Atlanta "Courtroom Killer" wasnt even cuffed

[Tgace]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2005-03-11-atl-shooting_x.htm?POE=click-refer

It turns out the subject had been found the day before the incident with "shanks" concealed in his shoes. Extra security was requested however a single female deputy was tasked with escorting him to court. The subject was also uncuffed "to make sure the sight of cuffs doesn't unfairly influence the jury".

Where would you draw the line between "unfailry influencing the jury" and "protecting the jury". At verdict time a guy like that could have disarmed a guard and shot at jury members as easily. I like the european method of having the defendant sit in a booth with his lawyer.

 

[Kembudo-Kai Kempoka]

I was just disappointed he gave up. I would have liked to see it end with a police sniper popping his head like a pumpkin. The guy's a natural born killer, and now the families of the people he killed will spend the next 30-40 years paying taxes to give this deviant 3 hots and a cot.

D.

 

[Touch Of Death]

This touches gun control issues, femenism, and penny pinching. Sure, 99% of inmates will shuffle around calmly through out their court proceedings, but you don't plan for the best you plan for the worst. This plan got lost somewhere. This is Atlantas' 911, and they are lucky so few died. Everyone knew this guy was a threat yet were so confident he was a "nice guy" they allowed him alone with a single armed officer. Unless that officer is Lone Wolf McWade or something, that should never happen. Its unsafe. All the calling him a coward in the world won't change the fact that Atlanta was setting itself up for failure long ago.
Sean

 

[Tgace]

Absolutely. Complacency kills. The guy even killed a Federal agent the same day he was captured. All this because it "doesn't normally happen".

Shock Belts. Designed so if any attempt is made to remove it, it shocks. If the subject gets a set distance away, it shocks him. Command button pushed and it shocks him. Put it under a sports coat if you have to. I believe that they are used frequently in Federal trials. Dont know why the technology hasnt caught on. Probably because of Amnesty International.

Yep...here they are.
http://www.zarc.com/english/consumer/stungun_amnesty2.html

 

[MA-Caver]

Absolutely. Complacency kills. The guy even killed a Federal agent the same day he was captured. All this because it "doesn't normally happen".

Shock Belts. Designed so if any attempt is made to remove it, it shocks. If the subject gets a set distance away, it shocks him. Command button pushed and it shocks him. Put it under a sports coat if you have to. I believe that they are used frequently in Federal trials. Dont know why the technology hasnt caught on. Probably because of Amnesty International.

Yep...here they are.
http://www.zarc.com/english/consumer/stungun_amnesty2.html

I like that one idea from some prison movie (darn if I can remember the name of it) where there was no fences just a thin wire encircling the camp. The prisoners all had collars with explosives that was small enough to just simply remove head from shoulders. Made guys think twice about screwing around and escaping.
The man should've never been uncuffed regardless. A person who commits these kinds of crimes should be under lock and key at all times. Damn their rights and damn what influences it has on potential jurors. They already knew most of the details of what he's done by the fourth day of his trial so they already (or should've) know how dangerous of a individual he really is. His actions that day go far and above proving that.
My hope that when he goes to trial for the murders he's committed that he'll be given the death penalty and that right quick. He's a savage and has no place in our society. His total disregard for human life and dignity goes to show that.

 

[Tgace]

After killing a Fed. hes going to be subject to the federal death penalty.

 

[theletch1]

The movie you're talking about is Running Man with Schwarzenegger.

The county I live in uses the shock belts in court room, one guard (no sidearm) close to the defendant and one (with sidearm) a distance away. Seems to work pretty well.

How much of the "uncuffed" thing was because of a lawsuit saying that "parading him in front of the media in shackles" would violate his "human" rights?

 

[MA-Caver]

The movie you're talking about is Running Man with Schwarzenegger.

No, that'd I remember. It was I think had Rutger Hauer and the collars were linked to another prisoner but you didn't know which one it was and if you were seperated by a certian distance then POW in 30 seconds.


Either way seems that some people have a warped sense of what's human rights especially when certian humans violate and tear away the rights of others.
It's doubtful that this particular incident will make said "human rights" people think twice about their peculiar stance.

Yeah, killing a judge is a felony but I wonder how long this scumbag will live on three hot squares and a bed before they excute him. Some just live way too long when everything is clear-cut-dry evident that they're guilty as hell.
Don't need no stinkin DNA testing to hopefully clear this guy.

