Why warrior should have never had his POST certification removed

Hey, DOT supervisor 69superman here. I’ve been keeping up on the forums, and have to comment. Based off of something Jeff said, Warrior should have never had his POST cert removed. Here is a quick lesson on the law. There must be two things in order to convict someone of a crime.
Mens Rea: The mental state and understanding of committing a crime.
Actus Rea: Comitting the crime.
Only one was present with warrior, Actus Rea. He had no intention to misuse his weapon, and it was accidental. LEOs do this all the time, and are not persecuted for it, and they allow it to happen.

(The pictures according to said quote)

3 Likes

everyone knows that this whole incident was plain bull – unfortunately, warrior was unable to take a plea deal because he didn’t know what it was (which probably reveals something about the legal system here anyway).

not much we can do now.

5 Likes

Not taking the plea deal was his own problem, if he did take it he wouldn’t have suffered as much

2 Likes

the fact that he was uninformed regarding plea deals reveals something about the state of the legal system. if his lawyer hadn’t advised him regarding it, then who else? not only that, but shouldn’t the doj take steps to help people understand these things in order to help them in these cases?

it may have been his problem, but it certainly wouldn’t have hurt if someone threw him a bone and actually helped him with it.

4 Likes

Danny offered him the best plea deal I have ever seen, any person with common sense would take it. If that wasnt a bone thrown to him I dont know what would have been.

2 Likes

I was under the impression my department was Justice not preschool education. I’ve legitimately never met a person here who doesn’t know what a plea deal is. I assume his lawyer didn’t describe the process step by step because of that. Furthermore, it’s very concerning that someone that high in law enforcement is so ignorant to the law. Clearly this one’s on POST if anything. Though, myself and POST are currently working on a curriculum for a new tier (and or a change to a current tier) that is purely legal education.

3 Likes

your department is indeed of justice – and if justice should be sought, then it is only right that people are informed about how it is to be attained. there is no justice in having someone be crucified simply because they weren’t informed about what plea deals were. that’s not justice – it’s a travesty. it’s a sham that people would call “justice” out of ignorance for the victim of such misgivings.

if this sort of incident – this lapse of justice – should never occur again, then i would recommend that you make some brochure or whatever to inform people going into these cases, lest they be struck down for simply not knowing what a plea deal is.

5 Likes

department of justice has turned into a meme
moving on

2 Likes

someone say meme?

2 Likes

@Atlyarch
Perhaps you haven’t seen the specifics of the case clearly…

Warrior was offered a plea deal by Danny, which his attorney got notice of. Even when his attorney told him to take it, he decided NOT TO and actually admitted the crime in court.
Do you still think he should’ve been informed about the deal?

2 Likes

Yes, I do; people should be informed clearly of their choices in these cases. It’s much like being told to eat an exotic dish – even if your friend tells you to eat it, you’d have doubts. Unless you know what you’re getting yourself into, you’d probably stick to what’s familiar and what seems viable.

The lack of information leads to a lapse of judgment. This is not justice. Don’t get me wrong, Warrior was wrong not to take the plea deal regardless; especially if, as you say, his attorney advised him to take it. However, this does not detract from the fact that he was uninformed and that this is a grave malady upon what would have been justice. If any of us were in his place, we should all be given the proper information to understand what’s happening. Again, you cannot expect everyone to try an exotic dish without telling them what’s in it first – even a simple dish such as beef stew may be foreign to others, and you cannot fault them for being cautious about it. With the proper information, however, they would undoubtedly feel more at ease about what’s happening. Similarly, we cannot expect everyone to completely understand this legal humdrum – even simple terms such as plea deals. This information asymmetry is, as in this case, is a plight towards fairness and true justice.

Regardless of Warrior’s mistake in declining the plea deal – or, rather, because of his mistake – it’s become even more clear that this information regarding legal procedures has not been properly disseminated; in fact, it may be construed that this information hasn’t been released at all.

