Mike Scott: CLEARED OF ALL CHARGES!!

[BackForThe2ndTime]

 

2 hours ago, Gray Mule said:

The other side of the coin:

If he had been white, the court would not have any race card to play

and his odds off being found guilty, due to his confession, would

have increased.

Not saying he would have been found guilty, just that the odds would

have gone up.

WHAT?!?!? 

 

I don't care if it's only been an hour. HOW THE HELL has no one managed to call you out on this BS? [Deleted personal insult]

Secondly, if you somehow cannot deduce how absurd your comment is on your own, do a tiny bit of research. A simple internet search will lead you to tons of research on this topic. A ton of research that shows minorities (often across income levels) are more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, convicted (wrongly convicted/exonerated), harshly sentenced, excluded from juries and killed (unplanned and planned/death penalty) . Shown less favor at numerous points throughout the justice/legal system. And there is much less research that shows equality or an opposite pattern.

[Deleted personal insult]

 

 

 

 

[AHF]

52 minutes ago, Alex said:

Except racism isn't a two way street.  

I don't know what this means.  Is it implying the law doesn't protect whites from racism?  It does. And you can point to whites who have successfully sued for discrimination - including in Atlanta.  

Example:

Quote

Fulton County, GA has agreed to settle the reverse discrimination lawsuit won by eight white librarians at the Atlanta-Fulton Public Library System for $18 million, the value of the verdict plus attorney’s fees. Previously, the county had offered to settle for $12 million, with the provision that the five plaintiffs still employed resign. In the final settlement, the resignations were not required. Fulton County officials said they decided to settle after the plaintiffs agreed to take payment over three years-thus reducing the burden on the county budget-and after county lawyers said it was unlikely that the U.S. Supreme Court would hear an appeal, according to the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

 

[Alex]

28 minutes ago, MaceCase said:

Actually, the judge can and did say it was bogus.  Why have people yet to learn that simply because a police officer says "this is what happened" does not mean that's what actually happened.  They have to detail a reasonable account exactly how that happened and if it doesn't hold up to snuff it becomes a matter of "did you simply say that happened to cover your ass?".  "Following too closely" would be suspicious of a DUI yet I have yet to read anything about a sobriety test being administered, that the police hit a bingo of drugs, guns or even a dead body would not follow from the logic that they somehow suspected this from the get therefore....inadmissible.

 

I understand.  My statements were about common sense and logic.  That's why I said the justice system was broken in the first place.  

[Watchman]

17 minutes ago, BackForThe2ndTime said:

 

WHAT?!?!? 

 

I don't care if it's only been an hour. HOW THE HELL has no one managed to call you out on this BS? [Deleted personal insult]

Secondly, if you somehow cannot deduce how absurd your comment is on your own, do a tiny bit of research. A simple internet search will lead you to tons of research on this topic. A ton of research that shows minorities (often across income levels) are more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, convicted (wrongly convicted/exonerated), harshly sentenced, excluded from juries and killed (unplanned and planned/death penalty) . Shown less favor at numerous points throughout the justice/legal system. And there is much less research that shows equality or an opposite pattern.

[Deleted personal insult]

 

 

We don't allow things to get personal on this site.  Hopefully, you will be shown the door, and your key taken away.

Are you serious?  "Evidence" and "Internet" in the same sentence is counter-intuitive.  How insane are you?

 

[AHF]

18 minutes ago, BackForThe2ndTime said:

 

WHAT?!?!? 

 

I don't care if it's only been an hour. HOW THE HELL has no one managed to call you out on this BS? [Deleted personal insult]

Secondly, if you somehow cannot deduce how absurd your comment is on your own, do a tiny bit of research. A simple internet search will lead you to tons of research on this topic. A ton of research that shows minorities (often across income levels) are more likely to be stopped, searched, arrested, convicted (wrongly convicted/exonerated), harshly sentenced, excluded from juries and killed (unplanned and planned/death penalty) . Shown less favor at numerous points throughout the justice/legal system. And there is much less research that shows equality or an opposite pattern.

