Slashdot Mirror
One Year in Jail For Abusive Silicon Valley CEO (theguardian.com)
He grew up in San Jose, and at the age of 25 sold his second online advertising company to Yahoo for $300 million just nine years ago. Friday Gurbaksh Chahal was sentenced to one year in jail for violating his probation on 47 felony charges from 2013, according to an article in The Guardian submitted by an anonymous Slashdot reader:
Police officials said that a 30-minute security camera video they obtained showed the entrepreneur hitting and kicking his then girlfriend 117 times and attempting to suffocate her inside his $7 million San Francisco penthouse. Chahal's lawyers, however, claimed that police had illegally seized the video, and a judge ruled that the footage was inadmissible despite prosecutors' argument that officers didn't have time to secure a warrant out of fear that the tech executive would erase the footage.
Without the video, most of the charges were dropped, and Chahal, 34, pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor battery charges of domestic violence... In Silicon Valley, critics have argued that Chahal's case and the lack of serious consequences he faced highlight the way in which privileged and wealthy businessmen can get away with serious misconduct.. On September 17, 2014, prosecutors say he attacked another woman in his home, leading to another arrest.
Friday Chahal was released on bail while his lawyer appeals the one-year jail sentence for violating his probation.
Without the video, most of the charges were dropped, and Chahal, 34, pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor battery charges of domestic violence... In Silicon Valley, critics have argued that Chahal's case and the lack of serious consequences he faced highlight the way in which privileged and wealthy businessmen can get away with serious misconduct.. On September 17, 2014, prosecutors say he attacked another woman in his home, leading to another arrest.
Friday Chahal was released on bail while his lawyer appeals the one-year jail sentence for violating his probation.
must be good to have that sort of money.
Chahal's lawyers, however, claimed that police had illegally seized the video, and a judge ruled that the footage was inadmissible despite prosecutors' argument that officers didn't have time to secure a warrant out of fear that the tech executive would erase the footage.
A warrant is a phone call away; arresting the guy and then calling in a warrant to search for video evidence when seeing cctv isn't that hard nor time consuming.
All it takes is one Judge who follows the law to shut down crooked cops and now a violent offender is getting away with minimal sentencing.
Good job, cops.
They had to charge him with what they could prove and the judge took away their evidence. The dude is still a scumbag, though. If you are really that worried about it, just get rid of private defense lawyers and then the rich & powerful will have reason to make sure that private defenders are actually good at what they do.
"Police officials said that a 30-minute security camera video they obtained showed the entrepreneur hitting and kicking his then girlfriend 117 times and attempting to suffocate her inside his $7 million San Francisco penthouse. Chahal's lawyers, however, claimed that police had illegally seized the video, and a judge ruled that the footage was inadmissible despite prosecutors' argument that officers didn't have time to secure a warrant out of fear that the tech executive would erase the footage.
Without the video, most of the charges were dropped, and Chahal, 34, pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor battery charges of domestic violence... In Silicon Valley, critics have argued that Chahal's case and the lack of serious consequences he faced highlight the way in which privileged and wealthy businessmen can get away with serious misconduct.. On September 17, 2014, prosecutors say he attacked another woman in his home, leading to another arrest."
"We".
You are welcome on my lawn.
Wait, never mind. Found him.
Trump 2016
Indeed. This is yet another glaring reminder of how rigged the system is.
I fail to see how videotaped 100% clear proof of violent crime can be ignored because the police break a rule when obtaining it.
Because if you let it go in this case then you have to let it go in all cases, and if you let it go in all cases then the police are free to break into your home, car, office, etc, hack into your computer, read your mail, record your phone calls, use stingray type devices, and anything else privacy invading just any time they want just to find shit to send you to jail for.
But what's that you say? Who cares about privacy when lives are on the line? Well the thing with that is if police can just do whatever they want to obtain evidence to throw you in jail, then they can practically throw anybody they want in jail because EVERYBODY does things that are illegal, and you bet your ass that politicians would start using this to silence their opposition until we end up with a China style government.
He should get a year in jail just for creating an advertising company.
I fail to see how videotaped 100% clear proof of violent crime can be ignored because the police break a rule when obtaining it. Punish the police AND the lawbreaker. Letting the sociopath go free makes YOU liable for his future crimes.
The problem is the video was obtained by violating his rights, punishing the police is good, but his rights were still violated.
I think there's sometimes allowance for keeping the evidence if they would have found it anyway. But in general I'd much rather a government that errs on the side of respecting rights than the other way around.
I stole this Sig
I fail to see how videotaped 100% clear proof of violent crime can be ignored because the police break a rule when obtaining it.
It's supposed to send a very strong message to the police to GET A FUCKING WARRANT. The police knew the rules and chose to break them.
I realize that when it's convenient to the narrative, Indians are "white" but if this guy had been actually white then God help him as he'd have been lucky to make it to court before the SJW lynch mob[0] got to him.
[0] Too soon?
Indeed! Has there ever been a race as badly discriminated against as white people right now!?!?
* Not a Trump supporter, just being sarcastic.
** If you are a Trump supporter, this is what sarcasm looks like.
I stole this Sig
NSA has those powers already.
If they want a political removed, they just need to leak some information. They public will never understand the bigger picture.
I'm gonna guess that people stopped liking him somewhere around the "kicked his girlfriend 117 times on tape". I'm also going to also guess that his ethnicity has pretty much nothing to do with that. Stop trying to shoehorn random cases into your agenda.
I dont care about this stuff.
Fixed that for you.
SJWs are the new boogeyman. -Me
The prosecutorial overreach still nailed him with two charges and now he's headed into the overcrowded prison system where he will learn nothing but better ways of being a criminal.
The overreaching police and prosecutors were rightly shot down by the judge. I'm pretty sure pleading guilty to two of the charges is what nailed him.
One of the good things in this country is we would rather guilty people are let free than to put innocent people in jail or infringe the rights of ordinary, every day people. It's part of innocent until proven guilty and in proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We're not a third world despot where people are thrown in jail on whims. It's best to side on letting people go than to be overly strict on convicting people. No system will ever be perfect and the trade offs we have are the better choice.
** If you are a Trump supporter, this is what sarcasm looks like.
"This is your brain!"
(Fries an egg in a pan)
"This is your brain on sarcasm!"
"Any questions?"
Is anyone here old enough to remember that one?
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Furthermore, I'd wager that people would only really make a fuss about the rights violation if he A) wasn't obviously guilty of a violent crime and B) had his rights violated in a violent way. Procedural violations are bad, but very few people get really mad about them, especially if the victim/suspect turns out to be guilty. Violent oppression, on the other hand, people will get mad about in an instant.
Vai dar teu cuxinho que passa tua vontade de ficar me trollando sua anã retardada. Porra meu.
I don't need to hurt my own hand that much. One punch in the head of that retarded stalker and no teeth will make she realize she isn't that nice.
C'mon people, that's comedy gold!
I'm sorry but the only reason he wasn't convicted was because the tape wasn't admissible? If some ass hits and kicks his girlfriend 117 times I'm calling in the forensics team because there's going to be the girlfriends blood in the apartment and on his clothes. They will find her blood which will corroborate her statement. Then it doesn't matter if he deleted the video. Besides from the sounds of it he doesn't really sound smart enough to securely delete so that a digital forensics team couldn't retrieve it.
But if all you are going into your trial with is a tape that the police questionably obtained (the lawyer should have seen this coming) then what is your police department and prosecutors office doing with their time because it certainly isn't preparing for cases.
I fail to see how videotaped 100% clear proof of violent crime can be ignored because the police break a rule when obtaining it.
Because police that are willing to "break rules" are also willing to falsify evidence and lie under oath.
What about the fucking rights of the women this guy beat to a pulp?
You should be asking the police that question. If they had obtained their evidence legally, it wouldn't have been thrown out.
Thanks to the War on Drugs, it's easier to buy meth than it is to buy cold medicine!
This is your brain with two strips of bacon.
What part of "Punish the police" did you not understand?
The whole system of making illegally acquired evidence inadmissible is wrong. It creates 2 injustices, the original felon goes free and the policeman breaking the law is unpunished. Because the only downside for those illegally acquiring evidence is seeing work go to waste, there is negligible disincentive for acquiring evidence illegally.
In a case like the one in TFA, the felon should be doing hard time for attempted murder, no possibility of parole. The policeman should be punished by (for example) a month in jail and a fine of a month's (gross) pay.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Well the thing with that is if police can just do whatever they want to obtain evidence to throw you in jail, then they can practically throw anybody they want in jail[...].
Just to bolster the poster's thought, consider that police are now generally allowed to shoot unarmed blacks for no cause so long as they say that they "I thought he had a gun".
When this was allowed, the number of police shooting unarmed black people has skyrocketed.
And in other news, the police that were involved in Freddie Gray's death while in custody were all acquitted.
At least this guy's honest about the fact that "SJW" just means "anyone who thinks it isn't okay for a man to attempt to murder a woman and get away with it consequence-free".
Yeah, cops don't have empathy. This isn't about helping the woman at all. They would probably prefer if the guy had killed her, because they could stick him with harsher charges. It's about the one thing cops are interested in: punishing someone they don't like.
First, I've never heard that before.
Second, there was no mention of 'white" prior to your post in this article.
You are introducing racism where it didn't exist.
What I am astonished is that the was able to beat the hell out of her, and there was no other evidence. What did police do before video evidence? I give them the benefit of the doubt for acting quickly- he may have killed or seriously injured her with each additional kick.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
Don't use stupid abbreviations. PoC could easily mean Piece of Crap.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
Pattern:
From the sources one can make a prediction by just looking at that pattern, and the knowledge about other people[1] that have exert these patterns: they are very likely to exert these patterns again.
Prediction on his longterm whereabouts:
So my prediction is unless he undergoes successful counseling he is doomed to do it again and again and again, till the point he is sent to prison for life under the three-strikes rule.
Lawyers can find caveats however at a point in time these caveats will run out (appear less frequently or no more) because higher profile people will takeover cases that leave very few caveats.
Prediction on the fallout:
The very sad thing is that on a way to life imprisonment a perpetrator will violate other people or even kill.
Avoiding measures:
And here "social justice" can be relevant, because the public knows about his behavioural pattern, possible victims can avoid him if they just google his name - which is common practice even for dating.
Circle of violence is set in motion:
However as perpetrators show these patterns, vicitims[2] show them too[3]. So even with the choice of googleling his name it his very likely that some will reenter a partnership with him and possibly this behavioural pattern will re-appear.
Ways to break the circle:
Tina Turner is a prominent example of a former victim that has successfully broken out of the circle of violence. However she needed some effort.
But the the initiator of this circle is the perpetrator, and he is the pinpoint to break this circle stop producing victims.
final prediction
We will hear from him again.
[1] perpetrator example
prominent case example1: O. J. Simpson
[2] victim example
prominent case example2: Tina Turner
[3] pattern:
abused girlfriend will go back to abusive partner after partner asures it was just a misshap, that happens again and again and again.
You almost got it right... Only the ignorant vote for Clinton.
