Anybody seen the lovely new LA police video?

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Maverick

It is true that observation is a key skill of Police, but tell me, just what characteristic is it that you look for to determine within a couple seconds that a subject is mentally challenged.

I dunno. I'm wondering what characteristic the cop looked for before he pounded the kid's head into the hood.

If you feel creepy talking to a cop, it's your problem, not the cops. I have never had that feeling.

Never? Not even when you were 22 and out at 3AM with a flashlight pointed at your face? Not with your heart racing as you went through the quick inventory thinking, "What's he looking for? Have I done something wrong? Are the tail lights working? Does my breath smell like beer?"

At 40, the police don't trouble me. I don't fit the profile anymore.

[SC-Sp00k]

Fear.

Coulrophobia is the fear of Clowns. Theres no need however to be afraid of Policemen. You can trust us.

How do you kill a clown who has big floppy shoes?
With a big floppy sack of door knobs.

[Eagler]

of course he was "mentally challenged"

who in their right mind would resist arrest and fight with five cops who wasn't?

sort of like a mass murder pleading innocent because he was temporarily insane  no toejame!

still guilty

[Thrawn]

Originally posted by Maverick
It is true that observation is a key skill of Police, but tell me, just what characteristic is it that you look for to determine within a couple seconds that a subject is mentally challenged.

Are they wearing one of these?






Cobra, our cops also have to train in dropping thier gloves really fast when they go for thier guns.  

[Maverick]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Maverick

It is true that observation is a key skill of Police, but tell me, just what characteristic is it that you look for to determine within a couple seconds that a subject is mentally challenged.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I dunno. I'm wondering what characteristic the cop looked for before he pounded the kid's head into the hood.

Spoken like a true Monday morning quarterback. Perhaps it really is a damn shame that we have to use real people to make cops. I'm sure you'd be happier with artificial life forms, if any existed in that category.


quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you feel creepy talking to a cop, it's your problem, not the cops. I have never had that feeling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Never? Not even when you were 22 and out at 3AM with a flashlight pointed at your face? Not with your heart racing as you went through the quick inventory thinking, "What's he looking for? Have I done something wrong? Are the tail lights working? Does my breath smell like beer?"

At 40, the police don't trouble me. I don't fit the profile anymore


Nope. Only time I was scared was when I was stopped at 17 for speeding. I just knew my mom (dad died many years before)  would pull my license if I got a ticket and the prom was 2 nights away.  I got a warning,from a Motor Cop no less, and got to keep driving. Later on my own the cops never were a problem as there was nothing I was doing that was cause to be scared about. Like I said, your problem, not the cops.

Perhaps the fact that I had a couple relatives in Law Enforcement and knew they were people, not ogres was the difference. At least that was what I was taught and my experiance verified that. My first motorcycle ride was from a good friend of te family. He tossed me on the back of his Police bike and drove me around the block. I still remember that day. Later I was proud to have a motor assigned to me with the same number as his. I stood as a volunteer honor guard at his funeral many years later.

YMMV

[NUKE]

I heard on news,  the officer's lawyer says the kid was grabbing the officers testicles from within the handcuffs when he was leaning over the car and the officer was behind him.

I dont know if that is true or not, just what the lawyer siad.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Maverick

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Maverick

It is true that observation is a key skill of Police, but tell me, just what characteristic is it that you look for to determine within a couple seconds that a subject is mentally challenged.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



I dunno. I'm wondering what characteristic the cop looked for before he pounded the kid's head into the hood.

Spoken like a true Monday morning quarterback.

Just call 'em like I see 'em.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If you feel creepy talking to a cop, it's your problem, not the cops. I have never had that feeling.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Never? Not even when you were 22 and out at 3AM with a flashlight pointed at your face? Not with your heart racing as you went through the quick inventory thinking, "What's he looking for? Have I done something wrong? Are the tail lights working? Does my breath smell like beer?"