[Deleted personal insult]

 

 

I think he was saying that a white who was arbitrarily stopped would not have had this defense to rely on and would therefore have been more likely to be convicted if they were charged.  That is no the illogical rant you are making it out to be.  Your comment goes more to the likelihood of them being charged, which I agree is less likely in a country racially profiling African-Amercans.  The likelihood of someone who has already been charged and has given a confession to the officer being convicted is not the same as the broader general statistics that you are referring to in your post which do show that African-Americans are more likely to be charged and convicted.

[hawkman]

Sooo, is this where someone says in before the lock?

[AHF]

Yeah, I think we are at the point where this refocuses on Scott or goes to the politics forum.

[BackForThe2ndTime]

5 hours ago, Watchman said:

We don't allow things to get personal on this site.  Hopefully, you will be shown the door, and your key taken away.

Are you serious?  "Evidence" and "Internet" in the same sentence is counter-intuitive.  How insane are you?

 

Par for the course. This is exactly the type of thing people say to blur the line between truth and fiction when there is no logical argument to be made.

 

5 hours ago, AHF said:

I think he was saying that a white who was arbitrarily stopped would not have had this defense to rely on and would therefore have been more likely to be convicted if they were charged.  That is no the illogical rant you are making it out to be.  Your comment goes more to the likelihood of them being charged, which I agree is less likely in a country racially profiling African-Amercans.  The likelihood of someone who has already been charged and has given a confession to the officer being convicted is not the same as the broader general statistics that you are referring to in your post which do show that African-Americans are more likely to be charged and convicted.

I get what he was saying. It was just extremely misguided. He took an anecdote (that was misunderstood-more on this later) from this one story and used it to justify a wild claim. To start, there is no real defense here. The ruling was that the cop had no probable cause to pull the car over. Therefore, the evidence obtained from the stop (basically the whole case) was tainted and thrown out. Hence, no trial. 

As far as the "a white who was arbitrarily stopped would not have this defense to rely on", that's factually incorrect. It's also not really a defense. This is literally the 4th amendment and does (should) apply to every United States citizen. Probable cause must be had to justify this type of search and seizure. The lawyer used the racial angle to build a narrative that tried to explain the officer's reasoning. In the eyes of the law, the fact that they didn't have probable cause is all that matters. And lawyers good and bad make that case on a daily basis all across America. Mike Scott found one.

Also, the term confession is being used pretty liberally here. Didn't he get caught with the drugs and claimed possession (instead of his brother)? They had somebody in that car dead to rights. That's a straight forward drug possession charge. There are stats about that....and they fit the same pattern that I outlined earlier. Whether you find your research on the internet or the library, it's out there. Nothing about his original post made sense.

Edited May 4, 2017 by BackForThe2ndTime

[AHF]

I haven't looked into this but the article suggested the defense established a lack of probable cause predicated on a volume of data establishing a pattern of racial profiling of blacks by the department.  If that is accurate, then I stand by the prior statement.  If the probable cause determination was based on facts specific to Scott then I agree with your assessment. 

I don't think the term confession is being used liberally in any case.  There were illegal drugs in the car and he said they were his.  That can only be described as confessing.  I think you might be suggesting he gave a false confession to protect his brother but that is still nothing other than a confession (i.e., making a statement admitting that he did something illegal).  Nothing 'liberal' about that interpretation - it is a textbook case of a confession.

[Diesel]

53 minutes ago, AHF said:

I haven't looked into this but the article suggested the defense established a lack of probable cause predicated on a volume of data establishing a pattern of racial profiling of blacks by the department.  If that is accurate, then I stand by the prior statement.  If the probable cause determination was based on facts specific to Scott then I agree with your assessment. 

I don't think the term confession is being used liberally in any case.  There were illegal drugs in the car and he said they were his.  That can only be described as confessing.  I think you might be suggesting he gave a false confession to protect his brother but that is still nothing other than a confession (i.e., making a statement admitting that he did something illegal).  Nothing 'liberal' about that interpretation - it is a textbook case of a confession.

That's fruit from the poisonous tree though right?

How I translate it was that the cop stopped him  because of what he looked like, what he was driving, and where he was.   That doesn't get you probable cause. 

Quote

The Banks County sheriff's office says deputies attempted to stop an SUV driven by Scott's 20-year-old brother, Antonn, for following too closely Thursday morning on Interstate 85 northeast of Atlanta.

