Police misbehavior thread

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

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:56 pm UTC

Alexius wrote:Following truly spectacular misconduct by local police, a family in Nevada take the Third.


Yeah, I heard about this...utterly insane. Before this, I would have said that maybe the Third wasn't really necessary, and we'd gotten past the need for listing it as an explicit right in society. Clearly, I was wrong on this. Sure, maybe it shouldn't have to be said that something so obviously bad is illegal, but there's obviously someone out there who thinks this is a valid way to conduct police business. I can't imagine why.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5649
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Diadem » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:08 pm UTC

Does the third apply to policemen though?
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: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Thesh » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:15 pm UTC

That's up for interpretation. I honestly think it could go either way.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby BattleMoose » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:25 pm UTC

Soldiers are very distinct from police officers. I would be very surprised if it could be applied to police officers. Regardless, surely, the police cannot forcibly use your home?!

cphite
Posts: 1155
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby cphite » Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:29 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:That's up for interpretation. I honestly think it could go either way.


Even if they don't win on the Third, they should certainly win on the assault and battery; I say should because lately it seems like the courts are more and more willing to turn a blind eye to this kind of thing.

This cop should end up behind bars; more likely, he'll get an unpaid vacation and then return to abusing people.

User avatar
omgryebread
Posts: 1393
Joined: Wed Dec 15, 2010 3:03 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby omgryebread » Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:43 pm UTC

There's only one real case ever decided on Third Amendment grounds, and that was Engblom v Carey in the second circuit. It decided that National Guardsman constitute soldiers for the purposes of the Third Amendment. Unfortunately, this part of the decision was upholding a district court decision, and doesn't elaborate on why they are considered soldiers. I can't find the text of that district court ruling, so I'm not sure if the same logic would apply to police.

If I were the lawyer for the police department, I would be arguing that exigent circumstances required the police to use this person's home and that their need to capture the suspect in their investigation constituted grounds for temporary seizure of the plaintiff's home. I would also be looking for another job, because that's a terrible argument.

The cops had no reasonable reason to seize the plaintiff's property without a warrant, and they had no justification to arrest the plaintiff. I don't think the Third is relevant, but it's not really needed.

cphite wrote:Even if they don't win on the Third, they should certainly win on the assault and battery; I say should because lately it seems like the courts are more and more willing to turn a blind eye to this kind of thing.
Eh. Courts are insanely permissive of what goes on in a lawful arrest. The validity of the assault and battery charges are entirely dependent on the validity of the arrest.
avatar from Nononono by Lynn Okamoto.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Thesh » Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:46 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:The cops had no reasonable reason to seize the plaintiff's property without a warrant

That's probably the better way to go after the case; fourth amendment would be much easier to argue.
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

Alexius
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:45 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Alexius » Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:08 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:Eh. Courts are insanely permissive of what goes on in a lawful arrest. The validity of the assault and battery charges are entirely dependent on the validity of the arrest.

I'm not sure how much this counts as a lawful arrest. Note that the charges against the plaintiffs (obstructing police) were all dismissed with prejudice. Apparently, that's pretty rare.

Thesh wrote:
omgryebread wrote:The cops had no reasonable reason to seize the plaintiff's property without a warrant

That's probably the better way to go after the case; fourth amendment would be much easier to argue.

Agreed- I don't actually think this is a Third Amendment case, as a finding that police are soldiers would cause all sorts of other problems. But it's closer than most attempts to use the Third have been.

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 » Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:54 pm UTC

omgryebread wrote:There's only one real case ever decided on Third Amendment grounds, and that was Engblom v Carey in the second circuit. It decided that National Guardsman constitute soldiers for the purposes of the Third Amendment. Unfortunately, this part of the decision was upholding a district court decision, and doesn't elaborate on why they are considered soldiers. I can't find the text of that district court ruling, so I'm not sure if the same logic would apply to police.

The district court gives that conclusion in one sentence:
First, the Guard is the modern day successor to the Militia reserved to the states by Art. I, § 8, cls. 15, 16 of the Constitution, and members of that organization must be considered "soldiers."

Probably they were so brief because they were dismissing the case on other grounds anyway.
Nothing rhymes with orange,
Not even sporange.

cphite
Posts: 1155
Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:27 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby cphite » Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:00 pm UTC

cphite wrote:Even if they don't win on the Third, they should certainly win on the assault and battery; I say should because lately it seems like the courts are more and more willing to turn a blind eye to this kind of thing.
Eh. Courts are insanely permissive of what goes on in a lawful arrest. The validity of the assault and battery charges are entirely dependent on the validity of the arrest.[/quote]

I think we both agree that calling this a lawful arrest is a pretty major stretch.

My point was, even if we assume that this is not considered a lawful arrest, it seems unlikely to me that this officer will face any serious consequences for his actions. He might get some unpaid leave, and the victim will get an apology; but that will probably be the extent of what happens.

User avatar
drkslvr
Posts: 205
Joined: Wed Mar 09, 2011 8:59 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby drkslvr » Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:41 pm UTC

cphite wrote:My point was, even if we assume that this is not considered a lawful arrest, it seems unlikely to me that this officer will face any serious consequences for his actions. He might get some unpaid leave, and the victim will get an apology; but that will probably be the extent of what happens.


All of which is amazing to me. It seems like the majority of people I know accept police brutality as a problem. It's hard to believe in a democracy like this one nothing has yet been done about it.
Help a paralyzed kitten get surgery! Fundly.com/Help-Link-Walk-Again
Image
Like Link's page for photos and updates on his status: Facebook.com/HelpLinkWalkAgain

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:30 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:Does the third apply to policemen though?


Questionable. We've generally extended it to all military people, not just members of the army proper, so clearly, an expansive view of "soldier" is being taken(properly, IMO). Police, however, do not usually fall under the same definition. That said, even if police are decreed to not be soldiers(quite likely, IMO), they should still not be able to arrest you simply because you don't want them to use your home. There's a number of grounds to use to challenge this case, including search and seizure...but even if say, the illegal search of the purse hadn't happened, the whole affair is still wrong, and police shouldn't be engaged in such retaliation merely because you prefer to stay uninvolved.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9419
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Tue Jul 09, 2013 7:37 am UTC

drkslvr wrote:
cphite wrote:My point was, even if we assume that this is not considered a lawful arrest, it seems unlikely to me that this officer will face any serious consequences for his actions. He might get some unpaid leave, and the victim will get an apology; but that will probably be the extent of what happens.


All of which is amazing to me. It seems like the majority of people I know accept police brutality as a problem. It's hard to believe in a democracy like this one nothing has yet been done about it.

What would you suggest we do?
Going to The Police is of limited value.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 917
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Coyne » Thu Jul 11, 2013 12:02 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:Soldiers are very distinct from police officers. I would be very surprised if it could be applied to police officers. Regardless, surely, the police cannot forcibly use your home?!

The point of the 3rd is to restrict government from taking over your home, for use by...whatever a soldier is. Soldiers vs. police? That's kind of gray, but at the time the 3rd was written, police action was performed by soldiers. And lots of times these days, police look like soldiers.

The challenge also includes charges of violation of the 4th and 14th Amendments. We'll have to see how it goes.
In all fairness...

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:42 am UTC

Coyne wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:Soldiers are very distinct from police officers. I would be very surprised if it could be applied to police officers. Regardless, surely, the police cannot forcibly use your home?!

The point of the 3rd is to restrict government from taking over your home, for use by...whatever a soldier is. Soldiers vs. police? That's kind of gray, but at the time the 3rd was written, police action was performed by soldiers. And lots of times these days, police look like soldiers.

The challenge also includes charges of violation of the 4th and 14th Amendments. We'll have to see how it goes.


Its not grey at all.

Police officers are warranted by the jurisdiction in which they are in to maintain law and order.

Soldiers are members of the armed forces of a country who do not have the authority to function as police officers. National guardsmen are members of the armed forces and should be considered soldiers.

The military is sometimes used to enforce martial law, this makes them soldiers enforcing martial law. At no time do they become or should be considered police officers.

