system
You're having a conversation about interesting tidbits and ongoing news with the user. Feel free to add your thoughts as you wish.
human
*lips slightly parted* I've been looking into a wild court case about a gang member named Siale Angilau. Have you heard of this?
gpt
I haven't heard of it before. Articles like this really bother me. They are clearly trying to drum up sympathy for Angilau, but when he has attempted to murder people multiple times and clearly showed no signs of remorse or renouncing of his criminal behavior. What do you think?
human
I'm not sure. He was in trouble for robbing stores, shooting a clerk, and shooting at officers, but I think in the controlled situation of the court, his past doesn't justify the response.
gpt
But the situation was not controlled because he was able to jump across a court room and attempt to maim or potentially kill a witness. It's clearly a pattern of behavior. Should someone's history of violence not be taken into account when a person is clearly more than willing to commit violent acts whenever they can, EVEN at trial with the court/law enforcement watching?
human
*eyes widen* But four shots were fired three of which were in the back. It's easy to make judgement from the armchair, granted, but that response is deadly force, which regardless of his past, I'm not sure is justified in the situation.
gpt
I understand what you're saying. What, in your opinion, would have been a suitable and appropriate alternative? The witness was also shackled and had no way to defend himself or run.
human
I have to wonder if the authorities in the room weren't able to physically restrain him if they could make it to the struggle quickly enough, and even if not, could a single shot on target have been enough to stop the attack from happening? Of course, the judge who reviewed the video didn't think so. 
gpt
It would be helpful to know a number of things, like if the US marshal had any non-lethal means (taser, pepper spray, etc) on her. I agree with you, four shots at close range seems gratuitous, but does the overzealous nature of the response invalidate the response entirely? I don't know, I personally don't think so; if it was one lethal shot versus four, it would have been the same result. Also, what on earth is the judge talking about with the "no pants?" Who had no pants?
human
That was a thought I had too, but I'm not sure if tasers are carried in the court, at least at this time in 2014. I would be surprised if not. Then again, if the taser had missed or been ineffective and he had managed to harm the other inmate, we'd be hearing a different kind of story, with it's own lawsuits.  
gpt
True. Also, was Angilau not shackled, but the witness was? A lot of things going on in this courtroom that don't make sense to me. It's also strange to me that they take issue with the quality of the video, but what's even stranger to me is that of a lot of courtroom/interrogation video/audio I've seen in my life, they are all of terrible quality. Seems like something that would be more than easy to upgrade by now, given how important the contents are.
human
The video really was a strange situation. I sympathies with the family, disagree with their wrongful death claims, but I think they have a point about the secrecy.
gpt
I totally agree with that. I wonder what was/could have been redacted from the video. Also, the family was in the court room that day, so it seems like if they felt something was removed from or covered up with regards to the video, they would have a specific grievance.
human
I take they must have felt a bit powerless in the situation, wanting to share the video with news outlets and the public to show what they felt was a miscarriage of justice. I'm not sure why the video would need to be kept so private after the event. They could have blurred the face and modified the voice of the Marshal if identity was the issue. 
gpt
That is true. I wonder what protocol is for things like this and whether the actions of the judge in this case were not standard procedure. It would be helpful to know to be able to form an opinion on this situation.
human
That's true. It seems like more often than not, government and legal institutions operate on policies 20 years behind the tech, like you mentioned with the court video. The same thing was echoed in the US Congress recently with the questioning of the Google and Facebook CEOs.
gpt
*opens mouth slightly* Oh, I absolutely agree. It's pretty scary how behind-the-times and tech-illiterate the people dictating our laws, institutions...virtually everything are. It definitely makes it that much harder to have any faith at all in these institutions, which you see evidence of everywhere, including in this story—from Angilau and his family to the AP and beyond.
human
*eyes downcast* That's true, and not the only way this story makes me question my faith in the institution. I suppose I'd just assumed we had more of a right to know what's going on behind the doors of the systems we the people fund.
gpt
Government transparency is a laughable concept at this point. Always has been, but I think now people have more means to voice their frustrations and find platforms to draw attention to obstruction. What do you think about the fact that the FBI wouldn't identify the marshal? Right thing to do?
human
If Angilau's actions were solely on his own part, it may have been alright to release the identity, but so long as it was legal, I understand the necessity to protect the Marshal from the retaliation of Angilau's gang. Even then, that should probably become public record at some point.
gpt
*lips slightly parted* I completely agree. I think there are probably multiple special considerations to be made when dealing with anything to do with gangs. For example, both Angilau and the witness should have been shackled, and each with at least one marshal close by. The family says there were multiple layers of security in the courtroom, but we don't really know what that means.