QuoteWhite cop charged with murder in death of unarmed black man
By Joe Tacopino
..
April 7, 2015 | 7:01pm
A white South Carolina cop was charged with murder Tuesday after a shocking video showed him shooting a black man in the back as the unarmed victim ran from him, authorities said.
Officer Michael Thomas Slager, 33, was arrested after officials saw the video of him shooting 50-year-old Walter Lamer Scott Saturday following a traffic stop gone bad.
"When you're wrong, you're wrong," North Charleston Mayor Keith Summey said.
"If you make a bad decision, I don't care if you're behind the shield or just a citizen on the street, you have to live by that decision."
The video of the shooting — released by the Scott family's attorney Tuesday — shows the officer firing multiple shots into Scott's back as the victim was fleeing.
Scott falls to the ground about 20 feet from officer, who then slowly approaches him — and puts him in handcuffs.
"Shots fired and the subject is down. He took my Taser," Slager radios in moments after the shooting.
The officer then jogs back to the spot where he opened fire. He then picks up the Taser and drops it next to Scott's body.
Of the eight bullets the officer fired, five struck Scott, four in the back, and one in the ear.
The damning video was taken apparently by a passer-by, whose identity has not been revealed.
Scott, a father of four and a Coast Guard veteran, had been pulled over for a minor traffic violation when the situation took a deadly turn.
Slager's attorney initially told Tampa, Fla., TV station WFLA that the officer was being overpowered by Scott, and the cop fired because he felt threatened.
But after the video surfaced, the lawyer, David Aylor, of Charleston, said he would no longer represent Slager and called the shooting a "terrible tragedy that has impacted our community."
The attorney for the Scotts said Tuesday that they are "grateful" to the man who came forward with the video.
"There is nothing that can bring their son and brother back," said the lawyer, L. Chris Stewart, of Atlanta. "But they are relieved that charges were filed."
The lawyer said Scott may have tried to run because he owed child support, which can get someone sent to jail in South Carolina until it's paid.
The shooting took place in the wake of cases in Ferguson, Mo., and Staten Island in which black men died in confrontations with white officers, incidents that have sparked a national debate about police brutality.
North Charleston Police Chief Eddie Driggers said at a press conference that he was dumbfounded by the video revelations.
"I have been around this police department a long time and all the officers on this force, the men and women, are like my children," he said. "So you tell me how a father would react seeing his child do something. I'll let you answer that yourself."
http://nypost.com/2015/04/07/cop-charged-with-murder-of-motorist-after-jarring-video-surfaces/
Wow, when your attorney drops your case in disgust, you know you have done wrong.
Keep it to the killer cop megathread, please.
Cop kills black man has become too vague for its own thread.
Quote from: Liep on April 08, 2015, 03:45:21 AM
Keep it to the killer cop megathread, please.
:lol:
By the way, what happened to CdM?
You'd have to ask him.
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2015, 03:30:52 AM
Wow, when your attorney drops your case in disgust, you know you have done wrong.
It gets filed under "Even Evil has standards". :)
Or, less facetiously, don't appreciate their clients lying to them--it just makes their job harder.
Mashes up a bunch of articles written before the video became avaliable as an example of showing how this kind of thing is often swept under the rug by the media which just regurgitates what the police tell them.
If you want to see all the sources this was made from, you can check out all the embedded links here.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/08/walter-scott-shooting-without-video_n_7024404.html
QuoteThis article is written as if the alleged murder of Walter Scott had not been captured on video that was made public Tuesday by The New York Times and other outlets.
A North Charleston police officer was forced to use his service weapon Saturday during a scuffle with a suspect who tried to overpower him and seize the officer's Taser, authorities said.
The man, who has a history of violence and a long arrest record, died on the scene as a result of the encounter, despite officers performing CPR and delivering first aid, according to police reports.
The shooting was the 11th this year by a South Carolina police officer. The State Law Enforcement Division has begun an investigation into the incident.
Police identified the officer involved as Patrolman 1st Class Michael Thomas Slager and the suspect as Walter Lamar Scott, 50, of Meadowlawn Drive in West Ashley. Slager, 33, served honorably in the military before joining the North Charleston Police Department more than five years ago. He has never been disciplined during his time on the force, his attorney said.
