5 ms·

"U.S. law though is highly non-autistic" hilarious but also another point to emphasize is how truly depressing American courts often are. Take the right to a ju

"U.S. law though is highly non-autistic" hilarious but also another point to emphasize is how truly depressing American courts often are. Take the right to a jury. It sounds noble in theory. But when they say judged by your peers they don't mean your actual peers. It's people who couldn't get out of jury duty. Prosecutors have high success rates. Federal prosecutor success rate is over > 90%. Studies of jury psychology show how much peer pressure and other factors extrinsic to the law come into play. Remember what happened to Aaron Swartz. Law is the mask of power. By all means defend and assert your rights, but understand the costs. I find people are under such illusions about how cruel the American justice system is that this leads them to make foolish decisions. Do not underestimate the adversarial nature of the justice system, nor the accompanying incentives agents of the state who are on the other side of you have to lie.

Hnrobert42 3mo ago
Is the high success rate because they are good at winning or good at picking winning cases? Does that 90% include plea bargains?
- Exoristos 3mo ago
  You're begging OP's question.
  - duxup 3mo ago
    I think it’s a valid question as far as what the nature of that success rate is.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3mo ago
    How so? OP is strongly implying that the 90% success rate for prosecutors is due to the courts being stacked against the defense. IMO that is where the logical fallacy is. Since prosecutors have wide latitude in deciding which cases to charge in the first place, it is very possible that the high success rate is due to prosecutors only charging cases where the accused actually committed the crimes being charged. Indeed, for the ~10% of cases where the accused is not found guilty, about 8% are due to the government dropping the case - only 1% are the jury acquitting the defendant outright. Thus, it would appear from that data that when the prosecution sees they are not likely to win a case, they drop it. I'm making no argument that the courts or law are "fair", I'm just making the argument that quoting the 90% number is in no way evidence that courts are inherently biased towards the prosecution.
    - vkou 3mo ago
      The courts are stacked against the defense, but that statistic in itself is not proof of it.
      - fsuts 3mo ago
        The courts are stacked against the defence as the bigger the fight, the more defence lawyers can bill. The legal profession is incentivised to not seek to change rules that disadvantage their clients…
  - Hnrobert42 3mo ago
    I disagree, but I at least appreciate the correct use of that expression.
- deleted 3mo ago
  [deleted]
- RRWagner 3mo ago
  I've been on jury duty several times and in each time the entire jury pool was dismissed an hour or so into the morning, with "all cases have been settled". As I was leaving, the official said, "see how efficient we are now?". I replied, "The guillotine is efficient, but it's not justice." Look into Aaron Swartz. The % of cases that go to trial is very small, in no small part because plea bargaining is no bargain at all. "Plead guilty and we'll do the minimum (whether you're actually guilty or not), or go to trial and we will seek the maximum sentence, which could be 30 years in prison. What's your answer?"
lovich 3mo ago
> It's people who couldn't get out of jury duty. It’s not even just who couldn’t get out of it. It’s filtered for people who answer honestly. I was disqualified for a grand jury because the judge asked me if I would believe the testimony of police officers as truthful and I said it would depend on the police officer. The system already had their hands forced on accepting that some cops lie with Brady disclosures but the fact that I didn’t just naively accept police testimony meant I was an unscramble juror. Even if you’re a true believer in the system you won’t be allowed to participate because you didn’t lie.
adgjlsfhk1 3mo ago
> Federal prosecutor success rate is over > 90% Prosecutors pick their cases. Defense doesn't. The cases that aren't 90%+ sure aren't charged.
- SoftTalker 3mo ago
  And this is as it should be.
  - 8note 3mo ago
    no way! it should be about 50% conviction rate so that juries dont go in with non-evidence that the case is good because the feds thought it should go to court
    - __MatrixMan__ 3mo ago
      That would be a nice outcome but whose responsibility would you make it to encourage it? Judges and juries should not grade on a curve. Prosecutors shouldn't waste taxpayer money chasing convictions that are out of reach. There's nobody with access to that calibration dimetion.
      - Cider9986 3mo ago
        Fund public defenders more so they are less overworked.
    - hn_throwaway_99 3mo ago
      You do realize that what you're advocating for is for prosecutors to bring more cases to trial that previously they would have dropped. And you think that benefits defendants how???
      - account42 3mo ago
        The comment you are replying to already answers that question.
a34729t 3mo ago
Exactly. People complain police dont prevent crime, but dont realize that is not their purpose. The police exist to protect the government, not the people.
- DANmode 3mo ago
  Which part of the government protects the people?
  - patrick451 3mo ago
    None of it
  - Scandiravian 3mo ago
    The part that is afraid of not getting voted in next election. As long as they make the voting ticket a two party/person race and ensure that their voters believe the opposition is the literal devil, then they don't have to be too afraid Luckily that has never happened /s
- chii 3mo ago
  The police are there to enforce laws, but enforce it by punishment, rather than prevention. The potential deterrence effect still applies, as people do get discouraged from crimes by the mere presence of the police. However, there is zero legal duty for the police to protect someone who is currently under attack from a criminal.
  - stnikolauswagne 3mo ago
