8 ms·

Wow this is insane. I hope this blows up in a big way and everyone is aware of what happened here, and I hope Mr Lowe gets a big payday. >>>"After Lowe had bee

Wow this is insane. I hope this blows up in a big way and everyone is aware of what happened here, and I hope Mr Lowe gets a big payday. >>>"After Lowe had been in jail for eight days, he was taken to a local judge. He still received no information about why he was there, he said. The judge told him his only options were to waive extradition — in which New Mexico would deliver him to Texas authorities — or wait for Texas authorities to pick him up. Lowe, unsure what the legal implications were of either option, waived extradition based on the court’s suggestion that he do so." This is such a perfect application of the term "kafkaesque". Also, is it weird that he was brought before a judge without having any sort of legal representation first, and that the judge was able to give Mr Lowe advice as to what to do? Imagining myself in his shoes, I wouldn't say a single word to the judge or anyone really before I had spoken with a lawyer, I don't care how long that takes. One wrong word and it's not hard to imagine his 17 day ordeal turning into something longer and more nightmarish.

whyenot 4y ago
Giving him a "payday" alone isn't really justice. Whoever is responsible should spend 17 days in jail. Of course, that will never happen, but it's what should happen if the goal is to prevent "mistakes" like this happening again and again. Same goes for the victims who were "mistakenly" reported (and arrested) as car thieves by rental agencies not that long ago. Money isn't justice.
- ls15 4y ago
  > Whoever is responsible should spend 17 days in jail. It still would not be the same. They would have to be pulled out of their lifes randomly without knowing why and how long it will take. Maybe a factor could be applied to account for that uncertainty. n * 17 days in jail, where n will only be announced after the fact.
  - fnordpiglet 4y ago
    They should have to clean the jail. The story of his detention is bad enough, but the fact we treat human beings in this way simply because they’ve been detained - guilty or not - should be profoundly objectionable to everyone. But there seems to be this emergent belief that jail is supposed to be a house of horrors and the punishment is the horrors of the jail itself, rather than being deprived of freedom. Jails should be safe and clean, not traumatizing and filthy. The jail isn’t meant to be cruel and unusual punishment, but it has become that.
    - ls15 4y ago
      I admire how Norway treats Anders Breivik. The guy decided to become a monster. Norway decided against becoming a monster. He is in prison, because he cannot be free. His biggest problem in prison seems to be an outdated Playstation. In his case there is no expectation of reform, so his punishment is not meant to educate him, it basically just does what needs to be done, without being cruel. In OP's case, I think it is reasonable to expect some conversion process. Having to clean the jail sounds like a good way to learn some humility.
    - Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
      America has a twisted notion of what "justice" means. They think the goal of prison is punishment, not rehabilitation, so recidivism rates are ridiculous.
duxup 4y ago
> I wouldn't say a single word to the judge I’d be saying things like “I don’t know why I am here”, “I’ve been in jail for 17 days with no explanation”, I want to talk to a lawyer… and so on.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- notch656a 4y ago
  My limited experience (thank god not 17 days) being held for almost a day with border patrol is that complaining about being held just encourages them. Yes they live for that shit. As someone with a 'flagged' US passport (despite no criminal record nor violating US border related law) who is repeatedly been detained and thrown in a cell without even being arrested or charged with a crime, I've become quite accustomed to how agents of the state treat those under their detainment. The best strategy is to pretend like you don't give a fuck and that you enjoy the experience; then the agents lose their amusement with you and eventually grow bored of fucking with you. If you act annoyed they latch on to you and toy with it the way a cat toys with prey. Sadly this guy made the mistake of thinking jailers are not psychopaths. Never give psychopaths an opportunity to see your weaknesses.
  - duxup 4y ago
    > just encourages them Who? My comment was more about the hearing.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      Oh I see now, you were referring to exclusively speaking to the judge. Yes maybe that makes more sense. I have no idea if judges are as psychopathic as jailers are.
      - heretogetout 4y ago
        They absolutely can be. There are many stories of judges getting kickbacks for sending people off to prison and there's the FISA court rubberstamping (nearly) all requests from law enforcement.
teakettle42 4y ago
These types of occurrences are my number one argument for eliminating qualified immunity. Police officers should face significant, personal liability for flagrant violations of individual rights like this. It happens every day, and in almost every case, there's literally zero recourse no matter how much money you have to throw at the problem.
- systemvoltage 4y ago
  This sounds good. What may be the unintentional side-effects? Downsides? I guess, another way to question this is why is it the way it is?
