6 ms·

The court video is pretty interesting: https://www.facebook.com/WFLANewsChannel8/videos/154109933178340/ https://www.facebook.com/WFLANewsChannel8/videos/154109

The court video is pretty interesting: https://www.facebook.com/WFLANewsChannel8/videos/154109933178340/ https://www.facebook.com/WFLANewsChannel8/videos/15410993317... 1) The judge in this video is not the county judge who is the source of the warrant against her. (The county judge, I believe, is the one who was appointed by DeSantis and immediately (suspiciously) approved the warrant against Jones that resulted in police guns being pointed at her and her children.) 2) The State prosecutor tried to levy all sorts of crap like no internet. That's probably typical. Note that this person had amazingly stable video / audio somehow. 3) Jones lawyer made some mild arguments about needing to get a job and use a phone etc. Said nothing about the DeSantis judge. The judge in this video immediately disregarded a lot of the prosecutor's asks and deflected a ton to the DeSantis judge. 4) The audio is extremely extremely bad, especially for one of Jones lawyers. The audio just goes garbled half way through his argument. Whoever this is (Zoom? MS? Cisco?) is really liable for screwing up tons of court cases. In all, this video shows exactly how political the justice system is. This judge and the DeSantis judge are pretty night-and-day in their actions against Jones.

rich_sasha 6y ago
My knowledge of US justice systems is mostly from films... are judges in the US elected? I seem to remember prosecutors are at least. I saw a terrifying series about people confessing to crimes they did not commit, and the struggle to reverse their sentences. One person, proven by DNA to be innocent, would still not have their charges dropped. The prosecutor said his community believed the accused guilty so he cannot go against them.
- choppaface 6y ago
  The "DeSantis judge" I mention was appointed by DeSantis (the Governer, who has been pro Trump on a number of issues). Here's an article that is (AFAICT) is rather neutral regarding the judge: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/joshua-hawkes-rebekah-jones-florida-covid-whistleblower-raid-b1771556.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
- Matticus_Rex 6y ago
  It depends on where in the US. In some places judges and DAs are appointed, and in some they're elected. The issues of extorted confessions and forced pleas happen with both elected and unelected DAs.
  - rich_sasha 6y ago
    Yeah sure, I more meant “I can’t piss off my voters” as an argument in legal proceedings. This gives me the chills.
    - Matticus_Rex 6y ago
      Ah. If he said that, he's more open than most, but IMO the more insidious effects are hidden. I keep this thread bookmarked (popped up on Reddit best-of a while back) as one of the best explanations of the internals. It aligns with what my colleagues who went into criminal law tell me: https://np.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/2qv6o0/molyneux_goes_full_potato_claims_that_selling/cnb0ubd/?context=3 https://np.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/2qv6o0/m...
monoideism 6y ago
> In all, this video shows exactly how political the justice system is I've spent the past 2 months arguing against people claiming election fraud, and part of my argument has been that our judicial system is mostly fair and apolitical. If what you're saying is true (and I maintain that it's not), then what happens to our claims of judicial impartiality in evaluating election fraud claims?
- notISaidHe 6y ago
  I have the same concerns that I think you're alluding to but the way you phrased that question has me more worried. > ~ Y is not likely because of X You're saying you were basing your argument on the fact that X ("judicial system is mostly fair and apolitical") and now that you're learning that X may not have been true you're wondering what that means about Y. I think it's appropriate to question Y now that you're questioning X but I hope that Y has nothing to do with the decision to question X. It would be an ugly truth that you might have to live with but I hope you don't close your eyes to the reality of X because of what that could mean. Sorry for the overuse of X/Y abstractions but unfortunately I think if we replaced the specifics in this case it would deter from the point I'm trying to point out which is if we think about the what outcomes follow a truth and we disagree with the outcomes (personally invested in arguing against that) then we might choose not to look at the truth. That being said, idk if it's accurate to say the judicial system is not fair and very political
  - monoideism 6y ago
    Let me be explicit: so many Americans, including many here on this very post, are tearing down are institutions with as much vigor as they can, all in the service of their partisan cause. With Team Red, it's our election system is corrupt, and our judicial system is corrupt because it ruled the election system wasn't corrupt. Oh, and Congress is corrupt because it's dominated by Team Blue and Team Red traitors. With Team Blue, it's our judicial system is corrupt, for reasons X, Y, and Z. In fact, all our insitutions are corrupt because of systemic Foo or Bar. Oh, and by the way, we're more or less the same as China. With these kinds of attitudes, how can we expect to come out of this with our country intact? Because let me assure you, there are plenty of groups itching for a conflict to break out so that they can rebuild society in their image from the rubble. Many of you have no conception of what it's like to live in a conflict or post-conflict zone. We're all privileged as Americans. Not because we're perfect as a country, but because we're a functioning, developed country, or at least we were before this great partisan insanity took hold: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2017/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/political-... (click "Animate Data")
stretchcat 6y ago
> police guns being pointed at [...] her children. I've seen body camera footage from this search warrant raid and never saw any guns pointed at her kids. Do you have a video that shows what you claim? I think this claim is misinformation.
- MertsA 6y ago
  The video from the bottom of the stairs shows the second officer entering pointing his weapon at the top of the stairs where the husband and children were standing and they were already informed that's where the children were. https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2020/12/07/agents-raid-home-fired-florida-data-scientist-who-built-covid-19-dashboard-rebekah-jones/6482817002/ https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2020/12/07/agents-rai... This isn't bodycam footage, that was a camera the family had facing the door.
  - stretchcat 6y ago
    That video shows a cop pointing his gun up a flight of stairs, not at children. You claim he was pointing his gun at children out of frame, but the video doesn't show what was claimed. I've still seen no evidence to support the claim. If that's the best you can provide, then it's misinformation.
    - craftinator 6y ago
      Her children were upstairs, and as soon as the cop pointed his gun upstairs, she starts yelling at him to stop pointing a gun at her children. While no video proof exists that he was or was not doing so, this is a pretty good indicator that he was. Since there's no indicator that he wasn't pointing a gun at her kids, at we can see that he is in fact pointing a gun upstairs where her family is, it's more reasonable to believe he was. Unless you have some sort of evidence that he wasn't. Also, notice the lack of trigger discipline that they're using in the videos... Absolutely disgusting.
      - MertsA 6y ago

