Police in the US - or should it be "policing the US?!"

[Xyzzy]

Originally Posted by rogue

In short there is no action as there is no path to even get to the table.

These responses show how selfish and self-centered "conservative" "christians" are.

Whatever happened to: "And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me."

[Uncwilly]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

These responses show how selfish and self-centered "conservative" "christians" are.

Whatever happened to: "And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me."

I am a CC. I used that that parable as part of my sermon this last Sunday. I was making the point that Love is not always the same. It is what the person needs at that moment (food, clothing, housing, visitation).

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

These responses show how selfish and self-centered "conservative" "christians" are.

Whatever happened to: "And the King will answer and say to them, ‘Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me."

Not all. One of the social issues of the day is immigrants and refugees. The above-mentioned parable would appear to pertain to refugees -- "I was a stranger, and ye took me (not) in." Some conservative Christians want to help refugees pursuant to this. The present Administration, not so much.

There is another parable which comes to mind. The Reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. spoke about it at length when explaining to his audience why he was in Memphis supporting the sanitation workers. His speech has since come to be known as the "Mountaintop speech." He gave it the night of April 3, 1968. He was murdered the next day.

At the time, the Memphis sanitation workers (AKA "garbage men") had such low pay (65 cents an hour, no overtime) that many of them still qualified for welfare.

From my experience living in Memphis some years later, I can say that, instead of snow in the winter, Memphis often gets driving rain, with the temperature at about 38 F (just over 3 C).

The incident which precipitated the strike took place on February 1, 1968. It was raining. Memphis Sanitation workers were not allowed to take shelter from the weather on residents' porches, even in the owners were willing. Thus, as described at the HISTORY page about the strike,

A couple of weeks before the strike, workers' dissatisfaction reached new heights when two men, Echol Cole and Robert Walker, were gruesomely killed while on the job. Cole and Walker had taken shelter from rain in the back of their truck, when it malfunctioned and both men were crushed to death.

The fatalities sparked outrage - workers had been lobbying the city in vain for properly functioning equipment. When the city then refused to provide compensation to the deceased workers' families, workers walked off the job in disgust.

Oh, and the city didn't give them time off to go to the funerals.

The parable is in the Book of Luke, Chapter 10. From the KJV,

25 And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?

26 He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou?

27 And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself.

28 And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live.

29 But he, willing to justify himself, said unto Jesus, And who is my neighbour?

30 And Jesus answering said, A certain man went down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell among thieves, which stripped him of his raiment, and wounded him, and departed, leaving him half dead.

31 And by chance there came down a certain priest that way: and when he saw him, he passed by on the other side.

32 And likewise a Levite, when he was at the place, came and looked on him, and passed by on the other side.

33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee.

36 Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

37 And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.

[kladner]

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-b1209672.html

Now a judge has ruled that jurors on the case can speak, some unsavory facts about how the case was handled have come to light

Unsavory, as in the Attorney General lied his ass off about the proceedings. An additional juror is said to be seeking legal advise and representation on speaking out. The point is made that the AG pursued three wanton endangerment charges for shooting holes in a white woman's walls. No charges for shooting holes in a black woman.

Surprise! The Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron lied about the Breonna Taylor case. This man — who received an endorsement of the Kentucky Fraternal Order of Police — told the public at a September 23 news conference that his prosecutors had “walked the grand jury through every homicide offense.” According to an anonymous grand juror, this was a lie. One of many.

The anonymous grand juror petitioned to speak after Cameron’s press conference and Cameron opposed it until a judge ruled on Tuesday this week in the juror’s favor. The juror then released a statement through attorney Kevin Glowgower, which claimed that the grand jury was never given the option to consider homicide charges. When they asked about any other possible charges, the juror said, the prosecution told them there would be none because they felt they did not have enough evidence to make them stick.

First, did they really not have enough evidence? Or was there evidence that somebody didn’t want to release? Because there is evidence that the police did send a waiting ambulance away; evidence that someone on the team did know that they already had their suspect in custody at another location; evidence that officers first wrote there were no injuries in their report when they knew there was a fatality; evidence that Breonna’s boyfriend did have an opportunity to call 911 about his girlfriend being shot and yet there was no immediate action to help her from the trained professionals on scene. The potential evidence for at least a charge of negligence seems to pile up. Second, isn’t it the grand jury’s decision whether or not there is enough evidence to proceed with charges? If the jury decided there was enough evidence to go forward with an indictment, then the officer would still have to go through an actual trial where he would be proven innocent if there was still not enough evidence to find him guilty.

Third, if there really, really wasn’t enough evidence and Cameron didn’t want to waste the time of the jury, why did he make motions to stop them when they asked to speak on their decision? Why did the prosecution’s office try to give Breonna’s ex a plea deal retroactively claiming she was a criminal?

I am glad that the judge could smell the putrid reek of the handling of this case.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by kladner

https://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-b1209672.html

Unsavory, as in the Attorney General lied his ass off about the proceedings. An additional juror is said to be seeking legal advise and representation on speaking out. The point is made that the AG pursued three wanton endangerment charges for shooting holes in a white woman's walls. No charges for shooting holes in a black woman.

I am glad that the judge could smell the putrid reek of the handling of this case.

Highlights of the Opinion and Order in Anonymous Grand Juror #1 v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, No. 20-CI-5721 by Judge Annie O'Connell (emphasis in original):

"This is a rare and extraordinary example of a case where, at the time this motion is made, the historical reasons for preserving grand jury secrecy are null.

"In objecting to this motion, the attorney general speculates that allowing this grand juror to speak may compromise Brett Hankison's right to a fair trial. When asked to be more specific about its concerns, the Commonwealth acknowledged it did not know how allowing this grand juror to speak would undermine Hankison's trial. Therefore, this court cannot find that this concern is founded in reality.

