• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

NYPD officer plows into crowd of George Floyd protesters in Brooklyn

OldFatGuy said:
You missed the point. A prosecutor cannot use that history during a trial, only at a subsequent sentencing hearing. This ain't Canada.
Click to expand...

And you missed the point that I was NOT the prosecutor.
 
OldFatGuy said:
I understood you were the defendant's attorney. I stated so in one of my response to you.
Click to expand...

Then why do you keep raising "But the Prosecution cannot use a Defendant's criminal record."?
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Then why do you keep raising "But the Prosecution cannot use a Defendant's criminal record."?
Click to expand...

Because when you first raised the issue you did not make clear you has specific use in a defense. So I remind you, it is only a tool for a defense, when apropos.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Because when you first raised the issue you did not make clear you has specific use in a defense. So I remind you, it is only a tool for a defense, when apropos.
Click to expand...

I apologize for the lack of clarity.

Indeed, it is only effective is a small number of cases (but it is sure fun to run when it is appropriate [since the Prosecution knows full well what you are doing and there really isn't anything that they can do to derail it - it's either going to work or it isn't going to have any effect whatsoever]).

It's almost as much fun as winning a case because the Plaintiff couldn't count the number of bridges the ship had had to go under, sued in the wrong court, and was past the limitation period for filing in the correct court when their case was dismissed by the court that they had brought it in for "want of jurisdiction" or stomping the "foremost national expert" into the ground with a case based on a 400 year old law that they didn't even know existed.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
I apologize for the lack of clarity.

....or stomping the "foremost national expert" into the ground with a case based on a 400 year old law that they didn't even know existed.
Click to expand...

No apology necessary.

And again this is not Canada. No prosecutorial case was ever defeated by an obscure 400 year old law. No judge would permit its use, plus, and I don't speak of other states, theoretically the NYS legislatures is obligated to rewrite the state criminal code every 5 years, eliminating archaic laws. Somewhat successful, somewhat not. You still can't lawfully milk a cow on Sunday, even if the cow is painfully in need of unloading.
 
OldFatGuy said:
No apology necessary.

And again this is not Canada. No prosecutorial case was ever defeated by an obscure 400 year old law.
Click to expand...

It was NOT a "prosecutorial" case, it was a civil case. AND the case was an appeal case. AND the cited reference was 100% on point in defining a point of law that had never been overturned (and had been frequently upheld).

OldFatGuy said:
No judge would permit its use, plus, and I don't speak of other states, theoretically the NYS legislatures is obligated to rewrite the state criminal code every 5 years, eliminating archaic laws.
Click to expand...

Again, NOT a "criminal" case.

OldFatGuy said:
Somewhat successful, somewhat not. You still can't lawfully milk a cow on Sunday, even if the cow is painfully in need of unloading.
Click to expand...

Quite right, an inappropriate defence simply doesn't work. Having the judge decide that it was perfectly reasonable for a person not to have a (third party verified) alibi when the time referred to was 0800 on a Saturday morning that the person stated that they were at home having breakfast with their wife simply takes verbal skills. (Admittedly the fact that the rest of the prosecution evidence was about as "sound" as having the accused (who was "Black") "identified" in a photo lineup that included 11 pictures of "White" people and one picture of a "Black" person didn't hurt.)
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
(Admittedly the fact that the rest of the prosecution evidence was about as "sound" as having the accused (who was "Black") "identified" in a photo lineup that included 11 pictures of "White" people and one picture of a "Black" person didn't hurt.)
Click to expand...

Civil cases here do not have prosecution evidence, they have opposing litigants presenting evidence and opposing "expert" opinions.

That's always how I presented photo arrays of possible suspects. Except one white punk and and eleven black police officers in mufti. Inevitably the "witness" would select one of the officers. At times, one long retired and dead for years well before.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Civil cases here do not have prosecution evidence, they have opposing litigants presenting evidence and opposing "expert" opinions.
Click to expand...

Now THERE'S a blinding flash of the obvious. (BTW, has it finally dawned on you that I did BOTH civil and criminal law?)

OldFatGuy said:
That's always how I presented photo arrays of possible suspects. Except one white punk and and eleven black police officers in mufti. Inevitably the "witness" would select one of the officers. At times, one long retired and dead for years well before.
Click to expand...

