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.
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.
"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.
Trump 2016
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.
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 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
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!
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.
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".
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.
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.
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.
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
Try telling that one to Bernie Madoff.
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.
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.
It don't pass the basic SJW test #1:
It is an real issue?
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.
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.
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.
You're assuming that the woman *knows* about him. You're assuming he won't take steps to find one that doesn't--that's a pretty bad assumption to make.
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".
Hopefuly he will get his ass shanked in prison before he has a chance to victimize anyone else. Batterers are scum and don't need to breathe.
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?
Jail is full of white men. America hates white men.
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.
And that was entirely proper: evidence that was obtained illegally should be inadmissible.
While that's true, this is not:
No, at best it is an example that the law is working correctly
Because the police are part of the system and they fucked it up royally. There was a massive fuckup and then one part of the law operated correctly right the way at the end. The bit where the enforcement arm fouled up can hardly be counted as "working correctly".
SJW n. One who posts facts.
All reasonable people have spoken.
That would apparently be too logical and civilized.
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.
No, at best it is an example that the law is working correctly
Because the police are part of the system and they fucked it up royally. There was a massive fuckup and then one part of the law operated correctly right the way at the end. The bit where the enforcement arm fouled up can hardly be counted as "working correctly".
Police are not the law, although they like to call themselves that, and some stupid people call them that. They could hardly be more ignorant of the laws they enforce, so they clearly are not the law. They are the enforcers. This is a case of the police failing, but the law itself working fine.
We have long known that the police are most of the problem with law enforcement, and that we need to clean house.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
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
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)
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/
Really? How? They were probably right that the guy would have erased the recordings. They took a gamble on something that was legally not completely clear-cut, and they lost in court. That isn't a "royal fuck up".
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.
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
Again he screwed over big money not the peons.
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!
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.
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.
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});
Anti-semitism is perfectly acceptable to today's left, and can even be regarded as hip. Just use the magic word: Zionists.
"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)
It absolutely is!!! And spare us the 'Arabs are Semites' argument!
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?
Tell that to OJ Simpson. He bought his way out of a murder wrap, still ended up in jail.
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."
Anti-semitism is perfectly acceptable to today's left,
Not just today's. Marx was a hard-core antisemite, too.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
Tell that to OJ Simpson. He bought his way out of a murder wrap, still ended up in jail.
But not for the original trial. He went free.
He went to jail after he'd lost most of his money, trying to rob someone at gunpoint who was selling memorabilia of him that Simpson claimed was stolen from him. That was something he couldn't buy his way out of.
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.
Yes, I know, that's why I said he bought his way out of a murder wrap. I also know how he ended up in jail.
But the point is they do go to jail sometimes. Lots of examples. One that you'd probably know is Martha Stewart. A lot has to do with how well you're connected. If you're a rich dude, you've also got good connections. Sometimes that can determine if you go to jail or not. Just look at Hillary. She's so well connected that she can't go to jail.
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.
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
The last hour would not come unless the Muslims will fight against the Jews and the Muslims would kill them until the Jews would hide themselves behind a stone or a tree and a stone or a tree would say: Muslim, or the servant of Allah, there is a Jew behind me; come and kill him; but the tree Gharqad would not say, for it is the tree of the Jews.
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.
Can't go to jail? Hell, Hillary can't even be taken to trial. If it starts to look like she might have to face questioning, witnesses suddenly start committing suicide and the head of the FBI and the attorney general refuse to investigate or prosecute.
Oh, but it is perfectly okay for Israel to mass murder their Muslim neighbors, including their women and children, then take their land in order to expand Israel.
I know it may be news to you, but ethnic cleansing is still a crime against humanity, even when done by a Jewish nation instead of a German one.
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."