Protecting And Serving: Cop (mis)behavior and consequences general discussion

[Jormungandr]

Of fuck off with such soundbites. I think the best solution would be for the police to use such clever ass protectors of the criminals and the insane as designated handlers for such risky cases. Either a smartass lucks out, and if someone gets hurt, it will be a smartass who wanted it.

Not all mentally ill people are violent, but they can be, they are rather unpredictable, and you don't fucking know which you are dealing with, and considering we are speaking of mentally ill people who got police called to deal with themselves in the first place, no one sane is going to be their own life and limb that they aren't, all for the sake of not stressing out the loon.

I've got some mental issues (haven't we all?), and I agree with this. Mental illness of any kind can be an unpredictable factor in any situation. Yes, mental illness doesn't always mean violence or a "bad end", but it could, and that's the point.

Someone who has severe depression and a gun? They might shoot you/the police if backed into a corner and feel like they've nothing to lose. Or they might aim to paint the wall behind them with their brains, and the police (well, non-American police at any rate) would be the ones trying to calm them down from not popping their literal top off/save their life.

 

[Doomsought]

You're all wrong. Mentally ill people =/= violent people. Period. Saying these two types of people are the same is incorrect.

You entirely missed my point. I said the only reason that involuntarily commuting people is justified is if they are violently insane. If they are insane, but not violent, it is not justified to force them to have their condition treated.

 

[IndyFront]

You entirely missed my point. I said the only reason that involuntarily commuting people is justified is if they are violently insane. If they are insane, but not violent, it is not justified to force them to have their condition treated.

My bad. Saw the other posts and just lumped yours in with them. My mistake.

 

[IndyFront]

Or they might aim to paint the wall behind them with their brains, and the police (well, non-American police at any rate) would be the ones trying to calm them down from not popping their literal top off/save their life.

Why you people think a potentially dangerous person (Again, most likely TO THEMSELVES as ya'll have correctly pointed out) would be "calmed down" by the sight of 3 armored fighting vehicles and police in armored vests armed with lethal weaponry IN THE FIRST PLACE is beyond me.
And as you've pointed out I realize just now, this doesn't even apply to American police, so you're tacitly and low-key admitting there is a serious problem with the way America treats its mentally ill citizens.

 

[Jormungandr]

Why you people think a potentially dangerous person (Again, most likely TO THEMSELVES as ya'll have correctly pointed out) would be "calmed down" by the sight of 3 armored fighting vehicles and police in armored vests armed with lethal weaponry IN THE FIRST PLACE is beyond me.
And as you've pointed out I realize just now, this doesn't even apply to American police, so you're tacitly and low-key admitting there is a serious problem with the way America treats its mentally ill citizens.

shrug I'm not American, and even we over the Pond know how much of a clusterfuck America's policing system is. That's why we pretty much always presume the worst in cases where "police" and "mental health" are involved, especially since American police are trigger-happy and trained to be aggressive.

It's not only the United States but the West as a whole (not just in LE but socially/culturally, too) that treats people with mental health problems like shit, especially in men -- America is just one of the worst, and I'd say the UK is a second.

 

[Wargamer08]

shrug I'm not American, and even we over the Pond know how much of a clusterfuck America's policing system is. That's why we pretty much always presume the worst in cases where "police" and "mental health" are involved, especially since American police are trigger-happy and trained to be aggressive.

It's not only the United States but the West as a whole (not just in LE but socially/culturally, too) that treats people with mental health problems like shit, especially in men -- America is just one of the worst, and I'd say the UK is a second.

Hah, it's clear you've never seen how Asian countries treat mental issues.

 

[Jormungandr]

Hah, it's clear you've never seen how Asian countries treat mental issues.

I've heard some disturbing things about Japan and South Korea, especially when it comes to the work cultures there (and especially when it comes to the art and animation industries, e.g. anime studios, manga artists, game developers, et cetera).

 

[Abhorsen]

So don't get me wrong, trans inmates in women's prisons is a bad idea. But perhaps even worse is that women's prison's are a hotbed for rape by prison guards already:

Federal prison guards confessed to rape and got away with it

"I knew they were scumbags," a former Bureau of Prisons officer tells Reason.

reason.com

The federal government knew it had rapists in its employ. Instead of prosecuting them, it gave them immunity.

 

[colorles]

This is a story that has been gaining more notoriety around the the internet, and, as of right now September 3, 2023, has 127 additional parts written about it by the same news site. But here is part 1:

Canton Cover-Up Part 1: Corrupt State Trooper Helps Boston Cop Coverup Murder Of Fellow Officer, Frame Innocent Girlfriend - TB Daily News

Also known as the Canton Cover-Up. Textbook story of local, state and federal corruption and thugs dressed up as officials.

 

[DarthOne]

Sounds like some scum that need to be made an example of.

 

[Abhorsen]

Or why I oppose the death penalty: because I don't trust government.

 

[posh-goofiness]

Due to twitter fuckery, I can't read the thread unfortunately. I refuse to make an account and my Nitter instance is no longer displying tweets. Can I get a TL;DR @Abhorsen ?

 

[Abhorsen]

Due to twitter fuckery, I can't read the thread unfortunately. I refuse to make an account and my Nitter instance is no longer displying tweets. Can I get a TL;DR @Abhorsen ?

Here you go:

Thread by @LPMississippi on Thread Reader App

@LPMississippi: Her name is Sabrina Butler-Smith. She was labeled a "monster", a "child killer" and spent nearly 3 years on death row for a crime that never happened. 🧵1/10 In 1989, when Sabrina was 17 years...…

threadreaderapp.com

Her name is Sabrina Butler-Smith.

She was labeled a "monster", a "child killer" and spent nearly 3 years on death row for a crime that never happened. 🧵1/10

​

In 1989, when Sabrina was 17 years old, she had returned to her apartment, after jogging, to discover her 9 month old son had stopped breathing. She immediately rushed her son to the hospital, where he couldn't be revived. 2/10
The very next day, Sabrina was charged with capital murder.

Due to bruising on the child, from the resuscitation attempts by the hospital staff, the police immediately decided that Sabrina had caused the injuries and that was what resulted in the child's death. 3/10
After the trial, she was convicted of murder and child abuse and sentenced to death by lethal injection.

Two years later, the courts reversed and remanded her convictions - saying that the prosecution had failed to prove that the incident was anything more than an accident. 4/10
In 1995, the medical examiner changed his opinion about Walter's cause of death, which he now believed occurred due to a kidney malady.

On December 17, 1995, Sabrina was acquitted and exonerated. 5/10
When Sabrina was acquitted of murder, she had spent more than five years in prison and thirty-three months on death row. She is the first of two women in the United States to be exonerated from death row, the other being Debra Milke in Arizona. 6/10
Instead of being able to grieve over the loss of her child, Sabrina spent over 5 years fighting for her life and trying to prove her innocence.

Sabrina lost 6 1/2 years of her life in prison, two years and nine months of them on death row, for a crime she didn't commit. 7/10
Since 1973, at least 190 people have been exonerated from death row in the U.S., according to the Death Penalty Information Center (DPIC). A 2014 study estimated that at least 4% of those sentenced to death are innocent. 8/10
These numbers don't demonstrate the full scope of the impact that the death penalty has on the problem of wrongful conviction as the threat of the death penalty causes innocent people to plead guilty and induces false testimony from witnesses. 9/10
Sabrina's story is far too common.

The death penalty is repugnant and should be abolished. It has no place in a civilized society where human error and prejudice can, and has, sentenced innocent individuals to be put to death by the State. 10/10

 

[Bear Ribs]

Due to twitter fuckery, I can't read the thread unfortunately. I refuse to make an account and my Nitter instance is no longer displying tweets. Can I get a TL;DR @Abhorsen ?

The twitter chain has some false information in it that makes things the Government's fault when they weren't.

The circumstances:

Sabrina Butler's 9-month old son stopped breathing. She rushed him to the hospital where after 30 minutes of CPR, he was pronounced dead.

Sabrina was arrested for child abuse and murder, due to the fact that she had also attempted CPR on the child and left bruises on his body that were very obviously hers. This is a bit that Twitter feed leaves out and claims that only the hospital left any bruising.

She was convicted in 1990, in a trial where she didn't testify. She appealed to the Supreme Court of Miss. and in 1992, they remanded the case on the grounds that the evidence wasn't sufficient.

In 1995 she had a retrial with significantly more evidence. Her neighbor came forward and corroborated her story, and the medical examiner who had said she injured the child reversed his position and said new medical evidence showed that the child had probably died of kidney failure. She was exonerated on all charges.

