6 ms·

TBH, I think the conduct of the cops is fine here. If someone alleges that the other party is making death threats, I want them to investigate. It's not alleged

TBH, I think the conduct of the cops is fine here. If someone alleges that the other party is making death threats, I want them to investigate. It's not alleged that the cops mistreated Mr. Epstein. Obviously being arrested is traumatic, but the fault here lies with the unhinged neighbour, who will hopefully be prosecuted. What's beyond the pale for me is that the Crown prosecutor brought the lawsuit at all. She's even a 16-year veteran. I'd be interested in reporting about how this case made it to trial once they had collected all the evidence.

SkeuomorphicBee 4y ago
If all the police did was investigate, then their conduct would have been fine. But they arrested him, and that is not adequate conduct.
- cldellow 4y ago
  On the one hand, knowing what we know now, I certainly agree it would be preferable if he wasn't arrested. On the other hand, the neighbour had made at least 4 reports to the police about harassment and death threats. I believe the neighbour's brother and parents had also spoken to the police in support of these claims. On the day of the arrest, the neighbour had _just_ made the most serious claim yet--about death threats. Given that context, I can understand why the police legally have the right to arrest, and would be willing to arrest.
  - marcosdumay 4y ago
    Hum... No, it's not ok for the police to arrest somebody only due to claims. It doesn't matter how often the claims are repeated. Maybe the police should have investigated it earlier, but lack of that earlier investigation is not cause for arresting him.
    - batch12 4y ago
      I assumed that they were shown the video of 'the finger' and arm waving and thought the accusation had enough meat on it.
  - Rumudiez 4y ago
    The kind of person it takes to make 4(!) official complaints and have the local police office in their contact list is exactly the same person to exaggerate dramatically, play the victim, and ultimately be the true source of anti-social behavior. I don’t believe there’s any veracity behind their claims, and the police department should have forwarded their calls to a therapist instead.
    - vkou 4y ago
      A friend[1] of mine (and his neighbours) have made a lot more than 4 official complaints about an absolutely deranged lunatic[2] on his street. It took years of complaints and police calls, for the guy to get a court date (For harassing the neighbors and vandalizing their cars.) Unless you actually go through many of the steps of investigating, you have no idea if the person making the complaints is the anti-social shithead, or if the person being complained about is. '4 official calls = complainer is full of shit' is a terrible heuristic. [1] Who I trust and respect very much. I doubt that he's full of crap. [2] Who, from all accounts, wouldn't benefit from a fine or prison sentence - he needs therapy.
  - standardUser 4y ago
    "I certainly agree it would be preferable if he wasn't arrested." We should actually be completely fucking outraged that any citizen can be forcibly detained on the whim of the police for non-violent behavior. Yet you seem to think it's just fine to deny a person every basic human right on the whim of some cop?
- ChickenNugger 4y ago
  Sometimes they're ordered to and it's not their call. I'm not saying this is the case here, but here's a hilariously well documented instance: https://ymeskhout.substack.com/p/sorry-for-arresting-you https://ymeskhout.substack.com/p/sorry-for-arresting-you Yes, yes I know "just following orders" shouldn't be an excuse.
Natsu 4y ago
That's actually addressed in the article if you read deep enough. The judge praises the prosecutor for cutting the case off halfway and asking it thrown out after they heard from the defendant. They did have a video of a guy giving both middle fingers and making a motion that could ambiguously look like throat slashing. Now it wasn't that and the guy had a credible explanation of why and his neighbor is both a bad driver and a paranoid nutjob, most of which was proven by the paranoid guy's own videos wherein he (but not his innocent neighbor) can be seen doing all manner of things that might credibly be offenses like driving over the limit, driving dangerously and not slowing around kids, etc. So it's not too clear to me what the prosecutor knew and when, beyond that video, but at least when the evidence did come out, they folded immediately, which makes me believe they must not have known that earlier.
- denton-scratch 4y ago
  > which makes me believe they must not have known that earlier. But why not? The evidence that was presented to the court was the complainant's evidence. The case failed on the prosecution evidence. The prosecutor should have known it wouldn't stand up.
  - Natsu 4y ago
    I mean, you're right that there's a good case that they should have known if they'd done things more thoroughly, but the fact that they simply did fold tells me they probably didn't actually know (even if they really should have!) because otherwise, why embarrass yourself in court like that?
denton-scratch 4y ago
The prosecutor eventually asked the judge to acquit. For which the judge gave her credit. But I don't understand why she prerssed charges in the first place; was she so unfamiliar with the evidence that she was going to have to present, that she didn't realize it was full of holes until it came to court? There's a missing backstory here. I wonder whether the case was prepared by a junior, and this prosecutor barged in and decided to take over at the last minute, for the sake of personal glory. I can't see why she deserves the judge's approval.

