Seattle Hacker Catches Cops Who Hid Arrest Tapes 597
An anonymous reader writes "In 2008, the Seattle Police illegally arrested security consultant Eric Rachner for refusing to show ID. After Rachner filed a formal complaint, he was prosecuted for obstructing, and the police claimed that videos of the arrest were unavailable — until Rachner's research uncovered proof that the police had the videos all along." It's an interesting story of how he figured out how the system in use by Seattle police automatically tracks deletion, copying, or other uses of the recorded stream.
Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Shouldn't the officers in this case be charged with obstruction of justice?
PAPERS PLEASE (Score:4, Insightful)
The dream of cops, reactionaries, xenophobes, and fascist thugs everywhere...
What are the odds those cops got one of the few people left in their city who know their rights and have the means to defend them.
Pigs (Score:2, Insightful)
Motherfucking pigs...
Not all cops are pigs, but these ones were.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:2, Insightful)
A few bad apples (Score:5, Insightful)
A few bad apples making the other 1% look bad...
seriously, why do cops always circle the wagons to protect dishonest cops?
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Insightful)
And falsifying police document. Perhaps perjury as well, if the cops told this to a judge. This is one of those times when "making an example" is the right answer. Otherwise, wtf should we trust the police?
Re:A few bad apples (Score:2, Insightful)
Maybe the number is waaaaay higher than 1%...?
Re:A few bad apples (Score:5, Insightful)
Not quite sure to be honest, it seems like they would be the first ones to want the slime off the force.
I mean if you can't trust the guy to be honest and fair out on the streets, do I really want this dude "serving and protecting" my community where I live?
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Insightful)
So they can be sentenced to one month's vacation (with pay)?
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Insightful)
The individuals in the police department that refused to release the video of the arrest -- on false pretenses, by the way -- should also be fired.
Finally, the head of the police department in question should be fired.
Cops who abuse their authority are despicable.
Carefully parsed language (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually, that's not what they said. They said they can no longer be obtained. They didn't say they were destroyed. They didn't say *who* could no longer obtain them. Are they saying "You can't obtain them" (because it's past 90 days and that's our policy) or "We can't obtain them"? (because they were destroyed). The language is intentionally unclear. They *implied* that the recordings had been destroyed, and that the police themselves could no longer obtain them, but that's not what they actually said.
Either way, this is a good lesson for those /.ers who maintain that you don't have to show a cop your ID in the U.S. when asked (that you don't need "papers" in the U.S.). That may *technically* be true, but it can still cost you a weekend in jail and a $3500 legal bill if you actually pull that shit with a real cop.
Suprise, surprise (Score:5, Insightful)
Police in particular can NOT be trusted to police themselves. The few honest cops are often threatened by the rest. Rat on us and good luck when you call for backup...
More too this story methinks (Score:1, Insightful)
Don't get me wrong, the cops should be made to answer for their actions here too, but let's be sure not to paint this guy as some Rosa Parks of drunken nerf golf. Besides, he sliced the shot.
They should have been arrested, but not for that (Score:2, Insightful)
I'm glad that he went after the SPD, and didn't back down until he exposed their deceipt.
Additionally, he and his companions should have been arrested for drunk and disorderly conduct, but not for refusing to ID himself. Oh, and the one that hit the other guy in the face with the foam ball should have been arrested for assault. They were all a bunch of hooligans, and a public nuisance.
Re:There's a better charge.. (Score:5, Insightful)
The more I read the article (yes, some of us do), the more obvious that this is a systemic issue with the Seattle police dept, and this was a bonified SNAFU, (Situation Normal, All Fucked Up.)
Re:A few bad apples (Score:3, Insightful)
In this case, the dishonest part was "we don't have the videos." Which probably either equates to "Look, your case is over. I'm busy trying to save people. Go away." or "Frank in acquisitions said George in IT sent Lucy from internal to Gary in servers to get the tape you were looking for, and they said they don't have VHS tapes anymore. I don't know what VHS means, but we don't have it." Neither of these are particularly good reasons, but painting it as a conspiracy to protect these police officers from a technical call about a misdamenor seems a bit grandiose.
Otherwise, it sounds like a bunch of beat cops arresting drunk guys for being drunk, in an attempt to quiet down the streets. They left later that night, and had small charges filed against them that the county defender could have beaten. One person didn't buy an expensive lawyer, and spent a sunday cleaning up trash. It's not perfect. Its probably not the right call to pursue charges. But "dishonest?" Again, it just seems like some beat cops that wanted to break up a rowdy bunch of drunk guys with sticks before something bad happened. They overstepped their bounds a bit, but not a whole lot.
