Police misbehavior thread

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

cphite
Posts: 1296
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby cphite » Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:18 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
cphite wrote:The offense she committed was that she interfered with a legal search of a suspect. She didn't merely offer him advice; she handed him a card. It really shouldn't surprise anyone including her that handing someone an item while they're being actively searched would result in arrest.


It does not surprise me that it happened, no.

But I don't think it ought to. A business card or the like isn't a security threat.


The business card itself isn't the issue; the issue is that she interfered with a lawful search of a suspect. It's a matter of basic safety; you'd be hard pressed to find any police department anywhere that is going to abide that sort of behavior, or shrug it off just because it turns out to be a business card.

I think a simple statement of "we're searching the subject, please step aside" would be adequate. End of the day, it's a business card. Nobody is in danger, there is not cause to arrest or strip search her.


On that same note, she could have simply said "I would like to give this person a card that informs him of his rights" instead of just walking headlong into an active situation and handing him the card.

The takeaway is that if you see someone being arrested or search, don't attempt to hand them something or take something from them.


The takeaway is to comply with police or they will fuck up your life.


They hardly fucked up her life. She was arrested, detained, and searched; they didn't even charge her with anything.

Look, not everyone being detained gets searched, and not everyone searched gets strip searched. There are escalations here that you're skimming over.


Most people who are arrested and detained get searched; and you all but guarantee it if you're uncooperative. The reason she was strip searched is because she refused to cooperate with the normal process.

Also, in free countries, people don't have to carry ID cards. I'm not up on UK law, but a number of US states still don't require a person to provide ID to the police, and not carrying/providing ID is not legal justification for anything.


You are confusing two distinct issues.

She wasn't arrested for not identifying herself; she was arrested for obstruction, basically for interfering with a lawful search of a suspect.

She was searched because, after being taken into custody, she refused to identify herself along with being generally uncooperative.

And yes; you are not required to carry an ID card, nor are you required to identify yourself to any police officer who asks on a whim. But when you've actually been arrested, and are being detained, the situation is completely different.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Sep 05, 2018 6:35 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
cphite wrote:The offense she committed was that she interfered with a legal search of a suspect. She didn't merely offer him advice; she handed him a card. It really shouldn't surprise anyone including her that handing someone an item while they're being actively searched would result in arrest.


It does not surprise me that it happened, no.

But I don't think it ought to. A business card or the like isn't a security threat.


The business card itself isn't the issue; the issue is that she interfered with a lawful search of a suspect. It's a matter of basic safety; you'd be hard pressed to find any police department anywhere that is going to abide that sort of behavior, or shrug it off just because it turns out to be a business card.


Sure, the rule's justified on the basis of safety, but no safety threat existed here, and everyone involved ought to have reasonably known that.

A strip search is unnecessary.

If every police department would overreact to the same degree, that only says something bad about every police department. I'm not arguing that it was illegal, only that there was no need for it to happen. Having a law to facilitate safety is fine, but if it's being used for purposes other than safety, something needs to be revisited.

elasto wrote:@Tyndmyr: You are correct that there is no obligation to carry ID in the UK, and that failing to identify yourself should not be construed to mean anything.


Thanks! Thought that was the case, but wasn't 100% sure.

cphite
Posts: 1296
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby cphite » Wed Sep 05, 2018 7:01 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:Sure, the rule's justified on the basis of safety, but no safety threat existed here, and everyone involved ought to have reasonably known that.


Frankly, the fact that she interfered in the first place was the safety threat; the business card is incidental.

You never know what a suspect is going to do when being arrested, or searched; the kid may have been armed, he may have been wanted for something far more serious, or he might have just panicked because he's a kid. Part of the process is making sure that he doesn't do something stupid that results in somebody getting hurt - whether that's him, an officer, or even an overzealous activist who wants to hand him a business card.

Her being involved at all introduced a risk that an officer would be distracted; or that the kid perceives a distraction and decides to bolt or fight. Further, the officers have to be wary of her handing the suspect something actually dangerous; or being handed evidence.

The rules in question are typically enforced across the board. Because case by case really isn't conductive to safety in that kind of situation. The wiggle room exists in the fact that they declined to actually charge her with anything.

