Police misbehavior thread

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu May 07, 2015 7:40 pm UTC

Based on that video, I'm going to have to say that the shooting was justified. Its not that a kid was just playing with a car, he thought he was playing GTA5 in real life or something. Driving through red lights... driving the wrong way on one-way streets... ramming police cars, driving on sidewalks... he clearly didn't care about public safety at that point and was extremely reckless.

Ideally, you'd hope that the Police would have had more options, but when the guy is driving a truck with more momentum than all the police cars... it is clear that the kid was using the truck as a weapon at that point unfortunately. And when the opponent is willing to use deadly force against the officers, it is only natural (and justified) for the officers to respond with deadly force back.

gmalivuk wrote:Jack Young retracted an earlier claim made by the police. Because the earlier police claim was false. How does that contradict my claim that the police were lying?


It doesn't. Maybe I should repeat myself?

I think you misunderstand my point as well as my perspective.


And I still think you misunderstand what I'm arguing for. But we can move the discussion to other issues, since this discussion doesn't seem to be going anywhere.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Thu May 07, 2015 9:13 pm UTC

Here is the link I think you were hunting for.
The Baltimore Sun
“After meeting with them today it is clear that the notion they were planning on harming our police officers is false and simply deterred the resources we needed to focus on the individuals who instigated these riots,” Young said. “I applaud these young men for standing here and speaking out for our city.”
Obviously Young couldn't retract it, since the it was a police matter. The press didn't lie about it since the bulletin was issued nationally. Gang intelligence is gang intelligence, which I assume means some type of snitch was involved, or that the police lied, which is within the realm of reason.

And to stir the pot we have a unarmed homeless man shot dead in Venice Beach Tuesday, in California, by members of LA's finest, as reported by CNN. No link, sorry.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26822
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Thu May 07, 2015 9:54 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:And to stir the pot we have a unarmed homeless man shot dead in Venice Beach Tuesday, in California, by members of LA's finest, as reported by CNN. No link, sorry.

http://abc7.com/news/man-shot-to-death- ... ll/699856/
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Thu May 21, 2015 10:08 pm UTC

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/baltim ... th-n362846

With all the people claiming this case is "just like Ferguson"...

The Baltimore case now has gone where neither the NYC case nor the Ferguson before it has gone. The grand jury found probable cause for the "big one", the 2nd Degree Depraved Heart Murder, but some of the other minor charges (like wrongful arrest) were shuffled around a bit. So the final charges are not the same that was originally announced, but they seem "close enough" to show that Mosby has some teeth.

The grand jury indicted Goodson, the van's driver, with second degree depraved heart murder; involuntary manslaughter; second degree assault; manslaughter by vehicle, gross negligence; manslaughter by vehicle, criminal negligence; misconduct in office and reckless endangerment.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
Paul in Saudi
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:52 pm UTC
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Paul in Saudi » Sat May 23, 2015 3:20 pm UTC

The police in Cleveland Ohio have been found not guilty.

http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2015/05/brelo_verdict.html#incart_big-photo

This was the where over one hundred Cleveland police officers joined in a vehicular pursuit in November 2012. It ended up with 130-something shots being fired into the car killing the unarmed couple inside. The court pointed out that although Officer Brelo stood on the hood of the (stopped) car and emptied his pistol into the two people, he could not be held liable since other people were shooting at the car too. Amusingly, Officer Breio maintains he does not remember firing any shots at all.

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KrytenKoro » Sat May 23, 2015 6:57 pm UTC

Paul in Saudi wrote:The police in Cleveland Ohio have been found not guilty.

http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2015/05/brelo_verdict.html#incart_big-photo

This was the where over one hundred Cleveland police officers joined in a vehicular pursuit in November 2012. It ended up with 130-something shots being fired into the car killing the unarmed couple inside. The court pointed out that although Officer Brelo stood on the hood of the (stopped) car and emptied his pistol into the two people, he could not be held liable since other people were shooting at the car too. Amusingly, Officer Breio maintains he does not remember firing any shots at all.

So, the argument is "other people helped me pull off a massacre, so we don't know which bullet actually did it"?

That's...legal?
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tirian » Sat May 23, 2015 7:15 pm UTC

Paul in Saudi wrote:Amusingly, Officer Breio maintains he does not remember firing any shots at all.


Trauma-induced amnesia is a thing, and not particularly amusing.

Prosecutors argued throughout Brelo's month-long trial that when other officers stopped firing, Brelo jumped onto the Malibu's hood and shot straight down at Russell and Williams. Those actions, they argued, were unreasonable and went well past his duties as a police officer.


