four police who joined in terrorizing an innocent citizen. To make it worse, the two policemen who were found liable by a jury are still working for the same PD. Why aren't they fired? It makes no sense whatsoever that we tolerate this.
The more I reflect upon such issues, the less respect I have for this country. Jefferson and Washington would not be proud: they'd revolt.
"The more corrupt the state, the more numerous the laws."--Tacitus, *The Annals*
I say the death penalty isn't enough! We must make these heathens PAY!
Hi! This is the Sig, blatantly attached to the end of this comment.
Screw your sacred constitution!
That thing is two hundred years old. Don't you think its time to join the 21:th century?
Perhaps you should reinstate some slave labour too? And why not return to the witch burning days?
OK I'm calmed down now. It is just that I'm so tired of the notion that "It is in the CONSTITUTION so in can never be wrong" It sounds a bit too much like "It is in the BIBLE so it can never be wrong"
All opinions are my own - until criticized
Now chaps if you lived in a true democracy this would never have happened.
Soon you will probably elect a new president who did not win the biggest majority of votes cast.
You have election officials who are openly affiliated to political parties and yet you expect unbiased Judges ?
You have a bill of rights to protect your citizens, yet unjustices like this can happen because of the uncorroborated word of a police officer...hmmm something is not right.
I know before I get flamed the electoral system in the UK is even worse, at least you have a bill of rights
I just wish Oceania was real and not some marketing mans hoax...
"Your Honor, the next case on the docket is the State of Pennsylvania v. Shapeshifter?"
:-)
--
--
The New World Order is upon us, and it's about damned time.
However, Judge Lydia Kirkland found McGuckin guilty of disorderly conduct and obstructing a highway.
I was under the impression that we have jury trials, even for misdemeanor cases? At least we do in California. What gives in PA?
"You done taken a wrong turn."
-Bill McKinney, in Deliverance
If that was the point, he could have claimed soemthing about the other guy, too.
I'm still trying to figure out what people mean by 'social skills' here.
"Pointing and talking on a cell phone is not 'disorderly conduct' ...
Directing people to obstruct an intersection is disorderly conduct, and there was evidence he did that.
"convicted of, by the way, on no evidence."
Testimony is evidence, and there was testimony he committed certain acts that constituted disorderly conduct and blocking a highway.
"there was no proof of any illegal action"
The jury decided there was proof, and they did that because there was evidence, and the evidence was credible, and the evidence was not rebutted.
All 2600's article says is that the prosection did not present other evidence which might have been stronger. The article did not say the evidence that was presented (the police officer's testimony) was not good enough or that it was wrong.
"Seems mighty shaky to me."
Well, you've told us your opinion, but why should we value it? A police officer's uncontradicted testimony is fine evidence for a misdemeanor conviction. That's very routine in all sorts of minor court cases, and it is proper. In cases where a police officer is wrong, the defendant is free to get on the stand and say so, and a solid citizen (somebody who shows the jury they are credible and competent) may well be able to outweigh a police officer's testimony in the jury's mind, particularly if they explain a mistake the officer made or how he jumped to a conclusion. McGuckin apparently chose not to do this, and I would wager it is because he is in fact guilty.
"The bail was a little steep for his charges."
Possibly, by 2600's article didn't tell us anything about the circumstances of the bail. Let's see, a non-native who has little reason to remain the jurisdiction, with some evidence they were engaged in a deliberate, planned, coordinated effort to disrupt public travel, that they traveled to this jurisdiction particularly for that purpose, and, I would not be surprised, have a history of similar behavior, perhaps even other criminal behavior. Circumstances like that warrant a high bail.
This means that a police officer can lie better than you or I can tell the truth. That is a terrible problem - and one for which I see little remedy. If you have ever seen a police officer lie about something under oath you will find yourself believing him - even though you know what he is saying is a lie.
The only partial fix for this problem is for the judge to instruct the jury that police officers are professional witnesses, and that they need to be held to a higher standard than other witnesses. The simple truth is that is never going to happen; judges have a direct interest in obtaining as high a conviction rate as possible - their careers often depend upon it. The only people who might point out the professional witness problem would be the defense attorneys, but because of the nature of trials defense attorneys are not in the most believable position.
--
The law, 100's of millions of lines of code, not one line of which has ever been tested to see if it works.
