The Judge Superthread- Merged Topics

[Gunnar]

And here's an example of what happens when law enforcement gets out of hand:

http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/12/1296.asp

The US HAS elected judges, does it not?

 

[J.J]

What does that prove???  ??? The Nebraska State Trooper did his job. Mr Gonzalez broke the law. Did he declare the currency to US Customs when he landed in Chicago? I doubt he did. If he had followed the law he would have had paperwork justifying the currency. Then there would be no need for the seizure of the currency. I know someone will bring up the point that maybe the money originated in the US. OK....Why did he not have a cashiers check or some other monetary device? Why did he feel the need to hide $124,700 in a cooler? Honest people do not do that. I have yet to encounter an honest, law abiding person who transport currency in that fashion.
So I strongly disagree with your your example that law enforcement was out of hand in this case.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

+1 to WR
Gunnar, I don't quite get what you are saying with your example?  Just because the bad guy got his backers to come up with some half assed excuse about a truck purchase, doesn't mean that it wasn't drug money.  Our country is the one with the shortfall when it comes to seizure of criminal assets.  Besides, even within that example, it appeared that the American judicial system worked the way it was supposed to, despite the fact that they sided with the bad guy.  Decision, appeal.  All that good stuff.

 

[Gunnar]

It wasn't necessarily to excuse drug money...it was basically to point out that in the absense of any evidence whatsoever, a man was convicted.

Did he declare the currency to US Customs when he landed in Chicago?

I don't know.  And neither did the article.  Suppose he didn't.  Is it the responsibility of Nebraska State Troopers to pursue US Federal Law, again in the absense of anything suggesting that a crime was committed?  Why should possession of large sums of money *necessitate* a criminal act, instead of merely implying one?

Why did he not have a cashiers check or some other monetary device? Why did he feel the need to hide $124,700 in a cooler?

Maybe he's from a backward country where things are run by drug gangs and a largely purchased police force, and only trusts CASH?  Maybe he's an idiot.  Maybe he's uneducated in financial instruments.  So what?  In a free country, you have a right to be stupid.  I'm not saying that a large sum of cash isn't a reason for an investigation...I'm saying that to decide guilt based on that alone is stupid.

Honest people do not do that. I have yet to encounter an honest, law abiding person who transport currency in that fashion.

If you come from a country which is somewhat backwards, run by gangs, or which taxes heavily, there are numerous reasons to use cash.  Also, it might be kinda neat to carry around that much cash, just to have the wad in your pocket.  There are hundreds of BAD reasons to do it...but people don't always do the logical, best-case scenario thing....

My problem is not that it was stupid to carry around that much cash.  I don't even have a problem with an investigation being performed because it is an unusual situation.  My problem is that based only on the presence of cash and drug residue on a RENTAL car, he was assumed to be a drug dealer.

Just because the bad guy got his backers to come up with some half assed excuse about a truck purchase, doesn't mean that it wasn't drug money.

My problem is that it doesn't mean that it WAS either.  Intellectually, I can see the argument you're making, and I might even agree with it.  But the presumption of innocence is something that has to be maintained, regardless of the circumstances.  You can't throw a guy in jail for having a smoke outside a burning building, claiming it was arson...and he had fire, so he must be guilty.  That's the kind of shoddy investigation this site often accuses reporters of doing...

In logic, in order to say "X is true" you have to be able to prove it.  Nobody is required to disprove that "X is not true" in order to make their case.  Your sense of working with the public, and your experience with when people are and are not lying will probably tell you otherwise...but the law is supposed to be blind.

It's very frustrating for me, because while you may not agree with me, I get the feeling you don't even see where I am coming from on this...and I'd like you to *get it*, even if you think I'm wrong...

 

[paracowboy]

he's a crook. Shoot him in the face, and let's get on with our lives.  :

 

[J.J]

Is it the responsibility of Nebraska State Troopers to pursue US Federal Law

Yes it is. He already committed one criminal act by smuggling the money in. What is the Trooper to think?

Why should possession of large sums of money *necessitate* a criminal act, instead of merely implying one?

If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck...

