SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,331
|
Post by SSHoya on Nov 22, 2021 12:38:22 GMT -5
Arbery defense closing that McMichael's training in the Coast Guard somehow qualifies him in use of force and making a citizen's arrest diesn't persuade me. His actual job in the Coast Guard - a mechanic.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,331
|
Post by SSHoya on Nov 22, 2021 13:41:50 GMT -5
Arbery McMichael defendants going big on the "scared White people defense" in their closing arguments.
Will it work with a reverse Batsoned jury?
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,564
Member is Online
|
Post by DanMcQ on Nov 22, 2021 19:45:01 GMT -5
I admit not previously knowing anything about this Chrystul Kizer matter--but I did read the article and found a few others regarding it. First, the tweeter's commentary is simply false, and is not backed up by either the linked 2019 WaPo article nor other easily found information. Kizer was not held captive by Volar (arguably "emotionally" or "financially" captive, but she certainly was not confined to a basement for a year). Nor has she been convicted of anything to this point in time--the prosecution remains on hold pending review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court of a fairly novel and complex issue. In contrast to the Rittenhouse matter, which dealt with a pretty straightforward self-defense claim (i.e., Rittenhouse claimed that he felt he was in imminent danger of severe bodily harm, he retreated but was pursued, fired his weapon when unable to retreat further--the question for the jury really was whether simply bringing a firearm to a protest is so provocative that it prevents any possible claim of self defense), the Kizer self-defense claim is based on a fairly complex and novel interpretation of a Wisconsin statute protecting victims of sex trafficking. The main issue in the Kizer case is not whether she was in danger of imminent severe bodily harm (the undisputed facts are apparently that Volar tried to force himself upon Kizer, she wiggled free and left the room, returned with a gun, shot Volar and then burned down the house because she saw on CSI that it would aid in hiding evidence). Rather it is a novel application of a Wisconsin statute which permits a defendant to use as an affirmative defense that she was a victim of sex trafficking and the offense committed was as a direct result of the trafficking. Prior to this case, this affirmative defense has mostly been used in prostitution cases (i.e., she may have technically violated prostitution laws, but should not be held responsible because the violation was a direct result of the sex trafficking). It had not, to date, been used as an affirmative defense to a murder charge (i.e., I killed the guy because he was a sex trafficker who victimized me). Apparently, the Wisconsin statute is written broadly enough that it may arguably apply to murder charges, but in many other states these statutes are limited to less serious violations like prostitution, and so its unclear. The trial court judge ruled that Kizer would not be permitted to make an affirmative defense claim under the sex-trafficking statute, finding that the application her lawyers argued for was broader than was intended under the statute. The ruling was immediately appealed (apparently interlocutory appeals are permitted in Wisconsin for this type of ruling)--thus staying the prosecution. The appeals court then reversed the trial court judge--finding that the statute did provide a complete defense to murder charges (although it did not rule on whether Kizer herself met the definition of a victim of sex trafficking). The prosecution then appealed that decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, where it is currently pending. Note as well that Kizer has been free on bail for 2 years while this issue has worked its way through appeals. It should also be noted that in both the Rittenhouse and Kizer matters, the prosecution proceeded with murder charges against the defendant, even in the face of self-defense claims. So, at least in comparing these two matters, it would be hard to argue that the Kenosha DA was creating a "different justice system" for black and white defendants. Perhaps it could be argued that the judges treated the defendants differently--for example the Rittenhouse judge forbidding the prosecution from referring to the decedents as "victims". But Judge Schroeder has a reputation in all matters as being a criminal defendant oriented judge, and the "victim" ruling appears to be a standard one for him (see-- slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/11/judge-bruce-schroeder-rittenhouse-trial-villain.html ). And while the trial court judge found against Kizer in her matter, as noted, it was a novel issue for the court, and so far the system appears to be working appropriately as the issue is getting a full review on appeal before Kizer has to stand trial. None of this is to say that there aren't numerous examples of the policing and justice systems working disparately for different groups. But when partisans (of all sides) ignore and/or massage often complicated facts in order to create stylized caricatures of villians and heroes to match their respective political narratives, they are doing everyone a disservice. I suggest a read through of this WaPo essay ( A mentally ill man, a heavily armed teenager and the night Kenosha burned) into the people at the center of the Rittenhouse matter--its a well written reminder that these are humans, not cartoon characters. Appreciate your detailed explanation. I also appreciate that Twitter in not the place to find detailed legal analysis. However, use of a self defense law to allow a child to use an AR15 to kill two people is complete bullsh!t. I’ll even admit it may not be entirely his fault as there are clearly others (mostly adults) who enabled this happening. Where is their responsibility?
