Charlottesville riots

[WuDrWu]

I think the general consensus seems to be that he is going to be found not guilty. I think that's pretty crazy given the public information about the case.

Sorry I have more questions....are there lesser included options or is 1st degree murder the only option? If it is, I can't imagine he'll be found guilty. The gun found seems intriguing....is there any history about it? Seems like they could trace it to someone.

[Aargh]

Things changed more for people at the bottom end of the socio-economic scale since the '60's. It wasn't race-specific.

Segregation placed minorities at the bottom end of the socio-economic scale. Minorities have had the toughest time adjusting to societal changes since the '60's because they started with a huge disadvantage. Poor white people started with the same disadvantage, and they have probably had the same overall effects as poor minorities.

[Aargh]

Sorry I have more questions....are there lesser included options or is 1st degree murder the only option? If it is, I can't imagine he'll be found guilty. The gun found seems intriguing....is there any history about it? Seems like they could trace it to someone.

I haven't followed this closely, nor have I fact-checked what I've found about this case, but what I've found that seems to be undisputed includes the following:

Recorded: "I'm going to kill that m*****-f*****"
Cop was carrying a personal AK-47 not authorized by the PD, but evidently not denied, so he could carry that weapon.
5 shots fired through the window - all hit the suspect
No fingerprints found on gun in car, but DNA belonging to law enforcement found on it.

This could be the most obvious first-degree (pre-meditated) murder charge ever. The officer is recorded saying he's going to kill the victim before the victim is apprehended.

"I thought he was reaching for a gun" has consistently gotten LE cleared in officer-related shootings. I find it incredible that the victim had cleaned all his fingerprints and DNA from the gun found in the car if it was his. Nobudy does that. The gun found in the car looks like an obvious plant, but that may be enough to clear the officer of a 1st degree capital murder conviction. LE tends to be believed in courts, unless the defendant has the funds to hire investigators.

I think everyone agrees there are bad cops. Bad cops get believed in courtrooms and they are there more often than good cops.

[jdshock]

Do you know why this is not a jury trial? Is that always an option for a defendant, or is this case unusual?

I haven't read the rest of the thread, so I'll probably come back to everything else. This is very interesting, though.

So, it's my understanding that the judge they have gotten is retiring in the next couple of months, which maybe helps the judge avoid making a decision based on political decisions. And you don't want to be this cop in front of a jury in St Louis city. Those are the reasons why he picked a bench trial.

As far as the other question, I think it kind of depends on the state. I'm not an expert on the criminal system. I think every state would give you the right to a jury trial in this severe of a case, but I'm not sure if you get to waive it. I think at the federal level, both sides have to agree to waive it, for example. In Missouri, you can apparently waive your right to a jury trial, but I did have an ex public defender telling me that maybe the judge can deny your request to waive it, so I truthfully don't know. Edit: it sounds like the Missouri rule I'm discussing in Missouri is specific to homicide cases. You can waive a jury trial but the judge has to agree.

[jdshock]

I think it's a reasonable question. Was there more systemic racism in 1960 than now?

I think it would be really hard to argue we have more racism now than in 1960. I do find some trends disturbing. Based on recent events, it sure feels like there are more people joining racist movements, or at least movements that are probably racist, and proud of it. Even so, I think it'd be crazy to argue most minorities were better off 50 or 60 years ago.

If so, why haven't things improved? If they have improved, why not more?

I think things have improved. I don't know why they haven't improved more. Why did it take 100 years from the end of slavery to outlaw legalized segregation? Racist beliefs are really hard and slow to change.

Why is it that blacks are being incarcerated at a greater rate and increasing at a greater rate than all other races? It seems to be a case that is put forward by some liberals is that systemic racism is getting worse and not better. If so, please submit the argument.

https://www.google.com/amp/www.pewre...idens/%3famp=1

First of all, that chart is just so depressing. Second, I think that it is a really complicated issue. And this highlights one of the reasons I really favor looking at things intersectionally. I personally think poverty has a huge impact here. 1964 Civil Rights Act passes and this is a huge leap forward in the legal system for black people. I hope you'd agree that prior to this point, most important positions were occupied by white people (men, in particular). So, 1964 happens but it doesn't change the actual structure of corporations or anything. You still had all kinds of racism in actual workplaces and hiring positions at this point, so while structural racism improved, black people as a whole still struggled to get out of poverty or work their way up the corporate ladder, right?

It gradually got better over the years. But since then, we have seen a massive increase in income inequality. Wealth disparity is significantly worse than it was in 1964. It started getting worse in the 70s, and it has just skyrocketed. So, if you had a lot of black people that started out at lower income levels at the time income inequality started getting worse, then it would continue to get harder to get out of poverty.

This is a roundabout way to answer your question, which is that there are a lot of things going on here. If poverty is a predictor of family stability or incarceration rates, and a greater percentage of black people are in poverty, then you would continue to see more and more black people facing these struggles.

