7 ms·

Every charge ever laid by these three officers now needs to be reevaluated, with the benefit of the doubt given to the defendants. This could cost millions of

by peeters 10y ago

Every charge ever laid by these three officers now needs to be reevaluated, with the benefit of the doubt given to the defendants. This could cost millions of taxpayer dollars, as well as have guilty people go free because of the doubt thrown on the process. I don't understand how other officers could ever defend colleagues who do this type of activity. It's so anti-justice it should make them crawl in their skin.

harryh 10y ago
It's not that hard to understand. This guy was preventing cops from doing their jobs effectively. A job they felt was important. It's easy to see him as a trouble maker that is enabling other people to more easily break the law without punishment. So they sought out a way to prevent him from doing that. I'm not saying what they did was OK. I'm just saying it's easy to understand why it happens.
- bo1024 10y ago
  The fact that it's easy to understand why it happens ... makes it hard to understand why police departments don't work harder to prevent it.
- fisherjeff 10y ago
  Not sure why the downvotes here - I'm pretty sure this mentality is spot-on among those who are willing to look the other way when things like this happen. It's just much easier to rationalize it away than it is to stand up against injustice.
  - harryh 10y ago
    People downvote because they think that "understanding a bad thing" is the same thing as "approving of a bad thing." It's dumb....but also an understandable facet of human nature. ;-)
    - EdHominem 10y ago
      No, it's because a comment like yours doesn't add anything. For one, you're factually wrong. The article called out their lack of actual success and it wasn't because of the guy watching them. But even if that was it, it'd be like going into an article about a rape and saying "Well, he was horny. Not justifying, just explaining..." Of course the rapist was horny, and of course the police were annoyed at having their authority questioned. But offering these explanations when they aren't needed is explaining-away their crimes.
      - harryh 10y ago
        There are a lot of cultural reasons that some people commit rape and very few of them have anything to do with being horny. Those things are definitely a problem! Choosing to try to understand those reasons as a first step to fixing the problem is, I think, a pretty good idea. Certainly it's better than throwing up your hands and saying "I don't understand how anyone could ever commit rape!"
- ctrl-j 10y ago
  > So they sought out a way to prevent him from doing that. And settled on an illegal way of doing so. When they are law enforcement officers. It's hard to understand that anyone signing up to "protect and serve" would think that they are given the right to do whatever it takes as long as they think they are doing right by the greater good. If you cannot conduct yourself in a law-abiding manner as a LEO, you deserve to go to jail.
  - bdavisx 10y ago
    >If you cannot conduct yourself in a law-abiding manner as a LEO, you deserve to go to jail. And you deserve to go to jail for longer than a regular citizen should if you do it in the performance of your job. I never agreed to follow any laws, let alone enforce them -- they did.
    - Retric 10y ago
      Exactly, LEO need to be held to a higher standard not a lower one than the general populace. Yes, this might require higher pay / more training etc, but law enforcement is one of the most important government functions to get right.
  - new_hackers 10y ago
    "It's hard to understand that anyone signing up to "protect and serve" would think that they are given the right to do whatever it takes as long as they think they are doing right by the greater good." You obviously do not watch American TV. This is EXACTLY what is popularized. I do agree with your opinion, unfortunately Andy Griffith is not the norm any more.
    - keyboardwarrior 10y ago
      Very true, culture is a type of information system and it depends on distribution, so at some point the cause of alot of problems lies at corporate media production creating a positive feedback loop of shitty culture (low quality information). The longterm solution is clear, its a waste of effort to try and put the tubepaste back into the tube.
- zbyte64 10y ago
