Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Is America burning? (Black Lives Matter protests, civil unrest and riots 2020)

I don't know how far it will go. You could very well be right. I do know that the burden of proof is lower in civil courts than in criminal courts. It probably comes down to who the judge turns out to be. They pulled a really nasty judge with the criminal case.

The idea that justice is better settled by setting a lower burden of proof strikes me as more than a little dodgy.
 
A lower burden of proof when it's money rather than life and liberty at stake might not be unreasonable.

So the less there is at stake, the more shaky we should be about veracity?

Maybe sue someone for a few meals at a restaurant and get someone to roll a dice, whereas for a prize of, say, a car, it gets settled with a few bouts of arm wresting?
 
The idea that justice is better settled by setting a lower burden of proof strikes me as more than a little dodgy.
Civil court burden of proof is less pedantic than criminal. That doesn't mean that it's non existent though. It's still tough going pursuing a civil case.
 
So the less there is at stake, the more shaky we should be about veracity?
Absolutely. We cross the road casually everyday, but we'd behave differently if we knew if were mined.

And it's also not really that "balance of probabilities" is shaky, it's that "beyond reasonable doubt" is a high bar.
 
Absolutely. We cross the road casually everyday, but we'd behave differently if we knew if were mined.

And it's also not really that "balance of probabilities" is shaky, it's that "beyond reasonable doubt" is a high bar.

This makes less than no sense.

But since the discussion is of no consequence anyway I am willing to accept two slices of pizza and a Cornetto in recompense.
 
The idea that justice is better settled by setting a lower burden of proof strikes me as more than a little dodgy.

I probably could have better phrased that. The burden of proof is different because they don't have to prove criminal intent in a civil case. They have to prove "reckless disregard for life." There's really no dispute that he killed two people. The dispute in the criminal case was if he showed up with the intent of murdering someone. They don't have to prove that here, only that he showed a reckless disregard. If you watched any of the criminal case, IMHO the judge committed misconduct when he directed the jury what verdict to come back with. That strikes me as more than a little dodgy.
 
I probably could have better phrased that. The burden of proof is different because they don't have to prove criminal intent in a civil case. They have to prove "reckless disregard for life." There's really no dispute that he killed two people. The dispute in the criminal case was if he showed up with the intent of murdering someone. They don't have to prove that here, only that he showed a reckless disregard. If you watched any of the criminal case, IMHO the judge committed misconduct when he directed the jury what verdict to come back with. That strikes me as more than a little dodgy.

That’s entirely normal procedure.
 
Maybe I misinterpreted.
Can you elaborate on why you think the judge committed misconduct?

When he sent the jury off to deliberate, he basically said that they should come back with an acquittal, and if they didn't, he'd throw out the verdict and impose his own. That's really irregular and usually only happens for serious misconduct either in the jury or by the lawyers. During the trial, he was really hostile to the prosecution and threw out a lot of their evidence, but it was within the usual standards. That last bit wasn't.
 
When he sent the jury off to deliberate, he basically said that they should come back with an acquittal, and if they didn't, he'd throw out the verdict and impose his own. That's really irregular and usually only happens for serious misconduct either in the jury or by the lawyers. During the trial, he was really hostile to the prosecution and threw out a lot of their evidence, but it was within the usual standards. That last bit wasn't.

Ah, right. I wasn’t sure whether you just meant he committed misconduct by virtue of directing the jury.
 
Giving instructions to the jury is normal and expected. Telling them what verdict to come back with isn't.

The latter is normal in cases where the judge perceives the facts to match the charge precisely (or otherwise). Threatening to throw out the jury’s verdict sounds unusual.
 
Dunno where to put this, but cops just killed someone at the Atlanta forest:
More info
 
More info
Wait, I just realised who the author of that article is - for those who don't recognise the name Steven Donziger:


Natasha Lennard is usually good as well:
(paywall-busting version)
eta, from that Intercept article:
The 19 protesters are being charged under a Georgia law passed in 2017, which, according to the Republican state senator who introduced the bill, was intended to combat cases like the Boston Marathon bombing, Dylann Roof’s massacre of nine Black churchgoers in Charleston, South Carolina, and the Orlando Pulse nightclub shooting.
“During legislative debate over this law, the concern was raised that as written, the law was so broad that it could be used to prosecute Black Lives Matter activists blocking the highway as terrorists. The response was simply that prosecutors wouldn’t do that,” Kautz told me. “There are similar laws passed in many other states, and we believe that the existence of these laws on the books is a threat to democracy and the right to protest.”
The Georgia law is exceedingly broad. Domestic terrorism under the statute includes the destruction or disabling of ill-defined “critical infrastructure,” which can be publicly or privately owned, or “a state or government facility” with the intention to “alter, change, or coerce the policy of the government” or “affect the conduct of the government” by use of “destructive devices.” What counts as critical infrastructure here? A bank branch window? A police vehicle? Bulldozers deployed to raze the forest? What is a destructive device? A rock? A firework? And is not a huge swathe of activism the attempt to coerce a government to change policies?

Police affidavits on the arrest warrants of forest defenders facing domestic terror charges include the following as alleged examples of terrorist activity: “criminally trespassing on posted land,” “sleeping in the forest,” “sleeping in a hammock with another defendant,” being “known members” of “a prison abolitionist movement,” and aligning themselves with Defend the Atlanta Forest by “occupying a tree house while wearing a gas mask and camouflage clothing.”
 
Last edited:
It sounds like SA Long fell down and go boom.

That's some serious overcharging there. I doubt if it'll make it to court.
Yeah, definitely seems like charging as a method of intimidation/getting scary headlines more than with the expectation of actually getting a conviction.
 
Crossposting here:
Atlanta PD originally said there was no body camera footage, but have now released some:
The footage appears to show officers asking whether the state trooper who had been shot was wounded by one of his own.

“You fucked your own officer up,” one Atlanta Police Department officer is heard saying in the footage released Wednesday. He later walks up to two other officers and asks, “They shoot their own man?”
 
Crossposting here:
Atlanta PD originally said there was no body camera footage, but have now released some:
It's just thirty-pounds-and-a-packed-lunch bullshit dragged out to its inevitable conclusion - full spectrum piggy press office ‘weapons cache (i.e. party poppers & craft scissors) seized’ pork pies, with extreme prejudice :mad:
 
Activists from the Altanta forest campaign are expecting to be hit with racketeering charges:
 
Filth raided the Atlanta forest again last night, 30 people detained:

eta blimey, the activities that led up to the raid do seem quite full-on tbf:
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom