3 ms·

Neutral in that the police and prosecutors verify that the claims by the victim are actually true otherwise anyone could use the police/prosecutors for destroy

by pyre 12y ago

Neutral in that the police and prosecutors verify that the claims by the victim are actually true otherwise anyone could use the police/prosecutors for destroy someone that they didn't like. Much in the same way that ICE has acted like the enforcement arm of the RIAA/MPAA when taking down domains. Barely (or not at all) verifying that the domains were being used for infringement (instead just taking a list given to them by the RIAA/MPAA and acting on it blindly).

tptacek 12y ago
To the extent that's true, it's not really material to this case, right? His own lawyer stipulated to the facts. The dispute was a matter of law, not of fact. I agree with the prevailing sentiment on HN that (a) it's too easy to get an indictment (the grand jury is supposed to be adversarial against the prosecutors and isn't) and (b) prosecutors bias --- my belief is: primarily bias towards cases they can win easily --- has subverted the goal of prosecutorial discretion. But the facts of this case suggest a theft that could reasonably be valued at extremely high numbers. For it to be heard in court doesn't sound like a miscarriage of justice.
- pyre 12y ago
  I agree. I'm just stating that I feel like people are unsettled by how it seemed like the victim supplied all of the evidence to the police/prosecutors and there was a general, "oh well, if you say so," feeling to the relationship between them.
  - tptacek 12y ago
    Doesn't that describe basically every theft case ever? Someone breaks into my house and steals my TV, the same thing's going to happen. You don't think maybe people are just reacting knee-jerk to the name "Goldman Sachs"?
    - pyre 12y ago
      If someone breaks into my house, the police come into the house to investigate. I don't gather all of the evidence for them while preventing them from entering the premises. When has a theft occurred where the police just accepted all of the evidence from the victim, but didn't really do any evidence-gathering themselves?

by pyre 12y ago

tptacek 12y ago

To the extent that's true, it's not really material to this case, right? His own lawyer stipulated to the facts. The dispute was a matter of law, not of fact. I agree with the prevailing sentiment on HN that (a) it's too easy to get an indictment (the grand jury is supposed to be adversarial against the prosecutors and isn't) and (b) prosecutors bias --- my belief is: primarily bias towards cases they can win easily --- has subverted the goal of prosecutorial discretion. But the facts of this case suggest a theft that could reasonably be valued at extremely high numbers. For it to be heard in court doesn't sound like a miscarriage of justice.

pyre 12y ago
I agree. I'm just stating that I feel like people are unsettled by how it seemed like the victim supplied all of the evidence to the police/prosecutors and there was a general, "oh well, if you say so," feeling to the relationship between them.
- tptacek 12y ago
  Doesn't that describe basically every theft case ever? Someone breaks into my house and steals my TV, the same thing's going to happen. You don't think maybe people are just reacting knee-jerk to the name "Goldman Sachs"?
  - pyre 12y ago
    If someone breaks into my house, the police come into the house to investigate. I don't gather all of the evidence for them while preventing them from entering the premises. When has a theft occurred where the police just accepted all of the evidence from the victim, but didn't really do any evidence-gathering themselves?