4 ms·

"You can beat the rap but not the ride" is phrased like the judge actually did anything wrong. That seems very doubtful. This administration has shown they are

"You can beat the rap but not the ride" is phrased like the judge actually did anything wrong. That seems very doubtful. This administration has shown they are not entitled to the presumption that they are acting in good faith.

hackinthebochs 1y ago
"You can't beat the ride" is saying that cops can punish you regardless of whether what you did was illegal.
- pc86 1y ago
  That's certainly one interpretation of it, and a pretty reasonable one. However, I typically interpret it as "if the police think you've committed a crime, you are going to jail and almost nothing is going to stop that." In that incredibly famous "Don't Talk to the Police" talk[0], the attorney asks the former-cop-turned-law-student if he's every been convinced not to arrest someone based on what the suspect said. Not a single time in his entire law enforcement career. This is also sort of the crux of the talk - if nothing you can say will convince the police not to arrest you, and things you do say can make things worse, your best bet is to just shut up and talk to an attorney if it gets to that point. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
  - QuercusMax 1y ago
    I think we're all agreeing here. "You can't beat the ride" means that if the cops want to arrest you, lock you up, etc., you can't do anything about it. Doesn't matter if you're guilty, innocent, or just a random bystander, you're not going to stop them from taking you and doing whatever they want in the process.
QuercusMax 1y ago
I don't think it implies the judge did anything wrong. If you're arrested, you're going to experience whatever the cops want to do to you, regardless of whether they can convict you of it. "You can beat the rap but not the ride" is an indictment of the cops, not the arrestee.
- prepend 1y ago
  I don’t know. It seems pretty unusual. Imagine that someone is being charged with shoplifting and literally at trial. Some other law enforcement agency shows up to the trial and wants to arrest them for jaywalking. It seems dysfunctional that the court would release them when they know a different law enforcement agency is literally in the building and wanting to arrest them. Is this how it works when the FBI comes to a county court looking for someone the county cops have in custody?
  - epistasis 1y ago
    Talk to the cops, not the judge who is in a proceeding? Go talk to the chief justice? The idea that the judge did anything wrong here, based on the description given by the FBI themselves, is absolutely beyond the pale. There's zero reason for ICE agents to barge into court and demand to take somebody. They didn't even leave one of the multiple agents in the courtroom to wait for the proceedings to end. To blame the judge at all in this requires making multiple logical and factual jumps that even the FBI did not put forward. Edit: the Trump administration has also been attacking the Catholic Charities of Milwaukee, which this judge used to run: > Before she was a judge, Dugan worked as a poverty attorney and executive director of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. It seems pretty clear that this is a highly politically motivated arrest that has zero justification.
    - b112 1y ago
      This reminds me of those cops arresting that nurse, over their attempts to illegally have blood drawn from an unconscious person.
      - rolph 1y ago
        LEO should have no say whatsoever regarding any medical proceedure. any one who keeps a hippocratic oath should not be performing procedures because they were "commanded" to, under pain of professional discreditation.
    - 1y ago
nostrademons 1y ago
Looking at the rest of the GP's comment: > The US is not yet at the level of dysfunction where jurisdiction is settled with gunfire, but ICE seem to be determined to move that closer. I don't think they intended to imply that the judge did anything wrong. Rather, they're saying that if you live in a world where the FBI or ICE or other official agencies can rough you up regardless of whether you're guilty or innocent in the eyes of the law, disputes are going to get settled with violence. After all, if the police are just going to make life difficult for you when you're arrested (the "ride") regardless of whether you're guilty in the eyes of the law (the "rap"), what's the logical response when you see a policeman coming to you? You shoot them. Don't let them arrest you because you're gonna have a bad time anyway. Various marginalized communities (in both other countries and parts of the U.S.) already function that way - violence is an endemic part of how problems are solved. And going back to the threadstarter, that's why police departments have instituted sanctuary city policies. They don't want to get shot, and so they try to create an incentive structure where generally law-abiding (except for their immigration status) residents are unafraid to go to the police and help them catch actual criminals, rather than treating all police as the enemy.