A sheriff's news release says the vehicle failed to yield for about two miles, with speeds reaching 98 mph, before it finally pulled over. Deputies say they found more than an ounce of marijuana and 10.9 grams of MDMA, commonly called Molly.

Antonn would have had to be the dumbest driver in the world to go 98 mph with Weed and Molly in the car. 

 

[BackForThe2ndTime]

2 hours ago, AHF said:

I haven't looked into this but the article suggested the defense established a lack of probable cause predicated on a volume of data establishing a pattern of racial profiling of blacks by the department.  If that is accurate, then I stand by the prior statement.  If the probable cause determination was based on facts specific to Scott then I agree with your assessment. 

I don't think the term confession is being used liberally in any case.  There were illegal drugs in the car and he said they were his.  That can only be described as confessing.  I think you might be suggesting he gave a false confession to protect his brother but that is still nothing other than a confession (i.e., making a statement admitting that he did something illegal).  Nothing 'liberal' about that interpretation - it is a textbook case of a confession.

Probable cause is always a consideration when search and seizures happen like this. It's always considered based on facts specific to an individual case. The NBC article quotes one part of the judge's summation where he states there was no probable cause in basic lawyer talk. I haven't seen the entire summation, but the defense could have said they didn't like his car if they wanted. Legally, the burden of proof is not even on the defense. If the cops can't justify the initial stop (broken tail light, speeding, swerving, ran a red light etc.), they effed up. This is textbook 4th amendment and cops screwing it up have gotten people off on a lot more than drug possession. 

Yes. That is how a confessions works. No. I am not suggesting that he gave a false confession. I don't know. Liberally just means you're interpreting the term loosely in this context. Not that you're lying. Confession or not, if the cops don't eff up the stop, someone is getting charged and this isn't a Columbo case. To suggest that Mike Scott had no shot without this ruling because of the confession is misinterpreting the purpose of the confession. Mike Scott simply "took the charge" by claiming possession. He didn't hand the cops crucial evidence lol. He said "take me".

[Admin]

The justice system is so screwed up in this country. Innocent people go to jail every day while guys who blatantly break the law and even admit to it get off Scott free because of a technicality. Guy gets busted then still gets what 2 seasons to play while his case drags on and then he gets off and gets to move on like nothing happened. Perfect fit for the Hawks where the coach gets caught drunk driving and there's repeated racial issues and numerous other embarrassing issues among management and ownership.

 

 

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Vol4ever]

Quote

 

The Banks County sheriff's office says deputies attempted to stop an SUV driven by Scott's 20-year-old brother, Antonn, for following too closely Thursday morning on Interstate 85 northeast of Atlanta.

A sheriff's news release says the vehicle failed to yield for about two miles, with speeds reaching 98 mph, before it finally pulled over. Deputies say they found more than an ounce of marijuana and 10.9 grams of MDMA, commonly called Molly."

 

 

 

 

so based on the above statement it was profiling?  

[thecampster]

On 5/3/2017 at 11:26 AM, capstone21 said:

I don't know what to think about this ... I definitely don't like the racial profiling which is horrible but I feel like he and his brother should not be getting off from this ... 

Wasn't his brother going over 90 in a 65?  I profile that as wreckless driving.

[lethalweapon3]

They see me rollin'... they hatin'...

I didn't see anything in the reports of the Judge's ruling about the questionable handling of drug evidence in this county, as I posted about back in June...

http://www.cbs46.com/story/30049340/banks-county-prosecutor-investigated-for-stealing-evidence

 

Quote

 

ORIGINAL STORY (9/16/15):

It's a troublesome development in a Georgia county that has already seen more than its share of shadows cast over the district attorney's office.

An investigation centers on the evidence room at the Banks County Jail, which is about 73 miles northeast of Atlanta. According to authorities, evidence might be missing from the room, or perhaps, never made it in the room to begin with.

It all started when the Banks County sheriff picked up on some peculiarities in a local prosecutor's record keeping. The sheriff brought his concerns to the Georgia Bureau of Investigation and now the investigation is centered directly on assistant district attorney Sam Skelton.

Right now investigators won't say what kind of evidence might have been stolen. But without saying exactly what's missing, the sheriff's department hinted at what kinds of things could be contained in the evidence room.

"Anything our officers confiscate from traffic stops or investigations," said Sgt. Carissa McFaddin.

