3 Arkansas officers involved in violent arrest are identified

[jamil]

It is illustrative, though. Let the guilty go free and they continue to victimize others, do they not?

Will you let 1k guilty go if the apprehension risks a cop or soldier?

It’s a saying. In reality it’s just a question of how to deal with doubt. When there’s doubt, we should favor freedom rather than incarceration. So to answer the question, how much risk is there? How sure are you that all 1000 are guilty?

The question of a realistic scenario, you’re imposing the condition that it’s 1000 at once. I’m saying, case by case, if there’s doubt they go free. If there’s doubt about 1000 cases, they go free. Reasonable doubt is the standard.

 

[jamil]

Neither was your "druther".

Well. Maybe. The idea is really the system we have. You're innocent until proven guilty. A conviction requires a standard of reasonable doubt. Maybe sometimes that means guilty people go free because the system doesn't have enough confidence beyond that doubt. That's my druther. I'd rather keep this system, even if 1000 cases out of a thousand let guilty people go free , than to change the system to make it more likely to convict an innocent. If we're staying real, it's worth saying I also want the laws enforced. You go take stuff from a store, you get prosecuted for it according to the law.

The unrealistic part would be that the system we have doesn't guarantee all the innocent go free. But I'm under no delusions that a system run by flawed people will always get it right. I don't know what other protections of the innocent we can put in place.

But I don't want police handing out justice. That's not their jobs. At least not their jobs alone. People are entitled to juries of their peers. Well, more or less, peers if we're being real.

 

[Epicenity]

It is illustrative, though. Let the guilty go free and they continue to victimize others, do they not?

Will you let 1k guilty go if the apprehension risks a cop or soldier?

What is your proposition here? It seems like a disparate situation. The idea that the 1000 guilty go free to protect the lone innocent, as far as I understand it, assumes ignorance of the actual guilt of the 1000. Your scenario seems to start with knowing the 1000 are guilty.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

It’s a saying. In reality it’s just a question of how to deal with doubt. When there’s doubt, we should favor freedom rather than incarceration.

Not really a saying, it's a point of philosophical debate known as Blackstone's Ratio, though he certainly didn't invent it and used 10:1, IIRC. The concept is recorded at least as far back as the old testament/torah, though the numbers vary if a number is mentioned at all.

I understand it's point and it's place in the modern western justice system. That does not negate my philosophical debate point, in that allowing the guilty to go unpunished also comes at a cost to society and to each of their future victims.

Particularly in that case law gets more and more complicated, and the court system in the US is only nominally concerned with finding out guilt or innocence. It's about getting your information in within the ever changing and ever more complex rules. Supression of evidence obfuscates the truth, and jurors decide based not on the totality of the situation, but the slice of the incident they are allowed to view and presented through the lens of two vested parties. Guilt or innocence is secondary to information management and narrative construction.

 

[jamil]

Not really a saying, it's a point of philosophical debate known as Blackstone's Ratio, though he certainly didn't invent it and used 10:1, IIRC. The concept is recorded at least as far back as the old testament/torah, though the numbers vary if a number is mentioned at all.

I understand it's point and it's place in the modern western justice system. That does not negate my philosophical debate point, in that allowing the guilty to go unpunished also comes at a cost to society and to each of their future victims.

Particularly in that case law gets more and more complicated, and the court system in the US is only nominally concerned with finding out guilt or innocence. It's about getting your information in within the ever changing and ever more complex rules. Supression of evidence obfuscates the truth, and jurors decide based not on the totality of the situation, but the slice of the incident they are allowed to view and presented through the lens of two vested parties. Guilt or innocence is secondary to information management and narrative construction.

At this point in time it's a saying. Of course that saying represents an underlying philosophy as sayings often do. Philosophies are debated. So I have no qualms with that. The idea of the cost to society both ways is embedded in the saying. The harm done to society if guilty people go free is high. We're seeing that now. The harm done to society if innocent people are punished is even higher. Injustice is injustice when guilty people go unpunished or innocent people are punished for crimes they didn't commit. I think we both agree that the thumb on the scale is rightly placed on the side of innocence.

