Slashdot Mirror
Man Wins Partial Victory In Circuit City Arrest
JeremyDuffy writes "Michael Righi, the man who was arrested at Circuit City for failing to show his reciept/driver's license, has fought a moral battle against the city for almost a month now. The case has already been settled and he emerged victorious... sort of. It turns out that he's already spent almost $7500 and would have kept fighting them too, but because his family would have been dragged into it, he was forced to take a deal. They've expunged his record and dropped all charges, but he had to give up his right to sue the city to do it."
Guess it is cheaper this way, than for the city to actually admit it screwed up..
...can you imagine fifty people a day,I said fifty people a day walking in to Circuit City, buying something, and refusing to show ID? My friends, they may think it's a movement.
Paleotechnologist and connoisseur of pretty shiny things.
In the days that followed a few things changed. First, I learned that the prosecutor was more interested in protecting the city against a civil law suit than she was in silencing my speech.
And by doing so she effectively did silence you and the Brooklyn, OH police department and city will not have a blemish on their record because one of their officers acted like an uninformed dick.
It's an unfortunate situation where you still have to pay out when you are completely in the right.
"One more such victory and we will be undone."
This headline needs rewriting as "Man wins Pyrrhic Victory". $7500 worse off and he didn't even get an apology. Hell, if he'd actually been shoplifting he'd have got a smaller fine than that.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
He didn't show the cop his ID. That's not being a jerk. He agreed to a search when he had no obligation to do so. He gave his name. He just decided to draw the line at providing his driving licence when he wasn't driving. The cop was asking way too much.
so they can let criminals go free.
The city already let the first set of criminals go free, all they're doing is asking for equal treatment.
I think every city/county/state with a reasonable sized police force needs to have citizen review boards with the power to punish/fire officers. It's the ultimate solution.
It will solve many problems and make cops stop and think before doing something stupid - especially with all the news lately about abuses of power and authority.
Internal reviews are useless and don't change a thing. If some kind of "policing for police" isn't done soon, it's only going to get much worse.
we now call freedom fighters 'idoits'?
the guy had balls to stand up for WHAT IS RIGHT and you criticize him for doing what is right over a few dollars (that won't matter in a couple of years)?
when we put money and personal comfort up against all other Rights of society, we are phucked, truly.
I'm proud of that guy. I would call him 'friend' if I knew him.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Since he didn't actually force the city to admit any wrongdoing... all they did was drop the case. Seems to me like he wasted a lot of time and money for nothing.
Many years ago, when the web was still quiet and tiny, we had a little group of friends who promised to follow through with customer service and govenrment issues for one another. Since we all had various newsletters, writing gigs, and other media-style connections, we had the ability to contact people giving bad service via the phone and inquire to the service issues from a media perspective.
Of course it was more a joke than a reality, but as time grew, we found that hundreds of people calling businesses and police departments inquiring about "Any new information?" was a great way to get things fixed. I can recall one incident with Circuit City (of all places!) where the managers on duty received nearly 200 phone calls a day from "media inquiries" relating to a direct lie from a sales person to one of our group. It only took 2 weeks of "Any new information" for the company to back down and repair the situation, at which point there was no more news to cover.
Now I know harassment is a "crime," but why isn't there a site like phonedot.org? Instead of the slashdot effect, you can have the phonedot effect. Give it digg like capabilities so bloggers and other media contributors can vote up or down various customer service issues, and then let these thousands or hundreds of thousands of bloggers make their calls to see if there is "Any new information?" until the issue is settled.
When my previous city refused to get rid of the city sticker for vehicles, I typed up a newsletter and printed 30,000 of them to distribute. The newsletter had every phone number of every city official (home, work, cell). It only took 2 months of massive phone inquiries for the city council to end the city sticker harassment, and I think it was a net gain for those who called to inquire. Fight idiotic harassment with idiotic harassment.
Separate incidents (by almost 5 months), one of which did not end with a 6 on 1 beating until the victim was unconscious.
"Now you know, and knowing is half the battle!"
Thank you Michael Righi for attempting to stick up for everyone's rights. But unfortunately the real lesson that everyone who reads this story will learn is that you don't really have any rights, you should just shut up and comply with authority if you don't want to be punished. Be honest now, if you find yourself in a similar situation and you think back on this story, what will you really do?
The guy spent $7500 on the case and forfeited the right to pursue further legal action against the city for being wrongfully arrested, but hey at least his criminal record is clean now? His record should have been clean the whole time, so there's no victory there either...