And since you mentioned the subject of things everyone involved ought to have reasonably known... someone who fancies themselves to be in a position to be handing out legal advice to suspects, really ought to know better than to inject themselves into an active arrest or search.

A strip search is unnecessary.


Maybe, maybe not. Based on what little we know after the fact, it probably wasn't necessary. But I don't know what her demeanor was before and during her time in custody; and I'm not personally responsible for her safety, the safety of other detainees, or the officers at that department.

If they don't know who she is or why she involved herself, and she isn't giving them any information, it's not at all unreasonable or unexpected that she be searched.

elasto
Posts: 3574
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby elasto » Wed Sep 05, 2018 7:32 pm UTC

cphite wrote:You are confusing two distinct issues.

She wasn't arrested for not identifying herself; she was arrested for obstruction, basically for interfering with a lawful search of a suspect.

And what you seem to be missing is that none of us are saying the police were not allowed to arrest her for handing over a business card, we are saying they shouldn't have arrested her for handing over a business card.

She was searched because, after being taken into custody, she refused to identify herself along with being generally uncooperative.

She was being an ass because they were being an ass. You can call that stubborn and stupid, but if she hadn't done it would we ever have got to hear about the police being pussies and bullies? Civil disobedience usually carries a personal cost; that's what makes it effective.

And yes; you are not required to carry an ID card, nor are you required to identify yourself to any police officer who asks on a whim. But when you've actually been arrested, and are being detained, the situation is completely different.

IANAL but I don't think it is different at all, actually, especially if you have not been charged with anything: The fact that she didn't subsequently get charged with a crime of 'not giving your ID once arrested' tends to prove she was under no legal obligation to do so.

Edit:

The rules in question are typically enforced across the board. Because case by case really isn't conductive to safety in that kind of situation.

That may be how it works in the US but it's not usually how it works in the UK. The UK is very much a 'hearts and minds' policing culture, with de-escalation always preferred over escalation.

Zero-tolerance isn't a thing in our policing any more than it is in our schools, and long may that continue.

cphite
Posts: 1296
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby cphite » Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:09 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
cphite wrote:You are confusing two distinct issues.

She wasn't arrested for not identifying herself; she was arrested for obstruction, basically for interfering with a lawful search of a suspect.


And what you seem to be missing is that none of us are saying the police were not allowed to arrest her for handing over a business card, we are saying they shouldn't have arrested her for handing over a business card.


She wasn't arrested for handing over a business card. Forget about the business card. She was arrested for interfering in the search. Had she simply walked up to the guy and shook his hand, the outcome would have likely been the same; because it's the fact that she interfered at all that constituted the illegal act. The business card was incidental.

She was searched because, after being taken into custody, she refused to identify herself along with being generally uncooperative.


She was being an ass because they were being an ass. You can call that stubborn and stupid, but if she hadn't done it would we ever have got to hear about the police being pussies and bullies? Civil disobedience usually carries a personal cost; that's what makes it effective.


She was being an ass... and that's pretty much it. Everything in the two articles that were linked suggests that the police acted according to policy and appropriately. An independent panel decided that they acted legally and appropriately; in fact did not merely decide against her, but actually declared that she had no case to decide.

And yes; you are not required to carry an ID card, nor are you required to identify yourself to any police officer who asks on a whim. But when you've actually been arrested, and are being detained, the situation is completely different.

IANAL but I don't think it is different at all, actually, especially if you have not been charged with anything: The fact that she didn't subsequently get charged with a crime of 'not giving your ID once arrested' tends to prove she was under no legal obligation to do so.


A procedural requirement doesn't necessarily equate to a criminal offense; they can hold her until she cooperates, or they can search her just as they did. Another option would be to take her in front of a judge, who would order her to identify herself, and charge her with contempt of court if she refused.

Maybe she should try reading one of those cards she's handing out... this is the sort of thing that ought to be on there...

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Sep 05, 2018 9:26 pm UTC

cphite wrote:She wasn't arrested for handing over a business card. Forget about the business card. She was arrested for interfering in the search. Had she simply walked up to the guy and shook his hand, the outcome would have likely been the same; because it's the fact that she interfered at all that constituted the illegal act. The business card was incidental.