And the third amendment was specific, private homes cannot be used for the quartering of soldiers. Seeing as these police officers weren't even quartered, it just isn't applicable.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Thu Jul 11, 2013 4:35 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:
Coyne wrote:
BattleMoose wrote:Soldiers are very distinct from police officers. I would be very surprised if it could be applied to police officers. Regardless, surely, the police cannot forcibly use your home?!

The point of the 3rd is to restrict government from taking over your home, for use by...whatever a soldier is. Soldiers vs. police? That's kind of gray, but at the time the 3rd was written, police action was performed by soldiers. And lots of times these days, police look like soldiers.

The challenge also includes charges of violation of the 4th and 14th Amendments. We'll have to see how it goes.


Its not grey at all.

Police officers are warranted by the jurisdiction in which they are in to maintain law and order.

Soldiers are members of the armed forces of a country who do not have the authority to function as police officers. National guardsmen are members of the armed forces and should be considered soldiers.

The military is sometimes used to enforce martial law, this makes them soldiers enforcing martial law. At no time do they become or should be considered police officers.

And the third amendment was specific, private homes cannot be used for the quartering of soldiers. Seeing as these police officers weren't even quartered, it just isn't applicable.


In this particular case, use of the house would appear to mean displacing the residents, with the police there instead. If that doesn't count as quartering, I don't know what does. Hell, the original revolutionary era cases did not even necessarily involve displacement, as soldiers were being put up in empty housing...but landlords were upset over being forced to have non paying tenants.

It's also quite clear that the idea of a large professional police force as we have today is not something they really had back then. Sure, they had perhaps a coupla guys in a decently sized city who formed a night watch or similar, but this is a role most like the private security guard today. They didn't really have special powers, they pretty much just protected the wealthy, standardization was minimal, and so on. The modern police force is large, professionally trained, well armed, and has undergone much militarization. While modern military and police are still defined separately, it is not at all clear how the intent of the 3rd amendment would apply today...we have kind of a lack of precedent to go on, so there's a serious historical gap, which will require some very big interpretations on the part of the judges either way.

Probably because of that, they'll likely prefer to rule on other grounds, but still, the third amendment issue here is interesting.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 917
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Coyne » Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:46 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:Soldiers are members of the armed forces of a country who do not have the authority to function as police officers. National guardsmen are members of the armed forces and should be considered soldiers.


You refer to the Posse Comitatus Act. That's more an accident of history than a real commitment by our government. Congress has weakened that fairly recently (both temporarily in 2006 and more permanently, see the "Recent legislative events" heading); and it never applied to state-authority National Guard.

It's quite clear that our government is enthusiastic about returning to the use of soldiers for law enforcement; that the "distinction" created by Posse Comitatus is artificial and may be completely temporary.

These days, with police driving around in tanks, using assault weaponry and employing military tactics; and soldiers participating to a greater and greater degree in law enforcement; I just don't see that sharp a distinction anymore. I have to wonder of the framers of the 3rd Amendment would see any distinction at all.
In all fairness...

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby BattleMoose » Thu Jul 11, 2013 7:30 am UTC

Tyndmyr wrote:In this particular case, use of the house would appear to mean displacing the residents, with the police there instead. If that doesn't count as quartering, I don't know what does.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quartering
the assignment of quarters or lodgings.

The third amendment exists largely as a response to the British, allowing for British soldiers to be housed (quartered) in private homes. Seeing as the police officers weren't housed in the home in question, didn't live there nor had any intention of living there, they can in no way be considered to have been quartered there or to have had intention of being quartered there.

Displacement is not the issue and not a requirement for a soldier to be quartered. While, not in relation to the third.

It's also quite clear that the idea of a large professional police force as we have today is not something they really had back then. Sure, they had perhaps a coupla guys in a decently sized city who formed a night watch or similar, but this is a role most like the private security guard today. They didn't really have special powers, they pretty much just protected the wealthy, standardization was minimal, and so on. The modern police force is large, professionally trained, well armed, and has undergone much militarization. While modern military and police are still defined separately, it is not at all clear how the intent of the 3rd amendment would apply today...we have kind of a lack of precedent to go on, so there's a serious historical gap, which will require some very big interpretations on the part of the judges either way.