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,334
|
Post by SDHoya on Nov 23, 2021 12:29:53 GMT -5
I admit not previously knowing anything about this Chrystul Kizer matter--but I did read the article and found a few others regarding it. First, the tweeter's commentary is simply false, and is not backed up by either the linked 2019 WaPo article nor other easily found information. Kizer was not held captive by Volar (arguably "emotionally" or "financially" captive, but she certainly was not confined to a basement for a year). Nor has she been convicted of anything to this point in time--the prosecution remains on hold pending review by the Wisconsin Supreme Court of a fairly novel and complex issue. In contrast to the Rittenhouse matter, which dealt with a pretty straightforward self-defense claim (i.e., Rittenhouse claimed that he felt he was in imminent danger of severe bodily harm, he retreated but was pursued, fired his weapon when unable to retreat further--the question for the jury really was whether simply bringing a firearm to a protest is so provocative that it prevents any possible claim of self defense), the Kizer self-defense claim is based on a fairly complex and novel interpretation of a Wisconsin statute protecting victims of sex trafficking. The main issue in the Kizer case is not whether she was in danger of imminent severe bodily harm (the undisputed facts are apparently that Volar tried to force himself upon Kizer, she wiggled free and left the room, returned with a gun, shot Volar and then burned down the house because she saw on CSI that it would aid in hiding evidence). Rather it is a novel application of a Wisconsin statute which permits a defendant to use as an affirmative defense that she was a victim of sex trafficking and the offense committed was as a direct result of the trafficking. Prior to this case, this affirmative defense has mostly been used in prostitution cases (i.e., she may have technically violated prostitution laws, but should not be held responsible because the violation was a direct result of the sex trafficking). It had not, to date, been used as an affirmative defense to a murder charge (i.e., I killed the guy because he was a sex trafficker who victimized me). Apparently, the Wisconsin statute is written broadly enough that it may arguably apply to murder charges, but in many other states these statutes are limited to less serious violations like prostitution, and so its unclear. The trial court judge ruled that Kizer would not be permitted to make an affirmative defense claim under the sex-trafficking statute, finding that the application her lawyers argued for was broader than was intended under the statute. The ruling was immediately appealed (apparently interlocutory appeals are permitted in Wisconsin for this type of ruling)--thus staying the prosecution. The appeals court then reversed the trial court judge--finding that the statute did provide a complete defense to murder charges (although it did not rule on whether Kizer herself met the definition of a victim of sex trafficking). The prosecution then appealed that decision to the Wisconsin Supreme Court, where it is currently pending. Note as well that Kizer has been free on bail for 2 years while this issue has worked its way through appeals. It should also be noted that in both the Rittenhouse and Kizer matters, the prosecution proceeded with murder charges against the defendant, even in the face of self-defense claims. So, at least in comparing these two matters, it would be hard to argue that the Kenosha DA was creating a "different justice system" for black and white defendants. Perhaps it could be argued that the judges treated the defendants differently--for example the Rittenhouse judge forbidding the prosecution from referring to the decedents as "victims". But Judge Schroeder has a reputation in all matters as being a criminal defendant oriented judge, and the "victim" ruling appears to be a standard one for him (see-- slate.com/news-and-politics/2021/11/judge-bruce-schroeder-rittenhouse-trial-villain.html ). And while the trial court judge found against Kizer in her