MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
and would get high with thompson her grandfather was a sex offender with a record who molested her for several years when she was a child now she's an adult and perhaps unsurprisingly she's a drug addict with a significant criminal record though no real violent crimes in this case however thompson enjoyed the ep and the apartments of an ex boyfriend and her mother's friend we know is home she took a sony playstation residential burglary at our of the psychological nature intrusive invasion of privacy disclosure of secrets arguably when your home is in sentence claim looking at the statutory classifications isn't the only thing we do on the in a giving chase the severity of an appropriate sentence depends primarily on the degree of harm caused our arm is  without ruining the factors in fact it is explained in for example people stacey that it was not me winning anything it was simply looking at what the defendant did on the one hand and the sentence he received on the other and that's all the public were asked to do here is to look at what thomson done on the one hand in the sentence she sees on the other in this case where she goes into the empty apartments of people she knows he steals at most to four years of prison even if the judge had arbitrarily decided to double you have to just say i don't know whatever you had last time i'm going to give you double that she still would have gotten lost on this case you know she could have gotten the morals she could have gotten was about the prior record is that way in the court considered it this court doesn't after ignoring this court can still look at what she did and look at that sentence and decide that it's too much i mean even given her record she's got no real violent crime she has a i think a battery condition from two thousand and four and out it's not really clear what happened it sounds like some fight with the mother but all that is vile is it is  court is doing in this court can look at the supreme court's reasoning in that case and why the same reasoning here and that's what we're asking for thank you all right nothing more as a question considerable criminal history with convictions and only in indiana they did a risk assessment a really funny thing on her and found that she was at the maximum she was untrue at the time of the instant offenses and after she was arrested in the two thousand and thirteen all five haste she was arrested four more times she just doesn't stop now it may be because of her drug abuse she i'm just really briefly or owners again i understand what i'm asking the court to do when i keep coming back to this he says what she did and you know she tells her people's homes i know it's bad i don't want my home entered no one in this room does it w
case is the one that troubles me the most because this case you know we're nearly i'm dealing with insurance policies personal injury things like that that but in this case i think we're actually dealing with real justice another circus but we have the same rule here sure a few reasons your honor one he was never arrested under the warrant whenever he was stopped on the county and covered the work with the existed he was asked to come back to here and that's that's why we're here and i think the trial court in this case the highly technical view that hey there's probable cause for the arrest so long as that's there it doesn't matter what happened after and i don't believe that's what the way but still if that's the case then i could be arrested for anything he can make up any charges you can make up any evidence so long as there is a valid reason for arrest and we're not disputing the fact that there was a valid reason to arrest it's just the fact that he do the law also says that protects all of those officers in situations like this except for playing with incompetent or those that knowingly violate the law we know that forging a probable cause affidavit is do that and that just makes sense we do not want a police officer to be able to with immunity make up evidence against individuals that's that's a pretty catastrophic result the  this is what this case is all about this is not a case of fabricated evidence ordered rest it's not a case of qualified immunity or immunity because he can't simply that is not the issue in therefore or know why should the th amendment occur that was not based upon qualified immunity and in fact the district court specifically said there is no need in this case for me to analyze there's probable ca given an officer qualified immunity so i don't really understand their argument there is nothing wrong with the district court not analyzing qualified immunity in this case for the simple reason of the facts  vehicle with one headlight and infraction under his roof long based upon then perhaps those facts the probable cause determination of the district court cannot be tested and it surely but simply put there was no evidence of that there was no evidence of mr wood there was no statement of internal fire actually submitted there was no evidence submitted by us of course because we didn't know that he was  days you could hold somebody out generally speaking so there was no evidence of that to support eat due process violation even gone that was not a wage to comply in this existed for the arrest and incarceration of plaintiff but the thing that would mean for the crime of driving while intoxicated and then it goes on to talk about forks probable cause affidavit and things like that again i would truthful factual showing sufficient to constitute probable cause we don't have that here the rest of the why we're not even close to fact we've got a guy who's again taking the amendment to those questions so i'm not sure how the counsel on the other side of this case is to arrive at the conclusion that we're making a complaint that there was no probable cause for arrest whatsoever period that is clearly not what is
you know we had no evidence about whether or not mr cooke you lived in colorado whether or not he had a prescription for marijuana use we had none of that so you know i didn't make that argument but i'm saying that somebody just because they say yeah i use the coen brothers charge ten thousand dollars for a pound of sugar we call agree that's your brain you can't put it in dollars but it still would see that's reasonable because there's no guiding principle is beyond me didn't w this is when people are using drugs they may do something really erratic or an intruder or something when they have the gun and you want to keep away from somebody who is under the influence of drugs a were up to control those things sort of be pretty stiff and without notice to proceed they're actually infringing upon our constitutional rights and they're doing such a way that we're in traffic people now we're getting people that normally wouldn't be that has to be use right that's just i mean it's not contemporaneous with you it is because they're intending to use a can or less these are pressed and under cover bernie after being hospitalized for a period of time that's why the government doesn't have to approve