Maybe he's from a backward country where things are run by drug gangs and a largely purchased police force, and only trusts CASH?  Maybe he's an idiot.  Maybe he's uneducated in financial instruments.  .

He had in his possession a Nevada's drivers licence, so he is a resident of the US, probably illegal, but still a resident. So he is not living in "some backward country".

My problem is that based only on the presence of cash and drug residue on a RENTAL car, he was assumed to be a drug dealer.

I concede the point that K9 indication of the rental vehicle can be discounted, but what about the indication on the currency?

My problem is that based only on the presence of cash and drug residue on a RENTAL car, he was assumed to be a drug dealer.

What is the Trooper to do one the side of the road? Release him, then do an investigation? Give the guy a promise to appear and order him to bring the money in, if after the fact, it was discovered to be drug money? Again...If it quacks like a duck and walks like a duck...

It's very frustrating for me, because while you may not agree with me, I get the feeling you don't even see where I am coming from on this...and I'd like you to *get it*, even if you think I'm wrong...

I do understand where you are coming from, but you seem to be looking at the situation with "rose coloured glasses". You seem to want to be the devils advocate or you have a very liberal view towards crime and punishment.


If Mr. Gonzalez had followed the law or even if he had told the truth, the Trooper may have taken another route. Mr Gonzalez had every indicator in the book for a courier and I do not believe the Trooper did anything wrong. I would have done the same thing.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Beyond that, it seems to me that had he been able to put together a reasonable chain of custody for the money, he may have gotten it back.  I wonder how many of the people who "chipped in" came to the court case to say "hey, I put in X amount of that sum". 
Plus, maybe I read the article wrong, but what did the guy get convicted of?  Didn't they just keep the money? 
Gunnar, even if we run with your presumption of innocence, would it not make more sense that if dude was worried about corrupt police he would have something other than cash on his person? 
Yes, in a free country you can be stupid.  However, I don't thing that right extends to law enforcement. 

In any case, we were ripping on judges here in Canada.  If anybody is really interested in drug and cash interdiction stats, I'm sure WR can toss them out ad infinatum.

 

[Gunnar]

Here's the problem:

I do not believe the Trooper did anything wrong. I would have done the same thing.

To clarify my point...the trooper is fine (previous comments implied he wasn't...but it was the court that I have issue with).  I'm not nuts about the legal decision, but the decision to bring him in was a good one.  And you're right, someone saying "yeah,  I chipped in" to the court goes a long way to establishing innocence.

We are off track here tho...suffice to say that in my rosy world, I can have 10,000 cash in my possession, and while you might understandably wonder why I have so much cash in hand, convicting me of dealing drugs because I can't show where it came from is a bit of a stretch.  Maybe I found it.  Maybe I pulled it outta the basement....but there is reasonable doubt about where it came from, and I expect to get the benefit thereof.  Owning money isn't illegal.  Maybe I don't trust banks.

I'm not saying that any of these puff cases need to be true for this conviction/confiscation to be unjustified.  I'm saying that the law has to allow for this kind of stupidity to be true, and err more on the side of caution.

Anyway, we've had this kind of argument before, and I never felt like it was finished.  I still don't agree with you necessarily, but I feel better.  ;P

As far as the judges here in Canada, I figured that argument was over when the court transcript was pulled out.  They suck.

Paracowboy, whatever happened to the ditch?  Or is it full now?

 

[mpitts]

Got this sent to me, thought it would fit quite nicely into this thread.  The video is about 5 minutes once you click the link.

The attached link is a commentary regarding the media's portrayal of a chase in which an officer was shot and killed. 

San Francisco PD speaks out.

the following media release issued on 8/8/2006 at
3:22 PM by the San Francisco Police Officers Association President. 

http://mfile.akamai.com/12948/wmv/vod.ibsys.com/2006/0728/9591734.300k.asx

 

[Quag]

All these examples are terribly sad.

However, anyone can pull extreme examples.  All of these examples are bound to happen, as no justice system is perfect.  Extremities happen.

While it is high, Canada's recidivism rates are comparable internationally.  

