I’m in Episode 5 and I’m kind of losing interest. I want more Doug Fir interview.
But anyway, former Sheriff Downey was interviewed and says, speaking of the vigilante action, that hearsay is not the basis for probable cause.
I just want to makes sure everyone knows that the statement is completely false. Hearsay can be the basis for probable cause. It’s inadmissible at trial (barring an exception and there are numerous exceptions), but it can be the basis for probable cause. Especially if there is additional evidence, such as, oh I don’t know – the suspect led people to a grave?
I don’t know what the Sheriff’s game was, but I can understand why people concluded extreme incompetence, extreme indifference, or both. I say this as someone who does not see the eight vigilantes as heroes.
I’ll have more to say when I’m done watching, but I found the first couple of episodes more interesting. Right now it’s watching like a typical television crime docudrama.
Sohum Parlance II 
51 comments
Comments feed for this article
December 30, 2018 at 12:14 am
Angela Lusy
I don’t know what’s going on?
December 30, 2018 at 12:55 am
Eric Kirk
Oh, sorry. On Netflix there is a documentary just released about some pot-related murders in Humboldt County. It’s a big deal.
December 30, 2018 at 1:54 am
Henchman Of Justice
Hearsay is hearsay any credible evidence negates any hearsay and makes it credible… the example of somebody leading somebody to the Grave is not a situation of hearsay any longer if prior it was oh somebody knows where the grave is at…
… hearsay is what the cops use all the time to fuck with men in Society…
… hearsay is a bunch of March organizers who cancel the March because it’s not diverse enough…
December 30, 2018 at 2:11 am
Henchman Of Justice
Hearsay…is not a factual based presentation…it is someone’s feelings on any given matter…often as instructed or encouraged to do so for mischievous intentions… it’s why there’s no facts that ever back it up…
… because when facts do exist it’s not hearsay…
… hearsay is one of the absolute worst aspects of American law one of the worst things to ever occur to American law is hearsay… and it was the lawyers that created it because they wanted to make more money in the system by tying everything up and making it paperwork so that it took a lot longer to resolve, setting up their work careers and their financial opportunities… well ruining the lives of the innocent…
… hearsay to a degree is what happened with Brett Kavanaugh in the hearings to get him to the Supreme Court… and we all can see how that turned out… and Stormy Daniels too… a real shitshow festive…
… funny how the courts focus on hearsay but not the person or the source of the hearsay…lol…
December 30, 2018 at 2:23 am
Eric Kirk
Actually, hearsay is commonly misunderstood Henchman, and you clearly don’t understand it. Hearsay may or may not be factual. It is simply a statement which is repeated by another. It has nothing to do with anyone’s “feelings.”
In most countries, hearsay is actually admissible evidence. And in fact, there are about 70 exceptions to the hearsay rule, and the exceptions pretty much make the rule the exception.
The theory is that a jury cannot adequately evaluate the veracity of a statement if the person who made it is not cross-examined. But juries will naturally take that into account.
There have been proposals to abandon the hearsay rule in the US, but we don’t because the older lawyers will pretty much say, “I sweated blood learning all the intricacies of the hearsay rule, so today’s law students should have to suffer it as well!” It pretty much came to that. It’s “tradition.”
But it doesn’t apply to probable cause for a search or to take someone in for questioning. It’s a much lower standard. It has no application to that, and Sheriff Downey should know that. While the suspect was in the ER, they should have obtained a warrant and searched his house.
December 30, 2018 at 3:36 am
Henchman Of Justice
Actually, you are wrong EK…hearsay is not fact, it is feelings…call it feelings of fact or feelings of fiction…but hearsay ain’t fact…pure and simple.
As an attorney, ya gotta protect the sham…we get it…
December 30, 2018 at 3:37 am
Henchman Of Justice
Hearsay…white people are bad…
December 30, 2018 at 3:38 am
Henchman Of Justice
Oops, white people are good…which is it…both…hearsay, lol…
December 30, 2018 at 3:51 am
Henchman Of Justice
But it (hearsay – added) doesn’t apply to probable cause for a search or to take someone in for questioning. It’s a much lower standard. It has no application to that, and Sheriff Downey should know that.