I appreciate the fact that the courts in some jurisdictions get pretty sloppy (and that some defence lawyers are total incompetents), however, if the "unique" individual in the photo lineup ended up being the one selected, I don't know of a single (rational) judge (who actually applied the law) that wouldn't chuck the "identification" immediately upon it being challenged. In fact, the lawyer who was defending the fellow who was the "unique" one in the photo lineup told me that he had quite a bit of fun totally demolishing the police officer's testimony after the police officer claimed that the ONLY reason why they had originally identified the Accused was because the victim had "picked them out of a photo lineup".

I don't have any issues with police officers who actually do their jobs properly, but I had (and still have) quite a few with those who "tailor" the evidence.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
Now THERE'S a blinding flash of the obvious. (BTW, has it finally dawned on you that I did BOTH civil and criminal law?)
Click to expand...

Yet you keep speaking of a prosecutor during a civil case?

TU Curmudgeon said:
I appreciate the fact that the courts in some jurisdictions get pretty sloppy (and that some defence lawyers are total incompetents), however, if the "unique" individual in the photo lineup ended up being the one selected, I don't know of a single (rational) judge (who actually applied the law) that wouldn't chuck the "identification" immediately upon it being challenged. In fact, the lawyer who was defending the fellow who was the "unique" one in the photo lineup told me that he had quite a bit of fun totally demolishing the police officer's testimony after the police officer claimed that the ONLY reason why they had originally identified the Accused was because the victim had "picked them out of a photo lineup".

I don't have any issues with police officers who actually do their jobs properly, but I had (and still have) quite a few with those who "tailor" the evidence.
Click to expand...

More and more, this does not sound like a litigating civil case. There is no defense in civil litigation. Only litigating plaintiffs.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Yet you keep speaking of a prosecutor during a civil case?

More and more, this does not sound like a litigating civil case. There is no defense in civil litigation. Only litigating plaintiffs.
Click to expand...

You do know that, in a civil case, one party advances a claim and the other party defends against it - don't you?
 
I wonder if that officer trapped in that car expected to die at the hands of that mob.
 
eman623 said:
I wonder if that officer trapped in that car expected to die at the hands of that mob.
Click to expand...

If you want to bet $10.00 that that will NOT be what they say at the official inquiry I'll cover that bet. To save time and expense, simply send the money I win from you to the folks who run DP to help defray expenses.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
If you want to bet $10.00 that that will NOT be what they say at the official inquiry I'll cover that bet. To save time and expense, simply send the money I win from you to the folks who run DP to help defray expenses.
Click to expand...

Sorry, wtf are you talking about. A threatening mob surrounded a cop car and you want me to send $10 to DP management?

That was a ****-scary situation. I'm glad no one got hurt.

I hope no one catches Covid-19. Those protesters were clearly not socially distancing.
 
Last edited:
eman623 said:
Sorry, wtf are you talking about.
Click to expand...

The police defence line is ALWAYS going to be that the officer in question "honestly believed that the purported 'victim' posed an immediate threat of death or bodily harm to the officer and/or to the 'innocent bystanders' in the immediate area". That defence line is going to be used REGARDLESS of any objective facts which would contradict the "purported 'victim' posing an immediate threat of death or bodily harm to the officer and/or to the 'innocent bystanders' in the immediate area".

eman623 said:
A threatening mob surrounded a cop car and you want me to send $10 to DP management?
Click to expand...

Only if you want to bet that the police officer's position at the internal inquiry WILL NOT BE that they "honestly believed that the purported 'victim' posed an immediate threat of death or bodily harm to the officer and/or to the 'innocent bystanders' in the immediate area".

eman623 said:
That was a ****-scary situation.
Click to expand...

Less scary for someone who is in full possession of their facilities and who is trained to deal with similar situations.

eman623 said:
I'm glad no one got hurt.
Click to expand...

Me too. However that didn't appear to be a consideration of the police officer who was driving the car at the time that they used it as a bulldozer (seemingly regardless of the possibility that they might actually run over the people who couldn't get out of the way of the car).

eman623 said:
I hope no one catches Covid-19.
Click to expand...

Me too.

eman623 said:
Those protesters were clearly not socially distancing.
Click to expand...

