@bareboards2

Cognitive dissonance much, Gale?
It's childish to think any precinct would punish or reprimand its officers for ENFORCING THE LAW.

Stop pretending like you don't understand perfectly well the logic for the "for-profit corporation" thing.

1.
Asshole cops write you a ticket [cause your car is 1/2 an inch too far from the curb]

2.
You either pay the fine or go to court or ignore it.
~~~
1.
You pay the fine.
The "state" [Can you even define what the state is Gale?] receives revenue.
2.
You go to court.
Your public defender makes a deal with the "state". You pay a reduced fine.
The state receives revenue.
[Or worse, you have to defend yourself. You lose. You pay even larger fine.]
3.
You ignore it.
The court issues a bench warrant.
You're pulled over [for not wearing a seat belt or something] and are arrested immediately.
You post bail.
The state receives revenue.

The prison industrial complex, just like like the military industrial complex, is in the business of generating revenue.

Stop trying to deny/sugar coat it so you can justify your delusions about the purpose of it.

Ah, the classic case of correlation versus causation.

In the U.S., between 1974 and 2004, 52.2% of all homicides were committed by those who listed their race as black, despite blacks accounting for 12.6% of the population (according to the 2010 census).

This of course will lead most racists to conclude that black people are inherently violent or cold-blooded, etc. Nevermind the socio-economic status of the majority of black Americans (almost a quarter of them live on wages below the poverty line, much higher rates of unemployment, etc.) which is a much more likely to be a reason for the crime statistics. Nevermind the justice system that has a much higher conviction rate for black offenders (probably also tied to the socio-economic status since if you can't afford a private lawyer you're going to get stuck with an over-worked and underpaid public defender).

It seems to me much more likely that these attacks are the result of immigrants who are coming from countries (Iraq, Somalia, and Pakistan seem to be where most of the rapists have come from) where they were likely already successful predators due to a lack of law enforcement and crumbling social structures. Old habits die hard. They move to Oslo and continue their predatory ways.

But could Islam really be the cause of this? Let's look at another statistic:

In Oslo, there are approximately 163,000 Muslims. Let's be generous and assume that only a quarter of these are adult males (40705) and the rest are women and children. Let's also be generous and assume that for every rape reported in Oslo, 10 rapes go unreported due to fear or shame (86 reported rapes x 10 unreported = 860 rapes). Let's further be completely unrealistic and assume each rape is the result of an individual offender (no repeat offenders or serial rapists). So now we have...

860 rapists / 40705 adult male population = 2.1% of the population

I've been hugely generous with these numbers, but I think you can see that this particular statistic does not really implicate Islam as a cause of the rapes. Wouldn't we expect to see a much higher percentage of the male population rampaging through Oslo if Islam was truly the cause of this behavior?

I'm not implying Islamic attitudes towards women don't contribute to the behavior of those who commit these crimes. But it seems hard to believe Islam is somehow responsible for these crimes any more than Christianity is responsible for pedophile priests (though the Catholic Church is certainly responsible for covering the abuses up).

>> ^Porksandwich:

Well let's briefly into the plea bargaining and pleading down of charges so people can maintain a high conviction rate instead of letting people stand accused of their crimes in front of a jury of their peers. Which while speedier and less costly, creates an environment where when people do think they will get a better deal in front of a jury....most cases that ever make it to trial are for the really extreme cases. So people serving as jurors get a false impression that if you didn't take a plea deal you must be one nasty piece of work.
And I say this as someone who has never used drugs, but has witnessed the process they put people through when they catch them via a relative. Even changed court appearance times to a few hours earlier the day before he was to appear, because they decided to see him on a separate charge on the same day but many hours earlier. You would assume they book their times from the morning and work their way up, but they made a special case for him and made it earlier.... without notification during the weekend prior to his ordered appearance. I believe it's so they could put a warrant out for his arrest and arrest him when he appeared for his ordered and notified appearance time, because he was also being screwed around on getting a public defender. Had to appear multiple times in court without a public defender because their office never received paper work even though in the system he was showing up as having been assigned one.
And on top of all this, when they decided to let him have his vehicle back from impound (after being told they could keep any vehicle involved in a drug bust)...they wanted him and the owner of the vehicle to sign a paper admitting guilt to the crimes this vehicle was impounded over. Even after the judge ordered the release of the vehicle and gave written notice to release it, they still would not release it without the form. It was 2 extra weeks of impound fees simply because of refusal to admit guilt on one or more charges that were completely false dealing with "Dealer" plates. And when they refused to sign the papers the first time after the relative had plead not guilty...officers from the station who busted him showed up to the business where the plates originated from and stated that the dealership was a false/illegal business.
If these police officers receive THAT kind of fair and due process leading up to a trial. Then I think they will be handled as a normal citizen would be. However I doubt their police brothers will be so inclined to take it upon themselves to do this because other dirty laundry may possibly come up if they did so, because if a few officers can do it once to cover up a murder......little cover ups are more than likely. But it's highly unlikely the system will delve further into the police department for more cover-ups because it's like cutting off your arm to kill an infection that's throughout your body.
<div class="chunk" style="clear: none; overflow: auto;">
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> NetRunner said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/n/NetRunner-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">, there are lots of moral and legal reasons why we have the presumption of innocence in our courts. We collect evidence and have a trial, and have judgment rendered by juries of our peers. We don't just say "he did it, let's burn him alive!" anymore, and I think that's a good thing.
Even the most hated people on Earth deserve a fair trial. I want rapists to face a trial. I want child molesters to face a trial. I want murderers to face a trial. I want terrorists to face a trial.
There's a definite possibility that the system will allow them to escape accountability in some unfair way, but it seems more reasonable to wait and see if such a thing occurs before preemptively deciding that it definitely will happen and getting mad about it in advance.
That's my main point -- calling out the preemptive assumption of guilt, both of the officers, and the legal system that has yet to even try these men.
(And yes, I did so preemptively...)
</div></div></div></div>
The police have the authority to shoot back when fired upon, which is why they initiated the cover up. The question lies in why they covered it up. Protect a fellow officer? Did that officer want someone in the group of people dead for some specific reason? Is that why he kicked and stomped him while he was dying on the ground?
My point of this is, if these had been normal citizens without the authority of the badge, the investigation might have been more complete at the time of the incident. In this case, the police are investigating themselves. It may not be the officers who did the crime who investigated it, but I really doubt they brought in an unbiased party to do the investigation at the time of the incident. So in essence, these police officers relied on the authority of their position to allow them to hinder and cover up details of the murder. Or in other words, the police used their authority to murder people except someone turned on them and now they have some semblance of testimony because they didn't look very hard for proof in the first place.
Police officers are required to do a lot of paper work anytime they discharge their weapons. So it's not really an option for them to keep their mouth shut in this case. They could outright lie or leave out details, but they don't have the option of not choosing to answer the question of "What happened?" I guess they could claim group memory loss.....or alien abduction.
If they all fired their weapons, they all participated in attempted murder and murder. If they aided other police officers in committing a crime, I look at it as driving the get away car or standing look out. If they are involving themselves as the vehicle for which these people can commit murder and hide it, they are just as guilty as the person who committed it. And now it's just a matter of whether it was a pre-meditated murder with one cop dragging the others into it, and how much those people knew of what happened when they agreed to help cover it up.
It's just like the average joe being pulled over for a traffic violation is told "Ignorance of the law does not make you exempt from it." Strip away the badges, no special favors, eliminate any and all possibilities of tampering or bias whether it be by jury, prosecutor or judge.....and then we'll have us a fair trial....and add in some of the stuff I spoke about above when replying to Netrunner. No special exemptions because they are government employees. Murder, tampering with evidence, impeding a police investigation, all the trimmings. And make sure they are punished as anyone else with similar backgrounds/priors to them, but who might have been working construction, truck driver, janitor, etc for the same crimes they are convicted of. Killing a cop is bad news when it comes to convictions, so perhaps treat "Killer Cops" as "Cop Killers" would be treated. Kill an innocent person in authority....innocent person killed by authority person. But yeah, they should face a greater punishment when it's all said and done because killing one of them is a greater crime than normal folk.
<div class="chunk" style="clear: both; overflow: auto;">
<div><div style="margin: 10px; overflow: auto; width: 80%; float: left; position: relative;" class="convoPiece"> Lawdeedaw said:<img style="margin: 4px 10px 10px; float: left; width: 40px;" src="http://static1.videosift.com/avatars/l/Lawdeedaw-s.jpg" onerror="ph(this)"><div style="position: absolute; margin-left: 52px; padding-top: 1px; font-size: 10px;" class="commentarrow">◄</div><div style="padding: 8px; margin-left: 60px; margin-top: 2px; min-height: 30px;" class="nestedComment box">Sigh... there is so much to correct. First, the police never had authority to randomly kill people. They did not abuse authority, but, rather their own sense of humanity. They became animals just like gang members and drug lords and fathers (who have similar authority to cops, if not more) who lose it and oh wait, just like a lot of normal people or insane people who flip.
Next, the cover up. I hope you feel the exact same way about regular people when they witness a crime... Only the detectives actively covered any thing up and I agree, aiding and abeding. However, just keeping your mouth shut is not close to murder.
If you advocate that it nearly identical, I would hope that if your brother or sister or mother witnessed a murder and kept quiet that you would want them to face nearly identical charges as the murderer as well.
A side fact is that most states have a law specifically for this crime. Failure to report a Felony. I know it seems lame, but rather than throw people in jail for life, or close to it, we should be reasonible. I say, charge the witness POS cops with the crime they did (Like every one else) and sue their asses in civie court. However, don't make them an exception.
Punish fairly in all circumstances or don't be mad when someone abuses the system.
Oh, and put the agressive pig who murdered under the needle and let him die. That's all I am saying.
I think you feel the same way based on the "punishment like every one else" bit, but it is possible you do not and would rather they face more time...
</div></div></div></div>
Had to edit this because it looked completely messed up when I finished typing although the preview looked fine.....hoping I can find the issue.


This is a long quote.

@NetRunner,
From third party experience and personal observations of the system, the checks and balances need to be returned into the system. Like I stated earlier, the police department refused to comply with written orders from a judge. And this same judge when shown the paperwork the police department wanted signed said that he'd never seen that paperwork before and that he himself wouldn't have signed it under any circumstance.

There's just too much complication to the system, each part of the 3 wanting to take the powers of the other two upon itself while being completely kept out of the loop as to the other branches goings on. No handful of people have the time to check out the other goings on when they are so busy trying to get more power for themselves.

They need to implement a system in which laws that are reviewed and thrown out when a new law takes over it's function, or if the law is outdated with the times and requires an update to create an update that doesn't require broad interpretation of every word in it. Lots of interpretation slowly becomes the new "spirit" of the law that was never intended to be used in such ways. A lot of the new anti-terror laws were used in such a way to bust drug dealers, hackers, etc that had no affiliation with terrorists.....simply because this interpretation and power struggle has went on for so long that it's second nature. The real problem with this second nature attitude is that more often than not the judicial branch takes a "blind trust" attitude toward police submitted evidence and reports so the check against corruption/common sense/legality there is lost completely without a lawyer to point it out.

And this leads into that you are granted representation in the constitution, they should make sure your representation is fit for duty and has the necessary information to give you a fair trial. Not delay getting you a public defender until the third court date and you only meet him 5 minutes before you go up in front of a judge. There's no reasonable expectation there of anything besides having a very limited time to make some very big decisions concerning plea offers and the implications of one action over the other.

It says you are granted a speedy trial, not that the courts are granted a speedy trial....but right now, the courts put forth the minimal effort but maximize your time investment if you don't admit guilt/pay the fee early on. Hell even small claims court takes multiple months to get you in, and they will hear your trial in about 5 minutes with no one else waiting to go up after you. Saw my dad get screwed there by someone because he was expecting the court to read the submitted material, other guy didn't even show up. And the mistake was the police departments fault for telling him false information (overstepping authority), court didn't care that the police department had aided this other person in essentially stealing 1500 bucks in costs due to their mishandling. This particular court would not allow you to file in small claims court and bring in a lawyer, you had to represent yourself if you were going into small claims. And they would not take the time to ferret out more information that may be pertinent to the trial because as soon as the question was asked the judge said they read it, even though by the comments it was a very brief reading if read at all. This kind of system encourages upstanding citizens to not file to recoup costs because it's time consuming with almost no return for their efforts even if it's a legitimate claim. But allows for criminals and fly-by nights to rip everyone off a few grand at a time and move on. ESPECIALLY if the person who committed the crime is on government support because they won't force them to pay it out of their benefits and you can't take their tax returns until they cash it..and if it never makes it into their bank account you can't get it period.