  - anonymousab 4y ago
    Cops might hesitate to act if their were repercussions, accountability or responsibility for their actions.
    - astrange 4y ago
      They already don't act because there's no repercussions for not doing anything; the SF DA is being recalled today because the cops decided they didn't like him and just haven't been doing their job for months as a result.
      - teakettle42 4y ago
        Chesa Boudin is the opposite problem. The answer to our broke-ass, classist, unjust "justice" system isn't to abandon prosecution almost entirely. If I had a magic wand, the DA's offices across America would review cases promptly, prosecute justifiable cases, and preemptively drop unjustified cases as soon as possible — and report truly questionable policing to a real oversight board, while actually charging and prosecuting police officers for genuinely bad policing. In reality, in most jurisdictions, the DA's office often doesn't even look at most cases until the day of arraignment, months after someone's life has already been run through a ringer and they've spent tens of thousands on retaining a defense attorney (if they're lucky enough to afford one), not to mention therapy (again, if they're lucky enough to afford that). All too often they'll try to coerce a plea deal for a bad case, rather than simply dropping it — and people accept the offered deal, because the alternative is incredibly expensive, and incredibly risky. As for holding police accountable for bad policing? Unless it's a case that garners the political will to prosecute (usually due to massive negative media attention), a ski holiday in hell is more likely. However, Chesa Boudin's office swung way too far in the opposite direction, failing to even prosecute strong cases for real crimes that resulted in real harm. Eventually, the police gave up — why bother going through the effort of policing if the DA is just going to drop the case anyway? It's like writing code only to have `git` erase your entire branch when you `git push`. I'm not a police apologist ("fuck the police" would find a spot on my top-100 playlist!) but Chesa Boudin absolutely deserved to be recalled.
KennyBlanken 4y ago
Your right to remain silent only applies to statements made to police and more specifically, those statements being used in court. You don't have a right to refuse to answer a judge, for example. You also don't have a right to refuse to answer a police officer generally, such as when they're asking you questions as part of booking you (do you have health conditions they need to know about, for example), and furthermore, during (say, a threshold inquiry or administrative detention) police are legally allowed to treat you refusing to answer them as guilty behavior. To be clear, in very simplified layman's terms: threshold inquiry = "Hi there, can I ask you a few questions?" and administrative detention = a traffic stop, or "Hi there, come over here, I have some questions to ask you." The primary difference between TI and AD is that in a TI the police ask, and in AD, they order. If you're being ordered to do something, yes, You Are Being Detained, and no, you are not Free To Go. IANAL, etc etc and this shit is annoyingly complex, so please do your own research, folks. Kafkaesque....try this on for size: thanks to the Berghuis v Thompkins USSC ruling in 2010, it is no longer sufficient to remain silent. You now have to specifically state you wish to remain silent when you are Mirandized. I wish I were making this up. The court flipped Miranda on its head almost completely. Prior to v Thompkins, the state had to prove, with high standard of evidence, that you had willingly waived your right to remain silent. Now remaining silent isn't enough...and aying anything is taken as an immediate implied waiver. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins
- otterley 4y ago
  I am, in fact, a lawyer. Please consult a criminal attorney as you have no idea what you are talking about. HN is not a place for lawyer wannabes to make incorrect assertions about the law. At the very least, please refer to this helpful reference from the ACLU, who are also staffed with actual lawyers who know what they’re talking about: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/stopped-by-police https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/stopped-by-police
  - frutiger 4y ago
    > HN is not a place… However, HN is a place where we prefer to explain why someone (or something) is wrong instead of just saying that they are wrong with no further justification.
Helmut10001 4y ago
I had to look up what "kafkaesque" means [1] [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkPR4Rcf4ww https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkPR4Rcf4ww
ineptech 4y ago
The whole ordeal would still be kafkaesque and cruel even if he had been guilty. I'd rather be a dog in a shelter than a prisoner awaiting trial in Texas.
jahnu 4y ago
Ken White makes a very good observation about the collective reaction to this story https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1534192090111889410 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1534192090111889410 Basically, that we should be just as shocked and appalled when it happens to guilty people as well!
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
raxxorraxor 4y ago
I see that more of an indignation of a completely defunct judiciary of New Mexico. The airline maybe expected more due diligence too but it is still no excuse they identified him wrongly of course.