matter, as noted, it was a novel issue for the court, and so far the system appears to be working appropriately as the issue is getting a full review on appeal before Kizer has to stand trial. None of this is to say that there aren't numerous examples of the policing and justice systems working disparately for different groups. But when partisans (of all sides) ignore and/or massage often complicated facts in order to create stylized caricatures of villians and heroes to match their respective political narratives, they are doing everyone a disservice. I suggest a read through of this WaPo essay ( A mentally ill man, a heavily armed teenager and the night Kenosha burned) into the people at the center of the Rittenhouse matter--its a well written reminder that these are humans, not cartoon characters. Appreciate your detailed explanation. I also appreciate that Twitter in not the place to find detailed legal analysis. However, use of a self defense law to allow a child to use an AR15 to kill two people is complete bullsh!t. I’ll even admit it may not be entirely his fault as there are clearly others (mostly adults) who enabled this happening. Where is their responsibility? One might argue that there is no place whatsoever for private citizens (let alone teenagers) to have access to military-grade weaponry, period. And from a common sense standpoint, if you bring a giant gun into a volatile situation, you know what you are doing. But common sense and fairness do not equate to justice in the legal sense. No evidence came out at the trial that (prior to being chased by Rosenbaum) Rittenhouse threatened or even pointed his AR-15 at anyone. The evidence presented (including by prosecution witnesses) established that Rosenbaum verbally threatened to kill Rittenhouse and then pursued him, Rittenhouse attempted to flee, and only discharged his weapon after Rosenbaum got close, reached for the AR-15 and after a shot was fired by someone else (I don't believe it was ever established who fired the shot, but there is no dispute that Rittenhouse and others present heard it and reacted to it). The other shots Rittenhouse fired were at individuals who were either kicking him, hitting him with a skateboard, or pointing their own firearms at him. [Certainly it could be argued that the other individuals were acting in good faith to disarm someone they saw as a threat--but the issue is of Rittenhouse's state of mind, not theirs.] It's pretty hard to argue that Rittenhouse was not in that moment defending himself from what he believed to be imminent severe bodily injury. Effectively, the prosecution's sole counter argument was simply that Rittenhouse had brought the AR-15 to a protest/riot. So, again the question put to the jury was, is the simple fact of bringing a firearm to Kenosha so provocative that it eliminates any possibility of claiming self defense (regardless of subsequent facts)? Remember that the jury is not tasked with determining what result sends the best message societally or how their decision would apply in other circumstances--they were solely tasked with determining whether the facts of this specific case met the criteria for self defense under Wisconsin law. Regardless of what you think about gun policy, Proud Boys, BLM, protests, riots, etc., given this very particular set of circumstances and questions, the jury's verdict was not unreasonable. Should laws and policies be changed with the aim of preventing every protest becoming a heavily armed confrontation? Certainly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2021 13:13:24 GMT -5
I think the evidence showed that according to the law he was acting in self defense but the rush to turn him into a hero on the right is disturbing to say the least.
I also see no reason why the Right lionized Rittenhouse and called Trayvon Martin a thug who basically deserved what he got when all he was doing was defending himself from a grown man who was stalking him with a gun. If someone can explain to me the difference than I’d love to hear it because it’s hard not to feel like the only significant difference in their feelings about each case is race.