1001 men are on a train coming toward your town. You can choose two options:

1) They can all live in your neighborhood.
2) You can send them all to prison for life.
3) You can send them all to certain death

You cannot divide them in any way, what you choose for one you choose for all.

You know with absolute certainty 1000 of them are violent sexual predators. 1 is completely innocent of all wrong doing.

There's no right answer, it's simply a challenge to the often quoted saw you proposed, but which results in the least evil?

I said this isn't realistic because you imposed 3 unlikely rules. This can't possibly play out in a free society. It's never the case that those are the only choices. I don't want them to live in my neighborhood. We can't send them for prison for life unless they've actually been convicted of committing crimes. We certainly can't put them to death without a conviction and sentencing. For this to serve as a counter to Blackstone's Ratio, it has to live in the same space.

Now, if you'd said, 1000 of them were Democrats, plus one sane person, we could probably work with that.

 

[jamil]

What is your proposition here? It seems like a disparate situation. The idea that the 1000 guilty go free to protect the lone innocent, as far as I understand it, assumes ignorance of the actual guilt of the 1000. Your scenario seems to start with knowing the 1000 are guilty.

We know 1000 are guilty, but we don't know which. So do you punish all of them because you don't know which one is innocent? And, all we know is that they are all sexual predators. If we had evidence of crimes, and could associate the crimes with the 1000, there would be no dilemma. We'd charge them, and try them, and convict the guilty, and sentence them. Those who can't be convicted go free.

I don't think his proposition is anything, really, other than pointing out that there's more to it than just protecting the innocent. And I agree with that. There's always some truth to each side of different debates. There IS a societal cost to allowing the guilty to go free. My position is that it's a greater cost if, when trying to punish the guilty, we punish the innocent. Both wrongs can destroy society. A free and just society hopes to punish the guilty; it hopes to keep the innocent free. We have an imperfect system because people aren't perfect. We hope to err on the side of innocence.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

We know 1000 are guilty, but we don't know which. So do you punish all of them because you don't know which one is innocent? And, all we know is that they are all sexual predators. If we had evidence of crimes, and could associate the crimes with the 1000, there would be no dilemma. We'd charge them, and try them, and convict the guilty, and sentence them. Those who can't be convicted go free.

Sexaully Violent Predator has a specific meaning in the IC code and is post-conviction designation. You can simply allow them to live in your neighborhood, which is what happens when the guilty go free, or you can segregate them from society via incarceration or death. However you'll doom one innocent to the same fate as the 1,000 guilty. Does dooming that one innocent create more evil than unleashing the 1,000 guilty into society? How many lives will they ruin? That question forces you to look at the cost of Blackwell's Ratio.

But yes, both are merely a philosophical device and not meant to be a realistic scenario (and, by the way, neither is the notion that evidence equates to no dilemma, see my post above about what a courtroom is actually about). I can't imagine anyone taking it as as a literal scenario any more than someone taking 'why did the chicken cross the road' as a literal inquiry into the the psychology of decision making in poultry.

 

[jamil]

Sexaully Violent Predator has a specific meaning in the IC code and is post-conviction designation. You can simply allow them to live in your neighborhood, which is what happens when the guilty go free, or you can segregate them from society via incarceration or death. However you'll doom one innocent to the same fate as the 1,000 guilty. Does dooming that one innocent create more evil than unleashing the 1,000 guilty into society? How many lives will they ruin? That question forces you to look at the cost of Blackwell's Ratio.

But yes, both are merely a philosophical device and not meant to be a realistic scenario (and, by the way, neither is the notion that evidence equates to no dilemma, see my post above about what a courtroom is actually about). I can't imagine anyone taking it as as a literal scenario any more than someone taking 'why did the chicken cross the road' as a literal inquiry into the the psychology of decision making in poultry.

I don't think that's reality either. Pedos who don't get caught, go free. And that's the way it is with all criminals. The ones we catch go through the cj system. They get charged. They get prosecuted. If they're convicted, they get sentenced. Once they've paid their dues to society, they get out. And for sex offenders, they have to register as sex offenders.

It may be that justice isn't hard enough or easy enough on some people who encounter the cj system. It's imperfect. But, the 1000 you said are guilty did not go free if we caught them and applied the law fairly. We don't throw people in jail just because we think they might have committed a crime. You said the 1000 pedos were known to be pedos. Were they convicted? Or do you just think they're guilty?

That's not incompatible with the philosophy that says it's way more important to protect the innocent than to prosecute the guilty. I think many concepts in our cj system follow that. Innocent until proven guilty, jury of peers, beyond reasonable doubt to convict, etcetera.

 

[jamil]

Now, back to the context of this thread, the officers did not commit a crime unless and until they're convicted of it, notwithstanding corruption. But, it looks to me like the one officer at least used excessive force. I don't see any reasonable defense for that officer unless the alleged criminal had a deadly weapon and bashing his bloody head into the pavement was for the purpose of making the guy use his hands to protect his head until the other officers could take the weapon out of play.

I doubt that was it. I wonder if the head smasher was the officer that got body slammed and he was just applying a little revenge justice. That's not his job. It sucks he got body slammed. I'm sorry that it's part of his job. It just is. So if that's what happened, **** him.

 

[qwerty]

How do you mean? I've seen a lot of documented cases of refusing to release data, heavy redactions, missing audio etc. I made a link to a paper about it. You guys denying it doesn't it cover it up anymore. Data is much easier to to get now.

Enough about the FBI. Let's get back on topic.

 

[jamil]

Earlier in this thread someone said you can FOIA this kind of thing. That's the made for TV fiction about how this is supposed to work. As I pointed out earlier, they are often hard to get, meaning the responsible agency does not obey the law.

It is a common tactic: https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=6274&context=law_lawreview

The three officers have been suspended. Hopefully qualified immunity is stripped from them.

Three Arkansas officers suspended after video of violent arrest goes viral - SRN News

(Reuters) – Three Arkansas law enforcement officers have been suspended after a video circulated widely online over the weekend showing them punching and kicking a suspect while he was on the ground outside a convenience store. The Crawford County Sheriff’s Office suspended two deputies while...

www.srnnews.com

I'm not saying they're guilty or innocent at this point. Facts could come out and justify it. As some of the INGO LEO have said, smashing the guy's head on the ground is pretty close to deadly force, so he would probably have to justify it to that standard. I suspect he can't. I think he was just pissed because of being body slammed. And took advantage of his position to take it out on the guy. But we'll see.

But to your point, now that there's video of it out there, if there is public outcry for body cam video, they'll eventually have to cave if the pressure is high enough. Will it get high enough for a white perp? I don't think the woke mob will care enough to push as hard. There isn't a white lives matter mob to riot for him. As you see many conservatives are NOT supporting the criminal so I don't think they're eager to protest for body cam video. I'm more of a libertarian conservative, so I want that video released, and if it is as bad as it looks, I want to see justice. That means the bad guy goes to jail for whatever his crimes were and the cop goes to jail if he's found guilty of violating that guy's rights.

The feds are investigating if civil rights were violated. We'll see what comes of it.

 

[Epicenity]

Now, back to the context of this thread, the officers did not commit a crime unless and until they're convicted of it, notwithstanding corruption.

Just clarifying a fine point. whether or not they committed a crime is independent of being convicted or not. They may not be convicted even if they did commit criminal acts. I think you get this, just saying....

I think he was just pissed because of being body slammed. And took advantage of his position to take it out on the guy. But we'll see.

That seems like a possibility. A lot of people ( and some in this thread ) back this kind of street "justice".

As you see many conservatives are NOT supporting the criminal so I don't think they're eager to protest for body cam video.

A lot of conservatives have the belief that the police only assault/arrest bad people. There is a saying: "back the blue until it happens to you". Some people learn the hard way bad/violent LEOs are not actually extremely rare. I said before, there is no shortage of videos of bad cops, and to say it again: we see only the very small percentage of the ones that were caught on tape, not seized and deleted by police, got posted to a social media platform and finally, got noticed.