That doesn't really narrow it down. It could be money, drugs or even a murder weapon.

Banks County and the Piedmont Judicial Circuit has a storied past of trouble surrounding the district attorney's office.  In 2007, district attorney Tim Madison was also accused and convicted of theft in a scheme to defraud the government of money.

Forty years before that, district attorney Floyd "Fuzzy" Hoard was killed by gangsters known as the Dixie Mafia in retaliation for pursuing organized crime.

The current district attorney, Brad Smith, was out of town Wednesday, but CBS46 reached him on the phone. He said his assistant hasn't been arrested yet because there is not currently enough probable cause. 

The GBI said, among other things, that they are looking at whether the prosecutor would have stood to gain anything by stealing the evidence and whether it would have affected a case he was working on.

UPDATE 3/24/16: The GBI finished its part of the investigation and the case is now in the hands of the Georgia Prosecuting Attorneys Council.  State investigators gave no indication of whether they were able to draw any conclusions, or when to expect another update.

A source who works in the courts said Sam Skelton is accused of stealing money from fines paid to the district attorney's office. In addition to that, the Sheriff accuses Skelton of taking evidence from the jail's evidence room that was scheduled to be destroyed.  Based on that clue, the source presumes the evidence is drug-related.

 

...But the profiling decision probably suggests there was no need to even go that far.

UPDATE: Looks like somebody did go to jail(-ish) in Banks County after all!

http://accesswdun.com/article/2017/2/498951/former-banks-county-assistant-da-sentenced-to-10-years-for-theft-of-court-fines-and-fees

Quote

 

A former Northeast Georgia assistant district attorney has been sentenced to 10 years after entering a negotiated guilty plea on 21 counts of theft by taking.

Samuel Elias Skelton of Royston, age 32 at the time of his arrest on June 2, 2016, was sentenced by Piedmont Judicial Circuit Senior Judge Stephen E. Boswell on Jan. 25.

He was sentenced to serve 10 years and pay a $500 fine on Count 1 of theft by taking, and then was sentenced to serve 10 years each on Counts 2-21, to be served concurrent with Count 1, Banks County court documents show.

Counts 22-33 were not prosecuted under the negotiated plea.

The first two years of Skelton's sentence will be served in confinement, with the balance to be served on probation, court documents state.

Skelton must pay $7,288 in restitution for the benefit of the victim, Banks County, at a rate to be approved by the court or the probation officer, court documents state. Additionally, Skelton must abide by any curfew established by the probation officer.

 

Banks and other counties overdependent on shakedown arrests for revenue (and paychecks) will eventually figure out that if you have shaky enforcement, shaky investigation, and shaky prosecution, you'll constantly have to deal with shaky results.

~lw3

[lethalweapon3]

Get you a lawyer that makes your ecstasy and weed confessions a moot point. (And a judge wise enough to pay attention.)

http://www.myajc.com/news/local/judge-racial-profiling-led-illegal-arrest-hawk-mike-scott/IsriPJ5L8xaRSisgEQ7XaJ/

 

Quote

At 9 a.m. on July 30, 2015. [Banks Co. Sheriff's Deputy Brent] Register said he was patrolling I-85 when he saw the Scotts’ rented Chevy Suburban following a small white car too closely.

At mile marker 154, Register said, he turned on his lights and sirens, at which point the Suburban accelerated up to 98 miles an hour, the deputy said. (Register said he gauged the speed by looking at his own speedometer.)

Register said he chased the Suburban until it pulled over at mile marker 156. At that point, fellow deputy Kyle Walker arrived and they approached the SUV with guns drawn.

 

Just glad Mike didn't pull his patented "Giddyup" post-3-pointer move at that point...

Quote

A court motion filed by the Scotts’ attorneys accused Register of giving a false account of what happened.

Register claimed the chase began at mile marker 154 and ended at mile marker 156, and dispatch call-in records show this transpired during a 12-second span, the motion said.

“Traveling two miles in 12 seconds would require a speed of 600 mph,” the motion said. “Mr. Scott was driving a Suburban, not a jet airplane.”

Moreover, records from the towing company showed it picked up the Suburban at mile marker 154, not 156, confirming Antonn Scott’s account, the motion said.