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,334
|
Post by SDHoya on Nov 23, 2021 14:31:40 GMT -5
I think the evidence showed that according to the law he was acting in self defense but the rush to turn him into a hero on the right is disturbing to say the least. I also see no reason why the Right lionized Rittenhouse and called Trayvon Martin a thug who basically deserved what he got when all he was doing was defending himself from a grown man who was stalking him with a gun. If someone can explain to me the difference than I’d love to hear it because it’s hard not to feel like the only significant difference in their feelings about each case is race. Agreed that the right's lionizing of Rittenhouse is cynical and disturbing. I would say though that the left's attempt to turn Rittenhouse into a pantomime villain (and refusal to backtrack even after the trial evidence filtered through) did not help, and rather fed into this unfortunate feedback loop between partisans trying to "own" each other. As I noted in an earlier comment, it would be best if everyone stopped creating caricatures out of complex and unfortunate situations in order to fit partisan narratives. As to your second point, the situations of Trayvon Martin and Kyle Rittenhouse are not analogous. The better comparison would be between George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse (i.e., the guys behind the guns). In both cases, the right lionized the shooter (white and hispanic) and vilified the decedents (white and black). So, while you could look at race as a factor in both cases, the other explanation may be that the right likes a "good guy with a gun" who appears to be protecting his community against a "bad guy", because that fits their narrative of the 2nd Amendment and need for private citizens to protect themselves (particularly when they also get the chance to "own the libs"). I'd imagine that there are some examples of black "good guys behind the gun" not getting the Kyle Rittenhouse treatment--and that would better advance your argument--but to the extent those are out there, I haven't seen them get attention in the press.
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,564
Member is Online
|
Post by DanMcQ on Nov 23, 2021 14:50:41 GMT -5
This is an odd circumstance where I find myself 100% in agreement with Steven Colbert:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2021 15:06:10 GMT -5
I think the evidence showed that according to the law he was acting in self defense but the rush to turn him into a hero on the right is disturbing to say the least. I also see no reason why the Right lionized Rittenhouse and called Trayvon Martin a thug who basically deserved what he got when all he was doing was defending himself from a grown man who was stalking him with a gun. If someone can explain to me the difference than I’d love to hear it because it’s hard not to feel like the only significant difference in their feelings about each case is race. Agreed that the right's lionizing of Rittenhouse is cynical and disturbing. I would say though that the left's attempt to turn Rittenhouse into a pantomime villain (and refusal to backtrack even after the trial evidence filtered through) did not help, and rather fed into this unfortunate feedback loop between partisans trying to "own" each other. As I noted in an earlier comment, it would be best if everyone stopped creating caricatures out of complex and unfortunate situations in order to fit partisan narratives. As to your second point, the situations of Trayvon Martin and Kyle Rittenhouse are not analogous. The better comparison would be between George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse (i.e., the guys behind the guns). In both cases, the right lionized the shooter (white and hispanic) and vilified the decedents (white and black). So, while you could look at race as a factor in both cases, the other explanation may be that the right likes a "good guy with a gun" who appears to be protecting his community against a "bad guy", because that fits their narrative of the 2nd Amendment and need for private citizens to protect themselves (particularly when they also get the chance to "own the libs"). I'd imagine that there are some examples of black "good guys behind the gun" not getting the Kyle Rittenhouse treatment--and that would better advance your argument--but to the extent those are out there, I haven't seen them get attention in the press. I get what you’re saying but it’s difficult to remove race as a reason for how the right sees both of these cases and I think the situations are more analogous than you’re giving credit for them being. In both cases the boys were being pursued by others. Both tried to run away and felt cornered forcing them to react. So why didn’t Trayvon have the right to defend himself like Rittenhouse? When he fought back (stood his ground) folks on the right said he got what he deserved. If Kyle would have shot a guy, then had his gone taken from him and killed I doubt that would have been the words used to describe his fate. Neither one were breaking any laws but in one scenario an unarmed black kid is viewed as a threat and a heavily armed white kid is viewed as an ally. Trayvon wasn’t engaged in any type of criminal activity so in what way is Zimmerman a “good guy with a gun” in this scenario. Simply granting him that label seems racial to me. If Trayvon was a white kid in the exact same scenario would Zimmerman be viewed that way? I’m extremely skeptical that would be the case. Why was Trayvon labeled a dope smoking thug while Rittenhouse was labeled a freedom loving patriot. They dug deep into Trayvon’s past to label him as such and ignored Rittenhouse’s past which included video of him sucker punching a girl multiple times. That seems way more thuggish than a 17 year old kid smoking pot. That’s something they CHOSE to do, why?