Yes the justice sytem needs work, yes the judges should have a more careful quality control regulation and yes citizens are p'd off at the judiciary.

We know this.  

But to classify all judges as the thing that is wrong in Canada is terribly ignorant.  It would be a hasty generalization and a fallacy of insufficient statistics
.

 

[TCBF]

A finger in jail cannot pull a trigger on the street.  $76,000* a year for wharehousing, or social costs of $213,000* a year if they are on the lose.  You do the math.

*No cite available. I cannot substantiate, but it makes my point.

 

[paracowboy]

I can always dig another ditch. I got no problem spending all my time diggin' ditches and fillin' 'em with criminals of any stripe, along with their enablers in our wonderful "Legal" system, and the fools who would rather look to the 'Rights' of the criminal than the Rights of their victims.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

All these examples are terribly sad.
However, anyone can pull extreme examples.  All of these examples are bound to happen, as no justice system is perfect.  Extremities happen.

Thanks for the lip service remorse.  :
Quag, what you aren't getting is that these are not outstanding examples.  This goes on every day, in every court in Canada.  Some things are just more noticeable. 
And to call it "imperfect" is like calling Hurricane Katrina "crappy weather". 

While it is high, Canada's recidivism rates are comparable internationally.  

Why do you book types do that?  WTF does anything in Canada have to do with anywhere else?  All that proves is that there are a great many screwed up countries all over.  I would like to compare us and strive towards something like Singapore, or Hong Kong.  "Ewww, but they are police states..."  Yup.  But they are safe as all hell. 

Yes the justice system needs work, yes the judges should have a more careful quality control regulation and yes citizens are p'd off at the judiciary.
We know this.  

Really?  I am pretty confident that Joe and Jane Citizen have no idea how bad it is.  Look how ramped up the country got about Holmolka, and in the legal scheme of things that one wasn't even that hard for the judges to come up with.  It fits the socialist agenda in this country to keep people in the dark about how bad it has gotten. 

But to classify all judges as the thing that is wrong in Canada is terribly ignorant.  It would be a hasty generalization and a fallacy of insufficient statistics.

Hmm, as opposed to your well thought out "judges are good just cuz" argument. 
Bad guys on the streets--judges fault.
Civil allowances that encourage people to sue for the stupidest things--judges fault.
Welfare and Disability system that lets people suck the State teat ad infinatum--judges fault.
Terrorism law that is potentially being de-fanged and lets killers out on the street--judges fault (potentially)
Immigration laws that allow illegals and criminals to linger here well after they have been rejected and get to stay anyway--judges fault. 
Natives that have an insane sense of entitlement from preferred treatment--judges fault
Organized crime that can operate almost without reproach because of criminal assest seizure restrictions--judges fault.

I guess I could go on, but it is 0500 and I am too tired to keep on.  I think I got my point across. 
You have fun in your rosy little world, Quag.  Some day, if reality slam dunks you into the pavement, you may "get it".  Perhaps all the books will break your fall. 

 

[Cloud Cover]

Here ya' go:

Crown appeals sentence in cop assault
Last Updated: Monday, September 11, 2006 | 12:08 PM AT
CBC News
The Crown will appeal the suspended sentence given to a man for beating a Halifax police officer unconscious last year.

Charles Marlowe Marsman pleaded guilty in March to a charge of aggravated assault against Const. Sean Martin.

The Halifax Regional Police officer was beaten on Feb. 7, 2005, while trying to arrest Marsman for illegal possession of liquor on Gottingen Street, in central Halifax.

The Crown asked for three years in jail, but last month a Nova Scotia Supreme Court justice handed Marsman a suspended sentence.

Martin Herschorn, director of public prosecutions, said Monday the sentence sends the wrong message.

"The Crown believes the seriousness of the offence warrants a custodial sentence that sends a strong message this conduct will not be tolerated," Herschorn said in a release.

Herschorn said the Crown is appealing the sentence on the grounds that it might not prevent similar incidents and that it's inadequate considering the nature of the attack.

The Municipal Association of Police Personnel had spoken out against the non-custodial sentence, saying it would not curb violent attacks on officers.