There is a reason warrants and the like are necessary. This was the right procedure in a court of law, illegal search and seizure is illegal.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Or did she took his hand and punched herself?
But there is a problem indeed, there are people that state false accusations shining a bad light on the 90% real cases and give simplists like yourself a run for their money.
LOL you think they're not doing that already? You're already living in a police state and you don't even know it.
You've never heard that? Haven't been following the "diversity in Silicon Valley" nonsense? Let me fill you in. Silicon Valley is "so white" despite Asian and Indians being vastly over-represented. In that case Asians and Indians are "white". Why? It suits the narrative.
I see the fucking brainless right wing turd is here, telling us what a dumb cunt he is again.
Isn't it interesting how this PoC stopped being a PoC and has now become an Evil Male Oppressor[tm]? In just about every other context in the world, he would be the protected one due to his race, but apparently now he's just a generic male and can be treated as our society treats such. Police oppressing a PoC, hello? Where's the outrage about the police mistreating him? The evidence was ruled inadmissible. Judging by all the other recent incidents, there should be parties in the street that the charges have been dropped.
This is a man who beat his wife and video evidence exists of his reprehensible and cowardly behavior. He is a person of color and he committed a crime and deserves to be incarcerated for that crime.
Where's the controversy?
It's never been controversial that people of all colors are punished for breaking the law. What is controversial is racially-biased sentencing and conviction rates, to name two things.
I don't recall a domestic abuser of color (i.e. non-white) whose undeserved exoneration led to "parties in the street that the charges have been dropped". (This is ignoring the fact that Chahal has not been exonerated.)
You're erecting a straw man argument that people of color are, as a matter of course, victims when they are by means of due process prosecuted for domestic violence. You seem aggrieved the judicial system did not take into account his race when trying him for his crimes and you believe (?) this is because he status as a man prevents him from so being accounted?
I'll stop short of saying you have issues with race and sex, but I will point out that your thoughts, as you expressed them, are quite incoherent.
blog
^^ This. Thank you, we have laws that must be followed by all citizens including citizens who are professionally paid to police other citizens.
Are you that much of a blinkered right wing ass that you believe such drivel, the usual rethuglican lies.
Fuck Americans are dumb.
They could have immediately detained him while they got the warrant. That's what detention was specifically designed for. FFS get a warrant. This article should be about the officers ineptness in following proper procedure. There is a procedure for a reason. It's not perfect but it protects a lot more people than it harms.
The cops by and large aren't interested in punishing anybody. Punishment isn't part of their job description.
At least, not outside of Ferguson, MO.
Repeat after me:
"Not Criminal, Just Careless."
The pope has spoken
What part of "Punish the police" did you not understand?
The whole system of making illegally acquired evidence inadmissible is wrong. It creates 2 injustices, the original felon goes free and the policeman breaking the law is unpunished. Because the only downside for those illegally acquiring evidence is seeing work go to waste, there is negligible disincentive for acquiring evidence illegally.
In a case like the one in TFA, the felon should be doing hard time for attempted murder, no possibility of parole. The policeman should be punished by (for example) a month in jail and a fine of a month's (gross) pay.
Your inability to see the larger picture is disturbing.
And why could not this case be a two separate legal problems?
1) he abused his girffriend
2) police violated his privacy
A) punish the guy for abuse
B) punish responsible in police for violation of privacy
You can bet that his car registration plates will be very well known to all police in SFC/SJC and that he'll have to drive like a model citizen until the day that he dies.
So let me get this straight... If police have olfactory evidence of drugs they can search for and seize evidence. If they have visual evidence of abuse they cannot do the same? This dumbass accidentally collects evidence of his crime and stores it at the scene and the police cannot use it? He might as well have left a written confession of the crime in his room.
Any woman that gets with this guy after this deserves it. I'm not about blaming victims in hindsight but I will gladly do it in foresight given this man's background.
It don't pass the basic SJW test #1:
It is an real issue?
And that was entirely proper: evidence that was obtained illegally should be inadmissible.
No, at best it is an example that the law is working correctly for "privileged and wealthy businessmen" (although it is difficult to see in what way a minority high school drop-out was privileged). If the legal system doesn't work like that for someone less "privileged and wealthy", then the solution is to make it work correctly for them too.
Apparently, people advocating for minorities and social justice these days are simply out for blood instead of actually working towards improving society.
SJPD really won't do a thing about him.
Did the see the tape before or after seizing it? If they saw it after seizing it, and then based on what they viewed, brought in teams to search for the resulting blood, wouldn't that amount to fruit of the poisoned tree without parallel construction?
Here's the deal -- the most important reason we have a "justice" system in this country (or any other since Hammurabi) is so that people who think they have been wronged don't decide that they need to exact justice themselves since society won't do it. So now what happens if the woman involved gets herself a gun (or hires someone who has one) to knock off this guy? I'd be tempted to if it were me or my daughter; the screw--up by the police means nothing to me in that case. What are you going to do about that in such a way that some sort of justice is served?
We'll see who chokes first!
Fucking cunt probably had it coming.
You SJW are exhausting. The second a woman is involved in a story, she has to get all the credit.
lucm, indeed.
Pope has been speaking too much recently and it has cost him his excellent karma.
Too much SJW shitposting, pope. Things not going well with the wife or what?
A women-beating indian douchebag. Enough said.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Punishing the police doesn't work. Think about it, if a police officer illegally searches a house and finds evidence against a serial killer .. wouldn't he be a hero in the public's eyes? Which jury will convict him? Knowing that, whenever a police officer illegally searches .. they have incentive to plant evidence or tamper with stuff such as to make the suspect look guilty. If a few serial killers are convicted through illegal searches .. the public will eventually say stop punishing the police for illegal searches. Then the 4th amendment will be weakened and destroyed, and we'll all be worse off.