|
|
SDHoya
Golden Hoya (over 1000 posts)
Posts: 2,334
|
Post by SDHoya on Nov 23, 2021 15:33:47 GMT -5
Agreed that the right's lionizing of Rittenhouse is cynical and disturbing. I would say though that the left's attempt to turn Rittenhouse into a pantomime villain (and refusal to backtrack even after the trial evidence filtered through) did not help, and rather fed into this unfortunate feedback loop between partisans trying to "own" each other. As I noted in an earlier comment, it would be best if everyone stopped creating caricatures out of complex and unfortunate situations in order to fit partisan narratives. As to your second point, the situations of Trayvon Martin and Kyle Rittenhouse are not analogous. The better comparison would be between George Zimmerman and Kyle Rittenhouse (i.e., the guys behind the guns). In both cases, the right lionized the shooter (white and hispanic) and vilified the decedents (white and black). So, while you could look at race as a factor in both cases, the other explanation may be that the right likes a "good guy with a gun" who appears to be protecting his community against a "bad guy", because that fits their narrative of the 2nd Amendment and need for private citizens to protect themselves (particularly when they also get the chance to "own the libs"). I'd imagine that there are some examples of black "good guys behind the gun" not getting the Kyle Rittenhouse treatment--and that would better advance your argument--but to the extent those are out there, I haven't seen them get attention in the press. I get what you’re saying but it’s difficult to remove race as a reason for how the right sees both of these cases and I think the situations are more analogous than you’re giving credit for them being. In both cases the boys were being pursued by others. Both tried to run away and felt cornered forcing them to react. So why didn’t Trayvon have the right to defend himself like Rittenhouse? When he fought back (stood his ground) folks on the right said he got what he deserved. If Kyle would have shot a guy, then had his gone taken from him and killed I doubt that would have been the words used to describe his fate. Neither one were breaking any laws but in one scenario an unarmed black kid is viewed as a threat and a heavily armed white kid is viewed as an ally. Trayvon wasn’t engaged in any type of criminal activity so in what way is Zimmerman a “good guy with a gun” in this scenario. Simply granting him that label seems racial to me. If Trayvon was a white kid in the exact same scenario would Zimmerman be viewed that way? I’m extremely skeptical that would be the case. Why was Trayvon labeled a dope smoking thug while Rittenhouse was labeled a freedom loving patriot. They dug deep into Trayvon’s past to label him as such and ignored Rittenhouse’s past which included video of him sucker punching a girl multiple times. That seems way more thuggish than a 17 year old kid smoking pot. That’s something they CHOSE to do, why? If Trayvon was on trial, I expect he would have made that argument. It should also be noted that the white decedents in the rittenhouse case were vilified on the right as rioters/arsonists/etc. I’m not saying Zimmerman or Rittenhouse were actually “good guys”—my point is that the turning them into caricature good guys fits the narrative. Again—I’m not denying race is a factor in these things, but the stronger argument would be to point out a black Zimmerman or Rittenhouse who did not get the same support.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 23, 2021 16:18:30 GMT -5
I get what you’re saying but it’s difficult to remove race as a reason for how the right sees both of these cases and I think the situations are more analogous than you’re giving credit for them being. In both cases the boys were being pursued by others. Both tried to run away and felt cornered forcing them to react. So why didn’t Trayvon have the right to defend himself like Rittenhouse? When he fought back (stood his ground) folks on the right said he got what he deserved. If Kyle would have shot a guy, then had his gone taken from him and killed I doubt that would have been the words used to describe his fate. Neither one were breaking any laws but in one scenario an unarmed black kid is viewed as a threat and a heavily armed white kid is viewed as an ally. Trayvon wasn’t engaged in any type of criminal activity so in what way is Zimmerman a “good guy with a gun” in this scenario. Simply granting him that label seems racial to me. If Trayvon was a white kid in the exact same scenario would Zimmerman be viewed that way? I’m extremely skeptical that would be the case. Why was Trayvon labeled a dope smoking