 

[Quag]

Hmm, as opposed to your well thought out "judges are good just cuz" argument. 
Bad guys on the streets--judges fault.
Civil allowances that encourage people to sue for the stupidest things--judges fault.
Welfare and Disability system that lets people suck the State teat ad infinatum--judges fault.
Terrorism law that is potentially being de-fanged and lets killers out on the street--judges fault (potentially)
Immigration laws that allow illegals and criminals to linger here well after they have been rejected and get to stay anyway--judges fault. 
Natives that have an insane sense of entitlement from preferred treatment--judges fault
Organized crime that can operate almost without reproach because of criminal assest seizure restrictions--judges fault.

I guess I could go on, but it is 0500 and I am too tired to keep on.  I think I got my point across. 
You have fun in your rosy little world, Quag.  Some day, if reality slam dunks you into the pavement, you may "get it".  Perhaps all the books will break your fall. 

.

Most of your arguments are very wrong.  For the most part, these are shortcomings and flaws in the judiciary as a whole, NOT the judges.

Edit:  I guess we are going to agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Most of your arguments are very wrong.  For the most part, these are shortcomings and flaws in the judiciary as a whole, NOT the judges.

Edit:  I guess we are going to agree to disagree, and leave it at that.

Okay, first I have yet to see you show anything here as wrong.  How can you argue with real life facts?  As for the shortcomings and flaws they are created, caused, perpetuated and entrenched BY THE JUDGES!!  They answer to NO ONE in any real, meaningful way.  You provide me with one example of a judge being censured for being too hard on a person.  They make all of the decisions in cases.  The make all of the rulings on evidence.  They decide on what sentence to hand out.  How in Gods green earth are the faults of the legal system NOT the judges fault?  ???

 

[Inspir]

System a joke: Cop

http://calsun.canoe.ca/News/Alberta/2006/09/13/1833909-sun.html

A Calgary cop said he has lost faith in the legal system after a justice of the peace released a man with 65 convictions back into the public pending his next court appearance.

Const. Shaun Horne is now facing internal charges of discreditable conduct after he called justice of the peace Kristine Robidoux's decision to release the man, with conditions, "a mockery and a joke" and swore at the suspect in court last December.

Although the suspect, Albert Walter Brazill, was only facing a charge of meal fraud, he has 65 convictions for offences ranging from kidnapping, extortion and armed robbery, to forcible confinement, drugs and theft and was wanted on warrants across the country.

Horne, who has worked as a presenting officer for the arrest processing unit for 4 1/2 years and for the Calgary Police Service for almost 25 years, said the release of Brazill was the final straw in a long list of complaints against several JPs.

"It's a farce," he said.

"The justice system for whatever reason doesn't see him as a danger to this community and if that's the case, then no one should be incarcerated.

"If he shouldn't be locked up, then who should?"


To emphasize his point, Horne said Brazill failed to show for his next court appearance in January, after Robidoux released him.

Robidoux said she is not going to defend her decision to the media.

"It would be inappropriate for me to comment while the matter remains before the courts," she said.

Horne has since been moved from the APU to another district and is awaiting a disciplinary hearing that's scheduled to begin Oct. 24.

If found guilty, he could lose his job.

Horne is planning to retire in January, but said even without his pending retirement, his reaction would have been the same.

"I shouldn't have said what I said, but do I regret it? No," he said.

"You can have a professional system if you have all parties doing their job but if you have a missing link, it makes it difficult to maintain composure... What is happening is wrong and it takes away any incentive to do your job."

SARAH KENNEDY

Can you blame the officer? I would probally lose my composure as well.

 

[AJFitzpatrick]

What is meal fraud? or should it be mail fraud? Since it concerns the appropriateness of the sentence it seems relevant to ask.

 

[MPIKE]

meal fraud= dine 'n dash..

Basically, you accept the service with no intent to pay for it, hence the offence of fraud..

 

[zipperhead_cop]

Can you blame the officer? I would probally lose my composure as well.

I would have liked to see what they would do with it if he has not sworn at the "victim".  It was probably the profanity that he got ripped for.  Stand by to see the media forget about this, even after the case is settled.