You have been invited to participate in the JUSTICE SQUAD.. at the Fortress of rights!..
ersmthn.. what is that simpsons quote?
no
Just ask Gary Graham. Actually, you can't ask him, since he's dead now, having been convicted and executed in Texas solely on the basis of one eye-witness's testimony. If the system will allow someone to be executed solely on eye-witness testimony, then it will certainly allow misdemeanor convictions on that same testimony.
Which isn't to say it's a good thing. Far from it. Eye witness testimony is some of the most unreliable evidence around, as numerous psychological and legal studies attest to. Memories are too maleable, and people make mistakes. Accordingly, most ancient legal systems required the testimony of two eye witnesses, so at least the two accounts could be verified against each other and the truth might be discovered. Unfortunately, our own system seems more interested in closure than justice, sometimes.
-- Anne Marie
After all, people who want to rebel or separate have the right, no?
The right to secede or rebel is only granted after a successful succession or rebellion, and even then it is only bestowed by the winners upon the winners and not to their descendants. It is never granted by the power structure to the rebellious.
Do you have a URL to back that up? Because it sounds like pure bullshit to me, due to a few tiny rules:
Given that the ACLU is not screaming bloody murder about this, I simply don't believe you without a reputable news article.
- I wrote an article for Hackedtobits.com (the "Home of Irresponsible Journalism") about my personal experiences in Philly. A draft of this article was posted on Slashdot (Danger in the Big Blue Room). You can see the entire piece here
Sincerely,
Vergil
Insects and Grafitti Photos
Maybe he was calling a 1-976 number.
Thats right, true democracy means mob rules.t m
Thats why the electoral college is a -good- idea.
If there were no electoral college, then the candidates would only have to campaign in the largest states, or the states that lean the most towards their party. The electoral college ensures minority rights.
I'm surprised at the vast swath of ignorance about the electoral college that I have seen this election, when it only took me 5 minutes on the internet to find relevant explanation.
http://www.avagara.com/e_c/reference/00012001.h
--Chris
That is all. Look in LA! this is typical of the way cops operate. It is braodly accepted by everyone in NJ and NYC that all cops carry a spare gun to drop on some one they shot accidentally. And cops cover for other cops. And they all lie. It is easy to say they are all fine fellows if you have never been attacked by them. I have been walking down the street minding my own business and been stopped by these pig who just did not like the way I looked, so they took it upon themselves to threaten me. They informed me they could kill me and get away with it any time they wanted. My crime was nothing more than the way I chose to style my hair. They did not like and sought to change my ways or scare me out of town. Mostly cops are thugs...
Hi vergil,
7 .htm, the actual url of the story is http://www.hackedtobits.com/100300/dissent7.htm
Reading your article, I couldn't for the life of me figure out what you were protesting against. Care to enlighten me? It was a pretty well written piece, but if all you did was block traffic for no reason then you should have gone to jail. The same as any other group of people who seriously inconvenience a large group of other people, with malicious premedition, without just cause. Even if it was a lot of fun, really exciting, whatever. And regardless of whether you impressed any nappy chicks.
Don't get me wrong, civil disobedience is an important and useful tool (and I've participated in more than one "event" myself), but only if used properly. If no one knows why you are doing it then all they see is that they can't get to work, or that the windows of their favorite chinese restaurant are broken. When misapplied it becomes self-defeating and generally wasteful- especially in a democracy.
FYI the site is broken, the link to pages 4-9 or so (all but the first 3 and the last one) have to be manually adjusted in the url bar. For example if the "continue" link points to http://www.hackedtobits.com/100300/090300/dissent
Neh
... and there is no doubt, that one day he will be
where the eye of his telescope has already been
Anyone who says MOVE was nonviolent is either ignorant or a liar. Just ask the family of James Ramp, the Philadelphia police office who was murdered by a MOVE member.
For those of you who are not experts on the history of Philadelphia, MOVE was a radical black group, with a back-to-nature philosophy. As expressions of this philosophy, they ate only raw vegetables, and (I believe) women bit off the umbilical cords of their children after giving birth. They did not seem to follow modern notions of sanitation, so their neighbors had problems with roaches and rats.
MOVE's hatred of technology did not seem to extend to public address equipment. They used PA systems to loudly harangue the neighborhood with their speeches. Nor did their hatred of technology extend to firearms, which they appear to have stockpiled.