Make the attorneys aware that they can request the logs. Make the police know to take the video and log requests seriously. Done. Not really a big problem.
Re:A few bad apples (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Rachner impressively knew about this rights in Washington, but you should be careful to be as informed as he was before challenging the police in another state.
As for obstruction, I agree; the only obstacle is finding a prosecutor to enforce the law against the police.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:PAPERS PLEASE (Score:5, Insightful)
Most people don't need to defend their rights because they willingly give them away.
Fixed that for you.
Re:More too this story methinks (Score:1, Insightful)
Mod this guy up. While I'm not for anything unconstitutional, there has to be something that the police can do to stop douchbags like this guy (if you don't think he is, you haven't read the article) from getting away with being a douche.
I'm sure I'll get many replies on what they could have done, which I don't mind. I'm genuinely curious, especially since I am not American.
Re:Wow, what a waste of time and money (Score:5, Insightful)
So they spent months, thousands of dollars in defense, thousands in city funds all over the fact that some drunk tool refused to tell the cop who he was?
No, you moron. They spent that money because the police made an arrest under false pretenses, then tried to cover it up by lying about the presence of evidence.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Cops in the US can usually claim Sovereign Immunity. Which is one reason I dislike the concept so very much. (Even the Magna Carta had - in its original form - that sovereign immunity does not apply in cases of rights violation.)
I seriously doubt the cops will get punished, and quite possibly they'll never even have to stand trial. If there's an inquiry, it'll be internal and kept secret.
The problem is that, ever since the days of the Wild West, cops have seen themselves as absolute authorities with total power over the citizenry, the laws and the very facts of the case.
Why do geeks cricle the wagon? (Score:5, Insightful)
Look at the Hans Reiser case, or the Terry Childs case. On Slashdot we see tons of support for them, claiming they couldn't have done it, are being railroaded, etc, etc. They get consideration that people in other professions don't. A circling of the wagons.
It seems to be human nature.
Re:Carefully parsed language (Score:3, Insightful)
To play devil's advocate: how many people have called customer service somewhere to try to request something or get something done, only to be told that it can't be done (despite you knowing that it can be)? The letter he got back stating that it was past the 90-day retention period was probably sent by some drone at a desk, doing what happens every time I'm on the phone with customer service anywhere. Yes, it's possible that this was part of a police cover-up, and that possibility should certainly be investigated. But, I wouldn't jump to that conclusion.
To expand on what the parent said: the police officer was dealing with a large group of drunks. Someone had called 911, claiming that they were assaulted by this group of drunks. The police officers were trying to round up everyone involved, figure out who was who, and figure out what happened (basic police work). Yes, the officer overstepped his constitutional bounds by detaining someone for not providing identification. But, like the parent said: if you want to be a drunk who revels in causing problems for the police while they're trying to do their job (problems that you have the constitutional right to cause, yes, but problems nonetheless), expect problems in return.
Actually, not really (Score:3, Insightful)
Actually, if you RTFA, it wasn't him that hit someone in the face with the ball. Even the victim said he was only mad at the one person who did it, and it wasn't the subject of this article.
And he did really just refuse to identify himself and/or show his ID; it's all right on the recording in the linked article.
The issue here is that everyone is saying the cops are bigs, but in most jurisdictions, it is completely legal for a police officer involved in an investigation to ask an individual to identify him or herself. What is at issue is whether or not it is legal to arrest/detain someone ONLY for refusing to identify themselves if they are suspected of no other crime (the other issue here is that perhaps playing street golf/hockey is probably against some ordinance, but let's leave that aside).
This really isn't about "papers, please". It's about a law enforcement officer making a legitimate, legal request...not complying with an officer's legal request, even if you haven't yet done anything else wrong, is itself a crime in many jurisdictions. Unfortunately, it hasn't been (and still isn't) established whether or not and under what circumstances it is inappropriate in the State of Washington for a police officer to request an individual's ID.
I get a kick out of all the posts here laying into the cops. Typical, though, and not surprising.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Insightful)
No, ONE person smacked ONE person in the face with a ball, and he wasn't either party.