[jdshock]

What does ANY of this have to do with civil rights? If the causes of poverty and incarceration were racism, then why have these things gotten worse since the civil rights era? I don't think anyone would argue that we are more racist in 2017 than in 1957. Is it possible there is another cause to poverty and incarceration other than racism?

See my earlier post: even if we see less racism, income inequality has gotten significantly worse over the last few decades. If prior racism caused a disproportionate number of black people to be in poverty at the start of the increase in income inequality, then you would still expect a disproportionate number of black people to face these problems now. This is true even if there isn't a single racist hiring manager still out there or a single racist police officer still on the streets, or whatever.

[wufan]

I think it would be really hard to argue we have more racism now than in 1960. I do find some trends disturbing. Based on recent events, it sure feels like there are more people joining racist movements, or at least movements that are probably racist, and proud of it. Even so, I think it'd be crazy to argue most minorities were better off 50 or 60 years ago.



I think things have improved. I don't know why they haven't improved more. Why did it take 100 years from the end of slavery to outlaw legalized segregation? Racist beliefs are really hard and slow to change.



First of all, that chart is just so depressing. Second, I think that it is a really complicated issue. And this highlights one of the reasons I really favor looking at things intersectionally. I personally think poverty has a huge impact here. 1964 Civil Rights Act passes and this is a huge leap forward in the legal system for black people. I hope you'd agree that prior to this point, most important positions were occupied by white people (men, in particular). So, 1964 happens but it doesn't change the actual structure of corporations or anything. You still had all kinds of racism in actual workplaces and hiring positions at this point, so while structural racism improved, black people as a whole still struggled to get out of poverty or work their way up the corporate ladder, right?

It gradually got better over the years. But since then, we have seen a massive increase in income inequality. Wealth disparity is significantly worse than it was in 1964. It started getting worse in the 70s, and it has just skyrocketed. So, if you had a lot of black people that started out at lower income levels at the time income inequality started getting worse, then it would continue to get harder to get out of poverty.

This is a roundabout way to answer your question, which is that there are a lot of things going on here. If poverty is a predictor of family stability or incarceration rates, and a greater percentage of black people are in poverty, then you would continue to see more and more black people facing these struggles.

Good stuff! So income inequality would be the key predictor here as to why things are more difficult for people of color. I can absolutely agree with that. Income inequality (relative poverty) and crime go hand-in-hand. So, while we've significantly reduced actual poverty in this country, the relative poverty leads to high crime rates.

How do you end relative poverty? One way is to tax the rich. This leads to less jobs and everyone drops together. Crime rates in areas of absolute poverty is much less than that of crime rates in relative poverty. I'm obviously against this notion and would suggest better education, more jobs, and don't have children out of wedlock as a way to raise the baseline rather than lowering the bar.

[wufan]

See my earlier post: even if we see less racism, income inequality has gotten significantly worse over the last few decades. If prior racism caused a disproportionate number of black people to be in poverty at the start of the increase in income inequality, then you would still expect a disproportionate number of black people to face these problems now. This is true even if there isn't a single racist hiring manager still out there or a single racist police officer still on the streets, or whatever.

Yep! So rather than fixing racism through sub-conscious bias training, the better problem to go after would be relative poverty.

[jdshock]

Good stuff! So income inequality would be the key predictor here as to why things are more difficult for people of color. I can absolutely agree with that. Income inequality (relative poverty) and crime go hand-in-hand. So, while we've significantly reduced actual poverty in this country, the relative poverty leads to high crime rates.

Well, I don't know that I would go that far. I certainly think it's a huge impact, and I guess probably the most significant predictor. But I do still think there is significant racism. I still see black people in poverty treated very differently than I see white people in poverty being treated. I was just illustrating that racism still could have been the cause of many of these problems even if it weren't still a problem.

How do you end relative poverty? One way is to tax the rich. This leads to less jobs and everyone drops together. Crime rates in areas of absolute poverty is much less than that of crime rates in relative poverty. I'm obviously against this notion and would suggest better education, more jobs, and don't have children out of wedlock as a way to raise the baseline rather than lowering the bar.

I tend to think we're about to face massive, massive problems as a country. I've completely bought into the idea that automation is going to wipe out millions of jobs. In fact, it has already wiped out huge numbers of jobs. And there are going to always be some jobs that need done, but there is not going to be the abundance of unskilled labor positions that there is currently and that there always has been. And if income inequality is a problem now, it is going to be completely unrecognizable in 50 years. Should we continue to give such huge tax benefits for investing in capital as opposed to labor, wealth will just continue to accumulate.

I don't know what the solution is, but I have mostly begun to think it doesn't make a ton of sense to try to create a system for now. If we were just attempting to solve the problem now, I'd probably radically reform the estate tax system so that we would get rid of generational wealth. I would probably increase capital gains taxes. I would probably add more brackets for income because I just don't see why we can't have different percentages at 750k, 1.5m, 5m, etc. Why do we stop at 400k?