Yes, the City of Philadelphia did bomb another building occupied by MOVE, and yes, several city blocks burned before the fire department did anything about it. But that was after a standoff between MOVE and police. MOVE had built a fortified bunker on the roof of their house and had a history of stockpiling automatic weapons.
Dropping a bomb in the middle of a residential neighborhood is manifestly a bad thing. But the events related to the MOVE bombing merely demonstrate the gross incompetence of then-mayor W. Wilson Goode. While Philadelphia's police have attacked peaceful black people in the past, the MOVE confrontations are not examples of that.
There is a reasonable argument that racism did play a significant part in these events, but not in the way the poster suggested. The neighborhood where MOVE built its bunker, and which was destroyed by fire, was a black neighborhood. Many commentators asserted that there's no way the City would have allowed a radical group to have built a bunker in the first place if the neighborhood had been white, and that's probably true.
One readers comments stated that he was convicted by a randomly chosen jury of morons? How many jury summons have we, as geeks, tried to avoid? I know I have, but I have also been selected as part of a jury. These people aren't always morons. They make judgements made solely by comments made in the courtroom. They usually do not have access to the media's representation after the fact. So, in response to that, do your civic duty. be the one non-moron on the jury. exercise your right to be a voice of reason, and stop your whining.
"Before the wreck, I never knew how to type with my face."
actually, the presumption of innocence principle is much more restricted than you think. You are entitled to be presumed innocent in the eyes of judge and jury while they evaluated the evidence and determine your guilt. But, otherwise outside of court there is no such presumption. Arrest, bail, pre-trial jail, etc. all presume your guilt or the strong possibility of it. And the system must work that way. Witnesses, too, need not presume you innocent, nor do the people the witnesses tell their story to, like the press.
Wouldn't it be unfair to be falsely accused? Sure! that's what unfair means. But it's not unfair for people to exercise free speech and base their conclusions on the credibility of their sources, and it's not unfair to the rest of the population for people suspected of committing crimes to have to appear in court.
yeah you're right, this is still the primitive country which poisons, gases or electrocutes people in the name of "Justice", and the f@cking presidents now sing the same tune in fear of rocking the boat. Damn Pathetic.
\|/
You realize that one word pretty much invalidates anything you will ever say again, right? You honestly think people should be locked up for being spectators?
-David T. C.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
Bullshit.
When you grow old enough to get a real job you'll soon realize that the people who dress the smartest and shout the loudest, no matter how illogical or invalid their arguments are, will do extremely well. Those who try logic and persuasion will find themselves at the bottom of the corporate food chain.
Your brief history of MOVE neglects to mention the fact that the police had imprisoned MOVE activists several years prior to the MOVE bombing. The bombing itself killed several MOVE members,including a few children.
Racism did play a part in the bombing. MOVE was persecuted because they were black *political* radicals, with a message that the establishment in Philly didn't want to hear.
Last time I checked, the police don't usually drop bombs on people who have load parties and happen to own a few guns. The bombing of MOVE was a political act of state terrorism which could be called the Black WACO.
If you are unfamiliar with MOVE or the City of Philadelphia's terrorism against the organization, I strongly suggest that you do some research. XLawyer's account of what happened echos the official version of what happened.
Find out the rest of the story!
I have seen police officers abuse their power. In Marlborough, a young couple could not make up their mind on which restraunt to go to. The officer threatened to arrest them for disturbing the peace. Have you heard the term driving while black? How many times have you been passed by police speeding (without having their lights or siren on)?
Are you saying, the more dangerous the job, the more a person is allowed to violate the law and the rights of other?
Fight Spammers!
Yeah. I was doing jury service a couple of years back and the case was this black guy got pulled in by the police and charged with possession of a weapon after they found a few knives in his van. He was a builder, by the way, and his van was full of tools and stuff he'd cleared from where he'd been working.
One of the knives was a tiny fruit knife he used to cut the skin off oranges, the other was some bent blunted old knife he'd picked up when clearing up a site and tossed in the van with everything else. None of which would have been much use as a weapon, but fitted his circumstances (builder who likes eating oranges) perfectly.
The judge really laid into the police who had arrested this guy, practically accusing them of making it all up, and the jury found him not guilty in no time.
