One Year in Jail For Abusive Silicon Valley CEO (theguardian.com) 287
He grew up in San Jose, and at the age of 25 sold his second online advertising company to Yahoo for $300 million just nine years ago. Friday Gurbaksh Chahal was sentenced to one year in jail for violating his probation on 47 felony charges from 2013, according to an article in The Guardian submitted by an anonymous Slashdot reader:
Police officials said that a 30-minute security camera video they obtained showed the entrepreneur hitting and kicking his then girlfriend 117 times and attempting to suffocate her inside his $7 million San Francisco penthouse. Chahal's lawyers, however, claimed that police had illegally seized the video, and a judge ruled that the footage was inadmissible despite prosecutors' argument that officers didn't have time to secure a warrant out of fear that the tech executive would erase the footage.
Without the video, most of the charges were dropped, and Chahal, 34, pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor battery charges of domestic violence... In Silicon Valley, critics have argued that Chahal's case and the lack of serious consequences he faced highlight the way in which privileged and wealthy businessmen can get away with serious misconduct.. On September 17, 2014, prosecutors say he attacked another woman in his home, leading to another arrest.
Friday Chahal was released on bail while his lawyer appeals the one-year jail sentence for violating his probation.
Without the video, most of the charges were dropped, and Chahal, 34, pleaded guilty to two misdemeanor battery charges of domestic violence... In Silicon Valley, critics have argued that Chahal's case and the lack of serious consequences he faced highlight the way in which privileged and wealthy businessmen can get away with serious misconduct.. On September 17, 2014, prosecutors say he attacked another woman in his home, leading to another arrest.
Friday Chahal was released on bail while his lawyer appeals the one-year jail sentence for violating his probation.
And that is why you follow the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
Chahal's lawyers, however, claimed that police had illegally seized the video, and a judge ruled that the footage was inadmissible despite prosecutors' argument that officers didn't have time to secure a warrant out of fear that the tech executive would erase the footage.
A warrant is a phone call away; arresting the guy and then calling in a warrant to search for video evidence when seeing cctv isn't that hard nor time consuming.
All it takes is one Judge who follows the law to shut down crooked cops and now a violent offender is getting away with minimal sentencing.
Good job, cops.
Re:And that is why you follow the law. (Score:4, Informative)
The majority of offenders plead out if they know they have evidence against them so examination of chain of evidence doesn't happen. Police are largely unaware of the law. If all criminals had good lawyers and could afford full trials with defensive investigations we would barely have any behind bars.
Re:And that is why you follow the law. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: And that is why you follow the law. (Score:2)
No one forced the girl to date him. She's gonna sue the cops for not protecting her from her own bad decisions?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: And that is why you follow the law. (Score:2)
Because she chose him despite his obvious personality flaws because he's rich.
Re:And that is why you follow the law. (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, to arrest him, you need probable cause. Otherwise you run the risk that the arrest was not done out of probable cause and because of that, the warrant was therefore invalid since the arrest was invalid.
Now, it is actually legal to seize evidence without a warrant, providing you can prove there is a time-sensitive nature to it.
In this case, the police have information that the surveillance footage contains important information to arrest the guy. But without seeing that footage, they technically can't arrest him. So in the meantime, while we ponder how the police are going to get evidence to arrest the guy, but they can't arrest him now (not enough evidence) the guy is free to do whatever, including destroy evidence.
Judges generally look down at warrantless evidence, and they usually convene a subtrial to figure out if the evidence should be thrown out or not.They look to see if exigent circumstances exist to allow the evidence to be used without a prior warrant - i.e., is it possible and likely the evidence would've been destroyed during the time to get a warrant. There's a lot of case law and interpretation behind it - if it was a surveillance system belonging to the building, for example, then it would've been tossed out (it is unlikely the building manager would erase the evidence, and most likely, if you ask nicely, they'll turn it over without questioning).