whyenot 4y ago

Giving him a "payday" alone isn't really justice. Whoever is responsible should spend 17 days in jail. Of course, that will never happen, but it's what should happen if the goal is to prevent "mistakes" like this happening again and again. Same goes for the victims who were "mistakenly" reported (and arrested) as car thieves by rental agencies not that long ago. Money isn't justice.

ls15 4y ago
> Whoever is responsible should spend 17 days in jail. It still would not be the same. They would have to be pulled out of their lifes randomly without knowing why and how long it will take. Maybe a factor could be applied to account for that uncertainty. n * 17 days in jail, where n will only be announced after the fact.
- fnordpiglet 4y ago
  They should have to clean the jail. The story of his detention is bad enough, but the fact we treat human beings in this way simply because they’ve been detained - guilty or not - should be profoundly objectionable to everyone. But there seems to be this emergent belief that jail is supposed to be a house of horrors and the punishment is the horrors of the jail itself, rather than being deprived of freedom. Jails should be safe and clean, not traumatizing and filthy. The jail isn’t meant to be cruel and unusual punishment, but it has become that.
  - ls15 4y ago
    I admire how Norway treats Anders Breivik. The guy decided to become a monster. Norway decided against becoming a monster. He is in prison, because he cannot be free. His biggest problem in prison seems to be an outdated Playstation. In his case there is no expectation of reform, so his punishment is not meant to educate him, it basically just does what needs to be done, without being cruel. In OP's case, I think it is reasonable to expect some conversion process. Having to clean the jail sounds like a good way to learn some humility.
  - Sohcahtoa82 4y ago
    America has a twisted notion of what "justice" means. They think the goal of prison is punishment, not rehabilitation, so recidivism rates are ridiculous.

duxup 4y ago

> I wouldn't say a single word to the judge I’d be saying things like “I don’t know why I am here”, “I’ve been in jail for 17 days with no explanation”, I want to talk to a lawyer… and so on.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
notch656a 4y ago
My limited experience (thank god not 17 days) being held for almost a day with border patrol is that complaining about being held just encourages them. Yes they live for that shit. As someone with a 'flagged' US passport (despite no criminal record nor violating US border related law) who is repeatedly been detained and thrown in a cell without even being arrested or charged with a crime, I've become quite accustomed to how agents of the state treat those under their detainment. The best strategy is to pretend like you don't give a fuck and that you enjoy the experience; then the agents lose their amusement with you and eventually grow bored of fucking with you. If you act annoyed they latch on to you and toy with it the way a cat toys with prey. Sadly this guy made the mistake of thinking jailers are not psychopaths. Never give psychopaths an opportunity to see your weaknesses.
- duxup 4y ago
  > just encourages them Who? My comment was more about the hearing.
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Oh I see now, you were referring to exclusively speaking to the judge. Yes maybe that makes more sense. I have no idea if judges are as psychopathic as jailers are.
    - heretogetout 4y ago
      They absolutely can be. There are many stories of judges getting kickbacks for sending people off to prison and there's the FISA court rubberstamping (nearly) all requests from law enforcement.

teakettle42 4y ago

These types of occurrences are my number one argument for eliminating qualified immunity. Police officers should face significant, personal liability for flagrant violations of individual rights like this. It happens every day, and in almost every case, there's literally zero recourse no matter how much money you have to throw at the problem.

