4 ms·

While the headline is designed to spark outrage, after reading the article, not only do I understand why the sentence is so light, I'm glad it is. The police we

While the headline is designed to spark outrage, after reading the article, not only do I understand why the sentence is so light, I'm glad it is. The police were way out of line and completely disregarded the accused's rights. The only effective way to incentivize the police/prosecutors not to behave this way is to let people we strongly believe to be guilty all but get away with it. No monetary fine has ever been effective in changing public servants' behavior, and threat of being fired doesn't seem effective either. We have to admit that criminalizing rights violations in any but the most egregious circumstances is unreasonable and could barely be enforced, let alone passed as legislation for political reasons. So what choice does society have left to change this behavior but leverage bad actors' conscience and, frankly, pride, by throwing away their hard work? (Well, the work was not hard enough, that's the point.) Society must bear the cost as well, but as long as it does so consistently, then the cost will be worth it.

throwaway-hn123 10y ago
Wow. This is one of the most bizarre comments I've ever seen on HN, and I think you really mean it. Shocking.
anonfunction 10y ago
The problem is that there is no consistency when it comes to our justice system. The only reason that the evidence was ruled inadmissible is because an attorney was good enough to make the case. For every CEO there are hundreds of poor people of color who are unfairly discriminated against and have no recourse available.
- rublev 10y ago
  I remember my first words as a newly born white baby: "...lawyer". Shortly after, a pigeon swooped into my bedroom and dropped a pair of keys into my crib with a note attached reading "This is the key to your safety deposit box where you will find estate papers along with a second set of keys that belong to a 110ft Schooner, welcome to the club lad."
- Chinjut 10y ago
  FWIW, this CEO happens to be a (rich) person of color. In our society, color is a handicap, but, if you do manage to get money... boy, oh boy, is money an aid.
pbreit 10y ago
Do you think there's any chance the video would exist if the police had waited to get a search warrant?
- belovedeagle 10y ago
  This objection applies to essentially every warrant application. In this case, the answer is not only, "yes, in part because people are stupid enough not to destroy evidence, and in part because there are plenty of judges who would be happy to be woken in the middle of the night to rubber-stamp such a warrant at a moment's notice", but also "yes, and the court agreed", and "it doesn't matter, because the police not being able to do whatever they think is best whenever they think it's best is the whole point!"
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
will_brown 10y ago
>The police were way out of line and completely disregarded the accused's rights. First things first, the victim has rights too. Moreover, if the police were called to respond to a domestic disturbance/dispute and come to find a women who was obviously beaten, but likely to afraid to give a statement, the police were not exactly out of line, they made a decision to secure the video evidence of the crime before the accused had the opportunity to destroy it. Sure the evidence was suppressed under the 4th Amendment/illegal search and seizure/fruit of the poisons tree doctrine, but I could easily see (and have seen) Judge's arrive at different decisions in similar cases, for example drug cases where the defendant was actively flushing the evidence. You can't exactly blame the officers for not having a crystal ball, knowing what Judge this case would ultimately go before, and how the Judge would rule. Nevertheless, you can't exactly feel bad for the defendant, even if you think his rights were violated, because the Courts worked exactly as they are supposed to and upheld his rights resulting in 47 felony counts essentially going away and him being able to plea out to 3 years probation, 1 year domestic violence courses and 25 hours community service. Keep in mind the prosecutors could have easily still gone to trial and convicted him without the video.
- belovedeagle 10y ago
  > First things first, the victim has rights too. This is a pointless and inane sentiment. Which of the victim's rights were violated here? US law, for better or for worse, recognizes no right to justice, nor protection. [Edit to add:] Of course the reported crime is completely unjust in an ethical sense; that's why letting someone get away with it is difficult but effective. We can't say, "oh, well we can't enforce the 4A law in the really important cases, so we'll just let people get away with petty theft in these cases but not any serious crimes", because the police, just like us, don't really care about petty theft all that much. If you think that we should avoid this solution with truly heinous crimes like rape and murder (and, in practice, I think you might find fewer successful 4A challenges in those cases), then you sure as hell better let "mere" domestic abusers successfully defend their rights. I realize that's a horrifying sentiment, but again, the more horrifying this is, the more effective it is and the more it tends to prove my point. The officers may not have a crystal ball, but the implications of Fourth Amendment case law is crystal clear on this point. I've not heard any claims that the defendant was sitting in front of the computer actively deleting the video, so "flushing the evidence" is not a relevant comparison. If he had been then the outcome should be different. Otherwise, we could conclude that because any digital evidence is more easily destroyed than physical evidence then the Fourth Amendment just doesn't apply to digital evidence. I have no evidence to suggest that that conclusion is not every bit as absurd as it seems on its face. The police shouldn't be worried about how the judge will rule, toeing the line as closely as they can; but they should instead adopt a conservative approach ensuring that they actually follow the law in all cases to avoid this exact scenario. Therefore the police were absolutely out of line, because their actions were likely the direct and sole cause the defendant was not convicted. I don't feel bad for the defendant, not even a little bit—why would I? He's probably getting away with something he shouldn't get away with, because the police just couldn't do their damn job. His rights were vindicated, as they should be. If the prosecutors could have convicted him without the video, then I hope they would have. If on account of his status they chose not to do so, then I would agree with the unspoken sentiment of preferential treatment, and I would condemn that. However, I tend to take the evidence before us at face value: the prosecution offered a lousy plea deal, so they probably didn't think they could do significantly better. Now, I won't deny that it's possibly thanks to a good lawyer and the prospect of a sympathetic jury that the prospects for a conviction were so low, but it was first and foremost due to an unlawful search by the police. Unless you'd like to abolish the rights to counsel and jury trials, I think we just have to deal with the other aspects as they are.
matt4077 10y ago
> Society must bear the cost as well Society isn't bearing any costs. There is one woman who's bearing the costs of your high standards of righteousness by being kicked in the head/groin/etc. more than a hundred times. Now I do get the sentiment, but in the context of a a few well-publicized cases of "alleged" police misconduct over the last year that went nowhere in terms of sanctioning it just rings a bit hollow. You're also awfully quick to dismiss alternatives. I don't see how letting this guy off the hook is a stronger incentive for those police officers than kicking them off the force. In fact a good firing has proven 100% effective in preventing repeat offenders. Add some career-slowing disincentives up the chain of command and I'm pretty sure you'll see results.
- belovedeagle 10y ago
  > In fact a good firing has proven 100% effective in preventing repeat offenders. Not when they can simply be rehired elsewhere. In any case, the court doesn't have this power, nor the power to implement "career-slowing disincentives". Now, if the police unions come in and say, "You know what? We're tired of criminals getting away with crimes, so how about we agree to implement real punishments for rights violations, in exchange for not throwing out evidence when mistakes are made?", then I would be entirely in favor of the courts seriously considering such an arrangement, even though some might argue that it subverts the rule of law. There's an alternative for you.

throwaway-hn123 10y ago

Wow. This is one of the most bizarre comments I've ever seen on HN, and I think you really mean it. Shocking.

anonfunction 10y ago

The problem is that there is no consistency when it comes to our justice system. The only reason that the evidence was ruled inadmissible is because an attorney was good enough to make the case. For every CEO there are hundreds of poor people of color who are unfairly discriminated against and have no recourse available.

rublev 10y ago
I remember my first words as a newly born white baby: "...lawyer". Shortly after, a pigeon swooped into my bedroom and dropped a pair of keys into my crib with a note attached reading "This is the key to your safety deposit box where you will find estate papers along with a second set of keys that belong to a 110ft Schooner, welcome to the club lad."
Chinjut 10y ago
FWIW, this CEO happens to be a (rich) person of color. In our society, color is a handicap, but, if you do manage to get money... boy, oh boy, is money an aid.

pbreit 10y ago

Do you think there's any chance the video would exist if the police had waited to get a search warrant?

belovedeagle 10y ago
This objection applies to essentially every warrant application. In this case, the answer is not only, "yes, in part because people are stupid enough not to destroy evidence, and in part because there are plenty of judges who would be happy to be woken in the middle of the night to rubber-stamp such a warrant at a moment's notice", but also "yes, and the court agreed", and "it doesn't matter, because the police not being able to do whatever they think is best whenever they think it's best is the whole point!"

