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.
Here's a look at Graham from a different perspective.
This is another view of the world.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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).
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).
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.
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.
Which is irrelevant. Blacks are not magically immune to racism, not even against other blacks.
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
Never trust a law enforcement official.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
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!
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
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.
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
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.
We can't even stop corruption and abuse of power in our own country(yes, we've managed to keep it from becoming as rampant as it is in many other countries, but even that is a constant struggle). How are we supposed to do it for other countries?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
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.
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...
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
We expect cops to uphold the law. But it seems to be an occupational hazard that many cops can't distinguish between upholding the law and putting people in jail. I've known cops too. Some of them are great people. Some of them are as bad or worse than the people they arrest. LAPD and NYPD are great examples of this. Corruption and violence seem to be rampant in those departments. Living in Texas, I know that cops here aren't much better in a lot of cases. I'm not comparing this cop to the really bad ones, but I'm saying that cops are just people. There are good ones and bad ones. There is really no reason to take their word over that of a defendant without evidence to back it up. While the defendant may have an incentive to lie, the cop does too, we just don't see their incentives as easily because we don't work in their profession.
Most cops arrest people because they think that the person has committed a crime. However, in order to arrest someone, they should have some evidence. In this case the cop had no evidence except to say that he saw the guy talk on his phone and point in a direction, and then a group of maybe 15 people went off in that direction. He admits that he didn't hear anything that was said. He admits that he didn't see the suspect blocking an intersection or even be there when the police showed up to ask the crowd to disperse (which they did). Why then is he convicted of blocking a road? Why is he convicted of anything based soley on the testimony of a cop who admits that he didn't see the guy do anything illegal, but only suspected that he was?
It's not enough to bash in heads, you've got to bash in minds. - Captain Hammer
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
Well look at you! Your taking their words FROM 2600'S WEBSITE. Am I really surprised? No....in all likelyhood there were at least SOME reasons why this happened...and if you think the judge even KNOWS what 2600 is to hold it against him...think again...half of em can't even use email.
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"
WTF? How did he break a law? He was caught USING A CELL PHONE... If that's illegal, I see several hundred felonies on my commute to work every day!
"Evil beware: I'm armed to the teeth and packing a hampster!"
Lex orandi, lex credendi.
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
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.
Likewise, is anyone REALLY surprised they DIDN'T take the word of the defendant?
Look at the groups the two people are from (police, Evil Hacker's magazine). In general, how do you think an average, minimally computer-literate person will view the words from a member of that group?
A police officer in general is given a high level of initial trust. As long as the officer does nothing to harm that level of trust, their word has a large impact on another person, especially a juror. Once they harm that level of trust though, they tend to fall MUCH farther than another, non-officer would.
This community is biased in the other direction, and would probably take the words from each party at the same weight, or tend to distrust the words from the police officer. It would be interesting to determine if any of the potential jurors were questions as to their knowledge/experience with 2600.
-- Ravensfire
"But we decide which is right, and which is an illusion"
Not at all. (guns are not aimed (pun!) at stopping someone from taking a swing at you -- that is not a deadly threat)
I think the question is whether the gun is there as a tool of apprehending the offeder, or protecting the officer. I would argue that it is ok for the former, but counterproductive for the latter.
I would assume that most police fatalities are due to situations that got out of hand, and one of the best ways to assure it will get out of hand is to have two groups of armed bags of testosterone yelling at each other.
A drawn handgun contributes much more to escalation than a camera crew does. A camera has a downright calming effect. As soon as your face is on camera, you have every motivation to cooperate -- you've been IDed (assume for now that most people who would shoot a cop have priors). Whereas if I had just been caught speeding with a couple of kilo of coke in the trunk, it's in my interest to shoot the cop before he calls it in. The camera effectively makes that impossible.
So we have three factors that may get a cop killed 1: the situation escalated out of control (think DeNiro or Tarantino), 2: the incentive to remove the cop's knowledge (and only incidentally, life) before he calls it in, 3: the suspects have nothing to lose and don't like cops.
