How Facebook Landed Me In Rikers

February 13, 2015 5:50 AM

How the NYPD is using social media to put Harlem teens behind bars.
posted by ellieBOA (24 comments total)

It's linked in the article, but this New York Times article provides context on the NYPD's social media/anti-gang nexus.
posted by Jahaza at 6:46 AM on February 13, 2015

During the time he was imprisoned, the DA refused to share almost all the evidence with Jelani or his lawyer.

For some reason, I thought this was prohibited, and that the prosecution was required to reveal all evidence to the defense. Am I wrong?

I also think that the NRA should be defending the 2nd Amendment rights of these young gun enthusiasts.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:58 AM on February 13, 2015 [11 favorites]

IANAL, but I believe you're talking about Brady disclosure, which isn't required during plea bargaining (pre-trial) which gives prosecutors tremendous leverage to bluff.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 7:11 AM on February 13, 2015 [1 favorite]

"Suppression [enforcement] alone, that doesn't work," said Sgt. Juan Aguilar of the D.C. police. "That's only a Band-Aid. You've got to get to the root of the problem. It's social."

It's upsetting to me when enforcement - even smart, 21st-century enforcement - winds up having collateral damage that so severely points out the need for more resources and services for kids in certain neighborhoods.
posted by entropone at 7:11 AM on February 13, 2015

I'm sure that it's just a coincidence that police departments always have the resources and expertise to go after young PoC using social media after three tenuous instances of "conspiracy," but then plead overwork and no technological know-how when organized groups of mostly white people make death and rape threats using the very same social media many times over the course of months or years.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:16 AM on February 13, 2015 [70 favorites]

For some reason, I thought this was prohibited, and that the prosecution was required to reveal all evidence to the defense.

Eventually, 'in advance of trial'. In cases where the judge is complicit, or doesn't care, or is busy, actually handing over the evidence can take a while while the prosecutor pressures the defendant to take a bogus plea deal.
posted by T.D. Strange at 7:18 AM on February 13, 2015

> IANAL, but I believe you're talking about Brady disclosure, which isn't required during plea bargaining (pre-trial) which gives prosecutors tremendous leverage to bluff.

I know what you mean by bluff, but let's also not forget that calling the bluff costs 2 years in jail if you're too poor to afford bail.
posted by cotterpin at 7:31 AM on February 13, 2015

"Pointergate" in Minneapolis also arose because of police in Minneapolis surveilling the social media account of Navell Gordon, the guy who was pointing with Mayor Betsy Hodges.
posted by jonp72 at 7:32 AM on February 13, 2015 [2 favorites]

Bluff, torture somebody with solitary confinement until they make a false confession… You know, same difference.
posted by Clueless in Crocodilopolis at 7:34 AM on February 13, 2015 [2 favorites]

In South Carolina, fb can put you in solitary.
posted by gingerbeer at 7:44 AM on February 13, 2015 [2 favorites]

"It’s a complete violation of the Fourth Amendment and the worst kind of big brother law enforcement." To build the case for the Harlem raid, police had begun social media surveillance of children well before they had built up a serious criminal record.

WHY IN THE FUCK ARE THEY NOT INTERVENING IF THEY KNOW THESE YOUNG KIDS ARE GETTING MIXED UP IN GANG VIOLENCE?!?

Jesus tap dancing Christ. I don't get humanity sometimes. I don't. I don't I don't I don't.
posted by Talez at 7:58 AM on February 13, 2015 [11 favorites]

Because why would they try to HELP the young urban youths when they can just lock em up?
posted by ReeMonster at 8:08 AM on February 13, 2015 [5 favorites]

WHY IN THE FUCK ARE THEY NOT INTERVENING IF THEY KNOW THESE YOUNG KIDS ARE GETTING MIXED UP IN GANG VIOLENCE?!?

The recent NYPD work slowdown, accomplished by simply not arresting people "unless necessary," certainly seems to indicate that they see their job primarily as making arrests. Intervening before somebody builds up a serious criminal record is just going to make arrests less likely, ergo it's counter to their mission.
posted by aaronetc at 8:10 AM on February 13, 2015 [6 favorites]

Intervene how?
posted by merelyglib at 8:12 AM on February 13, 2015

Sitting them down and talking to them? Alerting social workers?
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:14 AM on February 13, 2015

Sitting them down and talking to them? Alerting social workers?

Read the article I posted. It's a multi-pronged strategy and they're doing that.
posted by Jahaza at 8:20 AM on February 13, 2015 [1 favorite]

I was responding to merelyglib.
posted by feckless fecal fear mongering at 8:20 AM on February 13, 2015

It's linked in the article, but this New York Times article provides context on the NYPD's social media/anti-gang nexus.

Interesting piece--which paints a strikingly different picture than the story in the FPP would suggest. It would be interesting to see some kind of attempt to reconcile the two. Is it that some precincts are engaged in a much more interventionist model of this initiative where others are just trying to up their arrest and conviction stats, is it that the FPP story is missing some important part of the story, is it that the piece Jahaza links is focusing on unusually enlightened cops or cops who are painting a too-rosy portrait of their practice.
posted by yoink at 9:03 AM on February 13, 2015

And giving prisoners years of time in solitary for updating behind bars or for allowing others to update social media on their behalf.
posted by Buttons Bellbottom at 11:36 AM on February 13, 2015

Why would they try to HELP the young urban youths when they can just lock em up?

Because corporate prisons need to make profit$?
posted by BlueHorse at 11:39 AM on February 13, 2015 [1 favorite]

This is horrific. He was held for two years without it going to trial, then the case was dismissed? What. The Fuck????
posted by Deoridhe at 6:04 PM on February 13, 2015

That ;) You Type Can and Will Be Used Against You in a Court of Law
posted by the man of twists and turns at 6:58 PM on February 13, 2015

For some reason, I thought this was prohibited, and that the prosecution was required to reveal all evidence to the defense. Am I wrong?

Yes, you're wrong about this. The prosecution is required to reveal some types of evidence to the defense, at certain points during the progression of a case. How much and when depends on what jurisdiction you're in, and to some extent on local custom. There is a practice called open-file discovery, which some places have adopted, that does require the prosecution to turn over all their evidence. But it's only required in about half the states, and even then only to varying degrees. The courts have ruled that the Constitution doesn't require disclosure of government evidence other than in certain specific circumstances (the Sixth Amendment right to be informed of the "nature and cause of the accusation," Brady disclosures of evidence favorable to the defense, etc.). And even those aren't especially well-enforced, and there are exceptions carved out in a lot of areas.

I'm a criminal defense lawyer, and it's pretty routine for me to go to trial on behalf of a client without knowing the identities of the government's witnesses or what, exactly, they're going to say my client did, until they actually get on the stand to testify. It's absolutely trial-by-ambush of the type that our system of law theoretically finds abominable. And it's absolutely legal in most places.
posted by decathecting at 1:45 PM on February 14, 2015

Always fascinating to discover once again how the rights they told me were 'sacred' are a pile of crap to be dismissed at whim. What was it that made the USA so special again, other than size?
posted by Goofyy at 6:12 AM on February 15, 2015