At 40, the police don't trouble me. I don't fit the profile anymore


Nope. Only time I was scared was when I was stopped at 17 for speeding. I just knew my mom (dad died many years before)  would pull my license if I got a ticket and the prom was 2 nights away.  I got a warning,from a Motor Cop no less, and got to keep driving. Later on my own the cops never were a problem as there was nothing I was doing that was cause to be scared about. Like I said, your problem, not the cops.

YMMV [/B]

Exactly! YMMV.

[Creamo]

Not all mentally retarded folks are mongoloid with easily distinguishing characteristics.

lol, sometimes it takes several posts by people here for this to be apparent.

[Maverick]

Originally posted by Creamo
Not all mentally retarded folks are mongoloid with easily distinguishing characteristics.

lol, sometimes it takes several posts by people here for this to be apparent.

Yeah but you make it real easy..............

[midnight Target]

I get the willies ever since I was stopped for being the wheel man in the great "Mr Bubble in the Police Fountain" caper of 1973.
The memories are too horrible to discuss.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by Maverick
Hortlund,

You make a very convincing argument for the simplicity of the legal system in your country. I didn't know about it, but it is certainly a refreshing change from the situation in the states.

Thanks

Personally I like our system better, but on the other hand, our lawyers dont get as rich as the US lawyers... so somehow I doubt there will be any change in the US soon hehe

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by scspook
Oldman, may I ask 2 questions please.

1. If it is not improper to do so, How much do you get an hour on average for any particular matter?

2. Am I correct in thinking (assuming) that you do not see that the propensity for Civil Litigation in your country is not a problem?

SCSpook:  I imagine you're more interested in general legal fees, rather than specifically those of yours truly.  Here in Philadelphia the hourly fees range from a low of about $100 to a high of about $350.  NYC is $50-$100 higher all around, suburbs and boonies are lower.  Obviously real people can't afford those fees - only corporations can.

I do not see that the propensity for civil litigation is a problem.  It has always been here, as observed by that Frenchman 200 years ago when he traveled the US in 1820 or thereabouts.  Actually, the highest incidence of litigiousness was just before our civil war.

- oldman

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by Hortlund
OJ was tried for the same action twice [killing 2 people]. That is double jeopardy.

Not here.  Double jeopardy only attaches when the jury has been sworn and evidence has been presented in a criminal case.

It matters not that one case was a criminal case and the other one was a "private" case. Especially not since one can argue that punitive damages is a form of punishment, albeit a financial one (and indeed, isnt that the whole point with such damages).

Here there is a very bright line drawn between criminal and civil cases.  Generally this is because the burden of proof is so high in a criminal case.  BTW, what is the burden of proof over there?

I can honestly say that I do not understand your line of reasoning in this part. Apparently you have a different version of res judicata than we have over here.

Apparently we do.

I find that both curious and somewhat strange. To be honest, I get the feeling that in the US you want to keep that double shot in some cases, so you squeeze it in by changing your definition of res judicata.

At the risk of being terminally boring, res judicata and collateral estoppel do cross criminal-civil boundaries.  OJ in reverse would have applied this, i.e. if OJ had been convicted of the killings,  beyond a reasonable doubt, that fact would have been established in any subsequent civil proceeding, where the burden of proof is less.  But just because you can't prove a fact beyond a reasonable doubt doesn't mean that you can't prove it by a preponderance - which accounts for the distinction that actually occurred in OJ's litigation.

In short, the res judicata-model we have over hear means that if something has been examined in one trial, it cannot be used as evidence in another trial.

That would apply here, too, if the burdens of proof were the same in the two types of cases.

I have read the McD story many times, heck we even use it in lawschool here in Sweden (together with that Texaco case...are you familiar with that one? How did it end? $11 billon in damages? Good bye Texaco).

Sorry, Texaco is alive and well.  They discharged that debt in bankruptcy back in the early 1990s.  I have had to deal with that in two cases.

I see that we are approaching the different philosophies in our legal systems here. You say no one expects to be served coffee that will cause permanent injury if spilled. I say everyone knows that coffee is served hot.

Not going to beat this horse anymore.

