If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Opposing Views)   Innocent man spends month in prison for a crime he didn't commit, despite having both an alibi and video evidence showing he wasn't at the scene of the crime. That's some mighty fine police work, Officer Lou   (opposingviews.com) divider line 133
    More: Fail, Pittsburgh Police, DeAndre Jordan, DeAndre Brown, preliminary hearing, WPXI, robbery, convicts  
•       •       •

16513 clicks; posted to Main » on 04 Nov 2013 at 12:21 AM (42 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



133 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-11-04 09:03:44 AM

Slaves2Darkness: When are we going to get over this "eye witness" fetish? Memory is a faulty thing at best and you never encode correctly what you see. Your brain interprets it and remembers it as it interpret what you see.


Camera phones are in danger of supplanting eyewitness testimony as the chief source of convictions.
 
2013-11-04 09:05:59 AM

vygramul: redmid17: So the takeaway here is if you are going to rape someone, go to McDonald's afterward and make sure to walk home calmly?

I wouldn't bet on that. My picture was used in a lineup and they knew where I lived. If you're planning on fleeing, best to do it before they know who you are and where you live.


Okay make sure to wear a Nixon mask. That will do the trick.
 
2013-11-04 09:21:13 AM

Slaves2Darkness: When are we going to get over this "eye witness" fetish? Memory is a faulty thing at best and you never encode correctly what you see. Your brain interprets it and remembers it as it interpret what you see.


It's usually the single eye witness that causes the most trouble.  When you have a few eye witnesses that can give the same account without having to consult each other, that is usually going to be accurate.
 
2013-11-04 09:21:42 AM

theotherles: Some cops and prosecutors need to be horsewhipped.

/No, I'm not kidding.


Anyone that intentionally ignores exculpatory evidence should lose their jobs and any benefits they were entitled to.  Cops, prosecutors, judges, the whole lot of them.  I'm sick of hearing prosecutors brag about 100% conviction rates.  All that tells me is that you knowingly put innocent people in prison or you knowingly let guilty people go because you thought there was a chance you would lose the case and your perfect record was more important than justice.
 
2013-11-04 09:22:35 AM

khyberkitsune: timujin: khyberkitsune: I feel sympathy for the man. I truly do. I'm doing felony time and yet I have the evidence that outright proves the crime was never committed and the evidence was fabricated (e-mail header is forged) and the DA nor public defender that told me to plead guilty want to do shiat about it.

/RIVERSIDE CA IS CORRUPT AS FARK, YO.

You're farking from prison?  Man, I thought cruel and unusual punishment was unconstitutional.

Felony probation. Still can't go anywhere any my last petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied even in face of the evidence, stating failure to state a prima facie case.


Get a lawyer and sue the living shiat out of the state.
 
2013-11-04 09:23:58 AM

redmid17: vygramul: redmid17: So the takeaway here is if you are going to rape someone, go to McDonald's afterward and make sure to walk home calmly?

I wouldn't bet on that. My picture was used in a lineup and they knew where I lived. If you're planning on fleeing, best to do it before they know who you are and where you live.

Okay make sure to wear a Nixon mask. That will do the trick.


And flee to a beach in Australia.
 
2013-11-04 09:25:30 AM

Callous: theotherles: Some cops and prosecutors need to be horsewhipped.

/No, I'm not kidding.

Anyone that intentionally ignores exculpatory evidence should lose their jobs and any benefits they were entitled to.  Cops, prosecutors, judges, the whole lot of them.  I'm sick of hearing prosecutors brag about 100% conviction rates.  All that tells me is that you knowingly put innocent people in prison or you knowingly let guilty people go because you thought there was a chance you would lose the case and your perfect record was more important than justice.


The incentives, unfortunately, are line-up that way. It's partly our own fault, as the public does not like the use of discretion, no matter how much they say they do. Actions speak louder than words, and when the public votes for the guy who promises to put criminals away over the guy who says it's better to let 14 guilty men go free than to imprison one innocent man, we get what we voted for.
 
2013-11-04 09:47:04 AM
"Officer Lou?" Subby sounds as awkward with casual English as the guy who answers the phone for tech support, and insists his name is "Dave."
 
2013-11-04 09:47:46 AM
Black guy? I'm thinking black guy. *clicks* Black guy.

This f$^#&ing country.
 
2013-11-04 10:14:29 AM

theotherles: Some cops and prosecutors need to be horsewhipped.

/No, I'm not kidding.


I'm sure there are some cops and prosecutors that need some moderate to extreme horsewhipping, as I'm sure there are some defendants, defense attorneys, judges, bail bondsmen, ambulance drivers, and circus clowns that need a bit of the ol' leather strap.  But, what exactly in this case requires a horse whipping, dear plantation overlord?
 