Versus
Hearsay can be the basis for probable cause. It’s inadmissible at trial (barring an exception and there are numerous exceptions), but it can be the basis for probable cause.
Response: the proggie liberal attorney gets so riled up, can’t stay on point! It’s nice to know that hearsay can get manufactured into something greater so that a search warrant can be issued…
December 30, 2018 at 3:59 am
Henchman Of Justice
Hearsay… The Prisoner talk shit about the other prisoner… but there’s no motive involved hell no… overturn the case…
December 30, 2018 at 5:23 am
Henchman Of Justice
Hearsay is “feelings”…
feel·ing
/ˈfēliNG/Submit
noun
plural noun: feelings
1.
an emotional state or reaction.
“a feeling of joy”
synonyms: love, affection, fondness, tenderness, warmth, warmness, emotion, sentiment; More
2.
a belief, especially a vague or irrational one.
“he had the feeling that he was being watched”
synonyms: suspicion, sneaking suspicion, notion, inkling, hunch, funny feeling, feeling in one’s bones, fancy, idea; More
be·lief
/bəˈlēf/Submit
noun
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
“his belief in the value of hard work”
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
“a belief in democratic politics”
synonyms: faith, trust, reliance, confidence, credence
“belief in the value of hard work”
December 30, 2018 at 9:30 am
Anonymous
“hearsay is a bunch of March organizers who cancel the March because it’s not diverse enough”
Translation: HOJ has no idea what “hearsay” means.
December 30, 2018 at 9:34 am
Eric Kirk
Henchman – none of those are examples of hearsay.
December 30, 2018 at 9:56 am
Anonymous
Scenario 1: Bob steals a car radio. Susan witnesses the theft, and tells John. John goes to the police and says that Susan told him Bob stole the car radio.
What John told the police is hearsay — and in this simplified example the clue is right there in the word itself “I heard Susan say Bob was the thief.” In this case it’s also a fact that Bob stole the car radio. And of course it has literally nothing to do with “feelings.”
Scenario 2: Alternatively, Bob doesn’t steal the car radio, but Susan witnesses the theft and mistakenly identifies the thief as Bob. She tells John that it was Bob. John tells the police that Susan told him Bob stole the car radio.
Again, what John told the police is hearsay, just like in the first scenario — but in this case, it’s not a fact. Again, this has nothing to do with “feelings.”
In either case, John’s hearsay statement to police can’t be used as evidence in court (unless it falls under one of the exceptions to the hearsay rule) but it would certainly provide plenty of justification to question Susan, and depending on how that goes and what other evidence exists, to investigate Bob.
Hearsay statements crop up all the time in the course of normal police work.
It’s only a problem if the police take some wrongful action on the basis of the hearsay statement.
December 30, 2018 at 10:05 am
Anonymous
LOL….HOJ says…
“Hearsay is “feelings”
…then offers a cut-and-paste of the dictionary definition of “feeling, which makes no mention of the word “hearsay.”
What would actually make sense would be to point to a dictionary definition of “hearsay” that specifies that it’s about “feelings.”
HOJ doesn’t supply such a definition, which isn’t surprising because no such definition exists.
Whether a statement is “hearsay” or not has literally nothing whatsoever to do with “feelings.”
Hearsay simply means someone is repeating something they heard someone else say, as opposed to talking about something they directly witnessed or are aware of through some other means.
Again, the clue is right there in the word itself: hear+say = hearsay.
December 30, 2018 at 10:14 am
Anonymous
Going back to my example of Bob and Susan and John, if John just went to the police and said that he had a “feeling” that Bob stole the car radio and that Susan knew about it, but cited no actual reason for believing these things, that wouldn’t even be “hearsay,” it would just be a “hunch,” also known as rank speculation, and pretty much worthless to investigators as it wouldn’t provide a justification for doing much of anything.
December 30, 2018 at 11:16 am
Eric Kirk
Right. “Hearsay” is testimony about something someone else said. The Hearsay Rule excludes some of such testimony in trial because there is no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant in front of the judge or jury.
The rule has no bearing on probable cause which is a much less standard. A warrant could be granted simply because the hearsay statement offers a reasonable probability that evidence of a crime will be found. Sheriff Downey should know better!