    > However, there is zero legal duty for the police to protect someone who is currently under attack from a criminal. That has to be incorrect, by the time someone is under actual attack from a criminal that criminal will have allready comitted crimes that the police can and have to punish for, i.e. Threat of Force with a Lethal weapon or sth like that.
    - kube-system 3mo ago
Aurornis 3mo ago
> Federal prosecutor success rate is over > 90%. This is a misunderstood statistic. Federal prosecutors won't even pursue cases unless they think there's a high chance of success. They don't operate like two private parties suing each other to force the court to decide something. If the evidence is there or the charges aren't fully formed, they don't waste resources on it. This leads to a contradictory set of complaints that the legal system lets too many people go or doesn't have enough teeth.
- hn_throwaway_99 3mo ago
  I don't think it's so much a "misunderstood" statistic as much as a number that people (like the commenter you are replying to) deliberately trot out to use as evidence for their position because they are depending on most people being statistically illiterate. To be clear, I totally agree with your points, I just think this is more of a case of "lying with statistics" than being a misunderstanding.
  - willy_k 3mo ago
    I think in this case Hanlon’s Razor very much applies. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
    - bcrosby95 3mo ago
      When it comes to political statements everything is opposite day.
      - willy_k 3mo ago
        No. When it comes to statements by politicians, maybe. But when it comes to what people say in a setting like this thread, being so flippant in discounting people’s earnest-ness is a mistake and gets in the way of actually moving understanding forward.
        3mo ago
reticulates 3mo ago
> Take the right to a jury. It sounds noble in theory. But when they say judged by your peers they don't mean your actual peers. It's people who couldn't get out of jury duty. What? A jury system is far from perfect but this is about as intellectually rigorous as “the lottery is a tax on the poor”. Many people are thrilled to do jury duty because they are invested in their community, your nihilism is not a universal truth, jury duty isn’t a burden, it is a civic duty, an honor.
refurb 3mo ago
> It's people who couldn't get out of jury duty. But that's good no? People who got out never would have taken it seriously. I sat on a jury trial and was highly impressed with how seriously my fellow jurors took it - especially the presumption of innocence. When they started to go down some incorrect logical path, someone would step up and correct it. Not to mention the public defender ripped apart the DA's case. It was the exact opposite of what I was expecting. > Prosecutors have high success rates. You're forgetting that the prosecutors don't bring cases they think they're going to lose to trial, they either drop the charges or try a plea deal. So you'd entirely expect the success rate to be high.
- Cider9986 3mo ago
  Awesome. Apparently public defenders are better than private attorneys for various reasons depending on the case. They are overworked though.
throwaforfeds1 3mo ago
> Remember what happened to Aaron Swartz. Indeed. There are certainly parallels between him and Sam Tunick. But I'm not sure the public is ready for all the parallels.
__MatrixMan__ 3mo ago
Some of us report for jury duty just itching to nullify something. Don't you? Checks and balances...
- helterskelter 3mo ago
  I got selected as juror once just hoping to laugh at anything the cops said on the witness stand and let some poor soul go free but it turns out the defendant was just a violent scumbag who stabbed random people in public, and there was a video of it. After we decided he was guilty, they listed other things he had been convicted of and asked if he was a repeat offender... Let's see, shot somebody in the back, robbed liquor stores at gun point (dressed as a clown IIRC) and some other weird shit. That decision didn't take very long. Honestly we didn't even throw the book at him, prosecutors were charging him with a bunch of offenses and we decided guilty on only two, but the repeat offender bit probably locked him up for a few decades. The funny thing was that all the jurors thought the victim was a complete douchebag and thought both parties deserved time. As it turns, somebody I knew at the time knew the victim from childhood and he apparently molested his 8 year old cousin.
  - icantevenhold 3mo ago
    That is horrible but robbing a liquor store dressed as a clown is pretty funny (in my head probably not irl)
    - manarth 3mo ago
      Imagine picking the suspect out of the line-up, or drawing up a photo-fit.
  - nostrademons 3mo ago
    I just served on a jury and in our case, the cop was a lying scumbag, the prosecutor's expert witnesses were people milking the taxpayers to provide the evaluations that the state wanted to hear for thousands of dollars per hour, the defense's expert witnesses copy-and-pasted an evaluation from another client but didn't bother to proofread before the prosecutor brought up that they had the wrong name in the text, and the defendant raped and molested multiple kids below the age of 8, some still in diapers. I feel like many court cases are textbook instances of Everyone Sucks Here. I needed therapy after the case because it had so shaken my faith in both the justice system and humanity.
victorbjorklund 3mo ago
It is not surprising. They just don’t go to court unless they think they have enough evidence for a conviction. In a perfect world the conviction rate would be 100% because in a perfect world the prosecutor would drop the case before if they don’t have enough evidence.
fsuts 3mo ago
If it’s a malicious prosecution by the country/state then Jury is your best best over a Judge. There is a reason that Elon Musks companies and others put a ‘you agree to not have a jury trial…’ clause in their terms as Judges are easier to influence - when a legal case is filed it’s allocated to a judge and certain cases will go strategically to a Judges with certain bias
hn_submit 3mo ago
Yeah, but without a jury O.J. Simpson never would've walked out of court a free man. For example in Europe when someone dies somebody always has to go to jail, even if they were defending themselves or responding to a potential threat. A jury could show compassion or empathy. Judges are extremely stoic in that regard.
- lefra 3mo ago
  > in Europe when someone dies somebody always has to go to jail Please cite the european law that states this.
  - hn_submit 3mo ago
    There's no specific law, but a judge will always jail you for manslaughter.
    - lefra 3mo ago
      No one went to jail when my grandparents died. Stop spreading lies.
- UncleSlacky 3mo ago
  The well-known country of Europe with its single set of laws? That Europe? Self-defence can be a valid justification for manslaughter, at least in the UK.
- chasil 3mo ago
  This reference from Germany indicates that self-defense is lawful even if it ends the attacker's life, as long as the violence is not excessive for the situation. https://se-legal.de/services/criminal-defense-lawyer/self-defense-in-germany/?lang=en https://se-legal.de/services/criminal-defense-lawyer/self-de...
  - hn_submit 3mo ago
    They'll always rule that the violence was excessive. They'll say you could've slapped him in the face or disarmed the attacker. The only ones getting a free pass are criminals. When they shoot and kill each other judges usually rule that it was self-defense. Ordinary people...no such luck. Besides in Europe you always have to use physical violence to kill someone because firearms are illegal.
ls612 3mo ago
There is no law. There is only power, and the will to use it. Remember and internalize this at all times.
weberer 3mo ago
>Remember what happened to Aaron Swartz He killed himself before the trial even began. I think he would have won the case if he actually went through it.
- adrianwaj 3mo ago
  Maybe that's why "they" killed him? Josh Greenberg from Grooveshark died of unknown cause in 2015 after taking a settlement rather than going to trial. He wiped all the music (did he really need to do that?) and then gave up all the software. The service may well have been seen as a massive cost center during its life and the death was a message or warning. I don't know. Business is war, isn't it? - quite literally. One person's savior can become another person's scapegoat or witch. Even all three. Personally, I would be suspicious of any death around a high profile trial - at least as a possibility. Greenberg introduced a 'tipjar' eventually to compensate artists but I think he would've been better off making a swapping service where users can trade their own CD-ripped or purchased files for another person's. Just like swapping physical CDs or LPs. So 1-to-1 personal distribution rather than Grooveshark's 1-to-many public distribution without the required licenses. An escrow service for file-swapping. Sort of unrelated, though. To me, litigation may be an incredibly dangerous route to justice. "Winning at all costs" may mean stopping a case going to trial in the first place. Judges can also end up the biggest losers too. Justice always gets served - but whose justice?
spacedudem 3mo ago
As a convicted felon for the last 25 years without a single incident since I was released. I tell everyone I know to never trust a single thing anyone says if there is any chance you are being looked at for criminal charges. It's "I want a lawyer" and nothing else. Just SHUT THE FUCK UP, don't call me, your parents, someone to bail you out. Call a mother fucking lawyer. Because once you get your sleeve caught up in the gears of the system and you dont rip free fast enough, it's over. Once the system turns on you, your entire life will never be same. It will effect more aspects of your life than you can imagine. The system will chew you up. It never forgets. It's incapable of forgiveness.
- gypsy_boots 3mo ago
  This is the most logical comment in the entire thread. The only thing to say is "I want a lawyer". Although in this case, he repeatedly said that and wasn't given one. Which just shows that the state can do whatever they'd like, even if it's "unconstitutional". They have a monopoly on violence.
  - mothballed 3mo ago
    I've been thrown in immigration jail as US citizen. They will not provide or allow you access to a lawyer and you won't see a judge to determine if they have PC to hold you. You just sit there until they decide to eject you. Nothing else to be done and no one to contact, plus most of the other prisoners cannot speak English. CBP via a bunch of crazy court cases, basically operates outside constitutional constraints. This is also why DHS has been used as private army by POTUS (snatching up people in unmarked vans in Portland for instance) because they can be ordered essentially directly by POTUS and not have to worry about the constitution.
    - sieabahlpark 3mo ago
      [dead]
- crossroadsguy 3mo ago
  Hey, this part has always bewildered me. I often see "written" pages which someone arrested had uttered to police officer(s) rather than staying silent and asking for a lawyer. Those were later typed up from memory "by the police". How does that work? I mean what does "remaining silent" even mean in this case? I mean the police can make this shit up. Or the arrested person can later just say, "naah, I didn't utter a fucking syllable" even if they actually sang the songs. And no I don't mean video taped or audio taped conversations but when there's no cam and what not. What if the arrested person anyway says later "naah, they had pointed 3 guns at my temple before ushering me into the video taping room"? (By the way, in many countries, like in India, if you do/say that to the police you might lose few of your bones and possibly normal functioning of few limbs and organs. Oh the constitution prevents that just fine here as well and quite strongly at that. The thing is constitution isn't an omnipotent and omnipresent just vigilante sentient being that is available to protect everyone everywhere all the time.)
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]

