A federal appeals court in New York has overturned the convictions of three of the police officers in the Abner Louima torture case.
February 28, 2002 8:58 AM Subscribe
That's just fucking great.
posted by donkeyschlong at 9:22 AM on February 28, 2002
posted by donkeyschlong at 9:22 AM on February 28, 2002
I don't think I want to be near that NY neighborhood right about now.
posted by Lanternjmk at 9:27 AM on February 28, 2002
posted by Lanternjmk at 9:27 AM on February 28, 2002
just to clarify, the conviction on the assault was not overturned. the conviction on the obstruction of justice charge was, and there has always been some doubt about schwarz's conviction, so it makes sense to have a new trial on that one. volpe, the primary officer convicted of the assault, is still serving time.
posted by judith at 9:30 AM on February 28, 2002
posted by judith at 9:30 AM on February 28, 2002
Technical details & law mechanics. Volpe still won't be getting out of jail. I hope the citizens in NYC think before they loot.
posted by Karl at 9:33 AM on February 28, 2002
posted by Karl at 9:33 AM on February 28, 2002
Of course, the CNN story makes no mention of any of the nuances that Judith brings up. It practically invites people to start sparking up the garbage cans.
posted by Skot at 9:48 AM on February 28, 2002
posted by Skot at 9:48 AM on February 28, 2002
the schwarz story is an interesting one - there have been a number of articles written about it over the past few years - notably a story in the now-defunct talk magazine, and a nat hentoff piece in the village voice. the horrors of this case are such that you really want to think that everyone involved will be punished properly, but it seems really unclear what schwarz's involvement was, and there has been a movement to reexamine that since his initial conviction. more information here (with the admitted bias that this is the site set up for the "free schwarz" movement), including the news that the original judge in the case, eugene nickerson, died earlier this month.
i am still really unclear myself on what i believe here - but i have found the story quite compelling. i hope that the actual perpetrators of the rape of abner louima rot in jail for the rest of their lives, but i want to believe that the legal system has properly identified those actual perpetrators.
posted by judith at 10:04 AM on February 28, 2002
i am still really unclear myself on what i believe here - but i have found the story quite compelling. i hope that the actual perpetrators of the rape of abner louima rot in jail for the rest of their lives, but i want to believe that the legal system has properly identified those actual perpetrators.
posted by judith at 10:04 AM on February 28, 2002
This is total bullshit.
Where are all the "criminals get off too easy" people now? Seriously. I don't hear them.
And I think the references to "looting" here are out of line and borderline racist.
posted by jpoulos at 10:07 AM on February 28, 2002
Where are all the "criminals get off too easy" people now? Seriously. I don't hear them.
And I think the references to "looting" here are out of line and borderline racist.
posted by jpoulos at 10:07 AM on February 28, 2002
America: Criminal - we'll dance to help you. Victim - screw you.
posted by owillis at 10:10 AM on February 28, 2002
posted by owillis at 10:10 AM on February 28, 2002
jpoulos: I think borderline is being rather generous. As to criminals getting off too easy, I can't really say. The reasoning of the appeals court seems logical enough to me - overeager prosecution is a bad thing regardless of if it happens in the service of the War On Drugs or against the goon du jour.
posted by jaek at 10:23 AM on February 28, 2002
posted by jaek at 10:23 AM on February 28, 2002
And I think the references to "looting" here are out of line and borderline racist.
Ah, the R word again. It wouldn't be a Metafilter debate unless someone hot-headedly accused another of being Racist within the first ten posts. It's sort of the new Godwin's Law. It's also sort of like living in a Real World episode, minus all the insight and intelligence. Oh, right.....
Jpoulos, I'd love to provide you with a dozen links to historical accounts of rioting as a result of police misconduct over the last hundred years, but I don't have the strength to endure another fucking debate about it. For god's sakes, people looted on September 11th. People loot! Shit happens! If you want to link that to racism, you have your own issues.
(In truth, I don't really anticipate people will loot about this. It was said in jest, really).
posted by Karl at 10:24 AM on February 28, 2002
Ah, the R word again. It wouldn't be a Metafilter debate unless someone hot-headedly accused another of being Racist within the first ten posts. It's sort of the new Godwin's Law. It's also sort of like living in a Real World episode, minus all the insight and intelligence. Oh, right.....
