Easy solution: Put me on the jury.
A police officer testifies and right
away I assume he's lying, because he
can get away with it, because he likes
the ego boost, because he has given up
his personal integrity, because of the
"blue code" of whatever, because he
gets his jollies sticking people, whatever.
A police officer has less credibility than
the defendant. Similarly for prosecutor
expert witnesses, police forensics, police
crime lab work, etc.
In front of me, super tough, nearly impossible,
for a public prosecutor with just police
evidence to convict anyone of anything.
The prosecutor would be wise never to
use any evidence that in any way had
anything to do with the police.
Get some other, solid, clearly objective
evidence or the defendant goes free.
And for statistical evidence, I know
some statistics, at an advanced level,
and doubt that there is a single
prosecutor in the country who could
even once put on statistical evidence
that I would find less than just
fraudulent. E.g., lie detectors, finger
prints, and much more -- garbage.
DNA? Not from a crime lab.
As soon as the prosecutor or one of
their witnesses mentions prior
police record of the defendant,
the defendant goes free. Why?
Constitutional protection against
two convictions, or or even two trials,
for the same event. The issue
is what the defendant did as charged
this time -- whatever they did in
the past is just irrelevant.
A second trial for an earlier event
is unconstitutional and an attempt
at what I call fraud and, thus,
no more reason to listen to the
prosecutor. I call it fraud:
On a jury, I get to call fraud
anyway I want, and I don't have
to explain.
Have the defendant locked up
for more than a week without trial?
Violates the constitutional guarantee
of a speedy trial. Defendant
goes free.
Defendant injured while in police
custody, whether from the police,
other people in the jail,
or just a brick falling out of the
sky, violation of the constitutional
guarantee against cruel and
unusual punishment and
taking the freedom of a person
without due process,
and the defendant goes free
and wins a civil case against the
city, etc.
Can't take a person's freedom,
not even for a day, without
taking care of them, e.g.,
having a social worker
inform all their family,
make sure their house is secure
and their kitty cat fed, etc.
Fail to do that, and that
violates the constitutional
guarantee against cruel and
unusual punishment and also
punishment without due process --
defendant goes free.
There is an easy solution -- put me on
the jury.
Then when the defendant goes free and
brings a civil case against the prosecutor
and police, tough for the former defendant
to lose that case. Have the city, whatever,
pay them the $5 million or whatever.
Net, in front of me, the police, prosecutors,
etc. have to clean up their act, scrub
100% clean, at least as in the Constitution,
or the defendants will go free, just as
the founding fathers intended.
The police stopped the car because the
driver failed to use a turn signal?
BS. Likely the police are lying, and in
that case the stop was a case
of unconstitutional "unreasonable search".
That's my view, and on the jury I get
to vote that way for any reason or no
reason and don't have to explain my reason.
A police officer killed an unarmed person?
Deliberate, unprovoked, unexcusable murder.
Life or the chair.
The police have tracked mud all over our
Constitution, and it's long time
since that was way too much.
Defending our Constitution is much
of why we want police.
I appreciate your enthusiasm and upvoted you. However, this is not how most jury members think and assuming the police officers had good legal representation which they seemingly did based on the fact that they were either acquitted of the felony charges or not charged (sorry for repeating)
> Pressley, a Hollywood police officer for 22 years, and Francisco were fired in January. So were three other Police Department employees who were at the crash scene: Sgt. Andrew Diaz, Community Service Officer Karim Thomas and crime scene technician Andrea Tomassi, none of whom have been charged in the case.
It is more likely than not that you'd be excused from jury duty by competent defense lawyers acting on behalf of the ex police officers. It is in their interest to put people of a demographic that is likely to put the words of a police officer (or ex-police officer) above the words of a civilian and even above their own words on video tape.
Solution: Have judges actually get involved. Juries are a cute concept in theory (allowing citizens to check the government and justice process) but it's clear people aren't equipped in general. AFAIK, juries can't interview or request information. And then there's the laughable concept of jury instructions, where the judge ignores human psychology and pretends biases can be overcome by telling people to ignore things.
It's unbelievable that something as basic as viewing the police video requires any "legal" work at all. That kind of thing should just be assumed.
Both the police and the judges are part of the same State apparatus. As such, they will probably not bring any meaningful reductions to the power of the State.
They don't really have a choice. When a state trooper so much as gave a speeding ticket to city police officer in Florida, it caused a state wide unofficial standoff.
In the aftermath, some idiot police officer pulled over a state trooper for no reason and it turned out the trooper was related to the sheriff and got the idiot suspended.
It isn't just isolated incidents of power trips in individuals. It is a culture that sustains itself. Maybe it is just human nature. Apparently, it is completely legal for on duty police officers to not help people in distress from let's say a lunatic trying to stab them. What is to say an officer assigned to protect a judge will not stand back and watch the judge die if the judge had a reputation of being tough on cops?
> It isn't just isolated incidents of power trips in individuals. It is a culture that sustains itself. Maybe it is just human nature.
This behavior would not happen in the absence of a State-granted monopoly on power. Libertarian thinkers propose privatizing the police forces to avoid this very behavior. The customer (taxpayer) would not stand for its police force acting in such a way, and they would go out of business.
> I shouldn't be partisan in this case that affects all of us across party lines but doggamn Justice Scalia! ...
As sad as that situation was, I'm glad they ruled as they did. Can you imagine if the State was required to protect certain individual citizens, no matter what? There would be some sort of security posted at lost of random houses all the time, and we would have to pay for it! And what if two protected individuals got into a fight? Would the officers be required to fight against the other party?
I come down strongly on the side of the right of self-defense: of course the police are not required to protect you! It's simply tragic when the state removes your right to protect yourself while refusing to protect you as well.
That's a bit of a rant but it's a good point. The most effective thing ordinary people can do to fix the system is show up for jury duty when summoned.
You will be filtered out on jury selection. I agree with you, and experienced this directly when I had to face some bogus charges.
The State has the advantage in jury selection, and anti-authoritarian types (which is a good thing) are the first to go and they are extremely good at identifying them.
I'm gonna buck the trend here and say that I think there's a lot of problems with how you're thinking. The main one, in my view, is that it's much the same as the viewpoint that the police can do no wrong and everything they do is excusable because the suspect must have done something wrong or they wouldn't be looking at him anyways. The problems we're dealing with here are complex, and trying to reduce them to either "the police are always lying and covering up laziness and incompetence" or "the police are always acting in good faith" will ineviatably lead to miscarriages of justice.
I think this viewpoint comes from spending your time immersed in media that's so strongly biased that it's essentially propaganda. I'm going to take a wild guess and assume that you mostly get news from the type of sources that get linked on here, which are very quick on the trigger to print stories of alleged police misconduct, even if the evidence is rather shaky. These same sources virtually never print anything documenting the real-live effects of crime on victims, or stories of times when habitual violent offenders are difficult to bring to justice in practice, or descriptions of just how cruel and violent some of the worst offenders can be.
I think that people of a social class that rarely interacts with the legal system in any way, either as victims or suspects, are disturbingly easy to sway to one side or the other with a steady diet of propaganda. Spend a few years selectively listening only to stories of how terrible criminals are and how difficult to bring to justice, and you're ready to throw the book at anyone the police suspect without regard for the facts on the ground. Spend a few years selectively listening only to stories of police misconduct and abuse, and you'll end up kinda like Mr. graycat here.
To you, and anybody else feeling like this, I suggest, as an exercise to expand your mind and thinking, that you set yourself a project for a couple of months or so of deliberately ignoring stories of police misconduct, and perhaps even the sources that print them, and instead read only sources made up of or sympathetic to the police. Perhaps reddit /r/TalesFromTheSquadCar and /r/ProtectAndServe/. There's some other BBSes and news sources out there. Heck, here[1] is a good story from the police perspective of a violent stalker who terrorized his ex-girlfriend and repeatedly told the police every lie in the book in an attempt to get free and have another chance to hurt her.
And another one that's becoming a pet peeve of mine:
> A police officer killed an unarmed person? Deliberate, unprovoked, unexcusable murder. Life or the chair.
What is this, Western movie justice or something? How does whether the suspect was armed have anything to do with whether his death was justified? This is terrible from both sides. A suspect who does not have a weapon is perfectly capable of being a legitimate threat to the life of a police officer. Many unarmed suspects have stolen firearms from police officers and proceeded to kill them with them. Or with vehicles, other weapons, or their bare hands. Many unarmed suspects have been legitimately shot dead while trying to steal firearms from police officers. How would you recommend dealing with them?
On the other hand, we do have the Second Amendment, and it is perfectly legal to carry a firearm with a permit in most of the country. The fact that somebody possesses a gun is not an automatic justification for killing them either. Maybe a little thing called intent is important?
> descriptions of just how cruel and
violent some of the worst offenders can
be.
I agree. I hope and expect that such for
such a criminal a good and honest
conviction will be quite possible in our
legal system. E.g., per capita, we have a
lot of people in jail, too many on silly,
nearly trivial, charges. There certainly
should be enough room in the jails for the
serious criminals.
We need police -- no joke. I can easily
respect the police because of the dangers
they do face and if they are honest,
actually "serve" the public, obey the
Constitution, etc.
But the police abuses are too common:
E.g., apparently quite generally they can
lie in court and get away with it; they
can confiscate cash just because they want
to (there's a consulting company that goes
to police departments and teaches them how
to do that); can hassle people based on
trivialities as in the broken windows
approach; can lock people up for months,
in dangerous circumstances (that some of
the jails are very dangerous places is a
well known, long standing situation and
not an isolated issue), before a trial;
they can strongly coerce guilty pleas as
in plea bargains (commonly public
defenders say that that situation is
wildly out of control and has been quite
generally for decades); they have long
standing practices such a "nickel ride"
where they put someone in a van and drive
around violently causing the person to
bang against the sides of the van, and
much more. Here I'm talking not isolated
instances but wide spread practices.
> How does whether the suspect was armed
have anything to do with whether his death
was justified?
> A suspect who does not have a weapon is
perfectly capable of being a legitimate
threat to the life of a police officer.
Sure. But the police have so many
advantages in force that an unarmed person
is quite generally at a huge disadvantage.
So, when an officer shoots an unarmed
person, especially at, say, 10 feet, it
looks like the officer just took the easy
way out: He very much didn't like the
person or their attitude or behavior so
just gave up and shot him. Sure, each
case needs very careful, objective review.
And, really, likely an officer who has
shot one unarmed person will have to be
very reluctant to do so again for some
years.
Still, there are well documented cases
that are outrageous -- maybe they are too
rare to form a pattern to be addressed,
maybe not.
> Many unarmed suspects have been
legitimately shot dead while trying to
steal firearms from police officers. How
would you recommend dealing with them?
Sure, if there is a real situation like
that, the officer needs to use force. If
the officer does get to shoot, say, not at
point blank range, then the officer should
shoot for a limb and wound enough to win
the fight but not necessarily shoot to
kill.
> On the other hand, we do have the Second
Amendment, and it is perfectly legal to
carry a firearm with a permit in most of
the country. The fact that somebody
possesses a gun is not an automatic
justification for killing them either.
I know, and just by my saying "unarmed" I
know I'm already giving up this
Constitutional right. But the police keep
saying, "I felt threatened." and find that
that is justification enough to shoot to
kill. Well, if the person had a gun, it's
easier to believe the "threatened".
> Sure, if there is a real situation like that, the officer needs to use force. If the officer does get to shoot, say, not at point blank range, then the officer should shoot for a limb and wound enough to win the fight but not necessarily shoot to kill.
Please take a self-defense class. You should never "shoot to wound", you should shoot to stop, always at the center of mass. Shooting to wound, as at a limb, is very difficult and error-prone, and a miss can easily wound bystanders or damage property.
I agree with most of what you said and laud the support of constitutional justice. It would be great if more people on juries actually knew about the proper role of government (insert appropriate rant about public schools / indoctrination).
Some scholars assert that jury duty is actually forced servitude by the state and we would have better outcomes by paying jurors for their time instead of compulsory service.
> prosecutor with just police evidence to convict anyone of anything
Should we increase general surveillance from the State in order to gather non-police evidence? Who else would be doing a criminal investigation to gather proper evidence than the police? Are you including detectives/FBI in "police"?
> Have the defendant locked up for more than a week without trial? Violates the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial. Defendant goes free.
Did you really mean trial in this case? Often both sides need lots of time to prepare for trial. We had an article on HN a little while back about the bail bonds racket, so there is lots of liberty to be regained in this area.
> The police stopped the car because the driver failed to use a turn signal?
I would push to remove frivolous laws from the books. There are WAY too many criminal penalties in the law. I'm especially disturbed by felony-level penalties imposed by non-elected agencies in the bureaucracy, e.g. felony copyright infringement[1]
Bonus side-note: Government officials receiving fines rather than felony convictions [2]
> A police officer killed an unarmed person? Deliberate, unprovoked, unexcusable murder. Life or the chair.
Just as a non-officer should have the right of self-defense, I wouldn't lay down this sort of absolute statement. There are plenty of scenarios that justify the use of lethal force even if the aggressor is unarmed. We shouldn't advocate revoking the basic right of self-defense to anyone. Is this what you're advocating?
> The police have tracked mud all over our Constitution, and it's long time since that was way too much.
All branches of government at all levels have shredded the Constitution, not just the police.
> The police stopped the car because
the driver failed to use a turn signal?
I was too brief: If the police stop
someone for a turn signal violation,
okay, charge them with the turn signal
violation. But if charge the person with,
say, some more serious crime, then have
to suspect that the turn signal issue
was false and just used as a means
of unconstitutional unreasonable search.
My experience is that a good way to
suffer an unconstitutional search
from, say, a turn signal violation
is just to drive an old car in
a poor neighborhood, or really,
any neighborhood, late at night,
etc. Police just like to stop
and search cars, for any reason
or no reason, and will use any
excuse as a way to do that.
In my case, after the stop,
I'm articulate, calm,
mature, and get away with it.
But still I get stopped due to
the violation of driving with
an old car.
For my
> A police officer killed
an unarmed person? Deliberate,
unprovoked, unexcusable murder.
Life or the chair.
The burden of proof would have to
be strongly on the side of the police
to prove that they had no alternative
to being seriously injured or killed
themselves. For the police to say
"I felt that
my life was threatened" is not nearly
enough.
In such a confrontation with an unarmed
person, the police have enormous advantages
in force -- radios, backup, cameras to
identify the person in case they run,
clubs, guns, bullet
proof vests, etc. For a person to
die looks really bad.
We've had at least one recent case
where the person was running away,
was over 10 feet away, and the police
shot them in the back and killed them
just to keep them from running away.
At present, apparently the real standard
is that a person has to obey every
command of an officer, be pleasant,
object to nothing, defend themselves
against nothing, hand over money
and personal belongings that
they may never get back, not make
a recording, not call 911, permit any
search, accept painful restraints,
not try to run away, be verbally
insulted, be sexually molested,
etc. or the officer can just shoot
and kill the person and get away with it.
One response I have would be what
I would do on jury duty. But, right,
likely a public prosecutor would never
let me on a jury.
Another alternative is to have my
startup work, get rich, be careful,
and set up some funding for
some essentially sting operations
to catch police misbehaving, where
there was overwhelming evidence from
hidden cameras and microphones,
long distance cameras, etc. that
the police did something wrong.
Then have the legal resources
to prosecute the police. Use
such actions as examples, and then
try to get some better behavior
from the police. E.g., civil
forfeiture, that is, the crime
of carrying too much cash,
that is, legalized highway robbery.
I can't feel guilty for sticking up
for our Constitution.
Absolutely. We need a serious amount of education on how to interact with the police, to know when the encounter is over ("Am I free to go?"), to know exactly how much you are required to say and not say a word more, etc. From what I've seen, the police prey upon people's ignorance in order to score more convictions, tickets, and seizures.
>officer can just shoot and kill the person and get away with it.
Unfortunately this does happen, but in a few recent cases the officer has been arrested and charged with murder.
> E.g., civil forfeiture, that is, the crime of carrying too much cash, that is, legalized highway robbery.
I'm in the Bitcoin industry, so this rings true to me ;-)
A police officer has less credibility than the defendant. Similarly for prosecutor expert witnesses, police forensics, police crime lab work, etc.
In front of me, super tough, nearly impossible, for a public prosecutor with just police evidence to convict anyone of anything. The prosecutor would be wise never to use any evidence that in any way had anything to do with the police.
Get some other, solid, clearly objective evidence or the defendant goes free.
And for statistical evidence, I know some statistics, at an advanced level, and doubt that there is a single prosecutor in the country who could even once put on statistical evidence that I would find less than just fraudulent. E.g., lie detectors, finger prints, and much more -- garbage. DNA? Not from a crime lab.
As soon as the prosecutor or one of their witnesses mentions prior police record of the defendant, the defendant goes free. Why? Constitutional protection against two convictions, or or even two trials, for the same event. The issue is what the defendant did as charged this time -- whatever they did in the past is just irrelevant. A second trial for an earlier event is unconstitutional and an attempt at what I call fraud and, thus, no more reason to listen to the prosecutor. I call it fraud: On a jury, I get to call fraud anyway I want, and I don't have to explain.
Have the defendant locked up for more than a week without trial? Violates the constitutional guarantee of a speedy trial. Defendant goes free.
Defendant injured while in police custody, whether from the police, other people in the jail, or just a brick falling out of the sky, violation of the constitutional guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment and taking the freedom of a person without due process, and the defendant goes free and wins a civil case against the city, etc.
Can't take a person's freedom, not even for a day, without taking care of them, e.g., having a social worker inform all their family, make sure their house is secure and their kitty cat fed, etc. Fail to do that, and that violates the constitutional guarantee against cruel and unusual punishment and also punishment without due process -- defendant goes free.
There is an easy solution -- put me on the jury.
Then when the defendant goes free and brings a civil case against the prosecutor and police, tough for the former defendant to lose that case. Have the city, whatever, pay them the $5 million or whatever.
Net, in front of me, the police, prosecutors, etc. have to clean up their act, scrub 100% clean, at least as in the Constitution, or the defendants will go free, just as the founding fathers intended.
The police stopped the car because the driver failed to use a turn signal? BS. Likely the police are lying, and in that case the stop was a case of unconstitutional "unreasonable search". That's my view, and on the jury I get to vote that way for any reason or no reason and don't have to explain my reason.
A police officer killed an unarmed person? Deliberate, unprovoked, unexcusable murder. Life or the chair.
The police have tracked mud all over our Constitution, and it's long time since that was way too much.
Defending our Constitution is much of why we want police.