I fail to see where the victory is in this. The only thing he gained was that the charges were dropped. Considering that the charges were baseless to begin with, that is not much. On the other hand, the city won by making him pay $10k to fight a baseless charge and by getting away with no punishment for the city or the officer involved. Seems to be a weak victory to me...
What's "hypocrite" about Larry Craig? Did he ask the undercover officer to (same-sex) marry him?
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
You may be asked for your receipt. You cannot be forced to show it. That's the law. The store employees should be in jail for assault and unlawful imprisonment. What the cop did was not only not allowed by law, but specifcially prohibited by state law. He belongs in prison. But instead, people like you have made it absolutely clear that he will not be punished in any way for abusing his authority.
You, personally, are what's wrong with the world today.
It's somewhat humorous, and rather sad, that whenever your sort wants to attack the ACLU without exposing your own authoritarian leanings... all you can do is criticize them for not doing enough.
Looking through your other posts, you're obviously no friend of civil liberties. A cursory glance shows you arguing in favor trial-free detention of non-Americans. Why your thinly veiled propaganda gets modded up is a mystery to me.
"I know it's not as "hot" as some of the stuff they've been trying to keep to lately, but c'mon."
What a piss-poor attempt at slander. You try to pass off things like the right to a trial, or the right not to be tortured, as "hot" issues -- as if they're not serious. What else can be said?
Well, there is the .Pdf of the legal release, FTFA.
I stole this sig from a more creative user.
This was a resistance to a random person walking up to you and asking you to prove that what you are holding is yours. The property was his after the purchase, and the store has zero rights to challenge him. He offered to let them officially charge him and to call the police, or let him go. They did neither. At that point, the store has broken the law and is falsely imprisoning this man. The fact the the police then arrested him for calling them is a huge problem.
I really hope that there aren't many people like you who think that random searches by other citizens, and false imprisonment is OK. Standing up for your own rights under the law is far from a waste of time. If you do not protect your own freedom, you will not have any.
How much have YOU donated to the ACLU?
They are simultaneously fighting many cases on many fronts. They only have so many people on staff, with so many hours in the day. If they are to fight more cases, they need to hire more people, which costs money.
So, they can only do as much good as they are paid to do, and they have to pick the biggest issues (like challenges to the PATRIOT act itself, over specific infringements for specific individuals).
If you want them to do more, pay them more.
The cops have no right to ask for our papers. We are citizens, not sheep. Insinuating that the man beats his wife because he refused an unlawful order from the police is beyond low.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Read the blog post. The guy claims to have the resources to pay for his own defense, and more importantly, the case would establish no new legal precedent (there are already two Ohio precedents that cover this situation).
The ACLU has zero reason to waste their limited resources on this case.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
No, please stop apologizing for bigots. Would you feel the same way if the white kids had hung up swastikas and some jewish kids had beaten up the ring-leader? Would those jewish kids deserve 'attempted murder' when the bigot walked out of the hospitol hours later with less damage than most people involved in a car crash?
Blar.
They dropped the charges, after $7000.00 in fees, headaches for his parents and a waste of civil resources in a DA, judge and officer.
And what did he end up doing? He admitted the officer did nothing wrong (by virtue of signing his agreement, he admits this) and a lawyer made some money off of him. Now he's parading around like he's a champion. He's not. He's a loser.
The cop and all his buddies are probably laughing about this one and they all clearly know his name, car, etc. He will catch no breaks with law enforcement anywhere around that place. The courts know he's a trouble maker and he won't catch any breaks with them. There's quite a few agencies waiting to nail him.
His family was put through all types of stress and duress and were desperate enough to call him late at night and tell him to stop being a jerk. His family is likely embarrassed their son and brother is a borderline lunatic obsessed with unimportant civil law.
I sympathize with the kid who was tazered. The police used unneeded force to punish someone when it isn't the cops jobs to punish people. This guy though got what he deserved: A $7000.00 bill, lots of wasted time, stressed out and humiliated family and a fat target on his ass for cops and courts to nail one day.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
Ya know, I had in my head that this guy was some sort of a punk just looking for attention or money. Having read his blog about the case, I must admit that I am thoroughly impressed with this man and his principaled stand. I was blown away by the calm but strong tone of his wrap up, and his desire to put his family first, in the end. For this right winger, this man is everything that there is to be admired about the left wing, and the United States is better off for his citizen ship.
This is my sig.
It's great to yell and scream about your rights.
It's great to be able to have the ready cash to spend to help defend your rights when they're infringed upon.
Unfortunately, there are other pain-points that can be hit by authorities to make you comply with their wishes.