rich_sasha 6y ago

My knowledge of US justice systems is mostly from films... are judges in the US elected? I seem to remember prosecutors are at least. I saw a terrifying series about people confessing to crimes they did not commit, and the struggle to reverse their sentences. One person, proven by DNA to be innocent, would still not have their charges dropped. The prosecutor said his community believed the accused guilty so he cannot go against them.

choppaface 6y ago
The "DeSantis judge" I mention was appointed by DeSantis (the Governer, who has been pro Trump on a number of issues). Here's an article that is (AFAICT) is rather neutral regarding the judge: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/joshua-hawkes-rebekah-jones-florida-covid-whistleblower-raid-b1771556.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...
Matticus_Rex 6y ago
It depends on where in the US. In some places judges and DAs are appointed, and in some they're elected. The issues of extorted confessions and forced pleas happen with both elected and unelected DAs.
- rich_sasha 6y ago
  Yeah sure, I more meant “I can’t piss off my voters” as an argument in legal proceedings. This gives me the chills.
  - Matticus_Rex 6y ago
    Ah. If he said that, he's more open than most, but IMO the more insidious effects are hidden. I keep this thread bookmarked (popped up on Reddit best-of a while back) as one of the best explanations of the internals. It aligns with what my colleagues who went into criminal law tell me: https://np.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/2qv6o0/molyneux_goes_full_potato_claims_that_selling/cnb0ubd/?context=3 https://np.reddit.com/r/Anarcho_Capitalism/comments/2qv6o0/m...

monoideism 6y ago

> In all, this video shows exactly how political the justice system is I've spent the past 2 months arguing against people claiming election fraud, and part of my argument has been that our judicial system is mostly fair and apolitical. If what you're saying is true (and I maintain that it's not), then what happens to our claims of judicial impartiality in evaluating election fraud claims?

notISaidHe 6y ago
I have the same concerns that I think you're alluding to but the way you phrased that question has me more worried. > ~ Y is not likely because of X You're saying you were basing your argument on the fact that X ("judicial system is mostly fair and apolitical") and now that you're learning that X may not have been true you're wondering what that means about Y. I think it's appropriate to question Y now that you're questioning X but I hope that Y has nothing to do with the decision to question X. It would be an ugly truth that you might have to live with but I hope you don't close your eyes to the reality of X because of what that could mean. Sorry for the overuse of X/Y abstractions but unfortunately I think if we replaced the specifics in this case it would deter from the point I'm trying to point out which is if we think about the what outcomes follow a truth and we disagree with the outcomes (personally invested in arguing against that) then we might choose not to look at the truth. That being said, idk if it's accurate to say the judicial system is not fair and very political
- monoideism 6y ago
  Let me be explicit: so many Americans, including many here on this very post, are tearing down are institutions with as much vigor as they can, all in the service of their partisan cause. With Team Red, it's our election system is corrupt, and our judicial system is corrupt because it ruled the election system wasn't corrupt. Oh, and Congress is corrupt because it's dominated by Team Blue and Team Red traitors. With Team Blue, it's our judicial system is corrupt, for reasons X, Y, and Z. In fact, all our insitutions are corrupt because of systemic Foo or Bar. Oh, and by the way, we're more or less the same as China. With these kinds of attitudes, how can we expect to come out of this with our country intact? Because let me assure you, there are plenty of groups itching for a conflict to break out so that they can rebuild society in their image from the rubble. Many of you have no conception of what it's like to live in a conflict or post-conflict zone. We're all privileged as Americans. Not because we're perfect as a country, but because we're a functioning, developed country, or at least we were before this great partisan insanity took hold: https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/political-polarization-1994-2017/ https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/interactives/political-... (click "Animate Data")

stretchcat 6y ago

> police guns being pointed at [...] her children. I've seen body camera footage from this search warrant raid and never saw any guns pointed at her kids. Do you have a video that shows what you claim? I think this claim is misinformation.

MertsA 6y ago
The video from the bottom of the stairs shows the second officer entering pointing his weapon at the top of the stairs where the husband and children were standing and they were already informed that's where the children were. https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2020/12/07/agents-raid-home-fired-florida-data-scientist-who-built-covid-19-dashboard-rebekah-jones/6482817002/ https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/2020/12/07/agents-rai... This isn't bodycam footage, that was a camera the family had facing the door.
- stretchcat 6y ago
  That video shows a cop pointing his gun up a flight of stairs, not at children. You claim he was pointing his gun at children out of frame, but the video doesn't show what was claimed. I've still seen no evidence to support the claim. If that's the best you can provide, then it's misinformation.
  - craftinator 6y ago
    Her children were upstairs, and as soon as the cop pointed his gun upstairs, she starts yelling at him to stop pointing a gun at her children. While no video proof exists that he was or was not doing so, this is a pretty good indicator that he was. Since there's no indicator that he wasn't pointing a gun at her kids, at we can see that he is in fact pointing a gun upstairs where her family is, it's more reasonable to believe he was. Unless you have some sort of evidence that he wasn't. Also, notice the lack of trigger discipline that they're using in the videos... Absolutely disgusting.
    - MertsA 6y ago