You cannot assume everyone knows how the court and the legal system works – not even the basics. Whether they be esteemed LEOs or complete newbies, it is fallacious to assume that people know what you’re talking about. The court should serve the people – it should be fair. This was not fair; Warrior was convicted because he did not have the information required to make a good decision. Regardless of his legal advice – which, I must say, could have presented this to him better – he should have been given the proper information towards this.

It’s tiring to see everyone get riled up over the courts and the DoJ, yes, but think – is it not possible that this is because of the lack of information? This information asymmetry is a malady, yes, but there is a cure – to actually spread information.

Warrior’s case is the perfect example of this. Even with his attorney’s advice, he did not plunge himself into the unknown and hope that a “plea deal” was a good thing – he tried to play it safe, albeit disastrously in this case. If he had the information, he would have been able to make a more educated decision. Unfortunately, this information is not widely available; in the same way I cannot expect everyone to understand what “lockdown B” or “code red” means, you simply cannot expect everyone to understand what legal lingo – stuff like writs of certiorari and mens rea, or even simpler terms such as plea deals and prosecution – means. I don’t suggest making the court toddler-friendly, but I don’t suggest keeping it so vague, either. All I’m asking for is that the DoJ work on informational materials to help people gain information regarding these things – it will help in future cases like these. The fact that people are expected to come into these situations with the full knowledge of what’s happening is disappointing – it is similar to the Miranda v Arizona case, and I believe we know how that went.

Information is a boon to the downtrodden and those who are otherwise under these sorts of predicaments. I have no doubt at all that Warrior – and everyone who shall be attending court and other legal matters in the future – should be properly informed beforehand. We don’t need to give everyone basic, “preschool” education regarding these cases, but we must give everyone a degree of dignity and assistance regarding these things.

This is someone else’s effort and time – in Warrior’s case, it was months of time and effort – that is on the line whenever these cases come through. You might as well try to make these as fair and as just as possible.

3 Likes

There is not much more information to give than actually stating the plea deal, which is in your example, explaining the ingredients of the exotic dish. For example Im making a plea deal with a defendant, I say: “I will make a deal with you, I will drop the charge of (certain charge) and knock down (certain charge) to a misdemeanour if you accept a revoked CFCT and you write an apology letter.” What the fuck else is there to say, if you cant understand that, you shouldnt have even been able to pass POST or get any job for that matter.

2 Likes

And honestly, if you just type “plea deal” or “prosecution” into google (like you used as an example) you get a fucking good result. The DOJ isnt there to educate people on law and hold their hand.

2 Likes

Legal advice is to be given by peoples attorneys if they are unsure, not the DOJ, if the person decides to ignore their attorney then what else do you want us to do.

2 Likes

But they charged him with something he shouldn’t have been

2 Likes

You’re asking a man whose past few months of effort are now in jeopardy. You’re asking a man whose hard work is hanging by a thin string of fate. You cannot expect him to know entirely what’s happening. I will not deny that Warrior made a poor decision and that this was, at least in part, his fault. However, this does reveal the DoJ’s hamartia, per se – that it isn’t very public-friendly. Sure, Warrior may not have been the smartest in regards to how he dealt with this, but this issue is, in itself, indicative of something larger. You cannot be expected to know how the court proceedings will go; you cannot, in fact, be expected to know any of this legal tosh. If the DoJ – or even your attorney – cannot tell you exactly what the plea deal is (i.e. “hey, this is sort-of a lifeline we’re throwing you, please consider it”) then I don’t believe that they’ve given you the information. Not to mention, at the moment, POST doesn’t help with it, either. POST hasn’t taught me anything about the courts. That hasn’t changed thus far, though Danny did say that he was going to help change that.

As for Googling terms, that’s quite literally the difference between reading Macbeth and hearing a friend tell you what happens in Macbeth. The book will tell you that “brave Macbeth—well he deserves that name—disdaining fortune, with his brandished steel, which smoked with bloody execution, like valor’s minion carved out his passage till he faced the slave; which ne’er shook hands, nor bade farewell to him, till he unseamed him from the nave to th’ chops, and fixed his head upon our battlements.” A friend can tell you that “Macbeth killed a lot of rebels, and he was able to split the leader into two and put the leader’s head on a spike.” Same story, different words, isn’t it? It’s not hand-holding, but it’s not just a toss out into the open. Simply aiding someone is not the same as “hand-holding;” some assistance could go a long way, even without “holding someone’s hand.”