Not only wasn't he of that group, but the one who did the douchebaggery, didn't get arrested. The person they arrested for THAT (as opposed to refusing to show ID, and thus making it an illegal arrest) also didn't do anything.
The guy IS a fucking hero. Not because of what happened before, but because he was willing to fight the fight all the way to the end instead of simply caving because it was too much trouble.
Get enough people like you together... (Score:5, Insightful)
And pretty soon you have no rights left to give away.
Re:A few bad apples (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A few bad apples (Score:5, Insightful)
A few bad apples making the other 1% look bad...
seriously, why do cops always circle the wagons to protect dishonest cops?
Just for the record, any cop who protects dishonest cops, is also dishonest.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Insightful)
This douchebag was wandering around with a group of thirty or so people, drunkenly smacking people in the face with foam golf balls and then heckling them. I'm not sying the cops were right, they weren't, but this guy is no hero.
No.
Some other guy smacked one person in the face with a foam golf ball, by accident.
The police arrested the wrong guy by mistake, for which he performed community service even though he didn't commit any crime.
They also arrested one other person because he legally refused to disclose his ID or open his own wallet.
The real problem is the police lied and withheld evidence that didn't support their case. That cannot be tolerated, and for that he is a hero.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Insightful)
They arrested Rachner for obstruction of justice for not identifying himself.
No, they arrested him for frustrating and pissing them off. They charged him with obstruction of justice as their means of retaliation in an attempt to legally justify his arrest.
Big difference.
Re:A few bad apples (Score:4, Insightful)
Trust who? Other cops or other people? Because they don't seem to trust anyone outside their group, and then defend the indefensible. Not writing tickets for certain individuals [reason.com] as "a professional courtesy" is corruption. No one is above the law.
Re:Both sides are guilty (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:1, Insightful)
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:3, Insightful)
We live in a police state [...]
No, we don't. Contrary to popular opinion, a handful of police precincts engaging in douchebaggery because they're drunk on power does not constitute a police state...
Re:PAPERS PLEASE (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:3, Insightful)
Listen to the audio (Score:5, Insightful)
Have any of you posting listened to the audio? Especially the ones claiming they were a group of 'drunken douchebags'?
If you listen to the audio you'll notice that nobody was loud, obnoxious or incredibly rude. Eric sounds a bit curt, but he's defending his rights against an office who clearly is uniformed of the laws or has gotten too used to getting his way because he is a police office.
But honestly, I don't fault the officer either. He was as polite as can be expected and I believe he thought that he was in the right.
The this should have gone down, Eric gets arrested, police realize "Oh crap, you shouldn't have done that." Eric gets compensated for his attorney fees, the police officer gets sent to additional training and a memo is written to the rest of the department reminding them of how the laws ACTUALLY WORK.
That would have been justice, but we live in a society where everyone is out for blood for the most minor injustices and neither side is willing to say "oops, we screwed up."
Everything that happened afterward could have been avoided by simply saying "we were wrong, we're sorry" and then providing the necessary training to the police force so that they understand that citizens DO have the right to refuse to identify themselves.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:3, Insightful)
The result seems pretty obvious: the police will be able to legally arrest and imprison anyone, even people who are not doing any harm to anyone at all (even themselves).
Re:A few bad apples (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:PAPERS PLEASE (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:1, Insightful)
But now it is funny.
Re:Carefully parsed language (Score:3, Insightful)
What a great country we live in. Be seen in a group with people doing something goofy while drunk, know your rights, and expect legal hassles, including the police department lying to you about the availability of exculpatory evidence and the case being dropped after thousands of dollars in legal fees. U-S-A! U-S-A!
Thank fuck for the ACLU and its state and local counterparts. Your mindset is far too prevalent today.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:4, Insightful)
He's clearly looking to protect others. Otherwise, he'd drop it after winning. Instead, he's going after the larger problem.
This is a pretty common problem with the SPD (read the article), and abuse of "obstruction" charges is pretty common all over the US. I mean, listen to the sergeant of these GED-havin' goons talk about charging everyone with "Reckless Endangerment." With nerf balls? Come on. If you are a cop, chances are, you are not a lawyer.
Everyone knows what power-tripping uniformed cops are like (not all, but most), even friends of mine who are detectives and retired sheriffs are aware of the power-tripping Napoleon-complex-havin' jack-holes that gravitate towards being beat cops. You give people shit pay and the opportunity to carry a gun, you get shit cops carrying guns.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe getting a news story about it, made it worth it?