Oh, and there are times when it is LEGAL for law enforcement to enter your home without a warrant, probable cause or anything else (called "hot pursuit"). In fact, if they came in (during those circumstances) and you're openly doing drugs inside your house, they can arrest you for that, even though in a normal situation, that would be highly illegitimate! (No, most of the time, the cops are not allowed to enter a private residence without being invited or if they have a warrant, except in the narrow case.of hot pursuit).
http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=2... [lawcomic.net]
Re: (Score:3)
In this case, a woman lying bleeding, broken, and nearly dead likely qualifies as "probable cause" for arrest.
Indeed. Domestic violence might be the most common arrest police make. In many states, if there are visible injuries the law REQUIRES the police to arrest the other party. Just arrest him and call a judge to get a warrant to gather further evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
A warrant is a phone call away; arresting the guy and then calling in a warrant to search for video evidence when seeing cctv isn't that hard nor time consuming.
You're assuming a specific and linear timeline for this to be the case, and making assumptions on what happened at the time that you could not know.
Re:And that is why you follow the law. (Score:4, Insightful)
All it takes is one Judge who follows the law to shut down crooked cops and now a violent offender is getting away with minimal sentencing.
Good job, cops.
This wasn't some unrecorded probably fake anonymous tip over the phone, this was a bloody girlfriend who could finger her attacker. That's more than probable cause. The cops did their jobs in this case. The judge, or someone who can influence the judge, got paid off. It is as simple as that.
Now, this piece of trash did the same to another woman. The only reason the same judge did anything this time is because he probably didn't want to face the same repercussions and recriminations the Stanford judge faced.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
It is funny how Slashdotters don't know anything about the real world. You don't just "call up and order a warrant" like you would get a pizza. For fucks sake.
That's not entirely fair. The youngsters probably assume there's an app for that.
Re:And that is why you follow the law. (Score:5, Insightful)
Not if he is under arrest.
The cops took the lazy way and now a scumbag gets away with his crimes again.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I cannot rule out that corruption was involved. I also noticed there was none of the usual bending logic into a pretzel in an attempt to admit the evidence anyway that we see so often. I hope that's just a case of a judge doing the right thing. It's a shame so many judges have brought so much shame to the courts that I have to wonder.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And that is why you follow the law. (Score:4, Informative)
Are you representing yourself as a seasoned law enforcement officer currently a member of the San Francisco (or any) police department? I think not. Please state the verifiable sources for your claims of instant-warrants that only require speed-dial and a printer mounted in a squad car.
Speaking as someone that WAS arrested in my home he's mostly correct. I refused a search and a police officer just sat with me while they contacted a judge and got a warrant. Took about an hour. We watched Hell's Kitchen. And this was drug related, not violent, so it wasn't exactly urgent.It did in fact happen via a phone and a printer, though that printer was at the station and they just drove it over.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's not destruction of evidence if it isn't evidence yet. It's the job of the police to do proper search and seizure, if they tip a criminal off it's their own fault.
Re: (Score:3)
Nope, it's also destruction of evidence if you believe it might become evidence, which in that situation could be proven. They would still need to prove there was evidence that was destroyed, but if they did that proving that you knew it would shortly be evidence would be easy.
Re: (Score:2)
What a terrible legal system (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sorry but the only reason he wasn't convicted was because the tape wasn't admissible? If some ass hits and kicks his girlfriend 117 times I'm calling in the forensics team because there's going to be the girlfriends blood in the apartment and on his clothes. They will find her blood which will corroborate her statement. Then it doesn't matter if he deleted the video. Besides from the sounds of it he doesn't really sound smart enough to securely delete so that a digital forensics team couldn't retrieve it.
But if all you are going into your trial with is a tape that the police questionably obtained (the lawyer should have seen this coming) then what is your police department and prosecutors office doing with their time because it certainly isn't preparing for cases.
Re:What a terrible legal system (Score:5, Interesting)
That's just the surface, the ones who've been caught. I don't know how deep it goes, but it definitely extends into the police department.
"The City of San Francisco is corrupt" (Score:2)
So, remind me again what political party controls San Francisco from top to bottom?
Oh, and here's a data point: Gurbaksh Chahal gave his political donations exclusively to Democrats [opensecrets.org].
