Police shot and killed an Indigenous man in Sydney today. This, just two days after another Indigenous man died in a prison located three hours outside of Sydney.
Aboriginal people die in custody at a rate of 0.61 per 100,000 people. More than 55% of these people were in police custody or being pursued by police. A small number were remanded pre-trial (Australia does not have cash bail).
Also as a @nytimes article showed more than one half of police killings are mislabeled. So the data on all of this is very imprecise. nytimes.com/2021/09/30/us/…
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
People really don't understand how gun laws are enforced in New York.
They criminalize young Black and Brown people.
I don't think I have ever represented a White person charged with possession of a gun.
Not because they don't carry them, but because police are not smashing down their apartment doors to find them and they're not conducting illegal stops and searches.
Well this seems problematic - police need probable cause to pull you over for a traffic infraction *or* reasonable suspicion that a crime has been or is about to be committed. Neither exist here.
That's before we even get to, what the hell, this is what we pay cops to do?
The New York Constitution offers greater protection than the 4th Amendment protection against search and seizure. See People v Robinson 767 N.E.2d 638 (N.Y. 2001) and People v. Spencer, 646 N.E.2d 785 (N.Y. 1995).
DWI check points are allowed but they must be conducted pursuant to non-arbitrary, nondiscriminatory criteria. People v. Sobotker, 373 N.E.2d 1218 (N.Y. 1978).
It's not just that only *one* Black juror has been seated in the trial of the three men charged with killing Ahmaud Arbery.
It's that the judge acknowledged the defense was using *intentional discrimination* in selecting jurors and did nothing about it. cnn.com/2021/11/03/us/…
During jury selection, the defense and prosecution have unlimited challenges for cause - they simply have to show the judge why a juror would not be fair and impartial.
The defense and prosecution each then have a number of peremptory challenges where they can ask for a juror to be struck for any reason.
I always go back to the brilliant book by @sejr_historian, "They Were Her Property: White Women as Slave Owners in the American South."
She says: “Most of us continue to see white women through the lens of gender. This allows for us to be optimistic about the possibility that their gendered oppression will allow for them to find common cause with other dispossessed groups.”
If RBG taught us anything it is that we have blind faith in liberal icons at our own peril.
For the record, I think RBG was racist and that Justice Sotomayor is a million times better jurist.
I also know she joined in this decision upholding child slavery (in which notorious conservative Justice Alito dissented). news.bloomberglaw.com/us-law-week/su…
So the DA has to reassure passengers who witnessed a woman being raped on a train that they won't be prosecuted for something that's not even a crime because the police whipped everyone into a frenzy where they're probably terrified of vigilante attacks. cnn.com/2021/10/21/us/…
How the police *do not* help solve sexual assault cases. By discouraging witnesses from coming forward.
Also, I really hate the way media are still not accurately reporting this story - the headline makes it sound like the DA has decided not to prosecute bystanders that they could and maybe should prosecute, when that's not the case at all.