Maybe just standing up for you rights, is worth it?
People have given their lives for the sake of their rights, this guy gives up a weekend and 25 hundred bucks. I don't know how i would handle the situation, but i applaud him for standing up for his rights.
Re:A few bad apples (Score:3, Insightful)
Fair enough, but here's a good instance where technology could help solve this problem if applied correctly and honestly. The dashboard cameras that most cops have in their cars is a great start. But that's not taking it far enough. Ideally, the police are on the side of justice, and real justice requires truth. While on duty, police should use easily available technology to record everything they do. They should carry cameras as much as possible, they should all carry microphones that record everything when they're involved in an altercation or arrest or whatever.
They should be required by law to record all of this, and required by law to save the recordings for a particular amount of time, and provide it to relevant parties on both sides of any court proceedings,etc. that may occur.
This would help protect the police from false charges from criminals, as well as help protect citizens from abuse by the police. The technology certainly exists, and is getting cheaper by the day.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:3, Insightful)
It would be tough for the officer to claim that he thought it was legal to hide evidence and lie to a court, claiming that it had been deleted.
Freedom vs. Convenience. (Score:4, Insightful)
You might think it an inconsequential 'freedom' that one doesn't have to identify themselves to law enforcement officers. You might think that convenience trumps standing up for one's freedom. Rachner didn't. I agree with his choice. "Papers, Please" is something my German relatives have told me about from personal experience.
Some people are just more willing than others to make sacrifices for their country and their countrymen.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, it would have been easier.
We have rights because some people stand up for them, even when it's not the easiest thing to do.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:0, Insightful)
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, we do. Anyone can be arrested for any reason. If there is no reason, they they are arrested for resisting arrest or obstruction of justice. All it takes for a resisting arrest charge is to give two conflicting orders, then arrest them when they ask for clarification or don't do both within 5 seconds.
That people aren't arrested on a regular basis for no reason doesn't mean that any one person could be arrested for any invented reason at any time, and would likely end up convicted.
For us to not be in a police state, we must require video for a conviction (shouldn't be hard since all cop cars have them now, and putting them on cops themselves would be trivial, though not cheap), and "resisting arrest" and "obstruction" would require that someone be convicted of a felony that was resisted or obstructed before the additional charges could be made. When "resisting arrest" is the only charge, it's absurd. They can't arrest you for resisting arrest because they didn't arrest you before you resisted, and if they didn't charge you with anything else, then they weren't arresting you at all when you resisted. Yet it's getting more common for any belligerent person to get arrested (and convicted) of resisting arrest when no arrest was being made.
We are in a real police state now. The douchebaggery isn't isolated, it's systemic and pervasive. Almost all cops believe that "contempt of cop" is an arrestable offense, and the law lets them make up charges. Just because the rate of unjustified arrests, charges, and convictions is low doesn't mean that it isn't a system wide problem that could become worse at any time.
Re:Who the hell wants to be a police officer? (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, people will make mistakes. If they also immediately admit their mistakes and try to ensure they don't happen again, people will still trust them. That is a sign of integrity.
Covering up mistakes and abusing your authority to put the blame on your victim is a sign that you have no integrity.
You cannot be trusted and cannot function as a public servant without integrity.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:2, Insightful)
Yeah he was. He just wasn't the guy who hit the guy who called 911. He was part of a group of thirty drunken goons wandering around whacking foam golf balls at things and insulting people who complained. I used to do stupid shit like that. Then I grew up.
"Ignorance of the law.... (Score:2, Insightful)
...is no excuse." That's what LEOs always love to throw in your face. It should be no different for them.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:4, Insightful)
Police officers will protect you, if you stop getting in their way.
No they won't. How can they? There are so few of them, in comparison to the general population. A police force an only be effective in one of two situations:
The Gestapo, Stasi, and (to a lesser extent) Hoover's FBI are examples of why option 1 is not a good idea. Option 2 is only possible when the majority of officers do not abuse the public trust, and those that do are dealt with efficiently and visibly by the rest.
Re:Who the hell wants to be a police officer? (Score:1, Insightful)
I made a post earlier that touches partly on this issue.
We just need to live in a system that is more willing to admit that mistakes happen and own up to them (and excuse them as mistakes) rather than try to cover them up.
If after going to court and being informed that the officer was in wrong, the SPD admitted the arrest was wrongfully made and then compensated the attorney fees and provided training for its officers to prevent further such incidents from occuring then we as a society would ALL be better for it.
