2. 外语
  3. Citing Ohio ordinances that allow individuals to seek charges against someone they’ve seen commit a crime, seven Euclid resident

Citing Ohio ordinances that allow individuals to seek charges against someone they’ve seen commit a crime, seven Euclid resident

admin2020-12-01  51
问题    Citing Ohio ordinances that allow individuals to seek charges against someone they’ve seen commit a crime, seven Euclid residents claim to have "witnessed" the encounter between Officer Michael Amiott and driver Richard Hubbard III by virtue of viewing a four-minute video on Facebook. Their unique argument has triggered discussion in the legal community about the role that "social media witnesses" could play in such cases.
   "It used to just be the police officer’s word against the victim’s word," notes lead petitioner Richard T. Montgomery II. "Now, in the age of cellphone videos and social media, we as a community have the opportunity to participate in ensuring police accountability."
   The racially and economically diverse group scored its first victory in late December when a municipal judge responded to its request by requiring the Cuyahoga County prosecutor to investigate Amiott for felonious assault during the August 2017 traffic stop.
   The cellphone video, which has more than 11 million views on Facebook, shows the officer repeatedly punching Hubbard’s head as the 25-year-old man lay in the street. Separate video from a police cruiser’s dash cam shows Amiott wrestling Hubbard to the ground moments after he was ordered out of his car for a suspended driver’s license.
   Amiott was fired two months later for excessive force. But in the majority-black city, emotions flared anew this October when he was rehired following an arbitrator’s ruling in his favor. The ensuing outcry included the NAACP announcing a travel advisory to people of color who might be driving through Euclid.
   The legal issues raised by the citizens’ petition and the prospect of witnesses via social media are largely untested.
   Cleveland attorney Rebecca Maurer, who wrote a popular blog about the "Serial" podcast’s recent focus on Cuyahoga County’s criminal justice system, expects such witnesses might have to first establish that they were somehow personally affected before being allowed to initiate charges.
   "The judicial system relies on the idea of ’standing’ to regulate the type of cases that go to court," she said. "A judge who borrows from standing theory will want to know exactly why social media witnesses should initiate the case. Perhaps it’s enough if the petitioners are local residents claiming a personal stake in the security of their community."
   In his ruling referring the matter to the county prosecutor, Euclid Municipal Judge Patrick Gallagher did point out that the petitioners fail to claim any "personal knowledge of Mr. Hubbard’s injuries." Had they done so, he could have taken more drastic action, the judge seemed to imply. Under Ohio law, Gallagher also could have used the citizens’ petition to circumvent the prosecutor’s office and issue an arrest warrant for Amiott.
   Nearly a dozen other states also allow private citizens to initiate criminal charges — including Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Texas and Idaho.
   In all but one, however, the decision to actually file criminal charges is left to a prosecutor or grand jury. The exception is South Carolina, where police also have that power.
   Testimony from people claiming to have witnessed something via social media can be problematic, cautions Seth Stoughton, a University of South Carolina law professor and former officer, since video posted online, even unedited, often provides limited information about an event.
   "Beyond what they see directly in front of them, officers also rely on peripheral, aural and tactile information ... That doesn’t always come across accurately, or at all, on video," said Stoughton, who writes extensively about police regulation and use of force. By definition, he added, social media witnesses will always have such limitations.
   Some attorneys worry that the very community such individuals hope to protect could instead be negatively affected. Civil rights lawyer Maya Wiley, a former board chair of the NYC Civilian Complaint Review Board, an independent police oversight agency, warns of implicit bias in the criminal justice system that could favor a white social media witness over one of color.
Why people got furious again in Euclid according to Paragraph 5?
选项 A、Because they thought the arbitrator’s verdict was unfair.
B、Because Amiott was employed as a police officer once more.
C、Because they wanted to warn travelers of color to Euclid.
D、Because the police officer was released by the judge.
答案B
解析 细节题。第5段第2句，由于仲裁员做出了对Amiott有利的裁决，Amiott又被返聘，这一结果让这个黑人居多的城市里的人们的情绪再度高涨，故正确答案为B。注意Amiott被返聘是让人们愤怒的直接原因，有利裁决是返聘的前提，不可误选A。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/xMMO777K
本试题收录于： CATTI二级笔译综合能力题库翻译专业资格（CATTI）分类
0

CATTI二级笔译综合能力

翻译专业资格（CATTI）

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)