But even in trial there are so many exceptions. A hearsay document (ie. a document which contains a statement of fact which cannot be verified by a live witness) is admissible if it is a document generated in the course of regular business. For instance, a receipt, if properly authenticated, for payment for goods can be admitted to show that those goods were purchased even if neither the buyer or purchaser is around to testify to the transaction. It’s validity can be challenged, but hearsay is admissible if the objection goes to weight. It is presumed that the jury can decide for itself whether the information is more likely than not accurate.
Another exception is “present sense impression.” I can testify that I heard Joe Smith yell, “That car is going to hit us!” Inadmissible would be that I heard him say, “I thought that car was going to hit us.” The words have to be contemporaneous with what is being described.
There are many others. Here are some of them.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_803
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_804
https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_807
December 30, 2018 at 11:29 am
Henchman Of Justice
Anonymous to the rescue for EK and flops… doesn’t even use a dictionary turn because after you read that term it brings you back to feelings and belief because the term itself uses words that any human being who has their head screwed on correctly can see that in the legal context hearsay is only using enough words to in adequately describe itself…
Hearsay is still built on feelings not on fact if it’s fact the person is an eyewitness and it’s not hearsay because it would be an eyewitness testimonial or statement to the matter that could be put into the form of an affidavit…
… hearsay is to allow law enforcement the opportunity to use a story to try to get probable cause…
… probable cause needs evidence hearsay is an attempt to create evidence out of near thin air, so somewhere in between law enforcement has to come up with something to be able to continue forward…
Feelings of belief…that what they use as hearsay is acceptance of fact or fiction…
be·lief
/bəˈlēf/Submit
noun
1.
an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.
“his belief in the value of hard work”
2.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
“a belief in democratic politics”
Dictionary terms, feel free to add terms…but hearsay is built on a belief and feelings…very emotionally driven at times which adds emphasas to the story telling fiction…
Hearsay has nothing to do with any corroborating information either because corroborating information already has facts to corroborate to, with…unlike hearsay, which is like a last-ditch effort by investigators and the law enforcement teams in their attempt to drum up something that they can’t drum up yet because the facts don’t support whatever they want to drum up…
Now who really believes that any person who takes a rumor and can turn around and recite that rumor word for word without having any emotional attachment to it whatsoever… that’s what hearsay is all about,
Understanding the balance of trying to figure out fact from fiction because feelings get involved, the emotions of people and somehow shit just gets added to the story that was never fact…
This is why the dictionary terms, it’s because anybody that doesn’t have their head up their ass knows that hearsay is intertwined with a bunch of bullshit… the very thing that those in law who use hearsay are doing so on emotions and feelings, not fact…
… but the news media says the March was cancelled because the organizers claimed it wasn’t diverse…hearsay…no facts, just feelings…
December 30, 2018 at 11:31 am
Anonymous
Yup, there are plenty of exceptions to the hearsay rule.
In my view, it’s well worth the trouble of carving out these exceptions while maintaining the overall rule because the concept is such an important one. As you note, the key issue is “no opportunity to cross-examine the declarant in front of the judge or jury.”
Sadly, the concept of hearsay and the way it actually applies in the legal system is also pretty widely misunderstood by much of the public – and most of them aren’t even suffering from Jeffrey’s special challenges.
December 30, 2018 at 11:38 am
Henchman Of Justice
Eric Kurt can’t even stay on point to feelings cuz he knows he’s wrong so he’s got to pull out links to exceptions (no definition of hearsay, huh) well guess what, there’s exceptions to every rule it seems like in America, that’s while law was invented, to make exceptions after examples…
… and in all those examples, emotions and feelings are involved, lol…
Try again EK, and recruit 2 anonymous this time maybe even a third… hell you might have to recruit the full bar get all the attorneys involved to protect their turf…
December 30, 2018 at 11:51 am
Henchman Of Justice
Eric Kirk is so good at explaining hearsay that he avoids the explanation and just goes to links for the exceptions to the rule because he wants to use what other people have written because as an attorney he’s not smart enough to explain it himself…
December 30, 2018 at 8:21 pm
Anonymous
So the mentally ill incel with delusions of grandeur is sticking with his personal crackpot definition of “hearsay,” one found in no law dictionary or statute and bearing no resemblance to the way the word is actually used in the law. Sure, why not?