The nature of the police force back then isn't relevant, as the amendment doesn't apply to police forces but specifically, soldiers. Soldiers and police officers are distinguished by the authority that has been vested in them by the state and their functions that they perform. That one group is beginning to look like the latter is not relevant.

There aren't precedents because since then, the USA military has not tried to force citizens to quarter, provide lodgings, to soldiers.

It's quite clear that our government is enthusiastic about returning to the use of soldiers for law enforcement; that the "distinction" created by Posse Comitatus is artificial and may be completely temporary.

These days, with police driving around in tanks, using assault weaponry and employing military tactics; and soldiers participating to a greater and greater degree in law enforcement; I just don't see that sharp a distinction anymore. I have to wonder of the framers of the 3rd Amendment would see any distinction at all.


It is illegal for the USA army to conduct law enforcement duties within the USA.

So even if it is argued that the police officers could be treated as soldiers, then by definition what they are doing is illegal, because they are soldiers and conducting law enforcement duties.

Either which way, they aren't soldiers and they weren't being quartered. There's no way to make the third, fit.

Mordus
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:55 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Mordus » Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:46 pm UTC

I'd never heard of 'dismissed with prejudice' before so I did some quick research. I can't find any reason for them to have dismissed the charges like that unless the judge was trying to protect the cops from just such a lawsuit.

Can someone explain a reason why they would have used the 'prejudice' for another reason?

If not it seems they knew that what they did was illegal and wrong and were trying to cover themselves from a deserved lawsuit.

User avatar
K-R
Posts: 1552
Joined: Thu Mar 15, 2012 6:42 pm UTC
Location: Australia

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby K-R » Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:54 pm UTC

Dismissal with prejudice prevents them from filing the charges again later.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Fri Jul 12, 2013 12:33 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:In this particular case, use of the house would appear to mean displacing the residents, with the police there instead. If that doesn't count as quartering, I don't know what does.


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quartering
the assignment of quarters or lodgings.

The third amendment exists largely as a response to the British, allowing for British soldiers to be housed (quartered) in private homes. Seeing as the police officers weren't housed in the home in question, didn't live there nor had any intention of living there, they can in no way be considered to have been quartered there or to have had intention of being quartered there.

Displacement is not the issue and not a requirement for a soldier to be quartered. While, not in relation to the third.


So? Pretty much the entire constitution as written was, at the time, a reaction to British excesses. Certainly the rights were. That does not mean that all future rulings on constitutional grounds are limited strictly to identical situations.

Also, a house is lodgings. The fact that the police no doubt had homes elsewhere does not change the fact that they were, in fact, occupying these lodgings. That part is pretty airtight. The questionable part is which way the court would go on the military clause.

It's also quite clear that the idea of a large professional police force as we have today is not something they really had back then. Sure, they had perhaps a coupla guys in a decently sized city who formed a night watch or similar, but this is a role most like the private security guard today. They didn't really have special powers, they pretty much just protected the wealthy, standardization was minimal, and so on. The modern police force is large, professionally trained, well armed, and has undergone much militarization. While modern military and police are still defined separately, it is not at all clear how the intent of the 3rd amendment would apply today...we have kind of a lack of precedent to go on, so there's a serious historical gap, which will require some very big interpretations on the part of the judges either way.


The nature of the police force back then isn't relevant, as the amendment doesn't apply to police forces but specifically, soldiers. Soldiers and police officers are distinguished by the authority that has been vested in them by the state and their functions that they perform. That one group is beginning to look like the latter is not relevant.

There aren't precedents because since then, the USA military has not tried to force citizens to quarter, provide lodgings, to soldiers.


That one group is beginning to look like the latter may indeed be relevant. The surpreme court often takes a very dim view of "this is exactly the same thing, but with a different name".

Remember when you said they were distinguished by functions that they perform? Yeah, the cops now perform functions that are far more military-like than past cops. Certainly far more than revolutionary era ones. SWAT teams weren't really in vogue yet. Let's put it this way...if the right to privacy guarantees to right to abortions constitutionally, the sc justices are clearly not limited to just reading words by rote from the constitution and only following them. They can extrapolate from what's there to a degree, and sometimes choose to do so. Will they in this situation? Who knows...there's not really a great reason for them to say that cops can demand whatever house they want, and that certainly isn't really in the spirit of the constitution.

