3 ms·

Wow, I am really looking forward to finding g out more about this. What agency were they with? How often do they do this? Was it random or targeted, and if th

Wow, I am really looking forward to finding g out more about this. What agency were they with? How often do they do this? Was it random or targeted, and if the latter at the person or device? Side note - he wasn't arrested, he was handcuffed, had a weapon stuck in his back, was detained, had an illegal search performed on his possessions, and all by purported law enforcement officers who refused to identify themselves. In many ways this is worse than being arrested - with an arrest there are other layers of law enforcement to appeal to and receive justice. With an arrest at least we would have officers names, charges, etc, which if faked could theoretically result in discipline or firing of the officer. I know it doesn't always work that way, but at least the checks and balances exist. With this kind of officer-level illegal search and detainment, there is very very little that can be done to seek any sort of justice. If this kids mom wasn't a reporter, nobody would have heard or believed the story.

iandanforth 11y ago
Jaded guess; still in the guise of the 'buyer' they asked if they could look through the machine. He gave verbal consent at which point they started the search / threat / handcuffing.
- hoppa_liza 11y ago
  They still need to identify themselves as the police. What they displayed is mob behavior; armed people threatening and going through a person's possessions.
  - brbsix 11y ago
    There's no need for an undercover officer to identify themselves as such. They're free to lie and manipulate (to an extent). It would kind of defeat the purpose otherwise.
    - Veratyr 11y ago
      There's definitely a need if they intend to wield their authority as a police officer. Random people on the street can't just come up and handcuff me and go through my stuff.
joe_the_user 11y ago
Side note - he wasn't arrested, he was handcuffed, had a weapon stuck in his back, was detained, had an illegal search performed on his possessions, and all by purported law enforcement officers who refused to identify themselves. I have some news for you. Arrest means nothing but detained/held/stopped. Most people imagine an arrest action has something formal to it, like having your rights read or someone announcing you're arrested. But it doesn't. You've been detained? You have been arrested. The cops zero obligation to tell you anything and they never have had such obligation. As to whether it was illegal? The police have wide latitude to determine probable cause for whatever. You're right this kind of thing happens all the time, you're right it's despicable. But sadly, it's broadly legal and more or less the "normal" way the law works. If you read the wikipedia article, it describes rights but you will notice the only limits in the US is how long you can be held and whether your statements can held against you (at which point you are supposed to be read you're right, except for limitless exceptions to this requirement). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest
- DrScump 11y ago
  <The police have wide latitude to determine probable cause for whatever> No, they have wide latitude to try to claim probable cause but cannot create probable cause out of thin air. If a court later decides there was none, the evidence is tossed anyway (and permanently tainted).
  - joe_the_user 11y ago
    Police are indeed prohibited from claiming probable cause based on no evidence at all but no-evidence-at-all is about the only no-no. A wide variety of vague actions can be taken as evidence, such "acting nervous", not seeming like you belong in a location, reaching into one's pocket, moving quickly, etc, etc.
- talmand 11y ago
  There is a procedural difference between being detained and being arrested.
lsiebert 11y ago
I'm not so sure he wasn't arrested, legally speaking. If he had resisted I certainly suspect he'd have been charged with resisting arrest. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/arrest https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/arrest
- brbsix 11y ago
  I've been arrested under similar (in other words completely unfounded) conditions. After a few hours in a holding cell they just handed me a form and drove me back home. I wish I remembered the name of the form but it essentially nullified the arrest as if none had taken place. However from what I've read on this story it sounds as though the young man was simply detained pursuant to an investigation (or at least that would be the official story).
- talmand 11y ago
  Resisting arrest means you haven't been arrested yet. If he was already under arrest then he couldn't resist it. He was being detained. If he were under arrest then there's procedure to that which has to be followed. But while being detained if one were to be argumentative then it could change from being detained to being under arrest, which then resisting arrest comes into play. But that's just arguing over semantics that typically don't come up at the court hearing. People get charged with non-relevant crap all the time to trump up the charges.
pcardh0 11y ago
I would like to find out more too. It is hard to believe that the police are just randomly hassling sellers of Mac-Books.
- shitshow 11y ago
  She knows half of the story, as mentioned. The buyer is unknown and probably has vital info. He likely contacted police thinking that her son was selling his stolen laptop on craigslist?
beedogs 11y ago
> With this kind of officer-level illegal search and detainment, there is very very little that can be done to seek any sort of justice. If this kids mom wasn't a reporter, nobody would have heard or believed the story. Where's the mythical "good guy with a gun" when you need one?

iandanforth 11y ago

Jaded guess; still in the guise of the 'buyer' they asked if they could look through the machine. He gave verbal consent at which point they started the search / threat / handcuffing.

hoppa_liza 11y ago
They still need to identify themselves as the police. What they displayed is mob behavior; armed people threatening and going through a person's possessions.
- brbsix 11y ago
  There's no need for an undercover officer to identify themselves as such. They're free to lie and manipulate (to an extent). It would kind of defeat the purpose otherwise.
  - Veratyr 11y ago
    There's definitely a need if they intend to wield their authority as a police officer. Random people on the street can't just come up and handcuff me and go through my stuff.

joe_the_user 11y ago

Side note - he wasn't arrested, he was handcuffed, had a weapon stuck in his back, was detained, had an illegal search performed on his possessions, and all by purported law enforcement officers who refused to identify themselves. I have some news for you. Arrest means nothing but detained/held/stopped. Most people imagine an arrest action has something formal to it, like having your rights read or someone announcing you're arrested. But it doesn't. You've been detained? You have been arrested. The cops zero obligation to tell you anything and they never have had such obligation. As to whether it was illegal? The police have wide latitude to determine probable cause for whatever. You're right this kind of thing happens all the time, you're right it's despicable. But sadly, it's broadly legal and more or less the "normal" way the law works. If you read the wikipedia article, it describes rights but you will notice the only limits in the US is how long you can be held and whether your statements can held against you (at which point you are supposed to be read you're right, except for limitless exceptions to this requirement). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrest

DrScump 11y ago
<The police have wide latitude to determine probable cause for whatever> No, they have wide latitude to try to claim probable cause but cannot create probable cause out of thin air. If a court later decides there was none, the evidence is tossed anyway (and permanently tainted).
- joe_the_user 11y ago
  Police are indeed prohibited from claiming probable cause based on no evidence at all but no-evidence-at-all is about the only no-no. A wide variety of vague actions can be taken as evidence, such "acting nervous", not seeming like you belong in a location, reaching into one's pocket, moving quickly, etc, etc.
talmand 11y ago
There is a procedural difference between being detained and being arrested.

lsiebert 11y ago

I'm not so sure he wasn't arrested, legally speaking. If he had resisted I certainly suspect he'd have been charged with resisting arrest. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/arrest https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/arrest

brbsix 11y ago
I've been arrested under similar (in other words completely unfounded) conditions. After a few hours in a holding cell they just handed me a form and drove me back home. I wish I remembered the name of the form but it essentially nullified the arrest as if none had taken place. However from what I've read on this story it sounds as though the young man was simply detained pursuant to an investigation (or at least that would be the official story).
talmand 11y ago
Resisting arrest means you haven't been arrested yet. If he was already under arrest then he couldn't resist it. He was being detained. If he were under arrest then there's procedure to that which has to be followed. But while being detained if one were to be argumentative then it could change from being detained to being under arrest, which then resisting arrest comes into play. But that's just arguing over semantics that typically don't come up at the court hearing. People get charged with non-relevant crap all the time to trump up the charges.

pcardh0 11y ago

I would like to find out more too. It is hard to believe that the police are just randomly hassling sellers of Mac-Books.

shitshow 11y ago
She knows half of the story, as mentioned. The buyer is unknown and probably has vital info. He likely contacted police thinking that her son was selling his stolen laptop on craigslist?

beedogs 11y ago

> With this kind of officer-level illegal search and detainment, there is very very little that can be done to seek any sort of justice. If this kids mom wasn't a reporter, nobody would have heard or believed the story. Where's the mythical "good guy with a gun" when you need one?