Re: (Score:3)
So, remind me again what political party controls San Francisco from top to bottom?
WTF are you trying to say here? Both parties are pretty much equally corrupt, so it doesn't matter which currently controls San Francisco.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, part of what you are describing could be construed as parallel construction. Did the cops have reason to search for that evidence before seeing the illegally obtained video? If not, then obtaining that evidence would be "fruit of the poisoned tree". Though, police frequently use parallel construction in the US to get around that pesky constitution stuff. In this case, it sounds like they tried to play a trump card (No pun intended) and got caught cheating. It's obviously an extremely unfortunate
Re: (Score:2)
Yes. Yes they sure had reasons to - did you even read the article?!?
Re: (Score:2)
They had to have a reason for wanting the security video of the guy's house. I'm presuming that would be a complaint from the girlfriend that was beaten up.
Re: (Score:2)
That would apparently be too logical and civilized.
Re: (Score:2)
Police aren't likely to bring in a forensics team on a domestic assault case unless the guy has gone out of his way to piss of authorities and they want to nail him on something, anything.
The video evidence was simply low-hanging fruit; it was in their face and easy to get, so they grabbed it.
Re: (Score:3)
The problem I have with this is that I don't call hitting someone 117 times domestic assault. Once you get above a couple it should be a higher charge and this many should be attempted murder. While domestic abuse is wrong in any circumstances this guy is especially dangerous and the resources should have been used to make the case.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't entirely disagree, but proving it would be an uphill battle against very expensive lawyers.
Social Justice / Patterns / the circle of violence (Score:2)
Pattern:
From the sources one can make a prediction by just looking at that pattern, and the knowledge about other people[1] that have exert these patterns: they are very likely to exert these patterns again.
Prediction on his longterm whereabouts:
So my prediction is unless he undergoes successful counseling he is doomed to do it again and again and again, till the point he is sent to prison for life under the three-strikes rule.
Lawyers can find caveats however at a point in time these caveats will run out (a
One. Year. (Score:2)
Silicon Valley CEO (Score:2)
Where do I sign up?
Re: (Score:2)
I want to be a Silicon Valley CEO. Commit 47 felonies and only get a year in jail.
On the other hand... The guy could have just been happy with the $300 million he got for selling his company and lived well for the rest of his life. Being rich doesn't mean you *have* to be a dick.
What a Piece Of Shit. What A Crap System. (Score:4, Interesting)
2013 - PoS assaults girlfriend. Lawyers work magic and get video evidence barred. PoS s convicted of lesser crime. PoS gets probation. Grrr. OK.
2014 - PoS assaults another woman, violating probation. Case drags on until 2016(!).
2016 - PoS finally gets sentenced to 1 year in jail. Instead of going to jail, PoS is released on bail pending appeal. Grrr. This is ridiculous.
That's three years, two violent assaults, two convictions and this fucker has still not been jailed. WTF?
Re: (Score:2)
I hope he winds up dating a woman who's secretly a highly-skilled martial artist. Let him get his ass kicked for once.
Re:What is Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to see how videotaped 100% clear proof of violent crime can be ignored because the police break a rule when obtaining it.
Because if you let it go in this case then you have to let it go in all cases, and if you let it go in all cases then the police are free to break into your home, car, office, etc, hack into your computer, read your mail, record your phone calls, use stingray type devices, and anything else privacy invading just any time they want just to find shit to send you to jail for.
But what's that you say? Who cares about privacy when lives are on the line? Well the thing with that is if police can just do whatever they want to obtain evidence to throw you in jail, then they can practically throw anybody they want in jail because EVERYBODY does things that are illegal, and you bet your ass that politicians would start using this to silence their opposition until we end up with a China style government.
Re: (Score:2)
If the police officers involved in obtaining evidence illegally get charged with the approriate crime and sentenced, then the "let it go" part does not happen. Few police officers want criminals behind bars so much that they will sacrifice their own freedom.