It's quite clear that our government is enthusiastic about returning to the use of soldiers for law enforcement; that the "distinction" created by Posse Comitatus is artificial and may be completely temporary.

These days, with police driving around in tanks, using assault weaponry and employing military tactics; and soldiers participating to a greater and greater degree in law enforcement; I just don't see that sharp a distinction anymore. I have to wonder of the framers of the 3rd Amendment would see any distinction at all.


It is illegal for the USA army to conduct law enforcement duties within the USA.


Except for, you know, when it's not. National guard has been adjudicated to be soldiers. National guard totally does do law enforcement duties when required. Not all the time, sure, but it's pretty well established as a legal option.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 917
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Coyne » Sun Jul 14, 2013 5:16 am UTC

BattleMoose wrote:It is illegal for the USA army to conduct law enforcement duties within the USA.

So even if it is argued that the police officers could be treated as soldiers, then by definition what they are doing is illegal, because they are soldiers and conducting law enforcement duties.


The Third Amendment says "soldier", not "U.S. Army".

Today's police are more like the soldiers of 1787 than today's soldiers are. When something that acts like a soldier, is armed like a soldier, and employs military tactics arrests you and takes over your house without recompense; then it is pure sophistry to insist they aren't what the Third Amendment meant by the word "soldiers", just because we happen to call them "police".
In all fairness...

Princess Marzipan
Posts: 7717
Joined: Sun May 27, 2007 5:28 am UTC
Location: neither a road, nor an island

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Princess Marzipan » Sun Jul 14, 2013 4:04 pm UTC

The fact that it's sophistry doesn't mean a court wouldn't rule that way.
"It's Saturday night. I've got no date, a two-liter of Shasta, and my all-Rush mixtape. Let's rock!"
"I am just about to be brilliant!"
General_Norris, on feminism, wrote:If you lose your six Pokémon, you lost.

Alexius
Posts: 342
Joined: Mon Nov 03, 2008 4:45 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Alexius » Mon Jul 15, 2013 8:32 am UTC

Mordus wrote:I'd never heard of 'dismissed with prejudice' before so I did some quick research. I can't find any reason for them to have dismissed the charges like that unless the judge was trying to protect the cops from just such a lawsuit.

Can someone explain a reason why they would have used the 'prejudice' for another reason?

If not it seems they knew that what they did was illegal and wrong and were trying to cover themselves from a deserved lawsuit.

It was the charges against the residents of the house that were dismissed with prejudice, not the charges against police (have there even been any?). Apparently this means that the judge thought that charging them with obstruction was misconduct on the part of the police- and, as K-R said, means that they can't be charged again.

Dismissal without prejudice would mean that there was a procedural error in the charges and the police could just fix that and bring the charges again.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 15, 2013 11:30 am UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:The fact that it's sophistry doesn't mean a court wouldn't rule that way.


Correct. And that's why the outcome is very uncertain, rather than an airtight case.

Mordus
Posts: 34
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2013 2:55 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Mordus » Mon Jul 15, 2013 1:09 pm UTC

Alexius wrote:
Mordus wrote:I'd never heard of 'dismissed with prejudice' before so I did some quick research. I can't find any reason for them to have dismissed the charges like that unless the judge was trying to protect the cops from just such a lawsuit.

Can someone explain a reason why they would have used the 'prejudice' for another reason?

If not it seems they knew that what they did was illegal and wrong and were trying to cover themselves from a deserved lawsuit.

It was the charges against the residents of the house that were dismissed with prejudice, not the charges against police (have there even been any?). Apparently this means that the judge thought that charging them with obstruction was misconduct on the part of the police- and, as K-R said, means that they can't be charged again.

Dismissal without prejudice would mean that there was a procedural error in the charges and the police could just fix that and bring the charges again.