I agree with that. But that's not homicide or felonious assault, it's conduct unbecoming of a police officer. If that's the only reason you have to distinguish Brelo from the other 12 officers who fired on the car, then I don't see why it merits a criminal conviction.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26822
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Sat May 23, 2015 7:16 pm UTC

Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 1109
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Coyne » Sat May 23, 2015 7:33 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:
Paul in Saudi wrote:The police in Cleveland Ohio have been found not guilty.

http://www.cleveland.com/court-justice/index.ssf/2015/05/brelo_verdict.html#incart_big-photo

This was the where over one hundred Cleveland police officers joined in a vehicular pursuit in November 2012. It ended up with 130-something shots being fired into the car killing the unarmed couple inside. The court pointed out that although Officer Brelo stood on the hood of the (stopped) car and emptied his pistol into the two people, he could not be held liable since other people were shooting at the car too. Amusingly, Officer Breio maintains he does not remember firing any shots at all.

So, the argument is "other people helped me pull off a massacre, so we don't know which bullet actually did it"?

That's...legal?


No, not really. Watch what happens when someone argues that after the bank robbery they participated in, where someone died, and you'll see what I mean. It's called "felony murder"; and all robbers are equally liable, whether they fired the kill shot or no shots at all. A synopsis of the Florida (Word document!) jury instructions for felony murder is:

  • Victim is dead
  • While engaged in the commission of a felony [defendant or accomplice] caused the death of victim
  • {Defendant who caused death/accomplice who caused death and defendant] were principles in the commission of the felony
  • Premeditation does not have to be proved

Don't know about the other state, but felony murder is generally similar, I think.

So Officer Brelo stands as the shining standard of the officers' lust for death, but he is not specially liable. The issue is this: Was the killing justified? The judge says, "Yea," so Officer Brelo is green.
In all fairness...

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Diadem » Sat May 23, 2015 10:36 pm UTC

Tirian wrote:I agree with that. But that's not homicide or felonious assault, it's conduct unbecoming of a police officer. If that's the only reason you have to distinguish Brelo from the other 12 officers who fired on the car, then I don't see why it merits a criminal conviction.

You don't see why executing two people, long after any potential danger for any officer of member of the public, has passed, warrants a criminal conviction?

I am continuously amazed by how far people will go to defend police brutality.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
TheGrammarBolshevik
Posts: 4878
Joined: Mon Jun 30, 2008 2:12 am UTC
Location: Going to and fro in the earth, and walking up and down in it.

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby TheGrammarBolshevik » Sat May 23, 2015 10:57 pm UTC

Some of us would even go so far as to read the actual decision, and question your claim that the shooting occurred "long after any potential danger."
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tirian » Sun May 24, 2015 12:42 am UTC

Diadem wrote:
Tirian wrote:I agree with that. But that's not homicide or felonious assault, it's conduct unbecoming of a police officer. If that's the only reason you have to distinguish Brelo from the other 12 officers who fired on the car, then I don't see why it merits a criminal conviction.

You don't see why executing two people, long after any potential danger for any officer of member of the public, has passed, warrants a criminal conviction?

I am continuously amazed by how far people will go to defend police brutality.


Where's your evidence that they were alive when Brelo jumped on the hood of their car despite the fact that he started shooting for fear of his life and would have been a sitting duck from that position? If you would have come forward with that evidence in time, it certainly would have helped the prosecution with their shaky case.

I don't defend police brutality. I don't even defend police overreaction like we saw here. We need to give the police the technology and supplies so that our reasonable "why didn't they"'s become things they can do. The suspects were outgunned and had little or no supplies. So we need to think of an apprehension strategy so that the police don't feel like their lives are jeopardized, because there's no reason that they should have been. We also need to teach police officers to calm the fuck down after getting amped up on adrenaline and testosterone during a chase, because I suspect that is a contributing factor in bad decision making with irreversible consequences.

By all means, let's transition Brelo to an occupation that is better suited to his abilities and temperament. But the answer is not to convict people of manslaughter who haven't been proved guilty of manslaughter.

User avatar
Paul in Saudi
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:52 pm UTC
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Paul in Saudi » Sun May 24, 2015 1:27 am UTC

So firing into two dead bodies is somehow acceptable? The man did it with the intent to kill. That is a crime.

Tirian
Posts: 1891
Joined: Fri Feb 15, 2008 6:03 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tirian » Sun May 24, 2015 1:55 am UTC

The Justice Department is looking into it. If that is a crime (or a violation of the victims' civil rights), Brelo will be charged with it.