Hnrobert42 3mo ago

Is the high success rate because they are good at winning or good at picking winning cases? Does that 90% include plea bargains?

Exoristos 3mo ago
You're begging OP's question.
- duxup 3mo ago
  I think it’s a valid question as far as what the nature of that success rate is.
- hn_throwaway_99 3mo ago
  How so? OP is strongly implying that the 90% success rate for prosecutors is due to the courts being stacked against the defense. IMO that is where the logical fallacy is. Since prosecutors have wide latitude in deciding which cases to charge in the first place, it is very possible that the high success rate is due to prosecutors only charging cases where the accused actually committed the crimes being charged. Indeed, for the ~10% of cases where the accused is not found guilty, about 8% are due to the government dropping the case - only 1% are the jury acquitting the defendant outright. Thus, it would appear from that data that when the prosecution sees they are not likely to win a case, they drop it. I'm making no argument that the courts or law are "fair", I'm just making the argument that quoting the 90% number is in no way evidence that courts are inherently biased towards the prosecution.
  - vkou 3mo ago
    The courts are stacked against the defense, but that statistic in itself is not proof of it.
    - fsuts 3mo ago
      The courts are stacked against the defence as the bigger the fight, the more defence lawyers can bill. The legal profession is incentivised to not seek to change rules that disadvantage their clients…
- Hnrobert42 3mo ago
  I disagree, but I at least appreciate the correct use of that expression.
deleted 3mo ago
[deleted]
RRWagner 3mo ago
I've been on jury duty several times and in each time the entire jury pool was dismissed an hour or so into the morning, with "all cases have been settled". As I was leaving, the official said, "see how efficient we are now?". I replied, "The guillotine is efficient, but it's not justice." Look into Aaron Swartz. The % of cases that go to trial is very small, in no small part because plea bargaining is no bargain at all. "Plead guilty and we'll do the minimum (whether you're actually guilty or not), or go to trial and we will seek the maximum sentence, which could be 30 years in prison. What's your answer?"