The ONLY way to deal with illegally obtained evidence is to throw it out, no matter the short term consequence. If illegally obtained evidence is allowed, it won't be long before authorities start tampering with it to frame the innocent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Punishing the police doesn't work. Think about it, if a police officer illegally searches a house and finds evidence against a serial killer .. wouldn't he be a hero in the public's eyes? Which jury will convict him? Knowing that, whenever a police officer illegally searches .. they have incentive to plant evidence or tamper with stuff such as to make the suspect look guilty. If a few serial killers are convicted through illegal searches .. the public will eventually say stop punishing the police for illegal searches. Then the 4th amendment will be weakened and destroyed, and we'll all be worse off.
The ONLY way to deal with illegally obtained evidence is to throw it out, no matter the short term consequence. If illegally obtained evidence is allowed, it won't be long before authorities start tampering with it to frame the innocent.
Another moron who doesn't understand the implications of what you are saying.
Because today you agreed with their actions it is OK to do things outside the law.
The poster clearly articulated why things are the way they are. Unfortunately, SJWs are not known for their joy of free speech, laws or really anything that seems sensible. It's just knee jerk reactions and no sense.
I do have good news. Society does eventually filter out your idiocy, but it does take some time.
Turns out I was right about that, yes?
US law is based on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. You don't seem to understand what that means.
Rather, you actually seem to think it's better that 100 innocent people go to prison than for one guilty person to go free. Which, for lack of a more precise term, is just plain nuts.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
"DUDE! Who the fuck eats raw eggs? Pass the bong..."
A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away... *sigh*
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Because if you let it go in this case then you have to let it go in all cases, and if you let it go in all cases then the police are free to break into your home, car, office, etc, hack into your computer, read your mail, record your phone calls, use stingray type devices, and anything else privacy invading just any time they want just to find shit to send you to jail for.
How about fixing the problem at the core and making it illegal for police to break the law instead? Ignoring clear evidence seems like a incredible stupid "solution" to this problem.
...And this, kids, is what we call a "rhetorical question".
(P.S. We're not *all* right-wing know-nothings... Just the Trump supporters.)
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
Or you could, you know, check a reference work such as the Urban Dictionary, which is what I did instead of bitching about my ignorance for all the world to admire.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
This isn't an SJW story, This is a "douchebag gets away with multiple felonies" story.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
In very demonstrable ways, the Silicon Valley 'judicial system' is far worse (and misogynist) than even freaking Texas.
He would be in prison now sexualy servicing Bubba for the next 15 years plue another 5 years probation. Double if he was black.
True. So will the police officer/s who broke the law to obtain this evidence illegally be prosecuted? Not likely.
So that's two actual failures of justice. Justice in this case case has been done (rejecting evidence obtained illegally), but has twice NOT been "seen to be done". Who/what will be done to redress this failure? Sweet F.A.
Will the girl be able to achieve some form of justice through a civil case? Maybe.
Maybe she should, as another poster suggested, sue the police for fucking up the case?
They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
Hopefuly, his cell mate punches him hard in the face everyday to say "Good morning".
arresting the guy
Arresting someone usually requires a warrant (with some exceptions). Arresting someone in the own dwelling
requires a warrant with even fewer exceptions.
If the police officers involved in obtaining evidence illegally get charged with the approriate crime and sentenced, then the "let it go" part does not happen. Few police officers want criminals behind bars so much that they will sacrifice their own freedom.
Also, in case such a screw-up happens, does the government compensate the victim? He or she may have had claims (in addition to seeing the offender punished) that the government just ruined through incompetence.
I fail to see how videotaped 100% clear proof of violent crime can be ignored because the police break a rule when obtaining it. Punish the police AND the lawbreaker. Letting the sociopath go free makes YOU liable for his future crimes.
Look up fruit of the tainted tree. Any evidence gained illegally should not be used, or else it wouldn't be long before all evidence was gained illegally.
I'm a minority race. Save your vitriol for white people.
Maybe instead of tossing the evidence, the cop(s) who collected it *must* be terminated and charged. That would certainly dissuade cops from persueing warrantless activities, but it might also help prevent scumbags from getting away because of such misconduct.
I want to be a Silicon Valley CEO. Commit 47 felonies and only get a year in jail.
Where do I sign up?
Wife ? White Knights don't get women
They get laughed at and strung along.
I mean, I agree, but they're already willing to do that regardless.
Stop resisting!
So in your example you would rather let the serial killer walk free than use the evidence since this particular policeman would be seen as a hero? Quite strange priorities there.
You do know that in most other countries all evidence are admissable?
Yes it likely is. The article tries to put due process in a bad light instead of focusing on the broken police procedure. It places the judge's ruling (a few sentences at most) next to a litany of other probably specious accusations from others which have nothing to do with the case. They may or may not be true, but I wouldn't believe them based on what I read here. Sjws typically demand "listen and believe" style policies which fundamentally conflict with the concept of due process.
The second theme matching sjw rhetoric is the appeal to privilege for allowing him leniency when the facts clearly point to police failing to follow procedure.
Cops are rarely punished for bad behaviour. If he is punished, he'll have to get his record expunged afterwards because he can't return to duty with a criminal record. Then the cop is a martyr for going to jail and it just becomes the price of framing a suspect. Alright, most of the time, it will be the actual criminal but I wonder how many people with a hero complex would consider this a good deal.
No punishment for a criminal is a travesty of justice, agreed but now everyone knows what he did, which makes the option of a civil trial very appealing.
No if you let it go as the GP suggested the police officers would be punished for wrongdoing. There is of course an argument that offering a pawn (police officer) may be a price the system is willing to pay. In fact there are countries where the law lets such poisoned well thing into the court as evidence and nothing much more happens that is the case in US.
That's what you lot keep telling yourself to not have to change. Meanwhile, in sensible jurisdictions, ways have been found to admit the evidence, while punishing the police officers for being derelict in their duty. That's a win-win for society right there.
In just about every other context in the world, he would be the protected one due to his race
No, that's simply a bizarre fantasy of people who desperately want to believe that white men are more oppressed than anyone else. It's a bit of a weird fantasy if you think about it.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
I don't agree - the evidence is evidence no matter how it is obtained. That's the only logical way.
All reasonable people have spoken.
Madoff got sent to jail because he made the mistake of screwing over rich and powerful people. If he just screwed over us peons, he'd be on some tropical island getting caviar licked off his dick by porn actresses and still have most of his ill gotten gains less the peanuts he would have been fined.
I fail to see how videotaped 100% clear proof of violent crime can be ignored because the police break a rule when obtaining it.
Because if you let it go in this case then you have to let it go in all cases, and if you let it go in all cases then the police are free to break into your home, car, office, etc, hack into your computer, read your mail, record your phone calls, use stingray type devices, and anything else privacy invading just any time they want just to find shit to send you to jail for.
But what's that you say? Who cares about privacy when lives are on the line? Well the thing with that is if police can just do whatever they want to obtain evidence to throw you in jail, then they can practically throw anybody they want in jail because EVERYBODY does things that are illegal, and you bet your ass that politicians would start using this to silence their opposition until we end up with a China style government.
Hogwash! Utterly baseless bullshit!
If the police break into your home, car etc. (without reasons to - even in the US they are allowed if there's a danger to someone) -> charge them for that.
Ditto if they hack your computer etc. -> charge them for that.
Your mention of the stingray device is funny though, it isn't invasive unless you are already targeted...
This is something that works in other parts of the world, it isn't something experimental, it isn't the slippery slope you (and others) claim it is.
Throwing good evidence in the trash because some unfounded ideal doesn't help anyone except the criminals.
Because if you let it go in this case then you have to let it go in all cases, and if you let it go in all cases then the police are free to break into your home, car, office, etc, hack into your computer, read your mail, record your phone calls, use stingray type devices, and anything else privacy invading just any time they want just to find shit to send you to jail for.
Wrong approach. Now a violent offender goes free. Punishing the police by increasing the number of criminals on the street isn't a punishment, it's job security.
Correct approach: Prove the video as admissible in court. Properly punish the police for their conduct, either those directly involved, or the entire precinct.
This way a proper deterrent in place, and this fucker stays locked up in prison.
I fail to see how videotaped 100% clear proof of violent crime can be ignored because the police break a rule when obtaining it.
Because if you let it go in this case then you have to let it go in all cases, and if you let it go in all cases then the police are free to break into your home, car, office, etc, hack into your computer, read your mail, record your phone calls, use stingray type devices, and anything else privacy invading just any time they want just to find shit to send you to jail for.
No, there was a bloody girlfriend pointing finger at her attacker and there was an immediate need to go into the house to secure the crime scene. There was more than probable cause to search the house without a warrant.
This is not like other situations at all. The judge got paid off somehow, or he received a phone call from some higher ups. That's the real reason he was let go for that first woman.
Right - but what should happen in cases like this shouldn't be that the evidence gets thrown out. The evidence should get used, because it's evidence, and the people who didn't follow procedure should be fined / fired / imprisoned for violating procedure.
Letting obvious criminals go or not letting innocents go free because evidence was obtained slightly off doesn't serve justice in any sense of the word, because it causes harm to society with an incorrect verdict and doesn't really cause people to follow the correct procedures.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Life doesn't work that way. It isn't black and white. There is a grey area where a judge determines if evidence is admissible or not. There isn't one set of procedures that police follow. You can throw cops in jail because they didn't follow some imaginary 3 step procedure.
That way leads to police states. Due process is there for a reason. It prevents witch hunts. If you want to be mad at someone, blame the cops for fucking up procedure.
All that should matter is to determine if the evidence is real or faked; it should not matter how it is obtained except in so far as it helps to determine whether it was faked. "Procedures" for getting evidence, like search warrants, should just be a factor in helping that decision, not a way to get evidence thrown out automatically if it was not by "procedure".
As for police randomly raiding homes without warrants, if they do find incriminating evidence then fair enough; if they don't, then prosecute the police for intrusion.
We now know that Chahal is an utter bastard who abuses women. That video evidence is good enough for me.
.
Because if they lock themselves in the back of the car they can't drive themselves to the jail.
Evidence does not exonerate anyone, it can only be used to prove guilt. If the prosecutor has evidence that is illegally obtained which proves the defendants innocence, the prosecutor would never bring it up (or discontinue prosecution) and if they for some bizarre reason did, the defense would never challenge it.
The only charge the prosecution has is to prove guilt without violating someone's constitutional rights. If they could just illegally search and seize anything anyone speaking up would be in jail and bands of police would simply plunder your goods as they see fit. They already do that to an extent but at least if you can afford a lawyer you can do something about it.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Yup. SJW = really boring.
OK I see you wanna play that game, alright do you rather one serial killer be put away at the expense of not catching 50 others plus wrongfully convicting others? Because that's what happens when the police gets to put away innocent people instead of the actual ones.
I think you missed where I suggested that you punish those who abuse search and seizure to prevent the rampant scenario you suggested?