The business card was the precise method of interfering, though, and as interference goes, that's pretty minor. One of my jobs in the Air force involved searching passengers. If someone hands a business card to someone getting searched to go onto an airplane, that's...not really cause for doing much of anything. If you're worried about the business card, you might make sure it goes through the scanners, of course, and if someone is making life difficult, you of course ask them to stop. It's pretty boring, and people can be annoying at some times, but merely being an annoyance is not the same as a safety threat.

She was being an ass... and that's pretty much it. Everything in the two articles that were linked suggests that the police acted according to policy and appropriately. An independent panel decided that they acted legally and appropriately; in fact did not merely decide against her, but actually declared that she had no case to decide.


They acted legally, sure. Appropriately is what we're disputing here.

I'm saying that not only were the police wrong, oversight was insufficient, as it often is for police.

A procedural requirement doesn't necessarily equate to a criminal offense; they can hold her until she cooperates, or they can search her just as they did. Another option would be to take her in front of a judge, who would order her to identify herself, and charge her with contempt of court if she refused.


The "it's not illegal, but we're going to hold you for it anyways" is not a great solution. Why is her identity required in this situation? I mean practically required, not "it's legal for police to ask for it". The latter is obvious, but does not explain the need for a strip search.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Wed Sep 05, 2018 10:04 pm UTC

I'm surprised cphite is arguing this so forcefully. This thread is filled with monuments to the sins of law enforcement.

cphite
Posts: 1296
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby cphite » Wed Sep 05, 2018 11:25 pm UTC

A procedural requirement doesn't necessarily equate to a criminal offense; they can hold her until she cooperates, or they can search her just as they did. Another option would be to take her in front of a judge, who would order her to identify herself, and charge her with contempt of court if she refused.


The "it's not illegal, but we're going to hold you for it anyways" is not a great solution. Why is her identity required in this situation? I mean practically required, not "it's legal for police to ask for it". The latter is obvious, but does not explain the need for a strip search.


From the second article:

But in a motion to have the case thrown out, Nicholas Yeo, representing Howard, argued that the search was justified by Duff’s refusal to cooperate. Her behaviour had given officers reason to fear that she had mental health problems, while her refusal to give her identity meant no search could be made on the police national computer to assess whether she posed a risk.

“Her conduct is obstructive and there is no explanation given for its obstructiveness,” Yeo said. “Those circumstances are such as to lead a reasonable officer to consider that she may well have something she shouldn’t have, and there is no discernible reason for her behaving in the manner that she had.”


They're holding her, so they need to know who she is, so that they can determine if she has a criminal record, a history of violence or other harmful activity, or some other concern. They also need to know if she is carrying anything that could be dangerous, to herself, another detainee, or to an officers; or if she is attempting to smuggle something into the facility, especially drugs or a weapon.

This is practically universal across any jurisdiction, no matter what country, if you're in police custody. They're going to insist on knowing who you are and what you're carrying.

Since she refused to cooperate, they took away her choice in the matter. That, too, is pretty much universal across the board. She just happens to live in a country where they're actually pretty nice about it.

She claims after the fact that is was passive resistance; and maybe in her mind that's what it was. To the officers working that day, she was an unknown person who was acting completely out of the ordinary; and their job is to assess any potential threat she might present and establish her identity.

sardia wrote:I'm surprised cphite is arguing this so forcefully.


I dunno about forceful... We disagree and we've told each other why... But it's been a friendly discussion. Nobody is calling anyone else names, or accusing them of being terrible people... weird, right?

This thread is filled with monuments to the sins of law enforcement.


Because this simply ain't one of those...

I don't deny sharing a certain camaraderie with the police that isn't common on this forum, especially among folks who frequent this particular thread... but when I see cops actually abusing authority I am more than happy to call them on it; in large part because of that camaraderie. Because the bad ones make it more difficult for the good ones.

But in this case... from everything I've seen, they followed procedures that exist for good reason, and did so in a professional manner.

elasto
Posts: 3574
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby elasto » Thu Sep 06, 2018 10:04 am UTC

cphite wrote:They're holding her, so they need to know who she is, so that they can determine if she has a criminal record, a history of violence or other harmful activity, or some other concern.

It's possible you're not aware of this, but in the UK we fingerprint people on being charged with a crime. Also, in the UK, criminals sometimes lie about their identity. Hence checking her fingerprints should have been all that was necessary to demonstrate she had no criminal record or history of violence. If there were genuine concerns about mental illness, an assessment should have been carried out by medical personnel. There is no need to establish her identity beyond doubt unless she actually came to be charged with something.