Whether they do or not, his actions will never be "somehow acceptable". I don't know how many times I have to say that his actions were grossly unprofessional before I stop being accused of standing behind him. I'm really glad that the Baltimore six are charged with misconduct in office, because that should be a slam dunk and Maryland should feel good about making that a crime.

User avatar
Paul in Saudi
Posts: 262
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2012 12:52 pm UTC
Location: Dammam, Saudi Arabia

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Paul in Saudi » Mon May 25, 2015 2:04 pm UTC

Whitehouse, Texas: The police chief suspended himself and three of his officers after a chain of events that allegedly involved intoxication, drunk driving, unwanted sexual advances, and physical violence. The Texas Rangers are investigating the episode, which ended with one officer arrested for beating up the chief.

http://www.cbs19.tv/story/29119397/sources-whitehouse-pd-chief-made-sexual-advances-on-officers-wife-touched-off-scandal-that-got-five-suspended-at-city-hall

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

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Tue May 26, 2015 4:59 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/baltimore-unrest/baltimore-grand-jury-indicts-six-officers-freddie-grays-death-n362846

With all the people claiming this case is "just like Ferguson"...

The Baltimore case now has gone where neither the NYC case nor the Ferguson before it has gone. The grand jury found probable cause for the "big one", the 2nd Degree Depraved Heart Murder, but some of the other minor charges (like wrongful arrest) were shuffled around a bit. So the final charges are not the same that was originally announced, but they seem "close enough" to show that Mosby has some teeth.

The grand jury indicted Goodson, the van's driver, with second degree depraved heart murder; involuntary manslaughter; second degree assault; manslaughter by vehicle, gross negligence; manslaughter by vehicle, criminal negligence; misconduct in office and reckless endangerment.


In fairness, I strongly suspect that no such charges would have been brought if the case hadn't turned into headline news.

Baltimore will likely remain it's usual violent, terrible self(police and otherwise), these guys will just get hung out to dry because they happened to get caught.

Tirian wrote:
Paul in Saudi wrote:Amusingly, Officer Breio maintains he does not remember firing any shots at all.


Trauma-induced amnesia is a thing, and not particularly amusing.

Prosecutors argued throughout Brelo's month-long trial that when other officers stopped firing, Brelo jumped onto the Malibu's hood and shot straight down at Russell and Williams. Those actions, they argued, were unreasonable and went well past his duties as a police officer.


I agree with that. But that's not homicide or felonious assault, it's conduct unbecoming of a police officer. If that's the only reason you have to distinguish Brelo from the other 12 officers who fired on the car, then I don't see why it merits a criminal conviction.


It's not just the being on the hood. The key is 'everyone else stopped'. If the danger is apparently over, and you go into execution mode, that's....not cool. Even if the danger is justified, the goal is to stop the danger, not to murder as much as possible. Yes, stopping might involve lethal force, but execution is something else.

Really, I'd be okay with charges for all concerned, but it seems particularly appropriate to charge this fellow, and frankly, his defense is terrible.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed May 27, 2015 3:56 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:In fairness, I strongly suspect that no such charges would have been brought if the case hadn't turned into headline news.

Baltimore will likely remain it's usual violent, terrible self(police and otherwise), these guys will just get hung out to dry because they happened to get caught.


So you don't think the Police Commissioner, State's Attorney, or Mayor are enough to cause real and lasting change in the City of Baltimore? I'm fairly certain that the Western District Court of Baltimore will find a Jury that isn't as pro-police as Staten Island.

In any case, Marylin Mosby was explicitly elected to mend the relationship between the community and Baltimore Police Department. It was part of her campaign. I'd like to imagine that as the woman in charge of these officer's prosecution, maybe her opinion and work ethic had something to do with how these officers are getting prosecuted.

“The biggest problem in the city is the distrust of the criminal justice system,” Mosby told the AFRO. “My priority is to change the culture of distrust and bring all parts of the community together– the judges, the police, the people, the state’s attorney.” Mosby in 2013


Or do you not see any difference between Marylin Mosby (Baltimore Prosecutor) and Robert McCulloch (Ferguson Prosecutor)?
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26822
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Wed May 27, 2015 4:22 am UTC

Those are the two options? Mosby will either bring about real and lasting change or else there's no difference between her and McCulloch?
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Wed May 27, 2015 4:27 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Those are the two options? Mosby will either bring about real and lasting change or else there's no difference between her and McCulloch?


That's not even close to relevant to Tyndmyr's point. Lets go back to what he said earlier:

In fairness, I strongly suspect that no such charges would have been brought if the case hadn't turned into headline news.

