Tormund's police and other miscarriers of justice thread.

[awesome possum]

Has this been posted yet? Because it's pretty crazy:

Man and wife tased by police as he records them breaking down his door

The story from what I can tell is that the man and his wife were in an argument when someone called the cops for a Domestic Disturbance. The cops arrive, they demand to be let into the house but both the husband and wife tell them there is no domestic disturbance going on and the cops do not have permission to enter their property. The cops tell them to get on their knees with their hands in the air because they're going to break down the door.

They break down the door, demand the people "assume the position" and then begin using tasers when they don't. There's nothing more on the page about the incident - just the incident - and I couldn't find any actual news story, only several websites linking to the video.

I did find this, so these people definitely appear to have an actionable situation on their hands:

Under Florida v. J.L. (March 28, 2000), “the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed that anonymous tips are not sufficient grounds to constitute probable cause for a search. Judge Ginsburg, writing for the Supreme Court, stated, “Such an exception would enable any person seeking to harass another to set in motion an intrusive, embarrassing police search of the targeted person simply by placing an anonymous call.…”

[Sturn]

AP I would like to hear more on this subject. I can understand both sides of the issue completely (police trying to do their job vs. prevention of harassment via false accusations). It's kind of normal procedure where I work that we ensure everyone at the residence is fine before leaving on one of these calls. It came up in the recent discussion here regarding the three kidnapped women. It's a liability issue. Typically you try to convince the people who are claiming nothing is wrong that we just wish to get eyes on everyone to ensure everything is ok. It's pretty easy by looking at a person's face to tell if they are under distress. A big problem with this is the person who has been harmed or in harm's way may be hidden or locked away in a room in a house and you can't truly know if everything is ok unless you enter the residence. That is what police would prefer but it is also a complete embarassment to those falsely accused or who were only having a verbal dispute. That creates the situation above when police are faced with a damned-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't decision:

1. Report of a domestic disturbance.

2. Person at door says everything is ok, go away.

3. Police go away.

4. It was not ok, wife is later beat to death.

5. Police are sued/fired.

VS

1. Report of a domestic disturbance.

2. Person at door says everything is ok, go away.

3. Police force their way into the home.

4. It was ok.

5. Police are sued/fired.

Choose wisely.

[Ser Greguh]

What is this I don't even...

Why the fuck do search warrants even exist if all it takes to break into a place is an anonymous tip? What's to prevent a cop that wants to search a home but isn't able to acquire the PC for a warrant from paying some kid $20 to report a domestic dispute taking place at that home? Cops then bust down the door and say "We were worried they might have had someone kidnapped in the closet."

[Fragile Bird]

What is this I don't even...

Why the fuck do search warrants even exist if all it takes to break into a place is an anonymous tip? What's to prevent a cop that wants to search a home but isn't able to acquire the PC for a warrant from paying some kid $20 to report a domestic dispute taking place at that home? Cops then bust down the door and say "We were worried they might have had someone kidnapped in the closet."

Um, very, very sad to say this, but this is one of the big complaints against the Cleveland police, right? That people reported suspicious activity at The House, and the police were told nothing's wrong, so they went away? I'm not sure if those stories were confirmed, or if Cleveland police have denied them. In that thread, people kept saying that if a man comes to the door and says everything's ok, the police should demand to see the other party involved, like the wife or girlfriend or whomever.

[Sturn]

Why the fuck do search warrants even exist if all it takes to break into a place is an anonymous tip?

Exigent Circumstances.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exigent_circumstance_in_United_States_law

What's to prevent a corrupt cop that wants to search a home but isn't able to acquire the PC for a warrant from paying some kid $20 to report a domestic dispute taking place at that home? Cops then bust down the door and say "We were worried they might have had someone kidnapped in the closet."

Nothing.

(bolded "corrupt" my addition)

[Ser Greguh]

Um, very, very sad to say this, but this is one of the big complaints against the Cleveland police, right? That people reported suspicious activity at The House, and the police were told nothing's wrong, so they went away? I'm not sure if those stories were confirmed, or if Cleveland police have denied them. In that thread, people kept saying that if a man comes to the door and says everything's ok, the police should demand to see the other party involved, like the wife or girlfriend or whomever.

Well, this is a predictable response to a tragedy such as the Cleveland abductions, and a good case study in how emotional reactions to specific data points (no matter how sensational) makes for exceptionally shitty policy. If people wonder "what could have been done to prevent this" and the answer is "the creation of a police state", that's still not a good argument for the creation of a police state. And that's exactly what you get when citizens are forced to cooperate with police who make demands not granted to them by the law. The founders had very good reason to include provisions to protect against that, and those provisions are still very relevant.

Exigent Circumstances.

Nothing in the video suggests circumstances even remotely approaching exigent. Nice try but that's not a catch-all protection against unlawful entry to a home.

Nothing.

Incorrect. The 4th Amendment is the correct answer. In such a situation the search of the home is still illegal and anyone participating in such a search is guilty of breaking and entering.

[Fragile Bird]

This reminded me of an infamous Toronto murder case from 30 years ago. There was a series of deaths of babies at Toronto Sick Children's Hospital, and a new, experimental test showed high levels of the heart medication digoxin. When police detectives showed up to interview one young nurse, her roommate, a law student, told her this was a serious matter and she should refuse to answer questions unless she had a lawyer present. The detectives immediately took this as an indication of guilt and arrested her and eventually charged her with 4 counts of murder. She was exonerated and successfully sued the Attorney General for malicious prosecution. A public inquiry found that the only reason she was arrested was because she asked for a lawyer. The inquiry also determined that the tests were faulty, and it was unclear if any murders actually occurred. Toronto Hospital Murders

[Sturn]

Nothing in the video suggests circumstances even remotely approaching exigent. Nice try but that's not a catch-all protection against unlawful entry to a home.

Nice try? I never actually commented on the video directly. Exigent Circumstances is the rule used to enter without a search warrant. Only probable cause is needed.

Incorrect. The 4th Amendment is the correct answer. In such a situation the search of the home is still illegal and anyone participating in such a search is guilty of breaking and entering.

You actually think the 4th Amendment means crap to a cop that is willing to pay a kid to make up probable cause? If a cop would do such a thing, the 4th Amendment obviously applies but obviously didn't do crap to prevent it.

[Ser Greguh]

Nice try? I never actually commented on the video directly. Exigent Circumstances is the rule used to enter without a search warrant. Only probable cause is needed.

Only if the circumstances are - fancy that - exigent: i.e. "someone is being murdered inside that apartment and we can't wait for a judge." Not "Someone anonymously said there was a disturbance here but everything appears calm so we're just going to kick the door down anyway."

You actually think the 4th Amendment means crap to a cop that is willing to pay a kid to make up probable cause? If a cop would do such a thing, the 4th Amendment obviously applies but obviously didn't do crap to prevent it.

Of course not, but it's not about what it means to that particular cop. Funny thing about that: some of us actually require a higher standard for protecting against corrupt police officers than "Oh, don't worry, cops are mostly totally trustworthy and good and stuff" (which is precisely why your thread intending to "balance out" police misbehavior with random good deeds was met with such hostility). The rules restricting cops aren't in place because of the good cops, just as the laws against everyone else aren't in place to protect against the good citizens. If no cops were corrupt then there wouldn't need to be any rules and we certainly wouldn't need a 4th Amendment.

Which goes straight to my point. It's next to impossible to catch a cop for planting a bogus tip, but very easy to show that a home was invaded without a search warrant. If they want to go in without a warrant, they have to be able to show the circumstances were exigent, which is a much higher standard. This was as true in the founders' day as it is today; the founders had lived in a situation under British rule where the police-equivalents had gotten so powerful that ordinary citizens were completely powerless to stop any kind of abuse of that power whatsoever, and so they wrote restrictions into the constitution that aimed to help prevent those sorts of abuses from repeating themselves.

So with proper 4th Amendment protection this cop is powerless to invade the home just because he plants a bogus tip, unless he uses that tip as the grounds for seeking out a warrant, which ideally requires some form of corroboration or scrutiny of the source (I'm well aware that that standard has largely slipped, which is a separate tragedy).

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

I just described how I've been involved with seizing (aka confiscation, aka forfeiture, aka stealing to you) of assets then you say I don't know what it is? I'm flabbergasted. I used a different lingo. Sorry if my work lingo doesn't use the term, "civil forfeiture". I'm well aware of seizure of property due to proceeds or use in a crime, which I already described above before you became flabbergasted. You stated, "in civil forfeiture cases the person is rarely if ever charged with any crime whatsoever", which is not at all what I've ever actually encountered when doing my job for 20 years. I will repeat, the only seizures (forfeitures if it helps) I've ever seen were from actual crimes with actual convictions. I suppose the forfeiture proceedings may be legally seperated from the criminal proceedings (two different hearings), but they are of course directly related, one dependent on the other completely. Sorry, I can't change the reality of my job and what actually happens to coincide with what you think actually happens.

It's really weird that I have to educate you on this but oh well. What you are referring to is criminal forfeiture, which is distinct from civil forfeiture. See my links below.

http://www.forbes.com/2011/06/08/property-civil-forfeiture.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asset_forfeiture#United_States

http://www.ij.org/policing-for-profit-the-abuse-of-civil-asset-forfeiture-4

[Tormund Ukrainesbane]

Holy fucking shit

"I'm weird. Other kids don't like me," said Sarah, who has been diagnosed with attention-deficit and bipolar disorders and who is conscious of being overweight. "They were saying a lot of rude things to me. Just picking on me. So I sprayed myself with perfume. Then they said: 'Put that away, that's the most terrible smell I've ever smelled.' Then the teacher called the police."

and then this revelation just blew me away

Each day, hundreds of schoolchildren appear before courts in Texas charged with offences such as swearing, misbehaving on the school bus or getting in to a punch-up in the playground. Children have been arrested for possessing cigarettes, wearing "inappropriate" clothes and being late for school.

In 2010, the police gave close to 300,000 "Class C misdemeanour" tickets to children as young as six in Texas for offences in and out of school, which result in fines, community service and even prison time. What was once handled with a telling-off by the teacher or a call to parents can now result in arrest and a record that may cost a young person a place in college or a job years later.

Three. Hundred. Thousand. Tickets. To. Children. 300,000. In one year. To children. Not "moving violations" either. Honest to god misdemeanor this-is-an-actual-criminal-charge tickets. Three hundred thousand of them. There are no words.

[Fragile Bird]

Holy fucking shit

and then this revelation just blew me away

Three. Hundred. Thousand. Tickets. To. Children. 300,000. In one year. To children. Not "moving violations" either. Honest to god misdemeanor this-is-an-actual-criminal-charge tickets. Three hundred thousand of them. There are no words.

But the police are there to protect the children, Tormund, from crazed shooters. And the NRA wants more police, in every school across the country.

[thecryptile]

Sometimes school resource officers are used stupidly, like that case Tormund mentions, but there is a real need for them.

Not even debating the active shooter argument, our schools are filled with gangs and hardcore drugs. When I was in high school, crack cocaine and marijauna were widely available in the halls and cafeteria. From what I've seen in the local media, the only change is that now it's methamphetamine and prescription pain killers being peddled in the locker banks instead. While people decry this "school to prison pipeline" often the "kids" in question are young adults involved in the drug trade and/or gangs.

[Fragile Bird]

Sometimes school resource officers are used stupidly, like that case Tormund mentions, but there is a real need for them.

Not even debating the active shooter argument, our schools are filled with gangs and hardcore drugs. When I was in high school, crack cocaine and marijauna were widely available in the halls and cafeteria. From what I've seen in the local media, the only change is that now it's methamphetamine and prescription pain killers being peddled in the locker banks instead. While people decry this "school to prison pipeline" often the "kids" in question are young adults involved in the drug trade and/or gangs.

Have you even read Tormund's link????

[thecryptile]

Have you even read Tormund's link????

I read it, and I'm sure that the six year olds in question weren't selling meth, and the perfume girl could've been handled by a trip to the principals office, but I also read about teachers being assaulted by students who are physically larger than them.

The media have their spin, and I have mine. I still say we need SRO's to combat crime in the schools. We have young adults selling narcotics, and commiting assaults and rapes. There is no break down in the article of how many of these 300,000 are charged for getting smart mouthed with the home-room teacher and how many are for actual crimes.

"There's this illusion that it's just a few kids acting up; kids being kids. This is not the 50s. Too many parents today don't control their children. Their fathers aren't around. They're in gangs. They come in to the classroom and they have no respect, no self-discipline. They're doing badly, they don't want to learn, they just want to disrupt. They can be very threatening," he says. "The police get called because that way the teacher can go on with teaching instead of wasting half the class dealing with one child, and it sends a message to the other kids."

I also suspect that I, as someone who went to a US school with an SRO, knows more about this subject than Chris McGreal, who did not.

[The Progressive]

But the police are there to protect the children, Tormund, from crazed shooters. And the NRA wants more police, in every school across the country.

You really shouldn't take tormund's extremist view on police seriously or even representative of what most people think. Growing up in a rough school district, I was glad to see the occasional presence of the police in campus. As to the nra, what they want is to pack teachers with guns ..... how fucking crazy is that? By the way, tormund is the sort of gun gun nut who broadly boast that he walks around with a concealed weapon.

[Fragile Bird]

You really shouldn't take tormund's extremist view on police seriously or even representative of what most people think. Growing up in a rough school district, I was glad to see the occasional presence of the police in campus. As to the nra, what they want is to pack teachers with guns ..... how fucking crazy is that? By the way, tormund is the sort of gun gun nut who broadly boast that he walks around with a concealed weapon.

Have you any idea how angry he is at the concept of 300,000 children, as young as age six, being given citations by police in one year?

[The Progressive]

No idea and no desire to explore the dark recess of his head. His actions speaks loud enough.

[Spring Bass]

Have you any idea how angry he is at the concept of 300,000 children, as young as age six, being given citations by police in one year?

He's always angry, so it loses its impact.

[Sturn]

You really shouldn't take tormund's extremist view on police seriously or even representative of what most people think. Growing up in a rough school district, I was glad to see the occasional presence of the police in campus. As to the nra, what they want is to pack teachers with guns ..... how fucking crazy is that? By the way, tormund is the sort of gun gun nut who broadly boast that he walks around with a concealed weapon.

You mean a normal person who decided to get a concealed carry permit, a completely legal thing to do where he lives?

Please don't derail this thread into an anti-gun one. It's anti-cop. You might consider that I'm a cop and of course a complete opponent of Tormund within this thread, but am still defending him against the stupidity you just posted when you just blanket dismissed anything Tormund says. Lively debate goes on here, don't try to squelch it just because you disagree.

Only the non-bolded part in your quote above added to the conversation. The other 2/3 of what you said could have been left at the road side.