December 31, 2018 at 4:37 am
SCOTT FREE 🏌️♂️🍄👈🏼😆
Between the Netflix show and the canceled women’s March, your community is the butt of jokes nationwide, and you’re arguing over the definition of a word? Smfh….
December 31, 2018 at 5:44 am
Anonymous
There’s no argument — the definition is what it is.
Meanwhile, your entire party is now a worldwide joke, due to its craven embrace of a habitual liar / white nationalist assclown as president.
But thanks for weighing in with your low-energy concern trolling, JW. Always good to hear the perspective of the bitter old racist/sexist white guy demographic. 😉
December 31, 2018 at 7:23 am
Henchman Of Justice
The only crackpot on the thread is anonymous who keeps screeching in a big ball of whiner, but at least it’s short this time not long drawn-out because Anonymous lost the battle on hearsay…
… emotions they show themselves in lots of things, including hearsay…
… it’s why Anonymous and even attorney Eric Kirk couldn’t even put up the legal definition of hearsay because when you read the legal definition of hearsay you break down the word and its meaning; clearly, feelings and emotions are contained by the person with hearsay and the attorneys have to extract out that which is fact and fiction… which is a hell of a job…
… it’s the reason why there’s exceptions to the rule because the rule was found to be fallible you know the rule on hearsay and what hearsay is… is flawed… exceptions to the rule means that the exceptions have nothing to do with hearsay except that it’s pointing out that hearsay is a bunch of bullshit.
Smart attorneys attack the emotions and feelings of the person claiming hearsay either on the stand or through their affidavit…
… Anonymous is one dumb motherfuker in the community spewing bullshit that it can’t backup but tries like all hell… trying to earn The Little Engine That Could award…
… Anonymous should go back to the Caboose where the barf hangs out … that’s the nutritional Source for the day, no Wheaties for Anonymous… just a cover crop with you’re regurgitated buckwheat…
December 31, 2018 at 7:46 am
Henchman Of Justice
… for proggy liberals it’s about power and control and Turf so if you’re looking to be a proggy liberal leader but you’re just young dumb and full of cum, then you got to move somewhere else because the turf is already taken in the cities… we can all see what the ocasio-cortez’s in America are doing in the Democratic Party, and that’s the effect of the young and dumb and full of cum second generation immigrant kids who are butting heads with the old decrepit senior citizen cooks choking on their turkey gobbler neckballs…
Nothing like having an immature second-generation illegal shit child in Congress who happens to be a woman masquerading as a girl in a woman’s body who has all the answers easily paid for…
… New York is an immigration Port City go figure…
December 31, 2018 at 8:59 am
chemtrail anonymous
The truth of the law depends on who’s doing what and when. The HCSO says, for example, that they check grow scenes based on complaints. I know I’ve even seen verbatim “complaint-based system” in print or quoted somewhere. That could mean any number of things including “hearsay”. Anybody paying attention knows, some complaints are ignored and some seem fabricated. You’d be naive to think law enforcement is unaware of their power outside the courtroom, as well as their ability to win favor in court. And we have little choice but to hope they have our best interests in mind. All my decades in Humboldt, I have seen the fucked up bully side of police, but the hierarchy is keeping it right regarding “grows”. I’m not going to watch the documentary but it sounds like the sheriff was simply discouraging vigilante behavior, especially based on word of mouth. A vigilant mistake can be as disasterous as any.
January 1, 2019 at 8:24 am
Anonymous
Here’s the standard definition of hearsay as found in the widely used Black’s Law Dictionary:
Literally nothing to do with “feelings.”
January 1, 2019 at 8:28 am
Anonymous
I realize the angry, mentally ill Incel will never recognize his error — this definition is offered for anyone else who may have run across this thread and is interested in the actual definition of hearsay.
January 1, 2019 at 8:34 am
Anonymous
Here’s what I said earlier: “Hearsay simply means someone is repeating something they heard someone else say, as opposed to talking about something they directly witnessed or are aware of through some other means.”