Jpoulos, I'd love to provide you with a dozen links to historical accounts of rioting as a result of police misconduct over the last hundred years, but I don't have the strength to endure another fucking debate about it. For god's sakes, people looted on September 11th. People loot! Shit happens! If you want to link that to racism, you have your own issues.
(In truth, I don't really anticipate people will loot about this. It was said in jest, really).
posted by Karl at 10:24 AM on February 28, 2002
Sitting here in the East Village, I can tell you the story's playing pretty big on local media, but come on, the stereotype of rioting New Yorkers is pretty lame.
When Abner Louima was assaulted, let alone when Amadou Diallo was shot and killed, no one rioted. Instead, many New Yorkers protested peacefully and rightfully. (Giuliani, of course, HATED that, so he put the Diallo protestors through "the system" to teach them a lesson under a very quietly distributed police directive that a court subsequently struck down.)
Honestly, New York is not the city you knew in the 60's and 70's. Whether you can attribute that to Giuliani, or the significant demographic/economic shift in population and subsequent "damping down" due to required affluence (not that rich kids don't riot, they just tend to do it at concerts or on spring break), or the realization that peaceful protest is the right and true response to injustice, perceived or otherwise, we haven't had a serious incident since Crown Heights (which was, indeed a riot and a disaster.)
(flippant tag on)Besides, I don't think we've had a great riot since Tompkins Square Park.(tag off)
posted by ltracey at 10:33 AM on February 28, 2002
When Abner Louima was assaulted, let alone when Amadou Diallo was shot and killed, no one rioted. Instead, many New Yorkers protested peacefully and rightfully. (Giuliani, of course, HATED that, so he put the Diallo protestors through "the system" to teach them a lesson under a very quietly distributed police directive that a court subsequently struck down.)
Honestly, New York is not the city you knew in the 60's and 70's. Whether you can attribute that to Giuliani, or the significant demographic/economic shift in population and subsequent "damping down" due to required affluence (not that rich kids don't riot, they just tend to do it at concerts or on spring break), or the realization that peaceful protest is the right and true response to injustice, perceived or otherwise, we haven't had a serious incident since Crown Heights (which was, indeed a riot and a disaster.)
(flippant tag on)Besides, I don't think we've had a great riot since Tompkins Square Park.(tag off)
posted by ltracey at 10:33 AM on February 28, 2002
Karl, I couldn't agree more. (Oh look! A me-too post! Countdown to 'Take it to MetaTalk' commencing...)
posted by Danelope at 10:35 AM on February 28, 2002
posted by Danelope at 10:35 AM on February 28, 2002
A slightly more detailed NYT story on the same subject. (This too is based on AP's wire, so there is still a paucity of details. But it links to the NYT's overview of the subject, which gives a lot of background).
posted by justlooking at 10:49 AM on February 28, 2002
posted by justlooking at 10:49 AM on February 28, 2002
Oh, please. This whole fucking issue has been soaked in racism from day one--from the actual crime to the trial and its aftermath. But we're not allowed to mention the word "racist"? As if that had nothing to do with this?
Are you telling me that the reason "looting" came up four times in the first seven comments had nothing to do with the fact that the minority community was involved?
It was said in jest, really
"I didn't mean they would actually order fried chicken and watermelon. But that's the stereotype. Get it? It's a joke."
You prove my point, Karl. Minus insight and intelligence, indeed.
posted by jpoulos at 10:54 AM on February 28, 2002
Are you telling me that the reason "looting" came up four times in the first seven comments had nothing to do with the fact that the minority community was involved?
It was said in jest, really
"I didn't mean they would actually order fried chicken and watermelon. But that's the stereotype. Get it? It's a joke."
You prove my point, Karl. Minus insight and intelligence, indeed.
posted by jpoulos at 10:54 AM on February 28, 2002
From the Washington Post.
this chilled me:
The appeals court said Schwarz's convictions for civil rights violations must be thrown out and a new trial ordered because he was denied effective assistance of counsel and because the jury was exposed to prejudicial information during deliberations.i>
If a police officer can't get effective assistance in a high profile case, what does that say about the thousands of poor/unlucky defendants who get run through the system every day?
posted by Ty Webb at 10:56 AM on February 28, 2002
this chilled me:
The appeals court said Schwarz's convictions for civil rights violations must be thrown out and a new trial ordered because he was denied effective assistance of counsel and because the jury was exposed to prejudicial information during deliberations.i>
If a police officer can't get effective assistance in a high profile case, what does that say about the thousands of poor/unlucky defendants who get run through the system every day?
posted by Ty Webb at 10:56 AM on February 28, 2002
*sips ginger ale, thumbs idly through latest issue of Modern Racist*
I'm sorry.........what?
posted by Karl at 11:24 AM on February 28, 2002
I'm sorry.........what?
posted by Karl at 11:24 AM on February 28, 2002
It says nothing, Ty- we all know actual defendants are just stupid low-life criminals who wouldn't even be arrested if they weren't guilty of something, anyway. It pisses me off that we have this society that seems to cherish the rights of criminals like Diallo or Louima versus the duty of the Police to do their job, and the cops are good people, and they work hard, and we ought to cut them some slack because they have a tough job, and goddammit don't forget 9-11!
posted by hincandenza at 11:27 AM on February 28, 2002
posted by hincandenza at 11:27 AM on February 28, 2002
To be clear, Karl, I don't think you or anyone else was being malicious. If "racist" is a buzz-word I'm sorry. I'm sure you're no klansman--you're probably a swell guy. But knee-jerk quips about looting only perpetuate stereotypes, and they're exactly not what is needed in a situation like this. There are many degrees of racism--and in fact, in my initial comment, i used the word "borderline". It is possible to say racist things and not be a racist.
posted by jpoulos at 11:34 AM on February 28, 2002
posted by jpoulos at 11:34 AM on February 28, 2002
If a police officer can't get effective assistance in a high profile case, what does that say about the thousands of poor/unlucky defendants who get run through the system every day?
Word up, Ty. It begs the question to point out that there are "stupid low-life criminals" out there are who are indeed guilty of a crime(s). We already know this. The point here is that we are giving higher levels of scrutiny to the effective assistance of counsel, and we are being very efficient in looking for the exposing to prejudicial information to jurors, when a cop is on the stand. These seem to be the qualms (or at the least, the eyebrow raising suspicions) of the case so far. The fact that we have supposedly ‘found’ an unlawful exposing of this information, and has dealt with it rather quickly, raise an interesting question.....would we do the same thing had this person not been a police officer? That's the question.
posted by tiger yang at 11:54 AM on February 28, 2002
Word up, Ty. It begs the question to point out that there are "stupid low-life criminals" out there are who are indeed guilty of a crime(s). We already know this. The point here is that we are giving higher levels of scrutiny to the effective assistance of counsel, and we are being very efficient in looking for the exposing to prejudicial information to jurors, when a cop is on the stand. These seem to be the qualms (or at the least, the eyebrow raising suspicions) of the case so far. The fact that we have supposedly ‘found’ an unlawful exposing of this information, and has dealt with it rather quickly, raise an interesting question.....would we do the same thing had this person not been a police officer? That's the question.
posted by tiger yang at 11:54 AM on February 28, 2002
So only Justin Volpe, the broomstick-wielder, is in prison - and he took a guilty plea.
It's highly unlikely the three conspiracy to obstruct justice counts are retried. The grounds for reversal leave prosecutors little to go on. (From the Times: "The panel said the government relied almost totally on Mr. Bruder's supposedly false statements to investigators, but that Mr. Bruder was unaware his statements would be repeated to grand jurors — and thus there was not enough evidence to establish a conspiracy")
It's not like the state can find another witness to shed light on what Bruder was thinking.
posted by sacre_bleu at 1:10 PM on February 28, 2002
It's highly unlikely the three conspiracy to obstruct justice counts are retried. The grounds for reversal leave prosecutors little to go on. (From the Times: "The panel said the government relied almost totally on Mr. Bruder's supposedly false statements to investigators, but that Mr. Bruder was unaware his statements would be repeated to grand jurors — and thus there was not enough evidence to establish a conspiracy")
It's not like the state can find another witness to shed light on what Bruder was thinking.
posted by sacre_bleu at 1:10 PM on February 28, 2002
jpoulos
"I didn't mean they would actually order fried chicken and watermelon. But that's the stereotype. Get it? It's a joke."
You prove my point, Karl. Minus insight and intelligence, indeed.
Indeed, what BS.
To be clear, Karl, I don't think you or anyone else was being malicious. If "racist" is a buzz-word I'm sorry. I'm sure you're no klansman--you're probably a swell guy.
even if he is subconsciously racist...
But knee-jerk quips about looting only perpetuate stereotypes, and they're exactly not what is needed in a situation like this.
What's needed is an open discussion, not tip-toeing around uncomfortable facts out of deference to some hazy PC standard. The LA Riots happened as a reaction to...what? White police officers being acquitted of beating a black man. If you want to say that Karl jumped to conclusions, fine, but come in swinging the word racist around and you better have something solid to back it up.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:17 PM on February 28, 2002
"I didn't mean they would actually order fried chicken and watermelon. But that's the stereotype. Get it? It's a joke."
You prove my point, Karl. Minus insight and intelligence, indeed.
Indeed, what BS.
To be clear, Karl, I don't think you or anyone else was being malicious. If "racist" is a buzz-word I'm sorry. I'm sure you're no klansman--you're probably a swell guy.
even if he is subconsciously racist...
But knee-jerk quips about looting only perpetuate stereotypes, and they're exactly not what is needed in a situation like this.
What's needed is an open discussion, not tip-toeing around uncomfortable facts out of deference to some hazy PC standard. The LA Riots happened as a reaction to...what? White police officers being acquitted of beating a black man. If you want to say that Karl jumped to conclusions, fine, but come in swinging the word racist around and you better have something solid to back it up.
posted by Ty Webb at 1:17 PM on February 28, 2002
I've been called a Racist and a Subconscious Racist today by two people I don't even know, and it's not even 5:00pm. Amazing. A more humorless, quixotic crowd I've never seen in my life.
For me, the irony here is that I've supported the outrage and activism in the past when, for example, an unarmed black man was shot by a white cop in Atlanta when I lived there. By implying there might be riots in New York was to imply that there might be outrage, which is justified. I'm supporting locking these bastard cops up, and I'm the racist? You guys are really reaching.
*fills out subscription to Modern Subconscious Racist magazine for good measure*
posted by Karl at 1:42 PM on February 28, 2002
For me, the irony here is that I've supported the outrage and activism in the past when, for example, an unarmed black man was shot by a white cop in Atlanta when I lived there. By implying there might be riots in New York was to imply that there might be outrage, which is justified. I'm supporting locking these bastard cops up, and I'm the racist? You guys are really reaching.
*fills out subscription to Modern Subconscious Racist magazine for good measure*
posted by Karl at 1:42 PM on February 28, 2002
Karl,
I'm sorry, I was defending you. That bit about "subconscious racist" was sarcasm. I thought jpoulos's charge against you was bullshit, I thought my last graph made that clear.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:06 PM on February 28, 2002
I'm sorry, I was defending you. That bit about "subconscious racist" was sarcasm. I thought jpoulos's charge against you was bullshit, I thought my last graph made that clear.
posted by Ty Webb at 2:06 PM on February 28, 2002
Oops. See this is the problem with communicating online: no voice intonation. If we'd been speaking in a bar, I could have better detected the sarcasm. Sheesh, I got too caught up the discussion to understand your tone, Ty Webb, sorry 'bout that. Judging from your username, I should remind myself to simply stop thinking, let things happen and be the ball... :)
*Cancels subscription to MSR*
posted by Karl at 2:17 PM on February 28, 2002
*Cancels subscription to MSR*
posted by Karl at 2:17 PM on February 28, 2002
For me, the irony here is that I've supported the outrage and activism in the past when, for example, an unarmed black man was shot by a white cop in Atlanta when I lived there. By implying there might be riots in New York was to imply that there might be outrage, which is justified.
Exactly! Karl, for what it's worth, that's all I took your mention of rioting for as well. I didn't even think about racism until jpoulos brought it up.
(In fact, I was tempted to run downtown and pick up some goodies myself.)
posted by zerolucid at 3:40 PM on February 28, 2002
Exactly! Karl, for what it's worth, that's all I took your mention of rioting for as well. I didn't even think about racism until jpoulos brought it up.
(In fact, I was tempted to run downtown and pick up some goodies myself.)
posted by zerolucid at 3:40 PM on February 28, 2002
« Older Men become more irritable as testosterone levels... | Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by Sapphireblue at 9:19 AM on February 28, 2002