lovich 3mo ago

> It's people who couldn't get out of jury duty. It’s not even just who couldn’t get out of it. It’s filtered for people who answer honestly. I was disqualified for a grand jury because the judge asked me if I would believe the testimony of police officers as truthful and I said it would depend on the police officer. The system already had their hands forced on accepting that some cops lie with Brady disclosures but the fact that I didn’t just naively accept police testimony meant I was an unscramble juror. Even if you’re a true believer in the system you won’t be allowed to participate because you didn’t lie.

adgjlsfhk1 3mo ago

> Federal prosecutor success rate is over > 90% Prosecutors pick their cases. Defense doesn't. The cases that aren't 90%+ sure aren't charged.

SoftTalker 3mo ago
And this is as it should be.
- 8note 3mo ago
  no way! it should be about 50% conviction rate so that juries dont go in with non-evidence that the case is good because the feds thought it should go to court
  - __MatrixMan__ 3mo ago
    That would be a nice outcome but whose responsibility would you make it to encourage it? Judges and juries should not grade on a curve. Prosecutors shouldn't waste taxpayer money chasing convictions that are out of reach. There's nobody with access to that calibration dimetion.
    - Cider9986 3mo ago
      Fund public defenders more so they are less overworked.
  - hn_throwaway_99 3mo ago
    You do realize that what you're advocating for is for prosecutors to bring more cases to trial that previously they would have dropped. And you think that benefits defendants how???
    - account42 3mo ago
      The comment you are replying to already answers that question.

a34729t 3mo ago

Exactly. People complain police dont prevent crime, but dont realize that is not their purpose. The police exist to protect the government, not the people.

DANmode 3mo ago
Which part of the government protects the people?
- patrick451 3mo ago
  None of it
- Scandiravian 3mo ago
  The part that is afraid of not getting voted in next election. As long as they make the voting ticket a two party/person race and ensure that their voters believe the opposition is the literal devil, then they don't have to be too afraid Luckily that has never happened /s
chii 3mo ago
The police are there to enforce laws, but enforce it by punishment, rather than prevention. The potential deterrence effect still applies, as people do get discouraged from crimes by the mere presence of the police. However, there is zero legal duty for the police to protect someone who is currently under attack from a criminal.
- stnikolauswagne 3mo ago
  > However, there is zero legal duty for the police to protect someone who is currently under attack from a criminal. That has to be incorrect, by the time someone is under actual attack from a criminal that criminal will have allready comitted crimes that the police can and have to punish for, i.e. Threat of Force with a Lethal weapon or sth like that.
  - kube-system 3mo ago

Aurornis 3mo ago

> Federal prosecutor success rate is over > 90%. This is a misunderstood statistic. Federal prosecutors won't even pursue cases unless they think there's a high chance of success. They don't operate like two private parties suing each other to force the court to decide something. If the evidence is there or the charges aren't fully formed, they don't waste resources on it. This leads to a contradictory set of complaints that the legal system lets too many people go or doesn't have enough teeth.

hn_throwaway_99 3mo ago
I don't think it's so much a "misunderstood" statistic as much as a number that people (like the commenter you are replying to) deliberately trot out to use as evidence for their position because they are depending on most people being statistically illiterate. To be clear, I totally agree with your points, I just think this is more of a case of "lying with statistics" than being a misunderstanding.
- willy_k 3mo ago
  I think in this case Hanlon’s Razor very much applies. "Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."
  - bcrosby95 3mo ago
    When it comes to political statements everything is opposite day.
    - willy_k 3mo ago
      No. When it comes to statements by politicians, maybe. But when it comes to what people say in a setting like this thread, being so flippant in discounting people’s earnest-ness is a mistake and gets in the way of actually moving understanding forward.
      - 3mo ago

reticulates 3mo ago

> Take the right to a jury. It sounds noble in theory. But when they say judged by your peers they don't mean your actual peers. It's people who couldn't get out of jury duty. What? A jury system is far from perfect but this is about as intellectually rigorous as “the lottery is a tax on the poor”. Many people are thrilled to do jury duty because they are invested in their community, your nihilism is not a universal truth, jury duty isn’t a burden, it is a civic duty, an honor.

refurb 3mo ago

> It's people who couldn't get out of jury duty. But that's good no? People who got out never would have taken it seriously. I sat on a jury trial and was highly impressed with how seriously my fellow jurors took it - especially the presumption of innocence. When they started to go down some incorrect logical path, someone would step up and correct it. Not to mention the public defender ripped apart the DA's case. It was the exact opposite of what I was expecting. > Prosecutors have high success rates. You're forgetting that the prosecutors don't bring cases they think they're going to lose to trial, they either drop the charges or try a plea deal. So you'd entirely expect the success rate to be high.

Cider9986 3mo ago
Awesome. Apparently public defenders are better than private attorneys for various reasons depending on the case. They are overworked though.

throwaforfeds1 3mo ago

> Remember what happened to Aaron Swartz. Indeed. There are certainly parallels between him and Sam Tunick. But I'm not sure the public is ready for all the parallels.

__MatrixMan__ 3mo ago

Some of us report for jury duty just itching to nullify something. Don't you? Checks and balances...

helterskelter 3mo ago
I got selected as juror once just hoping to laugh at anything the cops said on the witness stand and let some poor soul go free but it turns out the defendant was just a violent scumbag who stabbed random people in public, and there was a video of it. After we decided he was guilty, they listed other things he had been convicted of and asked if he was a repeat offender... Let's see, shot somebody in the back, robbed liquor stores at gun point (dressed as a clown IIRC) and some other weird shit. That decision didn't take very long. Honestly we didn't even throw the book at him, prosecutors were charging him with a bunch of offenses and we decided guilty on only two, but the repeat offender bit probably locked him up for a few decades. The funny thing was that all the jurors thought the victim was a complete douchebag and thought both parties deserved time. As it turns, somebody I knew at the time knew the victim from childhood and he apparently molested his 8 year old cousin.
- icantevenhold 3mo ago
  That is horrible but robbing a liquor store dressed as a clown is pretty funny (in my head probably not irl)
  - manarth 3mo ago
    Imagine picking the suspect out of the line-up, or drawing up a photo-fit.
- nostrademons 3mo ago
  I just served on a jury and in our case, the cop was a lying scumbag, the prosecutor's expert witnesses were people milking the taxpayers to provide the evaluations that the state wanted to hear for thousands of dollars per hour, the defense's expert witnesses copy-and-pasted an evaluation from another client but didn't bother to proofread before the prosecutor brought up that they had the wrong name in the text, and the defendant raped and molested multiple kids below the age of 8, some still in diapers. I feel like many court cases are textbook instances of Everyone Sucks Here. I needed therapy after the case because it had so shaken my faith in both the justice system and humanity.

victorbjorklund 3mo ago

It is not surprising. They just don’t go to court unless they think they have enough evidence for a conviction. In a perfect world the conviction rate would be 100% because in a perfect world the prosecutor would drop the case before if they don’t have enough evidence.

fsuts 3mo ago

If it’s a malicious prosecution by the country/state then Jury is your best best over a Judge. There is a reason that Elon Musks companies and others put a ‘you agree to not have a jury trial…’ clause in their terms as Judges are easier to influence - when a legal case is filed it’s allocated to a judge and certain cases will go strategically to a Judges with certain bias

hn_submit 3mo ago

Yeah, but without a jury O.J. Simpson never would've walked out of court a free man. For example in Europe when someone dies somebody always has to go to jail, even if they were defending themselves or responding to a potential threat. A jury could show compassion or empathy. Judges are extremely stoic in that regard.