Baltimore will likely remain it's usual violent, terrible self(police and otherwise), these guys will just get hung out to dry because they happened to get caught.


I hope I'm making my point clear. Elections matter. The person in charge of prosecutions matter. Mosby matters. People need to pay attention to these local politics, because these local leaders are the ones who decide whether or not a case gets past (or even brought up to) the Grand Jury, or how much evidence gets brought up in the (eventual) trial.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

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

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed May 27, 2015 12:57 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:In fairness, I strongly suspect that no such charges would have been brought if the case hadn't turned into headline news.

Baltimore will likely remain it's usual violent, terrible self(police and otherwise), these guys will just get hung out to dry because they happened to get caught.


So you don't think the Police Commissioner, State's Attorney, or Mayor are enough to cause real and lasting change in the City of Baltimore? I'm fairly certain that the Western District Court of Baltimore will find a Jury that isn't as pro-police as Staten Island.

In any case, Marylin Mosby was explicitly elected to mend the relationship between the community and Baltimore Police Department. It was part of her campaign. I'd like to imagine that as the woman in charge of these officer's prosecution, maybe her opinion and work ethic had something to do with how these officers are getting prosecuted.


People say lots of things when going for election. They might even mean them. And sure, it's good that there's at least recognition of the problem, but...seriously, we had, what, 26 people shot over the weekend? Eight or so deaths? http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/28-people-shot-baltimore-memorial-day-weekend-article-1.2235531Things are back to normal, and while yeah, these guys are getting prosecuted, does that necessarily fix the culture of how half a dozen guys felt it was okay to do all this to begin with?

Never mind that they already dropped the idea of charging them with false imprisonment. And charged is not convicted. They might well get off on the remaining charges, on the basis that the policy of properly belting in prisoners was a fairly new one(which is also kind of odd, but...such is life).

And this is a case with a ton of attention. The more attention a case gets, the harder it is to brush under the rug. I feel fairly safe saying that most similar cases just don't reach public awareness. For every case of brutality we see that hits national news, there are a ton where for whatever reason, they just don't. Not every murder here is even newsworthy, let alone every arrest, or use of police violence. There's still a great deal of rage simmering along out there, both among police and the community. This problem ain't fixed.

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Fri May 29, 2015 3:45 pm UTC

Pregnant black woman wrestled to ground, arrested, detained in police car for not giving her last name fast enough.

“I actually do have the right to ask you for your name,” the officer replied.

“Let me make sure,” Cooks said as she took out her phone to call someone.

The police officer seemed happy at first for Cooks to make the call, saying she had two minutes. However, the video shows that after around 20 seconds, the officer began to become agitated and asked the woman to provide her name.

The situation quickly escalated as the officer and a colleague tried to handcuff Cooks and eventually took her down onto the floor, chest first, despite the fact that she was eight months pregnant.

The officer asked Cooks, “why are you resisting?” to which Cooks replied, “Please, I am pregnant!”

Eventually, a number of officers managed to get the distraught Cooks into a police patrol car, telling her she was “under arrest.”

"I felt the pressure on my stomach from falling and I was calling for help. But those guys are supposed to help me. But who is supposed to help me when they are attacking me?"

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Thesh » Sat May 30, 2015 2:08 am UTC

According to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_ ... y_statutes

California has no "Stop and Identify" statutes, so she was completely 100% in the right; she had committed no crime, and the officer had no reason to detain her at all.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Diadem » Sat May 30, 2015 6:32 am UTC

Thesh wrote:According to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_ ... y_statutes

California has no "Stop and Identify" statutes, so she was completely 100% in the right; she had committed no crime, and the officer had no reason to detain her at all.

She was driving a car, and involved in a (extremely minor) traffic accident. Police are allowed to ask drivers for identification even in states that don't have 'stop and identify' laws.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 6598
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Thesh » Sat May 30, 2015 7:40 am UTC

They didn't say it was an accident, they said it was an "altercation" - basically, she was having an argument with someone.
Summum ius, summa iniuria.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Diadem » Sat May 30, 2015 5:35 pm UTC

Fair enough. But either way she was a driver, and police are allowed to ask for ID.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Grop
Posts: 1998
Joined: Mon Oct 06, 2008 10:36 am UTC
Location: France

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Grop » Sat May 30, 2015 6:26 pm UTC

(Which doesn't justify the use of violence in that case ~ but you didn't say that).