Ok, the article I was reading was a bit confusing. Made it sound like no charges in relationship to this could be brought up (such as the family suing the police department for it). Thank you.

User avatar
Coyne
Posts: 917
Joined: Fri Dec 18, 2009 12:07 am UTC
Location: Orlando, Florida
Contact:

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Coyne » Mon Jul 15, 2013 6:21 pm UTC

Princess Marzipan wrote:The fact that it's sophistry doesn't mean a court wouldn't rule that way.

True. Which is why the issue is gray. Until some court actually rules on this issue, we don't really have any idea how the courts would rule; and even after a lower court rules; that ruling could be overruled by an appeals court, which could in turn be overruled by SCOTUS.

It's a long road to a final answer.
In all fairness...

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9419
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Fri Jul 26, 2013 12:55 am UTC

The Police Station is Closed from 5 pm until 8am.
I do not understand the local Politics.
It is Politics. Who is Who? Who knows Who?

I was robbed. I had decided to get up on a stage and speak my mind.
No one was listening to me.

A group of men was talking loudly among themselves.
Some women were doing child care.
Others were busy chatting quietly.
One woman noticed me. That is all. One.

That afternoon I was in the same place the Police were, Repeatedly.
Before the sun set the window of my car had been broken and my computer, camera and all my ID were taken.

I attempted to report the crime in the evening.
The operator said, "It is not a crime in progress. I will take the information."

When morning arrived I went to the Police to report.
I got Yelled at.
A man in Uniform, a man I had spoken to and laughed with about my Plates was in No Mood for Laughing.
He told me off in no uncertain terms.

He was not interested in what had happened to me.
He was interested in the disrespect I was showing him by the way I wore my plates.

There was a young woman with me.
She said she would not have believed it, if she had not seen it with her own eyes.

That day I began the process of replacing my ID and I was so very glad the women at the bank know me on sight.
When I arrived back at my flat after a day of paperwork, I found my small bag with my ID in it waiting outside my door.
No money, no camera, no computer.

It feels a little like a threat. I am glad to have my ID back. Still.
It feels like, "Yes. People that will follow you and break your window and take your things know who you are and where you live. We also know your door is made of glass."

Police misbehavior?
Yes. It is both a way to make money and a way to have fun and a way to make a little extra money, sometimes.

I think I have a problem, Houston.
I think we may have a collective problem, Children.

The Police Chief? D. Andrews is nice enough usually.
His foul behavior on that day was not simply a mood he was in.
Or; He needs to go back to Officer School.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
LaserGuy
Posts: 4384
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2009 5:33 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby LaserGuy » Mon Jul 29, 2013 8:44 pm UTC

18 year old man shot nine times and tasered in an altercation with police on a Toronto streetcar. The special investigations unit tasked with looking into the incident has identified that twenty-three officers were present at the scene. The man was reportedly carrying a knife. He died in hospital of his injuries.

Possibly related: The man was of Middle Eastern descent.

Tyndmyr
Posts: 10132
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Tyndmyr » Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:24 pm UTC

Here in DC, a cop is being charged for possession with a high capacity magazine.

He originally purchased an AR-15 with documentation that it was training for a SWAT unit that was being planned at the time. Time goes on, the SWAT team idea goes nowhere, and the gun sits in the closet. Now, no SWAT team is planned at all, and he's a dirty, dirty criminal.

The background for this is that it's kind of a turf war between the different police organizations in the capital, and some are trying to get others treated as lessers, describing them as security guards and the like, and pulling shenanigans like this.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9419
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:42 pm UTC

LaserGuy wrote:18 year old man shot nine times and tasered in an altercation with police on a Toronto streetcar. The special investigations unit tasked with looking into the incident has identified that twenty-three officers were present at the scene. The man was reportedly carrying a knife. He died in hospital of his injuries.

Possibly related: The man was of Middle Eastern descent.

If what I saw on The First Clip was Real, then the Police Chief sounded concerned.
He said, 'They will investigate in evaluate Training and Procedures.'

I hope that is what he said. He said, "We will co-operate fully."
Toronto is in Sane Land! How could this happen in Sane Land?!

I will continue to read your Post.
The War is EveryWhere?! No! Can't Be!