They also need to know if she is carrying anything that could be dangerous, to herself, another detainee, or to an officers; or if she is attempting to smuggle something into the facility, especially drugs or a weapon.

Again, a simple search would suffice to achieve this. And given the circumstances of her arrest, in which her actions were spontaneous not premeditated, unless you think she walks around with a weapon permanently secreted in her ass, a strip-search was well beyond what common sense would call for.

She claims after the fact that is was passive resistance; and maybe in her mind that's what it was. To the officers working that day, she was an unknown person who was acting completely out of the ordinary; and their job is to assess any potential threat she might present and establish her identity.

That may be the job of your police. In the UK the police are tasked with interact with the public in a positive and de-escalatory manner. In this case simply asking what she was doing and, if necessary, forceably removing her from the scene should have been sufficient.

In the UK, violence against police officers is extremely rare, and violence committed by bystanders rare to the point of non-existence.

Common sense should have prevailed.

cphite
Posts: 1296
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby cphite » Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:30 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
cphite wrote:They're holding her, so they need to know who she is, so that they can determine if she has a criminal record, a history of violence or other harmful activity, or some other concern.

It's possible you're not aware of this, but in the UK we fingerprint people on being charged with a crime. Also, in the UK, criminals sometimes lie about their identity. Hence checking her fingerprints should have been all that was necessary to demonstrate she had no criminal record or history of violence.


Fair point. They apparently believed that they needed more; I don't know the details of their departmental operations to refute either side of the argument.

If there were genuine concerns about mental illness, an assessment should have been carried out by medical personnel. There is no need to establish her identity beyond doubt unless she actually came to be charged with something.


I believe, based on the article, that she actually was there to be charged, and that the charges were dropped later.

They also need to know if she is carrying anything that could be dangerous, to herself, another detainee, or to an officers; or if she is attempting to smuggle something into the facility, especially drugs or a weapon.


Again, a simple search would suffice to achieve this.


She refused to cooperate with the simple search; which is why they conducted the strip search. And only after they told her that not cooperating with the routine search would result in a strip search.

And given the circumstances of her arrest, in which her actions were spontaneous not premeditated, unless you think she walks around with a weapon permanently secreted in her ass, a strip-search was well beyond what common sense would call for.


Generally speaking, when you're being booked you're treated the same as anyone else no matter what you were arrested for; it simply doesn't matter. The rule is to check everyone, period.

She claims after the fact that is was passive resistance; and maybe in her mind that's what it was. To the officers working that day, she was an unknown person who was acting completely out of the ordinary; and their job is to assess any potential threat she might present and establish her identity.


That may be the job of your police. In the UK the police are tasked with interact with the public in a positive and de-escalatory manner. In this case simply asking what she was doing and, if necessary, forceably removing her from the scene should have been sufficient.


The job of your police on the streets is to with interact with the public in a positive and de-escalatory manner; but I am willing to bet that if you talk to the folks who actually work at facilities where they detain people, you'll find that a major part of their job is to assess any potential threat she might present and establish her identity. In fact, rather than take my word for it, let's go back to what the chair of the panel that decided the case had to say about it... from the linked article (emphasis mine):

Maurice Cohen, the chair of the panel, said: “Sgt Howard was running a busy custody suite and his primary responsibility was the safety of the staff and detainees and [he] must run a continuous risk assessment.

“He must consider the demeanour of a detainee, their vulnerability and whether they pose a risk to themselves or others and he was unable to ascertain from Dr Duff whether she suffered from any mental illness, other vulnerability or whether she was on drugs.”

Cohen concluded that, as Howard was unaware whether Duff may have had anything that she would not be allowed to have in custody, his actions were those of a responsible officer.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 06, 2018 2:46 pm UTC

cphite wrote:
Cohen concluded that, [b]as Howard was unaware whether Duff may have had anything that she would not be allowed to have in custody, his actions were those of a responsible officer.


Wouldn't this apply to literally anyone?