Also, in case such a screw-up happens, does the government compensate the victim? He o
Re: (Score:2)
Because if you let it go in this case then you have to let it go in all cases, and if you let it go in all cases then the police are free to break into your home, car, office, etc, hack into your computer, read your mail, record your phone calls, use stingray type devices, and anything else privacy invading just any time they want just to find shit to send you to jail for.
Wrong approach. Now a violent offender goes free. Punishing the police by increasing the number of criminals on the street isn't a punishment, it's job security.
Correct approach: Prove the video as admissible in court. Properly punish the police for their conduct, either those directly involved, or the entire precinct.
This way a proper deterrent in place, and this fucker stays locked up in prison.
Re:What is Justice (Score:4, Insightful)
I fail to see how videotaped 100% clear proof of violent crime can be ignored because the police break a rule when obtaining it.
Because if you let it go in this case then you have to let it go in all cases, and if you let it go in all cases then the police are free to break into your home, car, office, etc, hack into your computer, read your mail, record your phone calls, use stingray type devices, and anything else privacy invading just any time they want just to find shit to send you to jail for.
No, there was a bloody girlfriend pointing finger at her attacker and there was an immediate need to go into the house to secure the crime scene. There was more than probable cause to search the house without a warrant.
This is not like other situations at all. The judge got paid off somehow, or he received a phone call from some higher ups. That's the real reason he was let go for that first woman.
Re: (Score:3)
What about the fucking rights of the women this guy beat to a pulp?
You should be asking the police that question. If they had obtained their evidence legally, it wouldn't have been thrown out.
Re: (Score:2)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Punishing the police doesn't work. Think about it, if a police officer illegally searches a house and finds evidence against a serial killer .. wouldn't he be a hero in the public's eyes? Which jury will convict him? Knowing that, whenever a police officer illegally searches .. they have incentive to plant evidence or tamper with stuff such as to make the suspect look guilty. If a few serial killers are convicted through illegal searches .. the public will eventually say sto
Re: (Score:2)
Turns out I was right about that, yes?
US law is based on the presumption of innocence until proven guilty. You don't seem to understand what that means.
Rather, you actually seem to think it's better that 100 innocent people go to prison than for one guilty person to go free. Which, for lack of a more precise term, is just plain nuts.
Re: (Score:2)
What part of "Punish the police" did you not understand? The whole system of making illegally acquired evidence inadmissible is wrong. It creates 2 injustices, the original felon goes free and the policeman breaking the law is unpunished. Because the only downside for those illegally acquiring evidence is seeing work go to waste, there is negligible disincentive for acquiring evidence illegally.
In a case like the one in TFA, the felon should be doing hard time for attempted murder, no possibility of parole. The policeman should be punished by (for example) a month in jail and a fine of a month's (gross) pay.
Oh I disagree wholeheartedly that the police officer who violated the law will be unpunished. They may not be punished criminally but you can bet that it will be a huge blight on not only that officer's career, but the District Attorney who was unable to properly prosecute the criminal. And rightfully so as you do not want people in power who so blatantly violate the law, especially a law that would have been absolutely trivial to satisfy. California makes it practically impossible to drop Domestic Viole
Re: (Score:3)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Punishing the police doesn't work. Think about it, if a police officer illegally searches a house and finds evidence against a serial killer .. wouldn't he be a hero in the public's eyes? Which jury will convict him? Knowing that, whenever a police officer illegally searches .. they have incentive to plant evidence or tamper with stuff such as to make the suspect look guilty. If a few serial killers are convicted through illegal searches .. the public will eventually say sto
Re: (Score:3)
I fail to see how videotaped 100% clear proof of violent crime can be ignored because the police break a rule when obtaining it. Punish the police AND the lawbreaker. Letting the sociopath go free makes YOU liable for his future crimes.
The problem is the video was obtained by violating his rights, punishing the police is good, but his rights were still violated.
I think there's sometimes allowance for keeping the evidence if they would have found it anyway. But in general I'd much rather a government that errs on the side of respecting rights than the other way around.