Not in Canada! They are notoriously Sane and Even Tempered!
If I had an under bed, that is where I would go.

Peace. Remember The Dream? Have you ever heard a Rumor about Peace?
Fairy Tails? Of places where the people live without Fear.

Not delusional people. People living in Peace.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9419
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Mon Jul 29, 2013 9:46 pm UTC

ooopps. double post.
excuse me.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

mike-l
Posts: 2758
Joined: Tue Sep 04, 2007 2:16 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby mike-l » Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:38 am UTC

LaserGuy wrote:18 year old man shot nine times and tasered in an altercation with police on a Toronto streetcar. The special investigations unit tasked with looking into the incident has identified that twenty-three officers were present at the scene. The man was reportedly carrying a knife. He died in hospital of his injuries.

Possibly related: The man was of Middle Eastern descent.


New video shows the man running towards police with the knife wielded when he was shot.
addams wrote:This forum has some very well educated people typing away in loops with Sourmilk. He is a lucky Sourmilk.

elasto
Posts: 3104
Joined: Mon May 10, 2010 1:53 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby elasto » Wed Jul 31, 2013 9:12 am UTC

This case of police incompetence at least had a happy ending:

BBC wrote:A university student in the US city of San Diego has received $4.1m (£2.7m) from the US government after he was abandoned for more than four days in a prison cell, his lawyer said. Daniel Chong said he drank his urine to stay alive, tried to carve a message to his mother on his arm and hallucinated.

He was held in a drug raid in 2012, but told he would not be charged. Nobody returned to his cell for four days. The justice department's inspector is now investigating what happened.

Mr Chong, now 25, said he slid a shoelace under the door and screamed to get attention before five or six people found him covered in his faeces in the cell at the Drug Enforcement Administration's (DEA) San Diego headquarters.

After Mr Chong was rescued, he spent five days in hospital recovering from dehydration, kidney failure, cramps and a perforated oesophagus. He also lost 15lb (7kg).

Mr Chong was one of nine people detained in the raid in April 2012. Authorities determined that they would not pursue charges after questioning him.

One of Mr Chong's lawyers said a police officer then put him in the holding cell and told him: "We'll come get you in a minute."

Mr Chong said he thought he was forgotten by mistake: "It sounded like it was an accident - a really, really bad, horrible accident," he said.

The 5-by-10-foot (1.5-3m) cell had no windows and Mr Chong had no food or water while he was trapped inside for four-and-a-half days.

Mr Chong said he started hallucinating on the third day.

He urinated on a metal bench so he could have something to drink. He also unsuccessfully tried to set off a fire sprinkler to draw attention of the DEA authorities.

"I didn't just sit there quietly. I was kicking the door yelling," he was quoted as saying by the Associated Press news agency. "I even put some shoestrings, shoelaces through the crack of the door for visual signs. I didn't stay still, no, I was screaming."

At one point, Mr Chong admitted, he thought he was going to die. He broke his eyeglasses by biting into them and tried to carve a "Sorry Mom" farewell message. He managed to finish an "S".

DEA spokeswoman Allison Price confirmed that the $4.1m settlement had been reached, without providing further details, according to the AP.

The incident prompted the head of the DEA to issue a public apology last May, saying he was "deeply troubled" by the incident.

Mr Chong's lawyer said that as a result of the incident the DEA had introduced new policies for detention, including checking cells daily and installing cameras inside them.

Mr Chong, now an economics student at the University of California, says he plans to buy his parents a house.


link

BattleMoose
Posts: 1993
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2007 8:42 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby BattleMoose » Wed Jul 31, 2013 2:11 pm UTC

I remember reading that story after it happened. Very glad about outcome. I cannot imagine any amount of money can compensate for an experience like that. Really makes me angry.