And yet, we don't strip search everyone. Her intent here wasn't particularly obscure. She wanted to give a card to the gentleman under arrest informing him of his legal rights. That's pretty straightforward, and doesn't imply any risk to the police.

ijuin
Posts: 931
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 6:02 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby ijuin » Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:12 pm UTC

I think that the argument here was that it does not matter at all WHAT the object that she handed to the suspect was—it matters only that she was handing him an object at all without first obtaining permission from the arresting officer.

Mutex
Posts: 1388
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Mutex » Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:21 pm UTC

And the fact that argument leads to a ridiculous outcome should give its proponents pause for thought.

There was absolutely no reason to put this women through this experience for handing someone a business card. This weird, absolutist "all objects are equally dangerous" idea is pretty far from common sense and only applying as much force as the situation demands.

elasto
Posts: 3574
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby elasto » Thu Sep 06, 2018 5:59 pm UTC

Mutex wrote:And the fact that argument leads to a ridiculous outcome should give its proponents pause for thought.

There was absolutely no reason to put this women through this experience for handing someone a business card. This weird, absolutist "all objects are equally dangerous" idea is pretty far from common sense and only applying as much force as the situation demands.

Exactly. It smacks of a 'zero-tolerance' lack of common sense that usually is beneath us.

Zero-tolerance-slavish-following-of-the-rules leads to kids being suspended from school for drawing a cartoon bomb or shooting with an imaginary gun, and that's not something I want to see in our schools let alone our police...

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Sep 06, 2018 7:09 pm UTC

Man jailed for days, denied medical care despite many pleas for help, dies horribly, over an arrest for some small unpaid court fees for an old, minor pot offense.

https://www.theadvocate.com/new_orleans/news/courts/article_76155bb6-b081-11e8-adbe-cb7f7db8f23a.html

Jail's being sued. Again. He's the sixth person to die there this year, and there seems to be a trend of deaths due to lack of care.

solune
Posts: 55
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 12:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby solune » Fri Sep 07, 2018 9:26 am UTC

cphite wrote:Generally speaking, when you're being booked you're treated the same as anyone else no matter what you were arrested for; it simply doesn't matter. The rule is to check everyone, period.


If we are saying that:
[*]There is a bad rule in place
[*]And it is being applied indiscriminately

Then telling us that:
[*]There is a rule
[*]And it is being applied to everyone the same

isn't going to be a compeling argument.
I'm not blaming you in particular, but that's an argument I find the police using on every story: "We followed the rules by the letter so don't blame us".

cphite wrote:Whenever you're detained you're going to be searched. It's a matter of basic safety.


cphite wrote:As a general rule, they're looking for weapons and drugs and anything else that might create a dangerous situation for you, other detainees, or corrections officers.


The problem here is that someone has decided that on the balance of the suspect's/other detainees'/officers' safety versus the right of citizens not to be strip-searched, the safety aspect was more important. We're back to that Franklin quote.

Remember that Chelsey Manning was basically tortured in the name of preventing her from killing herself, so clearly safety at all cost is not always in the interest of the citizen.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 07, 2018 2:47 pm UTC

solune wrote:The problem here is that someone has decided that on the balance of the suspect's/other detainees'/officers' safety versus the right of citizens not to be strip-searched, the safety aspect was more important. We're back to that Franklin quote.


I understand the need for searches when a danger can reasonably be believed to exist. There are instances in which a search is justified, but this one just isn't among there. If fixing that requires changing a law, then fair. If the cops are following the rules to the letter and doing wrong, then the rules need to be more restrictive.

It does seem like cphite is arguing against what should happen on the basis of what does happen. The fact that something's common practice doesn't make it right.

cphite
Posts: 1296
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby cphite » Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:02 pm UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:
cphite wrote:
Cohen concluded that, [b]as Howard was unaware whether Duff may have had anything that she would not be allowed to have in custody, his actions were those of a responsible officer.


Wouldn't this apply to literally anyone?


Literally anyone who was in police custody and who refused to cooperate.

And yet, we don't strip search everyone.


Correct. Under ordinary circumstances she would have been asked to empty her pockets and patted down. She refused to cooperate with that, hence the strip search. And according to the article, they explicitly told her that if she refused the routine search, she would be strip searched.

Her intent here wasn't particularly obscure. She wanted to give a card to the gentleman under arrest informing him of his legal rights. That's pretty straightforward, and doesn't imply any risk to the police.