The incident occurred behind a pawn shop on Craig Street and Remount Road. Slager initially pulled Scott over for a broken taillight. During the stop, police and witnesses say Scott fled the vehicle on foot. When Slager caught up with him a short distance from the street, Scott reportedly attempted to overpower Slager. Police say that during the struggle, the man gained control of the Taser and attempted to use it against the officer.
It was during that scuffle that the officer fired his service weapon, fatally wounding Scott.
"Shots fired, and the subject is down. He took my Taser," Slager radioed immediately following the shooting.
Slager "felt threatened and reached for his department-issued firearm and fired his weapon," his attorney said in a statement on Sunday. "I believe once the community hears all the facts of this shooting, they'll have a better understanding of the circumstances surrounding this investigation."
Slager's attorney maintained that the officer believed he properly followed all procedures and policies before resorting to deadly force.
"This is part of the job that no one likes and wishes would never happen," Police Chief Eddie Driggers said, according to a release. "This type of situation is unfortunate and difficult for everyone. We are confident that SLED will conduct a complete and thorough investigation into the incident and provide their findings to all concerned."
A previous accusation that Slager assaulted a burglary victim was found to be without merit. In that case, it was determined that the officer had been within his rights to use force to defend himself after a man tried to overpower him.
Scott had a lengthy rap sheet extending back to at least 1987, when he was arrested on a charge of assault and battery. In 1991, he was convicted of possession of a bludgeon. He also had a history of arrests related to contempt of court charges for failing to pay child support, and in 2008 was convicted of driving under suspension and having an open alcohol container in his car.
Samuel Scott, a 55-year-old man who identified himself as Scott's cousin, said he was shocked by the news.
"He wasn't no criminal. He wasn't young and in the streets. He was a grown man working hard to take care of his family," he told the Charleston Post and Courier of his cousin. "He's not a violent guy -- never seen him argue with anybody. I just can't see it."
Saturday's encounter bears similarities to the shooting death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, which kicked off a national conversation about the use of force by police. Authorities there ultimately determined that Brown had attempted to overpower Officer Darren Wilson and run before turning back and charging the officer, who was forced to deploy his service weapon in the encounter.
Slager was placed on administrative duty, pending the outcome of the state investigation.
This article relies entirely on local news reports, which sourced their version of events to information from police, the attorney for the officer, "witnesses" and police statements. Many of those claims turned out to be lies. Slager has been charged with murder. Whenever possible, this article pulls verbatim from local news reports.
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2015, 03:51:07 AM
Quote from: Liep on April 08, 2015, 03:45:21 AM
Keep it to the killer cop megathread, please.
:lol:
By the way, what happened to CdM?
He's tired of your bullshit.
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2015, 06:49:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2015, 03:51:07 AM
Quote from: Liep on April 08, 2015, 03:45:21 AM
Keep it to the killer cop megathread, please.
:lol:
By the way, what happened to CdM?
He's tired of your bullshit.
I thought we were not going to discuss his reason for leaving outside TBR :mad:
Mcnutty left? :(
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2015, 07:34:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2015, 06:49:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2015, 03:51:07 AM
Quote from: Liep on April 08, 2015, 03:45:21 AM
Keep it to the killer cop megathread, please.
:lol:
By the way, what happened to CdM?
He's tired of your bullshit.
I thought we were not going to discuss his reason for leaving outside TBR :mad:
I ain't in the back room.
Small funny thing
"Slager" means "butcher" in Dutch so seems appropiate as family name for this cop :D
Heh, that's funny. IIRC butcher is "schlechter" in German, or at least the funny dialect of German I know.
Did anyone ever see "The Devil's Advocate"? Some French attorney defending Pol Pot and the Khmer Rougue.
You can always get someone to defend you, no matter what despicable person you are.
Quote from: Norgy on April 09, 2015, 08:10:12 AM
Did anyone ever see "The Devil's Advocate"? Some French attorney defending Pol Pot and the Khmer Rougue.
You can always get someone to defend you, no matter what despicable person you are.
Lawyers gotta eat.