  Running a DUI checkpoint and getting on average one minor traffic citation every two hours is what these officers consider "effective".
- dahart 10y ago
  > This guy was preventing cops from doing their jobs effectively. Is that true? The story doesn't say that. He was standing out of the way and holding a sign, legally. How that does amount to impeding the officers? How often does seeing a random protestor on the street make you suddenly belligerent with officers, and what evidence did you read that makes you think that happened here? It seems like you're making big assumptions. If he's impeding police, what is YouTube doing with its thousands of checkpoint videos? > I'm not saying what they did was OK. Good? Because it was illegal what they did. Against the law. It was not only not OK, it was bad and wrong. Doubly so because the protestor was being peaceful and legal, and also because the police are charged with representing the law and upholding it's values, and they have a responsibility to not seize property, to not escalate a situation to violence, and to tell the truth about what happened. It's a shame if this is easy to understand and commonplace, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard than this.
  - harryh 10y ago
    "Easy to understand" != "Approval" It is easy for me to understand that if I have a heart attack then my chances of dying in the next hour go way up. That does not mean I want to have a heart attack. Understanding why problems happen is the first step in preventing them. Professing ignorance at why a problem could happen is not laudable.
    - b2m9 10y ago
      Yeah, I see your point. But I would emphasise dahart's argument that we, and especially law enforcement in a democratic society, should have higher standards. Well trained and educated members of the police force shouldn't act like bullies in a high school - no matter if they think their job is important or not. Like everyone else at their job, they need to be professional. Probably more professional than most of us sitting in front of a computer.
      - harryh 10y ago
        Sure of course. I'm just staying that if you start with "I don't understand why our law enforcement standards are currently so low!" then you're probably not going to be helpful in fixing the problem. Gotta diagnose first. Diagnoses comes with empathy and understanding.
- lsaferite 10y ago
  > It's easy to see him as a trouble maker that is enabling other people to more easily break the law without punishment. So they sought out a way to prevent him from doing that. The way they sought to prevent his protest was by breaking the law without punishment.
jomamaxx 10y ago
The articles headline is a little misleading - there's no indication that anyone made up any charges, the cops were deciding what to charge him with given the situation. That's what cops do every day. The statement 'the charges were not based in fact' - is a statement by the ACLU, and there's no reason to believe that they are objective about the situation, we don't know what happened. Maybe they were too aggressive in their laying of charges, if so, hopefully the will be thrown out and authorities will have a closer look, sadly, I doubt anything will come of it. Also - the 'protestor' was carrying a weapon and acting directly against state authorities. If someone in my neighbourhood had a gun, was standing on the street trying to prod police officers, I would definitely want the police to be checking him out. That said, I don't know if he was actually breaking any laws. The line between legal/legal and appropriate/inappropriate is really thin. Also, why everyone needs to be carrying guns all the time is beyond me.
- 1024core 10y ago
  > Also - the 'protestor' was carrying a weapon and acting directly against state authorities. If someone in my neighbourhood had a gun, was standing on the street trying to prod police officers, I would definitely want the police to be checking him out. That is the basic definition of a "protest": to prod the authorities. It is a basic right in any free society. > That said, I don't know if he was actually breaking any laws. Which is the crux of the matter. The cops should just STFU and move along.
  - jomamaxx 10y ago
    "That is the basic definition of a "protest": to prod the authorities" NO. Totally false. Carrying a gun, and trying to arbitrary stop cops from doing their jobs is not 'protest' - by any stretch. In fact, I'd suggest that he could be charged with a small crime in many reasonable countries. For example, in many places, it's not legal to alert others of a speed trap at a certain spot. (Radio programs have been stopped from doing this). "It is a basic right in any free society." Possibly legal, but completely inappropriate the point that I, and most regular people will have little sympathy for this guy if he ends up having to go to court only to get the charges thrown out (though I don't think he should be charged with anything). So many people fail to grasp the difference between the law, and reasonable behaviour. Running around with guns hassling cops is not reasonable by any stretch - and people shouldn't do it. If he was holding a sign, in front of the Police building, without weapons, trying to call attention to a specific issue that would be fine. But this guy is just trying to cause problems, and stop police from doing their very important jobs. There are a lot of ways to constructively protest without carrying weapons and prodding cops.
MaxfordAndSons 10y ago
>It's so anti-justice it should make them crawl in their skin. Unfortunately people don't become cops out of a love of justice; or, maybe a few do, only to quickly realize they've made a terrible mistake.
ndarilek 10y ago
In my experience, granted a bit limited but probably more than the average person has, these types of bullshit charges are generally thrown out. That, or they're held over someone's head, used to intimidate them into not doing other things. So it is more likely that these officers leveled a bunch of bullshit charges against folks that the DA didn't pursue, or that are being held in limbo to discourage them from, say, protesting and risking getting hit with new charges _and_ the old ones. That said, I think we're in agreement that this is wrong. I'd just take it further and state that, if police officers file a charge, then I think they're obligated to do all the extra work to see that charge through, maybe within a reasonable window like 30 days. Subjecting someone to arrest, physical injury, and a night in jail only to throw out a charge as unfounded should come at some cost to the officers who caused it. If coders, lawyers and doctors did only a quarter of their jobs, or made a bunch of work for others that ultimately amounted to nothing, they'd be fired.
- slantedview 10y ago
  > That said, I think we're in agreement that this is wrong It's wrong, and a prosecutable offense, if you or I invent a story that leads to charges against someone. It's insanely wrong if police officers do the same.
mordocai 10y ago
If the kind of consequences you suggest actually happened when this stuff is done then other officers probably would stop defending this kind of activity. Instead, nothing happens to the officers that do this kind of thing
slantedview 10y ago
> I don't understand how other officers could ever defend colleagues who do this type of activity. Crucial point. Whenever a police officer is caught doing something wrong, the "few bad apples" argument is made. Here we had several officers, including a supervisor, colluding to invent charges against someone as casually as they might order their coffee and donuts in the morning. This indicates a problem that is much broader and fundamental than a few bad apples. And from the perspective of the average citizen, unfortunately it means that police do not deserve the automatic benefit of the doubt which they claim a right to.
- callmeal 10y ago
  Most people forget that the complete proverb is: One bad apple spoils the whole barrel. There is no such thing as a "few" bad apples. [https://idiomation.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/one-bad-apple-spoils-the-whole-barrel/ https://idiomation.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/one-bad-apple-sp...]
  - dllthomas 10y ago
    Yeah, this has really bugged me. People treat the phrase as though the proverb was "there will always be a few bad apples, no big deal, toss them when you notice them" - precisely the opposite of the point. Not that reasoning by proverb is great in the first place.
- cloudjacker 10y ago
  Bad apples emit a toxin that make other apples spoil faster. It is basically the worst partial idiom to uphold the dignity of police officers
  - maxerickson 10y ago
    It's not really a toxin though, it's a plant hormone. http://postharvest.tfrec.wsu.edu/pages/N4I1C http://postharvest.tfrec.wsu.edu/pages/N4I1C Trapping that gas is why confined bananas will ripen faster.
  - 10y ago