Instead officers feel they have to protect each other (even if they're in the wrong) so that the next one who makes a mistake (and I honestly believe it was a mistake on the officers part) don't have to be fearful of losing their jobs.
Re:PAPERS PLEASE (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:3, Insightful)
If Operation Tragic Destiny is anything like Project Mayhem, I would follow you anywhere Mr. Durden.
Re:Eh.... (Score:3, Insightful)
1. Douchebaggery is not a crime.
2. He was arrested illegally and the police acted to cover up evidence of that fact.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Insightful)
The underlying reality is he did not stand up just for his rights, he stood up and took the flack defending every bodies rights. A conscious personal sacrifice he made to protect others as he well knew he would likely suffer for it. What he did next was of far greater import, proving that the particular police administration would, lie and with hold evidence in order to protect illegal activities and obvious indication that a much deeper investigation is required of that particular police department.
It is high time that all police officers carry smart phones with remote blue tooth video cameras fitted to their badges which must be on display at all times whilst on duty. Two functions, one as a means by which to reference the law, which they should do for any citizen upon request and, the second the live recording and transmittal of any arrest or similar interaction with any person.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Insightful)
You know, in the 50's the vast majority of Americans in this country wished to differentiate ourselves from communist and totalitarian countries where the phrase "papers please" was as common as hello.
How quickly we forget the danger of a government with to much control and police that arrest and detain people for nothing more than annoying the officer.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:A few bad apples (Score:5, Insightful)
2) "we take care of our own" Then you are part of the problem. "Tak[ing] care of your own" fosters distrust with the population you serve. Is it better to have everyone in the community you are in thinking of you as part of the problem, or to know that your department is, on the whole, very professional and very ethical, and therefore they are willing to work with you to get the job done? There's a reason people don't want to talk to the cops -- they don't trust them, and when you "take care of your own", you show that people are right not to trust the cops.
3) "... and deliver our own form of punishment." That's called "vigilantism", and it's illegal whether you wear a badge or not. What you are saying by your actions, therefore, is "the system is good enough for you, because you are civilian, but it's not good enough for us because we're cops." That's B.S., sorry.
Re:PAPERS PLEASE (Score:3, Insightful)
Most people don't need to defend their rights because most people are smart enough to just do what the man with the gun and the arrest powers says.
Most people don't need to defend their rights because they're smart enough to just let their rights be violated without complaint.
Is that seriously what you're trying to say?
Yeah, of course you don't need to defend your rights if you don't care about them. But what kind of fucked up solution is that?
Re:Actually, not really (Score:2, Insightful)
in most jurisdictions, it is completely legal for a police officer involved in an investigation to ask an individual to identify him or herself.
But not this one. "Ignorance of the law is no excuse of the law" is the standard that everyone else is measured by. It doesn't matter what laws I'm used to, or how honestly I believed I was correct about them; if I break the law, then I've broken the law. So have they. End of story.
What is at issue is whether or not it is legal to arrest/detain someone ONLY for refusing to identify themselves if they are suspected of no other crime
There is no issue. It is not legal, in that place, at that time. That's what the whole fuss is about!
(the other issue here is that perhaps playing street golf/hockey is probably against some ordinance, but let's leave that aside).
No; let's not. If they arrested him for something else (even as a pretext), and then demanded ID, that would be fine (as a point of law as opposed to justice). But, they didn't. They arrested him for not showing ID. They do not have that power. And they should know that they don't have that power. Just the same as I have to know that I can't arrest whoever I feel like arresting. And it's even worse, because at least in my case, I don't have permission to arrest any people; they do have the power to arrest some people in some circumstances, which makes it all the more vital that they absolutely know who, and when.
This really isn't about "papers, please". It's about a law enforcement officer making a legitimate, legal request...
Have you been paying attention? It was not a legal request!! Well, I mean they can legally request it, but they cannot legally demand it.
not complying with an officer's legal request, even if you haven't yet done anything else wrong, is itself a crime in many jurisdictions.
But not in this jurisdiction! Please, try to keep up!
Unfortunately, it hasn't been (and still isn't) established whether or not and under what circumstances it is inappropriate in the State of Washington for a police officer to request an individual's ID.
They can request it whenever they feel like it. They can demand it only when they are prepared to arrest you over something (reasonable suspicion, which has a low but still existent standard). They cannot do so at any other time, and that's well established.
