Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

instantcoffee69 t1_j7dxoo7 wrote

> “I spoke with Ms. Shapiro candidly and said I was uncomfortable even moving forward with disorderly conduct charges,” Wildeus said before the court.
Shapiro said that Officer Yoon is well known in the Fourth Precinct. Two other cases with similar charges also had similar last-minute dismissals, said Shapiro, an attorney with Richmond Public Defender’s Office. One of the charges was as recent as last December.

Pattern of misconduct is bad thing, maybe they shouldn't be cops.

>On Thursday, Commonwealth Attorney Colette McEachin emailed the Times-Dispatch to add comments to Holley's case.
McEachin said that her office did not "have any issue with the legitimacy of the charge in this case," and that their decision not to proceed with charges "was unrelated to the implication suggested in your reporting"

Whaaaa, let's stop clowning around gang.

> McEachin said that at a hearing the Friday before Holley's trial, the judge had ruled the 911 call for service that brought Yoon and Onorati to Maggie Walker Plaza was inadmissible.
McEachin said the call for service was for a report of a man attacking people with a glass bottle.

So they arrested a random black dude?

>Asked if she thought the body camera footage substantiated Yoon's claims of assault, McEachin said that body camera footage doesn't always capture everything that transpires, and that ultimately, it was for the jury to decide if Onorati had been assaulted.

So the new rule is cops, when we know they are BSing they can throw accusations, and then it's "fuck It, let the trial settle this"

Richmond has made no effort to reform the RPD or its commonwealth prosecution.


beamishbo t1_j7e4rh2 wrote

Here's my hot take, which I'm guessing will get downvoted into oblivion.

The article came out on Wednesday, and didn't mention anything about the evidentiary hearing on Friday. That information was provided in the comment added on Thursday.

That hearing was, like everything else that happens in every court except juvenile court, a matter of public record. As would have been anything filed by either the defense attorney or the prosecutor in the matter.

Presumably, information would have come out at that hearing about what was in that call and why officers responded the way they did. RTD chose not to report on this and we don't have any information about what happened at that hearing.

This article reads like there is a lot of information missing, yet people seem very eager to fill in the gaps - as we can see from your comment that the cops "arrested a random black dude."

The article also can't decide if it wants to praise the prosecutor for dismissing bogus charges or condemn them along with the entire system. Its .. a weird and confusing article.


FARTBOSS420 t1_j7etd7g wrote

>This article reads like there is a lot of information missing, yet people seem very eager to fill in the gaps - as we can see from your comment that the cops "arrested a random black dude."

This is spot on. I hope no one assumes it as Pro-Cop (or anti for that matter). Journalism is fucked. Police misconduct and brutality absolutely Should be reported on. However, any story about cops is usually total "click-bait" these days because it's about 1,000,000 times more likely to be clicked on than an article about, my cat or something. In other words, very lucrative. Therefore the financial push to produce these kind of articles as rapidly and abundantly as possible (for clicks, not justice or accurate info) mires journalistic integrity.

Where you're hearing a "bad cop story" it often turns out to be a bad cop. Not giving them especially the RPD benefit of the doubt. However:

I don't know the psychological terms. But we all know law enforcement and journalism have a fuck-ton of ethical, moral, and professional major issues right now. And especially the RTD.

Basically, as soon as it appears to be a bad cop story (or anything else intense, missing kid, child abuse, bad teacher etc.), people suddenly forget how fucked, and how there are no standards for journalism anymore. Most of what we read is simply padding for ads.

I hope that makes sense. Basically it's possible to think cops are bad and journalism is bad. And not have a knee-jerk reaction to the buzzwords we've been researched by online tracking and targeting, to be presented exactly what we wanna see, not see what we don't want to see. By "don't want to see" I mean "less likely to click the headline, therefore less ad money."

Ok now I'm starting to ramble about targeted ads. Everyone knows those are unethical. They target you with the exact kind of articles you're mostly to click, which ads catered to the general lifestyle of the target group.

In other words, police brutality is real. But so is bad journalism. Don't get overwhelmed when they happen simultaneously.

Social media is fucked in the same way. Before you downvote, Ask yourself this... How many times have you seen a video posted on Reddit (any subject, doesn't have to be cops)... And then seen a truncated version reposted later with a completely different, equally convincing narrative? That's Journalism 101. You can't trust it's good journalism just because it's covering an important subject matter. They have no pressure or reason to complicate their process by getting tripped up by standards of accuracy, ethics, morality, saying who's financially backing them, etc. Etc.

Also Edit: How many times have you seen something in person that makes the local news, and then the local news gets it all wrong? Every time pretty much.


Remerez t1_j7fmwlh wrote

Your argument is biased and assumes a lot.


beamishbo t1_j7g1kb2 wrote

So is the article. It's also extremely poorly researched, which is the worst offense, because it would have taken perhaps 30 minutes of research to verify some of the things it asserts as fact.


robsterva t1_j7gwowa wrote

It's sad that Donald McEachin's widow is such a cog in a corrupt system.

Worse that she ran for CA on a platform of "Help us make Richmond a safe, just and equitable city for all." What's safe, just, or equitable about prosecuting this case, exactly?