Lengthy court battles are the root of it. Sure, YOU may not mind taking all that time off work, and spending all that money.
But what about the people you have to drag into it (witnesses, family, etc)?
Moreover, they rely on apathy.
At the time, the anger and outrage are hot enough to barbecue whole cattle.
But, as time goes on, that anger cools. And it becomes harder and harder to keep oneself motivated.
The authorities know this. And time is on their side, ESPECIALLY since they've got the deep pockets to back it up.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
See, this is why the bad guys will always win. Because the good guys care and have something to lose. The bad guys don't. This is how rogues operate. So, the guy "won" a tiny victory. Society lost to malignant authority.
What?
Checking the PDF version of the release that he uploaded, it specifically mentions that incident. It also includes some vague "anything before this" text. Likely to make sure all legal loopholes are closed. (For example, if Righi claimed that the officer had verbally threatened him with arrest the previous day.) It doesn't, however, say anything about subsequent incidents. Even if the same officer were to arrest him outside of the same Circuit City under similar circumstances in the future, this agreement wouldn't prevent him from suing the city.
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
> When the police show up and ask you to leave, leave. Don't resist arrest.
And if he does resist arrest, taser him over and over. Make sure you order him to stand up, at the same time you're leaning on him, especially since the function of tasers is to make your muscles not obey you.
It's not the jackbooted thugs that bother me so much as their cheerleaders.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
> Now if the same incident happens again, he can't sue the city.
He waived his right to sue the city over this particular incident. He most certainly can sue them if it happens again.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.
His family may have been 'suffering' as you put it, but they weren't directly involved. If you read the article (yea, I know where I am...) it would've involved flying in his sister from California and his father cancelling a European business trip.
If that wasn't a factor I'm sure he'd've kept fighting.
Personally, I don't even see why they'd need to get involved, but the prosecutor probably is hoping for a victory on delay and cash rather than just lose on merit early on.
I had a similar experience with (I think) CompUSA in Knoxville, TN a few years back. Mine was even more straightforward, though, and ended up in no hardships like this gent faced. Basically, I went in and bought _one_ thing. I even said "no thanks" to a bag. I head for the door with the receipt in one hand and the item in the other. On the way out, this woman appears out of nowhere, surprises me, and says "sir, I need to see your receipt." After a shocked step back, I say, "uh, no." I walk around her and keep going for the door. I guess she was surprised that I said no, because she didn't even follow for a few seconds. I get about half way across the parking lot before she catches up, yelling she has to see my receipt. I say, "no." She says, "why not?" I say, "I have *one* item in my hand. You can see that. I have a receipt in my other hand. You can also see that. What on earth do you think the receipt is for? Why would you need to see it to verify that it is for the one item I clearly just bought at the cash register I just left inside your store?" She says, "I need to make sure the item is on the receipt. We have problems with our cashiers ringing the wrong thing sometimes." I respond, "that is between you and your cashiers. I paid for the item I am holding. Your choices at this point are to call the police, in which case I will happily wait for their arrival. OR, I am going to get in my car and drive away." She just stood there, which I took for her choosing not to call the police, so I left. So the moral of my story is that sometimes saying "no" doesn't really cost you anything, and clearly in these cases it is the right thing to do. OH! I would also note that if everyone said "no", there would be no reasonable way for them to arrest everyone.
to 8 by 10 glossy photos ;-)
I will never give up my right to give up my rights!
Fuck the system? Nah, you might catch something.
Cops are not lawyers, not even close. There's no reason to expect them to know all the laws, or all of your rights. Do you even know all your rights? Many cases before the SCOTUS have ended in split decisions, so that means that there exist some very smart legal minds that would have done the wrong thing. (If they had been the cop or the arrestee)
A real police state would bring everyone in for questioning at least once a year and random times in between just for questioning, just in case they had done something wrong. Yeah, that's the ticket.*
* Note for the humor impaired, yes, this is satire.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
Sure he could have just showed his receipt. But he wasn't obligated to. The store manager, however, could have let him walk right on out whether he showed the receipt or not, and damn well was obligated to.
If you can't exercise your rights now, when it doesn't seem to count how are you do you expect to exercise them when it does?
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
That's on shaky ground ethically speaking DR 7-105. THREATENING CRIMINAL PROSECUTION.
(A) A lawyer shall not present, participate in presenting, or threaten to present criminal charges solely to obtain an advantage in a civil matter. Whether he threatened to present the charges *solely* to gain an advantage in the civil case would be the point of argument. The prosecutor would say that it wasn't solely to gain an advantage, because it was the police officer who made the arrest, and the prosecutor just prosecutes whatever cases come to him. However, if the case is not supported by probable cause, he's not allowed to go forward. DR 7-103. PERFORMING THE DUTY OF PUBLIC PROSECUTOR OR OTHER GOVERNMENT LAWYER.