Part of the problem here is that you are confusing and merging what are actually two distinct issues.

The first issue is that she interfered with a lawful search of a suspect. What she was handing him is irrelevant; the mere fact that she approached and handed him anything is the issue. She was arrested for that. An argument can be made that arresting her was unnecessary - but as I've said before, without knowing the actual details - her demeanor, the overall situation, etc - it'd be presumptuous to say either way. In any event, she was arrested.

The second issue was that she refused to cooperate while she was being booked. From their perspective, they have a woman who's been accused of obstruction and assault, who will not give her name or any other information, refuses to walk on her own, refuses to comply with routine procedures; what do you think is going to happen? Their job is to detain her and to ensure that she isn't a danger to herself or anyone else; and they frankly don't have the time or the resources to determine if someone is mentally unstable or just trying to make a point.

I understand the need for searches when a danger can reasonably be believed to exist. There are instances in which a search is justified, but this one just isn't among there. If fixing that requires changing a law, then fair. If the cops are following the rules to the letter and doing wrong, then the rules need to be more restrictive.


I could give you plenty of anecdotal examples of people getting arrested deliberately to sneak something into detention; or people arrested for trivial things who turned up being wanted for far more serious crimes; or people who manage to sneak something valuable into detention and get seriously fucked up by someone who wants to take it from them, etc, etc.

And when stuff does get past, it's usually because the people in charge of processing failed to do their jobs; and when that happens, it's often because they figured "This person seems fine..."

The point is if you're going to detain someone, you have to search them; and if they refuse to be searched, you still have to search them.

Anyway, we've been back and forth on this enough... I respect your position even if I don't agree with it.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 07, 2018 3:07 pm UTC

cphite wrote:The first issue is that she interfered with a lawful search of a suspect. What she was handing him is irrelevant; the mere fact that she approached and handed him anything is the issue. She was arrested for that. An argument can be made that arresting her was unnecessary - but as I've said before, without knowing the actual details - her demeanor, the overall situation, etc - it'd be presumptuous to say either way. In any event, she was arrested.


Y'see, this here is where we disagree. If she'd handed him a handgun while saying "kill the pigs", the police would have a legitimate safety concern.

A small card informing one of their rights does not present a legitimate safety concern.

If you're saying she ought to be treated the same way regardless of her actual threat, then that's a fundamental problem.

User avatar
Sabrar
Posts: 42
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2015 6:29 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Sabrar » Fri Sep 07, 2018 5:38 pm UTC


User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Fri Sep 07, 2018 7:05 pm UTC


Very senseless killing. If you kill someone in "self defense", but you were on the wrong home, does the castle doctrine still apply? AKA do you need criminal intent?

The police are kid gloving the officer, they haven't even recorded a statement from her yet. Gives her plenty of time to concoct the best possible story for her defense.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 07, 2018 7:28 pm UTC

sardia wrote:

Very senseless killing. If you kill someone in "self defense", but you were on the wrong home, does the castle doctrine still apply? AKA do you need criminal intent?


IANAL, but it shouldn't. Fundamentally, the officer isn't in her home, or any other home that she has any particular right to be. She's the intruder. If the homeowner shot her, I believe he'd be justly protected. Or at least, should be. Law has gotten messy in many cases where an officer has died. Even those where self defense was properly upheld have been hellacious for the defendant.

The police are kid gloving the officer, they haven't even recorded a statement from her yet. Gives her plenty of time to concoct the best possible story for her defense.


It's good of the police department to reassure us that the officer is uninjured. Clearly, that is the most pressing and important thing we need to know.

User avatar
Pfhorrest
Posts: 5005
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2009 6:11 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Pfhorrest » Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:37 pm UTC

Say someone is some kind of highly trained ex-military killing machine, and also a gun nut so he has easy access to lots of weapons lying around his home.

A jerkhole on the internet SWATs him over a video game dispute.

The police get a no-knock warrant on the grounds of the internet jerkhole's claims, and while the homeowner is sitting in his living room playing games suddenly men with guns kick down his door and storm in unannounced. He reacts quickly, grabs a weapon and shoots the intruders, who shoot back, and a firefight ensues.

Say the homeowner somehow survives, because he's Frank Castle or something. Legally, is he okay for defending his home against unknown unannounced armed intruders who turned out to have been cops?