AmScip and his friends on Facebook seem to believe the lawyer is a scum for dropping the client. :P
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2015, 11:14:22 PM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 08, 2015, 07:34:11 PM
Quote from: Razgovory on April 08, 2015, 06:49:06 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 08, 2015, 03:51:07 AM
Quote from: Liep on April 08, 2015, 03:45:21 AM
Keep it to the killer cop megathread, please.
:lol:
By the way, what happened to CdM?
He's tired of your bullshit.
I thought we were not going to discuss his reason for leaving outside TBR :mad:
I ain't in the back room.
You also are not able to play along very well either.
Quote from: Martinus on April 09, 2015, 08:15:56 AM
AmScip and his friends on Facebook seem to believe the lawyer is a scum for dropping the client. :P
Scip's friends think people are scum for being born black. He is in Mississippi.
Wasn't AmScip's objection more that the lawyer commented on his opinions of his client and not that he dropped the case?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/04/north-charleston-shooting-americas-police-abuse-epidemic-116838.html#ixzz3WsrDRxUa
Quote
It was so automatic—so chillingly casual. That was the most frightening thing, say some criminal-justice experts, about Michael Slager's actions in North Charleston, S.C., last week. It's all there on the videotape: The victim, Walter Scott, starts to run, slowly. Without a pause, Officer Slager raises his gun and begins to fire at Scott's back. One shot. Two. Three. Four. Five. Six. Seven. Slager pauses briefly, then squeezes off the eighth shot. Scott crumples to the ground. Slager radios: "Shots fired and the subject is down. He took my Taser." Then Slager walks deliberately over to the mortally wounded man lying on his face, cuffs Scott's hands behind him but does not administer any aid. Equally casually, Slager drops what appears to be his Taser next to Scott's body.
The North Charleston video, which was replayed constantly on TV and video this week, put sharp new pressure on the federal government to increase its scrutiny of what many experts believe is endemic police abuse across the country, especially in black communities—an unseen decades-old abuse that is only now being rendered visible by a new generation of citizen-documentarians, average people equipped with cell-phone cameras.
"The secret is out now. We've pulled back the curtain," says Bowling Green University Professor Philip Stinson, author of Police Integrity Lost: A Study of Law Enforcement Officers Arrested, a recent survey that found that, apparently thanks to decades of inbred collaboration between local police departments, prosecutors and court systems—all of which tend to benefit mutually from arrest fees, ticket fines and so forth—almost no police are ever convicted of wrongly killing anyone or other abuses. By canvassing news databases, Stinson found only 59 arrests of on-duty police on charges of aggravated assault with a gun recorded in the entire country in the seven years from 2005 to 2011. Just 13 of those resulted in convictions.
"What's so striking is the casualness of it," says David Harris, a criminal law professor at the University of Pittsburgh and a leading authority on racial profiling, of the North Charleston incident. "For the officer it's literally a walk in the park. It's 'Of course I'm gonna shoot him.' He doesn't pause, he doesn't make any hesitation. What it says to me is that in the culture of that police department this is no problem. And everybody knows that without that video, that officer would be out driving around in a patrol car right now. The ongoing assumption, without that piece of film, would be 'He threatened me and I had to defend myself.'"
The cases seem to keep multiplying: Ferguson, Staten Island, Cleveland, Las Vegas, Albuquerque, and more. Vanita Gupta, acting head of the Justice Department's civil rights division, told POLITICO on Thursday that the DOJ does not yet plan an investigation into whether there is a pattern of police violence or abuse in North Charleston—as it did in Ferguson—but she says a "perfect storm" of incidents and outrage has made the relationship between law enforcement and communities "front and center in the country in the way they haven't been until recent times."
Despite more than doubling the number of its investigations into police departments over the past five fiscal years—to more than 20 nationwide now—the Department of Justice has failed to keep up with these police abuses and address them as a national problem, critics say. Typically summoned only in sporadic cases surrounded by public furor—like the shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson—almost every DOJ probe has found a systemic problem of police and court abuse of minority communities, says Alec Karakatsanis, co-founder of Equal Justice Under Law, a nonprofit civil rights law firm.
But, he asks, what about the rest of the cities in the United States? "Where has the DOJ been in uncovering this? Where have the lawyers been? Where has the legal profession been? Under Obama, the DOJ has spent $80 million per year prosecuting medical marijuana cases, and not very much on crime by police."
