Much credit to this post.

  • @Skullgrid
    link
    152 months ago

    how many felonies did she commit?

    • DessalinesOP
      link
      fedilink
      82 months ago

      Its not illegal to disproportionately imprison black people for minor drug offenses in the USA, just like slavery was and remains very legal there.

        • DessalinesOP
          link
          fedilink
          92 months ago

          Kamala already treats black ppl in practice, how you imagine trump will treat them. She even called black lives matter a russian op. Do you agree with her on that?

  • @Carrolade
    link
    English
    112 months ago

    Well worth it to actually click through and read some of the specific articles on topics of interest. The descriptions are not all accurate.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          102 months ago

          Many of these are about a case of a man supposedly throwing a knife under a car, for instance.

          So far as I can tell, a single bullet point is about this, just with multiple links.

          “A crime he didn’t commit” is inaccurate, it remained very much in question.

          It’s a claim straight from one of the links and I’m gonna go out on a limb here and say that a conviction based solely on cop testimony, later contradicted by other witnesses, with an incompetent defending lawyer that was later disbarred, is plenty enough to make that claim.

          Really, I recommend reading through any that strike your interest, and not simply trusting the one-shot summaries provided by a random person on the internet.

          Sure, but read them critically and not with a pro-cop bias.

          • @Carrolade
            link
            English
            -92 months ago

            It was also a point of at least one of the other bullets.

            Also need to read them without an anti-cop bias, it’s about conflicting witnesses. This puts the case into question based on an unbiased reading of the evidence at hand.

            Definitely read them critically, certainly. But remove all bias, not just pro-cop bias. There’s a whole bunch of nuance in the handful I clicked on that the pithy shorts neglect or outright spin.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              92 months ago

              It was also a point of at least one of the other bullets.

              It was mentioned in a summary article of Kamala’s reactionary behavior as AG that is at the head of the other bullet points about this. It was a small part of a summary article that is entirely correct in its thesis.

              You are being misleading in your criticisms and should retract your false framing of OP’s post.

              Also need to read them without an anti-cop bias

              No I don’t. An anti-cop bias means being correct about power structures and, in this case, why you cannot trust them to tell the truth in court, let alone as the primary or sole evidence for guilt. In contrast, a pro-cop bias suggests either naivete or knowing sympathy with the legalized gang boot.

              it’s about conflicting witnesses.

              It’s about the primary evidence being the claims of two cops that were later contradicted by other witnesses (one of whom was also a cop!), the incompetent atyorney and the impact it had on the defense, like I said. Please address what I actually said, this is becoming repetitive and you are saying things already contradicted by myself and the articles in question. You read them, right? You recommended everyone do so. Why are you mischaracterizing them by omitting important information?

              I didn’t even mention how this reflects on Harris, who used a technicality to keep harassing this person rather than address or accept the material facts.

              This puts the case into question based on an unbiased reading of the evidence at hand.

              It puts the conviction and its fundamental basis into question, making it spurious. That is, unless you have the misapprehension that cops don’t routinely lie in their reports and in court. It is laughable to take the original case seriously.

              Definitely read them critically, certainly. But remove all bias, not just pro-cop bias.

              It speaks to a status quo naivete to presume the best position is one “without bias”. That is not only an impossible thing, it is a counter-productive thing to persue. Are you going to read the article without a language bias, where the words could mean anything or something, it is all the same to you? Will you be reading the case without a temporal bias? Maybe the events happened in a totally different order, who knows! Maybe 27 years is actually a day. Understanding the world and its systems necessitates bias.

              Such as that a case built on the testimony of two cops is, to make it simple, horseshit.

              There’s a whole bunch of nuance in the handful I clicked on that the pithy shorts neglect or outright spin.

              Given that you were wrong and misleading about this one, I am not optimistic about this, but feel free to share your other critical readings.

              • @Carrolade
                link
                English
                12 months ago

                So, I’m a man of my word, I said I’d look at a few more of these and comment:

                OP states that special prosecutors were assigned to graffiti and vandalism, tripling the number of cases brought to trial. The quoted statement says such prosecutors were assigned to three examples, those two plus auto burglaries, all in the same sentence. This is a lie of omission.

                OP mentions she pushed a law that required schools to report undocumented immigrant children to ICE. Does not mention this was only for those committing a felony. Another lie of omission, implying a broader targeting with no other factors.

                OP states she prevented her prosecutors for being charged in a jailhouse informant ring, and then they tried to cover it up. The informant ring pre-dated her status as DA, she did authorize an investigation into the sheriff’s office running it, and simply appealed the prosecutors office from being recused from prosecuting the case. Another misrepresentation.

                This is a dishonest post, I’m afraid. People would be wise to read the actual details contained in the linked articles, when they’re even still available. I still have looked at less than half of them, this time I just clicked on ones that sounded odd.

              • @Carrolade
                link
                English
                -32 months ago

                I am not being misleading at all, this is strongly slanted content.

                Your “correct about power structures” betrays you. I think it is quite reasonable to see even police as individuals, capable of individual action. To me it’s testimony of two against two. The defense attorney’s incompetence is another issue entirely, but does not make the man innocent. Maybe he threw the knife, maybe he did not. Until we get a better answer in court, that’s all we’ve got.