(A) A public prosecutor or other government lawyer shall not institute or cause to be instituted criminal charges when he knows or it is obvious that the charges are not supported by probable cause. I would argue that the only reason the prosecutor threatened to go forward was to get the waiver of liability in the civil case. There was no merit to this case. An officer needs some level of suspicion to search a person or to require a showing of ID. There was no level of suspicion whatsoever here. There was no merit to this criminal case... at least according to what this fellow is telling us. One thing I've learned in my practice is that sometimes people charged with crimes lie... yeah, I know, hard to imagine.
"Example. In the state of Utah you are not allowed kegs."
Did you have them flown in? (Of course you probably live near a border, but it sounded funny in my head).
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
First off, it's anyones right to be a bigot. After reading about this story it looks like to me that many in that, both black and white, are bigots. The racial tensions there have been growing for a long time.
With that said, the racial tensions need to be ignored when looking at the current case. Someone was beaten by 6 others. That was a crime and those 6 others should be charged. Supporting the 6 who did the beating makes no sense to me. Are we saying it's okay to beat down someone? Is vigilante justice the way to go now? Does not liking a certain group of people for whatever reason give them the right to come and beat that person down?
if this person is not cooperating then they have something to hide.
Your post makes the baby 5th amendment cry.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
If asking for reciepts make you mad also, here is something you can do.
The next time you are in a checkout where they check for reciepts at the door, wad it up and stick it down your pants when they give it to you. When you get to the door and they ask for it, be obvious about the fact that it is down there and retrieve it but don't unwad it. I think it is unlikely that they will take it from you and unwad it. At that point you can ask if they have any more requests and be on your merry way!
Ninjas don't carry tic tacs
He was on their property when he was asked to show his receipt, but the receipt and the merchandise were his property at that point. Then a manager and an employee followed him outside the store and physically detained the car he was a passenger in.
A store has a right to protect its property and eject people from its premises. They have no rights concerning someone else's property nor their mobility. They should have written down his license plate number and let the police do the policing.
You are not obligated to show your receipt. They can, perhaps, make showing your receipt as you leave a condition of your entering the store and shopping there, if they inform you before the fact and not after the fact. Not only are you not obligated to show your receipt, but they cannot prevent you from leaving for doing so.
They do have a right to stop shoplifting. For your protection, this right does not include detaining anyone they think might be shoplifting. If they observe you shoplifting (which requires observing the person select the item, conceal the item, and leave the store without paying), they can stop you long enough to resolve the situation and summon the police. In some states, this action has limited liability; in others, the detaining person is making a citizen's arrest and has greater liability.
You may not think it bears much relation to fascism, but the generalization is that private entities (businesses) are permitted to detain citizens on suspicion of wrongdoing based on arbitrary criteria.
Saying: "He must have a lot of time on his hands". Translation: "I don't approve of how you spend your time."
Saying: "You've gotta pick your battles". Translation: "I've gotta pick your battles."
Talk about "snobbish".
I am not a crackpot.
The problem is when a beating gets you attempted 2nd degree murder and 20 years in jail, while someone pulling a shotgun on you.... gets to charge the other person with theft of said shotgun.
The problem is the disparate set of charges that are leveled when a white person commits a crime and when a black person commits a crime.
Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
No, while you are on their property, they are entitled to inspect stuff. If you don't want them to, don't go into the store -- their intent to inspect your bag is prominently posted at the entrance.
Now, you can refuse whatever search you find unreasonable, of course (theirs was not unreasonable, IMO). In that case they can try to prevent you from leaving their property (store, parking lot) -- see Citizen Arrest, and take all responsibility for the wrongful arrest.
Incorrect. They do not have the right to search individuals. They do have the right to ask you to leave the premesis. They're quite free to ask you to be searched or leave. They cannot, however, decide to search you after you have entered and done business there and attempt to detain you or take your possessions after you've left the premesis.
They did detain him, and his response was to call the police to be freed from unlawful arrest. (There's substantial documentation on what information is necessary to make lawful arrest for shoplifting.)
Or they can call police, who -- armed with the probable cause presented by the store -- will inspect your bag for them... Upon inspection they can either let you go, or try to inconvenience you for inconveniencing them. There are many laws in their stinky books to do that. The one used by these cops -- "interfering with official business" is one example. "Disturbing peace" is another, and it can be topped with "resisting arrest" at the first word of your indignant objection.