(ok, there's also number 1.5: the criminal fears for his life -- c.f. the deep south for a black man a few years ago)
number 3 we can do nothing about. The others, it is in the police's interest to replace the gun by constantly streaming surveilance.
As for the big-brother scenario; assume that the most dangerous criminals are those likely to overpower a non-lethal police officer (without the gun to apprehend the officer). These are the suspects most likely to be on file and thus traceable through known addresses and what not.
In this step the gun becomes indispensable, but this is a very different scenario form the cop in the cruiser pulling a car over.
Very possibly, you would use some detective/swat team to apprehend run-from-the-scene criminals. Of course they should be armed, but they should not have anything to do with patrolling and interaction with the public.
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?"
It's confirmed in an AP story on yahoo.
-- Anne Marie
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
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
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.
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?
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
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
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.
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
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.
The problem is that the cops can claim anything that they want and then it's your word over theirs. I had the very same problem about 10 years ago. What really sucks is when they claim that your pocket-knife is a criminal tool just to make you look worse.
--
Wooden armaments to battle your imaginary foes!
- 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
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...
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."
--
You think being a MIB is all voodoo mind control? You should see the paperwork!
A man who wants nothing is invincible
Corporations, maybe. But public government goes something like this:
Does my bum look big in this?
We need Abbie Hoffman back!
He'd know what to do!
Chicago, 1968.
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"
A police officer in general is given a high level of initial trust.
Police officers aren't GIVEN a high amount of trust; they EARN a high amount of trust and respect. Think about what they do for a job each and every day. How many of you would give up your desk jobs, take a 3/4 pay-cut, and have to deal with the people and situations that police officers do? I know I wouldn't want to pull over a car full of possibly armed drug addicts at 3am on a dark highway.
It may be funny to make fun of and trash police officers, but really take a minute to think about the job they do. How many of your wives/husbands/children have to seriously worry if you're going to get shot, stabbed, or otherwise wounded and killed in the average day at work?
(emphasis mine) No, no, you don't want to live in a true democracy. A place where you can get voted out of town by a majority of voters. A true democracy is fine if you fit in and don't rock the boat, and act and look like everyone else and don't piss anyone off...
James
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.
This is relevant to Slashdot readers for several reasons. The first being that Shapeshifter, who helps with 2600, was arrested and charged with FELONIES for simply being on the street with a cell phone. Another good reason is that some of us who were involved in the Philadelphia protests are regular Slashdot readers. The police affidavit that was used to justify the police raid on the puppet warehouse cited two geek media sources: IndyMedia and my site, Mid-Atlantic Infoshop. No surprise, the cops are using alternative media website to glean information about activists.
Finally, and most importantly, everybody who visits this site should be concerned with how the Philly cops took their anti-activist intimidation and violence to a new level. If you aren't mad about the cops holding activists on million dollar bails because they were talking on a cell phone, you should be outraged that they raided a PUPPET-MAKING WAREHOUSE and arrested everybody inside for "blocking a highway." Most of the arrests in Philadelphia weren't for ACTUAL LAWBREAKING, they were pre-emptive arrests deisgned to strike fear into activists and anybody who might be thinking of joining them.
On a lighter note, the police affidavit also said that we were getting money from the Soviet Union. I'd say that the Philly cops need to buy a wall map that was made in the 1990s.
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
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.
hmm... just because you have a right to do something doesn't mean it doesn't have consequences. Even revolutionaries set up governments to maintain order. I pay taxes to build and maintain those roads so I can travel on them just the same as you have the right to protest, however, for both of us to coexist under the same government and not have people blocking streets because "its cloudy today" there is a consequence to blocking a road...that doesn't mean you should never protest. It just ups the ante for what you are willing to protest about. People have been known to give their lives in protest...
I need a TiVo for my car. Pause live traffic now.
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."
Yes, but when you get a little older you'll realize that being a mindless, destructive prick with a half-baked ideology may get you sympathetic coverage from the techno-illiterate half of the Slashdot staff, but convinces the rest of the world that you're a ignorant crackpot.
You're right about the smart dressers, though.
What I'm listening to now on Pandora...
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