                I really don’t think we need to consider temporal bias, unless this happened in low light conditions. Nor language bias. Simply bias towards the witnesses. You are disregarding two of them due to your own perceptions of structural power, I am disregarding none of them. I prefer my way. The rest of your rhetoric is rather silly.

                I read a few of these this morning, and saw legitimate cause for concern. I do not recall which specific ones I clicked on though, I tried to pick a handful at random. Regardless, a cautioning to be wary about internet spin is far from misleading, and this is definitely spun. I strongly suspect you simply like the spin out of an acab position, which I clearly do not ascribe to. You can call me naive if you like, I am certainly aware of the incentives for police to get convictions. I do not find such a position sufficient to simply disregard all police testimony, however. That simply should not be good enough, regardless of your philosophical leanings.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  62 months ago

                  I am not being misleading at all, this is strongly slanted content.

                  I have explained how your claim is misleading twice now and you have not responded to that.

                  Your “correct about power structures” betrays you.

                  Betrays me how? You never elaborate on this later on.

                  I think it is quite reasonable to see even police as individuals, capable of individual action.

                  And yet the system produces a legalized gang that watches each others’ backs and routinely lies on reports and on the stand. You can’t just ignore that reality away, though clearly you would like to because knowing that cops are unreliable witnesses against defendants blows up the entirety of the prosecurion’s case. It is an absurd thing, and gullible, to think that cops’ testimony is enough to presume any level of guilt.

                  To me it’s testimony of two against two.

                  “If you stop making me think about context and facts, it’s simple, really! My position is nuanced!” lmfao

                  The defense attorney’s incompetence is another issue entirely

                  No it is not. It also undermines the original conviction, highlights the cruelty of Harris’ intervention, and provides a hint at the systemic issues re: the criminal punishment system that should lead you to have a less pro-cop, pro-prosecutor bias.

                  but does not make the man innocent. Maybe he threw the knife, maybe he did not. Until we get a better answer in court, that’s all we’ve got.

                  The burden of proof is on the positive claimant. Claims of crimes are not, by default, ambiguously true just because they are prosecuted or because there is cop testimony. Your logic is that of the southern white lynch mob.

                  And it reflects poorly on your comments, not on OP. You should withdraw your claim and apologize.

                  I really don’t think we need to consider temporal bias […]

                  I was obviously being absurd on purpose in both cases. Bias is inherent to having a correct understanding of something. The problem here is not bias at all, it’s being biased towards cops and prosecutors. You should be biased against them in these examples as they have a poor track record and it is for systemic reasons. And, to boot, they were contradicted by others, including another cop. This normally puts a huge target on the back of a “snitch”. See how useful bias is? It means you understand the forces at work and can judge the value of actions in context.

                  Simply bias towards the witnesses. You are disregarding two of them due to your own perceptions of structural power, I am disregarding none of them. I prefer my way. The rest of your rhetoric is rather silly.

                  I have actually listed at least 6 arguments around this, from different aspects of the case, and you have ignored nearly all of them. Noting the irrationality of your problem bias is just one part of explaining one of those angles.

                  Because I think you have forgotten, I will remind you that you are claiming the OP is being misleading and that the content of the articles does not match the claims, listing one example so far (and in a different misleading way, as I have noted twice!): that it isn’t kosher to say an innocent man was convicted (despite one of the articles saying this verbatim), that it is actually ambiguous and man, you just can’t tell. I will add a 7th argument: you are entirely missing the real point of those articles anyways, which is that Harris stepped in to harass this man in a technicality, i.e. the exact timing of challenges and the presentation of witnesses.

                  The rest of your rhetoric is rather silly.

                  Oh dear.

                  I read a few of these this morning, and saw legitimate cause for concern.

                  Yet you have only listed one example and didn’t even characterize it right in its basic framing, as it was only stated in one bullet point.

                  I do not recall which specific ones I clicked on though, I tried to pick a handful at random.

                  By this I will take it to mean you refuse to provide more examples despite claiming to have them.

                  Regardless, a cautioning to be wary about internet spin is far from misleading, and this is definitely spjn.

                  Only if you are biased towards cops and prosecutors and do things like, say, try to remove context from consideration or look at the case in its totality because that would contradict your narrative. You don’t see the irony in this behavior while decryjng “internet spin”?

                  I strongly suspect you simply like the spin out of an acab position, which I clearly do not ascribe to.

                  Feel free to respond directly to what I say and ask questions and you might be able to make accurate conclusions about my positions.

                  You can call me naive if you like, I am certainly aware of the incentives for police to get convictions.

                  And this describes the totality of your understanding of how much and why cops lie in reports and in court?

                  I do not find such a position sufficient to simply disregard all police testimony, however. That simply should not be good enough, regardless of your philosophical leanings.

                  I will take that as a “yes” to my question.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      72 months ago

      A nationalist “tough on crime” anti-socialist with a deep appreciation for cops-for-capitalism pining for a return to “glory days” for a subset of residents while scapegoating others via racist and xenophobic policies? While pushing a genocide? Whose supporters can’t even name the parts of her platform that appeal to them, instead trying to build a cult of personality and identify through who they reject?

      To the extent anyone is fascist any longer she’s right up there. But she uses rhetoric that is normalized for liberals and flies under the radar because the oppression she supports is sanitized and “politely” obfuscated.

    • @InverseParallax
      link
      English
      -42 months ago

      No, she’s much, much worse, mostly because Russia needs Trump to stop weapons supplies to Ukraine again like he did last time.