And here, again, from Black’s Law Dictionary: “Evidence not proceeding from the personal knowledge of the witness, but from the mere repetition of what he has heard others say.”
Readers other than the perpetually angry, mentally ill Incel can judge for themselves. 😉
January 1, 2019 at 11:54 pm
Eric Kirk
Thanks purple anon. That’s pretty concise and comprehensive.
January 2, 2019 at 6:38 am
W.o.P.
Wow, Purple Anon is amazing! She can look things up on internet, such talent. I noticed she found a new name to call people she doesn’t like.
Purple Anon has never expressed an original thought here (SoHum ll). Thank goodness for the internet-right PA?
Can hardly wait for the barrage of name calling and insults to come from PA ! Comical and sometimes entertaining
January 2, 2019 at 1:10 pm
MITT ROMNEY KICKS TRUMP’S FAT ORANGE ASS 🍊
So, do you notice the Russian troll 🇷🇺 has nothing to say about Mitt Romney’s latest entirely accurate personal condemnation of Traitor Trump? LMFAO!!! 😆🤣😭😅😁
# ROMNEY 2020 🇺🇸
January 2, 2019 at 4:45 pm
Anonymous
Hey look, the dimwitted Trump Cultist weighs in with his usual lack of any meaningful contribution.
Dude, I didn’t consult or cite Black’s Law Dictionary until the last set of comments. And then only because HOJ insisted on a dictionary definition.
I find it hilarious that it bothers you so much that I know normal stuff, like what “hearsay” means.
January 2, 2019 at 6:08 pm
W.o.P
Oh my ! “Meaningful Contribution”. Now PA is a comedian🤯
January 2, 2019 at 8:01 pm
Henchman Of Justice
HOJ already new the legal definition… it’s why you were egged on to put the definition up… especially after you moaned and groaned so much and didn’t want to come into the thread until the very end to regurgitate everything that had already been discussed on point …
… And it’s why emotions and feelings are involved in statements of hearsay… it’s why HOJ provided the definitions to the other two words so that everyone who reads the legal definition and wants to break it down can understand how it’s broken down and why hearsay has so many exceptions to the rule because it’s a flawed part of law…
… hearsay allows people to lie!
January 2, 2019 at 8:05 pm
Henchman Of Justice
The discussion isn’t what hearsay means per se, the discussion is about how hearsay is applied and the flaws of hearsay… hearsay has emotions and feelings involved…
… in fact the resident attorney Eric Kirk put up some links to the exclusions and exceptions to the rule… because there’s flaws in the hearsay rule…
… Anonymous was just choking the chicken back in the Caboose at the end of the train and was late to the party… got all embarrassed and ashamed and wanted to regurgitate everything that had already been discussed over the threads PA system…
Purple Anonymous, a day late and a dollar short…aka, a street bum…chick with a dick…
January 2, 2019 at 8:45 pm
Anonymous
And you’re a boor. And a bore.
January 3, 2019 at 5:49 am
Anonymous
LOL…that was intended for W.o.P.
Of course it applies to HOJ as well. But at least HOJ has the excuse of mental illness.
January 3, 2019 at 6:30 am
W.o.P.
What is PA’s excuse ?! I can think of a few possibilities………
Back to Murder Mountain. Does the series accurately address the violence associated with SoHum’s weed industry? What does PA say about the subject?
January 3, 2019 at 8:08 am
Anonymous
Haven’t watched it. Have heard mixed reviews.
As far as the violence goes, when you have prohibition, you get a black market, and with a black market you get violence and vigilantism.
The sort of “partial legalization” that Humboldt growers operated under for many years (basically since the passage of Prop 215) led to a flood of growers, most of whom were able to avoid any prosecution for growing, but since the product was still illegal to sell for profit or out of state, a huge black market developed, which not surprisingly led to home invasions, etc.
Unfortunately this will probably continue to be the case to some degree even now that it’s legal to grow and sell for recreational purposes within California. This is partly because the high taxes and strict regulation leave a fair amount of room for black market sales within the state, and of course it’s still illegal to transport out of state, which is where I would guess most Humboldt grown weed ends up. So there’s still a considerable black market economy, and thus still the problems that come with that.