on the fresh smell of the dandelions made me happy to be alive but what  tourist and he was such a good guy this is hard for me to do but i can't i can't say enough about him there's just there's so many good times together because now that he's gone that that
there's no question of him not having a proper translation to record all the other factors there is no there's no indication of how the interview was conducted  well it was based primarily on this airport statement and the fact that he didn't he didn't give all the details of his story that time well  for i did mention it but they forgot to write it down he's got all these different reasons well on well he was confused about some things i don't there's there's a lot of dialogue between the i j a and the attorney about legal theories about this great dilemma he supposedly faced about having your if you reported the army camp the insurgen and they also they get arrested they get tortured for a few days or a few weeks and they get out by what's called bribes i i don't know that was corruption it may be the way the system designed it so he he got  for doing it doesn't have to do it and you can't be in a problem with the army for not doing it because he doesn't have to do it so it sounds inconsistent to me and i understand other brined that's how don't report i'm in trouble but i didn't have to report so well that was in the first arrested leave and then he was arrested again in june of two thousand and one shortly before he left the country so at that time he was you know that the airport statements are designed to develop an asylum case and the obviously not interested in that and the way this move was on exactly the same statement repeated three times you know you can't even in actually well it's just another factor i think that the idea and looked at he didn't spend much time on that but moving on and also i point out that it was a credible fear interview i was where the patient was told that he could speak in private none of the information would be passed on to his government that he could feel free to describe any sort of treatment that he receives or anything in problems with the three locking government in that but moving on  unless you're dealing with things as if the only problem and saying was the translation then it should have stopped the translation issue but it does not it went on to say that it's just a linguistic difficulties there are other factors in all the united states and able to give people a sound there for you based upon the instructions that he was given an airport interview he should have known that he could have elaborated and at least made out the very basis for his claim so that they would know to believe in them and
state terminated a child again so the answer was in the town that not you forget about this person it's it's when you lose you lose a feel the pain she's alive and i feel the pain every day i get up and i can not see my child it's a stain on more than four years and i'm just asking one thing open this case
champions of baseball and a black sweatshirt that description i would argue was not very probative without a pulmonary hearing testimony because the description of the of the defendant when he was arrested was wearing that will be the procedure however if the if the court is going to grant defend its continuance there's really nothing to have the witness show up to and it's simply a matter of again she said well everyone has the same clothes and i only saw the back of him so how can you expect me to pick him out on august second there was a photo lineup she was unable to pick anyone out of that and then just  person identifying herself as a with his granddaughter that she was released from the subpoena on condition and this is very clear on the record on condition that the doors brown call in the air so she could have been brought into court should have been brought to court on the twenty sixth floor or at a very minimum they should have been some personal contact with with the witness to have her  state or have a representative if she was going to cooperate and appear and they did neither even when the even when this war demanded through through the granddaughter the call on the twenty fourth that the witness call
trial of all of that evidence will be before the trier of fact particular the circumstances confronting the officers in this case is very important what the circumstances were under which the officers were acting whether they had objective all he admits to being aware that the police are attempting to apprehend oscar his brother he admits to screening he had minutes that he and his father are screaming he had fact i do not believe so because the court needs to look at the totality of the circumstances and also the more implausible the claim i e that arturo was just standing there in his shorts doing nothing when the police are looking for an eighty that these suspect individuals are detained out in front of the house the whole family is at the front door officers running in us was running out  officers are trying to have him he is resisting them and it is so lacking in credibility but there's you know you're painting a picture which may be the fact but he claims  are in dispute is the court in a position to make a qualified immunity analysis i believe the court can still look at qualified immunity if they determine there is a constitutional violation under saucier the next about the purpose for summary judgment so officers are not deterred from going forward in a situation such as this where it is there's an eighty that you suspect that it's late at night it's a challenging situation there's a purpose for qualified immunity and i believe in this case we need to look very carefully at all four officers we have been clear who's allegedly pulled our turtle's hair we ha trying to contain and control oscar who is resisting even being handcuffed so i think it's important under the qualified immunity to look at all four officers and also to because i think you're quite right to focus our attention on the fact that there are four officers here and all of them obviously doing different things in support of one another but doing different things when you know one officer is actually considered all area and that's why they were at the door that they were following up on this serious call and he was in that's trying to control i mean you're you don't deny that that's that's his position correct because now if that's just position that he was doing i think you just stated he was standing by a witness to all of this but not involved and all the police officers that were there repeatedly hit me on the left leg with his baton until i could no longer stand the pain and hold on to the railing and was knocked down on my our read on behalf of the officers where we attempt to look at the credibility of our chiro beginning on page twenty we examine each one of those situations because in the criminals while that free davis the summary judgment declaration he testifies entirely differently he does not know who pulled his hair he does not know who i believe your honor that if you look you know i was if you look carefully at that even the officers only reports it just looks like to do a story with officers screwed up and they're trying to cover up afterwards everyone they're
