5 ms·

I agree with most of what you said and laud the support of constitutional justice. It would be great if more people on juries actually knew about the proper rol

I agree with most of what you said and laud the support of constitutional justice. It would be great if more people on juries actually knew about the proper role of government (insert appropriate rant about public schools / indoctrination). Some scholars assert that jury duty is actually forced servitude by the state and we would have better outcomes by paying jurors for their time instead of compulsory service. > prosecutor with just police evidence to convict anyone of anything Should we increase general surveillance from the State in order to gather non-police evidence? Who else would be doing a criminal investigation to gather proper evidence than the police? Are you including detectives/FBI in "police"? > Have the defendant locked up for more than a week without trial? Violates the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial. Defendant goes free. Did you really mean trial in this case? Often both sides need lots of time to prepare for trial. We had an article on HN a little while back about the bail bonds racket, so there is lots of liberty to be regained in this area. > The police stopped the car because the driver failed to use a turn signal? I would push to remove frivolous laws from the books. There are WAY too many criminal penalties in the law. I'm especially disturbed by felony-level penalties imposed by non-elected agencies in the bureaucracy, e.g. felony copyright infringement[1] Bonus side-note: Government officials receiving fines rather than felony convictions [2] > A police officer killed an unarmed person? Deliberate, unprovoked, unexcusable murder. Life or the chair. Just as a non-officer should have the right of self-defense, I wouldn't lay down this sort of absolute statement. There are plenty of scenarios that justify the use of lethal force even if the aggressor is unarmed. We shouldn't advocate revoking the basic right of self-defense to anyone. Is this what you're advocating? > The police have tracked mud all over our Constitution, and it's long time since that was way too much. All branches of government at all levels have shredded the Constitution, not just the police. [1] http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/copy-corner66.htm http://www.unc.edu/~unclng/copy-corner66.htm [2] http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20150705-texas-game-warden-wounded-while-illegally-hunting-avoided-felony-charges-kept-job.ece http://www.dallasnews.com/news/state/headlines/20150705-texa...

graycat 11y ago
For my > The police stopped the car because the driver failed to use a turn signal? I was too brief: If the police stop someone for a turn signal violation, okay, charge them with the turn signal violation. But if charge the person with, say, some more serious crime, then have to suspect that the turn signal issue was false and just used as a means of unconstitutional unreasonable search. My experience is that a good way to suffer an unconstitutional search from, say, a turn signal violation is just to drive an old car in a poor neighborhood, or really, any neighborhood, late at night, etc. Police just like to stop and search cars, for any reason or no reason, and will use any excuse as a way to do that. In my case, after the stop, I'm articulate, calm, mature, and get away with it. But still I get stopped due to the violation of driving with an old car. For my > A police officer killed an unarmed person? Deliberate, unprovoked, unexcusable murder. Life or the chair. The burden of proof would have to be strongly on the side of the police to prove that they had no alternative to being seriously injured or killed themselves. For the police to say "I felt that my life was threatened" is not nearly enough. In such a confrontation with an unarmed person, the police have enormous advantages in force -- radios, backup, cameras to identify the person in case they run, clubs, guns, bullet proof vests, etc. For a person to die looks really bad. We've had at least one recent case where the person was running away, was over 10 feet away, and the police shot them in the back and killed them just to keep them from running away. At present, apparently the real standard is that a person has to obey every command of an officer, be pleasant, object to nothing, defend themselves against nothing, hand over money and personal belongings that they may never get back, not make a recording, not call 911, permit any search, accept painful restraints, not try to run away, be verbally insulted, be sexually molested, etc. or the officer can just shoot and kill the person and get away with it. One response I have would be what I would do on jury duty. But, right, likely a public prosecutor would never let me on a jury. Another alternative is to have my startup work, get rich, be careful, and set up some funding for some essentially sting operations to catch police misbehaving, where there was overwhelming evidence from hidden cameras and microphones, long distance cameras, etc. that the police did something wrong. Then have the legal resources to prosecute the police. Use such actions as examples, and then try to get some better behavior from the police. E.g., civil forfeiture, that is, the crime of carrying too much cash, that is, legalized highway robbery. I can't feel guilty for sticking up for our Constitution.
- clarkmoody 11y ago
  > unconstitutional unreasonable search. Absolutely. We need a serious amount of education on how to interact with the police, to know when the encounter is over ("Am I free to go?"), to know exactly how much you are required to say and not say a word more, etc. From what I've seen, the police prey upon people's ignorance in order to score more convictions, tickets, and seizures. >officer can just shoot and kill the person and get away with it. Unfortunately this does happen, but in a few recent cases the officer has been arrested and charged with murder. > E.g., civil forfeiture, that is, the crime of carrying too much cash, that is, legalized highway robbery. I'm in the Bitcoin industry, so this rings true to me ;-)

graycat 11y ago

For my > The police stopped the car because the driver failed to use a turn signal? I was too brief: If the police stop someone for a turn signal violation, okay, charge them with the turn signal violation. But if charge the person with, say, some more serious crime, then have to suspect that the turn signal issue was false and just used as a means of unconstitutional unreasonable search. My experience is that a good way to suffer an unconstitutional search from, say, a turn signal violation is just to drive an old car in a poor neighborhood, or really, any neighborhood, late at night, etc. Police just like to stop and search cars, for any reason or no reason, and will use any excuse as a way to do that. In my case, after the stop, I'm articulate, calm, mature, and get away with it. But still I get stopped due to the violation of driving with an old car. For my > A police officer killed an unarmed person? Deliberate, unprovoked, unexcusable murder. Life or the chair. The burden of proof would have to be strongly on the side of the police to prove that they had no alternative to being seriously injured or killed themselves. For the police to say "I felt that my life was threatened" is not nearly enough. In such a confrontation with an unarmed person, the police have enormous advantages in force -- radios, backup, cameras to identify the person in case they run, clubs, guns, bullet proof vests, etc. For a person to die looks really bad. We've had at least one recent case where the person was running away, was over 10 feet away, and the police shot them in the back and killed them just to keep them from running away. At present, apparently the real standard is that a person has to obey every command of an officer, be pleasant, object to nothing, defend themselves against nothing, hand over money and personal belongings that they may never get back, not make a recording, not call 911, permit any search, accept painful restraints, not try to run away, be verbally insulted, be sexually molested, etc. or the officer can just shoot and kill the person and get away with it. One response I have would be what I would do on jury duty. But, right, likely a public prosecutor would never let me on a jury. Another alternative is to have my startup work, get rich, be careful, and set up some funding for some essentially sting operations to catch police misbehaving, where there was overwhelming evidence from hidden cameras and microphones, long distance cameras, etc. that the police did something wrong. Then have the legal resources to prosecute the police. Use such actions as examples, and then try to get some better behavior from the police. E.g., civil forfeiture, that is, the crime of carrying too much cash, that is, legalized highway robbery. I can't feel guilty for sticking up for our Constitution.

clarkmoody 11y ago
> unconstitutional unreasonable search. Absolutely. We need a serious amount of education on how to interact with the police, to know when the encounter is over ("Am I free to go?"), to know exactly how much you are required to say and not say a word more, etc. From what I've seen, the police prey upon people's ignorance in order to score more convictions, tickets, and seizures. >officer can just shoot and kill the person and get away with it. Unfortunately this does happen, but in a few recent cases the officer has been arrested and charged with murder. > E.g., civil forfeiture, that is, the crime of carrying too much cash, that is, legalized highway robbery. I'm in the Bitcoin industry, so this rings true to me ;-)