I suspect the cops had arrested him because he'd overtaken them more than anything else.
Thank god for the jury system, is all I say, because if it had been left to the police that guy would still be serving time...
Hacker: A criminal who breaks into computer systems
"Information wants to be paid"
And just because this guy is with 2600, does not mean he's in the right.... And fwiw, $1 million bond is hardly unheard of. Seeing that... it doesn't mention the other 3 charges that were dropped were,... and whether the bond would be lower if paid in cash (which is usually the case). Also, seeing that he DID make bail, it obviously wasn't an impossible hardship.
*cough* (It must be contagious.) John Sellers is the one who was held on $1 million bond, not McGuckin. Sellers is not with 2600, and did not have 5 charges filed against him, 3 of which were dropped. He also spent 6 days in jail, which was likely the amount of time before bail was reduced from $1 million to a lower figure.
Now, regardless of who these people did or did not work for, I find it an indictment of the judges and their collusion with local law enforcement that Philadelphia bails were unusually high across the board (and yes, they most certainly were-- bail for "disorderly conduct" is never $500,000). But considering the trial is by jury, I see an equally scathing indictment of McGuckin's defense attorney, who couldn't even get his client off a charge against a prosecution with no evidence except a single eyewitness. Of course, that happens all the time with traffic violations-- I suppose the jury was successfully duped into thinking either detectives are better than everyone else, or misdemeanor convictions are no big deal so you might as well convict him of it.
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." -- Amendment VIII, U.S. Constitution
Yeah, but we're also the country with the highest rate of execustions, so Amendment VIII is already out the window.
Ranessin
Strange, I thought that the bond/bail for a misdemeanor never tops $10,000. They obviously have a bias against 2600, and are holding him guilty until proven innocent. I say, despite the pathetic sentence of a sub-$200 fine and three months probation, go ahead and appeal. Put the system on trial.
"Ancillary does not mean you get to rule the world." --U.S. Circuit Judge Harry Edwards, speaking to the FCC's lawyer
news like this makes me glad I live in Canada.
Here in Toronto, rather than be held for days with a huge bond, the cops just take you to the boonies, beat you up, and take your shoes.
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
Going on means going far
Going far means returning
Treason I can see. First degree murder. But for misdemeanors?
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." -- Amendment VIII, U.S. Constitution
--
Pretend there is some witty statement here.
AHEM. For the slashdotters that do not know, the "free" country of the United States has a couple facts you should be aware of; The United States has more regulations and laws than any other goverment or soceity!
Our free and decomcratic United States is more regulated and more controlled than "non-free" countries that are under communists or dictatorship control!
There is SO MANY fscking laws in the United States. Why so many laws?
Because with that many laws, EVERYONE is atleast guility of breaking one of those millions of laws. So if EVERYONE has committed the crime, the law enforcement agency can "pick and choice" who to arrest and not to arrest.
HAHA, it basically comes down to this; with so many laws, the law is FREE to arrest who ever they choice, for any reason they choice (for example because of their skin color, their income, just the way they look, because they don't like cops, because they work for a "hacker" magazine). Who ever they choice for whatever reason, there is atleast 1 law in this millions that they have broken. With this 1 law they have broke, they use this "it's the law" crap to fend off any acusations of "witch hunting".
Same soceity as we where before, but better method of weeding people that do not conform to our soceities "values"
Name one person that has NEVER and WILL NEVER break even 1 of the laws in the United states. I bet your broke 2-3 laws just coming to work this morning. We in the United States are NOT free, we just have the precepation that we have freedom.
We just think we have freedom, the same way a dog sits his head out a car window.
"`Ford, you're turning into a penguin. Stop it.'" -THHGTTG
And just because this guy is with 2600, does not mean he's in the right.
True. However, that still doesn't automatically mean he was in the wrong, as some people seem to believe whenever the name "2600" comes up.
Every American has a right to peaceable assemble. They don't, however, have a right to block intersections, and so forth.
...oh, I'm sorry, I thought you were talking about Shapeshifter for a moment, not people who were actually seen blocking the intersections.
From the 2600 article:
[The cop] claimed to have seen McGuckin in a crowd of people talking on a cell phone. The officer claimed he saw the defendant point in a certain direction and that the 10-15 people in his group moved in that direction. However, the officer failed to capture any of this on his video camera. (my italics) He claimed that McGuckin then proceeded to the corner of 12th and Arch where he again spoke on his cell phone.
