4 ms·

> There was no threat of a future crime. If there is any circumstance in which someone is likely to commit future crimes, it's probably after shooting a cop an

by ggreer 11y ago

> There was no threat of a future crime. If there is any circumstance in which someone is likely to commit future crimes, it's probably after shooting a cop and taking their gun. At that point, the punishment is so bad that additional crimes are a rounding error. If carjacking or robbery can decrease your chances of getting caught, they're worth doing. Ditto for destroying evidence. It's fortunate that none of these things happened, but they all too easily could have. > So why is it ethical to throw out all the checks and balances? I never said that. I live in Oakland. I know my phone could be targeted. I'm completely in favor of checks and balances. I'm simply looking at the specifics of this case: Someone is accosted, beaten, and shot by armed gang members. An informant names some suspects. Is it ethical to look up the location of their phones? I'm pretty sure it is. If you disagree, I'd love to hear where you'd draw the line for stinger use. > The police department was obviously just embarrassed that service weapons had been stolen. That was a factor, but it was minor. The main reason for the OPD's ridiculous overreaction was that one of their own had been shot. That's what I wish had been the focus of this story: Poor training (and possibly corruption) causing public servants to do a bad job.

pdkl95 11y ago
> Is it ethical to look up the location of their phones? Sure it is. They just have to get a warrant. This is not a difficult burden in such a situation. Remember that a warrant requirement only requires probably cause, which is obvious in this case). The entire point is that the government has to make sure the justification is put on record instead of simply letting the police search whatever they want. This obviously wasn't a significant burden... as they did it just an hour earlier: At 1:05am on January 22, roughly six hours after Karsseboom was shot, the OPD got a search warrant for three apartments: #108, #110, and #212. At 2:45am, the OPD faxed Metro PCS, asking the company to activate a pen register on two target phone numbers (a 510 number and a 661 number) citing exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances is about a currently-still-active situation, such as a chase or where there is imminent danger. Seeing someone waving firearm at people is "imminent danger". Theorizing about what crimes a criminal might do in the future - without any specific evidence - based only on their past crimes while the officers involved take a few hours to apply for warrants and search a few apartments is surprisingly far from "imminent". This is terrible police work: they what should have been an easy case, but rather than simply getting a warrant and making sure the necessary evidence was handled properly, they rushed the job and ruined the evidence.
asveikau 11y ago
My initial read of this story is the same as yours. If accounts are to be believed, these suspects are violent and the police have legitimate reasons to be after them. Bringing this as an example does injustice to those with more legitimate concerns over police surveillance. Then I start playing devil's advocate. They don't know this guy is a cop initially; if they did they probably would have been deterred by the risks and stiff penalties involved in harming law enforcement. They also didn't kill the cop even though they had ample opportunity to do so: they wave weapons at him, they shoot him nonfatally in the arm, they beat him up, but this may be because they saw his gun and saw him as a threat. The suspects have clearly committed crimes against the cop but it's less cut and dry whether they would have done the same had the officer done something differently.

by ggreer 11y ago

pdkl95 11y ago

> Is it ethical to look up the location of their phones? Sure it is. They just have to get a warrant. This is not a difficult burden in such a situation. Remember that a warrant requirement only requires probably cause, which is obvious in this case). The entire point is that the government has to make sure the justification is put on record instead of simply letting the police search whatever they want. This obviously wasn't a significant burden... as they did it just an hour earlier: At 1:05am on January 22, roughly six hours after Karsseboom was shot, the OPD got a search warrant for three apartments: #108, #110, and #212. At 2:45am, the OPD faxed Metro PCS, asking the company to activate a pen register on two target phone numbers (a 510 number and a 661 number) citing exigent circumstances. Exigent circumstances is about a currently-still-active situation, such as a chase or where there is imminent danger. Seeing someone waving firearm at people is "imminent danger". Theorizing about what crimes a criminal might do in the future - without any specific evidence - based only on their past crimes while the officers involved take a few hours to apply for warrants and search a few apartments is surprisingly far from "imminent". This is terrible police work: they what should have been an easy case, but rather than simply getting a warrant and making sure the necessary evidence was handled properly, they rushed the job and ruined the evidence.

asveikau 11y ago

My initial read of this story is the same as yours. If accounts are to be believed, these suspects are violent and the police have legitimate reasons to be after them. Bringing this as an example does injustice to those with more legitimate concerns over police surveillance. Then I start playing devil's advocate. They don't know this guy is a cop initially; if they did they probably would have been deterred by the risks and stiff penalties involved in harming law enforcement. They also didn't kill the cop even though they had ample opportunity to do so: they wave weapons at him, they shoot him nonfatally in the arm, they beat him up, but this may be because they saw his gun and saw him as a threat. The suspects have clearly committed crimes against the cop but it's less cut and dry whether they would have done the same had the officer done something differently.