My assertion is that "punishing" society with incorrect verdicts is not the correct way to handle search and seizure abuses - the better way for society as a whole is to punish those abusing search and seizure.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
I guess I haven't checked in for a few years ... when did the comments section turn into an absolute cesspool of misogyny and hatred? This is disgusting. Won't be back.
No it certainly doesn't! You are conflating two different things: security against harassment and validity of evidence. Those are (again) two separate things and it is possible (and the standard in many parts of the world) to make harassment illegal but still consider evidence gathered during those illegal activities valid.
Example:
If a policeman kicks in someones door to steal things and finds child pornography then the finding of the pornography is still useful evidence but the policeman is guilty of breaking and entering. The finding of illegal items doesn't make the breaking legal.
the evidence is evidence no matter how it is obtained. That's the only logical way.
"A confession is a confession no matter how it is obtained. That's the only logical way."
Throwing away the bill of rights to convict someone we don't like is a very slipper slope we should not go down. They are there to protect from wrongful convictions and while it does allow the guilty to go free if proper procedures are not followed by the state like in this case, I prefer that to the alternative.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the (supposed) good of its victims may be the most oppressive
So I can hook your privates up to a car battery and give you some jolts to get evidence because you don't care how it is obtained?
And this is just that, the judge/defense busted the prosecution for abusing their privilege to do illegal search and seizure. You missed the part where the defendant is innocent until PROVEN guilty. He was proven guilty on all other counts. With illegal search and seizure they could easily "pick and choose" evidence that will fit the case at whatever time they see fit.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
2013 - PoS assaults girlfriend. Lawyers work magic and get video evidence barred. PoS s convicted of lesser crime. PoS gets probation. Grrr. OK.
2014 - PoS assaults another woman, violating probation. Case drags on until 2016(!).
2016 - PoS finally gets sentenced to 1 year in jail. Instead of going to jail, PoS is released on bail pending appeal. Grrr. This is ridiculous.
That's three years, two violent assaults, two convictions and this fucker has still not been jailed. WTF?
So, remind me again what political party controls San Francisco from top to bottom?
Oh, and here's a data point: Gurbaksh Chahal gave his political donations exclusively to Democrats.
Lawrence Person (lawrencepersonh@gmailh.com (remove all "h"s to mail)
http://www.lawrenceperson.com/
All that should matter is to determine if the evidence is real or faked; it should not matter how it is obtained except in so far as it helps to determine whether it was faked. "Procedures" for getting evidence, like search warrants, should just be a factor in helping that decision, not a way to get evidence thrown out automatically if it was not by "procedure".
As for police randomly raiding homes without warrants, if they do find incriminating evidence then fair enough; if they don't, then prosecute the police for intrusion.
We now know that Chahal is an utter bastard who abuses women. That video evidence is good enough for me. .
The fucking police around here get a paid vacation for MURDER, do you really think they will get in trouble for not following procedure? From the police department's view, they did great! They put a "bad guy" away (never mind pissing on constitutional rights). They won't be getting punished, the chief will be giving them high-fives.
Enigma
Oh, come on! There's even a 'Root Window' animator for one such abuser.
Don't use stupid abbreviations. PoC could easily mean Piece of Crap.
Indeed, I read it as Proof of Concept without it making any sense.
--
I don't want to rule the world... I just want to be in charge of mayonnaise.
What part of "Punish the police" did you not understand? The whole system of making illegally acquired evidence inadmissible is wrong. It creates 2 injustices, the original felon goes free and the policeman breaking the law is unpunished. Because the only downside for those illegally acquiring evidence is seeing work go to waste, there is negligible disincentive for acquiring evidence illegally.
In a case like the one in TFA, the felon should be doing hard time for attempted murder, no possibility of parole. The policeman should be punished by (for example) a month in jail and a fine of a month's (gross) pay.
Oh I disagree wholeheartedly that the police officer who violated the law will be unpunished. They may not be punished criminally but you can bet that it will be a huge blight on not only that officer's career, but the District Attorney who was unable to properly prosecute the criminal. And rightfully so as you do not want people in power who so blatantly violate the law, especially a law that would have been absolutely trivial to satisfy. California makes it practically impossible to drop Domestic Violence charges so once the police showed up and saw her condition, they would have easily been able to detain him long enough to get a warrant to retrieve the surveillance video.
That encourages the police to take liberties.
Shun him, let him piss away his money and become a bag boy.
Milwaukee County Wisconsin 2011CF4463 a lawyer felony-strangles his wife and has it reduced to misdemeanor-battery. Because a lawyer was given lower charges so he could keep his bar card he was able to be not in jail and so the sexual molestation of his 3 year old daughter can happen in MKE 2015CF3592. Now - where did he get the shotgun that ended 2015CF3952 is also a good question given the violations of 18USC922.
Oh, come on! There's even a 'Root Window' animator for one such abuser.
I'm aware that there have been accused abusers of colors who have been exonerated.
My question in this particular instance would be "Did Simpson's exoneration (mistaken in my opinion) lead to 'parties in the street'?" I don't recall such celebrations happening.
If such celebrations in the street did not happen, my question for you would be why bring up the Simpson case at all. Why?
Like the grandparent, I believe your statements attribute exoneration with racial privilege, but I think this is wrong in Simpson's specific case. Exoneration was achieved in Simpson's case due to the O.J. Simpson's (and to a lesser extent Johnnie Cochran's) celebrity status. A lesser reason O.J. Simpson was exonerated (in my opinion) is due to sexism against Nicole Brown-Simpson.