At this point, Parisi described a demonstration on 13th and Arch where protestors blocked an intersection for around 20 minutes. The implication was that McGuckin was coordinating this demonstration, even though he was never even seen by the officer at this intersection nor was he overheard saying anything to anyone. (again, my italics)
That's worth $500 000 bail? Remind me never to litter in Philadelphia; they might shoot me on the spot.
There is absolutely no evidence ShapeShifter blocked a road, nor any that he actually co-ordinated any protests. A cop only saw him speak on a cell phone, then point in a direction. None of this was captured on the video camera the cop was using.
Also, seeing that he DID make bail, it obviously wasn't an impossible hardship.
That was never mentioned anywhere.
Neither this AP story nor this/a& gt; Philly.com story mention the videotape angle, and why the prosecution didn't use any of it that showed Shifter (a single shot of him walking down a sidewalk).
-------------
Someday, you're going to die. Get over it.
He was talking on his cellphone no? Why didn't he present his phone record to prove he wasn't calling to direct the protest?
The police had videotapes of the event, right? If they didn't present them, why didn't he? The procecusion is required to give the defence all potentially exculpatory evidence.
Could it be that maybe, just maybe, he actually commited the acts he was convicted for?
-Earthling
-Earthling
"I'm sorry, I had to; the irony was just too thick."
I think the cop was probably telling the truth. He reported what he saw - The guy making a telephone call then pointing, and the crowd going to where he pointed. He had no reason to lie. If he did have, he would have made up a more solid case. But this is merely circumstantial evidence. Quite how he was found guilty on this is questionable. Maybe the judge just didn't like the look of him.
My best pal at work, Chas, has a father who was a new york judge upstate.
So a little before he retires some sys guys come around for to give em' so email, you know. Now, we work at the library, our domain is pratt.lib.md.us; much like that, courts are apparently standard. So they tell Judge that his mail will be judge@upstate.courts.ny.us, or some such. Confused, he calls Chas and Chas explains at length, ultimately asking
Now, Pops/Judge knows his son Chas will be proud of him, so he's excited to get going! He works hard at setting up the Microsoft email like he was told by the sys fellas and emails his son right away.
Chas got an email from judgeUPSTATECOURTSNYUS@hotmail.com.
Our laws are in good hands. ;) I fscking swear by my karma that this story is true.
_________________________________________________ Did they get you to trade your heroes for ghosts?
In summary: were his lawyers incompetent, or did he have something to hide?
Neither. It is a commonly known rule of thumb (which several lawyers I know tend to follow) that if you are innocent you generally prefer to have a judge presiding, while if you are guilty you generally prefer a jury trial. This isn't hard and fast, obviously, but more often than not that is the gist of one's choice.
He may have had an incompetent lawyer. He may also have had a biased or corrupt judge (remember Kaplan?). Or he may in fact have been guilty.
The latter is unlikely though -- police routinely lie in court, under oath, and obtain false convictions, and in many cases would whether or not the defendent chose a jury trial.
The only thing we can know for certain is that the outcome of this case has all the clarity of the American Presidential Election, i.e. none to speak of.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Frankly, I don't need the cops to keep me and my little family home with relative safety any night of the week. First of all, they can be out there taking bullets all they want. I seriously doubt that any police are going to get to my home in any amount of time even remotely resembling that amount of time needed to take a bullet that would otherwise be threatening me or my little family.
If I'm lucky, I'll be able to call 911 as I lie bleeding in the living room from the home invasion, angry neighbor with a rake, or stray bullet from a drive-by. The police may be able to track down the assailant after the fact-- but that will not make me safe.
These are the same police who, at least in my state, consistently support anti-gun initiatives that deprive me of any real right to defend myself. So, you know, thanks, but no thanks.
I currently sit at home with relative safety because the majority of my neighbors are busy watching TV, or mowing the lawn, or playing Milton Bradley brand board games on "Family Night"-- Americans (and most humans) are basically good people who generally leave other people alone, and prefer peaceful living to constant warfare. So spare me your fear-mongering slippery slope attempts to justify a heavily armed force patrolling my neighborhood, who are given the blind faith of the citizenry because they are supposedly there for "my own safety".
I do not have a signature