Aah, but not showing a receipt or refusing a search is not probable cause. Someone leaving the store without submitting to a search is evidence for nothing, and the police are required to treat it as such.
As much as I detest racism and bigots and racists, people are allowing idiots like Sharpton and Jackson and the news media to deceive them. The position they are taking is "you let some white kids go for hanging nooses in a tree, but you imprisoned some black kids who beat up a white kid".
While I'd be up for beating the hell out of any little snotty racist asshole that would hang nooses in a tree in an attempt to intimidate an entire group of people, I have to acknowledge the facts. And these facts are that:
1) These were unrelated incidents that occurred FOUR MONTHS APART.
2) Hanging a noose in a tree is not the same as beating someone up and sending them to the hospital.
3) The legal requirements for charging a youth (not an adult) with a non-violent "hate-crime" is far higher than charging a youth for assault and battery.
So we need to establish that these two events were NOT RELATED. So stop using the results of one to justify the desired results of the other.
Now, after we have done that -- let's look at what reportedly happened that landed these black kids in prison: The white kid was at a gas station and felt threatened by the black kids. So, instead of leaving the scene to avoid a conflict, he went to his truck, pulled out a shotgun and then returned, where they promptly beat his stupid ass.
Now, if some hick went to his vehicle and came back to me with a shotgun (especially in an area where I felt intimidated and threatened routinely because of my skin color), I would surely defend myself by beating his ass and disarming him before waiting to see if he intended to blow my fucking skull clean off my spine.
So should the kids be released? I believe so. But not because of ANYTHING relating to the supposed hypocrisy of the noose-tree incident.
Probable cause in shoplifting cases is generally accepted to consist of 6 things, including seeing someone conceal an item. Not showing your receipt is probably not sufficient probable cause. See http://www.expertlaw.com/library/security/shoplifting.html/This link
For the record, this is the fourth amendment to the US constitution:
Notice that this amendment does not in any way restrict only the activities of the state; it does not say "... shall not be violated by the state but may be violated by private citizens or corporations if the people stand on their private property ..." or other such libertarian nonsense.
Once I (or anyone else) has purchased an item from a store, and paid for said item in full, the item belongs to me. It does not still belong to the store simply because I am still on the store's property, nor does the store magically have the right to search me or my belongings simply because I am still on their property.
Your property argument, to me, is a bit like saying "You knew you were going to be raped if you came to 808140's house; there is a sign on the door that indicates his depraved intentions clearly. If you didn't want to be raped, you shouldn't have gone to his house." The problem with this statement is that rape is illegal, no matter what I have posted on my front door. Private property or no, sign or no, I will (thankfully) be unable to justify my rape of you in court simply because you deigned to enter my home.
This situation is much analogous, except the statute is the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution of the United States. You may think I'm arguing in extremes, but you'll notice that the founding fathers did not think to decry rape in that highest document in the land -- but they did think to protect my right to be secure in my person.
I understand that receipt-checking makes it easier for the business to catch shoplifters; I empathize with their motives. I also understand implanting a tracking chip in every man woman and child in this country would make felons easier to apprehend. Thankfully, we Americans have, historically at least, been unwilling to sacrifice our civil liberties simply to make law enforcement easier for those tasked with enforcing it.
This practice of checking receipts and belongings when you leave the store is completely unacceptable. Furthermore, there is no reason to do it. Many stores are designed so that the only way to exit the store is by passing through checkout, and have an aisle specifically for people with no items to purchase. This aisle can be observed and if a shoplifter is suspected security can then detain him. The result is just as good as Circuit City's or Fry's policy, I'm sure. Better, perhaps, because the latter's only protects against shoplifters who clandestinely add an item they didn't purchase into their shopping bag, and does nothing against the shoplifter who simply places an item into his inside pocket, for example.
"if this person is not cooperating then they have something to hide"
If a person replies as AC, does that mean they have something to hide? Or does it mean that there's an expectation of privacy in going about your business.
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
If the guy feels that it's a fight that's worth having, then it is. Sure it would be easier to show his receipt and have no hassle. But sometimes people decide that this time it's worth it to put forth the effort and not do the easiest thing.
Here's an example: There's a guy on Slashdot who thinks that the whole Circuit City thing was excessively escalated by some guy just basically being a jerk. So he takes the time to post that opinion. Others disagree, so he responds, reiterating his opinion, when it would have been just as easy --easier, really -- to leave it at that. But he continues the argument anyway. Why doesn't he just forget about it and let them have the last word? It would be easier, sure, but I think that this is an issue that this Slashdot guy feels strongly enough about that he's willing to put up a fight over it, even knowing that no one will "win" that argument.