Re:What is Justice (Score:5, Insightful)
I fail to see how videotaped 100% clear proof of violent crime can be ignored because the police break a rule when obtaining it.
Because police that are willing to "break rules" are also willing to falsify evidence and lie under oath.
Re: (Score:2)
True. So will the police officer/s who broke the law to obtain this evidence illegally be prosecuted? Not likely.
So that's two actual failures of justice. Justice in this case case has been done (rejecting evidence obtained illegally), but has twice NOT been "seen to be done". Who/what will be done to redress this failure? Sweet F.A.
Will the girl be able to achieve some form of justice through a civil case? Maybe.
Maybe she should, as another poster suggested, sue the police for fucking up the case?
Re: (Score:2)
I fail to see how videotaped 100% clear proof of violent crime can be ignored because the police break a rule when obtaining it. Punish the police AND the lawbreaker. Letting the sociopath go free makes YOU liable for his future crimes.
Look up fruit of the tainted tree. Any evidence gained illegally should not be used, or else it wouldn't be long before all evidence was gained illegally.
Re:He's actually lucky (Score:4, Funny)
I realize that when it's convenient to the narrative, Indians are "white" but if this guy had been actually white then God help him as he'd have been lucky to make it to court before the SJW lynch mob[0] got to him.
[0] Too soon?
Indeed! Has there ever been a race as badly discriminated against as white people right now!?!?
* Not a Trump supporter, just being sarcastic.
** If you are a Trump supporter, this is what sarcasm looks like.
Re: (Score:2)
** If you are a Trump supporter, this is what sarcasm looks like.
"This is your brain!"
(Fries an egg in a pan)
"This is your brain on sarcasm!"
"Any questions?"
Is anyone here old enough to remember that one?
Re: (Score:2)
This is your brain with two strips of bacon.
Re: (Score:2)
"DUDE! Who the fuck eats raw eggs? Pass the bong..."
A long, long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away... *sigh*
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting how only Indians are tone deaf about the current pc climate and continue doing things that other people - be it Whites, Blacks, Hispanics have long stopped doing. A few years ago, iGATE's CEO had to be removed for sexual harassment, which wasn't something that a Roger Ailes would do, but for actually impregnating his secretary.
And now this guy Chahal. He should have done this in India, where he'd have had a better chance of getting away w/ it.
Re: (Score:2)
I dont care about this stuff.
Fixed that for you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
At least this guy's honest about the fact that "SJW" just means "anyone who thinks it isn't okay for a man to attempt to murder a woman and get away with it consequence-free".
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
It don't pass the basic SJW test #1:
It is an real issue?
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, what's with all the Silicon Valley stories? Slashdot has a bias. A bias, I tell you.
Re: (Score:3)
There is a reason warrants and the like are necessary. This was the right procedure in a court of law, illegal search and seizure is illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
Right - but what should happen in cases like this shouldn't be that the evidence gets thrown out. The evidence should get used, because it's evidence, and the people who didn't follow procedure should be fined / fired / imprisoned for violating procedure.
Letting obvious criminals go or not letting innocents go free because evidence was obtained slightly off doesn't serve justice in any sense of the word, because it causes harm to society with an incorrect verdict and doesn't really cause people to follow t
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
All that should matter is to determine if the evidence is real or faked; it should not matter how it is obtained except in so far as it helps to determine whether it was faked. "Procedures" for getting evidence, like search warrants, should just be a factor in helping that decision, not a way to get evidence thrown out automatically if it was not by "procedure".
As for police randomly raiding homes without warrants, if they do find incriminating evidence then fair enough; if they don't, then prosecute the p
Re: (Score:2)
Evidence does not exonerate anyone, it can only be used to prove guilt. If the prosecutor has evidence that is illegally obtained which proves the defendants innocence, the prosecutor would never bring it up (or discontinue prosecution) and if they for some bizarre reason did, the defense would never challenge it.
The only charge the prosecution has is to prove guilt without violating someone's constitutional rights. If they could just illegally search and seize anything anyone speaking up would be in jail a
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed where I suggested that you punish those who abuse search and seizure to prevent the rampant scenario you suggested?