That means the bad guy goes to jail for whatever his crimes were and the cop goes to jail if he's found guilty of violating that guy's rights.

Another point here, re. "the bad guy": I don't think we know if the guy on the ground is a bad, or did anything. He may have done nothing, or been having a mental health crisis, or a blood sugar problem, or may have been a violent psychopath.

I've faced a lot of blowback here for simply stating what you can plainly see with your own eyes, and been accused of "having made up my mind". I don't see too many rushing to assume the guy taking the beating was innocent.

Side bar, if you're interested. This is a long and potentially boring, but quite informative video by a civil rights lawyer on qualified immunity.

 

[jamil]

Just clarifying a fine point. whether or not they committed a crime is independent of being convicted or not. They may not be convicted even if they did commit criminal acts. I think you get this, just saying....

Of course. But, without what happened being brought out in court, and a conviction, how confident are we that a criminal act had happened. People thought George Zimmerman was guilty of murder. Some still do, even though the trial poked holes through the media trial that had taken place on air and on social media leading up to it. All the trial proved against Zimmerman was that he was a fool and a *****, neither of which are in themselves criminal acts.

A conviction isn't a sure thing either. Officer Chauvin was convicted across the board, but I think only the lesser charge was actually proven. What was on trial there was "whiteness". The verdict was more about getting the first white cop convicted in Minnesota of killing a black person. I think Chauvin shared in the responsibility. Not all the charges were proven.

That seems like a possibility. A lot of people ( and some in this thread ) back this kind of street "justice".


A lot of conservatives have the belief that the police only assault/arrest bad people. There is a saying: "back the blue until it happens to you". Some people learn the hard way bad/violent LEOs are not actually extremely rare. I said before, there is no shortage of videos of bad cops, and to say it again: we see only the very small percentage of the ones that were caught on tape, not seized and deleted by police, got posted to a social media platform and finally, got noticed.

Most cops I think use appropriate force. If I had a saying it wouldn't rhyme. "Back the blue when right, condemn when wrong."

Another point here, re. "the bad guy": I don't think we know if the guy on the ground is a bad, or did anything. He may have done nothing, or been having a mental health crisis, or a blood sugar problem, or may have been a violent psychopath.

Eh, according to witnesses, I think it's a hard case to make. But, innocent until proven guilty and all. But I get to speculate that ****er is extraordinarily likely to be a very bad bad dude.

I've faced a lot of blowback here for simply stating what you can plainly see with your own eyes, and been accused of "having made up my mind". I don't see too many rushing to assume the guy taking the beating was innocent.

Well, I mean you have some history here. You have a worldview that is not shared by most of the people you're interacting with, and you're not likely to get much benefit of doubt. So, let's just address it. straight up. Have you made up your mind? Seeing what you saw, is it possible that you could see it from the opposite point of view?

Side bar, if you're interested. This is a long and potentially boring, but quite informative video by a civil rights lawyer on qualified immunity.

I'm already not a fan of qualified immunity. I don' think it should be abandoned completely but I also think it gets applied too far. Also, forfeiture laws should be abolished.

 

[Epicenity]

Of course. But, without what happened being brought out in court, and a conviction, how confident are we that a criminal act had happened.

I'm just speaking in generalities. If your home was burglarized, and no one was ever convicted. You would sure a crime had been commited.

A conviction isn't a sure thing either. Officer Chauvin was convicted across the board, but I think only the lesser charge was actually proven. What was on trial there was "whiteness". The verdict was more about getting the first white cop convicted in Minnesota of killing a black person. I think Chauvin shared in the responsibility. Not all the charges were proven.

This is irrelevant here really but I watched all of the trial. If I was on the jury, I would have voted to convict.

Most cops I think use appropriate force. If I had a saying it wouldn't rhyme. "Back the blue when right, condemn when wrong."

I'm sure they do, but when they don't it is hard to get accountability.

Eh, according to witnesses, I think it's a hard case to make. But, innocent until proven guilty and all. But I get to speculate that ****er is extraordinarily likely to be a very bad bad dude.