I am not a crackpot.
With the first link, the chain is forged.
Another moral of the story: insecure people wearing an uniform because it gives them a sense of power will fly off the handle if they feel their authority is in any way challenged. It isn't the question of being suspicious, it's the question of threatening the policeman's delusions of grandeur.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Note to self: Showing up at this guys house in a nice blue uniform with a good plastic badge == obtaining getting his social, drivers license, maybe even some cc numbers. Seriously, not that long ago, NY state had issues with carjackers dressing up as cops, putting blue flashers on their dashboards, and pulling people over on highways, then shooting them and stealing their cars. Aside from the fact that cops themselves can be crooked, there's always the danger that the nice man asking for your ID is just pretending to be a cop. Despite this, most cops get really annoyed when you ask them for ID, badge number, etc. The way I see it, they deserve a little of their own back. All of that is of course mostly irrelevant, the really important point is that we don't have to show ID because we live in a free country, if we did have to show ID, it wouldn't be a free country, and when the cops try to act otherwise, they need to be sued, as a reminder of how far their rights go.
The point is that we should not have to justify ourselves to anyone, period. The police are not our masters, the government is not our master. We are each, our own master; this is what Liberty means. By requiring us to present any sort of papers or justification for us to be somewhere where we are allowed to be (especially a public place), the government and specifically the police are attempting to proclaim superiority over us. This is absolutely wrong. I applaud Michael Righi for taking a stand and saying, "no." It is sad that he has been dragged through this ordeal. It is sad that, in order to defend his rights as a human being, he was forced to pay out a considerable sum and that his family was so put upon; but this is the price of freedom.
I find it sad that we have become so timid, in this country, that we are willing to tolerate this type of activity by the police. While the officer in question might have thought himself justified in making such a demand, and then enforced his wrongheaded belief with the authority we have granted him , he was wrong and should be called to account for it. We have given the police special powers, because it is necessary for them to do their job. I realize it is a very hard and thankless job; it does not pay well, and is often looked upon with scorn. But, that is something which must be accepted when a person chooses to become a police officer. Along with that, there must come an added level of responsibility to use the powers granted by the people, in an appropriate fashion. Any abuse of those powers, no matter how slight, must be punished. This is were we, as a society, are failing to uphold our rights, and will lose them eventually; we not only allow abuses such as these to go unpunished, we have people who encourage it. The AC who posted the idiocy of, "Why not cooperate?" is complicit is the destruction of our rights. He would give over his personal sovereignty to the police because it is easier. Freedom and Liberty are not easy, they are hard, but they are worth the constant struggle. He may think that having the police rule his life will make him safer, but time and again history has shown us that this is not the case. Governments given absolute sovereignty over their citizens do not long remain benign, and usually lead to tyranny and abuses far greater than the constant annoyance of crime.
Liberty requires that each of us take responsibility for ourselves. This includes accepting a certain level of risk from criminals who may abuse their freedom. This means that you will be responsible for protecting and caring for yourself. In then end, you must ask yourself whether it is better to die on your feet or live on your knees.
Patrick Henry said it best:
I know not what course others make take, but as for me: give me Liberty, or give me death.
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
I agree with pretty much everything you've said, but I wanted to add some facts about Mychael Bell (one of the teens who garnered the most initial support due to his being a good football player.) Not only was he on probation for a previous violent assault, he committed 3 other violent crimes (two of them assaults, one a robbery of some kind) while on probation. All of this was factored in for the criminal case.
Simply because of that I don't approve of him being released. He's clearly a violent person and the fact that he's a violent person living in a town with racists shouldn't affect his sentence in any way.
The fuckup at the root of all this was that he was pushing his luck with the cop. You have to pick your fights. The fight with the store was a valid one and fundamentally winnable, and he could have made hay out of the whole situation if he had cooperated with the cop's request for ID. His principled opposition to giving ID to the cop cost him the game because the ensuing bogus arrest took center stage and didn't allow him to focus his resources, his family support, and the media attention on the behavior of the store.
ignorance might be bliss...but it sure as hell is not an excuse, nor should it be a reason to let the officer escape unscathed. By doing so, its ...we'll try not to let it happen again...wink, wink, nudge, nudge.
Anyone know what happened to the charges he filed against the CC guy? Thought he mentioned something about them being dropped in his blog but didn't go into much details...