In other words, from the perspective of race, if Simpson had been convicted it would have been because he was black. If Simpson had been exonerated (as he in fact was) it would have been because he was black.
blog
Here's some of what Google turned up for "celebration simpson verdict".
Law school reactions, filmed at American University with hearsay (not documented with video) reports from Howard University.
This video of the crowd reaction from outside the Los Angeles County Superior Court might be characterized as partying in the streets, but seems restricted to a few enthusiastic individuals (some of whom are not black).
Thinking more on this, I do think the Simpson case is relevant to Chahal's in cultural terms, but I'm not convinced race played a positive or negative factor in Chahal's.
blog
If the prosecutor has evidence that is illegally obtained which proves the defendants innocence, the prosecutor would never bring it up...
Sure, but that evidence should be available to the defense via discovery, and they most certainly would bring it up.
A confession under torture is not the same as a video from a camera redording the crime.
You forgot this part:* that was illegally obtained. You left out that part, on purpose I'd imagine. That is the point, both are fucking illegal.
Considering such evidence valid will encourage the police to illegally obtain evidence, after all there is no deterrent in not doing so - it still works as evidence. It's a trade off. You don't have to like the side of the trade off the US has chosen but it isn't conflating different things - it is an explicit choice that puts individual rights in general above discovering guilt in a particular case.
The US similarly also does not permit the use of confessions obtained via torture.
Illegally-obtained evidence isn't allowed because, if it were, there would be nothing stopping the police from obtaining all their evidence illegally. "Oh but they would be punished for that!" doesn't fly, because they won't be punished for it; what's the indictment rate for police violating the law in the course of their duties, again?
"Should" is a nice ideal, but a real system has to account for the unreliability of its components, ie. humans.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
I think you missed the point that those who would abuse search and seizure wouldn't get punished.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
This is a joke, right? You are not advocating that slashdot readers first consult a website of dubious repute as an authoritative source.
You just don't get it do you
You know this Gurbaksh Chahal, he's such a great guy, successful, young, rich. I propose he be next up on The Bachelor. Or one of those cruel Japanese game shows where the contestants get abuse. Or he joins a medical study for itch powder.
I just know that Chahal is a great catch, keep calling him ladies! What you call him, well that's your business.
Im with you. I guess it makes them feel better.
Interesting how only Indians are tone deaf about the current pc climate and continue doing things that other people - be it Whites, Blacks, Hispanics have long stopped doing. A few years ago, iGATE's CEO had to be removed for sexual harassment, which wasn't something that a Roger Ailes would do, but for actually impregnating his secretary.
And now this guy Chahal. He should have done this in India, where he'd have had a better chance of getting away w/ it.
Are you that ignorant of the history of the Clintons? Hillary bragging and laughing about helping a rapist beat the rap? Her husband's multiple rapes? The people whose lives they've ruined?
Modded down as usual by Clinton Obama worshiping trolls. Never mind that the above 2 acts listed are far worse than anything Trump is ever even accused to have done
Ah, but what about his right to be forgotten? Coming in 3..2..1?
This is a joke, right? You are not advocating that slashdot readers first consult some anonymous diskhead as an authoritative source.
TFTFY.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
There is an issue with another part of the system with that approach - pardons. Given a "tough on crime" executive they could just pardon cops who "do the right thing" regardless of legality and you end up with effectively no warrant requirements. And you just know the demagogues would paint this travesty as a good thing
Yeah, what's with all the Silicon Valley stories? Slashdot has a bias. A bias, I tell you.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
"That way leads to police states....
The one we would have if there were civil forfeiture.
"My assertion is that "punishing" society with incorrect verdicts is not the correct way to handle search and seizure abuses - the better way for society as a whole is to punish those abusing search and seizure."
Since cops routinely avoid murder convictions, not at trial but by friendly prosecutors not indicting them in the first place, your suggestion would give us Guantanamo Everywhere.
Surely taking the video, but sealing it unviewed until the warrant to view (or instruction to return it) would be adequate in this case?
It is clear that erasing the video whilst waiting for a warrant is a strong possibility, I don't see how that can be dismissed so easily by the judge.
Maybe a golf course deal...
As for police randomly raiding homes without warrants, if they do find incriminating evidence then fair enough; if they don't, then prosecute the police for intrusion.
Are you actually serious about this?
You would legally give the police the right to hassle whoever they wanted, go on fishing expeditions, plant evidence and then find it, and so on, just because they *may* find something?
Seriously.
Now, on the other hand, this video is quite different. It is a recording of events rather than a tool used in the events. In addition, what is 'siezing' a video when it could be deleted if not siezed. Seizure is surely taking AND viewing. Taking, and getting a warrant post-taking but pre-viewing, should surely be a viable situation here. There is still a judicial oversight prior to the viewing, preventing the fishing expedition. Obviously, in this case, they took it, and once they had it viewed it and didn't get any judicial oversight.
Yeah, the cops screwed this one up. Even when the evidence in hand is a recording of events, protocol has to be followed. There should have been enough other evidence (photos of the victim, victim testimony, etc) to get something to stick too, which it looks like the cops neglected to collect.
And (not aimed at you!) why is it better for a guilty person to go free rather than even one innocent person go to jail? Because it is highly likely that a guilty person would commit a similar crime again. Which is what happened in this case. It does create more victims unfortunately, but it also removes a lot of doubt.
And if they were guilty, and they don't commit another crime - then at least they have been rehabilitated for whatever reason they chose (feeling bad, fear, etc).
I guess I don't consider throwing out evidence to be "punishment".