This is honestly neither a police misbehavior nor a government overreach case. The initial prosecutor was overzealous and the Supreme Court did it's job properly and reversed it. The biggest issue was the failure to get testimony from the neighbor the first time around, and the doctor testifying that she injured the child and then reversing things. However given the evidence they had, ie. a respected doctor telling the courts "Yeah, the child died from abuse, see these bruises matching her handprints?" the courts did the right thing, and when new evidence came to light the courts did the right thing again.

 

[Abhorsen]

The twitter chain has some false information in it that makes things the Government's fault when they weren't.

The circumstances:

Sabrina Butler's 9-month old son stopped breathing. She rushed him to the hospital where after 30 minutes of CPR, he was pronounced dead.

Sabrina was arrested for child abuse and murder, due to the fact that she had also attempted CPR on the child and left bruises on his body that were very obviously hers. This is a bit that Twitter feed leaves out and claims that only the hospital left any bruising.

She was convicted in 1990, in a trial where she didn't testify. She appealed to the Supreme Court of Miss. and in 1992, they remanded the case on the grounds that the evidence wasn't sufficient.

In 1995 she had a retrial with significantly more evidence. Her neighbor came forward and corroborated her story, and the medical examiner who had said she injured the child reversed his position and said new medical evidence showed that the child had probably died of kidney failure. She was exonerated on all charges.

This is honestly neither a police misbehavior nor a government overreach case. The initial prosecutor was overzealous and the Supreme Court did it's job properly and reversed it. The biggest issue was the failure to get testimony from the neighbor the first time around, and the doctor testifying that she injured the child and then reversing things. However given the evidence they had, ie. a respected doctor telling the courts "Yeah, the child died from abuse, see these bruises matching her handprints?" the courts did the right thing, and when new evidence came to light the courts did the right thing again.

This is government overreach. They knew all the evidence, or didn't look for it. A baby with bruises rushed to get CPR has a clear and obvious alternate explanation to murder. Failing to do basic research into the case but seeing an headline making conviction, the prosecutor didn't take 2 seconds to look for obvious evidence (like talking to neighbors, looking at the hospital's medical records that showed at the time that the baby had kidney problems. That wasn't 'new' medical evidence, it was old evidence that the prosecution never bothered looking at, nor did the pathologist who did the analysis of the death) and prosecuted anyway. Yes, this is governmental malefeasance, specifically prosecutors not looking for truth.

And all that leaves a very, very obvious other possibility: it was an illness. That's so much reasonable doubt just from evidence available that prosecuting is wrong.

 

[Bear Ribs]

This is government overreach. They knew all the evidence, or didn't look for it.

You can't possibly know that, and in fact it flies in the face of what we do know.

A baby with bruises rushed to get CPR has a clear and obvious alternate explanation to murder. Failing to do basic research into the case but seeing an headline making conviction, the prosecutor didn't take 2 seconds to look for obvious evidence (like talking to neighbors, looking at the hospital's medical records that showed at the time that the baby had kidney problems. That wasn't 'new' medical evidence, it was old evidence that the prosecution never bothered looking at, nor did the pathologist who did the analysis of the death) and prosecuted anyway. Yes, this is governmental malefeasance, specifically prosecutors not looking for truth.

And all that leaves a very, very obvious other possibility: it was an illness. That's so much reasonable doubt just from evidence available that prosecuting is wrong.

Yeah, no. You're making a ton of errors here, chief of which is that you're using 20/20 hindsight. Yeah, we, today, have evidence she was innocent. But the Prosecutor of the time didn't have your 20/20 hindsight, he had a medical examiner telling him the baby died with bruises on its chest from being punched in a child abuse case, proof that Sabrina lied to the police investigators*, and no witnesses for the defense. You're also incorrect in suggesting it's the job of the prosecutor to go through hospital records or interview neighbors, that's the jobs of the medical examiner and defense attorney.

You can make a fair claim that she had a completely incompetent defense attorney. It was his job to interview the neighbors, look for exculpatory evidence, and get a second medical opinion to throw down and contradict the prosecutor's narrative, and he did none of these nor even called a single witness to the stand. You can also throw some shade at the medical examiner who later changed his story. Indeed, once she got a high-power attorney interested in the case everything turned around almost instantly. But none of those indicate government overreach or misconduct, the government did their job, the defense attorney failed. If anything, this is a good argument for why we need more government overreach. A lottery system for lawyers, or perhaps some kind of attorney subsidy program, so that the poor don't always wind up with a public defender half-assing it while the wealthy get to buy Justice with superior lawfare in their corner every time.

