5 ms·
> Unless... that person (who grabbed you while you are walking down an alley one night) is a police officer You see, this is the wonder of due process. In a mo
by skytreader 5y ago
> Unless... that person (who grabbed you while you are walking down an alley one night) is a police officer
You see, this is the wonder of due process. In a mostly-reasonable jurisdiction, police officers are required to, first and foremost and at the very least, identify themselves clearly as law-enforcement, and with that carries the implicit suggestion that "you need to cooperate and not fight back". No identification and they might as well have arrested you without reading you your Miranda rights.
> Police officers in America, and most other countries, need to adhere to a completely different and much more lax set of rules than most people
I wouldn't call it lax but I'd settle for slightly different. Of course, a lot can be said about abuses of this "privilege to be different", which is maybe why observers would say law-enforcement is held to a relaxed standard.
It is different but not lax because:
- ordinary citizens can't break down doors into private property but law-enforcement can if they have probable cause (Have you watched Breaking Bad?) or a search warrant. Good luck obtaining a search warrant as an ordinary citizen, if that's even possible.
- ordinary citizens are not ever expected to result to fisticuffs and if they do so, they would face fees or even jail. But law-enforcement can do so except there's gonna be a fuck ton of paper work afterwards and, should their reason for resorting to force be successfully challenged, face suspension or dismissal but hardly ever fees or jail time.
Of course the MOST IMPORTANT caveats here are (a) law varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, even for reasonably-democratic territories and (b) this is HN playing r/legaladvice, which is fun but not as productive IMO.
- MegaButts 5y agoThe most important caveat is if the cop lies about you doing something and you don't have video evidence that he's wrong, you're fucked. That's more than lax, it's willfully regulating for a system that attracts and defends oppressive corruption. I am speaking for the United States.
- glitchc 5y agoAnd in Canada. This is correct. A police officer is treated as an expert witness in a courtroom. If it's just you and the police officer in that alley, the officer's word will be taken over yours. Officers have a strong incentive to lie about the incident since they will always be believed.
- skinkestek 5y agoI recently learned that - at least in theory - in Norway a police officer can not expect to be believed in court just because he is a police officer. This was new to me and I'm not sure but I think I might have heard that it was because of some case in the 70ies or something.
- FireBeyond 5y agoI think in one of the Scandinavian countries, people cannot be charged or punished for attempted or actual escapes from prison, jail, or custody, as the desire for freedom is assumed to be a natural human motivation.
- jamesjguthrie 5y agoOne of TPB founders was on Darknet Diaries recently saying this about Sweden. I wonder if it is true.
- dahfizz 5y agoAnd the desire for power, money, or sexual gratification are not "natural"? You could justify nearly any crime by saying your motivation was "natural"
- lobocinza 5y agoTrying to escape from prison is victimless. Scams, thefts and rapes have victims. Some argue that crimes without victims like using drugs are not crimes. They, of course, could be illegal and result in fines and related but not in restrictions of liberty like imprisonment.
- dahfizz 5y ago"A victimless crime is not a crime" is a much more compelling argument than "the crime had a 'natural' motivation". I'm not arguing one way or the other whether escaping from prison should be criminalized. I'm just saying the stated argument is really bad.