User avatar
Mighty Jalapeno
Inne Juste 7 Dayes I Wille Make You A Hero!
Posts: 11265
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 9:16 pm UTC
Location: Prince George In A Can
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Mighty Jalapeno » Sat May 30, 2015 7:41 pm UTC

They are allowed to ask. And she is allowed to protest that until she finds confirmation. And the cops should be prepared to educate citizens as to their rights, preferably by knowing enough about those rights to be considered a trustworthy source. Until all parties are satisfied as to the rights provided to each party, there doesn't seem to be much GAIN from violently arresting someone for the crime of 'actively looking up information to better answer police questions'.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Sun May 31, 2015 2:43 am UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:They are allowed to ask. And she is allowed to protest that until she finds confirmation. And the cops should be prepared to educate citizens as to their rights, preferably by knowing enough about those rights to be considered a trustworthy source. Until all parties are satisfied as to the rights provided to each party, there doesn't seem to be much GAIN from violently arresting someone for the crime of 'actively looking up information to better answer police questions'.
Just out of curiosity, exactly how would she get that confirmation?

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26822
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Sun May 31, 2015 3:56 am UTC

Presumably by calling and talking to whomever it was she was trying to call and talk to at the time the cop got impatient and decided to take her down and arrest her instead.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun May 31, 2015 6:30 am UTC

Mighty Jalapeno wrote:They are allowed to ask. And she is allowed to protest that until she finds confirmation. And the cops should be prepared to educate citizens as to their rights, preferably by knowing enough about those rights to be considered a trustworthy source. Until all parties are satisfied as to the rights provided to each party, there doesn't seem to be much GAIN from violently arresting someone for the crime of 'actively looking up information to better answer police questions'.


Unfortunately, the video is a perfect example of what not to do with Police right now. But at the same time, Police need to recognize the language of less educated? (knowledgeable?) people and perhaps treat them a bit better. At the end of the day, Police are bureaucrats and they speak the language of bureaucrats. Poor cops can get confused about the steps, but they typically undergo specific training. The correct key-words at the right points can bring back your rights if you know them.

Spoiler:
"Less educated" as in, those who don't know the arcane incantations of bureaucratic law in the correct order. I know of the various states of police detention mostly due to my "Law" class in High School (which invited Police Officers to describe the rights to everyone so people knew what goes on during police stops). Understanding that Police officers have a job, and that they're mostly following a script goes a long way towards saying the right things in the right order.

I took the high school "law" class on a whim, because I needed another social study credit. It certainly isn't knowledge that is typically taught, at least in the high school I went to. Still, knowing how Police officers look at the situation is definitely useful IMO.

Well... at least in theory: I haven't been arrested yet, and haven't really been put into a situation where I felt the need to pull out this knowledge. But with that said, I think its still worth sharing what little I do know.


1. Officers are allowed to "stop" you and ask questions. During this phase, you are free to leave. There are no "police powers" under use right now. Just as anyone on the street can stop you and ask you questions, a police officer is allowed to stop you and ask you for questions.

2. Officers can escalate a situation to "detained" if there is a reasonable suspicion for a crime. Officers gain additional powers while you are detained. They can search you, including frisking you for weapons or contraband. Furthermore, you lose your right to leave freely, you must stay with the officers as long as you are "detained".

IMO, it seemed like the Officer interpreted the lady as leaving him as she turned away from him, and then escalated the situation to an arrest. I think we all can agree that the officer should have allowed the lady to have her legal counsel (Americans should _always_ have the right to legal counsel), as well as the right to plead the fifth. It would seem like in this case, the officer got confused about the steps and made an error in judgement. IIRC, officers commonly make mistakes during "detaining" suspects, so its important for you to know what rights you do have.

Anyway, You have a right to be detained only for an appropriate amount of time (up to 15 minutes for a traffic stop, varies by situation as well). At which point the officer needs to let you go. You still have a right to a lawyer and the right to remain silent while detained.

IMO, I think the lady would have had a very different situation if she knew her rights and before getting on the phone, she said "Officer: am I free to go?". The officer would then say "No, You aren't free to go. I have some questions for you". Then she'd should be allowed to ask questions on her phone. However, she'd also have to be clear with the officer that she'd still be working with him (in particular, turning away was probably interpreted as her attempting to flee the officer... unfortunately). Another point: Police often understand "bureaucratic speak". Reminding the officer that you are in a state of "Detained" and that you are seeking "Legal Counsel" often works the magic. Lady responded more... typically in the situation. But speaking the language that Police understand can help prevent misunderstandings.

EDIT: Found a good video about the situation. That's more or less what I was taught in school. It doesn't necessarily mean the officer will treat you pleasantly, but it does communicate the fact that you know your rights to the Police officer.