I think we need to think about what the system should look like in 50 years, though. I'm not convinced we will ever again have a system in which every person could actually work, which is really scary to think about. I would want a system that still has incentives in place. I would want it to have an income floor, like a universal basic income. And I would want there to be easy educational opportunities since unskilled labor is going away.

Edit to add: I've seen you mention that taxing the rich harms everyone several times in various forms (you've also mentioned tax cuts for the rich benefits everyone). That's definitely debatable. There is not a consensus on this issue. The actual data shows a relatively weak relationship between tax cuts and economic growth, and you will absolutely increase wealth disparity.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

When I started doing air conditioning work, I was making $10 an hour. My truck cost me $3,000 and I rented a house for $300 a month. I'm still doing air conditioning work. Now I'm making $17 an hour, my truck cost me $30,000 and my rent for the same size house is $1,200 a month.

Maybe a tangent, but I don't care.

People buy a $30,000 truck now with a million features they couldn't get in their $3,000 truck "back then". Everyone seems to act as if A/C, power windows, leather seats, anti-lock brakes, exponentially increased reliability, DVD players, and Bluetooth are all standards they should expect to have. Same with fancy smartphones, a million TV cable channels, etc., etc., etc.

I'm not going to state definitively that cost of living hasn't changed. I don't have all the data. But it is obvious to me that too often, any cost of living increase discussions are wildly exaggerated and refuse to account for all the luxuries that people now take for granted as owed to them.

[Jamar Howard 4 President]

Shorter version. People expect 100x more luxuries than their parents had, and wonder why it takes more income to keep up.

[Boss1786]

I haven't read the rest of the thread, so I'll probably come back to everything else. This is very interesting, though.

So, it's my understanding that the judge they have gotten is retiring in the next couple of months, which maybe helps the judge avoid making a decision based on political decisions. And you don't want to be this cop in front of a jury in St Louis city. Those are the reasons why he picked a bench trial.

As far as the other question, I think it kind of depends on the state. I'm not an expert on the criminal system. I think every state would give you the right to a jury trial in this severe of a case, but I'm not sure if you get to waive it. I think at the federal level, both sides have to agree to waive it, for example. In Missouri, you can apparently waive your right to a jury trial, but I did have an ex public defender telling me that maybe the judge can deny your request to waive it, so I truthfully don't know. Edit: it sounds like the Missouri rule I'm discussing in Missouri is specific to homicide cases. You can waive a jury trial but the judge has to agree.

Defendants choice - typically criminal cases against officers are bench trials (Judge decides outcome) because judges usually have a better understanding of law enforcement and what they have to deal with on a daily basis...(if you think about it, they hear testimony from hundreds of officers).

Sometimes with a jury, it's a crap shoot!

[jdshock]

Defendants choice - typically criminal cases against officers are bench trials (Judge decides outcome) because judges usually have a better understanding of law enforcement and what they have to deal with on a daily basis...(if you think about it, they hear testimony from hundreds of officers).

Sometimes with a jury, it's a crap shoot!

Yeah definitely, but it's not actually defendants choice in every case/state. Here's the federal rule, for example: https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcrmp/rule_23 The prosecution has to agree.

In Missouri, the judge has to agree in homicide cases. Defendants are frequently better off without a jury if the crime is really violent. That guy Dylann Roof in Charleston wanted to avoid a jury trial, for obvious reasons, but the prosecution forced him to have a jury trial. My point was mostly about the jury make-up in St. Louis city. You're going to have a lot of liberal jurors and a lot of black jurors in St. Louis city. I can't imagine that'd be an easy case for the defense.

[Boss1786]

Defendants choice - typically criminal cases against officers are bench trials (Judge decides outcome) because judges usually have a better understanding of law enforcement and what they have to deal with on a daily basis...(if you think about it, they hear testimony from hundreds of officers).

Sometimes with a jury, it's a crap shoot!

I should add that it also depends on which judge is assigned the case. Defense attorneys develope a feel for certain judges and determine what gives the defendant the best odds of aquitle.

[jdshock]

Sorry I have more questions....are there lesser included options or is 1st degree murder the only option? If it is, I can't imagine he'll be found guilty. The gun found seems intriguing....is there any history about it? Seems like they could trace it to someone.

I have talked to a couple of former prosecutors who have been paying attention to the case, and they all kind of agreed that it's a self-defense case so it'd be 1st degree or nothing. Lesser included offenses would always be an option, but after I was thinking about it, they don't really make a ton of sense in this case. With all the video and stuff, it sure seems like it will come down to whether or not the guy was acting in self-defense at the time.

I don't know anything about the gun other than the DNA stuff that is publicly available. I didn't even really mention the idea that the gun was planted in the victim's car when I first brought up the case. It always seemed to me like maybe there was a gun but the victim hadn't touched it that day, or something. But the prosecution really went all in on the idea that the cop planted the gun.