This is the very heart of this thread IMHO. Objectively, you have less reliable evidence of that guys guilt than you do of the LEOs. You have pretty clear video of something wrong happening. Eyewitness testimony is way worse than video (I'm sure there are exceptions, but this isn't one.

Well, I mean you have some history here. You have a worldview that is not shared by most of the people you're interacting with, and you're not likely to get much benefit of doubt. So, let's just address it. straight up. Have you made up your mind? Seeing what you saw, is it possible that you could see it from the opposite point of view?

Of course I do. It would be a waste of my time to only talk to people I agree with. That is called an echo-chamber, and that is mostly what this is.

I don't know what this obsession with "my mind being made up is". I said I don't actually know know if he is guilty but it sure looks that way. I don't' think you can say the same about your opinion of the guy getting beaten.

I'm already not a fan of qualified immunity. I don' think it should be abandoned completely but I also think it gets applied too far. Also, forfeiture laws should be abolished.

I think it shouldn't exist. You don't get the benefit of the doubt. Why should a "professional". Am on civil asset forfeiture, it is as unamerican as the drug war and no-nock warrants.

 

[jamil]

I'm just speaking in generalities. If your home was burglarized, and no one was ever convicted. You would sure a crime had been commited.

This isn't the same thing. We saw what the officers did. We don't know if it was a crime. We won't know that unless/until we get the relevant facts. As some of the INGO LEO have said, bashing the guy's head into the concrete could be justified. But then they need show that deadly force was justified. The other two, I think might be justified given the facts reported so far. But we don't know.

This is irrelevant here really but I watched all of the trial. If I was on the jury, I would have voted to convict.

I don't doubt that.

I'm sure they do, but when they don't it is hard to get accountability.


This is the very heart of this thread IMHO. Objectively, you have less reliable evidence of that guys guilt than you do of the LEOs. You have pretty clear video of something wrong happening. Eyewitness testimony is way worse than video (I'm sure there are exceptions, but this isn't one.

I don't have any reliable evidence of the guilt of the officers unless we have more facts in evidence that excludes justification. Of course, I get to speculate and say, it feels to me like the head basher was dishing out comeuppance for the perp body slamming him.

Obviously the reporting about the events that led up to that point could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time. For example when we were told "hands up don't shoot" was real. And then we found out it was ********.

Of course I do. It would be a waste of my time to only talk to people I agree with. That is called an echo-chamber, and that is mostly what this is.

I don't know what this obsession with "my mind being made up is". I said I don't actually know know if he is guilty but it sure looks that way. I don't' think you can say the same about your opinion of the guy getting beaten.

I think it shouldn't exist. You don't get the benefit of the doubt. Why should a "professional". Am on civil asset forfeiture, it is as unamerican as the drug war and no-nock warrants.

It's easy to say you could change your mind. It's much harder to do it.

 

[KG1]

I've made my mind up now. Based on what I've seen he looks guilty. Head bashing against the curb was unjustifiable IMO based on what I've seen and absent anything other than what I've seen I would vote to convict at this point.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Without seeing what happened leading up to the incident, we're all like blind men trying to describe an elephant.

 

[KG1]

Without seeing what happened leading up to the incident, we're all like blind men trying to describe an elephant.

View attachment 222216

You have to admit though based on what we've seen it looks like an elephant.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

You have to admit though based on what we've seen it looks like an elephant.

The elephant is the "whole story". The bits and pieces of the elephant viewed separately (ie. videos on the internet) don't constitute an accurate description of the elephant. Each of the "blind men" is describing the elephant based on only the part they've "seen". That obviously didn't describe the elephant as a whole.

 

[KG1]

The elephant is the "whole story". The bits and pieces of the elephant viewed separately (ie. videos on the internet) don't constitute an accurate description of the elephant. Each of the "blind men" is describing the elephant based on only the part they've "seen". That obviously didn't describe the elephant as a whole.

My position was to wait for more information before I made my mind up. I guess the standard we are supposed to go by now is based on what we have seen so far without waiting for the whole picture to develop.

So based on that standard I agree he looks guilty and absent waiting for any further information we should already come to a guilty conclusion based on what we have seen so far.