Walk with Music;
The events are only related if the guy who got beat down was involved in hanging the nooses, and I'm unaware of any allegations that he did. Collective guilt doesn't wash; something somebody else did three months ago is no excuse for a violent attack on someone today.
None of the statements taken by the DA said that the assault was caused by the nooses. It bears many hallmarks of an after-the-fact justification.
The guys hanging the nooses were assholes, and their behavior should not be tolerated by the school. Three day in-school suspension, with no public statement by the school, may well have been much too light. But calling trying to get the FBI involved, is amazing overreaction.
A six-on-one aggravated assault goes far beyond mere assholery; it is a serious crime, and if convicted those involved should be dealt with accordingly. It's wrong to portray the assailants in this case as some sort of innocents.
However, the charge of "attempted murder" is clearly trumped up. In Mychal Bell's case, time served plus probation is probably plenty.
Again, was the victim of this beating involved in that incident? Then yes, it is a totally unrelated incident.
Grabbing a shotgun from someone threatening you is a justified act of self-defense, regardless of how much melanin anyone involved has in their skin, or what sort of discrimination they or they ancestors have undergone.
A six-on-one beatdown is a serious crime of violence, regardless of how much melanin anyone involved has in their skin, or what sort of discrimination they or they ancestors have undergone.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Don't know if this has been pointed out yet, but Mr. Righi has written that people who question his motivation should read The Fountainhead. That's all I needed to know about his thought process... Anyone who accepts that book as a serious philosophical treatise isn't a very deep thinker and most likely just wants an excuse to go on an ego trip.
If Righi really wants to have more Howard Roarks in the world he should have dragged this whole thing out to the bitter end, family be damned. After all, what's more Romantic and Randian than being martyred for what you believe? Even if what you believe is only that you shouldn't take two seconds to show your receipt at Circuit City after buying a Wii game. Actually, I hear that was originally what Rand was going to write about in The Fountainhead, but her publisher suggested she make it about architects instead...
I guess it's a good idea that you posted as AC.
Any abuse of police powers should be fought, period.
Complacency is the first step to losing the rights that our ancestors fought, bled and died for. Do you want to be the one to tell good old uncle GW (George Washington, not the other asshats) that you pissed away everything that all those men and women died for?
Who is general failure, and why is he reading my hard drive?
Psst -- the former incidents do not excuse a 6 on 1 beating. The guy was not the one who put up the nooses, nor did he point a gun at anyone. The guy who pointed the gun, as far as I can tell, was not even a student at the school. It should also be noted that one of the six had prior arrests for violent crimes, BEFORE Sept 1.
So really, we have three incidents:
Racist(s) put nooses on tree.
Idiot Racist points gun at people.
Six thugs beat up one guy, and at least one has a history.
Then they try and justify their beating of someone UNINVOLVED in the previous two (by all evidence) because of the previous two.
If six white kids beat up a black kid, people would call it a hate crime -- ESPECIALLY if there was some anti-white "prank" at school three months before. It would be presented as "White kids, angered by anti-white display, beat unrelated black kid."
Instead, it's "Their poor feelings were hurt, so these six black kids ganged up on some random white kid, and that's okay, because there was some racism three months before!"
Mod parent up. Excellent point.
Um. The guy with the shotgun and the guy who got beat by the six are not the same, at least not according to Wikipedia. They're two separate incidents. The beating that is the focus and result of the "attempted 2nd degree murder" charge (that was reduced) happened at the school. Just thought I'd throw that out there. They didn't beat up the guy with the gun -- they just took it from him.
of the nearest Circuit City, but I'll never buy anything from them again unless Circuit City publicly apologizes, pays this gentlman's legal bills, and gives his younger siblings complimentary Sony PS3s. FUCK YOU, CIRCUIT CITY ASSHOLES! I'll be buying my electronics online and telling everyone I know your executives are authoritarian assholes.
Freedom is free.
Yes, with anarchy, ie without a ruler or rulers. Instead each person is sovereign.
FalconShould there be a Law?
Did you really just equate "showing your receipt upon leaving a retail store" with death?
(PS: Refriend me.)
Apology to Ubuntu forum.
The US Supreme Court disagrees with you:
Carter v. Kentucky
Necessity is the mother of invention.
Laziness is the father.
And sadly, it's extremely typical of how minor criminal charges are handled. The first line is usually the cop, whose job amounts to little more than hired muscle for the state; entrance requirements in terms of education are pretty low in most areas, and cops barely understand the law themselves, instead adopting an attitude of "arrest first and let the courts sort it out later".
Combine this with absolutely zero options or oversight from the citizenry and you already have a recipe for disaster.