thug while Rittenhouse was labeled a freedom loving patriot. They dug deep into Trayvon’s past to label him as such and ignored Rittenhouse’s past which included video of him sucker punching a girl multiple times. That seems way more thuggish than a 17 year old kid smoking pot. That’s something they CHOSE to do, why? If Trayvon was on trial, I expect he would have made that argument. It should also be noted that the white decedents in the rittenhouse case were vilified on the right as rioters/arsonists/etc. I’m not saying Zimmerman or Rittenhouse were actually “good guys”—my point is that the turning them into caricature good guys fits the narrative. Again—I’m not denying race is a factor in these things, but the stronger argument would be to point out a black Zimmerman or Rittenhouse who did not get the same support. I think folks are willing to give people every benefit of the doubt when it comes to this type of thing because nobody wants to label folks as being racist. But I'm not saying all these folks are racist because in most cases racial bias is more unconscious than conscious. In order for that to stop we need to stop looking for perfect examples that rarely exist and use some critical thinking. I don't need a white Trayvon or a black Rittenhouse to tell me if those situations existed folks on the right and Americans in general would view these scenarios very differently. Tbh I don't think you do either.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,331
|
Post by SSHoya on Nov 24, 2021 13:43:01 GMT -5
Arbery verdict in. Travis McMichael: Guilty of malice murder, felony murder, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, criminal intent to commit a felony. (Guilty 9 of 9 counts). Greg McMichael: Not guilty on malice murder, guilty of felony murder, aggravated assault, false imprisonment, criminal intent to commit felony. (Guilty 8 of 9 counts). Wm. Roddie Bryan: Not guilty of malice murder, guilty felony murder, agg. assault, and false imprisonment, criminal intent to commit felony. (Guilty 6 of 9 counts). Guilty verdicts despite defense counsel's reverse Batson jury tactic. Let's see if it stands up on appeal. And bring on the civil suits for wrongful death. Seize the McMichael's house in Satilla Shores to satisfy any judgement (unless there's a homestead exemption in GA). www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/11/24/ahmaud-arbery-trial-verdict/
|
|
DanMcQ
Moderator
Posts: 30,564
Member is Online
|
Post by DanMcQ on Nov 24, 2021 14:17:20 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,331
|
Post by SSHoya on Nov 24, 2021 14:27:14 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2021 17:47:11 GMT -5
If you haven't seen these videos please take a moment to watch.
It seems obvious from the police reaction in this video if it wasn't caught on tape and there was no public outcry these men would have never even been charged.
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,322
|
Post by tashoya on Nov 24, 2021 17:52:21 GMT -5
Arbery defense closing that McMichael's training in the Coast Guard somehow qualifies him in use of force and making a citizen's arrest diesn't persuade me. His actual job in the Coast Guard - a mechanic. I wouldn't care if he was a retired cop. It justifies exactly nothing.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,331
|
Post by SSHoya on Nov 24, 2021 18:07:32 GMT -5
If you haven't seen these videos please take a moment to watch. It seems obvious from the police reaction in this video if it wasn't caught on tape and there was no public outcry these men would have never even been charged. I hope civil suits filed against the Brunswick police department as well.
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,331
|
Post by SSHoya on Nov 26, 2021 18:45:06 GMT -5
|
|
SSHoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
"Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown."
Posts: 18,331
|
Post by SSHoya on Nov 29, 2021 10:50:00 GMT -5
|
|
tashoya
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 12,322
|
Post by tashoya on Nov 29, 2021 11:22:16 GMT -5
I'm surprised it's only 8x. That feels low.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 9, 2021 11:59:44 GMT -5
Two of the officers I've identified as under investigation shot and killed Christopher DeAndre Mitchell, a Black suspect whose death sparked protests in 2018. D.A. Gascon has hired a special prosecutor to The scandal is also a threat to a hundreds of prosecutions. City and county prosecutors have already had to drop 85 cases where the officers either made an arrest or may have been witnesses. Records show these officers are listed as potential witnesses in 1,400 cases.
|
|