Suppose the police burst down the wrong door entirely, and it was a neighbor who the internet jerk was trying to SWAT. (Which has happened). Does that make a difference?
Forrest Cameranesi, Geek of All Trades
"I am Sam. Sam I am. I do not like trolls, flames, or spam."
The Codex Quaerendae (my philosophy) - The Chronicles of Quelouva (my fiction)

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Sep 07, 2018 10:51 pm UTC

The first example has actually happened, and the defendant acquitted. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2014/02/10/some-justice-in-texas-the-raid-on-henry-magee/?utm_term=.930103482af5 There's another case as well that I believe I quoted up thread, but don't have memorized.

Still, that's like two cases, and police have shot a *lot* more wrong people in their homes than that and gotten away with it. Police officers on the clock get a lot of latitude. This particular case is after hours, and she doesn't seem to have any reason to do a forced entry anywhere.

Also, it's a bit harder to argue that one got the address wrong when the house in question is your own. I mean, it's possible, but usually someone has to be fairly drunk or otherwise incapacitated to not immediately recognize that they got the wrong door.

So, I'd say she's probably going to have a worse time of it than average.

Edit: Replaced link with better written article with more detail on the incident.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Sat Sep 08, 2018 12:12 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:The first example has actually happened, and the defendant acquitted. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2014/02/10/some-justice-in-texas-the-raid-on-henry-magee/?utm_term=.930103482af5 There's another case as well that I believe I quoted up thread, but don't have memorized.
Still, that's like two cases, and police have shot a *lot* more wrong people in their homes than that and gotten away with it. Police officers on the clock get a lot of latitude. This particular case is after hours, and she doesn't seem to have any reason to do a forced entry anywhere.
Also, it's a bit harder to argue that one got the address wrong when the house in question is your own. I mean, it's possible, but usually someone has to be fairly drunk or otherwise incapacitated to not immediately recognize that they got the wrong door.
So, I'd say she's probably going to have a worse time of it than average.
Edit: Replaced link with better written article with more detail on the incident.

I find it sad that you need to kill a bunch of cops before police start to reconsider no-knock (or yelling police as the flashbang goes off) policy over a couple pot plants. The whole point of a no-knock warrant is to prevent disposal of evidence. How was he going to destroy a bunch of giant pot plants? That cop was still mad at the innocent man though, they're going after Henry hard for the pot plants.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10268
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Sep 09, 2018 5:52 am UTC

So apparently, in 1981 there were 3000 no-knock warrants, versus 50,000 in 2005 and I'm guessing even more in 2017. Yet last I checked, there is far less illicit drug use than back in the 70's/80's. Maaaaybe we could do with fewer no-knocks?

elasto
Posts: 3574
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby elasto » Sun Sep 09, 2018 10:37 am UTC

Hold your horses there boy!

If the number of no-knocks has gone up and drug use has gone down, maybe more no-knocks would drop drug use even further!

Free no-knocks for all! Yay!!

Mutex
Posts: 1388
Joined: Wed Jan 09, 2008 10:32 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Mutex » Sun Sep 09, 2018 11:16 am UTC

(I know you're not serious, but) To be fair, alcohol and tobacco use has also dropped a lot since the 70s/80s.

I think the overall drop in drink/drugs consumption might be caused by the internet, and other on demand entertainment (including video/DVDs, games consoles). Used to be you could only block out the eternal agony of existence with chemicals, now we have a range of options to numb ourselves electronically.

elasto
Posts: 3574
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby elasto » Sun Sep 09, 2018 1:44 pm UTC

I agree that apps and social media provide doses of stimulation/oblivion on demand in amounts not far off what the milder drugs achieve, but I think this generation is also better educated than ever before - again, thanks largely to the internet.

I don't have any data for this but I'd imagine this generation not only doing less drugs overall, but also being much smarter in their choices when they do take drugs.

The blanket edict of "drugs r bad m'kay? Oh except for booze; That somehow goes from super-bad to super-great on a particular magical day, am I right??" was never anything but dumb. That still seems to be the message our schools push, but kids these days now have an alternative wealth of education at their fingertips.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10268
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby CorruptUser » Sun Sep 09, 2018 2:12 pm UTC

This generation is also have sex much later than prior generations, and teenage pregnancy is at an all time low, literally going down by half in just 1 decade.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Sun Sep 09, 2018 3:23 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:This generation is also have sex much later than prior generations, and teenage pregnancy is at an all time low, literally going down by half in just 1 decade.