 

[rmcrobertson]

1. Maybe somebody just screwed up--it could happen, in our underfinanced and generally despised courts.

2. Maybe, "innocent until proven guilty," is important.

3. Maybe, in a society where judges sometimes do things like tell a rape victim that her clothes led the guy on and we have somewhere between one million and five million abused kids out there, nobody took what he was accused of seriously enough.

 

[Cryozombie]

No, that'd I remember. It was I think had Rutger Hauer and the collars were linked to another prisoner but you didn't know which one it was and if you were seperated by a certian distance then POW in 30 seconds.

Yes. It was an HBO original movie called Deadlock.

 

[Tgace]

"innocent until proven guilty" Yes. However when the defendant is in custody, he should be treated like he is in custody.

 

[theletch1]

Yes. It was an HBO original movie called Deadlock.

Yep, the original title was "Wedlock". Came out in 1991. Sorry to diddle around with this in this thread... it was driving me crazy.

 

[MA-Caver]

Yep, the original title was "Wedlock". Came out in 1991. Sorry to diddle around with this in this thread... it was driving me crazy.

Yes, my apologies as well, it was the concept of the movie and Tgace's mentioning of Shock Belts that brought it to mind. Psychologically it would be IMO a very effective deterrent. Messy but effective. Lots of people don't want to die, even murderers, the threat that your head could go "splut" at the push of a button (and god wouldn't those guards be WELL trained and trusted??) would keep I think most violent guys placid.

Back on topic (I thought I was...heh)

"innocent until proven guilty" Yes. However when the defendant is in custody, he should be treated like he is in custody.

Agreed, and with this guy, since it's pretty obvious there should be no question of his guilt. Acted in desperation but hey tough crap buddy, shouldn't have been a bad boy in the first place. A flippant way of putting it but the guy is a hard-case. Why bother with his human rights anyway?

 

[Melissa426]

I know very little about these procedures, but when do prisoners change into their "court" clothes?

Do they come to the courthouse in prison uniforms and then change once they get to the courthouse? Because you'd have to uncuff them at that point.

Or do the come to the courthouse already in their "Court" Clothes?

Thanks,
Melissa

 

[Elizium]

It would seem that society is gearing towards criminal rights and how they are seen in court. It is a shame to know that they should lose all rights within the days of a trial until a verdict is chosen.

We have, after all a criminal justice system. With those words we have the criminal enjoying the 3 square meal and a bed until the verdict. But people forget the victims. After all, it is not the victim support system. A victim has no justice even in court.

So if handcuffing a criminal is seen as influencing a jury, then why not. The person was arrested and in in court for something they should not have done. So having some liberal minded person saying that it is not fair will need to re-evaluate their speech from now on and think of the consequences to the family that were hurt/killed.

 

[Tgace]

I wouldnt go so far as to "pre-judge" defendants...everybody should have their day in court and I do believe in the principle of "innocent until proven guilty". However, if a person is deemed to dangerous to be left free during trial, then its in the publics interest and the courtrooms safety, to maintain security over that person. "impressions" shouldnt enter into the equation. This man should have been in some sort of restraints.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Well gosh....

I wouldn't jump all over people who are concerned about human rights... I think that is a highly important issue - yet at the same time, this guys should have certainly been under some sort of control.

Amnesty International? I think they're more worried about POWs and political prisoners being tortured and shot.

I think some news-alert lawyers or PR people were worried about the appearance of cuffs.

And if that was such a big deal, yes, of course there should have been another way found to contain him.

 

[Tgace]

Article stated that the "law" was defendants couldnt be cuffed in court. I wonder what law that is...

As to amnesty international, their "interests" go far beyond military/political issues, as they are part of the "spearhead" against Taser use by US law enforcement.

 

[PeachMonkey]

As to amnesty international, their "interests" go far beyond military/political issues, as they are part of the "spearhead" against Taser use by US law enforcement.

Amnesty International gets involved whenever they feel human rights are jeopardized. I'll open a new thread for taser stuff, which is really unrelated to how this "courtroom killer" was controlled so incompetently.

 

[MJS]

Considering that this guy had the history that he did, he should have been cuffed/shackled, and there shold have been more than 1 person escorting him. As for the cuffs influencing the jury...the cuffs are there for everyones protection. Personally, I dont see how his rights were violated. He obviously has a criminal background, therefore cuffing him, taking other necessary precautions should not be questioned.

Mike