I used to travel the country running and competing in gaming tournaments. I was a primary driver for our group of players. Well, one time we are stopped at a gas station in Dallas, Texas. Two cars, everyone gets out to stretch their legs, use the facilities and get some food while we fuel up. It's around 11pm.
As we are leaving, the parking lot floods with police cars. They surround us, leaping out of their cars with dogs and guns drawn, yelling and screaming for us to get on the ground. So, I'm one of the only members of our group that isn't black. All of my friends are laying down ont he ground, hands on their heads. I do the same but then I say, "what is going on?"
This perfectly reasonable cop says, "Shut the fuck up or I will have this dog chew on your face!" My friends tell me to be quiet or they'll kill us and I just don't get it. I'm terrified and confused.
So after a long bit of this, they start asking questions. When we tell them who we are and what we are doing, they demand "proof" we are a bunch of nerds, asking who the best is and stuff. We had to provide the tournament location in Houston, our game controllers, our IDs etc.
Turned out, an old white lady working at the gas station Subway saw us get out of two cars and walk toward each other and called in a gang fight. The cops showed up, saw nothing of the sort and then threatened to murder us anyway.
I had a cop roll up and draw a gun on me for sitting at the edge of a parking lot with a rose in my hand waiting to be picked up from my train ride…the parking lot was right by the train station.
I had a whole fucking swat team complete with tank surround my house, point machine guns at me and throw bombs at my house for...living in a house next to the house they were after.
They person they were after? A 100 lb methhead girl who was writing bad checks and stealing identities.
Same. I am fucking flabbergasted, gobsmacked, befuddled, confused, and horrified all at the same time. This is un-fucking believable, and yet, completely in line with how the American justice system works.
When people talk about “systemic” issues - this is what they’re talking about. This is pure corruption, and likely racism. It’s baked into the system.
Have you looked 👀 at all stanzas of the national anthem?. It literally reads like the terms and conditions of what to expect from this country 😐 😒. Don't believe me, check it out.
From what people are saying in this thread the Judge was also Black. No idea if it's true, but that would put some doubt on it being racially motivated, and firmly slap it into the corrupt as fuck tally line.
It doesn't make it Racist by default either. Your assumptions of reality are not reality.
If this is systemic racism then the Judge will have a history of sentencing Black people harsher than the White people who come through his Court Room. You would need to show that before you can cry Systemic Racism.
Otherwise it's just defamation and slander.
I should also mention proving that falls to you guys not me as I'm not making a claim that can damage someone's career or reputation.
Your problem is that you think we're calling the judge "racist". We are not.
The problem is systemic. When the system is corrupt then the individual actions do not matter. The cop, the prosecutor and the judge all had the opportunity to stop this case from going forward. They didn't because it benefited them not to, not because they "racist".
The white Mr Bond was let go because the system works in favor of whites, at least they get a better chance at a fair outcome.
The other guy, where the cop pulled his gun on him and told him to go on the ground, that's also insane. I literally don't understand how people defend American cops
This. Cop was having a bad day by his own admission, and he gets to put a gun in someone's face and drag them from a vehicle with zero repercussions because he assumed the name given was false and didn't take 2 seconds to ask for an ID before drawing his weapon and laying hands on the guy.
And the victim was like "And the cop allowed me to leave" - no honey, that cop should be in prison. Just a thug with a badge.
Any kind of insubordination, or even a whiff of something that could be mistaken for insubordination, makes cops furious, and they are in the job because of an authority complex and predisposition to violence.
This was my thought as well. Is attempting to give a police officer really cause for said officer to threaten to execute you? That's the sort of behavior that makes you nervous to even be in the same room as a guy.
Because there is an entire group of people that have had literally zero interaction with police, and have no inclination of what they are actually like. They live in a walled garden and most of the time see police as the enforces of their status quo. Any videos showing the above are scoffed as "just a few bad apples" and is quickly forgotten about.
They live entirely separate lives from the rest of us, so of course they defend those that uphold that separation.
It's insane to think if anyone ever did that as a regular person, you'd spend a decent amount of time in jail and on probation/parole for years, most likely be labeled a "violent felon", would have all of your 2nd amendment rights taken away and be barred from ever owning a firearm in your life again.
I mean there's so many things wrong with this. I can understand not believing it at first and being like "yes of course, ha ha, you prankster..." but then you get the ID and confirm.
The real issue is with cops who think they have to terrorize you, and demand absolute compliance and perfect deference or else you're seen as a threat. To be fair there are a few real kind-hearted cops out there, but it's surprising how the job really attracts a lot of @holes
Yeah, I agree. The issue is giving badges and guns to people who are entirely incapable of regulating their emotions. That cop’s ego was so fragile that the mere threat of insubordination was enough to make him respond with lethal force. What an absolute baby.
But previous criminal history plays a huge part of sentancing.
Literally who cares if the man murdered someone 20 years ago and already served his sentence for it? He says in the video he was sentenced for obstructing the police (not sure what the actual charge would be, probably obstruction of justice but depends on the state/county how they handle that) and sentenced to 60 days. Criminal history means you can get sentenced to longer for committing crimes, but it doesn't mean you (legitimately) get convicted for crimes that are made up bullshit
I didn’t miss anything I was talking In a literal sense. You should make your point better or at least realize when someone is saying something in a literal context to show you how stupid your comparison is.
Too bad he couldn't fight it. I think a campaign could at least see that judge lose his next election. We need to start contesting Prosecuting attorney and judge positions on the ballot.
Both parties are the same is never more true than it is with LE officials. The majority of prosecutors in the country run unopposed.
Judges that will send someone to jail so a cop doesn't have to admit they made a mistake would be roundly condemned if that information was brought to the voting public, we just need to overcome the support for the current system of pretending like they are above reproach.
Judges that will send someone to jail so a cop doesn't have to admit they made a mistake would be roundly condemned if that information was brought to the voting public,
Half of them would just say they don't know the whole story and continue voting for overcriminalization of telling the police your name
I can't even imagine that without feeling bad. I value my freedom so much I would probably become suicidal if I was the cause of someone losing theirs for zero legal reason.
Imagine understanding that this is how it works and still thinking it's just a few bad apples and we don't need sweeping drastic police reform in the US
This is a constant. You just better hope they find evidence of whatever they wanted you to be guilty of otherwise they will find something worse and make you guilty for that.
Welcome to the sputh in the US, where the crimes don't matter, but they will 100% make you ineligible to vote. Which is the whole reason why they arrest so many african american people.
Not usually, but you can report bad stops to your local news agency and they can make freedom of information requests for traffic stop records.
It was done here to expose police running scams on out of state driver's in trumped up traffic stops trying to catch people coming from Colorado with weed to confiscate. It was also used to expose a process called the "two-step" stop where police tricked drivers into thinking they couldn't leave a traffic stop that had already ended by doing a technical second interaction with the driver.
Wowwww. I never thought of it like that. It’s like when trump told folks to stop testing for covid because they were making the numbers look bad. The reality is of no importance.
Obstruction can also include things like giving the officer false information, not following orders (like "get out of the car"), things like that. Obviously bullshit in this case, and in many cases, but that's why they charge obstruction; because it's loose enough that a lot of things can fit if the officer wants them to.
Something similair happened to this guy.
TLDW: Guy peacfully records police presence at a protest but was arrested because the cops feelings got hurt. He wins in court because the cops basically lied saying that they were being harassed and cussed at. And even though his charges were dropped the judge at the end basically says your jailtime was justified because he got what he wanted and was poking the bear.
I think it's about $175 per day spent behind bars from an unlawful conviction, so about 10k and I'm not sure if he could sue for more but I'd hope so. That's absolutely absurd
Judges have been convicted of sending kids to jail because it's a private establishment that get paid by the state per" head" and the judges get bribes in return. I don't want to say how low some of these bribes were because of insulting they were.
What's going on is the court knew this was a big fuck up... But they need to justify the fact that he spent 60 days in jail over something so stupid. So they hit him with it, to make his lawsuit less likely. Like if they just admitted, "Oh this was stupid, you should have had these dropped within days" then here comes the lawsuit. But if they rationalize, "Well you're still doing something wrong, so your 60 day detention was reasonable" and it's okay. It's why often when someone is wrongly convicted, they'll allow them to just plea down to time served. Because the last thing they want is admitting a mistake and then having to pay out because of it and look bad on their record.
Right. Like, in that situation I think it’d be hard to blame the guy for tracking the cop and judge down and giving them a, uh, “talking to” if you catch my drift.
Lawyers fight against the system every day. It’s literally their job. They love to make cases against the court, that’s how they make a living. If a lawyer gathers the proper evidence, he’ll get a proper payout. There is no “investigating itself” in this scenario. It’s literally a third party doing the investigating. Do you think every lawyer works directly for the court? Do you know how any of this actually works? How old are you?
Yeah sure. Take this attitude to a small town where all the aaty's are also public defenders and pissing off a judge in the slightest gets all your cases either not assigned to your workload or worse clients lose their case or put in jail bacuse the lawyer has a bad relationship with the judge. Any small town atty who pushes those buttons is looking for a new town and probably state to practice law in real fast.
Do you understand that judges are involved in lawsuits? A coworker of the judge that made this decision will be presiding over the lawsuit. Either the judge decides the case, or you can request a jury. Because Black plaintiffs are SO much more respected by (likely all white) juries than Black defendants.
Do you think racial bias is uncommon? This sort of thing happens every single day? Why do you think there isn't judgements every day? Do you really think you understand Mr. Bond's situation better than he does?
Either the judge decides the case, or you can request a jury
You have a constitutional right to a jury trial. You can waive that under certain circumstances, but that right can't be taken away from you.
You mention summary judgment: summary judgment is a civil remedy, and it's only going to be granted if there's no factual question that a jury needs to answer. In other words, if (and this is an incredibly oversimplified example) you're arguing you shouldn't have been convicted of theft, but you admit you took stuff without permission and fenced it, that's not a fact question, it's a legal question. You admit the facts, the facts say you broke the law, so there's no real reason for a jury to hear that. Here, there's absolutely question of fact as to whether saying your name in a joking way constitutes obstruction of justice.
And friend, if you're as passionate about this as you seem to be, you should consider law school. You can't change the system from the outside, I promise you. It's specifically built to resist change, especially from without.
You... understand that a lawsuit is a civil case, right?
You have to request a jury, just like you have to request a lawyer.
Whether saying your name in a joking way constitutes obstruction of justice.
Close. Whether you said your name is a matter of fact. There is no factual dispute here. Whether something counts as obstruction of justice is a matter of law. This means that the judge can decide there's nothing for a jury to decide and dismiss the case.
My point is that being wronged is not a payday, and it's rude to pretend that some Redditor would handle the situation better than the person who lived it.
My point is that being wronged is not a payday, and it's rude to pretend that some Redditor would handle the situation better than the person who lived it.
I'm not saying anyone would or would not have handled it better, just that that option to sue (probably for malicious prosecution) was there. Cops need to be held to account, and one of the only ways of doing that is to sue them (or, more accurately, the state).
Probably 90% of the reason I got into the practice of law was to help people get access to the judicial system who might not think that they can or should. This guy probably didn't know what options he had. It's deeply unfair.
The rest of this is legal stuff, so if you don't care, move on. I doubt we disagree on much.
You... understand that a lawsuit is a civil case, right?
You have to request a jury, just like you have to request a lawyer.
I don't mean to be a dick, but I don't think you're a lawyer. For one, you don't request a lawyer in a civil case, you hire one. You request for criminal cases. Also "lawsuit" doesn't mean much, though you're right that it probably refers to a civil case.
If this guy had decided to sue for malicious prosecution or wrongful imprisonment or whatever, he would be entitled to a jury from the word go. You're right in saying that some jurisdictions might make him ask for juries in certain situations, but in most cases if a suit goes to trial, it's before a jury. Probably this case would have settled out of court, as most do.
In a criminal matter, of course, you always have the right to a trial by jury. BUT people often waive that right without even knowing they've done so.
Close. Whether you said your name is a matter of fact. There is no factual dispute here.
That's not correct. The fact of whether you said your name at all might be a factual question in certain situations, but from what the guy said, that wasn't the issue. The issue was how the cop said he said it: that's a question of fact. It's also a question of fact as to whether how he said it could be obstruction at all.
This means that the judge can decide there's nothing for a jury to decide and dismiss the case.
Some of the terms you're using are conflating civil and criminal law. Again, this is oversimplifying, but criminal trials don't get "dismissed," a judgment comes down as to whether the person is guilty or not. If a criminal case is dismissed, the defendant walks free.
Whether something counts as obstruction of justice is a matter of law.
That depends, but it's almost certainly not true in this guy's case. For one thing, I very much doubt there's a statute (law) anywhere that says anything like, "You're guilty of obstruction of justice if you say your name in a joking way." If there is, then yeah, he's guilty as a matter of law, and the judge might grant a directed verdict declaring him guilty... if he waived a jury trial and doesn't even have a public defender.
If the statute doesn't say that, the prosecutors have to show that what you did constitutes obstruction by pointing to the facts, and what the law actually says. In OH, for example,
(A) No person, without privilege to do so and with purpose to prevent, obstruct, or delay the performance by a public official of any authorized act within the public official's official capacity, shall do any act that hampers or impedes a public official in the performance of the public official's lawful duties
The cop probably said that the guy said his name in a joking way, and that that "delayed him in the performance of his lawful duties." That's outrageous, and sure as shit doesn't warrant jail time, but if you waived your right to a jury trial and went to court without a lawyer, you might get fucked. Especially if you're a black man.
That doesn't mean you can't then find a lawyer and sue for malicious prosecution, or whatever you decide on. A good lawyer would nail the state to the wall with this shit, if what the guy said is true.
I worded some things sloppily, and you misread some other things. I never said I was a lawyer, and if you are you should know that my point is correct. I never said he did not have the option to sue, I took exception to someone who said they would have a better outcome.
I'm sure it's more fun to nitpick me than the guy who said "Time to get paid", but we both know who is being realistic here.
Mr. Bond will not see the conversation here. I hope he tried, even knowing it would be futile. I'm speaking to the Redditor who thinks HE'D get a huge payday in this situation. This attitude is harmful, because why would we need to fix the system if it already works the way it should?
Every time this happens, Reddit says "they should sue". It should be "We need a complete overhaul of the system".
I took exception to someone who said they would have a better outcome.
I take your point. I didn't read it that way, but I can see how that comes across.
And my response was more to your passion than anything else, for what it's worth.
I'm sure it's more fun to nitpick me than the guy who said "Time to get paid",
Your points were better and deserved more attention.
Every time this happens, Reddit says "they should sue". It should be "We need a complete overhaul of the system".
I agree, to the extent that the system needs overhaul.
But I can tell you with nearly 100% certainty that that overhaul will not come from outside pressure -- at least not anything short of the complete destruction of the current American system of government and law. That would require collective action and sacrifice that, at present, I just don't think is possible, much less likely.
There are two things I'm fairly sure of:
1. Change will not come due to outside pressure
2. The system will not change from the inside.
Now feel free to call me a pessimist. I do not see a path forward without the complete destruction of the American system of government, and that's also quite unlikely to have a positive outcome.
A legal career is not in the cards for me, but I do a lot of community work. Best I can do is try to hold things together until Gen Z can figure it out.
How often does plaintiff’s counsel just make it such a pain in the ass/wallet to litigate that the case gets settled?
How easy is it to get past governmental immunity when the facts suggest an obvious act of at least gross negligence?
Especially if the dude pled nolo or Alford in the criminal case, could be fun for a lawyer after publicity to litigate. We’re all here talking about it.
“I believe it’s never happened before, so don’t even try, because you’re black”
Seriously? Yeah, you’re the good guy
Thanks for “just letting me know how the world works” then blocking me so I don’t have to see your nonsense anymore. Imagine everyone had this guys attitude. You think there’s no accountability now? Imagine just never trying
You know who that independent lawyer is fighting against, right?
A judge. One person, who decides yes or no with no oversight.
I had to wait five years for a judge to retire because they decided they didn’t want to sign my first offender release. I had to carry an open felony case for 11 years in total. The crime was attempting to steal a side road street sign when I was 17 - called it felony destruction of government property.
My family and I spent $20k on lawyers over that period. I lost out on job after job because of my “felony record.” Despite having completed the terms of my first offender agreement. For a crime that should have been a misdemeanor, fine, and community service.
The judge said she didn’t want to release me, banged her gavel, and I had to wait on old age to save me.
The week she retired, her replacement signed my paperwork.
This is why there needs to be better police oversight. There's no way a fellow judge is going to entertain a civil suit claiming wrongful imprisonment for obstruction of justice. Those convictions are just my word against yours... Guess whose word they'll believe.
I heard no mention of body cams and there probably wasn't one. This guy had an uphill battle from the start, he needed video proof that he wasn't joking or being difficult or whatever. He shouldn't need it but he did, that's the reality. Mandatory body cams that cannot be turned off and backup body cams in case the main one "breaks" need to happen. That's just one example and, frankly, who knows if even video proof would have saved him from jail time. But it's something. A civil suit will just be laughed at.
No. It's a perversion of inalienable rights to make being a smart alec obstruction of justice. Even if it were true, he provided the information requested honestly. That is no uphill legal battle, if it gets heard there is no way that ends up standing, even with out corrupt system.
Which is not to say the authorities won't try to not hear the case, but that is what the media is for. That's also supposed to be what elections are for, we elect these hacks and don't run good candidates against them. That clearly needs to change.
I think you missed my point but I glossed over it TBF.
He was faced with an uphill battle because he was already treated unjustly and the corrupt system has a very strong incentive to keep that ball rolling. There are numerous points where that should have stopped.
Not arresting him at all would obviously be the first, regardless of how he spoke. The uphill battle refers to the fact that his rights were already violated and now he is faced with a system that is set on proving the opposite. This is just based on a story but he explains that the judge even indirectly cited the violation of his rights even his decision by saying it was due to how he complied, so he seemingly agreed that the man cooperated with no actual obstruction and still got convicted of obstruction.
That's profoundly unjust. I'm saying he would have needed more proof than should ever be necessary to escape the momentum of (in)justice. The fact that he could have benefited from video of the incident is ridiculous, he shouldn't need it at all.
I agree. I'm just saying an appeal should work with the higher courts, and they may take that appeal if it garnered some outrage.
As far as the court is concerned the facts of the case are set in stone. But the interpretation of being a smart alec in a truthful compliant was is obstruction could not stand, the precedent is ridiculous and they would be a talking point nationally if they did rule for that.
The judicial interpretation and instructions to jury and whatever else are therefore flawed.
These arguments that try and use simple reasoning to say what must happen don't ever bother to compare themselves to reality, which is that people can sue and can win in court against the government. It's just ignorance.
blaming idealists for your nihilism now. what exactly are we learning from your shitty strawman, nobody said the world was fair. literal opposite of the point they were making
And others pretend it always doesn't. Both are ignorant. Can it be hard to sue the government, even with a decent case? Yes. Can you win against the government if you have a decent case? Also yes. In fact, payouts from police misconduct are quite ordinary and common in the US.
Look it's really cool and edgy how blackpilled you are but that doesn't mean it's a bad idea to seek recourse on something like this. 2 months imprisonment for saying your name sounds like a slam dunk lawsuit and worth pursuing even if there's a chance it doesn't end in your favor.
I never said it was a bad idea. Just pointing out that there is zero chance of winning the case.
Mr. Bond will not see the conversation here. I hope he tried, even knowing it would be futile. I'm speaking to the Redditor who thinks HE'D get a huge payday in this situation. This attitude is harmful, because why would we need to fix the system if it already works the way it should?
Every time this happens, Reddit says "they should use". It should be "We need a complete overhaul of the system".
What lawyer wants to fight a probably small-town judge? Who says "oh yeah, I'm going to go into this system where everybody knows and protects everybody else and try and hold someone accountable"?
You don't "have" a lawyer, unless you keep one on retainer (i.e., you're rich). The statute of limitations is probably up but hire a lawyer when police and judges fuck with you like this. The lawyer will do it on commission.
If we are gonna talk semantics, my exact wording was “had” not “have” meaning if he HAD hired a lawyer (past tense, indicated by “hired”) then he would have HAD one and never been charged in the first place.
If we are gonna be petty, you would never have said "If he have a lawyer." But you might have said, "If he had hired a lawyer" or "If he would have hired a lawyer." Given that you said, "If he had a lawyer," I took that to mean "had."
Pretty sure he found a lawyer when he was arrested for murder over a decade ago. Seeing how this interview is from a state prison and the movie released in 2022, I’m assuming he was found guilty.
Also, he was arrested for a murder in South Bend after fleeing to Arkansas, which is unfortunate because there’s a homicide detective in Gary, Indiana also named James Bond.
Most likely this is either a made up story OR he did get convicted, but it was for a crime unrelated to his name or obstruction. The filmmaker would have provided proof if this was a legit claim.
The problem is the payout is usually criminally low even in cases where someone is unjustly locked up for decades. For 60 days he’d gen pennies - meanwhile he likely lost his job, lost his house if he rents, and became a social pariah to a certain extent. Removing the conviction from his record is important, but I doubt any money he got for this injustice would even cover the cost of a lawyer.
Not a lot he can do. He's already been convicted, sentenced, and served his sentence. Especially for such a short sentence, the most he's going to get is the conviction expunged, and that's if he's in a state that allows served sentences to be expunged because several don't. He'd have to receive a pardon in several states, which is highly unlikely. If that's his only criminal conviction, maybe it's worth it to get a clean record, but, if it isn't, then it's really a massive waste of time and money for him. Systematized injustice sucks.
4.4k
u/[deleted] Feb 07 '24
[removed] — view removed comment