My assertion is that "punishing" society with incorrect verdicts is not the correct way to handle search and seizure abuses - the better way for society as a whole is to punish those abusing search and seizure.
Re: (Score:2)
And this is just that, the judge/defense busted the prosecution for abusing their privilege to do illegal search and seizure. You missed the part where the defendant is innocent until PROVEN guilty. He was proven guilty on all other counts. With illegal search and seizure they could easily "pick and choose" evidence that will fit the case at whatever time they see fit.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess I don't consider throwing out evidence to be "punishment".
But what I see here is a bunch of comments saying "yeah, but that doesn't actually happen...". Of course, that's the point of the discussion. But saying "Our current stuff is abused, but you can't put in place other protections because they will just be abused as well" is just specious - it doesn't help anything.
All the rebuttals have been "but nobody will actually punish illegally gathered evidence" is silly, because that's just stating "if
Re: (Score:2)
I think you missed the point that those who would abuse search and seizure wouldn't get punished.
Re: (Score:3)
"My assertion is that "punishing" society with incorrect verdicts is not the correct way to handle search and seizure abuses - the better way for society as a whole is to punish those abusing search and seizure."
Since cops routinely avoid murder convictions, not at trial but by friendly prosecutors not indicting them in the first place, your suggestion would give us Guantanamo Everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Illegally-obtained evidence isn't allowed because, if it were, there would be nothing stopping the police from obtaining all their evidence illegally. "Oh but they would be punished for that!" doesn't fly, because they won't be punished for it; what's the indictment rate for police violating the law in the course of their duties, again?
"Should" is a nice ideal, but a real system has to account for the unreliability of its components, ie. humans.
Re: (Score:2)
Surely taking the video, but sealing it unviewed until the warrant to view (or instruction to return it) would be adequate in this case?
It is clear that erasing the video whilst waiting for a warrant is a strong possibility, I don't see how that can be dismissed so easily by the judge.
Maybe a golf course deal...
Re: SJW (Score:5, Insightful)
That way leads to police states. Due process is there for a reason. It prevents witch hunts. If you want to be mad at someone, blame the cops for fucking up procedure.
Re: (Score:2)
"That way leads to police states....
The one we would have if there were civil forfeiture.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering such evidence valid will encourage the police to illegally obtain evidence, after all there is no deterrent in not doing so - it still works as evidence. It's a trade off. You don't have to like the side of the trade off the US has chosen but it isn't conflating different things - it is an explicit choice that puts individual rights in general above discovering guilt in a particular case.
The US similarly also does not permit the use of confessions obtained via torture.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, I agree that it would be a better solution to put both the perpetrator and the police who used illegal means to get the evidence in jail, but that's not what the law states.
Re: (Score:2)
the evidence is evidence no matter how it is obtained. That's the only logical way.
"A confession is a confession no matter how it is obtained. That's the only logical way."
Throwing away the bill of rights to convict someone we don't like is a very slipper slope we should not go down. They are there to protect from wrongful convictions and while it does allow the guilty to go free if proper procedures are not followed by the state like in this case, I prefer that to the alternative.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't agree - the evidence is evidence no matter how it is obtained. That's the only logical way.
Evidence gained illegally must be disregarded, because that is the only real deterrent against illegally-obtained evidence.
Otherwise you could just present illegal footage at a trial, shrug helplessly, and say that an anonymous source sent it in.
Re: (Score:2)
All reasonable people have spoken.
Re:Curious, he stopped being a PoC (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't use stupid abbreviations. PoC could easily mean Piece of Crap.
Indeed, I read it as Proof of Concept without it making any sense.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a joke, right? You are not advocating that slashdot readers first consult some anonymous diskhead as an authoritative source.
TFTFY.
Re: (Score:3)
Isn't it interesting how this PoC stopped being a PoC and has now become an Evil Male Oppressor[tm]? In just about every other context in the world, he would be the protected one due to his race, but apparently now he's just a generic male and can be treated as our society treats such. Police oppressing a PoC, hello? Where's the outrage about the police mistreating him? The evidence was ruled inadmissible. Judging by all the other recent incidents, there should be parties in the street that the charges have been dropped.