Indeed, out of the DOJ's nearly $26 billion budget, the Civil Rights Division was allotted just $147 million in fiscal 2015; and of that, just $12.2 million was allotted to staff working on "effective and democratically accountable policing." The Office on Violence against Women got $414 million. Drug enforcement got $2 billion. The prison system received $6.9 billion.
Only last month President Obama was in Selma, Ala., praising racial progress since the Bloody Sunday marches to Montgomery. But Sam Brooke of the Southern Law Poverty Center says that his organization found problems analogous to Ferguson's in nearby Montgomery, where police set up harassing traffic stops in black neighborhoods. Such programs, he suggests, helped Montgomery consistently report municipal traffic ticket revenues three to four times that of other cities in Alabama.
Gupta, who worked on a number of police abuse cases as an attorney at the American Civil Liberties Union before taking over as acting head of the DOJ's civil rights division six months ago, says it's simply not true that the Justice Department has been out of step. "The number of investigations into police departments under this attorney general is vastly higher than what it has been in previous years," she explains. "I think he has done more for criminal justice reform in recent years than I could have possibly hoped for ... from really reinvigorating the civil rights division to the Smart on Crime initiative, his leadership has been quite transformative."
Much of that work, she says, predates Ferguson.
Of its 20 investigations, the Justice Department has entered into 15 agreements with law enforcement agencies, including nine consent decrees, to correct abuses. Cities as varied as New Orleans, Seattle, Detroit and Albuquerque, as well as smaller municipalities like East Haven, Connecticut, and Warren, Ohio, have all agreed to consent decrees to address glaring police abuses. And under a new program started in 2011, its Office of Community Oriented Policing Services has offered technical assistance to bring police departments closer to their communities in towns and cities as far afield as Spokane, Philadelphia, St. Louis, Baltimore, Fayetteville, N.C., and Salinas, Calif., says the Justice Department's Mary Brandenberger.
Still, among the Justice Department's critics today is Gupta's former boss, ACLU executive director Anthony Romero, who says that despite the promises made early on by an African-American president and his African-American attorney general, far too little has changed. "The Department of Justice of Eric Holder came later to criminal justice reform than I would have liked," Romero says. And even when it did, announcing the Clemency Project in January 2014, it's moved very slowly in reviewing files of federal prisoners—hardly more than 20 have been released. "We're all kind of scratching our heads saying what's taking them so long," says Romero. On the contrary, the Justice Department has actually stood against early release of prisoners who have been found serving longer sentences than are warranted in other cases, he adds.
Others say Justice Department is doing the best it can with a problem that is still fundamentally a local and state issue. "They cannot be everywhere at once, and the DOJ comes in only if there is a pattern of practice or constitutional violation," says the University of Pittsburgh's Harris. "Given what they have in resources I think they do a spectacular job of finding the cases that matter the most."
The systemic police abuse and violence, driven largely by a lack of accountability, often comes in the form of draconian policies of arrests and summons in minority communities, which are used as hapless cash cows for the police and justice system. It may have been no accident that Walter Scott was initially stopped by Officer Slager for an alleged broken brake light on his car, or that after the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Mo., a federal investigation found that blacks there were being arrested, ticketed and fined into poverty.
According to a 2012 class-action lawsuit filed in Alabama, one private probation company used by 110 cities is used to extract revenue cost-free to the city—often from the poor who can't afford good legal defense. Then, when they can't pay, they're charged huge fees. Danny Evans, the attorney who filed the lawsuit, says, "What happened in Ferguson is the blueprint for what's going on in Alabama, and you have the same problem in Georgia, Florida and other states. These cities think they can turn their courts into revenue generators."
A Justice Department probe into police abuses in Newark, N.J. found that 93 percent of all police stops of citizens were unjustified, says Karakatsanis. "If that's correct, that's 80,000 crimes. All of those stops are assaults committed by police."
Police abuse is a problem that's often politically complicated for the Justice Department to highlight, Karakatsanis says, because of its inherent conflict of interest in working with state and local law enforcement. As he says, "To view DOJ as a beacon of accountability is not correct. They depend on these cops to make arrests. All these local cops are part of DOJ-led federal task forces."