systemvoltage 4y ago
This sounds good. What may be the unintentional side-effects? Downsides? I guess, another way to question this is why is it the way it is?
- anonymousab 4y ago
  Cops might hesitate to act if their were repercussions, accountability or responsibility for their actions.
  - astrange 4y ago
    They already don't act because there's no repercussions for not doing anything; the SF DA is being recalled today because the cops decided they didn't like him and just haven't been doing their job for months as a result.
    - teakettle42 4y ago
      Chesa Boudin is the opposite problem. The answer to our broke-ass, classist, unjust "justice" system isn't to abandon prosecution almost entirely. If I had a magic wand, the DA's offices across America would review cases promptly, prosecute justifiable cases, and preemptively drop unjustified cases as soon as possible — and report truly questionable policing to a real oversight board, while actually charging and prosecuting police officers for genuinely bad policing. In reality, in most jurisdictions, the DA's office often doesn't even look at most cases until the day of arraignment, months after someone's life has already been run through a ringer and they've spent tens of thousands on retaining a defense attorney (if they're lucky enough to afford one), not to mention therapy (again, if they're lucky enough to afford that). All too often they'll try to coerce a plea deal for a bad case, rather than simply dropping it — and people accept the offered deal, because the alternative is incredibly expensive, and incredibly risky. As for holding police accountable for bad policing? Unless it's a case that garners the political will to prosecute (usually due to massive negative media attention), a ski holiday in hell is more likely. However, Chesa Boudin's office swung way too far in the opposite direction, failing to even prosecute strong cases for real crimes that resulted in real harm. Eventually, the police gave up — why bother going through the effort of policing if the DA is just going to drop the case anyway? It's like writing code only to have `git` erase your entire branch when you `git push`. I'm not a police apologist ("fuck the police" would find a spot on my top-100 playlist!) but Chesa Boudin absolutely deserved to be recalled.

KennyBlanken 4y ago

Your right to remain silent only applies to statements made to police and more specifically, those statements being used in court. You don't have a right to refuse to answer a judge, for example. You also don't have a right to refuse to answer a police officer generally, such as when they're asking you questions as part of booking you (do you have health conditions they need to know about, for example), and furthermore, during (say, a threshold inquiry or administrative detention) police are legally allowed to treat you refusing to answer them as guilty behavior. To be clear, in very simplified layman's terms: threshold inquiry = "Hi there, can I ask you a few questions?" and administrative detention = a traffic stop, or "Hi there, come over here, I have some questions to ask you." The primary difference between TI and AD is that in a TI the police ask, and in AD, they order. If you're being ordered to do something, yes, You Are Being Detained, and no, you are not Free To Go. IANAL, etc etc and this shit is annoyingly complex, so please do your own research, folks. Kafkaesque....try this on for size: thanks to the Berghuis v Thompkins USSC ruling in 2010, it is no longer sufficient to remain silent. You now have to specifically state you wish to remain silent when you are Mirandized. I wish I were making this up. The court flipped Miranda on its head almost completely. Prior to v Thompkins, the state had to prove, with high standard of evidence, that you had willingly waived your right to remain silent. Now remaining silent isn't enough...and aying anything is taken as an immediate implied waiver. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins

otterley 4y ago
I am, in fact, a lawyer. Please consult a criminal attorney as you have no idea what you are talking about. HN is not a place for lawyer wannabes to make incorrect assertions about the law. At the very least, please refer to this helpful reference from the ACLU, who are also staffed with actual lawyers who know what they’re talking about: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/stopped-by-police https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/stopped-by-police
- frutiger 4y ago
  > HN is not a place… However, HN is a place where we prefer to explain why someone (or something) is wrong instead of just saying that they are wrong with no further justification.

Helmut10001 4y ago

I had to look up what "kafkaesque" means [1] [1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkPR4Rcf4ww https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkPR4Rcf4ww

ineptech 4y ago

The whole ordeal would still be kafkaesque and cruel even if he had been guilty. I'd rather be a dog in a shelter than a prisoner awaiting trial in Texas.

jahnu 4y ago

Ken White makes a very good observation about the collective reaction to this story https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1534192090111889410 https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1534192090111889410 Basically, that we should be just as shocked and appalled when it happens to guilty people as well!

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

raxxorraxor 4y ago

I see that more of an indignation of a completely defunct judiciary of New Mexico. The airline maybe expected more due diligence too but it is still no excuse they identified him wrongly of course.