On the other hand, if the police actually had investigated and found out they gave misinformation and this other person benefitted from it at my dad's expense, and made it clear to the court that the other person owed the money or property back.....or "Admitted they screwed up"....some justice may have been done. But now he has to try to recoup a small pittance from someone who is probably a crackhead and is definitely on welfare..who has already sold the property and made and spent the money from the sale.


>> ^NetRunner:

so what's your answer to all this? How do we fix the system?
I'm all for leveling the playing field so the reality of the justice system hews more closely to its founding principles.
I just don't think trying to preemptively pass judgment on both the cops and the legal system helps. If you're looking for a watershed moment that turns public opinion towards wanting a better justice system, surely there are cases in the past that have more of a pull.
It seems to me that the big problem isn't these officers who maybe intentionally killed some people, and likely covered it up, the big problem is that the people at the top of our social order (e.g. Bush and Wall Street bankers) seem utterly immune to even being investigated, much less charged and convicted.
I'm really disheartened that we can't even seem to come up with a consensus of public opinion that these things need to be investigated, much less that it's of vital importance for our nation's future that we do so.

Well let's briefly into the plea bargaining and pleading down of charges so people can maintain a high conviction rate instead of letting people stand accused of their crimes in front of a jury of their peers. Which while speedier and less costly, creates an environment where when people do think they will get a better deal in front of a jury....most cases that ever make it to trial are for the really extreme cases. So people serving as jurors get a false impression that if you didn't take a plea deal you must be one nasty piece of work.

And I say this as someone who has never used drugs, but has witnessed the process they put people through when they catch them via a relative. Even changed court appearance times to a few hours earlier the day before he was to appear, because they decided to see him on a separate charge on the same day but many hours earlier. You would assume they book their times from the morning and work their way up, but they made a special case for him and made it earlier.... without notification during the weekend prior to his ordered appearance. I believe it's so they could put a warrant out for his arrest and arrest him when he appeared for his ordered and notified appearance time, because he was also being screwed around on getting a public defender. Had to appear multiple times in court without a public defender because their office never received paper work even though in the system he was showing up as having been assigned one.

And on top of all this, when they decided to let him have his vehicle back from impound (after being told they could keep any vehicle involved in a drug bust)...they wanted him and the owner of the vehicle to sign a paper admitting guilt to the crimes this vehicle was impounded over. Even after the judge ordered the release of the vehicle and gave written notice to release it, they still would not release it without the form. It was 2 extra weeks of impound fees simply because of refusal to admit guilt on one or more charges that were completely false dealing with "Dealer" plates. And when they refused to sign the papers the first time after the relative had plead not guilty...officers from the station who busted him showed up to the business where the plates originated from and stated that the dealership was a false/illegal business.

If these police officers receive THAT kind of fair and due process leading up to a trial. Then I think they will be handled as a normal citizen would be. However I doubt their police brothers will be so inclined to take it upon themselves to do this because other dirty laundry may possibly come up if they did so, because if a few officers can do it once to cover up a murder......little cover ups are more than likely. But it's highly unlikely the system will delve further into the police department for more cover-ups because it's like cutting off your arm to kill an infection that's throughout your body.

>> ^NetRunner:

, there are lots of moral and legal reasons why we have the presumption of innocence in our courts. We collect evidence and have a trial, and have judgment rendered by juries of our peers. We don't just say "he did it, let's burn him alive!" anymore, and I think that's a good thing.
Even the most hated people on Earth deserve a fair trial. I want rapists to face a trial. I want child molesters to face a trial. I want murderers to face a trial. I want terrorists to face a trial.
There's a definite possibility that the system will allow them to escape accountability in some unfair way, but it seems more reasonable to wait and see if such a thing occurs before preemptively deciding that it definitely will happen and getting mad about it in advance.
That's my main point -- calling out the preemptive assumption of guilt, both of the officers, and the legal system that has yet to even try these men.
(And yes, I did so preemptively...)


The police have the authority to shoot back when fired upon, which is why they initiated the cover up. The question lies in why they covered it up. Protect a fellow officer? Did that officer want someone in the group of people dead for some specific reason? Is that why he kicked and stomped him while he was dying on the ground?

My point of this is, if these had been normal citizens without the authority of the badge, the investigation might have been more complete at the time of the incident. In this case, the police are investigating themselves. It may not be the officers who did the crime who investigated it, but I really doubt they brought in an unbiased party to do the investigation at the time of the incident. So in essence, these police officers relied on the authority of their position to allow them to hinder and cover up details of the murder. Or in other words, the police used their authority to murder people except someone turned on them and now they have some semblance of testimony because they didn't look very hard for proof in the first place.

Police officers are required to do a lot of paper work anytime they discharge their weapons. So it's not really an option for them to keep their mouth shut in this case. They could outright lie or leave out details, but they don't have the option of not choosing to answer the question of "What happened?" I guess they could claim group memory loss.....or alien abduction.

If they all fired their weapons, they all participated in attempted murder and murder. If they aided other police officers in committing a crime, I look at it as driving the get away car or standing look out. If they are involving themselves as the vehicle for which these people can commit murder and hide it, they are just as guilty as the person who committed it. And now it's just a matter of whether it was a pre-meditated murder with one cop dragging the others into it, and how much those people knew of what happened when they agreed to help cover it up.

It's just like the average joe being pulled over for a traffic violation is told "Ignorance of the law does not make you exempt from it." Strip away the badges, no special favors, eliminate any and all possibilities of tampering or bias whether it be by jury, prosecutor or judge.....and then we'll have us a fair trial....and add in some of the stuff I spoke about above when replying to Netrunner. No special exemptions because they are government employees. Murder, tampering with evidence, impeding a police investigation, all the trimmings. And make sure they are punished as anyone else with similar backgrounds/priors to them, but who might have been working construction, truck driver, janitor, etc for the same crimes they are convicted of. Killing a cop is bad news when it comes to convictions, so perhaps treat "Killer Cops" as "Cop Killers" would be treated. Kill an innocent person in authority....innocent person killed by authority person. But yeah, they should face a greater punishment when it's all said and done because killing one of them is a greater crime than normal folk.

>> ^Lawdeedaw:
Sigh... there is so much to correct. First, the police never had authority to randomly kill people. They did not abuse authority, but, rather their own sense of humanity. They became animals just like gang members and drug lords and fathers (who have similar authority to cops, if not more) who lose it and oh wait, just like a lot of normal people or insane people who flip.
Next, the cover up. I hope you feel the exact same way about regular people when they witness a crime... Only the detectives actively covered any thing up and I agree, aiding and abeding. However, just keeping your mouth shut is not close to murder.
If you advocate that it nearly identical, I would hope that if your brother or sister or mother witnessed a murder and kept quiet that you would want them to face nearly identical charges as the murderer as well.
A side fact is that most states have a law specifically for this crime. Failure to report a Felony. I know it seems lame, but rather than throw people in jail for life, or close to it, we should be reasonible. I say, charge the witness POS cops with the crime they did (Like every one else) and sue their asses in civie court. However, don't make them an exception.
Punish fairly in all circumstances or don't be mad when someone abuses the system.
Oh, and put the agressive pig who murdered under the needle and let him die. That's all I am saying.
I think you feel the same way based on the "punishment like every one else" bit, but it is possible you do not and would rather they face more time...


Had to edit this because it looked completely messed up when I finished typing although the preview looked fine.....hoping I can find the issue.

@kronosposeidon. This isn't about fair representation. Who's stopping this officer from receiving representation any less fair than what you and me get? I'm sure there's a public defender that will be assigned to him.

If you were caught on video kicking over a kid on a bike while on the clock and representing your company, you think your employer wouldn't have a right to fire you on the spot before they launched some halfwitted investigation? Why is it public servants get special protections? And they're allowed to investigate themselves which is the biggest sham.

This isn't about fair representation. No, it's about unfair privileges.

Wrong. But what the hell is the judge doing? Sounds like he's digging through a box of cookies.

Also, I would want that lawyer as my public defender any day.

Yeah, don't leave. Take a break, sure, but come back when you can.

You weren't totally horrible.

Next time I need a public defender, you're the first on my list!



But seriously, yours is a good voice. I would consider it a real loss if you left, even if we don't always agree.

^"Well i'd never admit to something i didn't do. Never. Couldn't do it."