3. "Arrest" is the final step, which the officers put you in a car and off to jail with you. I'd argue that the video was an unlawful arrest, but I think the right words could have prevented the situation. Still, in the case of actual arrest, you must comply with the officers and not resist.

When evidence comes out later, it will be clear that you weren't resisting arrest and you'll sue the police department... and throw out the illegally gathered evidence before court. That does take some legal know-how unfortunately and starts getting to the obscure corners of law. Might even vary on a state-by-state basis.

-----------------

Thesh wrote:According to this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_ ... y_statutes

California has no "Stop and Identify" statutes, so she was completely 100% in the right; she had committed no crime, and the officer had no reason to detain her at all.


Officers are allowed to detain you for "reasonable suspicion". She was almost certainly under a state of "detained" during the altercation. There was a traffic incident and the other lady was pointing a finger at her, that more than qualifies as "reasonable suspicion". Escalating the situation to "Arrest" definitely seems unwarranted however.

-----------------

In any case, it is important for citizens to understand the state of "Detained", and how to interact with officers in that state. (At least, in theory). In the majority of cases, officers will be a bit more cautious against people who know their rights... because if they follow improper procedure then you can ping them in courts later. So definitely study up. The state of "detained" is very common: every traffic stop is technically a state of "detained".

I personally didn't know about "Stop and Identify" laws either. So it seems like the details of "Detained" vary on a state-by-state basis. So study up for sure.

Diadem wrote:Fair enough. But either way she was a driver, and police are allowed to ask for ID.


In the US, you have a right to independent legal counsel. It slows things down a bit, but I'd have to say the cop was itching for an arrest that day or something. With that said, I'm pretty sure you do have to show proper identification when an officer asks for it. But an officer should never stop someone from requesting legal counsel.

EDIT: In the US, the Police are allowed to use everything you said from "stage 1" and "Stage 2: detained" against you. It is only natural for citizens therefore to be distrustful of police when they are being detained. I think it is an expectation that Police be patient with a citizen who is detained and double-checking the legal status of various situations on a cell phone.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Sun May 31, 2015 10:59 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:Presumably by calling and talking to whomever it was she was trying to call and talk to at the time the cop got impatient and decided to take her down and arrest her instead.
It didn't sound like she was seeking expert knowledge.
KnightExemplar wrote:Anyway, You have a right to be detained only for an appropriate amount of time (up to 15 minutes for a traffic stop, varies by situation as well). At which point the officer needs to let you go. You still have a right to a lawyer and the right to remain silent while detained.
Unfortunately this is the type of thing where what is legal and what is practical are two different things. Cops are a lot like a scorpion, and you pull their noses at your hazard. And she was eight months pregnant. She risked her baby by doing something she didn't have to do. If her idea was to stand on her rights, then she should have stood mute. If arrested, than go quietly, then sue after the fact. That the cops were stupid and that what they did was dangerous, disguises the point. It's fairly obvious in the video that everyone's brains took a vacation after some point.

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5941
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Angua » Sun May 31, 2015 1:14 pm UTC

Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26822
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby gmalivuk » Sun May 31, 2015 2:40 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:Presumably by calling and talking to whomever it was she was trying to call and talk to at the time the cop got impatient and decided to take her down and arrest her instead.
It didn't sound like she was seeking expert knowledge.
What, pray tell, does it sound like to "seek expert knowledge"?

Also, lawyers aren't the only ones with the relevant knowledge, regardless of whether she was calling hers.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
Angua
Don't call her Delphine.
Posts: 5941
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 12:42 pm UTC
Location: UK/[St. Kitts and] Nevis Occasionally, I migrate to the US for a bit

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Angua » Sun May 31, 2015 2:58 pm UTC

Also, it's not beyond the realm of possibility that the friend she was calling was a lawyer. Lawyers do have friends.
Crabtree's bludgeon: “no set of mutually inconsistent observations can exist for which some human intellect cannot conceive a coherent explanation, however complicated”
GNU Terry Pratchett

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Sun May 31, 2015 5:33 pm UTC

gmalivuk wrote:What, pray tell, does it sound like to "seek expert knowledge"?

Also, lawyers aren't the only ones with the relevant knowledge, regardless of whether she was calling hers.
Coherent. And you should know what a Lawyer might have said. Stay mute and don't resist. Since she tried to walk away, guess what? If she was getting advice it wasn't good.

