[Kingsley Davis]

(07-08-2013 10:12 AM)iknowexactly Wrote:  

(07-03-2013 08:16 AM)Bolthouse Wrote:  

iknowexactly,

Some people say prison rape in the US is completely overblown or total bullshit. What's your stance on how often it occurs?

RVF Executive Summary:
The specific act of rape probably isn't that common, but I doubt it's a myth. Everyone that worked in Calif prisons (I worked in prisoner health care) had to take a training in recognizing and acting on reports of sexual abuse, I think they were serious and would have responded if I ever reported a complaint from a prisoner. However, I heard of no complaint I remember over several years of work there.

TL;DR Standard IKE librul rant:

Everything I say is based on experience from California and other progressive states where lawsuits from a prisoner would not be automatically ignored like they might be in some places. However, it took even California a long time to come around to prisoners having basic human rights. In the 1980's there were successful lawsuits for mistreatment of prisoners with mental illness that were based on true facts verified by me from first hand reports of veteran prison workers. These lawsuits resulting in California being forced by the Feds to improve conditions to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.

You don't have to count on anyone's good will with these things: the prisons have been and will be sued for shit like that, they don't want prisoners suiciding ( there is a major investigation after each suicide) and they don't want them raping each other. If you were a prison guard, would you want that shit going on in YOUR unit?

Over the last ten years the guards have become pretty enlightened and probably serve as the biggest rehabilitation factor for the prisoners, just because they act professional, are gruff but basically polite, and do what they're supposed to do. Of course people have bad days and pick on others.

But one of the good things about the first world is the implicit belief that just because someone else has descended to the level of an raging animal, doesn't mean you have to do it too. It's why the first world is clean and hygienic, and not obsessed with revenge-- so we aren't trapped in an economy-destroying, cousin-marrying, car-bombing 14th century replay like Afghanistan.

However, this concern about rape misses the whole point about what a horror prison would be for someone who is not a brutal animal of a hardened criminal.

Guys that are in max security prisons are there 98-99% of the time for very, very good reasons. I've looked at their arrest summaries and many have been arrested for violent crimes 10-30 times, and that's the times they're CAUGHT so actually a lot of them have victimized (raped, robbed, beaten severely, shot or stabbed-- I'm not talking about a brief bar fight where someone is knocked down and not severely hurt) dozens or HUNDREDS of people.

The dominant prisoners are so ignorant, stupid and hateful that you cannot have a friend or often even a conversation with anyone not from your race group (white, mexican, black). It is considered being a race traitor. Probably a minority of the prisoners are racists like that, but the one that are are dominant. It's the opposite of political correctness, hate and ignorance are enforced by the social environment.

If you are a basically reasonable working class or middle class person, who doesn't see fighting as a standard conflict resolution method, a max security prison environment would be a hellish horror you can't possibly imagine, not because they prisoners are abused, which they aren't in Calif, but because the prisoners themselves as an aggregate are so psychologically damaged and filled with hate, stupidity and anger that just being around them is traumatic on some weird subtle level I can't explain.

Also it's why I am amused when people complain about the California police state. People who have never been in these places and complain about a cop giving them a jaywalking ticket have no idea about the unbelievable horror cops protect them from.

Does your house smell like shit right now? Probably not.

But how much do you think about sewers and the work it took to build and maintain them? It's all hidden. And so are the tens of thousands of total, total assholes in the max security places in California.

Not all prisoners are monstrous. Most aren't on a day to day basis. But there are people who got drunk once, killed their unfaithful wife and have no other violent history, guys who got caught with kilos ( but most of them are also violent) but most are just bad news you don't want around. The reasons behind it are so criminologically complex that it can't begin to be addressed here.

This guy Hernandez, probably thought it was sort of heroic to go around intimidating and shooting people who showed a tiny hint of anything other than worship of him.

He'll try to keep thinking that as long as he can for the next 40 years or so. He'll retain some notoriety in prison, the NFL will still be around in 30 years. A big fish in a little sewer.

Form media info, he really seems like the worst kind of prisoners I dealt with, rather proud of their brutality. Many prisoners are ashamed of their murders, they had slipped into being criminals gradually, through poverty and a total lack of the opportunity this guy had.

"If you are a basically reasonable working class or middle class person, who doesn't see fighting as a standard conflict resolution method, a max security prison environment would be a hellish horror you can't possibly imagine, not because they prisoners are abused, which they aren't in Calif, but because the prisoners themselves as an aggregate are so psychologically damaged and filled with hate, stupidity and anger that just being around them is traumatic on some weird subtle level I can't explain."

Replace max security prison with Section 8 public housing and you have every "hood" in America covered.

[JimNortonFan]

http://www.rollingstone.com/feature/the-...the-huddle

FTA:

It was a very different story with his mother, Terri. “She was good about schoolwork and that sort of stuff,” says a friend of the family, “but she brought drama into that house – starting with the bust for taking bets.” In 2001, when Aaron was 12, Terri was arrested in a statewide sting for booking bets on sports. The matter was handled quietly and she did no time, but she cast shame on the boys and dug a rift with Aaron that deepened over the next several years. Friends say Terri had begun cheating on Dennis [JNF edit: Terri is Hernandez' mom, Dennis his dad] with a physically abusive coke dealer named Jeffrey Cummings, who was married to Dennis’ niece, Tanya Cummings.

Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/feature/the-...z2dJo4x6Dv
Follow us: @rollingstone on Twitter | RollingStone on Facebook



Was there ever any doubt about the problem?

[Bolthouse]

If you read the article further, it indicates that Cummings went to jail for stabbing her, then after doing 2 years of time she got back together with him.

On another note, they still don't have a witness to the shooting, and don't have the gun. Looks like he'll get off.

[Christian McQueen]

Dude was cracked out on PCP. That would explain the violence for little reason.

[LowerCaseG]

(08-28-2013 08:52 PM)Bolthouse Wrote:  

If you read the article further, it indicates that Cummings went to jail for stabbing her, then after doing 2 years of time she got back together with him.

On another note, they still don't have a witness to the shooting, and don't have the gun. Looks like he'll get off.

He COULD get off on the murder charge, but in cases like these, they tend to find a way to make the perceived bad guy pay. It is already predetermined. He is cooked. Absolutely nobody is rooting for this guy. If for some miracle he is acquitted on murder, he is still looking at 5+ years on the gun charges which are a lock. Add any sort of lesser offense like accessory, conspiracy, kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon etc... and there is no possible way he is getting less than 12-15 years.

[Bolthouse]

(08-28-2013 11:03 PM)LowerCaseG Wrote:  

He COULD get off on the murder charge, but in cases like these, they tend to find a way to make the perceived bad guy pay. It is already predetermined. He is cooked. Absolutely nobody is rooting for this guy. If for some miracle he is acquitted on murder, he is still looking at 5+ years on the gun charges which are a lock. Add any sort of lesser offense like accessory, conspiracy, kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon etc... and there is no possible way he is getting less than 12-15 years.

How are the gun charges a lock if they can't find the gun? I'm not an attorney, but very curious about this.

[WanderingSoul]

If he is innocent, lets hope he gets off......and doesn't move in next door to me.

If he comes over to borrow some sugar, I'm shooting him right in the face and planting a gun on him. Dudes a psycho.

[LowerCaseG]

(08-28-2013 11:52 PM)Bolthouse Wrote:  

(08-28-2013 11:03 PM)LowerCaseG Wrote:  

He COULD get off on the murder charge, but in cases like these, they tend to find a way to make the perceived bad guy pay. It is already predetermined. He is cooked. Absolutely nobody is rooting for this guy. If for some miracle he is acquitted on murder, he is still looking at 5+ years on the gun charges which are a lock. Add any sort of lesser offense like accessory, conspiracy, kidnapping, assault with a deadly weapon etc... and there is no possible way he is getting less than 12-15 years.

How are the gun charges a lock if they can't find the gun? I'm not an attorney, but very curious about this.

They recovered guns from his house, just not the murder weapon.

[JimNortonFan]

http://gottlieb.radio.cbssports.com/2013...ercharged/


Hernandez to get off and return to NFL in less than 5 years?

[LowerCaseG]

Yeah I heard that too. His rationale is that because Hernandez has no priors, he would have a good argument that all of the gun charges, which I believe carry something like a 5 year sentence each, would run concurrent instead of cumulative. Again, given the public nature of this event, I cannot see Hernandez getting much leniency. Put yourself in the judge's shoes. If he gives Hernandez say, 4 years, he is going to be in the paper as the guy who could have locked up Hernandez for much longer, and didn't.

I believe this is the applicable statute:

https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLa...ection131n

Its says 1-10 years for the first offense, 5-15 years for second offense.

Hernandez would then have to argue the sentence is extreme and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the eighth amendment, or similar clause in the Massachusetts Constitution, Article 26.

[WanderingSoul]

I haven't read a whole lot on the case, but am I correct in assuming he is clearly guilty, but may get off because prosecutors can't actually prove it?

[Kickb]

They never found the gun that was used to kill the guy, there is no clear motive, and the main witness admitted to being high on drugs at the time.

They got nothin!

[Bolthouse]

Lowercase,

Why isn't Hernandez invoking his right to a speedy trial? It appears to me, that not beginning trial until next year gives the prosecution more time to find the gun.

[LowerCaseG]

You basically have to be held in custody for 3/4/5 years for that to apply. 12-18 months before a trial is common. And to address that "They have nothing"

They have:
1. Him going to and from the crime scene on video.
2. Several witness heard the amount of gunshots matching the number fired at the exact time he was at the scene.
3. A shell casing matching those at the scene in the car which he was in, which has been put at the crime scene via tire marks.
4. Motive is helpful, but not necessary, and they will absolutely come up with one. They likely know it already it just is not being advertised.
In sum, they have him at the murder scene when the gunshots were fired, and the casings tied to him.


I read a ton of Massachusetts murder cases over the summer for a class I had. On the one hand, people have been convicted on a lot less. On the other hand, they didn't have the most prestigious firm in the state representing them.

[Merenguero]

Getting a case dismissed on speedy trial grounds is uncommon in my experience. I can only remember making a Motion to Dismiss on those grounds once in my career and it was relatively recent. My Motion was denied as are most speedy trial arguments.

Barker v. Wingo is the case many people cite when analyzing speedy trial arguments. This case lists four factors which are used to determine whether a Defendant's constitutional rights were violated. The factors are length of the delay, reason for the delay, time and manor in which the Defendant asserted his right, and prejudice to the Defendant. These are known as the Wingo factors.

Because Hernandez is incarcerated, the prejudice caused by any delay in bringing him to trial is obvious and severe. A fair amount of speedy trial motions are denied simply because the Defendant is out on bond and there would not be as prejudiced by a delay to the same degree that an incarcerated person would be.

As far as length of delay, anything over a year could be considered unreasonable and a court may not deny a motion simply because it has only been a year if the other factors are covered. I have seen cases dismissed on speedy trial grounds when the cases had been pending for a year and I have seen such Motions denied when the cases had been pending for a year and a half.

The right should be asserted in writing upon the attorney entering his appearance in the case and also on the record at every court appearance. You can never be too careful.

The reason for the delay is crucial. If the delay is not mostly the fault of the prosecution, these Motions can be difficult to successfully argue. I am in a small minority who does not postpone cases unless I am out of town or have some scheduling conflict and who does not consent to state postponements. By either consenting to a state postponement or seeking a postponement on the part of the Defendant, you are contributing to the delay of the trial date and therefore put your client in a weak position should you try to argue that the Defendant's speedy trial rights were violated. About two weeks ago, I did see a lawyer who previously sought and was granted a postponement get a case dismissed on speedy trial grounds. I was quite surprised and it may have been a mistake on the part of the judge.

[Beyond Borders]

(08-29-2013 02:38 AM)RioNomad Wrote:  

If he is innocent, lets hope he gets off......and doesn't move in next door to me.

If he comes over to borrow some sugar, I'm shooting him right in the face and planting a gun on him. Dudes a psycho.

If you need an alibi...

[Mentavious]

NFL season starts soon!

[Screwston]

http://m.espn.go.com/general/story?story...rc=desktop

Updated news about Hernandez. This guy is retarded. This is what happens when you start believing 2pac lyrics.

[samsamsam]

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/potential-d...53227.html

Quote:

Potential devastating turn for Aaron Hernandez
Dan Wetzel By Dan Wetzel
19 hours ago

FALL RIVER, Mass. – One of the central tenets of the defense of Aaron Hernandez is a lack of motive: Why would an NFL star with so much going for him – money, fame, growing family – be involved in murdering Odin Lloyd, a possible future brother-in-law with whom he regularly partied?

"His friend Odin," is how Hernandez's attorney Michael Fee repeatedly described their relationship during January's opening statements in the trial of whether the former New England Patriot killed Lloyd on June 17, 2013. Fee used the term "friend" over a dozen times that day.

It's a strong point to which the prosecution has struggled to counter. Not only is there a lack of motive, the defense has argued, but if anything there is motive for Hernandez to not commit the crime. Who just kills his buddy?
Then came Monday when the prosecution went on the attack and tried to ingeniously flip the entire line of defense, and indeed the defense team's hubris, around.

In a filing here at Bristol County Superior Court, the Commonwealth sought to essentially reverse a critical pretrial finding that excluded "prior bad acts." In this case, the prosecution wants jurors to hear about Hernandez allegedly shooting his friend Alexander Bradley after a visit to a South Florida strip club back in February, 2013.

No criminal charges were filed in that incident because Bradley refused to cooperate with authorities. Bradley later sued Hernandez in federal court, reportedly seeking more than $100,000 in damages.

The alleged details carry a number of haunting similarities to the Lloyd case and display Hernandez's almost unfathomable temper.

According to the filing, Bradley was a "friend and confidante" to Hernandez and they often traveled and partied together. On February 13, 2013, the two men, along with two of Hernandez's other friends, went to Tootsie's Cabaret in Miami Gardens, Fla. A dispute arose over how the bar bill would be split – Hernandez wanted he and Bradley to split it, Bradley thought he should pay only a quarter of the bill since there were four people there.

The disagreement continued on the drive home when Bradley realized he left his cell phone at the club and asked Hernandez to turn around and go back. Hernandez refused. Bradley then "made disrespectful remarks about [Hernandez]."

"Shortly thereafter," the filing reads, "the car pulled over in an isolated industrial area, where Bradley was shot between the eyes, the defendant exited the car and quickly dumped Bradley's body on the ground before fleeing the scene."

Bradley was discovered minutes later by some workers at a John Deere Tractor Store (it was 7 a.m.) and taken to the hospital. He survived the shooting but lost vision in his right eye.

Lloyd, the prosecution alleges, was shot after riding in a car driven by Hernandez and containing two of Hernandez's friends. He was then left to die in a field behind a North Attleboro, Mass., industrial park.

To have a second, similar shooting-a-friend-and-dumping-a-body-incident presented to the jury would be powerful and perhaps too much to overcome for Hernandez, who was already facing daunting odds. Exactly how could such a thing happen not once, but twice in a four-month span?

That's why the defense victory last summer to get Judge E. Susan Garsh to keep the incident out of this trial was so critical. The defense successfully argued that one incident doesn't prove another and allowing it would represent "the kind of outlandish, flawed reasoning which our criminal justice system prohibits."

Now, however, it might yet be allowed, and it's the defense's own bold argument being used against them.

You can't continue to claim Hernandez wouldn't shoot a friend, the prosecution is arguing, when it's alleged that he has, indeed, shot a friend. That isn't just some random "prior bad act." It's the rebuttal of a direct argument at the center of the defense. In this case, it's a known "falsehood," the state is claiming.

"The defendant himself has 'opened the door' to this topic," the filing from deputy district attorney William McCauley reads.

Hernandez's defense has yet to respond to the filing and Garsh won't rule on it until the defense responds. But it was by far the most explosive development on a day dominated by mundane, but necessary, testimony by a cell phone provider expert who could track the location of Hernandez and his associates' phones via cell towers on the night of Lloyd's murder.

Aaron Hernandez smiles during a light moment of the murder trial of Odin Lloyd. (AP)
The filing shows an emboldened prosecution, using Hernandez's high-powered and highly paid legal team against him. There is overwhelming circumstantial evidence against Hernandez in this case, but the Commonwealth lacks a murder weapon, a eyewitness and a motive.

If they can get the barbaric Bradley shooting in front of the jury, there may not be the need for any motive – Hernandez comes off as crazed, trigger-happy and prone to massive mood swings over the slightest of slights. He is also the kind of jerk who won't drive his friend back to retrieve a lost phone.

Worse, it can make the defense arguments thus far look ridiculous. If Garsh allows the jury to hear about the Bradley incident, it probably would've been better for the defense to lose this point prior to trial then attempt to reverse course on the oft-repeated "friend" line of reasoning.

"[The defense] has repeatedly emphasized to the jury that [Hernandez] could not have been the person who murdered Lloyd because [Hernandez] and Lloyd were 'friends.' …Indeed, [the defense] made this argument one of the cornerstones ... and has cross examined witnesses suggesting that the two were friends."

The prosecution argues that this defense strategy was enacted because they knew the Bradley incident, which would make a mockery of it, was inadmissible.

"The [defense] apparently believed that [it] could purvey what [it] knew to be a falsehood to the jury – i.e. that the defendant would never harm his friends – with complete impunity."

And so, just like that, the trial could swing. The defense victory last summer to keep prior bad acts out would, at least partially, be reversed. There would still be no mention of Hernandez awaiting trial for two murders in a separate 2012 incident in Boston, but the jury would hear about Bradley being shot in the face by his friend.

Judge Garsh will make the determination at some point but not before a spirited counter-argument from the Hernandez team. It better be good because this has the potential to be devastating for Aaron Hernandez.

[Grange]

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...n-one-day/

Like any Hail Mary the defense's only hope has pretty bad odds of winning.

Quote:

It took the prosecution 39 days and 131 witnesses to attempt to prove that former Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez killed Odin Lloyd in June 2013. It took Hernandez’s lawyers less than one day — and only three witnesses — to present his defense.

Per multiple reports, three witnesses were called, including an expert witness who testified about the effects of PCP use. The defense hopes to inject reasonable doubt into the case by suggesting that one of the two men who were with Hernandez and Lloyd (Carlos Ortiz and Ernest Wallace) killed Lloyd while under the influence of PCP.

That theory would be more persuasive if Hernandez, Ortiz, or Wallace were to testify. But none of the other men who were with Lloyd were called to the stand.

Hernandez was never going to testify, because to do so would have squandered his right against self-incrimination. (Lloyd and Wallace likely would have asserted their own Fifth Amendment rights, too.) While the jury will be told not to hold the failure of Hernandez to testify against him, some of the jurors surely will wonder why Hernandez didn’t simply get on the stand and declare that Ortiz or Wallace shot Lloyd, if that’s what happened.

Via Dan Wetzel of Yahoo! Sports, the prosecution has called one witness to the stand as part of its rebuttal case. Specifically, the prosecution has a witness who will rebut the claims made by Hernandez’s PCP expert.

Barring something unexpected, closing arguments will start Tuesday, and the jury will then begin deliberating its verdict.

[Merenguero]

(04-06-2015 02:31 PM)Grange Wrote:  

http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/201...n-one-day/

Like any Hail Mary the defense's only hope has pretty bad odds of winning.

Quote:

It took the prosecution 39 days and 131 witnesses to attempt to prove that former Patriots tight end Aaron Hernandez killed Odin Lloyd in June 2013. It took Hernandez’s lawyers less than one day — and only three witnesses — to present his defense.

Per multiple reports, three witnesses were called, including an expert witness who testified about the effects of PCP use. The defense hopes to inject reasonable doubt into the case by suggesting that one of the two men who were with Hernandez and Lloyd (Carlos Ortiz and Ernest Wallace) killed Lloyd while under the influence of PCP.

That theory would be more persuasive if Hernandez, Ortiz, or Wallace were to testify. But none of the other men who were with Lloyd were called to the stand.

Hernandez was never going to testify, because to do so would have squandered his right against self-incrimination. (Lloyd and Wallace likely would have asserted their own Fifth Amendment rights, too.) While the jury will be told not to hold the failure of Hernandez to testify against him, some of the jurors surely will wonder why Hernandez didn’t simply get on the stand and declare that Ortiz or Wallace shot Lloyd, if that’s what happened.

Via Dan Wetzel of Yahoo! Sports, the prosecution has called one witness to the stand as part of its rebuttal case. Specifically, the prosecution has a witness who will rebut the claims made by Hernandez’s PCP expert.

Barring something unexpected, closing arguments will start Tuesday, and the jury will then begin deliberating its verdict.

I'll make this simple. Do you know what Defendants who don't testify in their own defense are called? Inmates. Hernandez didn't testify. This holds true in my experience, but there are, of course, exceptions.

[Fast Eddie]

I don't think the evidence is there to convict Hernandez. No weapon, no witnesses, no motive, as the articles say. Just a bunch of really, really suspicious behavior. Anyone in that car could have pulled the trigger, and nobody's talking. I haven't followed this closely but as far as I've heard, the prosecution hasn't provided any specific information that proves beyond reasonable doubt Hernandez is the one that did it.

Also, not sure how they can use the other incident where he shot a guy in the face. He never faced charges for it so the most one can say is that he is alleged to have shot a guy in the face. You can't use one allegation to try and prove another allegation.

[Blaster]

> You can't use one allegation to try and prove another allegation.

True but the whole point of the article is that it wouldn't be used to directly prove an allegation, rather to rebut the defense's appeal to common sense that Hernandez could never harm a friend.

[MY DETROIT PLAYAS]

What kind of man works his entire life to get to such an enviable position to throw it all away to play a real life gangsta?

He went from what would have been a Super Bowl ring, to inmate # 174954

No more perfect Tom Brady spirals, no more million dollar deal, no more adoring fans

Heard his new position in prison will be center

[clever alias]

(04-06-2015 04:31 PM)Fast Eddie Wrote:  

I don't think the evidence is there to convict Hernandez. No weapon, no witnesses, no motive, as the articles say. Just a bunch of really, really suspicious behavior. Anyone in that car could have pulled the trigger, and nobody's talking. I haven't followed this closely but as far as I've heard, the prosecution hasn't provided any specific information that proves beyond reasonable doubt Hernandez is the one that did it.

Also, not sure how they can use the other incident where he shot a guy in the face. He never faced charges for it so the most one can say is that he is alleged to have shot a guy in the face. You can't use one allegation to try and prove another allegation.

By law, it doesn't matter who actually pulled the trigger. The two people he was with are going to be charged with the same thing.