I understand that statement as I sit fat and happy behind my computer monitor on my nice chair. The decision isn't nearly as easy when you face the death penalty, and some overworked public defender that is most likely saying you should take the plea. That situation happens a lot. The public defender in most cases tries his best to never go to court...not because he is a bad person but because he is playing the odds. Odds are that if his client goes to trial and loses he dies. He is a public defender so he can't exactly drop all his other cases and focus on this one; so truly, it would be better to lie and go to jail then to die for his client.

I used to have my own overzealous idea of the justice system and how I would behave in it. But once you are behind those bars, and the cold slam of metal clanks behind you and you take your perch on the cold scared concrete floor next to other inmates who scare the living ship out of you; you experience a whole new paradigm. Make no mistake, jail/prison is a horrible, miserable place. When you get there it would take a marvel of a person to remain in their rational mind. The fear, stress, and panic deep in the hallows of your mind are nearly tearing you apart. The DA knows this, and uses it to their full advantage, as do the officers and other inmates. You may think you know how you will act in hell, but until you have been there I wouldn't be so hasty to sum up your actions.

@dystopianfuturetoday, I agree with that 100%. But does that mean you're dancing with glee because the single left-wing radio outlet folded, while all the right-wing talk radio thrives?

I'd love it if they all went away at once, but I think a situation where all political opinion radio is essentially one giant right-wing zoo is unhealthy for society, and not something to really cheer about.

I'd probably listen to a left-wing political shock-jock, but Air America really didn't have any. I could strike the pose that "that kind of thing doesn't appeal to liberals", but that's not true -- I love inflammatory left-wing rhetoric, and so do most of the liberals I know.

Our rhetoric is definitely different in content, but we loves a good no holds barred smackdown and a good righteous rant.

@blankfist, I'm just saying that steering conversations into literally semantic battles isn't helping your advocacy for libertarian (or whatever made-up word you'd prefer everyone use) ideas.

Me personally, I really love arguing semantics; I've got something of a fetish for it (it's part of why I'm a programmer in my day job). However, I think it's important to speak the same language as your audience if you're looking to be understood.

People who use words with their colloquial, rather than archaic meanings aren't brainwashed by some sort of government indoctrination they received in public school (fun fact: I didn't go to a public school), they're using the words they think will convey their meaning most accurately and concisely to the listener.

What you're doing is like trying to hijack a conversation about due process for police officers with a story about how the word "cop" originally referred to the criminals being chased by officers of the law, and not the police themselves, and then act as though this implies something nefarious about the very idea of having public defenders.

At best, this fixation on trying to dust off the old meaning of liberal is a strange sort of non-sequitor. At worst, it's some Orwellian plan to shape thought by trying to erase the modern definition of the name your ideological opposition uses. In either case, it's usually deployed as an attempt to change the subject.

As I said originally, I'm just trying to convey to you that I think it's an intellectually lazy tactic, and that I think you can and should do better.

So why does this guy have a public defender? It looks like his family is fairly well off.

Nobody in prison is ever guilty, just ask them.

The reason this story sounds so unbelievable is because it is. If things really happened the way he claims, there's no way his public defender would advise him to plead guilty. Hell, with all of this media attention, there's no way he'd be sticking with that public defender - I'm sure a top-notch defense attorney would jump on the chance to be in the spotlight if they thought they could get him off. There's obviously another side to this story that we're not hearing.

This is a problem addressed and solved on Law and Order years ago. Set up a degausing loop around your computer room door, disguise it. When the idiot police remove your computer, the degausing loop will erase and jumble your hard drive data making it un-recoverable. At least, that's the claim (made by more than just Law and Order) I've never tested it.
Handing your computer to the police is the worst idea I've heard in years. There's nothing to stop them from charging you just because you brought them the evidence. It just makes it easier for them to convict. That woman should be sued by the first person to take her advice who gets prosecuted.
This public defender should be disbared for such assinine advice, if what they said is true.

Totally ridiculous. His "public defender" should go back to flipping burgers.

This guy's public defender is an idiot, or the guy could be lying to the news about how much and what type of porn he had on his system.

Random unsorted deleted images are not in any way enough evidence to prosecute. This kid would do better to do a little research himself and show his public defender some of the preexisting case law that defines the amount and type of evidence that allows this type of prosecution.