*She falsely claimed she'd hired a babysitter, possibly to avoid admitting she'd left the baby unattended while she went for a jog. The police investigation showed no such person and she was unable to produce said babysitter, making her look super guilty. This is another important fact the Twitter thread left out.

 

[Abhorsen]

You can't possibly know that, and in fact it flies in the face of what we do know.

My stuff below shows why they either knew it, or should have known it.

You're also incorrect in suggesting it's the job of the prosecutor to go through hospital records or interview neighbors, that's the jobs of the medical examiner and defense attorney.

No. It's actually part of the job of the prosecutor in the American system. He is supposed to seek justice, not just convictions (which is why, for example, the Kenosha prosecutor facing Rittenhouse was a bad prosecutor even prior to the trial). Sure, this rarely happens in practice, but it is part of his job. So him doing a basic check at hospital records/the alibi, to ensure that he is pursuing justice, is part of his job.

Also, I did point out the medical examiner's problem, specifically not looking at the existing medical records for the body he was examining seems like an unforced error, especially when there's a question about the babies' prior health.

As for that not being the government's fault, who employed the state medical examiner?

Yes, the defense lawyer did not do his job. But I don't think it's government overreach to solve the problem by better funding (though the drafting of lawyers would be). The justice system is a core role of the state. What I'd do is just simply expand funding for defense. Remember, the state completely funds one side of all criminal cases, and funds it easily. But somehow, magically, never has enough funds for the other side when needed.

It's not that they can't fix the problem as is. It's that the state is uninterested in fixing the problem. A simple dollar per dollar match between prosecution spending and state funded defense would solve the problem (probably too much so, as the prosecution usually needs to do more work than the defense, but still), but they aren't interested in that.

 

[Bear Ribs]

My stuff below shows why they either knew it, or should have known it.

No. It's actually part of the job of the prosecutor in the American system. He is supposed to seek justice, not just convictions (which is why, for example, the Kenosha prosecutor facing Rittenhouse was a bad prosecutor even prior to the trial). Sure, this rarely happens in practice, but it is part of his job. So him doing a basic check at hospital records/the alibi, to ensure that he is pursuing justice, is part of his job.

No, it's not, and saying it is doesn't help. No Prosecutor has time to investigate every case on the docket and nobody... well aside from you... expects him to grab his Deerstalker and pipe and go full Sherlock Holmes on every case. The US uses an adversarial legal system where each side presents their case, the prosecutor for conviction and the defense against. The prosecutor does not investigate directly, the present and curate evidence given them by investigators. This is literally lawyer 101.

Now there are certainly many cases of prosecutorial misconduct, however in this specific instance the Twitter thread has left out a lot of important points, her lying to the police and changing her story, the medical examiner changing his mind, etc. that put the state in a far better light than the thread suggests.

Also, I did point out the medical examiner's problem, specifically not looking at the existing medical records for the body he was examining seems like an unforced error, especially when there's a question about the babies' prior health.

As for that not being the government's fault, who employed the state medical examiner?

No, again, you poo-poo'd the fact that there was new medical evidence. State-of-the-art medical theory changes from time to time as the science advances. There's significant shakeups going on right now in several cases that are being compared to Sabrina Butler. The prevailing medical opinion on the symptoms of shaken baby syndrome, previously considered certain evidence of abuse, are now considered to be possible evidence of a genetic disorder. Many cases are being re-examined right now due to this new evidence.

‘I made a mistake’ - Medical examiner changes homicide finding, but convicted woman still behind bars

Advances in pediatric medicine are raising questions about "Shaken Baby Syndrome" diagnoses, and suggesting thousands of children may have died because of medical conditions, rather than foul play.

www.kktv.com

As is there's still no real agreement on what killed Walter Butler. In fact, the overturning of the conviction found that the medical examiner, Dr. Hicks, had performed his duties properly and did not take his testimony into account.

Wayback Machine

In fact, the overturning was mainly on matters of procedure, that the prosecutor's final statement suggested that it was wrong for Butler not to take the stand, that the prosecution was ex post facto because exact wording of one statute changed in the 21st of April and Walter died on the 11th, and suggestions that Butler may not have been intelligent enough to know what she was doing when she presented multiple conflicting stories and lied to the police repeatedly about events.

Yes, the defense lawyer did not do his job. But I don't think it's government overreach to solve the problem by better funding (though the drafting of lawyers would be). The justice system is a core role of the state. What I'd do is just simply expand funding for defense. Remember, the state completely funds one side of all criminal cases, and funds it easily. But somehow, magically, never has enough funds for the other side when needed.