Have you ever been stopped for something other than a traffic offense? I can answer yes. The phrase that comes to mind is stay cool. Old fashioned but I like it. If he busts your chops smile and wait until events turn your way. You don't argue the law on a street corner. It isn't a courtroom. The time and the place for that is later. You can be right and get locked up, or you can shut up and comply and walk away. She hadn't done anything. He had her name because he had seen her car. She gave him half of it. Why walk away? My guess is that she doesn't respect cops. I don't blame her. But even if you don't respect the cops you need to decide what kind of day you want to have.

Unfortunately she reminds me of someone I know, who's greatest enemy is her mouth. All the more so if she believes she is right.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun May 31, 2015 5:51 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:What, pray tell, does it sound like to "seek expert knowledge"?

Also, lawyers aren't the only ones with the relevant knowledge, regardless of whether she was calling hers.
Coherent. And you should know what a Lawyer might have said. Stay mute and don't resist. Since she tried to walk away, guess what? If she was getting advice it wasn't good.


The lady didn't say "walk away". She turned away from the officer probably so that she could hear better on the phone. I see the officer's "checkmarks" going through his head though. He probably interpreted the turn away as her trying to escape her detainment, at which point he was "technically in the right" to arrest her.

But I think we expect an officer to do more than just run down through the bureaucratic process and instead show some compassion. I don't think it was a racial thing, I think it was a "checkmarks" thing. Officer recognized that he had gained the "checkmarks" and had gained the authority to arrest her. But that doesn't mean he _should_ have used those powers, even if he was "technically correct" in executing them.

Have you ever been stopped for something other than a traffic offense? I can answer yes. The phrase that comes to mind is stay cool. Old fashioned but I like it. If he busts your chops smile and wait until events turn your way. You don't argue the law on a street corner. It isn't a courtroom. The time and the place for that is later. You can be right and get locked up, or you can shut up and comply and walk away. She hadn't done anything. He had her name because he had seen her car. She gave him half of it. Why walk away? My guess is that she doesn't respect cops. I don't blame her. But even if you don't respect the cops you need to decide what kind of day you want to have.

Unfortunately she reminds me of someone I know, who's greatest enemy is her mouth. All the more so if she believes she is right.


EDIT: Your use of "walk away" is confusing btw. I probably can totally argue technicalities with your phrasing forever.

Anyway, she "walked away" because there was a cultural misunderstanding. She didn't understand the state of "detained". And the officer didn't understand that walking away to hear better on a cell phone is a sane thing to do. Regardless, officers of the law should never never never be denying legal counsel to a citizen.
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby elasto » Sun May 31, 2015 6:00 pm UTC

morriswalters wrote:Have you ever been stopped for something other than a traffic offense? I can answer yes. The phrase that comes to mind is stay cool. Old fashioned but I like it. If he busts your chops smile and wait until events turn your way. You don't argue the law on a street corner. It isn't a courtroom. The time and the place for that is later. You can be right and get locked up, or you can shut up and comply and walk away. She hadn't done anything. He had her name because he had seen her car. She gave him half of it. Why walk away? My guess is that she doesn't respect cops. I don't blame her. But even if you don't respect the cops you need to decide what kind of day you want to have.

Unfortunately she reminds me of someone I know, who's greatest enemy is her mouth. All the more so if she believes she is right.

Meh. You're arguing from the point of view of the individual woman, not from the point of view of society.

I'm sure the smart thing for Rosa Parks to have done would have been to smile, bite her tongue and just comply with the instructions being given to her.

Your advice of 'keeping quiet even when in the right' does nothing to help police officers respect the law. Public outrage over unjust and disproportionate force is an important driver of institutional change - much more so than a court quietly berating an officer away from the public eye, and it's a bit disappointing that you seem to imply that standing up for your legal rights is a bad thing. Sure, it might be unwise but it should be applauded rather than dismissed.

KnightExemplar
Posts: 5494
Joined: Sun Dec 26, 2010 1:58 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby KnightExemplar » Sun May 31, 2015 6:08 pm UTC

elasto wrote:
morriswalters wrote:Have you ever been stopped for something other than a traffic offense? I can answer yes. The phrase that comes to mind is stay cool. Old fashioned but I like it. If he busts your chops smile and wait until events turn your way. You don't argue the law on a street corner. It isn't a courtroom. The time and the place for that is later. You can be right and get locked up, or you can shut up and comply and walk away. She hadn't done anything. He had her name because he had seen her car. She gave him half of it. Why walk away? My guess is that she doesn't respect cops. I don't blame her. But even if you don't respect the cops you need to decide what kind of day you want to have.

Unfortunately she reminds me of someone I know, who's greatest enemy is her mouth. All the more so if she believes she is right.