"The Commonwealth also asserts that to release information about the grand jury proceedings in this case would "destroy the principle of secrecy that serves as the foundation of the grand jury system." To be clear, this Court's ruling on this motion is applicable only to this case. Further, when considering the Attorney General's swift compliance with the trial court's order to release the grand jury recordings, coupled with the Attorney General's multiple public statements and characterizations about the grand jury and the resulting indictment, the Commonwealth's objection now reads as theatrical sturm und drang.

"There exist additional interests to consider in making this decision: the interest of the citizens of the Commonwealth of Kentucky to be assured that its publicly elected officials are being honest in their representations; the interest of grand jurors, whose service is compelled, to be certain their work is not mischaracterized by the very prosecutors on whom they relied to advise them; and, the interest of all citizens to have confidence in the integrity of the justice system."

(Full opinion here.)

It is pretty well known that here in the US, the main reason for criminal convictions of people later found to have been innocent, is police and prosecutorial misconduct, often suppression of exculpatory evidence.

It therefore does not take a great leap of imagination to think that police and prosecutors might also act to avoid accountability for official misconduct, by suppression of or failure to disclose relevant facts in the first place, or refusing to allow charges to be considered, based on such facts.

The murder of Laquan McDonald IMO shows that, even if charges are brought and go to trial, judges can not always be relied upon. It was patently obvious that the cops had falsified their reports to support a description of events that was inconsistent with what the video showed. But all the officers tried were acquitted of official misconduct charges. In the case where three of the officers were acquitted at a bench trial, the judge simply disregarded the evidence of the dashcam video, and of the witnesses, in order to render a verdict of "Not Guilty."

[rogue]

It is unfortunate in the US that once you are found guilty that there is no longer a presumption of innocence and that reasonable doubt no longer applies to proving innocence.

There are some examples of this across the US including:

See Black Man Convicted of Murder Still in Prison After 7 Years Despite DNA Test Proving His Innocence

Despite DNA evidence of innocence, W. Va. man who pled guilty remains locked up

[Xyzzy]

https://manualredeye.com/90096/news/...-presentation/

[kladner]

I can't watch the video. The text sickens me.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Richard Nixon's "War on Drugs," born June 17, 1971, is dead. It may not rest in peace, but as far as enforcing the prohibition of drugs like heroin, cocaine, and marijuana is concerned, it has been lost. It ended in surrender on November 18, 2020, as described in the following news story (my emphasis).

US drops drug trafficking charges against ex-Mexican general

NEW YORK (AP) — U.S. prosecutors on Wednesday formally dropped a drug trafficking and money laundering case against a former Mexican defense secretary, a decision that came after Mexico threatened to cut off cooperation with U.S. authorities unless the general was sent home.

A judge in New York City approved the dismissal of charges, capping a lightning-fast turnaround in the case of former Gen. Salvador Cienfuegos, who was arrested just weeks ago in Los Angeles, but will be returned to Mexico under an unusual diplomatic deal between the two countries.

The decision to drop the case was an embarrassment for the United States, which had touted the arrest as a major breakthrough when Cienfuegos was taken into custody Oct. 15. But the arrest drew a loud protest from top officials in Mexico and threatened to damage the delicate relationship that enables investigators in both countries to pursue drug kingpins together.

"The United States determined that the broader interest in maintaining that relationship in a cooperative way outweighed the department’s interest and the public's interest in pursuing this particular case," Seth DuCharme, the acting U.S. Attorney in Brooklyn, told the judge at a hearing.

He said the decision to drop the charges was made by Attorney General William Barr.

Cienfuegos was secretly indicted by a federal grand jury in New York in 2019. He was accused of conspiring with the H-2 cartel in Mexico to smuggle thousands of kilos of cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine and marijuana while he was defense secretary from 2012 to 2018.

Prosecutors said intercepted messages showed that Cienfuegos accepted bribes in exchange for ensuring the military did not take action against the cartel and that operations were initiated against its rivals. He was also accused of introducing cartel leaders to other corrupt Mexican officials.
<snip>

As posted elsewhere on this Forum, in 1994, former Assistant to the President for Domestic Affairs John Ehrichman said in an interview with a Vanity Fair correspondent that its real target was Vietnam war dissenters and Black people. The (former) War on Drugs might now be able to focus its attention on incarcerating and killing political dissidents and non-white people.

[PhilF]

Originally Posted by Dr Sardonicus

Richard Nixon's "War on Drugs," born June 17, 1971, is dead. It may not rest in peace, but as far as enforcing the prohibition of drugs like heroin, cocaine, and marijuana is concerned, it has been lost. It ended in surrender on November 18, 2020, as described in the following news story

No, I doubt it. That's just wishful thinking. It will continue on ad nauseum, being selectively enforced just as it always has been, just as it was in this case.

[Dr Sardonicus]

Originally Posted by PhilF

No, I doubt it. That's just wishful thinking. It will continue on ad nauseum, being selectively enforced just as it always has been, just as it was in this case.

I did say it might not rest in peace, and indicated it would likely be used for its (unstated) original purpose of persecuting dissidents and non-whites.

Still, dropping charges against a very big fish because the fish was too big to haul in, does not enhance the credibility of enforcement of prohibition. And just think of what it is doing to morale at the DEA. A lot of its agents, I am sure, worked long and hard to build a case against a powerful ally of a major drug cartel. They saw it pay off when charges were brought. Then all their work suddenly got thrown away by the Attorney General. I would be surprised if a significant number of folks at the DEA didn't decide in the near future that they just can't do it any more.

The prosecutors at DOJ who handle drug cases likely aren't too happy with their capo de tutti capi right now, either.