Reliable data on police abuse is almost impossible to come by, and here too the federal government has failed to step up. In response to public outrage after the 1991 Rodney King beating, Congress passed a 1994 law that mandated an annual report on police violence. At the Justice Department's request, the International Association of Police Chiefs (IAPC) conducted a pilot study. But according to John Firman, director of development of the IAPC, after a year the Justice Department shut it down after only 600 out of about 18,000 police departments in the country reported back. The law had no means of forcing cooperation, Firman added.
A Department of Justice spokesperson said that to comply with the 1994 law, the NIJ and Bureau of Justice Statistics later developed something called the Police Public Contact Survey, which is "designed to understand the nature and characteristics of citizen contacts with the police." But that does nothing to ascertain when police use force incorrectly, says Stinson, who adds that he developed his own national database on police arrests and convictions using Google News' search engine.
Now all of Washington may soon be forced to awaken to the issue, says the ACLU's Romero. "We've never seen a moment of criminal justice like this," he says. "We've been working on criminal justice for decades. The Miranda decision was our case. Police brutality was always a part of our experience. Now each of these incidents is a moment: Trayvon Martin. Michael Brown, South Carolina. The whole country just stops."
The "Black Lives Matter" protests that swept the nation last fall and winter underscored the resonance of these issues in many communities. And, in Washington, D.C., a new left-right coalition is already emerging over skyrocketing financial and social costs of swelling prison and jail systems.
As Romero says, "I think it's a moment where mainstream America is finally reckoning with the carnage of our criminal justice policy."
Quote from: Jaron on April 10, 2015, 12:57:49 AM
Wasn't AmScip's objection more that the lawyer commented on his opinions of his client and not that he dropped the case?
Well, some of them argued that it is impossible to tell who is right (as the video is unclear) and "let's not make it into a race issue". I also think that their bold defense of the client-attorney privilege would have been somewhat weaker in different circumstances. Especially as the case at hand is very ambiguous and the lawyer is expressly saying he will not discuss the evidence and only quotes the video (which is public) as the cause for him dropping the case.
I don't think you need to chant "death to negroes" to be racist in such cases - most racists are smart enough to dress up their prejudice in excuses.
Quote from: Valmy on April 09, 2015, 08:13:28 AM
Quote from: Norgy on April 09, 2015, 08:10:12 AM
Did anyone ever see "The Devil's Advocate"? Some French attorney defending Pol Pot and the Khmer Rougue.
You can always get someone to defend you, no matter what despicable person you are.
Lawyers gotta eat.
Jacques Vergès, the above mentioned lawyer, is almost as bad as Pol Pot. He might have helped him or the Chinese secret services in the '70s since he disappeared during that time period. Or maybe was he in Cuba helping Fidel. No definitive evidence.
He also defended Klaus Barbie, Carlos the jackal, corrupt politicians, terrorists (FLN PFLP) genocide denier. Former leftist then champagne left extraordinaire.
Great quote for Languish :
QuoteJacques Vergès: I was asked "Would you defend Hitler?" I said "I'd even defend Bush! But only if he agrees to plead guilty."
Quote from: Martinus on April 10, 2015, 02:39:51 AM
Quote from: Jaron on April 10, 2015, 12:57:49 AM
Wasn't AmScip's objection more that the lawyer commented on his opinions of his client and not that he dropped the case?
Well, some of them argued that it is impossible to tell who is right (as the video is unclear) and "let's not make it into a race issue". I also think that their bold defense of the client-attorney privilege would have been somewhat weaker in different circumstances. Especially as the case at hand is very ambiguous and the lawyer is expressly saying he will not discuss the evidence and only quotes the video (which is public) as the cause for him dropping the case.
I don't think you need to chant "death to negroes" to be racist in such cases - most racists are smart enough to dress up their prejudice in excuses.
I am not sure what you mean. Assuming the professional rules of conduct are similar in their jurisdiction when a lawyer withdraws it must be done without comment as to the reason. Simply saying he will not discuss the evidence in the case isn't an excuse for giving a reason that would in any way prejudice his client's interest.
Al Sharpton is on the scene today. That's sure to fix everything. :)
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 10, 2015, 10:34:32 AM
I am not sure what you mean. Assuming the professional rules of conduct are similar in their jurisdiction when a lawyer withdraws it must be done without comment as to the reason. Simply saying he will not discuss the evidence in the case isn't an excuse for giving a reason that would in any way prejudice his client's interest.