Shhhhh, you'll make those old people manwhores feel less superior about how chaste and polite they were back in the day.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1065
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Coyne » Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:09 am UTC

CorruptUser wrote:This generation is also have sex much later than prior generations, and teenage pregnancy is at an all time low, literally going down by half in just 1 decade.

I was going to write something snide, but then I had a double take moment on this. Seemed like a very sudden/unreasonable change. Found this: Teen births have plummeted 51 percent over the past decade
In all fairness...

cphite
Posts: 1296
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby cphite » Mon Sep 10, 2018 2:42 pm UTC

sardia wrote:

Very senseless killing. If you kill someone in "self defense", but you were on the wrong home, does the castle doctrine still apply? AKA do you need criminal intent?


Most likely she will be convicted of manslaughter, which is appropriate. I don't believe the castle doctrine will apply, or that it should.

The police are kid gloving the officer, they haven't even recorded a statement from her yet. Gives her plenty of time to concoct the best possible story for her defense.


It would have to be one hell of a story. She was in the wrong apartment, she believed it was her own despite having to force her way in, and she shot an unarmed man. Even if she claims he made an aggressive move against her, it would be self-defense on his part.

I'd be curious to know if she was drinking or otherwise impaired; might explain her mistake, and the delay in processing her.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Mon Sep 10, 2018 4:23 pm UTC

Could just be old fashion implicit bias/racism. The sad thing is, it's a luxury apartment in a upscale neighborhood. Her racism must have been really ingrained*.

*Speculation, but an educated one.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:25 pm UTC

sardia wrote:I find it sad that you need to kill a bunch of cops before police start to reconsider no-knock (or yelling police as the flashbang goes off) policy over a couple pot plants. The whole point of a no-knock warrant is to prevent disposal of evidence. How was he going to destroy a bunch of giant pot plants? That cop was still mad at the innocent man though, they're going after Henry hard for the pot plants.


Yeah, despite it being their bad, they're gonna make his life hell for...not dying quietly, I guess. No knock raids sorta bug me. We had plenty of policing for many years before that became routine, why's it so essential? Crime isn't skyrocketing, it's actually reasonably low.

Cases of say, no-knock raids resulting in shooting of family pets is insanely common. Really is discouraging that it takes dead cops for them to care, but...from a cynical perspective, dead cops is always one of the few ways to get cops to actually care about something.

CorruptUser wrote:So apparently, in 1981 there were 3000 no-knock warrants, versus 50,000 in 2005 and I'm guessing even more in 2017. Yet last I checked, there is far less illicit drug use than back in the 70's/80's. Maaaaybe we could do with fewer no-knocks?


The drug war has been lost more clearly than Vietnam was. It seems insane that everyone keeps doubling down endlessly on strategies that we all know won't actually fix anything, but...yeah.

Thankfully, the legalization train at least got moving. That's probably going to do more to stop pointless conflict than anything else.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Mon Sep 10, 2018 8:31 pm UTC

Counterpoint, Trump's administration spearheaded by Jeff "southern Belle" Sessions disagrees. And he has the Justice department cracking down in every way possible.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:05 pm UTC

Everyone knows that Republicans prefer crystal meth.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10268
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby CorruptUser » Mon Sep 10, 2018 9:42 pm UTC

Nah, thanks to the opioid crisis, heroin is now the drug of choice for the Republican leaning portions of the country.

User avatar
sardia
Posts: 6562
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2010 3:39 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby sardia » Tue Sep 11, 2018 12:35 pm UTC

About the cop that broke into another guy's home and killed him
Is it ok to demand cops to give equal treatment when charged when equal treatment is typically really shitty? Is the interim goal of equal treatment a good idea because once powerful people face shoddy treatment, they'll be motivated to change it for everyone?

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10268
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Sep 11, 2018 1:09 pm UTC

sardia wrote:Is the interim goal of equal treatment a good idea because once powerful people face shoddy treatment, they'll be motivated to change it for everyone?


Yes.

Sauce for the goose...


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests