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.
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.
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.
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
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
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"
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.
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
Try
here
I hope you apply the same level of skepticism towards all media stories.
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*
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
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."
(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
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
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."
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