by peeters 10y ago

harryh 10y ago

It's not that hard to understand. This guy was preventing cops from doing their jobs effectively. A job they felt was important. It's easy to see him as a trouble maker that is enabling other people to more easily break the law without punishment. So they sought out a way to prevent him from doing that. I'm not saying what they did was OK. I'm just saying it's easy to understand why it happens.

bo1024 10y ago
The fact that it's easy to understand why it happens ... makes it hard to understand why police departments don't work harder to prevent it.
fisherjeff 10y ago
Not sure why the downvotes here - I'm pretty sure this mentality is spot-on among those who are willing to look the other way when things like this happen. It's just much easier to rationalize it away than it is to stand up against injustice.
- harryh 10y ago
  People downvote because they think that "understanding a bad thing" is the same thing as "approving of a bad thing." It's dumb....but also an understandable facet of human nature. ;-)
  - EdHominem 10y ago
    No, it's because a comment like yours doesn't add anything. For one, you're factually wrong. The article called out their lack of actual success and it wasn't because of the guy watching them. But even if that was it, it'd be like going into an article about a rape and saying "Well, he was horny. Not justifying, just explaining..." Of course the rapist was horny, and of course the police were annoyed at having their authority questioned. But offering these explanations when they aren't needed is explaining-away their crimes.
    - harryh 10y ago
      There are a lot of cultural reasons that some people commit rape and very few of them have anything to do with being horny. Those things are definitely a problem! Choosing to try to understand those reasons as a first step to fixing the problem is, I think, a pretty good idea. Certainly it's better than throwing up your hands and saying "I don't understand how anyone could ever commit rape!"
ctrl-j 10y ago
> So they sought out a way to prevent him from doing that. And settled on an illegal way of doing so. When they are law enforcement officers. It's hard to understand that anyone signing up to "protect and serve" would think that they are given the right to do whatever it takes as long as they think they are doing right by the greater good. If you cannot conduct yourself in a law-abiding manner as a LEO, you deserve to go to jail.
- bdavisx 10y ago
  >If you cannot conduct yourself in a law-abiding manner as a LEO, you deserve to go to jail. And you deserve to go to jail for longer than a regular citizen should if you do it in the performance of your job. I never agreed to follow any laws, let alone enforce them -- they did.
  - Retric 10y ago
    Exactly, LEO need to be held to a higher standard not a lower one than the general populace. Yes, this might require higher pay / more training etc, but law enforcement is one of the most important government functions to get right.
- new_hackers 10y ago
  "It's hard to understand that anyone signing up to "protect and serve" would think that they are given the right to do whatever it takes as long as they think they are doing right by the greater good." You obviously do not watch American TV. This is EXACTLY what is popularized. I do agree with your opinion, unfortunately Andy Griffith is not the norm any more.
  - keyboardwarrior 10y ago
    Very true, culture is a type of information system and it depends on distribution, so at some point the cause of alot of problems lies at corporate media production creating a positive feedback loop of shitty culture (low quality information). The longterm solution is clear, its a waste of effort to try and put the tubepaste back into the tube.
zbyte64 10y ago
Running a DUI checkpoint and getting on average one minor traffic citation every two hours is what these officers consider "effective".
dahart 10y ago
> This guy was preventing cops from doing their jobs effectively. Is that true? The story doesn't say that. He was standing out of the way and holding a sign, legally. How that does amount to impeding the officers? How often does seeing a random protestor on the street make you suddenly belligerent with officers, and what evidence did you read that makes you think that happened here? It seems like you're making big assumptions. If he's impeding police, what is YouTube doing with its thousands of checkpoint videos? > I'm not saying what they did was OK. Good? Because it was illegal what they did. Against the law. It was not only not OK, it was bad and wrong. Doubly so because the protestor was being peaceful and legal, and also because the police are charged with representing the law and upholding it's values, and they have a responsibility to not seize property, to not escalate a situation to violence, and to tell the truth about what happened. It's a shame if this is easy to understand and commonplace, we need to hold ourselves to a higher standard than this.
- harryh 10y ago
  "Easy to understand" != "Approval" It is easy for me to understand that if I have a heart attack then my chances of dying in the next hour go way up. That does not mean I want to have a heart attack. Understanding why problems happen is the first step in preventing them. Professing ignorance at why a problem could happen is not laudable.
  - b2m9 10y ago
    Yeah, I see your point. But I would emphasise dahart's argument that we, and especially law enforcement in a democratic society, should have higher standards. Well trained and educated members of the police force shouldn't act like bullies in a high school - no matter if they think their job is important or not. Like everyone else at their job, they need to be professional. Probably more professional than most of us sitting in front of a computer.
    - harryh 10y ago
      Sure of course. I'm just staying that if you start with "I don't understand why our law enforcement standards are currently so low!" then you're probably not going to be helpful in fixing the problem. Gotta diagnose first. Diagnoses comes with empathy and understanding.
lsaferite 10y ago
> It's easy to see him as a trouble maker that is enabling other people to more easily break the law without punishment. So they sought out a way to prevent him from doing that. The way they sought to prevent his protest was by breaking the law without punishment.

jomamaxx 10y ago

The articles headline is a little misleading - there's no indication that anyone made up any charges, the cops were deciding what to charge him with given the situation. That's what cops do every day. The statement 'the charges were not based in fact' - is a statement by the ACLU, and there's no reason to believe that they are objective about the situation, we don't know what happened. Maybe they were too aggressive in their laying of charges, if so, hopefully the will be thrown out and authorities will have a closer look, sadly, I doubt anything will come of it. Also - the 'protestor' was carrying a weapon and acting directly against state authorities. If someone in my neighbourhood had a gun, was standing on the street trying to prod police officers, I would definitely want the police to be checking him out. That said, I don't know if he was actually breaking any laws. The line between legal/legal and appropriate/inappropriate is really thin. Also, why everyone needs to be carrying guns all the time is beyond me.