Meh. You're arguing from the point of view of the individual woman, not from the point of view of society.

I'm sure the smart thing for Rosa Parks to have done would have been to smile, bite her tongue and just comply with the instructions being given to her.

Your advice of 'keeping quiet even when in the right' does nothing to help police officers respect the law. Public outrage over unjust and disproportionate force is an important driver of institutional change - much more so than a court quietly berating an officer away from the public eye, and it's a bit disappointing that you seem to imply that standing up for your legal rights is a bad thing. Sure, it might be unwise but it should be applauded rather than dismissed.


What I've been told is to get the officer badge number / license plate, memorize that and file an official complaint after-the-fact.

Official action that comes down from the officer's boss is really the only way you are going to change an individual officer's behavior. I don't think arguing with the cop (even if you are in the right) is the correct thing to do. It is important to recognize the bureaucratic process that cops live under. They see the world as checkmarks and stages, and when you're dealing with them, you should speak their language and culture.

Being the "arrested belligerent" doesn't help anybody. An official complaint that will affect the officer's permanent record, hampering his ability to get promoted? That's gonna sting for years to come. And its only really going to help if you speak the language and follow the proper procedures (like any other bureaucracy)
First Strike +1/+1 and Indestructible.

elasto
Posts: 3778
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby elasto » Sun May 31, 2015 6:44 pm UTC

KnightExemplar wrote:What I've been told is to get the officer badge number / license plate, memorize that and file an official complaint after-the-fact.

Official action that comes down from the officer's boss is really the only way you are going to change an individual officer's behavior.

The problem comes when the officer's boss thinks he's above the law too.

It's like with racism: It's a fantasy to think that only front-line officers are racist and that institutional racism isn't a thing.

I don't think arguing with the cop (even if you are in the right) is the correct thing to do.

Like I say, do you think that Rosa Parks arguing with the instruction given to her was incorrect also? From a personal point of view it obviously was incorrect. But we're all grateful she did, aren't we?

Being the "arrested belligerent" doesn't help anybody.

Who is talking about belligerence? Quietly repeating your rights, causing the officer to lose his temper and use unjust and disproportionate force - so long as the whole thing is being recorded and can be uploaded for public consumption - is an extremely brave and worthy course of action to take. Obviously if it's not being recorded, the correct thing to do would be just to comply.

Likewise, if you're being raped, the wise thing to do is not to fight back, to let it happen, and then hope the police catch him later. But would anyone talk so negatively about people who do fight back against rapists in the same way that some here are talking negatively about fighting police officers abusing their position?

An official complaint that will affect the officer's permanent record, hampering his ability to get promoted? That's gonna sting for years to come.

How likely is an official complaint to do that given that the institutions involved have a history of closing ranks..?

morriswalters
Posts: 7073
Joined: Thu Jun 03, 2010 12:21 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby morriswalters » Sun May 31, 2015 8:07 pm UTC

elasto wrote:Your advice of 'keeping quiet even when in the right' does nothing to help police officers respect the law. Public outrage over unjust and disproportionate force is an important driver of institutional change - much more so than a court quietly berating an officer away from the public eye, and it's a bit disappointing that you seem to imply that standing up for your legal rights is a bad thing. Sure, it might be unwise but it should be applauded rather than dismissed.
You applaud her. I on the other hand see her as a women who has an obligation to her unborn child. You confuse civil disobedience with throwing a temper tantrum. If she wasn't going to give her name then that is all there is to it. Let him arrest you and go to court to expose the injustice.
elasto wrote:I'm sure the smart thing for Rosa Parks to have done would have been to smile, bite her tongue and just comply with the instructions being given to her.
She isn't Rosa Parks and the situations are not similar. Just for the record read the Wikipedia entry. Here is the arrest record.Image
She made her stand and made the cop arrest her. She did not resist.

KnightExemplar wrote:Your use of "walk away" is confusing btw. I probably can totally argue technicalities with your phrasing forever.
Walk away, as in turn around and attempt to leave.
KnightExemplar wrote:But I think we expect an officer to do more than just run down through the bureaucratic process and instead show some compassion.
You have a high opinion of what you expect from cops. Quite frankly, to me, the idea of losing focus by getting on the phone in the middle of an interaction with cops is like looking away from a wolf who has you in his sights. There is nothing you can do on a phone and nothing anyone can say to you that can make a difference to the cop at that moment in time. If you choose to defy him then you make your stand and let him do his thing. What you don't do is resist.

Just for the record I perceive the video as being footage from a body cam.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests