San Francisco Protest Brings Debate on Wages of Din

[Sikander]

Don't blame me, I suggested shooting a few as an example.

[DinoDoc]

If only more people would listen to your wisdom.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
It's not really a troll. I'm genuinely curious about the issues this raises.

Thats what they all say Even myself, sometimes.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The Templar


I don't have sales - I serve the public interest.

Don't we all.

[quote]
And MtG,

(2) Paying for trial costs and due process. Courts tend to frown on things that incentivize (even theoretically) innocent people to plead guilty. Courts tolerate plea bargaining on strictly pragmatic grounds. Since most people are unable to afford to repay trial costs you're just talking about adding more proceedings if you are serious about collecting.

Not so much anymore - now, you pay for the cops time in a lot of jurisdictions, whether you call them out for something like a police report for insurance purposes, or if you're arrested. Some form of informal means testing for public defenders is standard.

Three strikes laws (which I don't support) give a huge degree of leeway for prosecutors to coerce plea bargains, since multiple felonies for the same offense can be prosecuted for double strikes, and proportionately higher sentences. Most people can't afford the cost of trial, of course. However, defendants found not guilty don't have to pay, and if you're guilty of a "real" crime, the cost of trial is pretty moot if you're on the way to Wasco for initial evaluation as you start a five to eight stretch.

What it would do, is prevent a trial tactic where a mass of people guilty of relatively minor offenses realize by coordinated action to game the system and insist on every procedural step available, they can get off by simply overwhelming judicial resources. Give them the right to play their games, but change the rules so if you want to force $10-15,000 or more of trial expense on a misdemeanor with a 5 day sentence and $1,000 fine, you can pay for it.

Right now, you could have the same thing happen in routine traffic court - every defendant appear, insist on jury trial when available under law, refuse to waive speedy trial, and run the whole litany. DUI's don't come into the system fast enough, but routine moving violations sure do, and the state and counties rely on that too much as a non-tax revenue source. If this becomes a common tactic, you can bet there will be reform of the present cost system.

(3) A motion to sever would not be frivolous in this case. A peaceful protestor will argue that being tried with people who were violent or en masse (like a mob) are unduly prejudiced. And the motion will be granted - or the convictions will be throw out on appeal. These procedural tactics are pretty standard in cases like this.

That's presuming you'd attempt to try all these cases en masse instead of individually.

(4) Who said anything about not holding people accountable? People who destroyed things or attacked others should be held responsible. Most of these arrests, however, are bullshit "disturbing the peace" type charges used in general to deter legitimate political speech. How do I know? My collegues in the National Lawyers Guild (who monitor protests for police abuse) SF chapter have it all on tape.

That's if you assume blocking streets, blocking Starbucks (God pity the poor soul who gets between me and caffeine, for I surely will have none. ), and general running amok constitutes protected "speech" and "peaceful assembly" not unprotect action and unlawful assembly.

(5) What? You're not patriotic enough to suck up the pay cut and do your duty for the republic? Why do you hate America so much?

(a) Done my time.
(b) I live in Mexico. By choice. Does that give you a hint how much I give a rats' ass about the Grand Republic?
(c) My previous avatar was the first Confederate National flag. Does that give you more of a hint if (b) fails to enlighten you?
(d) I pay enough in US and California taxes, despite being a resident of neither, to own and operate a public servant or three, depending on how good a year I'm having, and what pay grade of public servant type we're talking.

[mindseye]

My collegues in the National Lawyers Guild (who monitor protests for police abuse) SF chapter have it all on tape.

That fits with what I have heard and read as well. People trying to get out of the way or leave peacably were corralled by cops, and in some cases beaten. This is an old San Francisco story, happened a number of times while I lived there.

I miss San Francisco! People who are willing to take democracy to the streets while the DinoDocs kvetch from their Lazyboys.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Berzerker
MtG -

As Templar said, this would induce more plea bargains from the innocent. And it would undoubtedly violate the prohibition on ex post facto legislation since the reform would follow the infractions.

Who said ex post facto? I'm talking about curing the next crop, because you can bet if these *******s pull it off this time, it will be an organized tactic everywhere they go from here on out.

I'd hope they are used rarely to get information from a guilty party about his accomplices. And even then, it wouldn't really be a plea bargain, but a reduction in their sentence after they've been convicted. When we start telling innocent people they might get life if they want a trial and only a few years if they plead guilty, we can induce admissions of guilt from the innocent.

It's done all the time that way. If you're really "innocent" I'd expect the temptation would be to go to trial. Plea bargains are done frequently in murder trial - plea for LWOP or 25 to life, and DA doesn't go for DP. They're also used a lot in three strikes - plead to this charge, and we don't allege that third strike. Often, the tactic is to threaten to charge up, then plead level or slightly down. Example, you have a standard (Cali law) 1st degree murder, with a fair chance of conviction, but it's a pain in the ass trial. Offer the defendand a plead to 2nd degree, and DA reccomendation of 15 years to life. Threaten charge up to 1st degree murder with special circumstances, seeking LWOP. If the defendant is innocent, he'd be crazy to take a plea like that, but if he's guilty, he'd be crazy not to. It's a negotiating tactic, and it always has been, whether people like it or not. The courts don't really care - they figure the defendant has a choice.

Tell that to an innocent person bankrupted by false charges and a trial regardless of the verdict.

I'm just quoting the law.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by mindseye

Quote:

My collegues in the National Lawyers Guild (who monitor protests for police abuse) SF chapter have it all on tape.

That fits with what I have heard and read as well. People trying to get out of the way or leave peacably were corralled by cops, and in some cases beaten. This is an old San Francisco story, happened a number of times while I lived there.

I miss San Francisco! People who are willing to take democracy to the streets while the DinoDocs kvetch from their Lazyboys.

Yep, SFPD are cowboys.

mindseye - were you around SF back when that SFPD academy graduating class and their instructors had a little field exercise in Peg's Place? What morons.

Out of 3000 arrests, obviously there's some corralling and innocent parties, but sure as hell not all, and I don't think you can conclude anything about the total percentage yet. Especially from a bunch of pro-left trial lawyers. They're about as reliable as the DA's office.

"Democracy to the streets" - as long as it's their democracy, at their convenience, and without too much work.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


That's if you assume blocking streets, blocking Starbucks (God pity the poor soul who gets between me and caffeine, for I surely will have none. ), and general running amok constitutes protected "speech" and "peaceful assembly" not unprotect action and unlawful assembly.

Streets blocked due to protests and parades (believe me I used to live in New Orleans so I know about how annoying parades get) are just part of the general incovenience inherent in the urban landscape. You just have to live with it sometimes. As for 'running amok', well, I've never heard of that offense. What are the elements?

(c) My previous avatar was the first Confederate National flag. Does that give you more of a hint if (b) fails to enlighten you?

That's all I needed to know ...

[Ben Kenobi]

Streets blocked due to protests and parades (believe me I used to live in New Orleans so I know about how annoying parades get) are just part of the general incovenience inherent in the urban landscape.

Somehow I think Mardi Gras has the approval of the city of New Orleans, as a party, not for free speech and expression.

So you'll have to try a different angle if you are arguing that freedom of speech and expression allows you to block streets. Don't parades have to seek a permit from the municipal governement?

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by obiwan18
Somehow I think Mardi Gras has the approval of the city of New Orleans, as a party,

They also aren't allowed to go searching for streets called Bush and block thme off for example.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Bush St. is one of the major streets downtown. It sort of more or less merges with Battery St. at Market, directly across from 1st Street, so that block is just about smack in the center of downtown.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The Templar


Streets blocked due to protests and parades (believe me I used to live in New Orleans so I know about how annoying parades get) are just part of the general incovenience inherent in the urban landscape. You just have to live with it sometimes.

Parades require permits. Demonstrations blocking city streets are theoretically permittable too, if the parties seeking to block the street or protest down it happen to deign to consent to the conditions in such a permit.

Simply deciding to "shut down" a section of town is neither part of the general inconvenience, nor is it something that need be tolerated.

As for 'running amok', well, I've never heard of that offense. What are the elements?

Oh, it's just the catchall for general rowdiness and rambunctiousness. You know, second degree riot, disorderly conduct, trespass, disturbing the peace, unlawful assembly, whatever little specific charges you might want to apply. Seems the city by the bay has a couple thousand examples for you.

[TCO]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


The state has some 300,000 inmates in the prisons and jails now. 2300 misdemeanor trials won't break the state's back in the slightest.

Reform the "court costs" language in California law to make those found guilty at trial who do not accept plea bargains for lesser offenses liable for the full cost of the prosecution.

As for the charges, screw reducing them - charge the maximum, promise the maximum sentence on conviction, and give them the choice of pay a fine on the plea bargain, or go to trial and pay a bigger fine and do jail time. There's also a bit of time that the state can delay before actually conducting trials, so you can pick a crop of say, 100, and docket them first, max them out if they go to trial and get convicted, and give the rest a chance to plea or take the pain.

Depending on the overall mix of charges, some percentage of those aren't worth prosecuting, so let a few off to wittle down the numbers of the rest, but screw the rest - plea or pay, boys.

Agreed.

[Odin]

UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY! Doesn't that violate the constitution? you can't have permits for protests because that restricts when a protest may take place, and because we are all human, the city officials might give a desicion on political grounds without thinking. Protesters WANT to disturb normal activities because they don't want to be ignored, they want people to know they mean business. If we commies make a protest, we're gonna want to bring the city crashing down.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


Oh, it's just the catchall for general rowdiness and rambunctiousness. You know, second degree riot, disorderly conduct, trespass, disturbing the peace, unlawful assembly, whatever little specific charges you might want to apply. Seems the city by the bay has a couple thousand examples for you.

Right, one of those catch-all/the-police-just-don't-like-your-ass charges. An excuse to bust people for standing while poor or black (or both). What's next? Unauthorized use of a milk crate for sitting on the corner?

[Odin]

Originally posted by The Templar


Right, one of those catch-all/the-police-just-don't-like-your-ass charges. An excuse to bust people for standing while poor or black (or both). What's next? Unauthorized use of a milk crate for sitting on the corner?

That is exactly what I was thinking.

[Ben Kenobi]

Doesn't that violate the constitution? you can't have permits for protests because that restricts when a protest may take place, and because we are all human, the city officials might give a desicion on political grounds without thinking.

It is easy to protest lawfully, just stay on the sidewalks, don't break stuff and don't hurt the people that walk by.

If you think the US has limitations, you should come to Canada.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by Odin
If we commies make a protest, we're gonna want to bring the city crashing down.

I'll settle for MtG having a conniption while stuck in traffic.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by Odin
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY! Doesn't that violate the constitution?

Not in the slightest. Been done in the courts and everything. It's only an issue if the assembly is declared unlawful without a valid reason. Ever heard of "riots?" The police have powers to prevent those, if they see one developing that hasn't reach that state.

The specifc language in the First Amendment is: "the right of the people to peaceably assemble"

you can't have permits for protests because that restricts when a protest may take place, and because we are all human, the city officials might give a desicion on political grounds without thinking.

Small, spontaneous protests on public property don't need permits. Large organized ones present traffic, safety, public services (imagine the million man march without portacans ) and other issues, and they do require a permit. The million man march had both DC and Federal permits. The law is that ministerial action in granting or denying the permit has to be based on compelling public interests, not on content or other political reasons without a basis in a compelling public interest.

Protesters WANT to disturb normal activities because they don't want to be ignored, they want people to know they mean business. If we commies make a protest, we're gonna want to bring the city crashing down.

Then don't ***** and whine when the cops bring their sticks crashing down on your heads, or when Bubba in the county jail has his "stick" crashing up to the base of your cranium while you're in the holding cell.

If you want to break the law, and conspire to do so, just be man enough to pay the price of admission, don't be little sissy *****es in court. Lenin wasn't a sissy *****.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The Templar


Right, one of those catch-all/the-police-just-don't-like-your-ass charges. An excuse to bust people for standing while poor or black (or both). What's next? Unauthorized use of a milk crate for sitting on the corner?

If they're sitting out of line, maybe.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
Then don't ***** and whine when the cops bring their sticks crashing down on your heads, or when Bubba in the county jail has his "stick" crashing up to the base of your cranium while you're in the holding cell.

If you want to break the law, and conspire to do so, just be man enough to pay the price of admission, don't be little sissy *****es in court. Lenin wasn't a sissy *****.

A conniption in the OT is also funny ...

[MichaeltheGreat]

No conniption at all. I think it's comedic that anarchists and revolutionaries whine like third-grade schoolgirls about their "rights" under a system they want to destroy.

If you're gonna be a rough, tough, bandolero-totin', cigar smokin' he-man revolutionary, be one. If you're gonna act like a whiny liberal or sphincter-locked social conservative, it ruins the whole revo-commie-anarcho act.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Odin
UNLAWFUL ASSEMBLY! Doesn't that violate the constitution?

No. Don't be an idiot.

[MichaeltheGreat]

Originally posted by The Templar


I'll settle for MtG having a conniption while stuck in traffic.

I'd just see how many commies I could find a legal excuse to bust their heads or run over.

[Thorn]

Hmm... perhaps they should hire me if they really want to avoid being persecuted by you MtG.

You break the backs of 10 protestors, I'd break the backs of 1000 police officers.

Good thing I'm not for the commie movement eh?

[MichaeltheGreat]

I doubt you could break anything much tougher than one of your fingernails.

[Thorn]

They're not nails, THEY'RE CLAWS!

[Ben Kenobi]

sphincter-locked social conservative,

You don't make many friends now do you, MtG.

[MichaeltheGreat]

I didn't say they were all like that. Same with whiny liberals - I actually know a few who can communicate their ideas without whining. Unfortunately, they seem to get drowned out.

[mindseye]

mindseye - were you around SF back when that SFPD academy graduating class and their instructors had a little field exercise in Peg's Place? What morons.

Peg's Place sounds familiar, but I think that was before my time in SF. Was that after the Dan White verdict?

as long as it's their democracy, at their convenience, and without too much work.

Hey, it comes with the turf. San Francisco and Berkeley have a duty to the rest of the nation, ya know.

, just be man enough to pay the price of admission, don't be little sissy *****es in court

Be a man? One of the plaintiffs is an old lady!