Anyway, the point is moot. The simple fact is: the police either don't know or refuse to abide the very law they are responsible for administering. They use their own opinion of what is right or wrong and make up the law to suit themselves as they go along. That is wrong, and this is the tamest result of that you will ever see. It inevitably gets much worse.
I get a kick out of all the posts here laying into the cops. Typical, though, and not surprising.
I will be "laying into" anyone who is wrong; including cops, including you, and including myself whenever it happens (frequently). It's nothing personal.
Re:A few bad apples (Score:5, Insightful)
Professions that you are more at risk of dying:
Logger
Fisherman
Pilot
Iron worker
Garbage Collector
Farmer
Roofer
Elecrician
Truck Driver
Taxi Driver
A cop is most likely to die on duty in a common traffic accident. Not pursuing a suspect, but just driving around. They don't write tickets to other cops or families of other cops simply so that they won't get tickets themselves. It is 100% pure abuse of power. The story made up to defend it is only to not appear like jerks and to get chicks.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:4, Insightful)
"The explanation is our servers failed," said Seattle Police spokesman Sgt. Sean Whitcomb. "Data was lost, more than his, and it took some time to recover it."
This was probably a flat-out lie as well. It's not just the cops at the bottom, it is the whole structure that is rotten.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:3, Insightful)
It is high time that all police officers carry smart phones with remote blue tooth video cameras fitted to their badges which must be on display at all times whilst on duty. Two functions, one as a means by which to reference the law, which they should do for any citizen upon request and, the second the live recording and transmittal of any arrest or similar interaction with any person.
It should either be a wired camera or on public safety frequencies. Bluetooth devices are typically FCC part 15 devices (must accept interference) and run on 2.4Ghz (Wi-Fi, Microwave ovens, Bluetooth, Some cordless Phones, Baby Monitors, Wireless Cameras, Etc).
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Insightful)
When I was little kid, the cold war was still on. So in civics class at school, they taught us the various reasons why America was better than the Soviet Union. One of those reasons, of course, was that you didn't need to carry ID papers around with you for normal life.
Damn, I'm too young (32) to feel like an old man...
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:4, Insightful)
I dare you to go to any foreign country and walk around without your passport.
"Foreign countries" are irrelevant here, because he is talking about U.S. Last I checked, "looking foreign" - whatever that means - does not remove any rights of freedoms from a U.S. citizen.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:3, Insightful)
--sabre86
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:1, Insightful)
"Otherwise, wtf should we trust the police?"
The police should NOT be trusted.
You must be new here ( in the so-called land of the free, the USA ).
And by the way, judges, prosecutors, and the court system in general
shouldn't be trusted either. Anyone who believes otherwise simply
doesn't understand how the system really works.
And I _AM_ a lawyer, and have been for 35 years.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:3, Insightful)
and the cop was polite and reasonible in his request.
So what matters is that the office was polite while violating the citizen's rights?
I can't blame police for being suspicous these days with all the shit they put up with and all the crazies out there.
I think just showing the cop your ID would have been a lot less painful.
Yeah, like all these crazy anti-American SOBs trying to sell our precious civil rights, for which our ancestors fought and died, for the meager ransom of a momentary sense of security.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:3, Insightful)
The question is not whether you can walk around without having a passport on you, of course you can. Just like when I also drove without having a driving license with me for a few days before I realized I was leaving it in another bag. Despite not having a license with me, the car always started just fine and I could operate it as usual.
The point is if you are supposed to carry the passport/ID with you, and what will happen to you if you don't. Technically, I'm supposed to have my passport with me here in CZ, but I never carry it (unless I'm driving), since the possibility of losing or having it stolen and the bureaucratic bullshit associated with getting a new one is great than the chance of getting harassed by the cops and them not buying the "oh I just left it in my other jeans" excuse, or in worst case just waiting out for an hour while somebody fetches the passport from home.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:3, Insightful)
It has to get to court first though, which depends on both the prosecutor and the judge to actually care about justice more than they do about their cop buddy (and/or the city government, which all three work for).