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

will_brown 10y ago

>The police were way out of line and completely disregarded the accused's rights. First things first, the victim has rights too. Moreover, if the police were called to respond to a domestic disturbance/dispute and come to find a women who was obviously beaten, but likely to afraid to give a statement, the police were not exactly out of line, they made a decision to secure the video evidence of the crime before the accused had the opportunity to destroy it. Sure the evidence was suppressed under the 4th Amendment/illegal search and seizure/fruit of the poisons tree doctrine, but I could easily see (and have seen) Judge's arrive at different decisions in similar cases, for example drug cases where the defendant was actively flushing the evidence. You can't exactly blame the officers for not having a crystal ball, knowing what Judge this case would ultimately go before, and how the Judge would rule. Nevertheless, you can't exactly feel bad for the defendant, even if you think his rights were violated, because the Courts worked exactly as they are supposed to and upheld his rights resulting in 47 felony counts essentially going away and him being able to plea out to 3 years probation, 1 year domestic violence courses and 25 hours community service. Keep in mind the prosecutors could have easily still gone to trial and convicted him without the video.

belovedeagle 10y ago
> First things first, the victim has rights too. This is a pointless and inane sentiment. Which of the victim's rights were violated here? US law, for better or for worse, recognizes no right to justice, nor protection. [Edit to add:] Of course the reported crime is completely unjust in an ethical sense; that's why letting someone get away with it is difficult but effective. We can't say, "oh, well we can't enforce the 4A law in the really important cases, so we'll just let people get away with petty theft in these cases but not any serious crimes", because the police, just like us, don't really care about petty theft all that much. If you think that we should avoid this solution with truly heinous crimes like rape and murder (and, in practice, I think you might find fewer successful 4A challenges in those cases), then you sure as hell better let "mere" domestic abusers successfully defend their rights. I realize that's a horrifying sentiment, but again, the more horrifying this is, the more effective it is and the more it tends to prove my point. The officers may not have a crystal ball, but the implications of Fourth Amendment case law is crystal clear on this point. I've not heard any claims that the defendant was sitting in front of the computer actively deleting the video, so "flushing the evidence" is not a relevant comparison. If he had been then the outcome should be different. Otherwise, we could conclude that because any digital evidence is more easily destroyed than physical evidence then the Fourth Amendment just doesn't apply to digital evidence. I have no evidence to suggest that that conclusion is not every bit as absurd as it seems on its face. The police shouldn't be worried about how the judge will rule, toeing the line as closely as they can; but they should instead adopt a conservative approach ensuring that they actually follow the law in all cases to avoid this exact scenario. Therefore the police were absolutely out of line, because their actions were likely the direct and sole cause the defendant was not convicted. I don't feel bad for the defendant, not even a little bit—why would I? He's probably getting away with something he shouldn't get away with, because the police just couldn't do their damn job. His rights were vindicated, as they should be. If the prosecutors could have convicted him without the video, then I hope they would have. If on account of his status they chose not to do so, then I would agree with the unspoken sentiment of preferential treatment, and I would condemn that. However, I tend to take the evidence before us at face value: the prosecution offered a lousy plea deal, so they probably didn't think they could do significantly better. Now, I won't deny that it's possibly thanks to a good lawyer and the prospect of a sympathetic jury that the prospects for a conviction were so low, but it was first and foremost due to an unlawful search by the police. Unless you'd like to abolish the rights to counsel and jury trials, I think we just have to deal with the other aspects as they are.

matt4077 10y ago

> Society must bear the cost as well Society isn't bearing any costs. There is one woman who's bearing the costs of your high standards of righteousness by being kicked in the head/groin/etc. more than a hundred times. Now I do get the sentiment, but in the context of a a few well-publicized cases of "alleged" police misconduct over the last year that went nowhere in terms of sanctioning it just rings a bit hollow. You're also awfully quick to dismiss alternatives. I don't see how letting this guy off the hook is a stronger incentive for those police officers than kicking them off the force. In fact a good firing has proven 100% effective in preventing repeat offenders. Add some career-slowing disincentives up the chain of command and I'm pretty sure you'll see results.

belovedeagle 10y ago
> In fact a good firing has proven 100% effective in preventing repeat offenders. Not when they can simply be rehired elsewhere. In any case, the court doesn't have this power, nor the power to implement "career-slowing disincentives". Now, if the police unions come in and say, "You know what? We're tired of criminals getting away with crimes, so how about we agree to implement real punishments for rights violations, in exchange for not throwing out evidence when mistakes are made?", then I would be entirely in favor of the courts seriously considering such an arrangement, even though some might argue that it subverts the rule of law. There's an alternative for you.