lefra 3mo ago
> in Europe when someone dies somebody always has to go to jail Please cite the european law that states this.
- hn_submit 3mo ago
  There's no specific law, but a judge will always jail you for manslaughter.
  - lefra 3mo ago
    No one went to jail when my grandparents died. Stop spreading lies.
UncleSlacky 3mo ago
The well-known country of Europe with its single set of laws? That Europe? Self-defence can be a valid justification for manslaughter, at least in the UK.
chasil 3mo ago
This reference from Germany indicates that self-defense is lawful even if it ends the attacker's life, as long as the violence is not excessive for the situation. https://se-legal.de/services/criminal-defense-lawyer/self-defense-in-germany/?lang=en https://se-legal.de/services/criminal-defense-lawyer/self-de...
- hn_submit 3mo ago
  They'll always rule that the violence was excessive. They'll say you could've slapped him in the face or disarmed the attacker. The only ones getting a free pass are criminals. When they shoot and kill each other judges usually rule that it was self-defense. Ordinary people...no such luck. Besides in Europe you always have to use physical violence to kill someone because firearms are illegal.

ls612 3mo ago

There is no law. There is only power, and the will to use it. Remember and internalize this at all times.

weberer 3mo ago

>Remember what happened to Aaron Swartz He killed himself before the trial even began. I think he would have won the case if he actually went through it.

adrianwaj 3mo ago
Maybe that's why "they" killed him? Josh Greenberg from Grooveshark died of unknown cause in 2015 after taking a settlement rather than going to trial. He wiped all the music (did he really need to do that?) and then gave up all the software. The service may well have been seen as a massive cost center during its life and the death was a message or warning. I don't know. Business is war, isn't it? - quite literally. One person's savior can become another person's scapegoat or witch. Even all three. Personally, I would be suspicious of any death around a high profile trial - at least as a possibility. Greenberg introduced a 'tipjar' eventually to compensate artists but I think he would've been better off making a swapping service where users can trade their own CD-ripped or purchased files for another person's. Just like swapping physical CDs or LPs. So 1-to-1 personal distribution rather than Grooveshark's 1-to-many public distribution without the required licenses. An escrow service for file-swapping. Sort of unrelated, though. To me, litigation may be an incredibly dangerous route to justice. "Winning at all costs" may mean stopping a case going to trial in the first place. Judges can also end up the biggest losers too. Justice always gets served - but whose justice?

spacedudem 3mo ago

As a convicted felon for the last 25 years without a single incident since I was released. I tell everyone I know to never trust a single thing anyone says if there is any chance you are being looked at for criminal charges. It's "I want a lawyer" and nothing else. Just SHUT THE FUCK UP, don't call me, your parents, someone to bail you out. Call a mother fucking lawyer. Because once you get your sleeve caught up in the gears of the system and you dont rip free fast enough, it's over. Once the system turns on you, your entire life will never be same. It will effect more aspects of your life than you can imagine. The system will chew you up. It never forgets. It's incapable of forgiveness.

gypsy_boots 3mo ago
This is the most logical comment in the entire thread. The only thing to say is "I want a lawyer". Although in this case, he repeatedly said that and wasn't given one. Which just shows that the state can do whatever they'd like, even if it's "unconstitutional". They have a monopoly on violence.
- mothballed 3mo ago
  I've been thrown in immigration jail as US citizen. They will not provide or allow you access to a lawyer and you won't see a judge to determine if they have PC to hold you. You just sit there until they decide to eject you. Nothing else to be done and no one to contact, plus most of the other prisoners cannot speak English. CBP via a bunch of crazy court cases, basically operates outside constitutional constraints. This is also why DHS has been used as private army by POTUS (snatching up people in unmarked vans in Portland for instance) because they can be ordered essentially directly by POTUS and not have to worry about the constitution.
  - sieabahlpark 3mo ago
    [dead]
crossroadsguy 3mo ago
Hey, this part has always bewildered me. I often see "written" pages which someone arrested had uttered to police officer(s) rather than staying silent and asking for a lawyer. Those were later typed up from memory "by the police". How does that work? I mean what does "remaining silent" even mean in this case? I mean the police can make this shit up. Or the arrested person can later just say, "naah, I didn't utter a fucking syllable" even if they actually sang the songs. And no I don't mean video taped or audio taped conversations but when there's no cam and what not. What if the arrested person anyway says later "naah, they had pointed 3 guns at my temple before ushering me into the video taping room"? (By the way, in many countries, like in India, if you do/say that to the police you might lose few of your bones and possibly normal functioning of few limbs and organs. Oh the constitution prevents that just fine here as well and quite strongly at that. The thing is constitution isn't an omnipotent and omnipresent just vigilante sentient being that is available to protect everyone everywhere all the time.)

deleted 3mo ago

[deleted]