User avatar
Thesh
Made to Fuck Dinosaurs
Posts: 5497
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2010 1:55 am UTC
Location: Colorado

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Thesh » Wed Aug 07, 2013 7:49 pm UTC

Cop beats woman for shoplifting.

http://www.bettergov.org/maul_cop/
Honesty replaced by greed, they gave us the reason to fight and bleed
They try to torch our faith and hope, spit at our presence and detest our goals

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Роберт » Wed Aug 07, 2013 8:26 pm UTC

Thesh wrote:Cop beats woman for shoplifting.

http://www.bettergov.org/maul_cop/

Quite so. Apparently you don't have to be black for cops to do that sort of thing. Holy crap. What did she say to him that made him flip out like that and attack her?
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

Heisenberg
Posts: 3789
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 8:48 pm UTC
Location: Uncertain

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Heisenberg » Wed Aug 07, 2013 8:32 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:Holy crap. What did she say to him that made him flip out like that and attack her?
Yes, clearly the abuser must have been provoked into beating the defenseless woman. :roll:

In DC the cops have decided to go back to spying the old fashioned way. They've been infiltrating a peaceful anti-sweatshop group in order to stop them from *gasp* passing out fliers. You know, like the first amendment says they can.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby Роберт » Wed Aug 07, 2013 9:10 pm UTC

Heisenberg wrote:
Роберт wrote:Holy crap. What did she say to him that made him flip out like that and attack her?
Yes, clearly the abuser must have been provoked into beating the defenseless woman. :roll:

Thanks for taking my sentence out of the broader context in order to accuse me of victim blaming. Because obviously I think cops must be saints and people only get beaten by them by some fault of their own. :roll:
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9419
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Gold Beach, OR; 97444

Re: Police misbehavior thread

Postby addams » Thu Aug 08, 2013 8:15 am UTC

drkslvr wrote:
cphite wrote:My point was, even if we assume that this is not considered a lawful arrest, it seems unlikely to me that this officer will face any serious consequences for his actions. He might get some unpaid leave, and the victim will get an apology; but that will probably be the extent of what happens.


All of which is amazing to me. It seems like the majority of people I know accept police brutality as a problem. It's hard to believe in a democracy like this one nothing has yet been done about it.

Yes. This is true.
A strong Majority and growing.
The People are frightened of The Police.

I know I am frightened.
I have Special reason to be frightened.

I had a good day, for me, a week or so ago.
I was having a conversation with two educated professional men.

The subject of Police came up.
The reactions of these two men surprised me.

These two guys are both Scientists.
One of those guys is Good.
I have seen some of his work.

They reacted Physically and verbally to the word, 'Police'.
These guys are the kind of man I would expect to run Toward the Police for help.

Both were Frightened of the Police. How sad.
Yes. The majority are frightened and accept the fear.

It is like living in Earthquake Country or Tornado Alley.
Smart people know it could happen to themselves.

But; Very nice professionals afraid of Police makes me wonder.
It seems to make you wonder, too. What can be done?

Democracy? It looks like Mob rule to me. Worse.
I spoke to nice middle class American woman, today.

What became clear as we spoke is;
The Uniform. It covers the man inside.

It is an important concept.
The Man Inside.

What does the Uniform mean?
If not worn, it means Off Duty.
Under that Off Duty is a Man.

If that man is a Gangster,
The uniform means Off Duty.

When he takes it off
He is still a Gangster on duty.

When he puts it on
He is still a Gangster with more Power.

Same with Good Men and Women.
They are still who they were before
slipping into something less comfortable.

What can be done?

It still reminds me of the stories from E. Germany a long, long time ago.
The Police were too hard on The People.
Martin Luther demanded freedom for The People.

The Police took off the uniform.
Those guys take lessons from the Criminals, too.

They were a great deal of the Trouble.
The Police know what will make
The People fold like a house of cards.

At this point we are screwed.
Unless you can get yourself inside a Uniform.

Even inside a Uniform is not a safe place from abuse by Police.
We have high profile cases.
A Policeman was hunted like a F.451 nightmare in California.
It is possible to clean up the mess. One person can not do it all.

Did you hear that World? The well educated Scientists are frightened of the Police.
Those guy may not be guilty of even White Lies.
The older and better educated of the two was not a man that lies.

He works with both macro-struchures and Chemistry.
His job is important. Not lying is a well developed habit with him.
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: ConMan, Liri, ucim and 17 guests