I will, again, reiterate that I don’t believe in Warrior’s actions. He didn’t follow his legal advice, which was a faux pas that cost him the case. However, this doesn’t mean that what he did was entirely unjustifiable – again, a little information could have gone a long way with regards to helping him.

I don’t mean to crucify anyone for this; I merely suggest that the DoJ help us common folk actually understand these topics so we don’t look like bumbling, babbling idiots when we’re in that court room. I suggest the DoJ help us learn to understand how to do this complicated legal hurly-burly. That’s all.

4 Likes

What you seem to not understand is judicial officials are not normal public servants. They’re appointed and serve indefinitely for a reason. The job of the Courts is to interpret the law and then enforce. It isn’t to do what the people want. Warrior is a great example of why the average citizen shouldn’t have an input on the judiciary because they have no idea what they’re talking about. So don’t throw shade at them, keep it at the attorneys. Ultimately my job is to represent the interests of the government, why would I go step by step to help a criminal defendant beat the government…? And yes, I expect and demand every LEO to know the Courts system. Obviously not super complex matters and procedure, but they should know: basic operations, case procedure (including what a plea deal is), seeking out counsel, etc.

3 Likes

The reasons you stated are EXACTLY the reasons to hire a fucking attorney. Attorneys give LEGAL advice, including telling their clients the information about the court proceedings, plea deals etc. It is not the DOJs job to give legal advice, except maybe the public defenders office. And your example of macbeth… honestly if you cant find a simple definition on google (which includes law dictionaries and shit) then idk how you live in the 21st century, and again, before you even try to find the definition you should hire a fucking attorney to help you through the process (its their job you know).

2 Likes

Alright, calm down lad.

2 Likes

I’ve never argued against the state of judicial officials, the job of the Courts, nor the purpose of your job. However, as you’ve noted,

Justice, according to Merriam-Webster, is “the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments.” You cannot claim to be impartial when one side knows more than the other. The department of justice should, in my opinion, help dispel this information asymmetry in order to prove fair and impartial.

As for your comment, I’d like you to find a thesaurus, first and foremost, to help you find other words of emphasis aside from “fuck” and “shit;” that would go great lengths in making you sound less like an angry 8-year-old and more like someone trying to bring up their ideas in a civil way.

While, indeed, it would be more of an attorney’s job to do such, you still cannot deny that the DoJ is, in this case, the utmost authority on matters regarding the court. Do note that, yes, if you’d like, you can delegate the task of informing citizens of their rights and spreading information regarding courts to the Public Defenders’ Office. You also cannot expect every attorney to give their clients the complete brief on their every action, nor of every legal term. Not to mention, this isn’t exactly giving the entire public an idea on these terms. The DoJ, as the very symbol of justice (hence why it’s in the name), is the first place most people would turn to in regards to this. Would it truly hurt if they were to release information regarding these things?

I sincerely don’t understand the frustration and opposition to the idea that the DoJ should help spread information on legal procedures to the masses. It wouldn’t be completely uncharacteristic of a department that claims to be an authority on justice (which is meant to be impartial), nor would it be costly – it literally would take roughly 2 hours and a few good men to write down these ideas in plain English and present them in an understandable format.

As for this, please note that the only education that LEOs receive regarding Courts, to my knowledge, is a single POST tier. I can remember my Tier 2 – it was hosted by Danielkaza, and it was quite frankly rushed and unprofessional. I can barely recall anything insightful from that tier. While I do know how the courts work due to my relationships with many personalities in the judicial branch, please do understand that POST education can be quite shit at times, and it’s not necessarily best to assume that Tier 2 – especially Tier 2, where barely anything interesting happens – would be ingrained into everyone’s memory.

5 Likes