And in England at least even saying you quit because of the video would break the code of conduct. I think the default is to leave a client for 'professional reasons'.
Similarly I'm not going to criticise his lawyer for quitting but the guy does deserve a decent lawyer advising him.
I'll rephrase, a competent lawyer :P
The lawyer was definitely in the wrong. What was the point of saying so many things by "not saying anything"? He may have not violated the letter of ethical rules, but he sure worked hard to run roughshod over the spirit of such rules.
Quote from: Caliga on April 09, 2015, 06:49:03 AM
Heh, that's funny. IIRC butcher is "schlechter" in German, or at least the funny dialect of German I know.
Isn't it metzger? Schlechter sounds like "badder."
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 12, 2015, 07:08:38 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 10, 2015, 10:34:32 AM
I am not sure what you mean. Assuming the professional rules of conduct are similar in their jurisdiction when a lawyer withdraws it must be done without comment as to the reason. Simply saying he will not discuss the evidence in the case isn't an excuse for giving a reason that would in any way prejudice his client's interest.
And in England at least even saying you quit because of the video would break the code of conduct. I think the default is to leave a client for 'professional reasons'.
Similarly I'm not going to criticise his lawyer for quitting but the guy does deserve a decent lawyer advising him.
Why? The transparency state has already shown his guilt.
Thank God for cameras, eh, Timothy?
Quote from: Ideologue on April 12, 2015, 11:30:07 AM
Why? The transparency state has already shown his guilt.
Thank God for cameras, eh, Timothy?
Thank God we have people willing and eager to jump to conclusions. If only you were in charge, we wouldn't need those time-consuming trials, just your summary judgement and a quick hanging. Of course, most of those people would likely be innocent, but eggs and omelets, eh?
I didn't say he shouldn't have representation. I just said that the level of quality is probably irrelevant.
I suppose I was a little unnecessarily bloodthirsty.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 12, 2015, 03:01:26 PM
I didn't say he shouldn't have representation. I just said that the level of quality is probably irrelevant.
People said the same thing after the Rodney King beating.
Yeah, everyone should get an equally decent representation, but I don't see any particular reason to announce this cold-blooded murderer should get good representation than, say, it would be the case for Manson or Bundy.
By comparison, I don't see anyone in the Tsarnaev thread making similar alusions to the presumption of innocence or saying that he "deserves" a good lawyer when the jury was still out. Makes you wonder what exactly is the difference between both cases - as in both the evidence seems to be pretty damning.
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2015, 03:22:06 PM
By comparison, I don't see anyone in the Tsarnaev thread making similar alusions to the presumption of innocence or saying that he "deserves" a good lawyer when the jury was still out. Makes you wonder what exactly is the difference between both cases - as in both the evidence seems to be pretty damning.
Some salient facts that a keen legal mind and everyone else would have noticed. First, he did not deny he committed the act. His only defence was that he was a pawn. Second, his defence was vigorously pursued by his lawyer.
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2015, 03:22:06 PM
By comparison, I don't see anyone in the Tsarnaev thread making similar alusions to the presumption of innocence or saying that he "deserves" a good lawyer when the jury was still out. Makes you wonder what exactly is the difference between both cases - as in both the evidence seems to be pretty damning.
Well, since Tsarnaev admitted his guilt, no one but a Polack alleged lawyer would expect someone to argue for any presumption of innocence.
Now, thevideo evidence in this shooting appears to be quite damning, and I can't think of any circumstances that would mitigate the actions that we see there. However, I don't pretend to know everything, and so wait to hear both sides before drawing any firm conclusions.
As for the guy's lawyer abandoning the case, I can see that it could be done without any elements of unprofessional behavior: if the lawyer questioned his client on his side of the story, cautioned the client to make sure he was telling his lawyer the truth, and the client gave a story completely at odds with the video, the lawyer would be perfectly right to be totally pissed at his client, and tell the judge that he couldn't work the case due to [whatever euphemism lawyers use when they no longer trust or even like their clients]. I remember the Canadian radio dude's first reps abandoning him on pretty much those grounds.