But what I see here is a bunch of comments saying "yeah, but that doesn't actually happen...". Of course, that's the point of the discussion. But saying "Our current stuff is abused, but you can't put in place other protections because they will just be abused as well" is just specious - it doesn't help anything.
All the rebuttals have been "but nobody will actually punish illegally gathered evidence" is silly, because that's just stating "if you have a system that says you must punish those gathering evidence illegally, people won't follow that system" which is essentially a lawless society in the first place. That's what you've got to fix - make punishment of illegal search and seizure automatic not optional - don't give a judge or executive the option to waive it.
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
Yes, I agree that it would be a better solution to put both the perpetrator and the police who used illegal means to get the evidence in jail, but that's not what the law states.
Yes it's an anecdote! Were you expecting original research in a Slashdot comment?
Is the premise that rich people should be sentenced differently than poor people?
And we're just supposed to understand that somehow?
It seems to me that if someone has 47 felony charges against him, something a little stronger than probation might be warranted.
Well, who the fuck eats raw brains?
Braaaiiiinnnsssssss...
Or maybe the judge was smart enough to know that the case was strong enough without the video that was obtained illegally and decided to try the case by the book.
Evidence does not exonerate anyone, it can only be used to prove guilt.
That is entirely wrong. Evidence can support either side of a case. If you're charged with a crime, and someone testifies that you were somewhere else at the time in question, that alibi is evidence that exonerates you.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
I think he meant the prosecution will never use or admit evidence that exonerates someone.
And I tend to agree, their job is to prove your guilt not discovering the truth. Anything counter to proving your guilt is disregarded.
Rather, you actually seem to think it's better that 100 innocent people go to prison than for one guilty person to go free. Which, for lack of a more precise term, is just plain nuts.
It is also the exact opposite of the concept the US criminal justice system is based on.
Always the armchair warrior.
Go become a judge then, I imagine you'd be great at violating people's rights "for the greater good of protecting your safe space".
You SJW shitlord.
I don't agree - the evidence is evidence no matter how it is obtained. That's the only logical way.
Evidence gained illegally must be disregarded, because that is the only real deterrent against illegally-obtained evidence.
Otherwise you could just present illegal footage at a trial, shrug helplessly, and say that an anonymous source sent it in.
Yeah. Why does every stupid story about a woman getting beaten bring out the SJW brigade? I remember when "SJW" used to mean something.
Never mind the fact that there is zero support for the charge that Bill Clinton is a rapist. Note: sexual harassment might be despicable, but it's not rape.
"I fail to see how videotaped 100% clear proof of violent crime can be ignored because the police break a rule when obtaining it."
Pretty much sums up everything that's wrong with the USA.
You really have to work hard at being THIS fuckin' ignorant.
Juanita Broderick had alleged that, and it was Hilary who once said that if any woman alleges rape, she should be automatically believed. Far less evidence was demanded on allegations of sexual harassment against Clarence Thomas vs Anita Hill
Evidence does not exonerate anyone, it can only be used to prove guilt.
So an alibi could never exonerate anyone?
The only charge the prosecution has is to prove guilt without violating someone's constitutional rights.
The Constitution doesn't spell out what the penalty is for improper evidence. Since it allows for allowing improper evidence, using improper evidence isn't strictly unconstitutional.
Both the idea that the evidence should be used, and the government agent who acquired it punished, and that the evidence should not be used, are consistent with the words and intent of the Constitution.
Learn to love Alaska
The prosecution didn't perform an illegal search and seizure. As near as I could tell from the article (I didn't do additional research), the police responded to a domestic violence call, and while stopping a crime in progress, noticed evidence (a video system) and confiscated it while in the regular and necessary duties of interrupting a crime in progress. It was money and effort that got the evidence excluded, not any error on the part of the "prosecution" who wasn't involved until long after the evidence was collected.
Learn to love Alaska
But the cops didn't break any rule to get this video. One pro-domestic-violence judge said so, but that was an unusual ruling, which is why it's on here.
Learn to love Alaska
I'm aware of that. But US citizens are so fixated in their thinking their laws are somehow the only way things can work, I'm just pointing out that laws in other parts of the world works differently without causing a police state or harassment from government officials.
That is obviously not popular, guess some people doesn't like to have their preconceptions challenged...
Not in any way comparable to what I wrote or meant. Confessions in general are unreliable especially when forced in any way. If you are hinting at torture that would obviously be a serious crime but yes, if during torture someone confesses to murder and provides sufficient details to prove that it isn't made up - it is still evidence! The one doing the torture and anybody assisting him should get life in prison of course.
I don't understand why you think this helps against wrongful convictions. Again the evidence itself isn't tainted by the way it is obtained - it is still evidence as long as it is obviously not tampered with. But to continue my reasoning above if someone confesses under torture (physical or psychological) then the evidence have to be verified before considered reliable.
Are you ready to take the consequences?
But strictly speaking you are referring to the current system _unless_ you are a police officer. Then any evidence gathered under criminal activities are void.
Don't know if you understood my previous post...
Yes, I believe (as does the writers of law in many countries) that the illegally obtained footage should be valid in a court of law. However the claim that it was an anonymous source should also be validated and any criminal activity connected to that footage would be prosecuted.
You do realize that the police have pretty wide legal immunity in carrying out their duties, right? They literally can't be punished directly for obtaining evidence illegally, the evidence can only be disallowed.
Don't just stand there, get that other dog!
Yes, they have that now. A revised system might change that. Not much good (other than just commiseration) lamenting about what is if there is no proposal for something different...
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
I wonder if he knows Hillary Clinton? Oh well, this is a pattern of behavior by our court system to let the rich, powerful and famous do as they please. After all is said and done, "Laws are for peasents."