This is a man who beat his wife and video evidence exists of his reprehensible and cowardly behavior. He is a person of color and he committed a crime and deserves to be incarcerated for that crime.
Where's the controversy?
It's never been controversial that people of all colors are punished for breaking the law. What is controversial is racially-biased sentencing and conviction rates, to name two things.
I don't recall a domestic abuser of color (i.e. non-white) whose undeserved exoneration led to "parties in
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, come on! There's even a 'Root Window' [youtube.com] animator [terasaur.org] for one such abuser.
I'm aware that there have been accused abusers of colors who have been exonerated.
My question in this particular instance would be "Did Simpson's exoneration (mistaken in my opinion) lead to 'parties in the street'?" I don't recall such celebrations happening.
If such celebrations in the street did not happen, my question for you would be why bring up the Simpson case at all. Why?
Like the grandparent, I believe your statements attribute exoneration with racial privilege, but I think this is wrong in Simpson'
Re: (Score:2)
Here's some of what Google turned up for "celebration simpson verdict".
Law school reactions [youtube.com], filmed at American University with hearsay (not documented with video) reports from Howard University.
This video of the crowd reaction [youtube.com] from outside the Los Angeles County Superior Court might be characterized as partying in the streets, but seems restricted to a few enthusiastic individuals (some of whom are not black).
Thinking more on this, I do think the Simpson case is relevant to Chahal's in cultural terms, bu
Re: (Score:3)
In just about every other context in the world, he would be the protected one due to his race
No, that's simply a bizarre fantasy of people who desperately want to believe that white men are more oppressed than anyone else. It's a bit of a weird fantasy if you think about it.
So she "ran" into his fist to get more money? (Score:2)
Or did she took his hand and punched herself?
But there is a problem indeed, there are people that state false accusations shining a bad light on the 90% real cases and give simplists like yourself a run for their money.
Re: So she "ran" into his fist to get more money? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
...And this, kids, is what we call a "rhetorical question".
(P.S. We're not *all* right-wing know-nothings... Just the Trump supporters.)
Re: (Score:3)
Any woman that gets with this guy after this deserves it. I'm not about blaming victims in hindsight but I will gladly do it in foresight given this man's background.
You're assuming that the woman *knows* about him. You're assuming he won't take steps to find one that doesn't--that's a pretty bad assumption to make.
Re: (Score:2)
And that was entirely proper: evidence that was obtained illegally should be inadmissible.
While that's true, this is not:
No, at best it is an example that the law is working correctly
Because the police are part of the system and they fucked it up royally. There was a massive fuckup and then one part of the law operated correctly right the way at the end. The bit where the enforcement arm fouled up can hardly be counted as "working correctly".
Re: (Score:3)
No, at best it is an example that the law is working correctly
Because the police are part of the system and they fucked it up royally. There was a massive fuckup and then one part of the law operated correctly right the way at the end. The bit where the enforcement arm fouled up can hardly be counted as "working correctly".
Police are not the law, although they like to call themselves that, and some stupid people call them that. They could hardly be more ignorant of the laws they enforce, so they clearly are not the law. They are the enforcers. This is a case of the police failing, but the law itself working fine.
We have long known that the police are most of the problem with law enforcement, and that we need to clean house.
Re: (Score:2)
Really? How? They were probably right that the guy would have erased the recordings. They took a gamble on something that was legally not completely clear-cut, and they lost in court. That isn't a "royal fuck up".
Re: (Score:2)
Anti-semitism is perfectly acceptable to today's left, and can even be regarded as hip. Just use the magic word: Zionists.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Tell that to OJ Simpson. He bought his way out of a murder wrap, still ended up in jail.
But not for the original trial. He went free.
He went to jail after he'd lost most of his money, trying to rob someone at gunpoint who was selling memorabilia of him that Simpson claimed was stolen from him. That was something he couldn't buy his way out of.