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2015, 03:56:37 PM
As for the guy's lawyer abandoning the case, I can see that it could be done without any elements of unprofessional behavior: if the lawyer questioned his client on his side of the story, cautioned the client to make sure he was telling his lawyer the truth, and the client gave a story completely at odds with the video, the lawyer would be perfectly right to be totally pissed at his client, and tell the judge that he couldn't work the case due to [whatever euphemism lawyers use when they no longer trust or even like their clients]. I remember the Canadian radio dude's first reps abandoning him on pretty much those grounds.
Abandoning the case can be done without being unprofessional. Giving an interview to a newspaper "not discussing" why you abandoned the case at length is starting to stretch the standards.
Quote from: Ideologue on April 12, 2015, 11:30:07 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 12, 2015, 07:08:38 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 10, 2015, 10:34:32 AM
I am not sure what you mean. Assuming the professional rules of conduct are similar in their jurisdiction when a lawyer withdraws it must be done without comment as to the reason. Simply saying he will not discuss the evidence in the case isn't an excuse for giving a reason that would in any way prejudice his client's interest.
And in England at least even saying you quit because of the video would break the code of conduct. I think the default is to leave a client for 'professional reasons'.
Similarly I'm not going to criticise his lawyer for quitting but the guy does deserve a decent lawyer advising him.
Why? The transparency state has already shown his guilt.
Thank God for cameras, eh, Timothy?
I have never argued against Cops wearing cameras.
Quote from: DGuller on April 12, 2015, 04:03:47 PM
Quote from: grumbler on April 12, 2015, 03:56:37 PM
As for the guy's lawyer abandoning the case, I can see that it could be done without any elements of unprofessional behavior: if the lawyer questioned his client on his side of the story, cautioned the client to make sure he was telling his lawyer the truth, and the client gave a story completely at odds with the video, the lawyer would be perfectly right to be totally pissed at his client, and tell the judge that he couldn't work the case due to [whatever euphemism lawyers use when they no longer trust or even like their clients]. I remember the Canadian radio dude's first reps abandoning him on pretty much those grounds.
Abandoning the case can be done without being unprofessional. Giving an interview to a newspaper "not discussing" why you abandoned the case at length is starting to stretch the standards.
Agreed. "No comment" is the only professional response once you've left the case. After all, it's no longer your case and so you can't comment on it with any accuracy.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 12, 2015, 04:59:59 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on April 12, 2015, 11:30:07 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 12, 2015, 07:08:38 AM
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 10, 2015, 10:34:32 AM
I am not sure what you mean. Assuming the professional rules of conduct are similar in their jurisdiction when a lawyer withdraws it must be done without comment as to the reason. Simply saying he will not discuss the evidence in the case isn't an excuse for giving a reason that would in any way prejudice his client's interest.
And in England at least even saying you quit because of the video would break the code of conduct. I think the default is to leave a client for 'professional reasons'.
Similarly I'm not going to criticise his lawyer for quitting but the guy does deserve a decent lawyer advising him.
Why? The transparency state has already shown his guilt.
Thank God for cameras, eh, Timothy?
I have never argued against Cops wearing cameras.
We should.
Quote from: 11B4V on April 12, 2015, 05:27:31 PM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on April 12, 2015, 04:59:59 PM
I have never argued against Cops wearing cameras.
We should.
Agreed. No reason not to. The truth won't come out unless there is an impartial witness.
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2015, 03:17:17 PM
Yeah, everyone should get an equally decent representation, but I don't see any particular reason to announce this cold-blooded murderer should get good representation than, say, it would be the case for Manson or Bundy.
Manson and Bundy also deserve good representation.
Frankly I think the issue is less the high-profile cases in the news, they will normally end up with decent lawyers. The real issue is the numerous kids this man has probably arrested over his career who may not have been able to afford a good lawyer - they deserve them too.
Quote from: Sheilbh on April 12, 2015, 06:26:23 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2015, 03:17:17 PM
Yeah, everyone should get an equally decent representation, but I don't see any particular reason to announce this cold-blooded murderer should get good representation than, say, it would be the case for Manson or Bundy.
Manson and Bundy also deserve good representation.
Frankly I think the issue is less the high-profile cases in the news, they will normally end up with decent lawyers. The real issue is the numerous kids this man has probably arrested over his career who may not have been able to afford a good lawyer - they deserve them too.