sustain credibility funny's so far i'm going away right but then take the evidence about the transformer explosion that was attempted to kill and he didn't mention it and so some explanation he was certain that he was the target of a transformer explosion and murder attempt in ninety five because the drug cartels were after him compels us to say that the i g was wrong on the credibility finding on the transformer explosion threat you're going to the other three elements of of of threats of a future prosecution but i don't think that you can answer just nelson's question why are we compelled to disagree with the officer this is not some minor incident wisdom that the only supportable factor on the credibility finding is the transformer explosion and the rest of them do not go to the heart of the claim now assuming that what do we do th petitioner was incredible i'm not going to believe it we've got to look at what other evidence or if he loses here we've got a mixed credibility finding for that i g only looked at certain things and said this petitioners incredible on these matters he loses now if we only can support one of those my example then what do we do with of refusal to grant any relief were the rest of the findings aren't supported what  non credible contrition can be subject to torture if returned to the country morgan little even if that potential can't be believed on on asylum grounds for example it may be that things are so bad in that country that a person of his height his color his background whatever would be subject to persecution or culture you have to have a separate decision on caffe even for a for
appealed on subject matter jurisdiction and then the failure of greyhound to appeal to answer his complaint so he was a default judgment greyhound never had to answer because by the time passenger ticketing bucket and what is that limitation of liability i'm not sure specifically but it's not that much money that you are for that amount of money to mr radcliffe i don't know you know that would be helpful if so that complaint greyer never had to answer but the district court dismissed your complaint and but but but then they think the that they failed cite any case in which
this case the trial for state you defended the two counts were quote the same offense and the quote common number two is exactly the same account number one is used a different way of trying it after the two count indictment defended i think it was different enough to impede the preparation of the fence and i would argue that in peter's different conduct this is below the conduct in this case was identical same conduct from defendants so again the primary factor to look at is whether this was a trial by ambush or if the state was attempting to put one over there's really no reason in this case that there wasn't adequate purposes of preparation of defense and no reason to defend it here there was simply absolutely no reason for the trial to not true or not i mean that's the delays attributable and the count one there was absolutely no reason for them to find that they were stand stood for as well as peter's in this case or in from this court the defendant in peters this court held that defending cannot successfully claim that the amended indictment created a trial by ambush and  yes to the question of the prior consistent statement because it was an excited utterance you know but it was a response to a question from one of the law enforcement officer don't i there is no case that holds only yes only the st syllable that a person screams after an attack is an excited utterance here but there are there are cases that hold that for example a nine hundred and eleven recording the initial because finally i mean it would have to be insulting or provoking depending on the circumstances again all right i'm going i don't want to belabor so so your point is my point is that because they did have this information at the outset and didn't charge it it is very likely that the adage is simply to bolster your chances at a complete sham because based on the circumstances of this piece where the defendant and visually impaired basically here and in the officer had on clubs and was in contact with her he is hard who posed the question he was available to testify the fake who was allegedly bit and she was available to testify and we also have this video that pirkei mentioned and i just now thought of it looking at this the st argument from the state's perspective we have to remember what we're asking here where all this is only a new additional charge argument is only
incomprehensible the theory of this incomprehensible before the change because i had noticed that he was defending against one thousand counts and it's clear from the fact that extended himself and his trial counsel agreed to a stipulation more than six months prior to trial recognizing that that was simply a type of of those guidelines challenged with respect to the product here there was no multiple count adjustment what the p s r finds is that the frog kills arrived at twenty seven the money laundering counts arrived thirty seven because of the w based on the piece of paper placed before them second there was some discussion about the link and whether or not that's a problem this is the same problem was raised recently in a case didn't go to one of the not qualifying importation counts and so there was a reason and to the district court to make a determination whether that link up was there or not were in the scheme position
gun for self defense when is it ok for the police to stop question arrest someone on the belief that they have a gun in their waistband let me just clarify something with you because it seemed like the rail the focus was i really probable cause to a sees somebody with them to pierce to be a guy and there appears to be some action by that person to fight the guy and that's not enough for the police to make asked the question of should there be an exception to when you can approach someone if you believe they have a firearm in the supreme court said no you still have to have that individual of suspicion before you force that person to track with you know they will the same is true here and also or the fact that it was going to be an occasion there was a specific time line get into tebow it was just that at that location a confidential informant tell someone else that there was going to be a shooting because one of the game with the leaders with not going to be a state where you can arrest for this and check licensing wait that there needs to be more than that and i think this is simply a case fred the officers that in the trial got it wrong because that is basically what happened and the fact that mr
days prior to shaffer that you would be is able to rely on this argument here is that of defendant's counsel was basically relying on what the trial court had said during shipping johnson's saying is your argument that the state would prevail even if that testimony had not been yes likewise the state's position would be on top of