A cop will therefore hassle a citizen based on a combination of hazy understanding of the law, bad mood, and whether or not he approves of the citizen's attitude. The charge is usually, in the grand scheme of things, fairly minor, but enough to cause a serious headache for the victim. For many things, an arrest will be involved, along with jailtime, bond money, and the embarassment of having to call friends and family to get you out, not to mention the retrieval of whatever confiscated or impounded property -- and the money involved in getting that back.
This is justice in America.
Your court date will roll around and you'll plead not guilty. A trial date will be set, meaning you'll have to schedule your life around that, and try to get a lawyer to help. The average person isn't expected to fully understand the law, because it's so nuanced and convoluted, which is why defense attorneys with years of specialized training exist. The average person is expected to fully abide by the law he doesn't understand, though, which may suggest a problem with the system, but nobody will question it during this process.
On your trial date you'll speak to some self-important prosecutor or solicitor who acts on behalf of the government. He'll treat your minor case like it's the crime of the century. Depending on your demeanor he may offer a deal of some sort, which usually entails you pleading guilty to a somewhat lessor offense. What he probably won't tell you is that if you reject this offer, and make him go through the hassle of an actual trial, he'll push for the maximum possible punishment the law allows, regardless of any circumstances up to that point.
This is justice in America.
If you take his deal, you've just pleaded guilty to an offense you may not have even committed, and is probably something so stupid no one should care even if you did do it, but you're intimidated into the plea by his legal jargon and the fact that, as an average Joe, you don't have the time, money, or resources devoted to fighting it. You'll pay a few hundred dollars in fines and be on your way, with an arrest record, a criminal history, and completely out the hundreds you spent for the bond, the fine, the impound, the attorney, and anything else. The state will pat itself on the back for a job well done for cleaning up the mean streets of dangerous scum like you.
If you don't take his deal you'll be put on trial. For minor offenses you may not even get a jury of twelve average Joes who will sympathize with you; the state has found a loophole and called this an "administrative matter", meaning you'll get tried by a judge, who will claim to be impartial but is on the state's payroll and has a vested interest in making sure things turn out in the state's favor, not to mention his clouded view of every person who appears before him as a criminal.
The judge will ignore everything you say, and your attorney will be mostly powerless since the time for deal-making is over and all he can do is try to object to the prosection's evidence. There will be little evidence to which he can object, though, since for most minor offenses there aren't any significant witnesses or material bits of evidence. Nothing but the policeman's word and charge on the books, often, and this will be taken as wholly sufficient to pronounce you guilty, whereupon you'll pay a huge fine, face possible jail time, and be in worse shape than you had you just meekly submitted instead of trying to assert your rig
mirrorshades radio -- darkwave, industrial, futurepop, ebm.
There's nothing that states explicitly or otherwise that another person, viz. a juror, can't weigh this unwillingness against them.
There are many things the constitution doesn't explicitly state. That's what we have the judiciary for. They interpret the law. Griffin v. California was the case that determined the prosecution may not use your refusal to take the stand against you. The supreme court relied on their interpretation of the fourth, fifth and fourteenth amendments to arrive at this opinion.
I know you fancy yourself as smarter than the judiciary and the fact that the Constitution article III section 2 gives the supreme court appellate jurisdiction for all cases tried is insignificant next to your formidable intelligence in all constitutional matters. But still, the Supreme Court interprets the fifth in such a way that lack of testimony may not be used as evidence and the Constitution we live by says their opinion counts, yours not so much.
Kudos to the Judge, who was clearly better versed in the law than you.
Education is a better safeguard of liberty than a standing army.
Edward Everett (1794 - 1865)
Your request for documentation sparked my curiosity, so I went looking... After half an hour of searching the 'net, it seems to be the case that Larry Craig has never mentioned homosexuals either in Congressional debate or in any publication. He has of course voted along with most of the Republican party and part of the Democratic party, against the best interests of homosexuals, but it looks to me like depictions of him as a hardcore gay-hater are quite inflated.
:-).
He's most likely just another "good ole boy" who is willing to sell the rights of gays down the river in exchange for some bubba votes back home and some mutual back scratching from his GOP colleagues. This makes his outing less of a story, and makes him less of a tragic villain. Probably so many exaggerations are flying around because we like to hear a good dramatic story, and the reality of the situation isn't all that engaging.
Not that homophobia in Congress isn't a bad thing, and not that he didn't participate in it with his votes, but Larry Craig wasn't at the center of it, and he was never Jerry Falwell's right-hand man. Maybe the next scandal will be more titillating
My truck is like a series of tubes.