Those kids got lawyers paid for by the state. Now, you can argue that PDs are not good lawyers, because, if they were, they'd be in private practice, but that's equally true of the prosecutors, so it evens out.
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2015, 03:17:17 PM
Yeah, everyone should get an equally decent representation, but I don't see any particular reason to announce this cold-blooded murderer should get good representation than, say, it would be the case for Manson or Bundy.
I sure hope he gets decent representation better than Manson or Bundy, since both Bundy and Manson represented themselves. The latter rested his defence without calling in a single witness to the stand.
Quote from: Drakken on April 12, 2015, 07:29:12 PM
I sure hope he gets decent representation better than Manson or Bundy, since both Bundy and Manson represented themselves. The latter rested his defence without calling in a single witness to the stand.
Jesus could represent himself
Quote from: PDH on April 12, 2015, 09:12:05 PM
Jesus could represent himself
He should have accepted the plea bargain.
Quote from: PDH on April 12, 2015, 09:12:05 PM
Jesus could represent himself
He sure did. He presented no defence.
He might have been the Messiah, but he was a very poor lawyer.
My point was that, since every accused deserves a decent representation, saying that is trite - so unless you intend to say it every time someone goes on trial, the question is why you would say it in this specific case. Unless you had some sort of sympathy for the accused - which I would find inexplicable in this case.
Quote from: crazy canuck on April 12, 2015, 03:43:16 PM
Quote from: Martinus on April 12, 2015, 03:22:06 PM
By comparison, I don't see anyone in the Tsarnaev thread making similar alusions to the presumption of innocence or saying that he "deserves" a good lawyer when the jury was still out. Makes you wonder what exactly is the difference between both cases - as in both the evidence seems to be pretty damning.
Some salient facts that a keen legal mind and everyone else would have noticed. First, he did not deny he committed the act. His only defence was that he was a pawn. Second, his defence was vigorously pursued by his lawyer.
How is the cop denying killing the black guy? In both cases while they deny certain elements of the case, mainly concerning the mens rea, they do not deny committing the act itself.
I don't see why you would have a horse in this race, unless you were racist.
Quote from: Martinus on April 13, 2015, 12:24:35 AM
My point was that, since every accused deserves a decent representation, saying that is trite - so unless you intend to say it every time someone goes on trial, the question is why you would say it in this specific case. Unless you had some sort of sympathy for the accused - which I would find inexplicable in this case.
:hmm: Because we have a specific issue up for discussions about this specific case?
Quote from: Martinus on April 13, 2015, 12:24:35 AM
My point was that, since every accused deserves a decent representation, saying that is trite - so unless you intend to say it every time someone goes on trial, the question is why you would say it in this specific case. Unless you had some sort of sympathy for the accused - which I would find inexplicable in this case.
So your point was responding to a strawman that you didn't even articulate? Great job!
At least you articulated your argument so poorly that no one knew it was so stupid, so it motivated some discussion. I guess it is better that if you are going to [post such stupid ideas, that you post them so inarticulately that people might confuse them for poorly-worded sense.
Quote from: Martinus on April 13, 2015, 12:28:23 AM
How is the cop denying killing the black guy? In both cases while they deny certain elements of the case, mainly concerning the mens rea, they do not deny committing the act itself.
Before you go around using legal terms like "mens rea' you should probably learn what they mean. Tsarnaev's defense doesn't deny mens rea or anything 'concerning"t it; it simply argues that, while guilty, Tsarnaev shouldn't be executed because he was so heavily influenced by his brother.
QuoteI don't see why you would have a horse in this race, unless you were racist.
What you don't see isn't evidence of anything. You are demonstrating your poor vision all the time.
Our two greatest lawyers, Marty and Grumbler, arguing over law. The world wonders what pearls of wisdom will be born of these copulating clams.
Quote from: Martinus on April 13, 2015, 12:24:35 AM
My point was that, since every accused deserves a decent representation, saying that is trite - so unless you intend to say it every time someone goes on trial, the question is why you would say it in this specific case. Unless you had some sort of sympathy for the accused - which I would find inexplicable in this case.
And the point we were discussing is the ethical conduct of the cop's former lawyer
:o raciss