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:3, Insightful)
First of all, can we agree on the following:
Maybe many of us wouldn't distrust the police so much if they wouldn't constantly expect the rest of us to do their jobs for them and persecute, or even prosecute, us if we either won't or can't. This is an example. We have a large group of people, one of whom commits a ridiculously minor infraction (it's an almost impossible challenge to actually injure anyone with a foam ball at range) and several of whom may have jeered at him afterwards (I'm also pretty sure that was probably less one-sided than the witness claimed). But it's a large group, meandering around, which means that anyone with a realistic world view realizes that most of them won't have even seen what happened or even have been nearby at that particular moment. The police, however, will come along and treat an entire crowd as a unit and require them all to know everything that has gone on in every part of the crowd at any time. We see this effect all the time at protests. There can be 100,000 people peacefully protesting, but if 1 person (which is not only .001%, but is also probably an agent provocateur and possibly and undercover officer) throws a brick through a window, the police will violently attack the entire crowd with chemical agents, blunt weapons and overwhelming physical force, frequently killing or maiming some of them. Sometimes the people killed or injured aren't even part of the protest, they are just people trying to walk home or to their place of business or a homeless shelter, etc. and who would have been perfectly safe among the protesters. However since the police expect everyone, everywhere to have some sort of advanced situational awareness that the police themselves manifestly do not possess even with all their communications equipment, anyone who wasn't in earshot when the police announced that the crowd should disperse is fair game to be shot with beanbags, wooden cubes or teargas, shoved violently to the ground, piled on top of by ten burly officers, etc.
People don't like the police because again, and again, and again, police officers show themselves to either be petty criminals (or sometimes major ones) hiding behind a badge, or possibly otherwise blameless people who nevertheless will lie, destroy and hide evidence and worse to protect the criminal officers. People don't like the police because they will ignore simply ignore laws that do apply to them (such as speed limits when they're not responding to an emergency), while busting other people for the same things and treating them like scum. They'll also treat victims of crimes with no respect (I can still hear the police officers laughing in my face about it when I was a teenager and my car was stolen) and sometimes they'll treat them like suspects or fish around for things to go after them for (after
Re:A few bad apples (Score:3, Insightful)
Ok, I see your point. Cops should be allowed to break any law they want (or their family members, hell their friends too).
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:5, Insightful)
Breaking the law is not the cops job. If the cop did not know that citizens are not required to state their name or provide ID on demand, he should have since knowing that IS in fact the cops job. The end result is that one incompetent cop is marginally more competent than he was prior to the "stunt".
For the record, standing on ones rights is not a "stunt". Standing on ones rights is the duty and privilege of citizens of free nations.
Re:Obstruction of justice (Score:3, Insightful)
It's the duty of the state to ensure that people are adequately trained in the law. If they fail in this duty then the individual they failed should not be the one punished. Their parents/teachers/etc on the other hand... /sarcasm
If ignorance of the law is no excuse for me, it's no excuse for them - that is final.
Re:A few bad apples (Score:1, Insightful)
Parent:
A few bad apples making the other 1% look bad...
You:
but I suspect such [bad apples] make up less than 1% of cops, rather than 99%.
Not to knock you, because it happens all the time, but isn't this really interesting? The humor in the parent's statement comes from the difference between what he was expected to say and what he actually said, but in this case the expectation was so strong that you responded to it, instead of what was actually there.
Reasonable suspicion is not probable cause (Score:4, Insightful)
It's really quite simple; if someone commits a crime, breaks a traffic law, etc they need to provide ID or they get their info run to see if they're legal....I don't see anything in there about Mexicans, do you?
Of course it doesn't say anything about Mexicans. That would be stupid, regardless of any intentions involved. You really think if they wrote a law like this with racist intentions they would state that explicitly? I'm not saying this is or isn't the case, but your proof is like asking people to play dumb.
Also your interpretation of the law doesn't match what I read in your link, nor does is coincide with what backers of the bill have said. The law states that they need "reasonable suspicion" and "lawful contact" to verify citizenship. Reasonable suspicion does not equal probable cause and neither does lawful contact. There is nothing in the law that establishes what reasonable suspicion is, and when asked what reasonable suspicion was, even the lawmakers who backed the bill can't come up with anything consistent. The only simple thing about the law is that it is open ended and poorly defined.
Another thing to note is your example is a bit ironic. Did you actually verify that the people in the emergency room weren't citizens? It's the emergency room where things aren't exactly planned out. Maybe they didn't have time to look for their paper work or it was lost in an accident. I carry around my drivers license but it might be in my coat on the table when I leave the office to get coffee. If I was rushed to the ER without it and was in their position would you have assumed I wasn't a citizen? Would the question be easier to answer if you could see what I looked like, or how I talked?