SkeuomorphicBee 4y ago

If all the police did was investigate, then their conduct would have been fine. But they arrested him, and that is not adequate conduct.

cldellow 4y ago
On the one hand, knowing what we know now, I certainly agree it would be preferable if he wasn't arrested. On the other hand, the neighbour had made at least 4 reports to the police about harassment and death threats. I believe the neighbour's brother and parents had also spoken to the police in support of these claims. On the day of the arrest, the neighbour had _just_ made the most serious claim yet--about death threats. Given that context, I can understand why the police legally have the right to arrest, and would be willing to arrest.
- marcosdumay 4y ago
  Hum... No, it's not ok for the police to arrest somebody only due to claims. It doesn't matter how often the claims are repeated. Maybe the police should have investigated it earlier, but lack of that earlier investigation is not cause for arresting him.
  - batch12 4y ago
    I assumed that they were shown the video of 'the finger' and arm waving and thought the accusation had enough meat on it.
- Rumudiez 4y ago
  The kind of person it takes to make 4(!) official complaints and have the local police office in their contact list is exactly the same person to exaggerate dramatically, play the victim, and ultimately be the true source of anti-social behavior. I don’t believe there’s any veracity behind their claims, and the police department should have forwarded their calls to a therapist instead.
  - vkou 4y ago
    A friend[1] of mine (and his neighbours) have made a lot more than 4 official complaints about an absolutely deranged lunatic[2] on his street. It took years of complaints and police calls, for the guy to get a court date (For harassing the neighbors and vandalizing their cars.) Unless you actually go through many of the steps of investigating, you have no idea if the person making the complaints is the anti-social shithead, or if the person being complained about is. '4 official calls = complainer is full of shit' is a terrible heuristic. [1] Who I trust and respect very much. I doubt that he's full of crap. [2] Who, from all accounts, wouldn't benefit from a fine or prison sentence - he needs therapy.
- standardUser 4y ago
  "I certainly agree it would be preferable if he wasn't arrested." We should actually be completely fucking outraged that any citizen can be forcibly detained on the whim of the police for non-violent behavior. Yet you seem to think it's just fine to deny a person every basic human right on the whim of some cop?
ChickenNugger 4y ago
Sometimes they're ordered to and it's not their call. I'm not saying this is the case here, but here's a hilariously well documented instance: https://ymeskhout.substack.com/p/sorry-for-arresting-you https://ymeskhout.substack.com/p/sorry-for-arresting-you Yes, yes I know "just following orders" shouldn't be an excuse.

Natsu 4y ago

That's actually addressed in the article if you read deep enough. The judge praises the prosecutor for cutting the case off halfway and asking it thrown out after they heard from the defendant. They did have a video of a guy giving both middle fingers and making a motion that could ambiguously look like throat slashing. Now it wasn't that and the guy had a credible explanation of why and his neighbor is both a bad driver and a paranoid nutjob, most of which was proven by the paranoid guy's own videos wherein he (but not his innocent neighbor) can be seen doing all manner of things that might credibly be offenses like driving over the limit, driving dangerously and not slowing around kids, etc. So it's not too clear to me what the prosecutor knew and when, beyond that video, but at least when the evidence did come out, they folded immediately, which makes me believe they must not have known that earlier.

denton-scratch 4y ago
> which makes me believe they must not have known that earlier. But why not? The evidence that was presented to the court was the complainant's evidence. The case failed on the prosecution evidence. The prosecutor should have known it wouldn't stand up.
- Natsu 4y ago
  I mean, you're right that there's a good case that they should have known if they'd done things more thoroughly, but the fact that they simply did fold tells me they probably didn't actually know (even if they really should have!) because otherwise, why embarrass yourself in court like that?

denton-scratch 4y ago

The prosecutor eventually asked the judge to acquit. For which the judge gave her credit. But I don't understand why she prerssed charges in the first place; was she so unfamiliar with the evidence that she was going to have to present, that she didn't realize it was full of holes until it came to court? There's a missing backstory here. I wonder whether the case was prepared by a junior, and this prosecutor barged in and decided to take over at the last minute, for the sake of personal glory. I can't see why she deserves the judge's approval.