hackinthebochs 1y ago

"You can't beat the ride" is saying that cops can punish you regardless of whether what you did was illegal.

pc86 1y ago
That's certainly one interpretation of it, and a pretty reasonable one. However, I typically interpret it as "if the police think you've committed a crime, you are going to jail and almost nothing is going to stop that." In that incredibly famous "Don't Talk to the Police" talk[0], the attorney asks the former-cop-turned-law-student if he's every been convinced not to arrest someone based on what the suspect said. Not a single time in his entire law enforcement career. This is also sort of the crux of the talk - if nothing you can say will convince the police not to arrest you, and things you do say can make things worse, your best bet is to just shut up and talk to an attorney if it gets to that point. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
- QuercusMax 1y ago
  I think we're all agreeing here. "You can't beat the ride" means that if the cops want to arrest you, lock you up, etc., you can't do anything about it. Doesn't matter if you're guilty, innocent, or just a random bystander, you're not going to stop them from taking you and doing whatever they want in the process.

QuercusMax 1y ago

I don't think it implies the judge did anything wrong. If you're arrested, you're going to experience whatever the cops want to do to you, regardless of whether they can convict you of it. "You can beat the rap but not the ride" is an indictment of the cops, not the arrestee.

prepend 1y ago
I don’t know. It seems pretty unusual. Imagine that someone is being charged with shoplifting and literally at trial. Some other law enforcement agency shows up to the trial and wants to arrest them for jaywalking. It seems dysfunctional that the court would release them when they know a different law enforcement agency is literally in the building and wanting to arrest them. Is this how it works when the FBI comes to a county court looking for someone the county cops have in custody?
- epistasis 1y ago
  Talk to the cops, not the judge who is in a proceeding? Go talk to the chief justice? The idea that the judge did anything wrong here, based on the description given by the FBI themselves, is absolutely beyond the pale. There's zero reason for ICE agents to barge into court and demand to take somebody. They didn't even leave one of the multiple agents in the courtroom to wait for the proceedings to end. To blame the judge at all in this requires making multiple logical and factual jumps that even the FBI did not put forward. Edit: the Trump administration has also been attacking the Catholic Charities of Milwaukee, which this judge used to run: > Before she was a judge, Dugan worked as a poverty attorney and executive director of Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Milwaukee. It seems pretty clear that this is a highly politically motivated arrest that has zero justification.
  - b112 1y ago
    This reminds me of those cops arresting that nurse, over their attempts to illegally have blood drawn from an unconscious person.
    - rolph 1y ago
      LEO should have no say whatsoever regarding any medical proceedure. any one who keeps a hippocratic oath should not be performing procedures because they were "commanded" to, under pain of professional discreditation.
  - 1y ago

nostrademons 1y ago

Looking at the rest of the GP's comment: > The US is not yet at the level of dysfunction where jurisdiction is settled with gunfire, but ICE seem to be determined to move that closer. I don't think they intended to imply that the judge did anything wrong. Rather, they're saying that if you live in a world where the FBI or ICE or other official agencies can rough you up regardless of whether you're guilty or innocent in the eyes of the law, disputes are going to get settled with violence. After all, if the police are just going to make life difficult for you when you're arrested (the "ride") regardless of whether you're guilty in the eyes of the law (the "rap"), what's the logical response when you see a policeman coming to you? You shoot them. Don't let them arrest you because you're gonna have a bad time anyway. Various marginalized communities (in both other countries and parts of the U.S.) already function that way - violence is an endemic part of how problems are solved. And going back to the threadstarter, that's why police departments have instituted sanctuary city policies. They don't want to get shot, and so they try to create an incentive structure where generally law-abiding (except for their immigration status) residents are unafraid to go to the police and help them catch actual criminals, rather than treating all police as the enemy.