2013-11-04 10:20:47 AM

Target Builder: InternetSecurityGuard: "I'm just glad this thing is over," said Yvonne Brown, DeAndre's mother.

I really, really  hope it isn't

You're right - every job he ever applies for from now on will do a background check (he works as a security guard), see that he was arrested for armed robbery and promptly toss his application in the trash.


Nope.

HR forms don't ask about arrests, they ask about convictions. (since you are not guilty until convicted). So he is fine if he is not convicted. Except for being locked up wrongly and all that.
 
2013-11-04 10:29:46 AM

SpectroBoy: Target Builder: InternetSecurityGuard: "I'm just glad this thing is over," said Yvonne Brown, DeAndre's mother.

I really, really  hope it isn't

You're right - every job he ever applies for from now on will do a background check (he works as a security guard), see that he was arrested for armed robbery and promptly toss his application in the trash.

Nope.

HR forms don't ask about arrests, they ask about convictions. (since you are not guilty until convicted). So he is fine if he is not convicted. Except for being locked up wrongly and all that.


HR forms where you work may not ask about arrests.  But background checks ALWAYS show them.  And in my field, they ALWAYS ask about arrests.
 
2013-11-04 10:32:33 AM

SpectroBoy: Target Builder: InternetSecurityGuard: "I'm just glad this thing is over," said Yvonne Brown, DeAndre's mother.

I really, really  hope it isn't

You're right - every job he ever applies for from now on will do a background check (he works as a security guard), see that he was arrested for armed robbery and promptly toss his application in the trash.

Nope.

HR forms don't ask about arrests, they ask about convictions. (since you are not guilty until convicted). So he is fine if he is not convicted. Except for being locked up wrongly and all that.


Maybe it varies a lot by line of work or state you live in. I've had loads of work related circumstances where I've been asked "have you ever been arrested or convicted of any offence". For professional certifications I also have to state whether I've been arrested or convicted of any offence, excluding minor traffic offences. If you're going for almost any federal job or working with almost any federal agency (not "Top Secret" or anything fancy, even mundane stuff like 'night cleaner at Federal Building XYZ for Contractor ABC) you'll almost certainly have to tick a box somewhere stating if you've ever been arrested or convicted for anything more than traffic infractions.
 
2013-11-04 10:43:23 AM
1) Are there plenty of villians with dusky complexions? Sure.
2) Are there plenty of pale cops with presets that see guilt in the colour brown? Clearly.
3) If I were a law-abiding black in America, would I be pissed off most of the time, particularly when driving or in any common encounter with "authority"? Yeah, probably.

I hope this guy cleans out these cops' pensions, but it's likely going to dun the local taxpayers.
 
2013-11-04 11:07:35 AM
i.imgur.com

Don't ask questions, Citizen.
 
2013-11-04 11:15:23 AM
Where is the surveillance video from the bakery?
 
2013-11-04 11:30:46 AM
I'm not sure I like the looks of that...
t3.gstatic.com
...Carl guy.
 
2013-11-04 11:59:14 AM

chubby muppet: I'm not sure I like the looks of that...
[t3.gstatic.com image 256x192]
...Carl guy.


I thought Lenny was yellow. The only white character I've ever seen was that little Wendell kid.
 
2013-11-04 12:00:23 PM

Alonjar: Wait... so his Alibi is that he was being trained as a security guard at the same time and place as the place that got robbed?

How is that an Alibi again?


Because it wasn't the same place.  He was being trained in Oakland, PA, which is roughly 40 minutes from Homewood, PA according to Google Maps.

It helps to read.
 
2013-11-04 12:07:50 PM

Por que tan serioso: khyberkitsune: timujin: khyberkitsune: I feel sympathy for the man. I truly do. I'm doing felony time and yet I have the evidence that outright proves the crime was never committed and the evidence was fabricated (e-mail header is forged) and the DA nor public defender that told me to plead guilty want to do shiat about it.

/RIVERSIDE CA IS CORRUPT AS FARK, YO.

You're farking from prison?  Man, I thought cruel and unusual punishment was unconstitutional.

Felony probation. Still can't go anywhere any my last petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied even in face of the evidence, stating failure to state a prima facie case.

Habeas only works if and while you are locked up.



Not true.
A Writ of Habeas Corpus is proper any time the State has improperly restrained the freedoms of a person.  Case law has repeatedly said probation and parole count too.
 
2013-11-04 12:21:46 PM

log_jammin: Gyrfalcon: ou have to be arraigned within 72 hours of your arrest unless you're unlucky enough to be arrested the Thursday before a long weekend in which case you don't get to see a judge before Tuesday. Neither the cops nor the DA has a good reason for holding someone for a simple armed robbery for A MONTH unless the guy waived his right to a fast arraignment--which means his attorney dropped the ball IF his alibi was really mentioned the night of the arrest.

he was arraigned. He went before a judge who set bail, he just couldn't make bail.


That's what I'm thinking too.  This was way too far out to be an arraignment.
Given that the story indicates he was released on lowered bond afterwards but before the case was dismissed, sounds like it was maybe what we call in Texas a "pre-trial" or perhaps a motion to modify bail.


Gyrfalcon: Given that the alibi evidence means this guy is going to win a nice juicy settlement for wrongful imprisonment from the county.

nope. never happen. rightly, or wrongly, they system worked as it's intended.

He was arrested after being accused of a crime by a witness, he went before a judge who felt there was enough evidence to support the bond amount he set(and there is no requirement that a judge set bond at an amount the defendant can afford). later upon seeing new evidence thatexonerated the guy, the DA dropped charges and he was freed.



Was going to say this too.
Had someone been able to make bond on him initially, this would have been nothing more than an exciting "jail" story to tell at Christmas parties.
 
2013-11-04 12:23:28 PM

corn-bread: Por que tan serioso: khyberkitsune: timujin: khyberkitsune: I feel sympathy for the man. I truly do. I'm doing felony time and yet I have the evidence that outright proves the crime was never committed and the evidence was fabricated (e-mail header is forged) and the DA nor public defender that told me to plead guilty want to do shiat about it.

/RIVERSIDE CA IS CORRUPT AS FARK, YO.

You're farking from prison?  Man, I thought cruel and unusual punishment was unconstitutional.

Felony probation. Still can't go anywhere any my last petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied even in face of the evidence, stating failure to state a prima facie case.

Habeas only works if and while you are locked up.


Not true.
A Writ of Habeas Corpus is proper any time the State has improperly restrained the freedoms of a person.  Case law has repeatedly said probation and parole count too.


Interesting. Here in san diego the 4th district court of appeals says otherwise.
 
2013-11-04 12:45:16 PM
More precisely the fact pattern at bar precludes a habias petition as the subject has not stated a claim upon which relief can be granted.
 
2013-11-04 12:51:08 PM
Riverside is in fact the worst place in SoCal to catch a case. Deal (if there is one) only good up to first readiness. Only gets worse from there.
 
2013-11-04 01:00:19 PM

log_jammin: Gyrfalcon: ou have to be arraigned within 72 hours of your arrest unless you're unlucky enough to be arrested the Thursday before a long weekend in which case you don't get to see a judge before Tuesday. Neither the cops nor the DA has a good reason for holding someone for a simple armed robbery for A MONTH unless the guy waived his right to a fast arraignment--which means his attorney dropped the ball IF his alibi was really mentioned the night of the arrest.

he was arraigned. He went before a judge who set bail, he just couldn't make bail.

Gyrfalcon: Given that the alibi evidence means this guy is going to win a nice juicy settlement for wrongful imprisonment from the county.

nope. never happen. rightly, or wrongly, they system worked as it's intended.

He was arrested after being accused of a crime by a witness, he went before a judge who felt there was enough evidence to support the bond amount he set(and there is no requirement that a judge set bond at an amount the defendant can afford). later upon seeing new evidence thatexonerated the guy, the DA dropped charges and he was freed.

The only reason this is a story is because he couldn't afford to bond out for one reason or another. But the real story is like I said before, either this DA is an asshole, or the guys lawyer is lazy and incompetent.  or some combination of those things.


The better reported version of the story (linked above) makes it sounds like the DA dropped charges once they reviewed the video.  So I find it hard to blame the DA.  The PH is just a probable cause hearing.  If the state puts on an eyewitness that IDs the guy, the court is probably going to find that probable cause exists even if the defense is able to put on exculpatory evidence, especially if the defense isn't able to lay adequate foundation for the evidence or establish its authenticity.  So I wouldn't necessarily blame the defense either.

Also, thanks to Cruiser Twelve, who linked about Pennsylvania PHs above, I see that the time for a typical PH there is 30 to 45 days.  If anything about the story is outrageous it's that.  In AZ a PH must be held within 10 days if the person is in custody.  20 if they're out of custody.  45 days for a PH with a person in custody is excessive.

Again, without more to go on it's hard to know who to blame, but I imagine it's either the witness who wrongfully ID'd the guy, or the cop who set up a bad lineup which led to a bad ID.  But from the stories we have, we don't even know if there was a lineup, let alone if it was a bad one.
 
2013-11-04 01:45:37 PM

Magnus: theotherles: Some cops and prosecutors need to be horsewhipped.

/No, I'm not kidding.

I'm sure there are some cops and prosecutors that need some moderate to extreme horsewhipping, as I'm sure there are some defendants, defense attorneys, judges, bail bondsmen, ambulance drivers, and circus clowns that need a bit of the ol' leather strap.  But, what exactly in this case requires a horse whipping, dear plantation overlord?


Deliberately ignoring exculpatory evidence.  And thus not properly performing their tasks.
 
2013-11-04 02:09:36 PM

theotherles: Deliberately ignoring exculpatory evidence.  And thus not properly performing their tasks.


I guess the prosecutor should have dismissed the case as soon as he viewed the exculpatory evidence.  Oh wait he did.
 
2013-11-04 02:13:26 PM

KrispyKritter: brimed03: The metric is "closing cases." Not getting it right. Nobody gets fired for putting the wrong person in jail.

seems there is major emphasis put on the cost of training law enforcement personnel as a get out of jail free card. combine that with emphasis on minimizing personal risk to avoid injury and you wind up with a public servant that rarely gets punished or fired for incompetence.

perhaps if there was accredited schools one had to pay tuition to attend a large burden would be taken off the tax payers and personal responsibility would come into play. in a career field filled with psychologically damaged individuals it's even more important to root out the local good ol' boy network of run amuck mental midgets and replace them with competent and semi-sane individuals. we won't be seeing that anytime soon.


Uh...what exactly do you think a police academy is?
 
2013-11-04 02:17:34 PM

theotherles: Magnus: theotherles: Some cops and prosecutors need to be horsewhipped.

/No, I'm not kidding.

I'm sure there are some cops and prosecutors that need some moderate to extreme horsewhipping, as I'm sure there are some defendants, defense attorneys, judges, bail bondsmen, ambulance drivers, and circus clowns that need a bit of the ol' leather strap.  But, what exactly in this case requires a horse whipping, dear plantation overlord?

Deliberately ignoring exculpatory evidence.  And thus not properly performing their tasks.


Who deliberately ignored the evidence?
 
2013-11-04 02:32:41 PM

Magnus: theotherles: Magnus: theotherles: Some cops and prosecutors need to be horsewhipped.

/No, I'm not kidding.

I'm sure there are some cops and prosecutors that need some moderate to extreme horsewhipping, as I'm sure there are some defendants, defense attorneys, judges, bail bondsmen, ambulance drivers, and circus clowns that need a bit of the ol' leather strap.  But, what exactly in this case requires a horse whipping, dear plantation overlord?

Deliberately ignoring exculpatory evidence.  And thus not properly performing their tasks.

Who deliberately ignored the evidence?


Do you pay attention?  Are you a Democrat?

The police and prosecutors.
 
2013-11-04 02:43:00 PM
Did you read the article?  Are you at all familiar with legal proceedings?

The police don't get to drop charges once they are filed.  They only testify at a preliminary hearing or any court proceeding.  The prosecutor dropped the charges.  The police had sufficient evidence at the time of the arrest to detain the defendant.  They helped establish his preliminary bail based on a schedule of charges against the defendant.  Defendant was unable to post bail.  What exactly went wrong here?  Was the defendant's word not good enough to have the police just immediately drop all charges once he said he had an alibi after the charges were filed?  Shocking as that may seem, some people lie about their innocence.  What exactly would you have done differently?

Now, again, where is this horsewhipping behavior you are so raged up about?
 
2013-11-04 09:50:38 PM

SpectroBoy: Target Builder: InternetSecurityGuard: "I'm just glad this thing is over," said Yvonne Brown, DeAndre's mother.

I really, really  hope it isn't

You're right - every job he ever applies for from now on will do a background check (he works as a security guard), see that he was arrested for armed robbery and promptly toss his application in the trash.

Nope.

HR forms don't ask about arrests, they ask about convictions. (since you are not guilty until convicted). So he is fine if he is not convicted. Except for being locked up wrongly and all that.


The application may not ask about arrests. But the background checks done for security jobs are usually done through state patrol, and show all arrests and convictions.
 
2013-11-05 12:58:26 AM
Innocent man spends month in prison for a crime he didn't commit, despite having both an alibi and video evidence showing he wasn't at the scene of the crime.

FTFA:The armed robbery charges against DeAndre Brown were dropped on Friday after a surveillance video proved he wasn't at the scene of the crime when the incident took place.

That's some fine headlining, Joe.
 
Displayed 33 of 133 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report