Still, I would expect fewer home invasions as time goes on, in part because the raw product isn’t as valuable as it used to be, and in part because more and more states are legalizing (and I expect eventually it will be legal federally). Another important factor is that many growers are no longer afraid to call the cops when they are ripped off — and now the perception (previously the reality) that pot-scene home invaders wouldn’t have to worry about law enforcement is gradually starting to wear off.
January 3, 2019 at 8:12 am
Anonymous
And of course home invasions / farm rip-offs aren’t the only form of violence involved with the black market scene, just the most common (or at least the most well-known). But similar dynamics apply in the case of domestic violence, violence against pot industry workers, and other disputes that may turn violent in a setting where the underlying activity is not fully legal.
January 3, 2019 at 8:19 am
MICHELLE OBAMA is a TRANNY 🏌️♂️🍄👈🏼😆🤣
this article provides a good recap of what’s going on.
http://www.governing.com/topics/finance/tns-california-marijuana-sales.html
January 3, 2019 at 9:19 am
Henchman Of Justice
Nah, HOJ’s lame excuse is… he is a reader and researcher…oh shit, that sucks wads…
January 3, 2019 at 12:53 pm
ANNE COULTER IS A TRANNY 🍎 🐘 🍏
Like Michelle Obama says, “When they go low, we go high.” NOT! (At least some of us Democrats have learned the lesson of 2016, and that is to do the exact opposite of whatever Michelle Obama says. 😁)
# Donald Trump’s Five Deferments From Vietnam 🇻🇳
January 4, 2019 at 9:00 am
W.o.P
Interesting comments, except the obvious moron.
With the “ legalization” of mj and drop in the going price of mj it seems like there are more “reported” home invasion robberies. The market may be flooded but mj still has value. Would be robbers probably suspect, or expect, that long time growers will have cash, mj, and valuables on hand so it seems somewhat logical to expect the robberies will continue. Still I doubt that half of mj related home invasion robberies are reported.
January 4, 2019 at 2:09 pm
MOLA42
Something I think that bears mention is even though MJ is legal (if you follow the rules) the grower still can’t put the profits into a bank account. Thus, folks are sitting on thousands of dollars of cash in their homes.
As Dillinger once replied when asked why he robbed banks; his answer was, “Because that’s where the money is.”
A way needs to be found to get banking laws changed to allow legal profits to be banked without the Feds getting their panties in a twist. Otherwise, the home invasions will continue.
January 5, 2019 at 2:10 am
Henchman Of Justice
Good quite MOLA,
It validates the warnings provided prior to policy…
… and it’s not just the money it’s the weed why grow the weed when you can steal it after it’s been procured manicured packaged for sale..
… it is why legalization and policy make the black market look like heaven!
January 5, 2019 at 2:55 am
Henchman Of Justice
Mathematical equation of public policy:
1) Black market (Less populated overall, less attention overall)
2) Money deposits $$$$
3) Crime relative to known attentions
4) Numerous items of value to be stolen
5) Legal market (more populated overall, more attention)
On a theory that over half as much is not stolen with black market conditions…the more conservative difference in “savings” ( by way of not having stolen in the first place) is shown as a true spread between the two equations.
B+M=C-N
L-M=C+N
Or, using “X” as the difference in L-B
X/C=M/N
Of course, reported crimes only.
January 6, 2019 at 7:35 am
ANN COULTER IS A TRANNY, which is by far the best thing about “her” 🍎🍏🍎🍏🍎
Fat Fucking Pig 🐷 Donald Trump, Russia’s biggest fan 🇷🇺, is “THE OBVIOUS MORON”. 🏌️♂️🤪🐘💩🔥
P.S. – Did you hear Traitor Trump 🇷🇺 argue the position that the Soviet Universe n’s invasion of Afghanistan was a good thing for the USSR? 25th Amendment time! (Or immediate Impeachment. Either way.)
January 6, 2019 at 7:44 am
ANN COULTER IS A TRANNY, which is by far the best thing about “her” 🍎🍏🍎🍏🍎
# FREE MELANIA TRUMP