Antonn Scott’s account of what happened was more credible than Register’s, (Judge Currie) Mingledorff said in the ruling, finding no chase occurred and the stop was unjustified.

 

Quote

 

The (Banks Co. Sheriff's I-85 "Crime Interdiction" Unit) employs no dash cams, body cams or speed detection devices that could help account for their work.

“In an era in which police conduct is so carefully scrutinized, the court finds it both surprising and concerning that there is no video evidence of the stop and subsequent activities,” Mingledorff wrote. A record that authenticates what happened, the judge said, “is indeed ‘the friend’ of lawful police conduct.”

 

Quote

(Scott's) legal team blanketed the Sheriff’s Office with Open Records Act requests and looked into Register’s past employment, finding he’d been forced to resign from two law enforcement agencies, according to court testimony. The attorneys then used those records to undercut Register’s account of what happened.

Quote

“I’m mixed myself,” (Register) said, referring to his race. “I would never stop somebody due to their race, whether they’re white, black, pink, green, purple, pink, whatever.”

You left out "polka-dot," officer!

Quote

 

In 2015 and 2016, Register made more than 1,400 traffic stops, yet he issued tickets in only eight of those stops, according to court records. He also made 47 arrests, and 44 were minorities, two were white and one was of unknown race.

“These numbers are truly shocking,” Judge Mingledorff wrote in his order.

 

Quote

Banks County District Attorney Brad Smith said “randomness or coincidence” could not explain the overwhelming numbers of minorities being stopped by Deputy Brent Register, who pulled over the Scotts’ SUV.

~lw3

[hawkman]

23 minutes ago, lethalweapon3 said:

Get you a lawyer that makes your ecstasy and weed confessions a moot point. (And a judge wise enough to pay attention.)

http://www.myajc.com/news/local/judge-racial-profiling-led-illegal-arrest-hawk-mike-scott/IsriPJ5L8xaRSisgEQ7XaJ/

 

Just glad Mike didn't pull his patented "Giddyup" post-3-pointer move at that point...

You left out "polka-dot," officer!

~lw3

Wow. Mike was an idiot for having drugs but I have ZERO issues with him getting off after having all of the facts. They saw him following too closely and found the drugs, why lie about the high speed chase in the police report? That was completely unnecessary and only hurt their case in the end. And if there was no high speed chase, why did they approach the car with their guns drawn? Wasn't it just a 'routine' traffic stop at that point?

[lethalweapon3]

Just now, hawkman said:

Wow. Mike was an idiot for having drugs but I have ZERO issues with him getting off after having all of the facts. They saw him following too closely and found the drugs, why lie about the high speed chase in the police report? That was completely unnecessary and only hurt their case in the end. And if there was no high speed chase, why did they approach the car with their guns drawn? Wasn't it just a 'routine' traffic stop at that point?

I was left to wonder, given how infrequently the deputy's many traffic stops led to anything substantive, whether Mike going all George Washington With the Cherry Tree on them upon questioning led to the officer scrambling to cobble together a story that could justify making the stop and retrieving the drugs. The officer sure made it seem like his "Crime Interdiction" unit exists to go fishing on the Interstate, then make up Fish Stories in the rare cases they get a catch.

(Kind of a similarity with Bud's case... the officer pulling Bud over wasn't some run-of-the-mill traffic safety peacekeeper, but a member of the state's DUI Super Special Task Force or something. They're all getting paid to sniff out bigger things than broken taillights and close drivers.)

Also wondering, whether officers approaching the rental SUV with guns instead of notepads "encouraged" Scottie to perceive this as much more than some vanilla traffic stop, and spill all the beans in an attempt to defuse the situation before it could escalate into a "lead poisoning" situation.

~lw3

[Duff_Man]

There was zero chance he was doing any time for this. That amount is a misdemeanor in most states. Any lawyer would have started at "why were they even stopped" and looks like it worked. 

The end result is exactly how it should have been. As I have said it would be all along.

[hawkman]

8 minutes ago, Duff_Man said:

There was zero chance he was doing any time for this. That amount is a misdemeanor in most states. Any lawyer would have started at "why were they even stopped" and looks like it worked. 

The end result is exactly how it should have been. As I have said it would be all along.

You called it. Nice avatar. Every time I read one of your one liners it's always in Archer's voice.