Jenksismyhero

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jun 19, 2015 -> 01:27 PM) Come on now, Jenks. Surely you can see why people would make a link to a symbol of oppression of African Americans since 1861 (and particularly during Reconstruction and the Jim Crow South) and this horrible incident (particularly since reports indicated this guy had the Confederate flag on his license plate and the crime appears to have been explicitly racially motivated). It's a symbol of a racist past. It's associated with Jim Crow, the Klan, lynchings, attacks on churches. It might not mean that to everyone in the South, but it certainly means that to enough people that it's nonsense it still flies above the South Carolina statehouse. The historical meaning behind that flag is sufficiently related to the apparent motivation behind the shootings that it seems to be a pretty apt source of discussion here. But the flag didn't cause this, that's what i'm responding to. Having that flag isn't some sign that the south or Charleston in particular approves of this kind of behavior or even of racism itself. A flag didn't create his hatred/racism just like a video game or tv show doesn't cause kids to be more violent. If you go ask southerners now the confederate flag is all about southern pride, not racism/slavery (though i'm 100% in agreement that it's moronic that they'd be so proud of that). I hate when these events result in blaming something else as the cause. That's bulls***. This dude has a mental imbalance and a f***ed up view of the world. Plan and simple. The confederate flag didn't provide his moronic justification that black people rape white women and are taking over the country.

QUOTE (Iwritecode @ Jun 19, 2015 -> 11:29 AM) Actually, I think it's closer to 5% that identify the right guy. From the study linked above: We are talking about less than a 50/50 chance that an eye-witness is choosing the right person. What does "memorably bizarre behavior" mean? I'm sure convenience store clerks see a lot of bizarre behavior. It may or may not be bizarre enough to be memorable. I think these studies are crap when it comes down to major crimes like someone shooting someone or someone beating someone else with a flag pole. You don't see criminal acts every day. Those are truly memorable. Again, not suggesting that there isn't an issue with eye witness testimony in general. People should be skeptical and it's the attorney's job to make the witness and the memories they have credible. I just don't think it's nearly as prevalent as people are making it. btw, the same study said this: "There is no way to know for certain how many convictions are based on mistaken identification testimony. Estimates range as high as 5%. One conservative study believes that as few (or as many) as 0.5% of convicted felons are actually innocent."

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 19, 2015 -> 11:39 AM) (link) Given it's rare, i'm actually happy that we haven't overreacted as we typically do.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 19, 2015 -> 11:27 AM) Shoot, you might as well say let's take the American flag down then. That's why I think it's a dumb argument, not to mention you're providing an object to blame here, instead of the sick f*** that did this. Also, the obligatory "movies/games/music/tv with violence caused this" argument can go here. Same poor logic.

QUOTE (DrunkBomber @ Jun 18, 2015 -> 05:59 PM) I am the last person who wants to defend cops but to me there is more to being a witness than memory recall. Id imagine police are trained to be more observant and aware of the surroundings. Theyre looking for scars, tattoos, facial features etc. They are trained in writing police reports so its probable they are noting distances, heights, builds, directions etc. Maybe a better way to describe what I mean is a cop and a civilian can see and recall the same event, but the cop is better prepared to explain and describe what happened with more detail, because of their training. They have a different mindset. That's the nature of being a cop. I can say the same is true for being a lawyer. I'm constantly, 24/7, in every aspect of life, always asking "what if I get screwed and I have to prove this at trial?" I act accordingly - always getting paper receipts, always sending confirmation e-mails or letters, never assuming anything and leaving it up to interpretation, etc. Non-lawyers, generally, don't do that. Can we point to a study that shows that lawyers are better at that stuff? No, probably not. But is it still a logical assumption to make? IMO, yes.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jun 18, 2015 -> 05:04 PM) I'm not sure I understand that argument. The officer certainly has knowledge on procedures regarding a crime scene. What does that have to do with laying the foundation that their memory recall is better than the average joe? I would think that to show that the particular officer was more reliable than an average joe on accurate eye witness recollection, you would need to show reliable training that improved that recollection. But I'm not comfortable inferring that some amount of training actually accomplishes that goal in light of all the science regarding how unreliable eye witness testimony is generally. Right, you'd have to have a study to prove that. I'm just saying if someone was putting up a defense that a cop's eye witness memories are just as bad as everyone else's, you'd try to rebut that by showing the various training and experience the officer had. You would have to hope that the jurors would make that assumption on their own. I mean yeah, I think a juror should have in the back of his/her mind the knowledge that eye witness testimony can be wrong and that you need to make sure the entire set of facts being presented fits. But i'm also not on the other end of the spectrum like some people here who think that because 5% or whatever of people ID'd the wrong guy that means ALL eye witness testimony is crap. You should have a healthy dose of skepticism. But you should have that with everything anyone says. Maybe because i'm already like that (as an anal-retentive lawyer) I just assume people think the same way.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 19, 2015 -> 08:36 AM) South Carolina's Confederate Flag Not Lowered to Half-Staff After Massacre Take Down the Confederate Flag—Now While I think it's extremely odd, distasteful and embarrassing that states still do this, not sure how or why that's relevant to this situation. That's just someone creating an opportunity out of tragedy to further their own agenda. edit: if Charleston proudly displayed KKK flags or hats, then I could see it.

QUOTE (bmags @ Jun 19, 2015 -> 08:46 AM) Yeah, or maybe we could be allowed to track and study gun sales to look into if there are any patterns for gun purchases coming from particular stores. But no, this is such an important issue that we are not allowed to even study it, and the very serious people like you can just sit on the sidelines saying "welp, nothing we can do, criminals gon criminal." Let's go around the merry go around again. How could that study have prevented this particular shooting? He's not a major gun purchaser. Aside from a full on background check, including interviews with friends and family (which still might not have been enough), you're not preventing this guy from getting a gun. In this case, yes, criminal gon criminal. Until you guys get your minority report future vision, there's not much to stopping this stuff. Crazy is crazy.

Not sure I've ever seen a drop in an athlete more than Tiger Woods. At this rate he'll be lucky to keep his tour card.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jun 18, 2015 -> 01:53 PM) Fair enough. I think the premise - that the officers in high stress (and low stress) interrogations, who were trained in memory recall, had poor recall (I consider 76% recall to still be pretty poor under the circumstances) to be a fairly on point comparison, but I see the argument to the contrary. What's your position on the foundation argument I raised above? Namely, if eye witness recall generally is unreliable, shouldn't the burden be on the prosecutor to establish that the officer's recollection is sufficiently more reliable? I mean, if I have a doctor on the stand, I don't get to call a podiatrist an expert on head trauma just because he has an MD behind his name.* * Note, I acknowledge that example isn't perfect, but we don't just get to assume that someone is more reliable because of their profession without establishing foundation in support of that contention. Wouldn't it be enough for the cop to explain some of the police procedures he's been trained on, how many of X accidents or crime scenes he's worked over the years, best practices for when cops get on scene, etc. I have to imagine there's enough material out there on police procedure that you'd be able to say that a cop has more training than the average joe and thus has some sort of expertise on the matter, just like you would any other "expert."

I think it comes down to going there and seeing what they do versus going to other theme parks. It's like going from a Ferrari to a Ford. Huge drop down in quality. Disney parks could use more thrill rides but for families it's easily the best. It helps that my wife and I, and now our son, grew up loving Disney/Pixar movies. We went there as kids, so it was part nostalgia. Mickey Mouse is my son's favorite thing ever, so for him, meeting Mickey and freaking out was the best thing that ever happened to him. And it was just as amazing/entertaining for us to watch him as it was for him.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jun 18, 2015 -> 12:53 PM) What's the take-away from that section of the article then? My point - you are arguing that officers are experts at identification (or at the very least are better than the average joe) because they receive general training on the subject. But we don't require prosecutors to lay that foundation at trial. And even if we did, there doesn't seem to be any science to support the conclusion that the training has a substantial impact on the reliability of eye witness recollection. And even IF you are correct that the officer's recollection is better than the average joe's, if it's still inherently unreliable, why are we giving greater weight to that testimony in the first place? Shouldn't the conclusion then be "all eye witness testimony is unreliable, particularly in high stress situations - even if the individual has received training on the subject?" That navy/marine officers in high stress interrogations had poor memory recall, but officers in survival training and cops aren't exactly in the same line of work. They cite to a study about cops failing at a 51% rate but don't really discuss it. Perhaps that study would show what you're saying, but this one doesn't.

QUOTE (illinilaw08 @ Jun 18, 2015 -> 12:40 PM) Jenks, according to the linked paper below, training has limited impact on the accuracy of eyewitness testimony (see pages 273 and 274 of the linked study). https://mckinneylaw.iu.edu/ilr/pdf/vol40p271.pdf Not sure that's the take-away there, but regardless, what's the comparison to average joe's?

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 18, 2015 -> 12:32 PM) Except that while filling out those documents they're also doing exactly what you said in the first line, filling in the gaps with things they think they saw. They're training in that skill too. But they're going about it more accurately. Which is my point. If a lay person sees a crime occurring, in their mind they're not necessarily thinking "oh s***, i gotta ID this guy, so let me get his color, height, hair color, clothing, etc." They're probably thinking, naturally, oh s***! there's a crime occurring! A cop, I venture to guess based on a logical assumption, IS asking those questions in his mind and making mental notes.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 18, 2015 -> 12:31 PM) So, papers that say "working memory training techniques that are currently available are ineffective" are popping up repeatedly in the searches I'm doing. Link Seems to deal with some kind of commercial therapy for ADD symptoms, not really what we're talking about here. No one is disputing that getting shot at is going to mess with you a little bit. Not really the situations we're talking about here either. Seems to deal with if cops are shown a video that pisses them off, they'll be pissed off and make higher degree of shooting mistakes. Again, not shocking and not really relevant to what we're talking about.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 18, 2015 -> 12:22 PM) Is there training that actually works to improve eyewitness memory recall? Does such a training exist and actually produce quantifiable results? Again I've never heard of it and there was no reply to that question in your comment so given the lack of one of those I'm going to assume you believe the answer is no until you reply with something useful and educational. Part of the problem with eye witness testimony is that people aren't actually witnessing things in their entirety, so they often fill the gaps with something they think they saw. Or they see something but they don't actually focus on it enough to recall it properly later. Cops are trained to analyze entire situations as they come upon them. They're trained to catch characteristics of people so they can recall them later. It's necessary for the paperwork they have to eventually fill out. And it's something they do on a routine basis.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jun 18, 2015 -> 11:26 AM) Right, that's really all I was driving at. That's a hugely important and impactful assumption to be making without any real justification to back it up. Training. For the 10th time. They get training. And they have more experience and exposure to it. That's justification enough. It's not like i'm making this up out of thin air. No, I don't have a study to back me up. But I think it's a logical assumption to make. QUOTE (southsider2k5 @ Jun 18, 2015 -> 12:14 PM) How much different is it to assume that the judges and lawyers know the law better then other people because that is what they are trained for? Or literally any other aspect of life wherein training and repetition occurs. It's a safe assumption that someone who does something more often is going to be better at it than someone who doesn't.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 18, 2015 -> 12:04 PM) You clearly believe that because that last line was a direct quote from you on the night of the baltimore riots. Because that is a common stereotype that people in this country actually believe. I don't think people generally in this country believe that southern conservatives are murderers. But hey, perhaps i'm wrong.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 18, 2015 -> 11:58 AM) The best way to change stereotypes is to perform the stereotypical act. All black people commit crime. That's an accurate stereotype too right?

QUOTE (pettie4sox @ Jun 18, 2015 -> 11:52 AM) The dudes looks nuts and probably has his insanity plea ready to go. Insanity pleas/defenses are RARELY used successfully. Like, hardly ever.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 18, 2015 -> 11:23 AM) I found this quote insightful in regards to your question. Lol, I see, so being southern and conservative that tells some racist jokes means you're a murderer?

Yeah that's ridiculous. He could just be trying to be funny. You can't tell that stuff through a picture. Sounds like they just caught him in NC. Would love to know what the motive was here, especially after spending an hour with those people in the church.

Just terrible.

Ok, so I'm happy that millions of people will be downtown to celebrate the Blackhawk's win, but for f*** sakes kids, learn how to act in public. (1) Don't walk down a sidewalk 5 abreast, (2) don't just stop walking when 100 people are behind you trying to get to work, (3) 16-24 year old dudes, jesus stop being douchebags (impossible, and I know I was one of them), (4) young girls put some clothes on! /end 33 year old old man rant.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jun 17, 2015 -> 12:36 PM) But you can't tell which parts will be inaccurate unless you have some other bit of data, such as videotape, to support it, and that goes for all eyewitness testimony. So you're suggesting unless there's is video tape evidence, all eye witness testimony is not credible and should not be allowed? Fundamentally we clearly disagree. Eye witness testimony is still good, credible evidence, even if it's not always accurate. Stating that the killer was dressed in a clown suit versus being dressed as a bear is something i'm confident people won't f*** up. Saying the killer was 10 feet from the victim versus 3 feet is something that I can admit may be wrong. But people recognize that. Jurors understand that. No one goes in believing that the person claiming they saw something with confidence actually saw what they saw. I literally get this every day in my job. I'll have 5 witnesses to an event and their recollections are all slightly different. The general jist is pretty consistent, it's the tiny details that may differ. I'm not really sure what the argument is anymore. All i'm saying is that generally speaking I would tend to believe that cops have a better ability to see an event unfold and then recall those events in a report because they have been specifically trained to do that. That's their job. Jo Blow on the street seeing an event unfold is usually just going about his/her day, not planning to analyze an entire situation that's unfolding. They are less equipped for that.