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.
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 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!
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".
Don't use stupid abbreviations. PoC could easily mean Piece of Crap.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
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
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
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.
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."
The man committed suicide by shooting himself in the head at point blank range 8 times
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 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.'"
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.
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?
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!
So, remind me again what political party controls San Francisco from top to bottom?
WTF are you trying to say here? Both parties are pretty much equally corrupt, so it doesn't matter which currently controls San Francisco.
--- Keep the choice with the user..
"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...