It's not that they can't fix the problem as is. It's that the state is uninterested in fixing the problem. A simple dollar per dollar match between prosecution spending and state funded defense would solve the problem (probably too much so, as the prosecution usually needs to do more work than the defense, but still), but they aren't interested in that.

I agree, though here I'm using overreach to describe the state paying for all attorneys, using its most common definition of extending beyond current levels, as my paragraph shows.

 

[Abhorsen]

No, it's not, and saying it is doesn't help. No Prosecutor has time to investigate every case on the docket and nobody... well aside from you... expects him to grab his Deerstalker and pipe and go full Sherlock Holmes on every case. The US uses an adversarial legal system where each side presents their case, the prosecutor for conviction and the defense against. The prosecutor does not investigate directly, the present and curate evidence given them by investigators. This is literally lawyer 101.

I'm not expecting a deerstalker. I'm expecting due diligence. A five minute call to the neighbor to see if she did CPR. Looking at medical records when your case relies on medical records. And again, you claim adversarial, but that's again not quite true when it comes to the prosecutor. They have a legal duty to justice, not to win at all costs.

And apparently, the source you linked to shows they violated that:

Prosecution improperly commented upon capital murder defendant's failure to testify, to defendant's prejudice, by stating in closing argument that defendant "hasn't told you the whole truth yet," and that "you still don't know the whole story" as to how nine-month-old child of defendant had sustained fatal head injury; as defendant was only person in company of child at time of injury, prosecution's comments clearly referred to defendant's unwillingness to take stand.

This was basically exactly what the Judge in the Rittenhouse case blew up at the prosecutor for (the "THIS HAS BEEN BASIC LAW FOR 50 YEARS" rant).

No, again, you poo-poo'd the fact that there was new medical evidence.

It wasn't new evidence though. Or to be clear: there is new scientific evidence regarding shaken baby syndrome, that's new stuff, but also not relevant to the case (she wasn't accused of shaken baby syndrome, but of hitting her kid).

The kidney disease? That wasn't new evidence (no one dug up the kid and investigated the kidney, for example, or something like DNA evidence suddenly became relevant). That was evidence that the medical examiner hadn't looked at which he should have, evidence that the hospital had at the time. That's my complaint. When he heard about that, he changed his mind as to what happened.

 

[Bear Ribs]

I'm not expecting a deerstalker. I'm expecting due diligence. A five minute call to the neighbor to see if she did CPR. Looking at medical records when your case relies on medical records. And again, you claim adversarial, but that's again not quite true when it comes to the prosecutor. They have a legal duty to justice, not to win at all costs.

So what you're telling me is, you didn't bother to actually read the case. They did do that, it's just that because Sabrina Walter lied to police and said the neighbors was her babysitter Ester Hollis, a person who never existed and who all the other neighbors they spoke to confirmed was purely created from Sabrina's imagination, that investigation didn't look too good for her. Coupled with the fact that Sabrina also told police she punched the baby in the stomach and only changed her story to CPR later, well, it's not that surprising that things went the way they did.

And apparently, the source you linked to shows they violated that:

This was basically exactly what the Judge in the Rittenhouse case blew up at the prosecutor for (the "THIS HAS BEEN BASIC LAW FOR 50 YEARS" rant).

Yes, the prosecutor's last sentence edged too close to the fifth amendment for comfort. If he hadn't gotten cocky and made that last jab the case may not have been overturned at all. But again, that's hardly police misconduct and is actually some very mild prosecutorial misconduct, as I said, this is more a quibble about procedure than any established violation worthy of being in this thread.

It wasn't new evidence though. Or to be clear: there is new scientific evidence regarding shaken baby syndrome, that's new stuff, but also not relevant to the case (she wasn't accused of shaken baby syndrome, but of hitting her kid).

The kidney disease? That wasn't new evidence (no one dug up the kid and investigated the kidney, for example, or something like DNA evidence suddenly became relevant). That was evidence that the medical examiner hadn't looked at which he should have, evidence that the hospital had at the time. That's my complaint. When he heard about that, he changed his mind as to what happened.

I'd like to see your evidence for this. Are you using a transcript of the second court case or some other way of getting exact words? Because as pointed out in the 1992 transcript posted above, a large number of medical witnesses all concurred, it seems unlikely that all of them would have made the same mistake. Do you know exactly what he really said?