Yep.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
The police defence line is ALWAYS going to be that the officer in question "honestly believed that the purported 'victim' posed an immediate threat of death or bodily harm to the officer and/or to the 'innocent bystanders' in the immediate area". That defence line is going to be used REGARDLESS of any objective facts which would contradict the "purported 'victim' posing an immediate threat of death or bodily harm to the officer and/or to the 'innocent bystanders' in the immediate area".



Only if you want to bet that the police officer's position at the internal inquiry WILL NOT BE that they "honestly believed that the purported 'victim' posed an immediate threat of death or bodily harm to the officer and/or to the 'innocent bystanders' in the immediate area".



Less scary for someone who is in full possession of their facilities and who is trained to deal with similar situations.



Me too. However that didn't appear to be a consideration of the police officer who was driving the car at the time that they used it as a bulldozer (seemingly regardless of the possibility that they might actually run over the people who couldn't get out of the way of the car).



Me too.



Yep.
Click to expand...

Wow. Nice word blizzard.

Calling those people innocent bystanders, let alone "protesters" as the OP does, seems generous to me. Rioters and "angry mob bent on doing harm" seems more apropos.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
You do know that, in a civil case, one party advances a claim and the other party defends against it - don't you?
Click to expand...

Sometimes. Not always. Both parties can advance claims. Neither may advance a claim, ie adjudication of a gore (each party desires the other to take responsibility for the land in question), expiration of a licensed encroachment, rejection of governmental advances of adverse possession, and so forth.
 
eman623 said:
Wow. Nice word blizzard.

Calling those people innocent bystanders, let alone "protesters" as the OP does, seems generous to me. Rioters and "angry mob bent on doing harm" seems more apropos.
Click to expand...

Try actually reading for comprehension.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Sometimes. Not always. Both parties can advance claims. Neither may advance a claim, ie adjudication of a gore (each party desires the other to take responsibility for the land in question), expiration of a licensed encroachment, rejection of governmental advances of adverse possession, and so forth.
Click to expand...

If neither party is advancing a claim the courts will toss the case out immediately. In any court case, one side always wants something that the other side doesn't want them to have.
 
TU Curmudgeon said:
If neither party is advancing a claim the courts will toss the case out immediately. In any court case, one side always wants something that the other side doesn't want them to have.
Click to expand...

Not all cases are about claims as I explained. A notorious case in NYC involved a six inch gore between two assembled properties for construction of major buildings. Each wanted the other to take possession. 6"x150' for 40+ stories translated as millions$ in taxes over the subsequent decades. The cost of redrawing, resubmitting revised building plans for approval, and time delays represented additional costs in the millions. Nominally, a clerk in the NYC Tax Assessment office would calculate the land ownership to fit the city tax maps to one of the adjacent owners, regardless of deeds and chains of title. There were similar law actions between owners and city government, unprecedented by two owners. In the end, the judge ruled title would lie in the city, the gore would function as an air shaft between the two building to be built and the two owners would be obligated to share a method and cost for keeping it clean. Eventually the two decided to fill the gore with cement, approved by the Dept. of Buildings. Neither were ever taxed for possession and or use of the gore. This was a case where neither side wanted anything from the other. It was a case of avoidance by both parties.
 
OldFatGuy said:
Not all cases are about claims as I explained. A notorious case in NYC involved a six inch gore between two assembled properties for construction of major buildings. Each wanted the other to take possession. 6"x150' for 40+ stories translated as millions$ in taxes over the subsequent decades. The cost of redrawing, resubmitting revised building plans for approval, and time delays represented additional costs in the millions. Nominally, a clerk in the NYC Tax Assessment office would calculate the land ownership to fit the city tax maps to one of the adjacent owners, regardless of deeds and chains of title. There were similar law actions between owners and city government, unprecedented by two owners. In the end, the judge ruled title would lie in the city, the gore would function as an air shaft between the two building to be built and the two owners would be obligated to share a method and cost for keeping it clean. Eventually the two decided to fill the gore with cement, approved by the Dept. of Buildings. Neither were ever taxed for possession and or use of the gore. This was a case where neither side wanted anything from the other. It was a case of avoidance by both parties.
Click to expand...

Actually that was a case where BOTH sides wanted something from the other and that thing was "to be relieved of a tax liability". Sometimes being relieved of a negative asset IS a gain.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom