Inmate beaten to death by prison employees

January said:
Because his crime is irelevant - it doesn't mitigate what they did.

And yes I'm sure they didn't plan to beat him to death - that isnt an excuse either. If somebody spits in your eye you can't go into a wild frenzy and beat them to death.
Click to expand...

They have ONLY been accused! They have not been convicted!

EXAMPLE:

Do you remember the Menendez trial?

Film footage was NOT released due to protecting them (from prejudice) before they were tried and found guilty.

These men have the same RIGHTS to the same protections by law in the US.


Leaks are usually done by some low life out for money from some news source payer: not The Attorney General of a State!!
 
CooCooforCoCoPuffs said:
Am actually surprised this film came out, as am sure this happens frequently.
Jails and prisons are pretty hostile environments, full of personalities and behaviors that get them behind bars in the first place.

Can't even imagine having to go to work in one day after day.
Click to expand...
I couldn't imagine having to do that kind of work, either, but that's the work they chose. If they can't handle it, they should choose a different profession. But they probably don't have the skills to earn $60,000 a year in any other job.
 
HermitHogan said:
I couldn't imagine having to do that kind of work, either, but that's the work they chose. If they can't handle it, they should choose a different profession. But they probably don't have the skills to earn $60,000 a year in any other job.
Click to expand...

What am wondering is do they monitor their guards for burn out?
 
Lawrence00 said:
Oh how I hate the media. According to Wikipedia this was a musician that completed his GED while incarcerated.

No mention of
"Robert Brooks, from Greece, New York, was 35 years old in 2017 when he was sentenced to 12 years in state prison along with four-year post-release supervision for stabbing his long-time girlfriend, 34-year-old Diana Rivera, in the chest, neck, side, and back."

No mention "anywhere" yet about what he did. Did he spit in the guards eyes? Crickets thus far. I expect the guards did not wake up one morning and collectively decide "hey let's beat a guy to death today"

Maybe 3 months from now we will know many more specifics. ā˜¹ļø
Click to expand...
Yeah, he probably mouthed off to them. Something pissed them off, but they're not allowed to retaliate to verbal attacks with physical attacks.
 
HermitHogan said:
Yeah, he probably mouthed off to them. Something pissed them off, but they're not allowed to retaliate to verbal attacks with physical attacks.
Click to expand...

These people are in prison for a reason.
They don't understand consequences very well, therefore they keep mouthing off and saying vile, ugly things...and pretty soon consequences happen.

No excuse for the guards, though. Nothing worse than a group losing its temper together. Mob mentality.
 
CooCooforCoCoPuffs said:
That is why my "diatribe". I am passionate about all people's rights: equally.
Click to expand...
The nature of some of your posts leaves me with the impression that your bias is towards white authority figures rather than all people.
I work with people who have spent time incarcerated and my training is to give them unconditional positive regard .
In terms of respect, trust overall good will they all start at 5/10, and where they go from there is up to them. Their back story influences who they but not how I treat them.
 
Rakaia said:
The nature of some of your posts leaves me with the impression that your bias is towards white authority figures rather than all people.
I work with people who have spent time incarcerated and my training is to give them unconditional positive regard .
In terms of respect, trust overall good will they all start at 5/10, and where they go from there is up to them. Their back story influences who they but not how I treat them.
Click to expand...

You are very wrong if you think I have a bias toward "white" authority figures.

I would hope I have a bias toward authority figures! I respect authority: until it crosses the line.

1) The guards crossed the line, and broke the law.
2) The Attorney General crossed the line, and broke the law.

The rights of the accused are no less important than the rights of the man murdered regardless of the circumstance of either.

My contention in my post is not WHY or WHETHER the poor man was inhumanely murdered, or whether it was horrific.
Absolutely true on both counts.

My bias is only towards what the LAW says.

The RIGHTS of the accused are no less important than the RIGHTS of the man murdered.

The Attorney General stepped over the line due to HER passion.
The guards stepped over the line due to the SAME issue: passion.

Her passion was not only because of what happened to this man. It was because of his race and the race of those five men.

And you accuse ME of being biased toward WHITE "authority" figures?

I am biased toward knowing and respecting the LAW and constitutional rights.
 
CooCooforCoCoPuffs said:
Is she protecting the rights of everyone in that disgusting film?
Click to expand...
When those guards decided to beat a hand cuffed man so badly that he died, they set in motion, exactly what is happening. Seems to me, that video shows their guilt, period, no question about it. They can't even claim self defence. They made a choice to be vicious and assault their prisoner, so I have no sympathy for them.
 
CooCooforCoCoPuffs said:
You are very wrong if you think I have a bias toward "white" authority figures.

I would hope I have a bias toward authority figures! I respect authority: until it crosses the line.

1) The guards crossed the line, and broke the law.
2) The Attorney General crossed the line, and broke the law.

The rights of the accused are no less important than the rights of the man murdered regardless of the circumstance of either.

My contention in my post is not WHY or WHETHER the poor man was inhumanely murdered, or whether it was horrific.
Absolutely true on both counts.

My bias is only towards what the LAW says.

The RIGHTS of the accused are no less important than the RIGHTS of the man murdered.

The Attorney General stepped over the line due to HER passion.
The guards stepped over the line due to the SAME issue: passion.

Her passion was not only because of what happened to this man. It was because of his race and the race of those five men.

And you accuse ME of being biased toward WHITE "authority" figures?

I am biased toward knowing and respecting the LAW and constitutional rights.
Click to expand...
Where does it say in law, that she could not release that video?

I Googled the question : can video evidence be released before trial?

And got the following AI overview:
AI Overview
Learn more

Yes, video evidence can be released before trial, but it must meet certain requirements to be admissible in court:

  • Authentication
    The video must be authenticated by the person who recorded it or someone else who can confirm its accuracy.
  • Depiction
    The video must accurately depict what it claims to depict and not intend to mislead.
 
Last edited:
Debrah N. said:
And what is that agenda? Again, to be seen to be doing the job she was hired to do? Stop illegal acts, violence, protect the rights of everyone?

And you keep using the word 'illegal' in the description of releasing the tape. What makes you think it's illegal? "
The release of this footage follows Attorney General Jamesā€™ directive that camera footage obtained by her office during an OSI investigation be released to the public to increase transparency and strengthen public trust in these matters. Attorney General James Releases Footage from Investigation into Death of Robert Brooks

If those men don't want to be seen beating a man to death, they should have followed the rules and behaved like decent men.
Click to expand...
Again, this is not viewable here. James has it but I don't. I am beginning to see a British commonwealth conspiracy. I will let the ones who
offer up conspiracy theories the right to speak up. If I was a guard and he came at me he would be on the ground now! Yea UR a dead Sob.
If you think you are safe around that type of person with your whinny mouths good luck suckers.
 
Last edited:
Debrah N. said:
Yes, video evidence can be released before trial, but it must meet certain requirements to be admissible in court:

  • Authentication
    The video must be authenticated by the person who recorded it or someone else who can confirm its accuracy.
  • Depiction
    The video must accurately depict what it claims to depict and not intend to mislead.
Click to expand...
The video in question is Public Record, police camera. Admissibility for trial purposes is certain here, nothing prevents its release prior to trial, true

For some insight on non public records, read rule 9.14

https://www.nycourts.gov/judges/evidence/9-AUTHENTICITY/9-AUTHENTICITY.shtml
 
Again, it is not there! Total POC. A couple of years from now the actual truth will be available.
Let the North just freeze up. Yeah, just freeze up again!
 
Last edited:
CooCooforCoCoPuffs said:
You are very wrong if you think I have a bias toward "white" authority figures.
Click to expand...

I have read many of your posts and the language that you use, EMOTIONAL adjectives and emphasis along with reference people's race leaves me with the impression I have formed.
I still have a feeling about your bias, be it conscious or unconscious bias it is what it is and the impression that I have formed is my opinion. I may be right or wrong about your bias but my opinion is mine, it's an opinion, it's neither right nor wrong.
I'm sure that you you have formed an opinion of me via this forum,. it's yours, it's valid regardless of who or what I am.
 
Rakaia said:
I have read many of your posts and the language that you use, EMOTIONAL adjectives and emphasis along with reference people's race leaves me with the impression I have formed.
I still have a feeling about your bias, be it conscious or unconscious bias it is what it is and the impression that I have formed is my opinion. I may be right or wrong about your bias but my opinion is mine, it's an opinion, it's neither right nor wrong.
I'm sure that you you have formed an opinion of me via this forum,. it's yours, it's valid regardless of who or what I am.
Click to expand...
Can't say I have formed an opinion of you. I don't know, nor do I care about anyone's race on SF; can don't recall mentioning anyone's race where it was irrelevant.

I DO use too MANY adjectives, you are spot on about that; am not sure how many "emotional" ones I don't count them but I am working on adjectives.

I also agree you may be right or wrong about my bias.

If I had a dog and he was a black, flat coat and it was your "opinion" that my dog was not a flat coat but a black lab because he is black and therefore he must be a lab, then you would be wrong.

Am simply using the word "black" because in fact my dog was indeed a black flat coat and not a black lab.

What is the difference between an opinion and a fact?

FYI:: Previously on SF in of my posts, I used many emojis to modify my writing in an attempt to soften some of my statements as I tend to be too brutally blunt or honest with some people. In the last couple weeks, my ability to employ emojis, italics, colors, (all those great tools others on SF seem to still have to express emotions/feelings visually) has somehow been suspended on THIS (no italics so I had to cap - am not yelling) end, for whatever reason - no clue here. That may be the source of some of the "emotional" feeling you got about my writing style? I keep having to use LOLs, ROFLOL, etc. I don't even know what acronym to use to roll my eyes or to do most of the emojis that used to be available....
 

You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top