In Sweden the idea behind damages is to compensate for damage caused. I really dont know what the philospohy is in the US, but it appears to be more along the lines of "hit them where it hurts" (ie the wallet).

Nope, principle is the same.

See Texaco above. Im pretty sure they think your legal system suck ass.

Texaco's lawyers are masters of our legal system.   I can hear them laughing at you.

Why would the poor and middle class do without lawyers? Dont you see that it is the other way around here?

Swedish method: In certain types of cases (mostly custody cases and in all cases where the government is involved), the government pays for the lawyer costs.

Socialized law, like socialized medicine, has been adopted by different countries with different subsequent experiences.  I doubt that either will be implemented in this country within the foreseeable future, though, so I won't go into it here.

In other types of cases (when the dispute is over something of marginal value, currently less than $2000) each party has to pay his own costs, regardless of the outcome. In these type of cases, you often see people appear before the court without representation...which can be kinda fun/tragic. be fun/frustrating.

Yup.  Tell two people they're allowed to have a fight, and the one who brings the gun is likely to prevail over the one who brings a knife.

Then you have the "normal" cases where the losing side gets to pay the winning side's lawyer costs. Trust me, there is not a better way to get rid of the ludicrous lawsuits. In the US, many seems to be of the "thats a big company, lets sue..its worth a try"-philosophy... trust me, it would not be as interesting if you knew that you had to pay their bills if you lost.

There was a trend toward this perhaps 20 years ago, which petered out when corporations found that they were being held liable to pay huge consumer legal fees.  "Winner pays all" is a big incentive to bring an insignificant, but meritorious, case.

It is expressly forbidden for Swedish lawyers to take a percentage of the "win", any lawyer caught trying to do that lose his license immideately.

Contingent fees actually help restrict baseless suits.  As a lawyer, you don't want to invest your time and money in pursuing a case that has a slim chance of success.  If you're getting paid hourly, this is not a concern.

But I can see why a US lawyer would feel reluctant to change the US system. I will not comment on why that is though.

Nice snide comment.  I can see why Swedish lawyers commit suicide at rates higher than elsewhere.  I will not comment on why that is, though.

Funny, I thought I knew pretty much all there is to know about the jury system. From how jurors are chosen from the public and then how the 12 jurors in a trial is chosen, and finally what they get to do during the trial. But you are of cource correct, you know more about these things than me.

I suspect that I have had more jury trials than you have.

I am of the opinion however, that complicated legal desicions are better left to professional judges than just some average Joe pulled from the street. There are alot of examples of outrageous results coming from your jury system. OJ and King are only the two most famous ones, those rulings are both embarrasing for you and completely insane.

I understand the theory.  English common law systems think that twelve heads - even if "just average Joes pulled from the street" - are more likely to come up with the correct result than one professional head.  We actually get both types of trials here, because most cases are bench trials, i.e. tried to a judge, not a jury.  Like most everything else, you're sort of dependent on the quality of the fact finder - and being a professional jurist is no guarantee that you're a wise person.  As to OJ and King:  If you're going to take unusual cases, and treat them as representative cases, then you will likely reach wrong conclusions.

Combine that with the fact that you still have the death penalty, and you might get a hint as to why US law is held in low esteem in Europe.

Yes, well, life with the savages, you know.  I don't know how I'll manage to sleep now, having learned that the Europeans hold US law in low esteem.

- oldman

[midnight Target]

Oldman,

Back in the early 90's I did some work for a PI Attorney. He said some attorneys use the "Big Mac" rule, basing their fee on the current price of the Big Mac times 100. Old wives tale?  

ie. Big Mac was 1.50  fees were $150/hr etc.

[Oldman731]

Originally posted by midnight Target
Oldman,

Back in the early 90's I did some work for a PI Attorney. He said some attorneys use the "Big Mac" rule, basing their fee on the current price of the Big Mac times 100. Old wives tale?  

ie. Big Mac was 1.50  fees were $150/hr etc.

First time I've heard it, but who knows?  The market works in strange and mysterious ways.

- oldman