1024core 10y ago
> Also - the 'protestor' was carrying a weapon and acting directly against state authorities. If someone in my neighbourhood had a gun, was standing on the street trying to prod police officers, I would definitely want the police to be checking him out. That is the basic definition of a "protest": to prod the authorities. It is a basic right in any free society. > That said, I don't know if he was actually breaking any laws. Which is the crux of the matter. The cops should just STFU and move along.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  "That is the basic definition of a "protest": to prod the authorities" NO. Totally false. Carrying a gun, and trying to arbitrary stop cops from doing their jobs is not 'protest' - by any stretch. In fact, I'd suggest that he could be charged with a small crime in many reasonable countries. For example, in many places, it's not legal to alert others of a speed trap at a certain spot. (Radio programs have been stopped from doing this). "It is a basic right in any free society." Possibly legal, but completely inappropriate the point that I, and most regular people will have little sympathy for this guy if he ends up having to go to court only to get the charges thrown out (though I don't think he should be charged with anything). So many people fail to grasp the difference between the law, and reasonable behaviour. Running around with guns hassling cops is not reasonable by any stretch - and people shouldn't do it. If he was holding a sign, in front of the Police building, without weapons, trying to call attention to a specific issue that would be fine. But this guy is just trying to cause problems, and stop police from doing their very important jobs. There are a lot of ways to constructively protest without carrying weapons and prodding cops.

MaxfordAndSons 10y ago

>It's so anti-justice it should make them crawl in their skin. Unfortunately people don't become cops out of a love of justice; or, maybe a few do, only to quickly realize they've made a terrible mistake.

ndarilek 10y ago

In my experience, granted a bit limited but probably more than the average person has, these types of bullshit charges are generally thrown out. That, or they're held over someone's head, used to intimidate them into not doing other things. So it is more likely that these officers leveled a bunch of bullshit charges against folks that the DA didn't pursue, or that are being held in limbo to discourage them from, say, protesting and risking getting hit with new charges _and_ the old ones. That said, I think we're in agreement that this is wrong. I'd just take it further and state that, if police officers file a charge, then I think they're obligated to do all the extra work to see that charge through, maybe within a reasonable window like 30 days. Subjecting someone to arrest, physical injury, and a night in jail only to throw out a charge as unfounded should come at some cost to the officers who caused it. If coders, lawyers and doctors did only a quarter of their jobs, or made a bunch of work for others that ultimately amounted to nothing, they'd be fired.

slantedview 10y ago
> That said, I think we're in agreement that this is wrong It's wrong, and a prosecutable offense, if you or I invent a story that leads to charges against someone. It's insanely wrong if police officers do the same.

mordocai 10y ago

If the kind of consequences you suggest actually happened when this stuff is done then other officers probably would stop defending this kind of activity. Instead, nothing happens to the officers that do this kind of thing

slantedview 10y ago

> I don't understand how other officers could ever defend colleagues who do this type of activity. Crucial point. Whenever a police officer is caught doing something wrong, the "few bad apples" argument is made. Here we had several officers, including a supervisor, colluding to invent charges against someone as casually as they might order their coffee and donuts in the morning. This indicates a problem that is much broader and fundamental than a few bad apples. And from the perspective of the average citizen, unfortunately it means that police do not deserve the automatic benefit of the doubt which they claim a right to.

callmeal 10y ago
Most people forget that the complete proverb is: One bad apple spoils the whole barrel. There is no such thing as a "few" bad apples. [https://idiomation.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/one-bad-apple-spoils-the-whole-barrel/ https://idiomation.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/one-bad-apple-sp...]
- dllthomas 10y ago
  Yeah, this has really bugged me. People treat the phrase as though the proverb was "there will always be a few bad apples, no big deal, toss them when you notice them" - precisely the opposite of the point. Not that reasoning by proverb is great in the first place.
cloudjacker 10y ago
Bad apples emit a toxin that make other apples spoil faster. It is basically the worst partial idiom to uphold the dignity of police officers
- maxerickson 10y ago
  It's not really a toxin though, it's a plant hormone. http://postharvest.tfrec.wsu.edu/pages/N4I1C http://postharvest.tfrec.wsu.edu/pages/N4I1C Trapping that gas is why confined bananas will ripen faster.
- 10y ago