Slashdot Mirror


Seattle Hacker Catches Cops Who Hid Arrest Tapes

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.

597 comments

  1. Obstruction of justice by Enderandrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Shouldn't the officers in this case be charged with obstruction of justice?

    --
    http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    1. Re:Obstruction of justice by vikingpower · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't know if police officers, in the USA / in that particular state, can be charged with that. In my country, any citizen can, whether a civil servant or not. 't Would be a good thing, though, if it happened.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    2. Re:Obstruction of justice by Pharmboy · · 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?

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    3. Re:Obstruction of justice by Enderandrew · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Police officers in theory are not above the law. They are supposed to be held accountable to the same laws as us. If they lied in an investigation and intentionally withheld evidence, they should be charged with obstruction of justice.

      They arrested Rachner for obstruction of justice for not identifying himself. Every lawyer on the planet tells you never to talk to a cop for any reason. I'm not sure I agree with it, but I understand the logic behind it. However you can't just arrest someone for not talking to a cop.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    4. Re:Obstruction of justice by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So they can be sentenced to one month's vacation (with pay)?

    5. Re:Obstruction of justice by BigHungryJoe · · Score: 1

      that is a good question - it seems like prosecutors are also complicit in the "circling of the wagons" - they also seem to make an effort to protect bad or dishonest cops, and I don't understand why.

    6. Re:Obstruction of justice by Red+Flayer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No. They should be charged with making a false arrest. They should be suspended without pay until the trial is resolved, and someone should make sure they aren't put on the PBA payroll during that time. If they are found guilty, they should be fired. Not suspended, fired.

      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.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    7. Re:Obstruction of justice by Yold · · Score: 4, Interesting

      They are police... so yes they should be charged... but I'm sure that "an internal review concluded that no police policies were violated".

      This shit happens every day. NYPD stole hundreds of bicycles today, this innocent teenager was arrested for "resisting arrest" after being mistaken for a burglar, and of course this is what happens when you videotape the police. We live in a police state, plain and simple.

    8. Re:Obstruction of justice by Protoslo · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are incorrect. While the Washington Supreme Court has ruled that in Washington, people are not required to identify themselves to the police, this is not true nationally. You are not required to produce ID, but in most states you can be required to state your name.

      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.

    9. Re:Obstruction of justice by amiga3D · · Score: 4, Insightful

      They protect the cops because the cops work with them and help them railro...er...get convictions.

    10. Re:Obstruction of justice by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      We had a police officer in nearby Macon, GA that was fired years back for stealing a radio from a stolen car he was recovering. The idiot borrowed a screwdriver from a bystander. He was tried and convicted for it also. Talk about too stupid to live. That was when Macon was renowned for having the lowest paid cops in Georgia.

    11. Re:Obstruction of justice by jd · · 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.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    12. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    13. Re:Obstruction of justice by Chyeld · · 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.

    14. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Police officers will protect you, if you stop getting in their way.

      Actually, they won't, and have sued to make sure they don't have to, even if you're roommate is being raped while you hide upstairs and call for help to 911.

      http://royhalliday.home.mindspring.com/police.htm

      There's no "justice". It's "just us". that's how MOST cops feel. It's not a few bad apples. The bad apples are the ones who look the other way or cover up behind the thin blue line when the worms are out murdering and railroading innocent people.

    15. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Police officers will protect you, if you stop getting in their way.

      And who says I want them to protect me in the first place? And how do they know *what* I want to be protected from?

      Do I get a say in the matter?

      What if I wanted to be protected from being hassled the moment I leave my house simply because I look suspicious to the average cop?

    16. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One person got hit in the face by accident. With a foam ball. He got heckled for it and called the cops. Who then illegally arrested several people who didn't do the deed while the guy who actually did it later self identified and still nothing came of it. You're making it out as though they were some sort of drunken mob.

    17. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When a police officer tells you to do something, you do it. It is that simple.

      You're a liar.

    18. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous+Psychopath · · Score: 4, 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.

      --

      Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.

    19. Re:Obstruction of justice by v1 · · 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.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    20. Re:Obstruction of justice by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 2, Informative

      Cops in the US can usually claim Sovereign Immunity.

      Are you sure about that? IMNAL but I believe that sovereign immunity in the United States is limited to the Federal and state governments.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    21. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Anyone interested can ask their local ACLU about the ID laws in their state.

    22. Re:Obstruction of justice by clarkkent09 · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      You are not required to produce ID, but in most states you can be required to state your name.

      Unless you live in Arizona and look Mexican. Well, not yet, but soon.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    23. Re:Obstruction of justice by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      IMNAL? Sheesh. That should have read "IANAL." Serves me right for not reading the preview...

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    24. Re:Obstruction of justice by mea37 · · Score: 5, Informative

      First of all, that doesn't matter. Even if he was in fact engaged in criminal activity, that doesn't nullify his civil rights. You can argue about how exactly violation of civil rights shuld be treated. You can argue about how exactly a liar covering for someone who violates civil rights should be treated. There is no validity to arguing about the behavior of the person whose rights were violated, however. If he was doing something criminal, then that makes police interferance with his rights even worse - because that would mean he'd likely have been able to walk away from criminal charges.

      Second, your portrayal of his behavior does not match the facts presented. They were not "drunkenly smacking people in the face with foam golf balls". They were drunkenly playing with foam golf balls, and a person (which is different from "people") was accidentally hit (by someone who was not amongh those arrested).

      Moreover, your claim that they hecked the "people" they hit requires proof. The police report said they were heckling the person that was hit, but it does not clarify what this means. The person who was hit with the ball was "only mad at the one guy" who hit the ball, which doesn't seem like it would be the case if any mass heckling of the sort you're portraying were going on. In fact, the person hit by the ball, based on his quotes, appears to agree that the police response wasn't justified.

    25. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      +1

      Papers please!

    26. Re:Obstruction of justice by joocemann · · Score: 3, Interesting

      And conspiracy. And fraud. And assault/threat.

      The worst thing is that the taxpayer will pay for this while the cop gets off. The whole system is messed up because the police are not required to be champions of the law -- they are taught to make assumptions and are trained with perpetuated illegal methods by their peers of the same creed.

    27. Re:Obstruction of justice by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 1

      When a DA or US Attorney won't pursue justice for you, I believe you can always file a civil-rights-violation lawsuit.

      It still costs you money for the lawyer, but at least there's some recourse when the cozy DA/cops relationship gets in the way of justice.

    28. Re:Obstruction of justice by Wireless+Joe · · Score: 1

      It's the cops' job to determine if this actual douchebag was responsible. If they're not able to, they have no reason to arrest or detain him. The Washington constitution is much stricter on what constitutes justification for arrest. Douchebaggery by association is not a crime. He was arrested illegally, and the PD lied about the circumstances and evidence, possibly perjuring themselves. There may be innocent people who will be freed/have their records expunged because of this man's work. He is a hero for calling them on it, and catching them with what appears to be hard evidence.

    29. Re:Obstruction of justice by McGiraf · · Score: 1

      with that logic there would be no cops left in a month. :)

    30. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, I can only speak about the Dupage County, IL area after living here the past couple of decades but if you're not white, the words 'trust' and 'police' sound odd in the same sentence.

    31. Re:Obstruction of justice by boneclinkz · · Score: 0

      I'm kind of fond of that old chestnut about police officers: The 99% who are corrupt ruin it for everyone else.

    32. Re:Obstruction of justice by Tawnos · · Score: 4, Informative
    33. Re:Obstruction of justice by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I dare you to go to any foreign country and walk around without your passport.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    34. Re:Obstruction of justice by eldepeche · · Score: 1

      Ernesto Miranda was a rapist, but we require the police and the judicial system to follow protocol no matter what someone is accused of.

      At least, we did until 2001.

    35. Re:Obstruction of justice by Tawnos · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not sovereign, but qualified immunity. They can and do lose that protection when they violate clearly established conduct:

      http://www.lectlaw.com/def2/q063.htm

      The defense of qualified immunity protects "government officials . . . from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known." Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982). The rule of qualified immunity " `provides ample support to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.' " Burns v. Reed, 500 U.S. 478, 494-95 (1991) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). "Therefore, regardless of whether the constitutional violation occurred, the officer should prevail if the right asserted by the plaintiff was not `clearly established' or the officer could have reasonably believed that his particular conduct was lawful." Romero v. Kitsap County, 931 F.2d 624, 627 (9th Cir. 1991) (emphasis added). Furthermore, "[t]he entitlement is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; .. . it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial." Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985).

    36. Re:Obstruction of justice by Interoperable · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The recording is an interesting listen. It's clear that Rachner knew his rights, but also that the arresting cop didn't. The cop isn't grinding an ax or going out of his way to be unreasonable, he was just misinformed about the law (rather inexcusable for an officer). The two were chatting peacefully about the legality of the arrest; Rachner instructing the cop (correctly) about civil liberties and the cop politely disagreeing. Rachner obviously made a conscious choice to be arrested to get a chance to stand on the principle of the thing.

      --
      So if this is the future...where's my jet pack?
    37. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The right answer is that the cops should have realized that this was a group of stupid drunks being annoying, likely including the "hero". Even if the "hero" did not hit the person with the ball, he could have. They should have lined up the idiots in the group, given the guy who was hit a golf club, and let him hit each one of group including the "hero" across the shin for being dumbasses then sent the idiots, including the "hero", home. The cops were stupid, and the rest of were as well, including the "hero".

      Answer this, given how the "hero" and his friends responded to hitting someone, given with no injury, but a real annoyance, how would they have responded if one of the party had lost grip of a golf club and broken a window. My bet is the "hero" and his friends would have run away like little school boys. Personally I hope the "hero" loses a few jobs, as should they trust an irresponsible drunk who has such poor judgement.

    38. Re:Obstruction of justice by Red+Flayer · · Score: 2, Funny

      with that logic there would be no cops left in a month. :)

      Exactly. Which would leave the local security and power void I need to begin Operation Tragic[1] Destiny, in which I seize control of the world's greatest economy by leveraging the power of my hand-picked local security forces across municipalities in the US.

      Mwu-ha-ha-ha.

      [1] It's tragic because moments after I achieve total domination of the US economy, I realize it's been surpassed individually by the economies of China, India, and Europe, and is struggling futilely to not be surpassed by the economies of the Pac Rim, Russia, South America, and the nascent powerhouse economy of Madagascar. (It's a long-term plan).

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    39. Re:Obstruction of justice by Cl1mh4224rd · · Score: 2, 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...

      --
      People will pass up steak once a week, for crap every day.
    40. Re:Obstruction of justice by spun · · Score: 1

      You seem to be arguing against something other than what I wrote.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    41. Re:Obstruction of justice by eldepeche · · Score: 4, Funny

      -1, White

    42. Re:Obstruction of justice by Zordak · · Score: 5, Informative

      With the disclaimer that it's been a few years since I took torts and Con law (so take this with a grain of salt), sovereign immunity doesn't protect state actors from violations of civil rights. In fact, 42 USC 1983 specifically creates a federal cause of action for violation of federal constitutional and statutory rights. And it's not limited to just federal actors. It's "any person" who "under color of [authority]" deprives a person of their federal civil rights. If I remember correctly, the theory behind this statute is that the federal government can waive the states' sovereign immunity under the auspices of the 14th Amendment, since it came after the 11th Amendment, which solidified the states' sovereign immunity. So assuming everything is as it's stated in the summary, Rachner would have a federal cause of action against the police department.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    43. Re:Obstruction of justice by spun · · Score: 1

      One guy who was smacked called 911. There were thirty people out drunkenly playing 'street golf.' Do you suppose this was the only damage these assholes did that night?

      I already said the police were wrong. And this douchebag just did what he had to to protect himself, I doubt he was looking to help others.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    44. Re:Obstruction of justice by clarkkent09 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's not the point though. Do the local residents in those countries have to carry an ID to prove that they are in the country legally or face arrest? If they do, then I don't want it here.

      --
      Negative moral value of force outweighs the positive value of good intentions.
    45. Re:Obstruction of justice by spun · · Score: 1

      They were a drunken mob. Only one guy called the cops but who knows how many more folks these assholes intimidated that night, or how much more damage they did?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    46. Re:Obstruction of justice by Zordak · · Score: 1

      Local governments are part of the state government, since they have no separate sovereignty. You can't sue the state or your city unless it waives sovereign immunity, or unless the federal government waives their sovereign immunity for them (as I explained here.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    47. Re:Obstruction of justice by brainboyz · · Score: 1

      And that attitude right there is what's wrong with many officers this day in age. They think they're a parent with supreme authority instead of a civil servant which leads to them wanting any legal ability possible to play nanny.

    48. Re:Obstruction of justice by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Perhaps a better way to state it is that we are careening toward a police state. A greater percentage of our population is in prison now than 100 years ago, and it is becoming harder and harder to be a law abiding citizen. More and more activities are not only being made illegal, but being declared criminal (in the legal sense).

      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).

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    49. Re:Obstruction of justice by spun · · Score: 0

      WTF? I do not understand HOW so many people think I'm defending the cops here. It's almost as if people are so simple minded, they think that if someone is a bad guy, the fellow fighting him must be a good guy.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    50. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We live in a police state, plain and simple.

      'We' live in many states, in many nations. Some places have people in authority who abuse it. In some places, there are no controls to stop that from happening. Even if every state in every nation had no controls on such people, such people don't necessarily exist in every precinct. And there are rules on the books to try to stop it in many places, possibly including yours. How exactly you would use them effectively to remove corruption is something I, and apparently you, don't know.

      I get your point, but if you want to convince people, you don't try to tell them that their own police is screwed up--as theirs in particular may not be. If it is, they likely already have heard about it. You want to convince them, you show that the place has a problem, you show them exactly what the problem is, and you show them what can be done about it.

    51. Re:Obstruction of justice by drainbramage · · Score: 0, Troll

      Then you are correct;
      You do not want to live on most of the rest of the planet, since, clearly, you are not aware.
      Now do you get the point?
      I didn't think so.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    52. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to sweden.
      I dare you to find a police officer or anyone outside an airport who wants to see your passport.

    53. Re:Obstruction of justice by drainbramage · · Score: 1, Insightful

      But now it is funny.

      --
      No brain, no pain.
    54. Re:Obstruction of justice by bsDaemon · · Score: 1

      'cause John Wayne said so. /jingoism

    55. Re:Obstruction of justice by chaboud · · Score: 3, 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.

    56. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Actually, they will probably lose their jobs over this. A law enforcement officer, once caught in a lie such as this, becomes a huge liability to the department. They are no longer considered a credible witness on the stand, and are worthless to a prosecutor. If they lied about the facts of this case, who is to say they haven't lied about them all? Any defense lawyer worth his salt would use this to their advantage and attempt to discredit any testimony the officer would give.

    57. Re:Obstruction of justice by PopeRatzo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Police officers in theory are not above the law.

      Maybe not, but apparently prosecutors are above the law.

      The US Supreme Court, in a case heard in Nov 2009, whether prosecutors are immune from prosecution for framing someone. So if after an arrest, a prosecutor goes ahead with a case even knowing without a doubt that the defendant could not have committed the crime, he is immune from penalties, including civil. It stems from a 1978 case where a couple of guys, named McGhee and Harrington (both black), spent 25 years in prison for a murder that not only did they not commit, but the prosecutors knew they were innocent, fabricated evidence against, and had strong evidence against the guy (happened to be white) who DID commit the crime.

      McGhee and Harrington went to the Supreme Court, not to get justice, but just to get the right to ask for justice. A decision has not yet come down, but smart money is on a 5-4 decision in favor of immunity for the corrupt prosecutors with the conservative justices coming down in favor of the prosecutors. Sickeningly, national prosecutors' organizations, as well as the Obama justice department, have sided with the prosecutors, saying that if prosecutors are worried about prosecution themselves, they will be afraid to prosecute vigorously. That's a strange argument, which I guess assumes that fabricating evidence is nothing more than "vigorous prosecution".

      Thank god the ACLU has some very good people working this case. The only hope is that Antonin Scalia gets into some spoiled scungilli before the case is decided.

      --
      You are welcome on my lawn.
    58. Re:Obstruction of justice by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 5, Informative

      Near the end, you can hear him carefully questioning the officer to make sure that he was in fact being arrested only for the refusal to show ID:

      Rachner: "If I were to pull out my ID right now, would you let me go with no further questions?"
      Cop: "I would have, but you're already under arrest."

      Rachner was clearly making sure it was on the record that he was being arrested for refusal to show ID, and for no other reason, so they wouldn't able to go back and say "oh but we were arresting him for something else too, so it wasn't an illegal arrest". That supports what you inferred: he was making a conscious choice to let them arrest him so he could fight it later in court.

    59. Re:Obstruction of justice by gyrogeerloose · · Score: 1

      Okay, excellent info. Thanks for clearing that up.

      --
      This ain't rocket surgery.
    60. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Therefore, regardless of whether the constitutional violation occurred, the officer should prevail if the right asserted by the plaintiff was not `clearly established' or the officer could have reasonably believed that his particular conduct was lawful."

      Upshot: If the police officer genuinely believed that what he was doing was legal, it doesn't matter if it actually wasn't.

      --
      FGD 135
    61. Re:Obstruction of justice by YrWrstNtmr · · Score: 4, Funny

      IMNAL = I Might Need A Lawyer?

    62. Re:Obstruction of justice by Cyberax · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Hm. I lived for quite a long time in Germany and walked around without my passport. And now I live in Ukraine and I don't remember last time I took a passport with me.

      No problems so far.

      PS: I'm Russian.

    63. Re:Obstruction of justice by geekoid · · Score: 1

      oh please, don't be so pedantic. His point is don't judge what's legal in your state by this one.

      yeah, 2 short of 'most', that's just terrible ~

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    64. Re:Obstruction of justice by Skreems · · Score: 2, Informative

      If there's an inquiry, it'll be internal and kept secret.

      The article points out that this already happened. The bigger part of the story is, not only did they improperly arrest him, but when his lawyer made a discovery request for the tapes of the arrest they claimed they were deleted until he dug through a system spec included in a purchasing report and pointed out that they were in fact not deletable in the way they claimed. Now he gets to raise holy hell about the arrest AND the failed cover up of the tapes.

      --
      Slashdot needs a "-1, Wrong" moderation option.
      The Urban Hippie
    65. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Not suspended, fired.

      Imprisoned. And fired.

      No-one else who breaks the law in the course of their employment gets away with just losing their job.

      --
      FGD 135
    66. Re:Obstruction of justice by jaxtherat · · Score: 4, Informative

      Okay, here are some contries where they don't give a shit about your passport (from personal experience):

      - Poland
      - Czech republic
      - Norway
      - Australia
      - New Zealand

      --
      http://www.zombieapocalypse.tv/
    67. Re:Obstruction of justice by Symbha · · Score: 1

      Ya seems like there needs to be a crime to be obstructing justice.

    68. Re:Obstruction of justice by kiddygrinder · · Score: 1

      except he wasn't one of the golfers

      --
      This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
    69. Re:Obstruction of justice by geekoid · · Score: 1, Troll

      Yes, that explains why he got the code, found the tapes, and the police had been punished. whoa dog, that a regular police state.

      In fact, these alleged abuses don't happen nearly as often as you think. I suggest you read up open what it's like to actually live in a police state.

      Here is a clue: If you are talking about it being a police state and don't need 3 look outs, and a trusted friend hiding to kill the people your talking with if it turns out you think that are working for the police, you are not in a police state.

      You are an idiot.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    70. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *Woosh*

    71. Re:Obstruction of justice by MobyDisk · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I bet that cop won't do it again. And maybe others won't. Maybe if a few peopel stood up for their rights, we might all get them back.

    72. Re:Obstruction of justice by gangien · · 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.

    73. Re:Obstruction of justice by MobyDisk · · Score: 2, 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.

    74. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Many people live and work in foreign countries and don't carry their passports with them on a daily basis, nor carry ID.

    75. Re:Obstruction of justice by Selanit · · Score: 1

      I lived in Britain for two years (I'm American) and never carried my passport except when I was actively traveling across national boundaries.

      In fact, I think it would be pretty dumb to carry your passport around when you're not actually using it -- it would be much, much easier to lose it that way. Or have it stolen. I'd much rather carry my American driver's license and have to explain that my passport is stored at my current residence for security's sake.

      You might claim that Britain is a "safe" country and that it would be wise to carry your passport in countries with more crime and/or governmental corruption. I don't know whether that's the case or not. If there's more crime, I might want to leave it in my hotel even more, because there's a greater possibility of theft. And if there's all THAT much governmental corruption, I might be afraid that the cops themselves would steal it, sell it on the black market, and then claim I was in the country illegally. It's hard to say.

      If I was really worried about it, though, I'd contact the American Embassy (or whatever embassy is appropriate to your own nationality, gentle reader) and ask whether they think I should carry it all the time or not. They know the local laws and law enforcement far better than I could hope to, and would likely get involved if I were arrested for anything.

    76. Re:Obstruction of justice by pluther · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    77. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Good-bye karma, never loved you anyway. Someone should shoot the DA then who prosecuted those two. Sometimes, as it is said here in the South, some people just need killing, and it is a valid reason, IMNSHO. There is a 2cd Amendment in order to make sure things like this do not become the norm. People seem to ready to bend over and take what ever cock the government and its agents want to shove up their ass. Spinal cords are a wonderful thing, if they are not limp like an over cooked spaghetti noodle. Cops live somewhere. They sit in their cars and do paperwork. They go off duty and out with their families. It would not be hard to take one out who needs it. Same with every level of government with the exception of most governors and the Federal Executive officers (PotUS and VP mainly there with some Secretaries). You can not protect them all. The reason we don't have assassinations is because there is not that much we get worked up over here in the USA. Europe doesn't because they took all their slaves guns away. But look at any nation where there are guns and bad blood. We are willingly putting the chains upon ourselves, and getting on the cattle cars. The ACLU should be thanking the NRA. Because with no NRA, there would be no ACLU.

    78. Re:Obstruction of justice by FatSean · · Score: 1

      Except that he wasn't one of the 'golfers'.

      --
      Blar.
    79. Re:Obstruction of justice by AK+Marc · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, we don't.

      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.

    80. Re:Obstruction of justice by eldepeche · · Score: 5, Informative

      I'll say it very slowly.

      It
      does
      not
      matter
      if
      the
      accused
      is
      a
      good
      or
      bad
      guy.
      It
      is
      completely
      irrelevant.

      Got it? You're attacking someone who was wrongfully arrested and then prevented from seeing exculpatory evidence. The story is that he happened to have the smarts to discover and request the log file associated with that evidence. The story is that the police department lied about the continued existence of the video and audio recordings.

    81. Re:Obstruction of justice by spun · · 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.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    82. Re:Obstruction of justice by element-o.p. · · Score: 2, Informative
      You might want to take some remedial history classes. In the U.S., the framers of the Constitution were aware of what would (not "could" -- "would") happen if there were no limits on the government, so they wisely included the Bill of Rights to protect us from tyranny. There is a reason for that: historically, any government that was not "tie[d]...down with...regulations" eventually ended up abusing the very people they were supposed to serve. Always.

      ...who fail to show proper respect for the authority that police have over you...

      Proper respect is one thing. What you are describing is something else, entirely.

      When a police officer tells you to do something, you do it. It is that simple.

      Holy crap. Are you for real, or are you just trolling? I am an honest, hard-working, law-abiding citizen, but there is no way on God's green earth that I will ever just do something simply because someone else tells me to. I will respect authority, but when authority conflicts with either 1) what my conscience dictates or 2) what the law requires of me, authority loses. Period. "It is that simple."

      Police officers will protect you, if you stop getting in their way.

      No, they won't. Case in point: I had a friend who managed a storage facility. Unfortunately, it turned out that a couple of his clients were gang members who owed back rent. They came to claim their property, and he told them "Not until you pay the back rent you owe." They then threatened to return with some of their friends and take their property back, and threatened to shoot my friend if he tried to stop them. My friend called the local P.D., who told him they couldn't help him unless the gang members actually made good on their threat. My friend then asked if they could at least patrol the area a little more heavily than usual, and again, the P.D. declined. You see, there was a sled dog event downtown, and they local police officers were busy directing traffic for the event.* The P.D. are not there to protect you. They are there to arrest the suspects after a crime has been committed.

      *02/1999, IIRC, Anchorage, Alaska

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    83. Re:Obstruction of justice by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1

      I don't totally disagree with that. It is the job of the state to ensure that police officers are adequately trained in the law, and if they fail in this duty then the individual that they failed should not be the one punished. His superiors, on the other hand...

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    84. Re:Obstruction of justice by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      ...such people don't necessarily exist in every precinct.

      "Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely."

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    85. Re:Obstruction of justice by Tawnos · · Score: 5, Informative

      Please actually take the time to read the statutes. The parent stated "in most states you can be required to state your name."

      Note that that is far from true, generally a crime is required. The standard is very similar to Terry v. Ohio:
      Alabama - A sheriff or other officer acting as sheriff, his deputy or any constable, acting within their respective counties, any marshal, deputy marshal or policeman of any incorporated city or town within the limits of the county or any highway patrolman or state trooper may stop any person abroad in a public place whom he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed or is about to commit a felony or other public offense and may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his actions.

      Arizona - A. It is unlawful for a person, after being advised that the person's refusal to answer is unlawful, to fail or refuse to state the person's true full name on request of a peace officer who has lawfully detained the person based on reasonable suspicion that the person has committed, is committing or is about to commit a crime. A person detained under this section shall state the person's true full name, but shall not be compelled to answer any other inquiry of a peace officer.

      Colorado - 1) A peace officer may stop any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit a crime and may require him to give his name and address, identification if available, and an explanation of his actions. A peace officer shall not require any person who is stopped pursuant to this section to produce or divulge such person's social security number. The stopping shall not constitute an arrest.(2) When a peace officer has stopped a person for questioning pursuant to this section and reasonably suspects that his personal safety requires it, he may conduct a pat-down search of that person for weapons.

      etc

      The important part is that in most states you cannot be compelled to state your name unless it is under circumstances that have clearly articuable facts that a reasonable person would believe indicate imminent criminal behavior.

    86. Re:Obstruction of justice by Montezumaa · · Score: 0

      They are charged with far worse crimes than obstruction. Violating Oath of Office, a felony, is one charge. Also, tampering with evidence would be another. The state could even charge an officer with theft, though it would be a little bit of a stretch. The fact is, if the officer(s) did what is claimed in the original article, the the officer(s) are in serious trouble.

      This is also a violation of the man's rights "under color of law", which is also a serious offense and a federal crime. During my initial training as a law enforcement officer, it was drilled into us to be very careful when we make arrest and make sure we are within legal bounds to make such an arrest. If Washington State does not allow for arrest to be made because a citizen refuses to show an ID(which is a legally arrestable offense in the State of Georgia, and other states), then the officer has violated many laws.

      For states that have "stop and identify" laws, they were upheld in Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada. Washington State seems to not have a law that requires this of citizens, but you had better check with your perspective case before you try and tell a law enforcement officer he has no right to require you to identify yourself.

      P.S.
      I like the M4 that is in the front of the police car. It looks(that small portion) similar to mine.

    87. Re:Obstruction of justice by spun · · Score: 0

      No, it isn't irrelevant. The facts about what this person was engaged in that night are relevant. I'm not attacking someone who was wrongfully arrested. That is irrelevant. I'm attacking someone who was drunkenly wandering around with thirty other people hitting foam golf balls at things and insulting people who complained.

      Why do you care that I point this fact out, anyhow? I'm confused. I'm not defending the cops, I'm saying, don't wander around in large groups drunkenly hitting things and insulting people. That shouldn't even be a controversial statement. Somehow, in all the ass kissing this guy is getting, that pertinent fact seems to have been missed. It's possible for assholes to do good things, or good people to act like assholes, and doing one good thing doesn't mean that everything you do is good.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    88. Re:Obstruction of justice by TheRaven64 · · Score: 3, 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:

      1. If you give it wide-reaching powers and low standards of evidence.
      2. If it has the willing cooperation of the majority of the population.

      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.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    89. Re:Obstruction of justice by PigIronBob · · Score: 1

      I dare you to go to any foreign country and walk around without your passport.

      I dare you to name one!

      --
      You never catch me alive
    90. Re:Obstruction of justice by EdIII · · Score: 2, Insightful

      If Operation Tragic Destiny is anything like Project Mayhem, I would follow you anywhere Mr. Durden.

    91. Re:Obstruction of justice by rtb61 · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    92. Re:Obstruction of justice by rahvin112 · · 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.

    93. Re:Obstruction of justice by roc97007 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      ...or maybe they'll just keep better track of their arrest tapes and the disposal thereof. That would be my guess.

      --
      Oliver's law of assumed responsibility: If you're seen fixing it, you will be blamed for breaking it.
    94. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When I'm traveling, I walk around without my passport all the time. I prefer to keep it someplace secure, not where it might be pickpocketed. A lot of other countries are quite a bit more pleasant to foreigners than we are in the US, especially compared to the hillbilly countryside where Faux news is more popular.

    95. Re:Obstruction of justice by jd · · Score: 2, Funny

      Only if the topic veers into Scientology.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    96. Re:Obstruction of justice by Skippy_kangaroo · · Score: 2, Funny

      I spent a number of years in Boston as an Australian.

      The only time it was necessary to carry a passport was when I wanted to have a drink at a bar. They card everyone. Unfortunately, carrying your passport and getting drunk are not circumstances that generally lead to a happy conclusion.

    97. Re:Obstruction of justice by rtfa-troll · · Score: 1

      [...] the group definitely should have paid [...] People need to take personal responsibility

      hmm.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    98. Re:Obstruction of justice by Fex303 · · Score: 1

      I dare you to go to any foreign country and walk around without your passport.

      You don't travel much, do you?

    99. Re:Obstruction of justice by Gramie2 · · Score: 1

      In Japan, any foreigners must carry either their passports or, if they are resident aliens with visas, their gaikokujin shomeisho cards at all times. All foreigners are fingerprinted when they enter the country, too.

    100. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention other countries where I routinely walked around without mine with no issue even though it was probably technically required I carry it at all times...
      - Spain
      - Italy
      - United Kingdom
      - Japan
      - Hong Kong
      - France

    101. Re:Obstruction of justice by lena_10326 · · Score: 1

      Within Seattle it is popular knowledge that Seattle cops are abusive and corrupt. [1] [2] [3] There will be no charges because this is business as usual.

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    102. Re:Obstruction of justice by Nefarious+Wheel · · Score: 1

      Police officers in theory are not above the law.

      The better armed forces and quasi-military organisations such as the police have a strong culture of ethical behaviour, knowing that ethics are the only difference between law enforcement and an armed and uniformed thug.

      Of course in my country, the police are unarmed, mounted on unicorns, wear designer uniforms and are unfailingly polite.

      --
      Do not mock my vision of impractical footwear
    103. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well it could be that the idiots honestly thought that they had deleted the tapes, but had never read the system specs. :-)

    104. Re:Obstruction of justice by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I agree with the increased surveillance, as it helps everyone (when it doesn't get "lost"). I also agree with the next logical step in your line of thinking, which I've been thinking for the past 15 or so years: every elected official[1] should be recorded 24/7 while they serve their office. These should be available to every citizen. This would eliminate "back room deals", and would also make for some lousy political porn, but that's the price a citizen will have to pay in order to serve their country.

      [1] -- initially, only elected officials; later, everyone working for the government, whether elected, appointed, or hired. And, even later, everyone, period (thank you, Mr. Brin).

      I also like the shorter (or shortcut) version, as seen in someone's sig: "Politicians should serve two terms: the first in office, the second in prison."

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    105. Re:Obstruction of justice by v1 · · Score: 5, Informative

      "obstruction of justice" is one of those "bad laws". It's a catch-all, that any cop with an agenda can twist to make whatever you happen to be doing, illegal. "Failure to obey an officer of the law" is another good one. With that particular gem, they basically can tell you to do practically anything (short of something unconstitutional) and if you don't do it, bam, failure to obey, cuff 'im Dano.

      Laws like that were passed quite possibly in good faith, to give an officer the ability to stop somthing that clearly SHOULD be illegal but that there wasn't a law on the books at the time. It shifts the job of the officer from enforcing the law to creating and interpreting it. Senators create laws. Juries and judges interpret laws. Officers enforce laws. When you create a law that permits or requires the officer to interpret it, it's a Bad Law. And if you can't figure out a way to word a law to make only exactly what you want to be judged illegal, that's no excuse for creating a Bad Law. Either word it to give more benefit of the doubt, or DON'T make it in the first place.

      --
      I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
    106. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Then you don't want to live in Portugal. In Portugal ID cards ("bilhete de identidade" or the new fangled "cartão do cidadão"/"citizen's card") are mandatory and every citizen always has to carry theirs. The scary thing is that the new cards, the "cartão do cidadão", not only have RFID chips but also store the citizen's DNA.

      I have had an ID card since around 10yo. Yet, only now, exactly while I was typing this post, I noticed how fucked up and totalitarian-like that is.

    107. Re:Obstruction of justice by humphrm · · Score: 1

      Add Switzerland. And I was going to say England, but someone already did. Probably all of the U.K. And Japan. And Hong Kong. And Germany. And India. In fact, I've travelled around the world and I've never carried my passport with me anywhere... always locked up in the hotel safe.

      --
      -- "In order to have power, I must be taken seriously." -Mojo Jojo
    108. Re:Obstruction of justice by sgt_doom · · Score: 1

      Since multiple parties were knowingly involved, it should technically go down as a criminal conspiracy, one would think?

    109. Re:Obstruction of justice by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      No, it's the non-ambiguous version; he is specifically careful not to brag about anal escapades. (The first two letters are read as letters, "I am".)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    110. Re:Obstruction of justice by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      My understanding is that hitting someone with anything is Battery. Threatening to hit someone is Assault. So, this was thirty drunken goons randomly Assaulting and Battering passers-by. I am sorry you were modded troll, I rather agree with you. I also think the cops should get no different treatment than Martha Stewart -- their initial actions did not break the law; it was their cover-up that did. (Although in this case, the officer did break the law, which he was for some reason not informed of.)

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    111. Re:Obstruction of justice by mestar · · Score: 3, 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.

    112. Re:Obstruction of justice by SunTzuWarmaster · · Score: 1

      Near the end, you can hear him carefully questioning the officer to make sure that he was in fact being arrested only for the refusal to show ID:

      Rachner: "If I were to pull out my ID right now, would you let me go with no further questions?"
      Cop: "I would have, but you're already under arrest."

      Rachner was clearly making sure it was on the record that he was being arrested for refusal to show ID, and for no other reason, so they wouldn't able to go back and say "oh but we were arresting him for something else too, so it wasn't an illegal arrest". That supports what you inferred: he was making a conscious choice to let them arrest him so he could fight it later in court.

      Except where they say that they are arresting him for not showing ID.

    113. Re:Obstruction of justice by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      Perhaps a better way to state it is that we are careening toward a police state. A greater percentage of our population is in prison now than 100 years ago, and it is becoming harder and harder to be a law abiding citizen. More and more activities are not only being made illegal, but being declared criminal (in the legal sense).

      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).

      Sadly, this was foretold more than half a century ago, quite eloquently (if long-windedly -- the book is over 1,000 pages):

      "Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We *want* them broken. You'd better get it straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against -- then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it. There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted -- and you create a nation of law-breakers -- and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

      -- Ayn Rand, _Atlas Shrugged , Ch. III, "White Blackmail"

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    114. Re:Obstruction of justice by tagno25 · · Score: 2, 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).

    115. Re:Obstruction of justice by moortak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Assume the worst. Even if he had been the guy who hit the passerby, and if it had been intentional, and if it had been a brick instead of a foam ball, it wouldn't change the facts. He wasn't arrested for any form of impact with anything. He was arrested for something that in that locale is not a crime. When his lawyer filed a valid discovery request the cops lied and claimed the tapes did not exist. Repeat the process with an open records request. Now we as a society have solid evidence of police misconduct, that if the article is accurate, was not an isolated incident. Someone who brings that to light and allows us to fix it is a hero, even if it all started over drunken douchebaggery. It can be really hard to catch police for misconduct if you require all witnesses to their actions to be free from any taint.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    116. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · 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...

    117. Re:Obstruction of justice by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 3, 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.

    118. Re:Obstruction of justice by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      That's because you're white and look like a Ukrainian, and thus haven't been harassed by the cops. I'm not just trying to shit on Ukraine, it's my motherland after all, but this is pretty common in Russia as well.

    119. Re:Obstruction of justice by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 1

      You forgot to mention not speaking English.

    120. Re:Obstruction of justice by sabre86 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Furthermore, the laws in Alabama and Colorado are clearly unconstitutional. That "explanation of his actions" is testimony against oneself.

      --sabre86

    121. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    122. Re:Obstruction of justice by jmcvetta · · Score: 2, 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.

    123. Re:Obstruction of justice by mobby_6kl · · Score: 2, 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.

    124. Re:Obstruction of justice by jmcvetta · · Score: 3, Informative

      When you create a law that permits or requires the officer to interpret it, it's a Bad Law. And if you can't figure out a way to word a law to make only exactly what you want to be judged illegal, that's no excuse for creating a Bad Law.

      Amen.

      Someone with mod points, please spend them on the parent.

    125. Re:Obstruction of justice by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      The better armed forces and quasi-military organisations such as the police have a strong culture of ethical behaviour, knowing that ethics are the only difference between law enforcement and an armed and uniformed thug.

      My personal experience is, pretty much every (ex-)soldier I have met has evidenced, in speech and mannerism, strong ethical training. Sadly, for police types, it has been more like 50%.

      Our society probably does need a professional, ethical police force under strict civilian control. What it does not need is an increasingly paramilitary police force, with wide authority to interpret the law, under only token civilian oversight.

    126. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If only there were a -1 Douchebag for people like you.

    127. Re:Obstruction of justice by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      Actually, you are correct. If there was criminal intent (the most likely scenario) then there would absolutely be a cause of action. The chief *should* be reviewed, and likely replaced, whether or not he knew about this specific incident. This type of widespread criminality doesn't happen unless it is condoned at the top. (the end justifies the means)

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    128. Re:Obstruction of justice by lawpoop · · Score: 2, Informative

      I did this for a year in Finland as an exchange student, and also for long stretches in Ecuador, Bolivia, and Peru. Nobody gives a shit.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    129. Re:Obstruction of justice by Artifakt · · Score: 1

      People already convicted, particularly where it is based largely on these particular officers' testimonies, will also appeal, and the resulting costs will have to be paid even where it leaves the locality short of funds for new trials. The officers are not just worthless in the future, they have grossly negative worth in the eyes of the system, even if the system can somehow minimize the negative publicity.

      --
      Who is John Cabal?
    130. Re:Obstruction of justice by ImYourVirus · · Score: 1

      He did in fact say most which generally means a lot, he did however not say the majority which would mean more than half, you could have posted your link and not looked like an ass, but instead tried to ridicule someone over bullshit and as such made yourself look like a douche.

      Good day.

      --
      Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
    131. Re:Obstruction of justice by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      the group definitely should have paid for their activities that night.

      Oh noez! People having fun in the street -- quick, call out the army!

    132. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The book you're looking for is "Three Felonies a Day"

      Yes. You're in a police state now. That's why I moved to a different country. The movement is inevitable and irreversible. Sorry.

    133. Re:Obstruction of justice by snowtigger · · Score: 1

      It all depends on what you look like and where you are. Technically, you're probably supposed to carry your passport as a foreigner in a ton of countries. But if you stay out of trouble and look like you're there for a reason, you've got nothing to worry about. Countries with lots of tourists don't want to annoy tourists for no reason.

      I've travelled and lived in a large number a few countries over the last 15 years, including the US. Let's take the US as an example. If you speak good English, you'll never have a problem, except maybe getting into bars. If you don't speak good English and look like you're from somewhere else, carrying your passport would probably be a good idea.

      As someone else pointed out, bringing your foreign driver's license is usually fine. As long as you've got some kind of ID, they can give you the benefit of the doubt.

    134. Re:Obstruction of justice by Mordok-DestroyerOfWo · · Score: 1

      I travel an insane amount. Being caught without your passport in the Middle East isn't quite the same as being caught in a Western nation.

      --
      "Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right" - Salvor Hardin
    135. Re:Obstruction of justice by spathi-wa · · Score: 1

      but who knows how many more folks these assholes intimidated that night, or how much more damage they did?

      Not you, for sure.

    136. Re:Obstruction of justice by budgenator · · Score: 1

      It's worse than that,

      procurement contract and system specs revealed that a computerized log is kept permanently on every video and audio recording, showing when anyone uploads it, flags it for retention, plays it, copies it or deletes it. ... Several lawyers, including prominent Seattle civil rights attorney Lembhard Howell, said they were completely unaware of the video logs, and glad to be informed since they've been denied police videos based on the 90-day excuse. "Now I know what to ask for," said Howell.

      now everyone knows, I suspect that this will be asked for nationwide. Even where the logs aren't kept, defense attorneys will spin it into a chain-of-custody problem for the jurors that think every case should be CSI caliber.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    137. Re:Obstruction of justice by jc42 · · Score: 1

      He did in fact say most which generally means a lot, he did however not say the majority which would mean more than half, ...

      It may be different in your dialect of English, but in General American, "majority" means more than half, while "most" means a lot more than half. People would rarely use "most" for less than a 2/3 majority, and a lot of people (but maybe not "most" of them ;-) would consider you dishonest for saying most in that case. Usually, "most" means something like "all but a small number", i.e., close to but not "all".

      Of course, it could be different in other dialects. But I don't think I've ever heard "most" used to mean "less than half"; I'd consider that blatantly dishonest.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    138. Re:Obstruction of justice by Runaway1956 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "That's because you're white and look like a Ukrainian, "

      I'm a bit older than you. I remember when Poles, Slovaks, and others weren't "white". I don't know how many generations your family has been here, but maybe you should talk to your grandparents about being "white". In my hometown, there were 4 distinct ethnic regions: Black, White, Italian, and Slovak. Today, those boundaries have been pretty much erased, but the oldtimers still remember them.

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    139. Re:Obstruction of justice by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Wow, that's yet another explanation. So far it was because it was past the 90 days it was wiped. Then it's that the data was wiped and they had to recover it. But he has evidence it was there and available all the time, wasn't presented to the prosecution (should have set off all sorts of red flags at the prosecutorial office, but that no one cared indicates they cover up for police felonies all the time), and they lied multiple times in multiple ways for why they couldn't produce it.

      I guess it was all just a big misunderstanding and the police are the innocent victims of paperwork. But wait, if they can't get the paperwork right on evidence, if they can't keep track of what they have and where it's going, how can they be trusted with all that evidence? They are either so incompetent they shouldn't be allowed to testify in court, or they lied in court and so shouldn't be allowed to testify in court. Either way, there should be piles of people fired over this, just choose incompetence or unlawful arrest, or perjury, or civil rights violations, or fraud, or conspiracy, or any of a number of other laws broken in the attempt by the police to harm the people they are protecting and serving.

    140. Re:Obstruction of justice by stimpleton · · Score: 0, Troll

      Australia and New Zealand are particularly grim, and hence easy pickings for Israeli MOSAD agents(Govt Spies)

      They use these two countries to pick passports like apples from a tree. When Israel needs to do its dirtiest deeds, it usually with an Oz or NZ passport

      --

      In post Patriot Act America, the library books scan you.
    141. Re:Obstruction of justice by bronney · · Score: 1

      Hello? I live in Hong Kong and I travel to Japan and wasn't required to fingerprint. WTF?

    142. Re:Obstruction of justice by grainofsand · · Score: 1

      China. It is the law in China that all foreigners must carry with them at all times their passports.

      Chinese citizens are required by law to carry their National ID cards with them at all times.

      --
      A dream is good. A plan is better.
    143. Re:Obstruction of justice by angus77 · · Score: 1

      This is about to become less true. If you are a permanent resident, you will be required to have a card, but you will no longer be required to carry it around with you. I wonder if the cops will buy it, though...

    144. Re:Obstruction of justice by Idiomatick · · Score: 1

      http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/04/17/134231/Comcast-Customers-Urged-To-Opt-Out-of-Settlement-- that was my question for this story. Comcast saying they can rip off people if they might fileshare.

    145. Re:Obstruction of justice by uolamer · · Score: 1

      I think the cops should be treated the same as someone who kidnaps a person and puts them in their own homemade prison. Plus some stuff dealing with falsifying docs, etc. If he wouldnt have covered up after the fact it wouldnt look nearly as bad.. I do not believe the DA should have the choice to not charge them, actually they should charge them on a state or federal level not local. I know it wont happen but i can dream. Hopefully he gets a nice civil suit out of this.

      --
      s/©//g
    146. Re:Obstruction of justice by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      When?

      Every time I have been to Japan in the last ~2 years, I have had both my index fingers scanned, as has every other person in the visitors section of immigration at Narita.

      Have you been recently, and where did you enter?

    147. Re:Obstruction of justice by Alpha830RulZ · · Score: 1

      All foreigners are fingerprinted when they enter the country, too.

      Hm-m-m, maybe I was special, but I wasn't when I visited Tokyo.

      --
      I was taught to respect my elders. The trouble is, it's getting harder and harder to find some.
    148. Re:Obstruction of justice by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 5, Informative

      So what? I mean, really, so-fucking-what? The illegal problem is of epidemic proportions here. I've experienced it first hand on numerous occasions; just last month I was at the hospital with my grandmother and withing 10 minutes, 2 separate people came into the emergency room with no ID (no Drivers license, no state ID, no green card, nothing) and no insurance so they get treated on the state's dime and not even a billing address to send a bill.

      The feds are clearly too engrossed in courting a potential major voting block to do anything about it. I say good job to the AZ legislature. 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. This applies to everybody. Now obviously, the majority of illegals will be Mexican or Central American in origin: It's not like we have a bunch of illegal Canadian's down here, eh, but that doesn't make it racist in any way shape or form.

      I'll save you the trouble of searching the internet for the bill. Here it is, it's not that long: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/49leg/2r/bills/sb1070s.pdf I don't see anything in there about Mexicans, do you?

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    149. Re:Obstruction of justice by jecowa · · Score: 1

      Maybe foreigners from other Asian countries don't need the cards. Only non-asians need to carry it around.

      --
      my opportunity to freely express myself with the potential persecution and hangings and such
    150. Re:Obstruction of justice by ZanySpyDude · · Score: 1

      I am an American living in a former Soviet Bloc country (Armenia). It is obvious that I am not from here to anyone who looks at me, but I have never had an issue with NOT carrying a passport here. Some places have been down that road and are not eager to return.

    151. Re:Obstruction of justice by mrchaotica · · Score: 2, 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).

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    152. Re:Obstruction of justice by LordLimecat · · Score: 1

      There are always crazies out there, making the argument "oh but you dont know the things that are out there" doesnt really justify bending the law (didnt Aussie's Stephen Conroy make a similar claim about the internet?)

    153. Re:Obstruction of justice by Meski · · Score: 1

      Aren't they supposed to be held to a higher standard, being officers of the court?

    154. Re:Obstruction of justice by xs650 · · Score: 1

      You have been watching too many movies.

      I have been in about 30 countries in the past 10 years. In every one I kept my passport locked in the hotel safe, just like I was advised to do.

      I have never needed a passport in another country other than to enter or leave the country.

    155. Re:Obstruction of justice by fractoid · · Score: 2, Informative

      I dare you to go to any foreign country and walk around without your passport.

      Try Europe. After a rather gruelling entrance exam at Heathrow Airport (I'd just spent a month and a half in Thailand, I looked like a hippie, I was possibly still drunk from the free booze on the plane flight, and I couldn't remember the address I was staying at) I then proceeded to travel overland all the way to Amsterdam via Paris and virtually every city in southern Germany. I had to use my passport exactly once and that was while bluffing my way into a World Cup match. I actually spent ten minutes wandering around the train station in Paris after getting off the chunnel train, trying to find someone to show my passport so I could get it stamped, before being told not to bother.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    156. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Freedom isn't generally lost in major conflict, but in the countless little day to day decisions we make, usually in pursuit of "convenience". Restoring what's been lost will take great effort, time, and more than a fair share of blind luck, I suspect. Whether it's deemed worth it to us to make the attempt, will be a matter of much discussion.

    157. Re:Obstruction of justice by Fex303 · · Score: 1

      The Middle East is hardly 'any foreign country' now, is it?

    158. Re:Obstruction of justice by rhook · · Score: 1

      The problem here is one of "qualified immunity." This basically means that as long as the officer was acting in good faith he cannot be prosecuted. Its a sad truth but the police are above the law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qualified_immunity

    159. Re:Obstruction of justice by MrResistor · · Score: 1

      As far as I know you are required to have ID in California.

      --
      Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
    160. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      First of all, can we agree on the following:

      • The police are granted a lot of power.
      • Despite being granted that power, the police are still normal civilians like the rest of us, subject to all the same laws, with only certain narrow, duty-related exceptions.
      • Obstruction of justice therefore applies just as much to police officers as the rest of us.
      • Lying, or at the very least not performing due diligence, about the existence of evidence that a party has a right to is obstruction of justice.
      • Failing to make the job of the police easier when the law doesn't require you to is not a crime.
      • The police should not arrest you when they know you haven't committed a crime.
      • Someone falsely arrested and charged with a crime goes through a significant ordeal tantamount to punishment even if never convicted.
      • A police officer who arrests someone improperly generally faces virtually no punishment of any sort whether they simply admit they were in error or if they make up lie to justify the arrest and drag an innocent person through the system.
      • Telling a lie that causes someone else major problems to save yourself a slap on the wrist is a pretty crappy thing to do to someone.

      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

    161. Re:Obstruction of justice by bronney · · Score: 1

      That's so racist!

    162. Re:Obstruction of justice by hweimer · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The guy IS a fucking hero.

      No, he is not. In contrast to the cop making the arrest he was fully aware of the legal situation. He knew that if he pulled the stunt it could ruin the cop's carreer and get him lots of free media coverage. Winning such an unequal fight is hardly heroic.

      I am all for civil rights, but there are situations where you better do not defend them to the end. Just show your ID, get on with your life, and respect that the cop is probably only doing his job. There is no need to use your uber-hacker skills you have been gifted with to cause unnecessary trouble for others.

      --
      OS Reviews: Free and Open Source Software
    163. Re:Obstruction of justice by MartinSchou · · Score: 1

      Even if the SCUS comes down in favour if the prosecutor being immune, doesn't mean it will continue to be so. It is entirely possible for the states and federal governments to enact laws that makes this illegal and sets up jail time for the knowing parties involved (would be a nice sense of justice, if it was the same amount of jail time as their dealings created - to be served consecutively for multiple offences of course).

      Even if the SCUS says that it would be unconstitutional, it can still be done - it "just" requires changing that bit of the constitution.

      And drumming up political support isn't that hard. Just use attack ads, explaining how the politicians who plan to vote against it are in favour of a police state with no accountability for the crooked lawyers.

      And while a lot of people tend to think that you must placate the middle class, the lower class and poor people not only outnumber them, but they are also more likely to be the ones facing this kind of miscarriage of justice.

    164. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are there to arrest the suspects after a crime has been committed.

      Correction, they are there to arrest anyone not fast enough off-scene after a crime has been committed. Which often includes the victim of said crime.

      They don't care, as long as someone get locked up in the pokey.

    165. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about the United KIngdom? As far as I remember, they're just started implementing the tracking of people with a national ID card.

    166. Re:Obstruction of justice by CarbonShell · · Score: 1

      Though in Germany it goes both way.
      You are by law allowed to get the ID off of everyone, even the police, and they HAVE to provide it.

      The minimum age for IDs is 16. Though you should ALWAYS get an ID (passport) for your children so that you can prove they are yours.

      On a lighter note:
      When we made the passport for our then 6 month old son, the person at the passport office said, and this is !true!, that the picture is ok for Europe, but it is not bio-metrically correct enough for the US and we might get problems if we want to enter.

      Always a good story for parties.

    167. Re:Obstruction of justice by CarbonShell · · Score: 1

      How many problems does the US have with identity theft or people running around with multiple names?

      How can you prove you are you, but person X is not person X?

      Each side has it's short-comings.
      Though if you actually think not having an ID means you are under the radar, you are mislead. You will have left some kind of paper trail.

    168. Re:Obstruction of justice by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 4, 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.

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    169. Re:Obstruction of justice by CarbonShell · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Love the title 'peace officer'.. yeah right!

      Though let's be honest, this is just BS legislation to give people the illusion of some kind of protection but in actuality only requires the cop to have a good excuse lined up.

      If the cop wants to stop and question you, 'your walk was hostile' and then if you are even slightly annoyed or do not answer fast enough they have justification for the next action i.e. 'being hostile'.
      Then they will try to arrest you and you will automatically 'resist'... the next justification.

      I once saw 5 police officers pounce on a teen because the teen was intoxicated (though legal in Germany) because ... wait for it ... he was in danger of hurting himself or others (i.e. 'imminent danger' justification).
      The kid was walking straight, able to articulate himself, though somewhat slurred. But I have been in worse conditions and never fell out of line.
      No friggn reason for the cops to pounce on him and naturally the kid resisted. The kid MIGHT have hurt himself if we was left alone, but the cops took care of that uncertainty the wrong way.

    170. Re:Obstruction of justice by ImNotAtWork · · Score: 1

      I had the same experience in Italy. We even went so far as to go to the police office in the airport to be sure. I think they were annoyed we even found the office.

      --
      open source sub sim. I might start coding again for this. http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/contribute/
    171. Re:Obstruction of justice by xorsyst · · Score: 1

      You need to carry your license with you when you drive? What country are you in?

      --
      Get free bitcoins: http://freebitco.in
    172. Re:Obstruction of justice by ImNotAtWork · · Score: 1

      You are not required to have ID in Cal. As some one posted above you do not need to identify yourself since Cal does not have a stop and identify law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_Identify_statutes#States_with_.E2.80.9Cstop_and_identify.E2.80.9D_statutes The only thing you better do is not lie about your identification since you can be charged for that.

      --
      open source sub sim. I might start coding again for this. http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/contribute/
    173. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Really? What countries have you been to? And what were you doing when they asked you to show your passport.

      I lived for a year in Germany. Never had a passport or ID on me. No on asked.
      Been living in the UK for 8 years now. Ditto.

      The only times I have had to show my passport was when applying for Bank accounts, driving licences, housing loans etc. and verifying to my employers that I have the right to work here.

    174. Re:Obstruction of justice by dave420 · · Score: 1

      I've been living in Germany for 3 years, and I never carry my passport. Heck, the only thing in my wallet with my name on it is a health insurance card. I've spoken to the police a lot (reported a crime, got a ride home on new year's day for being on the tram without a ticket (I had one - long story)), and they never gave me any hassle for not having my ID with me. But then I'm white, so who knows.

    175. Re:Obstruction of justice by Dr_Terminus · · Score: 1

      Add France. I'm a US citizen holding a long-stay visa to live in France. I've never had my visa looked at when entering France, only a check of my passport photo and an entry stamp. Never had my carte de sejour or passport requested while I've been in France.

    176. Re:Obstruction of justice by xelah · · Score: 1

      It's required in the UK: here, I think. IIRC magistrates only ever handed out absolute discharges so nobody is prosecuted for it any more.

    177. Re:Obstruction of justice by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      The only place I had to show my ID in the last couple of years (apart from airports) was the R&D-facility of a customer. I can't remember ever showing my ID to a policeman on the street. Drivers license, sure, at some traffic stops, but ID? No. I live in Germany, btw - No "Papiere bitte!" around here.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    178. Re:Obstruction of justice by Physics+Dude · · Score: 1

      People would rarely use "most" for less than a 2/3 majority, and a lot of people (but maybe not "most" of them ;-) would consider you dishonest for saying most in that case. Usually, "most" means something like "all but a small number", i.e., close to but not "all".

      Huh? Please consult ANY English Dictionary. :) 'Most' is a superlative meaning the one that is the GREATEST in number, amount, extent, degree, etc.

      When you're talking about a binary variable (only two categories as here), then 'most' means a strict majority. If I have two containers and one has 10 jellybeans and the other has 9, I really hope you can determine which container has the MOST jellybeans.

      Just my $0.02 :)

    179. Re:Obstruction of justice by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      As someone else pointed out, bringing your foreign driver's license is usually fine. As long as you've got some kind of ID, they can give you the benefit of the doubt.

      Some places in the US won't accept ones from neighboring states.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    180. Re:Obstruction of justice by WNight · · Score: 2, 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.

    181. Re:Obstruction of justice by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      Nonesense, did you even read what you linked to?

      In proceedings against any person for the offence of failing to produce a licence [F35 and its counterpart] it shall be a defence for him to show that--
      (a)
      within seven days after the production of his licence [F35 and its counterpart] was required he produced [F36 them] in person at a police station that was specified by him at the time [F37 their] production was required

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    182. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anci3nt+of+Days · · Score: 1

      You are missing the role of discretion - there should be and is a controlled level of freedom for officers (and judges / juries) to choose - that is, to interpret the law based on their own first hand experience. This is (or should be) limited by reasonable standards, but the officer is usually in the best place at the time to determine the difference between an aggressive disagreement, and assaulting someone.

    183. Re:Obstruction of justice by WNight · · Score: 1

      While I've found myself on the wrong end of the law, my mother's first husband was a police officer who was shot [...]

      Irrelevant details are still irrelevant even when they're personal.

      So I hope everyone will take the time to put the whole situation into perspective.

      I feel the correct perspective is that of powerless citizen confronting an armed and dangerous thug who was willing to lie and misdirect the power of the state to cause ruin for him. It's an attempt to punish his lack of slavish "respect" (thug worship). Considering it's from someone given extra powers because of their sworn mission to serve and protect the innocent it's almost treason.

      So yeah, I certainly hope everyone ignores anecdotes and red herrings and remembers that this is a situation where our protector tried to turn their power against their charges, like child molestation.

      Which perspective did you think was right?

      On the other hand we have a savvy dillwad wanting to prove his superior knowledge of civil rights rather than helping the police to properly investigate a minor incident.

      I see. Die painfully.

      When one side has police powers and the other has the desire to do the research, we predictably end up exactly where we are.

      Yes, an innocent person crushed and rejects like you trying to justify it.

      But if instead, he had said, "My name is....and I didn't hit the ball" things might have turned out quite differently.

      If the police officer had asked useful question instead of interrogating a guy about pointless details before making sure he's involved, it might have turned out differently.

      But when the police come and this jackwad wants to assert his civil rights

      They're "rights" because you're IN THE RIGHT if you do that. If you only have civil rights when it's convenient for your oppressors, you don't have rights.

      I would be pretty pissed if [...]

      Once again with your fucking opinion, as if you know what went on, let alone could consider it rationally or it would be relevant even if. Just shut-up already.

      I can understand why the police want to put the screws to him.

      And that justifies breaking laws we put into place? Not just laws to protect, oh what did you call him, ah.. a savvy dill/jackwad, but laws designed to make sure our expensive prisons house only guilty people!

      Do you understand, shithead? Even if they wanted to punish him, and were right in doing so, they're doing so on my dime and by totally repudiating everything we pay them for.

      Of course they were in the wrong and acting maliciously...

      If we expect ethical behavior from the police, we shouldn't be trying to make their jobs harder in fucking foam golf ball cases.

      If we can't expect ethical behavior from the police in "foam golf ball" cases, when can we expect it?

    184. Re:Obstruction of justice by WNight · · Score: 1

      So you say, your words sound like those of a petulant child.

      If they were arresting him for his behavior they have charges for it (drunk and disorderly, etc). That could even cover the entire group if necessary. They wouldn't even need to ask their names.

      But not showing ID still isn't a crime and that's what they charged him with. That's just the tip of the iceberg though, which extends to evidence tampering, perjury, conspiracy (and thus other participants), etc.

      You're incapable of separating things you don't like (his behavior) from unjust behavior (a police officer intentionally destroying evidence).

    185. Re:Obstruction of justice by WNight · · Score: 1

      but who knows

      Somehow you do.

      Or, you know nothing and can't tell the difference.

    186. Re:Obstruction of justice by WNight · · Score: 1

      The constitution guarantees him the right to pursue personal happiness. Not everything is about you.

      Even if he weren't helping anyone else, and I guarantee he is, he'd still be in the right.

    187. Re:Obstruction of justice by Spazztastic · · Score: 1

      I was in Panajachel, Guatemala for a week in March and I only had my passport on me when I was going to and from Panajachel to the capital, which was one trip each way. Each of those times I only brought it because I was going to be leaving or had just arrived. I walked around town, went on the boats on Lake Atitlan to visit neighboring towns, and I didn't have my passport on me at all.

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    188. Re:Obstruction of justice by Genda · · Score: 1

      Tough tofu Gweilo...

    189. Re:Obstruction of justice by someone1234 · · Score: 1

      Do you have to prove yourself? Since you don't even talk to the officer, you simply walk away? How will they know you are a local?

      --
      Patents Drive Free Software as Hurricanes Drive Construction Industry
    190. Re:Obstruction of justice by WNight · · Score: 1

      I'm attacking someone who was drunkenly wandering around [...]

      No you fucking imbecile, you're attacking someone you're desperately claiming was drunk and misbehaving, despite the article as much as saying otherwise.

      Why do you care that I point this fact[CITATION NEEDED] out, anyhow?

      It's not facts that come out of there. We object to what you spray because it smells and has no value.

      I'm not defending the cops,

      Yes you are.

      When you say "she was dressed provocatively" you implicitly say "and thus the rape was justified" which defends the rapist.

      [...] pertinent fact [...]

      That word seems ridiculous coming from you.

      doing one good thing doesn't mean that everything you do is good.

      Now who's having some other conversation? Who said it did?

      Do you do mental calisthenics to get this smart, like pounding a half-liter of rubbing-alcohol before each post?

    191. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The problem being?

    192. Re:Obstruction of justice by Remusti · · Score: 1
      Ack. I'm not normally patriotic enough to mouth off when someone is wrong on the internet, but come on.

      You even link to a page that states that the MOSAD agents in New Zealand were caught and jailed. (Sure, not jailed for long, but jailed.) I imagine though, that by stating "When Israel needs to do its dirtiest deeds, it usually with an Oz or NZ passport ", you are referring to the assassination in Dubai of Mahmoud al-Mabhouh. Here is the breakdown (from wikipedia) of the passports used:

      United Kingdom (6), Republic of Ireland (5), Australia (3), France (1 - suspected of being the hit squad leader and logistical coordinator), and Germany (1).

      Where is New Zealand on that list?

    193. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I live in a foreign country and my passport never leaves my apartment. I absolutely never carry my passport with me in any foreign country that I visit.

    194. Re:Obstruction of justice by RichiH · · Score: 1

      Shocking as that might sound, I do that in every country I visit. My passport is in a safe at the hotel.

    195. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The $2,500 is most likely just a high-interest short term loan to the city.

    196. Re:Obstruction of justice by Elldallan · · Score: 1

      In Sweden the police are the only institution who have the right to require the last 4 digits of your personal ID number(Personal ID number is made up by your birth date YYMMDD followed by a string of 4 numbers which amongst other things identify the the county you were born in aswell as your sex) failure or refusal to give your personal ID number to a police officer who has a legit reason for requiring it will earn you the night in detention.
      You are not required by law to carry an ID card but you can under certain circumstanse be required to state your personal ID number as stated above, Anyone can ofcourse ask you to give it up for identification but you can always refuse that(though you will probably be refused the service you were trying to acquire)

    197. Re:Obstruction of justice by zildgulf · · Score: 1

      Even more, some of these police officers should be facing every single applicable state and federal charge, and suspended without pay until trial.

      Withholding evidence and obstruction of justice is a very serious crime and it should equally apply to the police and the state as well.

    198. Re:Obstruction of justice by azalin · · Score: 1

      In Germany you are at all times required to carry your ID card (Personalausweis) or a passport and to show it to a police officer when asked to do so. Not carrying one can result in a fine and you can be held in custody until your identity is proven. If the ID card is outdated, a small fine is also possible.
      Please note the "can" part in all that. Police aren't usually bullying people and in most cases they simply remind you of the fact.
      Also the proof of your identity might be someone with ID willing to confirm yours or in some cases the police driving you back home so you can pick up your wallet.
      This is also not a criminal offense and a minor fine is the most that can happen to you.

    199. Re:Obstruction of justice by jimthehorsegod · · Score: 1

      The advice I was given when travelling to Romania this year was to leave my passport in the hotel safe, and if asked for ID by a police officer, explain where it was and invite them to accompany me back to my hotel to see it. If the police really wanted to see it, this is hardly an unreasonable offer, and it nicely reduces the chances of it being nicked.

      I would think that this spirit of the legislation is in requiring foreign nationals to be able to produce ID when requested, but not necessarily have it on their person (though that legislation may be enforced with rather less leniency in some states)

    200. Re:Obstruction of justice by jimthehorsegod · · Score: 1

      In statute, perhaps - but I would suggest you wake up and smell the coffee if you genuinely believe that in practice what you say is true.

    201. Re:Obstruction of justice by spun · · Score: 1

      Point out where I'm defending the cops.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    202. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So two wrongs make a right?

      When my wife doesn't do any dishes (ever) for months on end, it's okay if I hit her in the face with a baseball bat? After all, her not-participating-in-household-chores is reaching epidemic proportions!

      Oh, wait, no, it's still fucking illegal and immoral.

      I say we should do the opposite. Every state who disagrees with this should pass a law that if you drive into our state with an AZ license plate, you need to have a birth certificate to prove you are who you say you are. If you don't, we deport you to mexico. Just to be safe.

      Also we impound your car and your money.

      And shoot you in the balls.

    203. Re:Obstruction of justice by spun · · Score: 1

      So you say, your words sound like those of a petulant child.

      If they were arresting him for his behavior they have charges for it (drunk and disorderly, etc). That could even cover the entire group if necessary. They wouldn't even need to ask their names.

      But not showing ID still isn't a crime and that's what they charged him with. That's just the tip of the iceberg though, which extends to evidence tampering, perjury, conspiracy (and thus other participants), etc.

      You're incapable of separating things you don't like (his behavior) from unjust behavior (a police officer intentionally destroying evidence).

      I'm incapable?!? I absolutely and completely separated them. Can you just not read? You are the one who is incapable of separating unjust behavior (the cops arresting him) from his bad behavior.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    204. Re:Obstruction of justice by spun · · Score: 1

      No, but is anyone denying they were being drunken assholes? I don't think they are. And I never claimed it was a justification for their arrest.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    205. Re:Obstruction of justice by spun · · Score: 1

      People hitting other people in the streets and then insulting them. Call the cops. Oops, the cops were fucking assholes too.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    206. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hitting a foam ball with a golf club in the CITY and hitting someone in the face is NO accident.

    207. Re:Obstruction of justice by spun · · Score: 1

      Why is everyone assuming I'm defending the cops? I stated flat out they were wrong. If I point out that this guy was also being an asshole, how does that excuse the cops behavior? It doesn't. I never claim it does.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    208. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I am an American who lives outside of the USA and I never carry my passport around. The police here are much better than American police because they don't bother people unless something is actually going down. The one time I did get stopped by police here was because I almost kicked the shit out of a guy who threatened me. I explained what had happened, they asked for my passport, I said I didn't have it on me and they just told me to go home. They detained the guy who had threatened me, however.

      I dare you to know what the hell you are talking about before you open your mouth.

    209. Re:Obstruction of justice by spun · · Score: 1

      Right. There were two sets of assholes in the picture that night. The drunken frat boy assholes, and the tyrannical cops. People assume that if I'm calling the one group out, I must be defending the other, because the world is black and white and if someone is a bad guy, the people fighting them must be good guys. Not true. Assholes fight other assholes all the time.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    210. Re:Obstruction of justice by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      People hitting other people in the streets and then insulting them.

      I'm not sure that really describes what happened. TFA says one guy accidentally hit a passerby with a bad golf shot. So one fellow got smacked by a small foam ball. Apparently the golfer & his inadvertent victim had some harsh words.

      Was it a dick move for the golfer to argue with the person he accidentally hit, rather than just apologize? Sure. Was it an even bigger dick move for the dude who was hit to call 911? Totally.

      If there's a guy out in the street waving a gun around & threatening to shoot people, then by all means, call the cops right away. If someone insults you, try either (a) insulting them back, or (b) being a bigger man and walking away.

    211. Re:Obstruction of justice by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      Yeah, PFFFT, those "heroes" of WWII were just in it for global domination. They knew that Hitler's career was going to be fucked if he didn't conquer the world. They were just in it to get themselves out of the depression.

      I'm all for world peace, but there are situations where you would do better not to fight for it. Just surrender, ship off the jews, get on with your life, and respect that the SS is probably only doing their job. There is no need to use your sovereignty to cause unnecessary freedom for the world.

      (also, you're calling a cop vs. citizen confrontation as unequal on the side of the citizen? Think about how freakishly uncommon that is.)

    212. Re:Obstruction of justice by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      Because of this I've put an in dash camera in my own car.

    213. Re:Obstruction of justice by 2obvious4u · · Score: 1

      Another reason the courts need to side against the prosecutors in that case is because it opens the door for vigilantism. If the courts do not seem just then people take justice into their own hands.

    214. Re:Obstruction of justice by Chyeld · · Score: 1

      Beyond the already more than capable refutations of your statement that the two other responses have provided. I would like to point out that had he not stood his ground and fought for this, no one would have evidence of the police making false statements regarding the illegal refusal to provide evidence that the police were engaged in. No one would have had any proof that the police weren't following their policy in regards to retention and destruction of evidence. And the police personal involved would still be able to claim ignorance on a point of law that had already been explicitly defined by their own state's judicial system.

      So, that whole "just let the poor cops muddle though their job, they are only human" argument kinda falls flat on it's face.

    215. Re:Obstruction of justice by The+Grim+Reefer2 · · Score: 1

      Laws like that were passed quite possibly in good faith, to give an officer the ability to stop somthing that clearly SHOULD be illegal but that there wasn't a law on the books at the time. It shifts the job of the officer from enforcing the law to creating and interpreting it. Senators create laws. Juries and judges interpret laws. Officers enforce laws. When you create a law that permits or requires the officer to interpret it, it's a Bad Law. And if you can't figure out a way to word a law to make only exactly what you want to be judged illegal, that's no excuse for creating a Bad Law. Either word it to give more benefit of the doubt, or DON'T make it in the first place.

      I totally agree with you in theory. It would be great if laws could be written in a way that was clear cut and officers didn't have to make judgment calls. The problem is that, in domestic cases in particular, this is damn near impossible to do. Granted in the example in this article the officers clearly were out of line though.

      With that particular gem, they basically can tell you to do practically anything (short of something unconstitutional) and if you don't do it, bam, failure to obey, cuff 'im Dano.

      BTW it's "Book'm Danno".

    216. Re:Obstruction of justice by spun · · Score: 1

      Yes, it was an evening of assholery all around. A group of thirty or so drunken young men were, according to TFA, wondering around hitting foam golf balls at things. First, thirty drunken young men with golf clubs can be pretty intimidating. Second, according to TFA, they all started heckling the guy they had just hit.

      To me, this speaks of their character and likely actions before the incident. You think this was the first guy they fucked with that night? Doubtful. He was just the first guy to call the cops. I've met drunken assclowns like that, they were more than likely out looking to cause trouble.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    217. Re:Obstruction of justice by hot+soldering+iron · · Score: 1

      I've only seen street law, biggest gun wins.

      Years ago, a deputy wanted to "arrest" my uncle to death. Literally. My uncle told him exactly where he lived, and come on over any time he wanted. My uncle was a military veteran and was eager to kill a lot of SOBs that were ruining the town he grew up in.

      My uncle is now a feisty old man and I have no idea what happened to that dumb shit deputy.

      This happened in a small town in Missouri.

      Any worthless trolls who wish to call me a liar, may leave me a private message with their home address. I'll get back to them.

      --
      When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
    218. Re:Obstruction of justice by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Except the stop and identify laws in those states with them only exist because they are specifically narrow. Identification papers are not required and you are only compelled to state your name - all of this is provided there is reasonable suspicion that a crime is or was being carried out.

      I'm not saying it's not ripe for abuse or that I necessarily agree with them, just that it isn't a "papers please" thing (at least in Nevada...)

      --
      +1 Disagree
    219. Re:Obstruction of justice by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      Hmmm, maybe I'm corrected here - I think Nevada is narrower in scope than other state's "stop and identify" laws.... Unfortunate.

      --
      +1 Disagree
    220. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree the cop may not have known the law, but the prosecutor and the police doing the internal investigation are crooks and should be punished. Everyone involved in the cover up should never work for the police again. That's the story here, not one stupid cop messing up.

    221. Re:Obstruction of justice by yurtinus · · Score: 1

      You bastard! You've doomed us all!

      --
      +1 Disagree
    222. Re:Obstruction of justice by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Do the hospitals at least forward these illegal immigrants to the government office responsible for kicking them out again?

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    223. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The constitution guarantees him the right to pursue personal happiness.

      Sadly, it doesn't. You're thinking of The Declaration of Independence, which has no legal status.

    224. Re:Obstruction of justice by I'm+not+really+here · · Score: 1

      I'm sorry, and I know this is somewhat off topic (though it is about freedom and oppression, so not totally off topic), but I needed to address your signature. Presented on its own, out of context, it portrays a horrible message. This scripture was a lament from a tortured and suppressed people, who had their holy city torn to its foundation. In their pain and misery, they wished vengeance on their oppressors. You try to live the life they lived and not think that a person would find happiness in getting vengeance on their oppressor by killing the oppressors' children. The bible does not condone the action, it only records the emotion. This is a psalm, a poetic song, full of pain and emotion and heart-wrenching cries of misery.

      Here's the full text for those who are open minded and curious:

      Psalm 137

        1 By the rivers of Babylon we sat and wept
                    when we remembered Zion.

        2 There on the poplars
                    we hung our harps,

        3 for there our captors asked us for songs,
                    our tormentors demanded songs of joy;
                    they said, "Sing us one of the songs of Zion!"

        4 How can we sing the songs of the LORD
                    while in a foreign land?

        5 If I forget you, O Jerusalem,
                    may my right hand forget its skill .

        6 May my tongue cling to the roof of my mouth
                    if I do not remember you,
                    if I do not consider Jerusalem
                    my highest joy.

        7 Remember, O LORD, what the Edomites did
                    on the day Jerusalem fell.
                    "Tear it down," they cried,
                    "tear it down to its foundations!"

        8 O Daughter of Babylon, doomed to destruction,
                    happy is he who repays you
                    for what you have done to us-

        9 he who seizes your infants
                    and dashes them against the rocks.

      I would think, as much as the "papers, please" thing scares me, and as much as I do not want it under any circumstances, that we should be grateful that the world is mostly a better place than the world the above Israelites lived in, and should not present their misery in such a way as to try and fuel some people's misconception of the validity of the bible as a moral compass by which to live one's life.

      --
      Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
    225. Re:Obstruction of justice by ncc74656 · · Score: 1

      The only time it was necessary to carry a passport was when I wanted to have a drink at a bar. They card everyone.

      Why didn't you just hand over your driver's license? That's what the rest of us do; it's a hell of a lot easier to carry around. Even if it's a license issued in a foreign country, it should've still worked. You might have to point out where the date of birth is located on yours, but I've had to do that when traveling out-of-state as bartenders don't usually know where to look right away on the licenses issued by all 50 states.

      --
      20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
    226. Re:Obstruction of justice by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Ah, yes, people throwing foam balls around on the street should certainly be subject to arrest.

      Despite, of course, that not being illegal in any conceivable manner.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    227. Re:Obstruction of justice by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      The bible does not condone the action ... should not present their misery in such a way as to try and fuel some people's misconception of the validity of the bible as a moral compass by which to live one's life.

      Do you want me to replace the sig with another of the several dozen quotations from the Bible which explicitly call for violence and murder, including against women or children? Say, Numbers 31?


          31:1 And the LORD spake unto Moses, saying,

          31:2 Avenge the children of Israel of the Midianites: afterward shalt thou be gathered unto thy people.

      ...

          31:7 And they warred against the Midianites, as the LORD commanded Moses; and they slew all the males.

      ...

          31:9 And the children of Israel took all the women of Midian captives, and their little ones, and took the spoil of all their cattle, and all their flocks, and all their goods.

      ...

          31:15 And Moses said unto them, Have ye saved all the women alive?

          31:16 Behold, these caused the children of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to commit trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, and there was a plague among the congregation of the LORD.

          31:17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him.

          31:18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

      In light of that, I'm inclined to take the psalm as "God-approved" as well - since this seemed to be the general modus operandi.

      As for "moral compass" need, I sure hope you take neither the above citation, nor the one from my sig, as any part of yours.

    228. Re:Obstruction of justice by spun · · Score: 1

      Damn it! Why do people think I'm saying that? Learn to read. I never said anything he did excused his arrest. I specifically mention, over and fucking over again, that the cops were wrong. But you black and white thinkers can't seem to get it through your heads that assholes can be assholes to other assholes. Just because the cops fucked up doesn't mean the guy was a fucking saint.

      Hitting someone in the face with anything is assault if the intention was to harm, otherwise it's negligence. Thirty young drunk men wandering around with golf clubs hitting things and people and then insulting them: that's a problem. Not worthy of arrest, but worthy of being called the assholes they are. Get it?

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    229. Re:Obstruction of justice by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Actually, we do live in a police state, but it has not nothing to do with the actual police.

      The executive branch of the government asserts the right to call people 'terrorist' and hold them without charge.

      The executive branch holding people without having to prove any crimes they have supposedly committed is the definition of a police state. That's what that means.

      Cops abusing their authority cannot a police state make. As long as they're 'abusing' their authority, as long as they are not actually allowed to do that, it's not a police state.

      Neither does excessive laws. As long as they are actual laws the police assert people for, and those people get their day in court, it doesn't matter how oppressive the laws are, it is not a 'police state'.

      Police states exist when the people doing the arresting (aka, imprisonment) of others do not have to submit to any legal oversight. When people are supposed to be able to be imprisoned simply because someone in the government decided to do so.

      The US became one when Bush asserted the right to detain people without charge, and has continued to be one under Obama.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    230. Re:Obstruction of justice by I'm+not+really+here · · Score: 1

      Please see my other post about this exact issue.
       
      I most definitely do not take killing and wholesale slaughter into my personal moral worldview.

      --
      Before commenting on the Bible, please read it first
    231. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Now I know why the people that washed out of training when I was in the Air Force became cops, you don't understand much. Stop and ID was held unconstitutional, stop and identify is state your name, not produce ID, see ya at McDonalds when you get fired for violating someones civil rights.

    232. Re:Obstruction of justice by TPoise · · Score: 1

      The "in theory" part is correct. However, law enforcement and the district attorney can be considered to be on the same team. Even as police officers themselves claim, being a law enforcement officer makes you a part of the "world's largest street gang"

    233. Re:Obstruction of justice by amRadioHed · · Score: 1

      "Do you suppose this was the only damage these assholes did that night?"

      Damage? They were golfing with nerf balls. No one has claimed they did any damage, and I strongly doubt it would even have been possible with that equipment.

      --
      We hope your rules and wisdom choke you / Now we are one in everlasting peace
    234. Re:Obstruction of justice by chaboud · · Score: 1

      If they didn't intentionally hit the ball at this guy's head, it would seem to be an accident. Considering how many times they'd hit foam balls in the city, it seems that hitting someone in the head would be an improbable outcome (by measurement), even taking criminal negligence off the table. Besides, they're nerf balls. It would take colossal efforts to make a nerf ball anything approximating dangerous.

      Just for good measure, I've included the definition of "accident."

      accident [ak-si-duhnt]
      -noun
      1.an undesirable or unfortunate happening that occurs unintentionally and usually results in harm, injury, damage, or loss; casualty; mishap: automobile accidents.
      2.Law. such a happening resulting in injury that is in no way the fault of the injured person for which compensation or indemnity is legally sought.
      3.any event that happens unexpectedly, without a deliberate plan or cause.
      4.chance; fortune; luck: I was there by accident.
      5.Your birth.

    235. Re:Obstruction of justice by hesiod · · Score: 1

      That would be a HIPAA violation.

    236. Re:Obstruction of justice by anyGould · · Score: 1

      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.

      And this would be relevant if the person had been charged with an actual crime. He wasn't - his arrest was for not IDing himself just because the "nice officer" asked.

    237. Re:Obstruction of justice by TheCarp · · Score: 1

      Really?

      I spent a few weeks in France, and by the end of it, I almost stopped carrying ID around. It was so refreshing to be in a place where I could walk into bars, eat at restraunts etc, all without anybody asking for ID. In fact, the only people, during my entire trip, that I had to show ID to were the customs agent who stamped my entry visa, and the clerk at the hotel check in.

      Its so nice to not constantly be asked to show your papers.

      -Steve

      --
      "I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
    238. Re:Obstruction of justice by mitgib · · Score: 1

      This is a prime example of why I would love a new reality show based on a mob rules mentality. Find a cop tasering grandma, the mob applies justice in the street, opening up a can of whoop-ass.

      --
      Being a spelling & grammar Nazi is a sign you do not poses the intelligence to contribute to the conversation
    239. Re:Obstruction of justice by anyGould · · Score: 1

      now everyone knows, I suspect that this will be asked for nationwide. Even where the logs aren't kept, defense attorneys will spin it into a chain-of-custody problem for the jurors that think every case should be CSI caliber.

      Well, it does force them to address the question of why police departments would be deleting digital records in an age where data storage is stupidly cheap.

    240. Re:Obstruction of justice by nickthisname · · Score: 1

      Shirley, you must be joking.

    241. Re:Obstruction of justice by Dilaudid · · Score: 1

      Let me get my head around your position: A drunk IT consultant, earning $100k+ a year, starts debating law with a policeman at midnight (the policeman earns $35k a year). The white-collar professional is playing golf on the street. The blue-collar policeman is at work. Since he thinks it's his job, and the professional will not meet him halfway, he takes the young professional into custody. It turns out the policeman made a mistake in a stressful situation (ever done that at work?). A clerk who earns $25k in a police office makes a mistake when writing a letter to the gentleman's lawyer (who earns $250k++ a year), and the professional spends 3 man-months proving that the letter was untrue. Do I admire the IT professional? Not really. If he wants to fix the police system, maybe he should join the force, or become a prosecuting attorney. The interest in this case does, however, give me a different perspective on why America's health care system is dying under a mountain of litigation. It seems that if you're legally entitled to a "right" then you are morally obliged to force everyone to acknowledge it, even if it takes a year of your life, a legal case, and 5 man-years of public officials time. Otherwise it seems, we are not properly "free".

    242. Re:Obstruction of justice by tsotha · · Score: 1

      It's funny, I recall the very same people who are rending their garments today were back then telling me things were just hunky-dory in the Soviet Union.

    243. Re:Obstruction of justice by tsotha · · Score: 1

      The legal tools are certainly there to punish the officers involved. The question is really whether or not it will actually happen.

    244. Re:Obstruction of justice by ntrfug · · Score: 1

      Right, and the problem with this is that it doesn't apply to the non-police citizen as well.

      "Ignorance of the law is no excuse."

      The cops should go to jail for a long time.

    245. Re:Obstruction of justice by Dilaudid · · Score: 1

      I, respectfully, disagree. You have rights because it became easier for people to stand up for them than not to. The pilgrim fathers left England because everyone wanted to kill them. MLK fought for equality because America was racially segregated. The United States fought the Nazis after Japan bombed pearl harbor, not after Kristallnacht (which actually came before the war - the United States actually withdrew its ambassador in response to the placing of 20,000 Jews in concentration camps, the theft of their belongings, the destruction of their synagogues).

    246. Re:Obstruction of justice by ntrfug · · Score: 1

      How many times have you heard of a successful Section 1983 action against a police officer or prosecutor?

      It's pretty hard to find a government agent willing to take serious action against another government agent.

    247. Re:Obstruction of justice by PigIronBob · · Score: 1

      OK, I dare you to name some.

      --
      You never catch me alive
    248. Re:Obstruction of justice by radish · · Score: 1

      No, it isn't. You don't need to carry a license or any other documentation when driving in the UK. You do, however, have to produce it within a certain amount of time (I think it's 7 days) if required.

      --

      ---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"

    249. Re:Obstruction of justice by WNight · · Score: 1

      from his bad behavior.

      What bad behavior? The same shit you're making up? Everyone else read the article and knows this guy was totally innocent.

      I'm incapable?!? I absolutely and completely separated them.

      No, you absolutely and completely fabricated lies and conflated them with the article.

    250. Re:Obstruction of justice by WNight · · Score: 1

      Where you make up lies about the victim of police abuse.

    251. Re:Obstruction of justice by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

      This is not a response to the article, it is a response to the poster above who brought up the Arizona immigration bill. I suggest you read the whole thread.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    252. Re:Obstruction of justice by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

      No. They treat them according to their charter, give as much info as they can to the billing department, and that's that. Generally the charges are written off by the hospital and absorbed by paying customers.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
    253. Re:Obstruction of justice by Zordak · · Score: 1

      You don't need a government agency for a 1983 action. It's a civil cause of action. You can sue yourself. As far as how many have been successful against police officers? I have no idea.

      --

      Today's Sesame Street was brought to you by the number e.
    254. Re:Obstruction of justice by Da_Biz · · Score: 1

      I didn't know that making $35K/year was license to lie. Which is what happened here.

    255. Re:Obstruction of justice by lawpoop · · Score: 1

      I remember watching a film in high school Government class about a Russian who tried to defect to the US on a Navy ship or something. He was dissapeared into gulag systems, and finally after years he was just taken and dropped off in the middle of the woods by KGB agents. He thought he was going to be executed. Instead he was picked up by Americans.

      My teacher at the time talked about how "In Soviet Russia, they could just pick you up and people would never hear from you again." Then the War on Terror happened, and guess who is disappearing people? I guess wars age you.

      --
      Computers are useless. They can only give you answers.
      -- Pablo Picasso
    256. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      May I see your badge number please?

    257. Re:Obstruction of justice by countertrolling · · Score: 1

      That fact is he was robbed of his time having to deal with all that. And it doesn't mean it can't happen again, with the cops being a bit more careful about covering their tracks. The case was resolved, to an extent, in his favor, this time. We are in a police state, and it's world wide. It's just a matter of degree.

      --
      For justice, we must go to Don Corleone
    258. Re:Obstruction of justice by unitron · · Score: 1

      I spent a number of years in Boston as an Australian.

      Have you ever spent any time anywhere as some nationality other than Australian?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    259. Re:Obstruction of justice by unitron · · Score: 1

      But then I'm white, so who knows.

      People who aren't?

      --

      I see even classic Slashdot is now pretty much unusable on dial up anymore.

    260. Re:Obstruction of justice by anyGould · · Score: 1

      I must have trimmed too far - let's try this again.

      I say good job to the AZ legislature. 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. This applies to everybody.

      Still not seeing relevance here - I'm pretty sure here in Canada if I get arrested the lack of ID isn't a barrier - they'll run my prints, get someone else to ID me, or worst case just call me "John Doe".

      The key point (even in the AZ) bill is that it doesn't allow cops to pull a "papers please" unless they have a suspicion of a crime. (And I'll bet money that the "cops suspect you're an illegal" isn't going to hold up long-term.)

      I wonder what the world would be like if the Natives had immigration laws back in the day...

    261. Re:Obstruction of justice by WNight · · Score: 1

      Right.

    262. Re:Obstruction of justice by ImYourVirus · · Score: 1

      That's what he said.

      --
      Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
    263. Re:Obstruction of justice by ImYourVirus · · Score: 1

      Yeah you're right, I don't know what I was thinking yesterday.

      --
      Why is common sense called that if it's not common?
    264. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 1

      I entirely agree.
      I was summarising the post - putting it more plainly shows just how incredibly stupid priviliged immunity is.

      --
      FGD 135
    265. Re:Obstruction of justice by pluther · · Score: 1

      So, you're making the claims that:

      1. It is easier to get a boat, load up all your possessions, sail to an unknown land across an uncertain sea journey, build entire towns from scratch, and find some way of making a living in this new land than it would have been to just pay lip service to the dominant sect at the time?

      2. It's easier to risk life and limb staging sit-downs, stand-ups, and marches across the nation than it would have been to just stay in your place, drink out of the designated drinking fountain, and move the back of the bus?

      3. It was easier to mobilize production across the nation for war, to recruit soldiers from every town and city across the country, build a massive war machine, with all the government takeover of industry and domestic transportation that involves, send all these troops to Europe, coordinate with allies, fight battles, keep up morale at home as people die in unprecedented numbers, and everything else a massive war effort entails, than it would have been to sign a non-aggression pact with Germany?

      How about the source of our freedoms in this country - the Revolution. Many people at the time went bankrupt funding our armies. Not to mention died in the fighting. Do you really think that was easier than just going along with King George and paying the damn taxes?

      On all points, I am going to have to respectfully disagree.

      --
      If the masses can keep you down, you're not the Ubermensch.
    266. Re:Obstruction of justice by sjames · · Score: 1

      Several reasons. One, denigrating the guy whose civil rights were violated is EXACTLY the sort of thing a police department's PR flunkie does when the public questions their actions. The less sympathetic the victim is, the easier it goes on the cops. It doesn't matter in law, but it does change the level of public pressure to actually apply the law. You make yourself sound like a shill for the cops, so you get treated as one.

      I say shill, since, in fact, the person whose rights were violated did not hit anyone with a foam golf ball, and the person who did seems to have done it unintentionally. You terribly mis-characterize the incident of someone he was with accidentally hitting someone as him personally and deliberately hitting someone (a different matter, though still rather minor given that it was a foam ball). You make yourself seem to be desperately grasping for anything to make the victim of an unlawful arrest seem less sympathetic, just like a PR flunkie would.

      Again, it doesn't matter in the eyes of the law, but sometimes matters in the court of public opinion. In cases involving police, it's quite common to ignore the law and sweep things under the rug unless the public insists otherwise quite loudly. That's very wrong, but very true.

    267. Re:Obstruction of justice by dave87656 · · Score: 1

      he didn't change anything

      Not so sure about that. I'd bet most officers in Washington have been made aware of that fact now.

      The guy had a lot to lose by giving out his name given the unfortunate fact that a simple police blog reference in enough to stir suspicion and cost him valuable customers. He didn't do anything wrong and we wasn't suspected of doing anything wrong.

      It reminds me of the hundreds of arrests that were made of demonstrators outside a major political party convention during the 2000's. They hadn't done anything wrong but were arrested anyway. We, as a society, shouldn't let that happen and I applaud people who go through the inconvenience of getting arrested to stand for what our constitution guarantees.

    268. Re:Obstruction of justice by kalirion · · Score: 1

      Seems to me that if the prosecutors knowingly frame someone for murder, then they should be on the receiving end of vigilante justice.

    269. Re:Obstruction of justice by Skippy_kangaroo · · Score: 1

      Because they didn't accept foreign drivers licenses and insisted on passports from foreigners. They had a book of all US state licenses and wouldn't accept anything not in the book (because it could be a forgery and they'd never know). Some bars also rejected the Massachusetts official non-drivers license IDs for some bizarre reason. Some bars accepted foreign licenses some of the time (depending on whether they had been busted in the past 3 months or not), so it was kind of a crap shoot. And it is no fun to go out for a drink with friends and have to sit there watching them drink while you sip on a Coke.

    270. Re:Obstruction of justice by Nyder · · Score: 1

      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.

      The thing i wonder is, if they were looking for someone who they had a description of, not a name, how was him giving up his name/ID going to help them?

      --
      Be seeing you...
    271. Re:Obstruction of justice by moortak · · Score: 1

      You are saying that he isn't a hero, because he was and asshole. I'm saying that when it comes to fights with law enforcement pretty much only assholes get a chance to be a hero. He continued a fight with no direct gain for himself, and a pretty decent cost to protect the legal rights of people in his area and in the process uncovered an even larger problem that needs correction. I would say that falls squarely in the hero column.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    272. Re:Obstruction of justice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree largely with your post. Just to point out a few things though:

      "then arrest them when they ask for clarification"

      Usually this results in a disorderly conduct charge, for "arguing" with a police officer.

      Not doing what they say after 2 conflicting orders, usually results in you being tackled to the ground and given a resisting arrest charge. You can be a passenger in a vehicle, not even subject to the charge, and be cited simply for questioning the officer (i.e. 'why?') _while complying_.

      Also, what often happens is that an officer plays up that they could have cited someone for disorderly conduct or some other charge, but didn't, and many local magistrates will look at the as evidence of cool headedness by the officer, even if the story was fabricated by the officer or was without merit (as no charge/citation of the alleged offense was actually made). They don't seem to get that the officer is either not fulfilling his oath as a police officer (having seen a crime and did nothing about it), or perjured himself (the crime didn't happen, and he's lying to the court now), which in either case should be enough to impeach/question the officer on (having issued a citation/charge for an actual crime for which he is now supposedly bearing truthful testimony to).

      "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"

      Agreed. When this becomes a common complaint though, they'll switch tactics. In many states "summary judgment" citations are considered "arrests." So what happens is that they slap on some other broadly worded charge (disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace) to justify the resisting arrest charge.

      "(shouldn't be hard since all cop cars have them now, and putting them on cops themselves would be trivial, though not cheap)"

      Depends on the state. In Pennsylvania, local cops at least still do not have video cameras. It's prohibited by state law supposedly, has to do with the wiretapping rules, which strangely applies to public spaces (technically applies to audio, I haven't found firm evidence if there is case law where it applies to video sans audio). There was a case where the passenger of a driver pulled over started filming with a camcorder when the police officer started shouting. The camera was confiscated. The tape disappeared. The passenger was cited for recording, and the local DA decided to "drop" the charges. Otherwise, he was looking at like 5 years, despite recording with permission in his friend's vehicle, at an abusive police officer, on a public/state/local road.

    273. Re:Obstruction of justice by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      They don't seem to get that the officer is either not fulfilling his oath as a police officer (having seen a crime and did nothing about it),

      Ah, but you forget "discretion." The police have fought and won the right to not have to respond before a crime is committed (a woman called in and said "my husband said he's coming over at 7 p.m. to kill me, and I have an existing restraining order, can someone drop past at about that time and arrest him if he's in violation of that order" and the police did nothing until the neighbors reported the murder, and the police won in court that they don't ever have to go when they know a crime is going to be committed). They have also won the right of "discretion," primarily used for pulling over blacks in white neighborhoods, but also great for the situation you describe, where a crime is required for their response, but no crime was actually listed anywhere. They claim there was a crime they weren't required to report or stop, but that they took actions like they were going to arrest someone for it and didn't.

      So, lets see. The police have fought for (and won) the right to not have to respond to any crime in progress if that were to put them in danger. They have the right to not prevent any crime they know will be committed. They are not required to "protect" anyone for any reason. They are not required to enforce the law. For all the grandstanding about how they have a crappy job and put themselves out there for our protection and safety, every chance they get, they fight in court for the right to be able to do nothing. As far as I can tell, they are never required to act at all. As history has shown, this means the freedom to get out of the way and let you get murdered. This means the freedom to pull over blacks in a white neighborhood for breaking the law when all the whites cars are doing exactly the same thing.

      I'm not sure what oath police take anymore, but it has an asterisk on the end *void where not required by law.

    274. Re:Obstruction of justice by mathmathrevolution · · Score: 1

      The relevant excerpt of the Arizona law is as follows:

      20 B. FOR ANY LAWFUL CONTACT MADE BY A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICIAL OR AGENCY 21 OF THIS STATE OR A COUNTY, CITY, TOWN OR OTHER POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THIS 22 STATE WHERE REASONABLE SUSPICION EXISTS THAT THE PERSON IS AN ALIEN WHO IS 23 UNLAWFULLY PRESENT IN THE UNITED STATES, A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, 24 WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE 25 PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT 26 PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

      As you can see, the law is quite sweeping in its demand that each"lawful contact" be subjected to scrutiny about immigration status. What constitutes "reasonable suspicion?" The law doesn't define it. In practice, racial profiling is likely to be a significant factor. That is exactly what happened when this shit was passed in Prince William county, Virginia. Even if you reject the idea that racial hysteria motivated the bill, the outcome of this legislation served to empower and legitimize bigotry. The law gave tremendous power to a minority of officers who couldn't wait to abuse their power.

      I would like to address the issue of illegal immigration, but not by hassling innocent people who look sufficiently Latin, or by jailing tourists and foreign exchange students, or by putting some poor kid's Chinese grandma in the slammer because her English is shitty.

    275. Re:Obstruction of justice by jahudabudy · · Score: 1

      Huh. I just got back from Peru. Every hotel I checked into, every bus/train ticket I bought, they wanted to see my passport. And not just my passport - what I actually found odd was they all wanted to see my immigration card also. Only place I've ever been where anyone other than the customs guy as I was leaving wanted to see that.

      --
      ...sometimes, in order to hurt someone very badly, you have to tell that person terrible lies. - PA
    276. Re:Obstruction of justice by Dilaudid · · Score: 1

      Well, I'm afraid you disagree with Ben Franklin too. He said the choice for the American colonies was to "Join or die". What a choice. Was Pearl Harbor the sort of event that the American president could just ignore, and sign a non-aggression pact with Germany over? It has 13 million hits on google - twice as many as Auschwitz, 43 times as many hits as Kristallnacht. I think that would have been very difficult for him to do. So yes - I think the revolution was the easy choice. I think fighting the second world war was the easy choice - the Americans avoided war for 2 years until they had no other option. Essentially revolution, regime change, changing the constitution are like re-architecting a running system. No one wants to do it, unless they have to. When I was a young programmer, I was eager to make architectural changes. As you get more experience, you realise that it's very hard to predict the effect of major changes. This is something that we are currently learning in the middle east - regime change is not a simple matter.

  2. PAPERS PLEASE by Concern · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
    1. Re:PAPERS PLEASE by elrous0 · · Score: 0

      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. His buddy standing beside him who just said "Okay" and showed the cop his ID may not have been heroic, but he didn't have to spend the weekend in jail or hire a $3500 lawyer either.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    2. Re:PAPERS PLEASE by entrigant · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Most people don't need to defend their rights because they willingly give them away.

      Fixed that for you.

    3. Re:PAPERS PLEASE by ElectricTurtle · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Smart? Try lazy, cowardly, or more likely just plain apathetic. We need more people like Rachner to push back, to take stands. He uncovered a potentially huge conspiracy to withhold evidence from trials. His stubborn and clever tenacity held the system accountable. People like him make the system wary enough so that it can't deal with all the 'smart' people in too harsh a manner. They have it easy because some people aren't afraid to do the right thing, even it's hard.

      --
      I support the Slashcott and will not be reading or commenting from 2/10/14 to 2/17/14. Beta is steaming pile of dog shit
    4. Re:PAPERS PLEASE by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So, you are saying that it is smart for people to abandon their civil rights? Really? This is how democracy is transformed into tyranny.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    5. Re:PAPERS PLEASE by element-o.p. · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That's a matter of perspective. I like to think long term, and therefore, my definition of "smart" is significantly different than yours. Get arrested today (and let off tomorrow because it was a bogus charge) or surrender my rights and continue goose-stepping into a fascist state. Take your pick. IMHO, you might think I'm pretty freaking stupid for not letting "the man with the gun and the arrest powers" trample all over my civil rights, but I'm okay with that. I'd rather be in in jail with MLK, Rosa Parks, George Washington and who knows how many others than out of jail (but still not "free") and cowering.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    6. Re:PAPERS PLEASE by Chris+Burke · · Score: 2, 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?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    7. Re:PAPERS PLEASE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah more people need to join the Facebook groups created to protect their rights!

    8. Re:PAPERS PLEASE by elrous0 · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'm saying that the guy who lives in the real world will always fair better than the idiot in fantasy land. And I care very much about my rights, WHEN THEY MATTER. Making a stand against warrantless wiretapping, government seizure of emails, etc. is a noble effort, and I am happy to be a part of that cause. But this wasn't that kind of case. This was sullen drunk who didn't like it when the cops had to break up the party.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    9. Re:PAPERS PLEASE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I care very much about my rights, WHEN THEY MATTER.

      They always matter. Absolutely always without any exceptions whatsoever. You're the kind of sniveling cretin who thought Rosa Parks was being an idiot who was making a big deal over a stupid bus seat.

    10. Re:PAPERS PLEASE by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      And you the kind of fool who thinks every civil rights case in history is morally equivalent.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    11. Re:PAPERS PLEASE by ntrfug · · Score: 1

      Is every police officer and prosecutor who participated in Rachner's case in prison?

      If not, then he did not hold the system accountable. He tried like hell and I respect him for that (it isn't his fault that the system is so corrupt).

    12. Re:PAPERS PLEASE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see that the impotent rage I induced in you by forcing you to face your own crippling deficiencies caused you to forget a word there. No other reason is possible. And the frenzied denial of that fact you're currently shrieking isn't even fooling yourself, let alone anyone with a functioning brain.

  3. Pigs by WilyCoder · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Motherfucking pigs...

    Not all cops are pigs, but these ones were.

  4. A few bad apples by BigHungryJoe · · 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?

    1. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Maybe the number is waaaaay higher than 1%...?

    2. Re:A few bad apples by JDeane · · Score: 4, 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?

    3. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its because they are a "Fraternal Order".....

    4. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

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

    5. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ever heard of the phrase "The largest gang in America"?

    6. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      A few bad apples making the other 1% look bad...

      I really wish I thought it was a ratio of 99% to 1%, but the lines are certainly not clear cut. I know quite a few cops. My brother used to be a cop. The profession attracts people with particular mindsets; the fearful, sadists, people with too much testosterone, people who are emotionally underdeveloped and who have seen too many action movies. When you're talking to 5 cops and 3 of them tell you the reason they went into police work was because they wanted to shoot someone without going to jail, well you've got to figure something.

      ...seriously, why do cops always circle the wagons to protect dishonest cops?

      I don't know any cops who don't break the law regularly. The attitude I've witnessed seems to be that they are above the law, at least to some extent. Since they all break the law they all worry some citizen will get them fired because of it, so they can all sympathize when one of them is accused. They try to cover one another's backs and give one another the benefit of the doubt instead of objectively looking into it.

      If there were a culture of discipline and more strict adherence to the law than is the norm, things might be different. That's not how cops are hired in our society though or how they are taught in their on the job training. I'd love to meet a cop who refused to speed when not necessary for the job because of the principal of upholding the law, but I suspect such individuals make up less than 1% of cops, rather than 99%.

    7. Re:A few bad apples by cgenman · · 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.

    8. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because they don't know who in the precinct will respond to their next call for backup. If a cop's in big trouble, he'd rather not have someone who's pissed at him coming to the rescue.

      So, they have one another's back, just in case.

    9. Re:A few bad apples by snspdaarf · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Seriously? Because few people outside the profession really understand what it's like to be a cop, and what it does to an individual. Much like combat units, they come to believe the only one you can trust is the person wearing the same uniform as you. Nobody else can relate to their experiences. (That's why they don't write traffic tickets to other cop's family members. When the shit hits the fan, and you call for help on the radio, you don't want to chance that another officer is still pissed off at you about the ticket you gave his wife.) They really don't want to believe that a member of their group is bad, and they know outsiders don't understand their world.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    10. Re:A few bad apples by waspleg · · Score: 4, Interesting

      because they're hated by a large majority of the population ... until they're needed. both sides are right, who hasn't seen a cop, not in uniform, flip their lights on to run a red light (and no they weren't going to an under cover investigation)? i know i have. i've been repeatedly harassed by police for how i was dressed, both as a kid and as an adult, and done experiments along these lines. clean cut, white, and in jeans and a tshirt? no problem. put on a trenchcoat and grow a beard? you're a criminal, i've even been stopped and questioned by police i knew and worked with. i work with police regularly and have for a long time.

      i've received parking citations for my car facing the wrong way from a cop who lived in my neighborhood and who i had pictures of his cop car parked the same as i did, facing the wrong way for the lane he was in. i have worked 3rd shift hotels and dealt with racist security teams who were also off duty cops, most of them extremely corrupt and definitely only wearing a badge for power and the 'respect' it garners them (fear would be a better word), and i did see some women want to fuck them solely because of this too.

      there are also a LOT of dishonest cops who abuse their power. many (most?) of them are little more than state sanctioned and funded gang members. not all but enough to notice. i forget the exact quote but a friend once said there are two kinds, the corrupt power hungry kind who mostly got picked on in school, and the superman wannabe kind who thinks they're the moral police and are totally smug about their decisions, i have seen the latter even disgusted by other police they worked with and said so but, no they would NEVER under any circumstances turn each other in; it's more of a talk behind their back or pat them on the shoulder and ask them to stop kind of thing. both are dangerous, both abuse power, some more than others.

      generally if you are polite, so are they, sometimes they're good to have around but they're pretty much always like restless invading armies, if they don't have something else to do they will turn on you very *very* quickly. maybe YMMV, i live in the midwest and have lived in the city most of my life and my experiences have been consistent with police for more than 14 years.

    11. Re:A few bad apples by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How is that different from being a gangster...?

    12. Re:A few bad apples by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      A few bad apples making the other 1% look bad...

      seriously, why do cops always circle the wagons to protect dishonest cops?

      Maybe because your statistics are grossly off.

    13. Re:A few bad apples by Jeng · · Score: 2, Interesting

      When criminal after criminal accuses you of brutality/rape/robbery/false arrest I can see why cops may defend each other.

      I believe its a "crying wolf" issue mainly.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    14. Re:A few bad apples by pwnies · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think you entirely understood what he was saying...

    15. Re:A few bad apples by jDeepbeep · · 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.

      --
      Reply to That ||
    16. Re:A few bad apples by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

      Google - The Largest Street Gang in America

    17. Re:A few bad apples by snspdaarf · · Score: 2, Funny

      Probably that the default position of the police is to trust, and that of the gangster is to distrust.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    18. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or way lower (try reading what he wrote one more time, higher is better for us).

    19. Re:A few bad apples by pedrop357 · · Score: 1

      Woosh!

    20. Re:A few bad apples by Chyeld · · Score: 3, Informative

      Did you miss the part where the guy in the article spent half a year fighting the charges before the prosecutor simply dropped them?

      There was a lot of dishonesty going on, more than "oh you can't see the evidence".

    21. Re:A few bad apples by coaxial · · 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 as "a professional courtesy" is corruption. No one is above the law.

    22. Re:A few bad apples by Cryacin · · Score: 1

      Ganster's swear by blood?

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    23. Re:A few bad apples by pedrop357 · · Score: 1

      Not from where I see it. The police have more in common with street gangs than profession of nobility and honesty.

      They defend each other without question or inquiry into what's going on.
      They commit crimes to cover the crimes of others-witness intimidation, falsifying reports, etc.
      They commit crimes with each other.
      They all wear similar clothing, use similar language and adopt similar body language and hand gestures.
      They stake out turf.
      They (at least attempt to) breed dependency-ie., what would the neighborhood do without us?

      How many more isolated incidents from statistically insignificant "bad apples" does it take before people realize that this behavior is closer to rule and not exception?

    24. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      gangsters have better career chances,

    25. Re:A few bad apples by the_hellspawn · · Score: 0

      As a former military cop, somewhat different from civilian, but the principles are the same, I can say this: we take care of our own and deliver our own form of punishment. In addition, there are times when a bad seed does go down and we see the aftermath. Why do civilians always circle the wagons to protect dishonest C*Os? My question to you sir.

      --
      "The laws of science be a harsh mistress." --Bender
    26. Re:A few bad apples by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      Thanks for proving my original point.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    27. Re:A few bad apples by Red+Flayer · · Score: 1

      They overstepped their bounds a bit, but not a whole lot.

      I disagree. They overstepped their bounds greatly. Regardless of whether they were just trying to defuse a rambunctious drunken crowd, they arrested someone solely for failing to provide ID. If public intoxication was the problem, arrests for public intoxication should have been the solution.

      Instead we have officials of the law arresting someone for not showing their papers.

      Fuck that.

      --
      "Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
    28. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      its more then a few bad apples. stories of police abuse are common, i see at lease a few every day and those are just the people who report it.

    29. Re:A few bad apples by arekusu_ou · · Score: 1

      Relatives of cops that I know of often behave without restraint of the road because they know they can "get out of tickets" by dropping a name. It's ridiculous.

      Cop: license and registration
      Person: What's the problem officer?
      Cop: You ran a stop sign.
      Person: oh here
      Cop: .....are you related to?
      Person: yes i am
      Cop: oh i'll just let you off with a warning
      Person: is a warning really necessary
      Cop: yeah because someone saw me pull you over
      Person: but they won't know.

      At the end the person got a warning and comes to the rest of us complaining that the cop didn't let her off scot free.

    30. Re:A few bad apples by Culture20 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Tribalism. Us vs. them. If you bring down a dirty cop, you'll be viewed like the member of the family that killed their abusive father in self defense; most will think better of it, but some - even a subset of the prior group - will be wary of you and might not trust you completely any more. In tribal warfare, trust is life and death.

    31. Re:A few bad apples by ncttrnl · · Score: 0

      It seems like a few bad apples also spoil urban golf.

    32. Re:A few bad apples by Culture20 · · Score: 1

      I'd love to meet a cop who refused to speed when not necessary for the job because of the principal of upholding the law, but I suspect such individuals make up less than 1% of cops, rather than 99%.

      I've seen a lot of cops follow the speed limit where I live, but It's not so much out of principle as it is waiting for some schlup who didn't see the cop car to turn in front of the giant wall of cars, and go the traditional 5-over. Then it's lights on, and the traffic can start to flow in a safe manner with actual passing and lane changing.

    33. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a town I lived in one cop gave his wife a speeding ticket. He must have been one of the honest ones.

    34. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bullshit.

    35. Re:A few bad apples by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you are not familiar with gangs? Some gangs are based on distrust, but many are based on a very high level of trust and commitment to helping out other members of the gang. I know this to be particularly true among many motorcycle gangs, where members often must earn the trust of the other members during a probation period, and once in the gang the trust is implicit, and if one member asks for help from other members, he can expect to get that help, even when it is risky or illegal.

      Perhaps things have changed in this century, but that is my understanding of the state of affairs in the 70s and 80s.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    36. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I see it now! Cops are no different from gangsters!

    37. Re:A few bad apples by eXFeLoN · · Score: 0

      I've known a LOT of cops in my life. My best friend's dad was the chief of police in smalltown usa. THEY ARE ALL DOUCHEBAGS. THEY ARE ALL CRIMINALS. THEY ARE ALL IN IT FOR THEIR OWN SELFISH INTERESTS. THEY WILL ALL LIE, STEAL, INTIMIDATE AND SADISTICLY FLAUNT THEIR POWER AT A MOMENTS NOTICE. I've know good guys who hypocritically joined "the force" and soon became another douchebag cop. I know they've got a shitty job to do, and I know that it pays for shit, and that they get treated like shit, and that it's dangerous (for a FEW), but that still doesn't make their actions any less reprehensible. I know someone out there has to do the job, and I don't know how to fix the system, but the system is SERIOUSLY FUBAR. Living in St. Louis I once got into an arguement with a security officer, mind you, not a police "person". I did nothing illegal. I only told the guard my opinion. Then I made him look like a little bitch in front of a lot of people. Then I came back the next day and let him get in my face. After again making him look like a little bitch in front of even more people he hit me. I never even got out of my car until the police arrived, yet I was arrested, handcuffed and taken to jail. Upon arrival at said jail, the ranking officer on duty asked me where I was from and after I told him, he called me a fucking hillbilly and said I couldn't get away with that shit in his town (lol, like St. Louis was his "turf"). Little did any of these fucktards know, I recorded everything on 2 different phones and a personal audio recorder which they failed to take from me. It was awesome once I got to court. Yet nothing happened to any of the officers. NOT ONE THING. I moved shortly afterwards. To quote the great poet, Ice Cube, "Fuck the Police".

      --
      My other sig is a knife wound.
    38. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous+Cowpat · · Score: 2, Funny

      How many more isolated incidents from statistically insignificant "bad apples" does it take before people realize that this behavior is closer to rule and not exception?

      Sir Humphrey: "These are just a few isolated examples..."
      Jim Hacker: [waving a large folder of papers] "I've got another 700 isolated examples here"

      --
      FGD 135
    39. Re:A few bad apples by cowscows · · Score: 2, 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.

      --

      One time I threw a brick at a duck.

    40. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Didn't he decline to give his name, but instead allowed the officers to take his wallet (which contained his ID)?

      RTFA

    41. Re:A few bad apples by geekoid · · Score: 1

      no, in the Rodney King case they overstepped their bounds greatly.

      "Fuck that.
      I agree.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    42. Re:A few bad apples by geekoid · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      go here:
      http://www.theskepticsguide.org/resources/logicalfallacies.aspx

      read up.
      When you are done rewrite your post without logical fallacies...of wait, you wouldn't have a story.

      "experiences have been consistent with police for more than 14 years."
      When every one you meet is a douche bag, always remember the one commonality is you.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    43. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is my understanding their world prerequisite to their upholding the laws I pay them to uphold?

    44. Re:A few bad apples by jd · · Score: 1

      Partly because it's a tit-for-tat deal.

      --
      It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
    45. Re:A few bad apples by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      a gangster is honest about it when he robs you.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    46. Re:A few bad apples by Naturalis+Philosopho · · Score: 0, Troll

      In a town I lived in one cop gave his wife a speeding ticket. He must have been one of the honest ones.

      In a town I lived one cop gave his wife three to the chest for adultery. He must have been one of the "honest ones" too.

      Don't mistake malice for anything but what it is.

    47. Re:A few bad apples by AK+Marc · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Not really a big problem.

      I disagree. It's cops lying to get a conviction. It's prosecutors not wanting/getting the facts, but pursuing a conviction anyway. It's demonstrating that anyone anywhere can, while not violating the law at all, be arrested and convicted. That's a really big problem.

    48. Re:A few bad apples by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Make the police know to take the video and log requests seriously. Done. Not really a big problem.

      And how do you do that without making it a big problem? Humans have a tendency to look at things in terms of risk vs. reward. If police officers get into the habit of violating the law (and abusing civil rights) because we brush it off as "not really a big problem" when they do that, but it makes their jobs easier 99% of the time, what motivation do they have to take video and log requests seriously? No, fire the cops who arrested the guy on bogus charges and fire the cops who covered up for them after the fact. Make it a big problem, or it will continue to happen.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    49. Re:A few bad apples by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      Your original point was the default position of the police was trust. The question is trust of who? Their "default" position is distrust. Everyone is a criminal. Once you prove you are in their tribe, they trust and accept you. That default position exactly matches gangs. They distrust all until proven in their fold, then they are accepted and trusted.

      He proved your statement false, and just saying "thanks for proving it" is an odd response when he proved you 100% wrong.

    50. Re:A few bad apples by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      Exactly.

      My wife was a dispatcher and got to know a lot of the cops in town pretty well. It is a brotherhood (with all that's good and bad about that) for the exact reason you stated.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    51. Re:A few bad apples by element-o.p. · · Score: 1

      I think, perhaps, your original post looks like you are saying something other than what you intended. It looked to me like you were saying cops' naturally tendency is to trust anyone, when (I think) what you were actually trying to say is that cops' natural tendency is to trust each other. I didn't catch your real meaning at first, either.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    52. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      You can say that because NOW we know about the logs, but it was this very event that brought their existence to light and it was not police who told us about them.

    53. Re:A few bad apples by element-o.p. · · Score: 4, Insightful

      1) IMHO, (and I grew up on military bases), military cops are even worse than public cops. Maybe you were different (I don't know, so I won't say either way) but I only met maybe three MPs in 21+ years that didn't have Barney Fife syndrome.

      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.

      --
      MCSE? No, sir...I don't do Windows. Yes, I am an idealist. What's your point?
    54. Re:A few bad apples by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I didn't make that very clear.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    55. Re:A few bad apples by snspdaarf · · Score: 1

      Actually, I meant my original, original point. And, the post he replied to was speculating on how the police were different from gangsters. I only have first hand experience being around cops, not gangsters. However, the few gangsters I have talked to indicated that trust in their gang was only part of it. Fear of getting the shit kicked out of them, or killed, was also a part of why they would go help a member. They didn't use the word "fear", but it was obvious that not wanting to be on the receiving end was a motivating factor. If they wanted to keep their colors, they were expected to perform certain functions. That sounds like a continuous loyalty test to me.

      --
      Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
    56. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When every one you meet is a douche bag, always remember the one commonality is you.

      Reading comprehension FAIL. Not every one he met was a douchebag, every _policeman_ he met was a douchebag. His experiences ring true -- your trolling has failed -- have a nice day.

    57. Re:A few bad apples by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      If a cop tickets another cop or a member of his family, you go and see what happens.

    58. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cops don't give each other tickets because they are slimebags who don't believe in the law. It really is that simple. Sleazy dishonorable cowards; that's what they are. They just like to pretend they're not sleazebags.

      Chesty (P.) served on the line when necessary, no matter what rank he held, because he was an honorable man. Very few police officers have honor; most are sleazy cowards.

    59. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A few bad apples making the other 1% look bad...

      seriously, why do cops always circle the wagons to protect dishonest cops?

      Perhaps because it isn't a few bad apples, but an institutionalized sense of moral superiority, bred by having to deal with criminals day in and out?

      My family is full of law enforcement and our most common dinner table arguments revolve around the fact that the LE people consider actions outside the law to be justified if the end result is in their favor. I'm consistently outnumbered in my position that the enforcers must be held to the same standards. They counter that the law exists to protect the wicked (which it does, as it ought to) and their position extends to an argument that wicked actions taken for good reasons are justified.

      That neither addresses wicked actions undertaken with just intentions that ended up being wrong nor well-intentioned cops protecting crooked ones, but the basic mentality - authoritarian, ends justifying means - remains the same in ever career LE agent I've ever known well.

    60. Re:A few bad apples by Imrik · · Score: 1

      They do, in Washington, you know, the place the article is about... The issue is that when they were asked for it for the court proceedings they didn't provide them.

    61. Re:A few bad apples by Jaime2 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You make it sound like they are fighting a life and death battle every day. Police officer doesn't even rank in the top ten most dangerous professions. The whole "I have to treat them well because they might have my back someday" concept almost never happens. My friend's wife is a rookie cop only two months in, primarily working traffic duty, and has the attitude already. They teach it in the freakin' police academy. She certainly doesn't yet live in a world any different than I do other than the fact that she can screw with people with impunity.

      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.

    62. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Seriously? Because few people outside the profession really understand what it's like to be a cop, and what it does to an individual. Much like combat units, they come to believe the only one you can trust is the person wearing the same uniform as you. Nobody else can relate to their experiences. (That's why they don't write traffic tickets to other cop's family members. When the shit hits the fan, and you call for help on the radio, you don't want to chance that another officer is still pissed off at you about the ticket you gave his wife.) They really don't want to believe that a member of their group is bad, and they know outsiders don't understand their world.

      So because their job is dangerous and stressfull we should cut them some slack?

      No, it doesn't work that way. They were not drafted, they chose that profession. If they cannot conduct themselves properly under those conditions they should not be in that position of authority. And because of their position of authority they should be held to higher standards, not lower.

    63. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      fyi, this is implying that 99% are corrupt, and 1% are honest. I'm not asking you to read the article, just the comments your quoting.

    64. Re:A few bad apples by mmaniaci · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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

      I prefer to live under the notion that I'm innocent until proven guilty and not the other way around.

    65. Re:A few bad apples by Thing+1 · · Score: 1

      I don't know any cops who don't break the law regularly. The attitude I've witnessed seems to be that they are above the law, at least to some extent. Since they all break the law they all worry some citizen will get them fired because of it, so they can all sympathize when one of them is accused. They try to cover one another's backs and give one another the benefit of the doubt instead of objectively looking into it.

      The issue is systemic; the cause is we have too many laws, which is great for the authorities as they can bring anyone in at any time for any reason. And it's great for the politicians, who can eliminate their upcoming opponents via the same mechanism (although this is rarely used, just as the current president almost never seeks justice for criminal actions of the previous president, in the hopes that this pattern of turning a blind eye will continue into the next administration).

      However, it's not so good for the police who are charged with enforcing the laws, because as you said, they are themselves citizens and therefore always criminals due to the laws the legislation has already passed. So if we try police the same way we try citizens, pretty soon we'll be out of police.

      So yes, I understand how they can grow a culture of "the blue wall", but it's still wrong. Not the wall itself, but the actual need for it. It would be so cool to have a "Constitutional Reset"; I mean, Sherlock Holmes took cocaine.

      --
      I feel fantastic, and I'm still alive.
    66. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have heard of many many occasions when the Police didn't follow the book at all. Personally I have never been arrested but from talking with a large group of friends and from my one experience with the police (asside from traffic issues) it becomes fairly apparent that they do act like a group of thugs that run around imposing their own ideas on what you should or shouldn't be doing and how severely you should be punished for it. One example was a party that got busted up. The cops came in and just started beating the shit out of everybody, now there probably was some sort of confrontation beforehand, I don't really know but the highlight for me was one guy telling me about how he came up a set of concrete steps from the basement into the backyard and a cop came running at him, punched him in the face and sent him flying down the whole flight of stairs, he had the injuries and witnesses to prove it.

      The one time I had problems with them a empty aquafina water bottle had been thrown out of my vehicle at my friends car, which was sitting at the light right beside me. Now somebody called the cops and said it was a beer bottle. Now fast forward a couple hours and after having a couple beers at my house the cops had aparently gotten my plate and decided to show up. I decided though that after having a few and all I would rather not answer the door, so the guy keeps banging on it for like 10 minutes, and one of my soberer friends said screw it im going to go see what he wants. Anyways I come outside after a while since my friend comes back and reports that he just wants to talk to us. So he puts us out on the front lawn and makes us sit down on the grass, and then gets us to come up to his car and he would question us. Now I asked a couple questions, like "Now I know you have to have a reason for keeping us out here, I was just wondering what that was?" and beforehand was reluctant to get my ID out, which prompted him to call another unit. But then he gets the idea that he's going to charge me for being drunk in public. Now it never worked because I wouldn't come out of my home willingly at first but seriously "to serve and protect"? its more like what was put on the side of that car in transformers "to punish and enslave"

      Now not all cops are bad, they have tough jobs and you'll be thankfull when you do need them but the power tripping is still absolutely unacceptable. I hope this guy gets his ass grilled.

    67. Re:A few bad apples by tinkerghost · · Score: 1

      We had a cop in a town near us who kept ticketing the State Police when they sped through her town - every ticket was thrown out without comment or hearing. The state doesn't want to deal with cops breaking 'minor' rules and that leads to the mindset that all the rules are fair game.

    68. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The perfect job for any criminal is to become a cop.

    69. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why the hell should police be allowed to do whatever they want? Because you think so? You are the load your mother should have swallowed.

    70. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Glad you can be so casual about it. Dirty cops are called "pigs" for a reason, they earn the nickname every day. At some point people will get sick of this bullshit and just decide to shoot them on sight.

    71. Re:A few bad apples by mjwx · · Score: 1

      How is that different from being a gangster...?

      A cop is meant to have accountability, no... wait.

      How is that any different from being a gangster?

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    72. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Police = just another type of gang. And the more they do shit like this, the less sympathy they'll get from the population when things shake out badly for them. Is that what they want, or are they just too stupid to figure this out? Maybe they just want to be seen as bullies, maybe they don't even care. Most of the ones I've met are bullies, children with guns and a chip on their shoulder and the attitude that if you're not a cop you're a perp. You'd cringe hearing about some of the bragging they do, it's like a bunch of frat boys that never grew up. Like a bunch of white extremists talking smack about black people, they make you uncomfortable with their coarse ways and jokes, all the time bristling with threat.

      Any other group and they would be the target of mass arrests and harassment.

    73. Re:A few bad apples by Lazy+Jones · · Score: 1

      seriously, why do cops always circle the wagons to protect dishonest cops?

      Because they know that when they commit a crime, the others will protect them too. Typical for all those organizations whose members feel more comfortable if they know they can break the law at their leisure, unharmed.

      --
      "I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
    74. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'd love to meet a cop who refused to speed when not necessary for the job because of the principal of upholding the law, but I suspect such individuals make up less than 1% of cops, rather than 99%.

      The nearest I've heard of something like that took place in Vancouver. A friend's friend is a cop and was (off duty) speeding and was pulled over. It's apparently common practice when pulled over to flash your badge and off you go. However, on this particular day, the cop who pulled buddy over, saw the badge and remarked, "Well, you should know better then shouldn't you?". The on duty cop then proceeded to hand the speeder a ticket.
      What blows me away about that story is that most people who hear about it, immediately conclude that the on duty cop was a jerk.

    75. Re:A few bad apples by dcam · · Score: 1

      FWI: Your shift key is right next to the Z.

      --
      meh
    76. Re:A few bad apples by cgenman · · Score: 1

      The prosecutor realized it was a bad charge and dropped it. That really is the proper response. It didn't even get to the point of "is he guilty? No. Case Dismissed." The prosecutor just dropped it.

      Misdemeanors are pretty low down the priority queue. Because of this, in the poorly underfunded criminal justice system these can take a really, really long time. It's unfortunate how poorly funded it is, but that's not malice on the part of the prosecutor. It's also not like he was sitting in jail this entire time... there were probably a few discovery and other hearings about the charge, each a few months between eachother.

      The problem seems to be how bloody slow the justice system works. Also, cops should know not to arrest solely on based upon refusing to show ID. But comparing that to RIAA getting judgements of hundreds of thousands of dollars for sharing music, or the BART police shooting a cooperative subject and stealing cellphones to cover it up, or continuing to pull people over for driving while black, or the hundreds of thousands of people rotting in jail for casual personal pot use... This dude was drinking and in a rowdy group of stick-wielding golf houlagans. Dude refused to show ID. Dude was arrested for being non-cooperative. Dude's charges were dropped.

      For certain, it's not great. But in the grand scheme of police brutality and miscarriages of justice, it ranks pretty low.

    77. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Withstanding that you were an MP, your argument is that "we take care of our own and deliver our own form of punishment" and therefore someone who breaks laws shouldn't be punished? But then go on to basically say, that sometimes the fuckup is too large to coverup, excuse me, "take care of", and you see the "bad seed" the same one you would be taking care of, go down. The point is that in the current system, self punishment is not a good enough deterrent for breaking laws, especially civil rights laws. The number one issue cops need to know about is that they are not above the law, they are not "the law", and it could be argued that they should be held if anything to an even higher standard than a civilian, but above all else, they need to fucking KNOW THE LAW before they can reasonably be wanted to enforce it, and this is the fundamental issue. This applies to MP's too, (I've known many in my time in the Corps) Far too many cops/MP's know very little about the law they are trying to enforce. The only way the profession can save itself is by putting out new SOP, greatly increasing training with regard to law, and then FUCKING BURNING people who violate what they should be expected to know. Otherwise the citizenry will continue to distrust them.

    78. Re:A few bad apples by houghi · · Score: 1

      They overstepped their bounds a bit, but not a whole lot.

      And that is the issue. They should not overstep it. For all I care the other party was raping a pregnant women while selling crack to minors to finance their terrorist activities. That does not mean they can overstep their bounds.

      I can imagine that many people think that to solve crime anything goes as that is what people see on TV shows. "I have hacked their system so we can see who murdered Sally." While that will help to solve the case in 45 minutes, in the real world it means those criminals would walk.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    79. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      Requests for audio and video occur at any major city police department every day. They are used all the time in any situation that involves false accusations against a police office, trials, etc, but they are very rarely used against the officers. This is the problem.

      They denied the request, stalled the request until the 90 days were up, then lied about them being destroyed until finally being proved wrong (and caught in a lie). THAT is the problem. Using an excuse of stupidity for something they deal with all the time is not an excuse at all.

      As for trying to get a bunch of drunk guys off the streets comment; This was the final hole of the game and ended at that bar. There were only several dozen people still involved on a Saturday night on Pike and I think Belmont (very busy area with plenty of drunk people all ready) so this wasn't some type of bazaar situation with some drunk people around, the area was all ready filled with drunk people.

      As for the multiple arrests for a single guy accidentally hitting someone in the head with a piece of foam the person who did it was wearing a kilt, bright orange hair and a golfers hat. Eric who was arrested has a shaven head and leather jacket. The other people arrested didn't come close to matching his description. He obviously wasn't a suspect (and wasn't even around from what I remember and was only walking by) yet because he was denying these cops their ability to flex their power over him and didn't give in was the only reason he was arrested.

      These cops were very dishonest in arresting him. The cops they were with were dishonest for trying to hide the facts about the case. They have all lied and obstructed justice themselves which is the most ironic part of this case at this point.

      O and I was at the event when this occurred, I was involved with helping run it so I know quite a few facts about was has happened.

    80. Re:A few bad apples by blanks · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So cops don't have to follow the laws or enforce laws on other cops because other cops might get mad at you and not do their jobs?

      Ok, I see your point. Cops should be allowed to break any law they want (or their family members, hell their friends too).

    81. Re:A few bad apples by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 1

      A really honest cop would ticket himself for a traffic infringement. That's two cops that do honor to the badge and uniform that they wear. Now we just have to find two more.

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    82. Re:A few bad apples by Some+Bitch · · Score: 1

      As the GP stated, I don't think you understood what he was saying. Go read the OP again, it says the opposite of what you think it does.

    83. Re:A few bad apples by dcollins · · Score: 1

      "In this case, the dishonest part was 'we don't have the videos.'"

      They did not actually ever say that, and everyone seems to be overlooking the extraordinary cleverness of that fact. FTA:

      The department responded: "These recordings are both past our retention period and can no longer be obtained. Please note that the majority of 911 calls and videos are retained for a period of ninety (90) days."

      "They just flat out said they didn't have it," said Rachner.

      In this case, Rachner is incorrect. Let's consider each of the official statement's claims one-by-one:
      (1) "The recordings are both past our retention period" -- True, official "retention period" is 90 days.
      (2) "Can no longer be obtained." -- True, in the sense that our policy is to not give them to you.
      (3) "The majority of 911 calls and videos are retained for a period of ninety (90) days" -- True, without saying whether this case falls into the majority or not.

      Note what they scrupulously avoided saying: "we don't have this video" or "we can't find this video" or "this particular video was erased". Never said any of that stuff, although they dissembled in a Bush-like way to make reasonable people infer that. Have to call that some sinisterly clever lawyering.

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    84. Re:A few bad apples by dcollins · · Score: 1

      Less melanin?

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
    85. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      1. kops are killed at approx 6 per 100k on the job
      2. retail clerks are killed at approx 6.8 per 100 k on the job
      3. cabbies are killed at approx 30 per 100k on the job
      4. as i recall, firefighters were killed at about 11-12 per 100k on the job

      kops are the goons of the authoritarian state to enforce the status quo, NOT to actually protect and serve us li'l peeps, that is just an occasional sideline between donut runs...

    86. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How is that different from being a gangster...?

      They have dental.

    87. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    88. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if we try police the same way we try citizens, pretty soon we'll be out of police.

      Good. Because people will want to hire more and maybe the incoming cops will be able to change the culture, or at least act in accordance with the law. We have rampant unemployment as it is, fire the bums and hire people with ethics.

    89. Re:A few bad apples by jimicus · · Score: 1

      They're not the only profession to do this. Teachers are just as bad.

    90. Re:A few bad apples by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I saw a cop just blatantly run a stop sign the other day. Didn't even slow down.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    91. Re:A few bad apples by hesiod · · Score: 1

      And priests.

    92. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In a town I lived one cop gave his wife three to the chest for adultery. He must have been one of the "honest ones" too.

      Do you have a problem with that? If the woman you married and spent years of your life goes out and rides some other man's dick, I think that's more than enough reason to pump a few slugs into the whore.

    93. Re:A few bad apples by ntrfug · · Score: 2, Interesting

      And whose fault is that? It didn't just happen.

      When I was growing up cops were respectable, and were respected. Somewhere along the way they came to believe they were different and more special than other people. They rationalized that because they were so different and more special, what they were doing was right and good. Since what they were doing was right and good, any conduct was acceptable.

      I no longer respect cops; I despise them.

    94. Re:A few bad apples by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, in Rodney King's case, they deliberately committed attempted murder. Once you break the law in the course of being a police officer with malicious intent, you should no longer be entitled to the protection of the law in any way. I think people should be allowed to arrest cops for violence. When police tazed that guy in that university library for not having his university ID and then threatened the crowd who wanted to come to his aid, they were committing mass premeditated assault and abusing their authority to the extent that the entire crowd should be considered legally within their rights to rush the police and beat the holy shit out of them, cuff them, and have them tried as any other felony assailants would be. Instead, they weren't even reprimanded. Fuck THAT.

    95. Re:A few bad apples by adminstring · · Score: 1

      #1 and #3 are true, however #2 is false. The information existed and could have in fact been provided. The existence of a "policy" not to give existing relevant evidence to a defense attorney after a certain time period does not change that fact. According to the Brady v. Maryland decision, suppression of exculpatory evidence is a violation of due process. Also, knowingly denying the existence of such existing evidence would be perjury.

      --
      My truck is like a series of tubes.
  5. Carefully parsed language by elrous0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The department responded: "These recordings are both past our retention period and can no longer be obtained. Please note that the majority of 911 calls and videos are retained for a period of ninety (90) days."

    "They just flat out said they didn't have it," said Rachner.

    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.

    --
    SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    1. Re:Carefully parsed language by SpottedKuh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      They said they can no longer be obtained. They didn't say they were destroyed.

      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.

      [T]his 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 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.

      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.

    2. Re:Carefully parsed language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ... it can still cost you a weekend in jail and a $3500 legal bill if you actually pull that shit with a real cop.

      Which is another problem with cops.

    3. Re:Carefully parsed language by SpottedKuh · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

      Sorry to self-reply, but I want to expand on this statement. It should be noted that, in a number of states, the person wouldn't even have the right to refuse to present ID. Because of the 911 call and accusation of assault, the police officer's dealings with the group of drunks would have qualified as a Terry stop. In 24 states, there are Stop and Identify statutes, which allow police to demand identification during a Terry stop.

      Washington is not one of those states, so the police officer did not have the authority to hold anyone for failing to provide identification. But, I just wanted to add to my above post, noting that the constitutionality of the actions taken in this case is not uniform across the entire US, before some Slashdotter got a creative idea about what to do next time they're dealing with a police officer.

    4. Re:Carefully parsed language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Arizona just passed a law that would requre immigrants to always carry their papers and for the police to ask for them.

      Under the bill, police would be mandated to arrest immigrants unable to show documents allowing them to be in the country.

    5. Re:Carefully parsed language by eldepeche · · Score: 2, 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.

    6. Re:Carefully parsed language by Krahar · · Score: 1

      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.

      That's the most fucked up thing I've read all week. A police officer simply must have knowledge of whether people are required to show ID. This police officer was annoyed for something he had no right being annoyed about, and chose to misuse his authority to enforce that annoyance on his victim. That is the one single thing that absolutely cannot be tolerated from police - knowing misuse of authority. After being victimized by this police officer, it then took thousands of dollars to make the case go away, and the truth only came out because the victim was extraordinarily resourceful in uncovering evidence. Evidence that had been reviewed by other police officers who then lied about the case. That may be normal procedure, but you make it sound as though that is something that is acceptable, and that's the most fucked up thing I've read all week.

    7. Re:Carefully parsed language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, the real lesson is to know your rights.

      I suppose you think the Police did nothing wrong too?

    8. Re:Carefully parsed language by mcgrew · · Score: 2, Funny

      From A Child's Garden of Grass

      "Your paperss pleass!!"

      "Uh, I only got a pipe, man."

      "Zen you'll haff to com vit me!"

    9. Re:Carefully parsed language by Selanit · · Score: 1

      Although they said "the recordings ... can no longer be obtained", they later sent him copies of the recordings. Sooo ... how did they send him copies without "obtaining" them? Could it be that they were capable of obtaining the tapes and lied about it because they didn't want to?

      Also note that he requested the tapes both during the disclosure proceedings in court and after the charges were dismissed through freedom of information laws. In both cases, they were legally obligated to provide the information if they were capable of doing so.

      The response was carefully worded, yes; but phrasing it in the passive voice is not going to get them off the hook this time.

    10. Re:Carefully parsed language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They didn't need papers to determine who was the culprit. All they needed was a description of the person. They had that. This was a case of abuse of police power and it was as simple as that.

    11. Re:Carefully parsed language by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Interesting (but backwards) way of looking at it. I was thinking more along the lines of "the public are assigned this right, and a right is something you are given that you can't be punished for having." So a governmental official harassing someone for obeying their rights is actually not "causing problems for the police while they're trying to do their job." The police caused the problem, and were the problem. This isn't a case of a civilian causing problems, this is a case of police abuse of power.

      Of course, you are completely free to decide that someone has some power, so you have to roll over and be their bitch. Just think how well that works with the school bully, though

    12. Re:Carefully parsed language by BountyX · · Score: 1

      This very same situation happened to me. I was walking down the sidewalk listening to my iPod when a cop pulled up next to me and asked for identification. I asked the cop if he suspected me of a crime, or if I was being detained. He didn't answer, so I ignored him. He got out his car and demanded ID, I repeated if I was being detained or suspected of a crime, he told me my constitutional rights were bullshit and starting cussing at me. I just walked away. I guess the officer knew he was in the wrong becuase he didn't try to make an arrest.

      --
      Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
    13. Re:Carefully parsed language by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Your mindset is far too prevalent today.

      You say that like there was EVER a time in U.S. history when all this stuff WASN'T the case. Cops are actually much less corrupt today than they've probably ever been (thanks to the prevalence of cameras, if nothing else). There was a time, no too long ago, when if you refused to do something a cop told you to do they would not only throw you in jail, they would beat the dogshit out of you first.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    14. Re:Carefully parsed language by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Since when is it fucked up to acknowledge reality? Most of us live in the real world, where we realize that there is and always has been a discrepancy between the law as written and the law as actually executed. Now, had this guy actually accomplished something positive with his actions, I might applaud his courage in standing up for his rights. As it was, he was just a drunk bar-hopper wanting to flip off the cops. Rosa Parks he ain't.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    15. Re:Carefully parsed language by elrous0 · · Score: 1

      Knowing his rights cost this guy a weekend in jail and $3500. But if you're feeling heroic, I'm sure there are plenty of cops near you right now who you can go flip off (it's constitutionally permissible, you know). Go forth and show them that you know your rights!

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
    16. Re:Carefully parsed language by juan2074 · · Score: 1

      A police officer simply must have knowledge of whether people are required to show ID.

      You'd think so, but not here in Washington. Many of our cops moved here from Arizona -- meaning they are racist AND ignorant of our state laws.

  6. Suprise, surprise by straponego · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ANY time the cops, spooks, politicians, corporations-- anybody, really-- claims to have "lost" the evidence, they are lying or they deliberately destroyed it. Like when the CIA, at the behest of Bush, just happened to lose hundreds of torture tapes after they'd been ordered by a court to preserve them. Like they did with much of the Abu Ghraib evidence.

    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...

    1. Re:Suprise, surprise by Jeng · · Score: 1

      The biggest issue regarding our rights is that the executive branch has completely took over the judicial branch.

      The judicial branch needs to start tossing those abusing power in prison instead of continuing to give them a free pass.

      --
      Don't know something? Look it up. Still don't know? Then ask.
    2. Re:Suprise, surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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...

      Based on the stats of how few cops fire a bullet - in the course of patrolling/responding to a call - their ENTIRE career, I suspect they are more worried about being framed or fragged. No backup? Oooooooh.

    3. Re:Suprise, surprise by geekoid · · Score: 1

      Actually, in most case it is lost. Yes, you can name a list of a few times it wasn't. That not exactly proof it's aways..or even often.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    4. Re:Suprise, surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ANY time the cops, spooks, politicians, corporations-- anybody, really-- claims to have "lost" the evidence, they are lying or they deliberately destroyed it. Like when the CIA, at the behest of Bush, just happened to lose hundreds of torture tapes after they'd been ordered by a court to preserve them. Like they did with much of the Abu Ghraib evidence.

      CIA didn't lose the tapes. CIA admitted that they destroyed them for security reasons.

    5. Re:Suprise, surprise by BountyX · · Score: 1

      Everyone thought Thomas Jefferson was a cook when he opposed Judicial Review. Who appoints supreme court Justices? The Executive branch. Sure, congress may give a candidate the final blessing, but let's be honest, senators get DoSed (lobbied) into picking a particular justice. Here's some more insight on why our Supreme Court system sucks

      --
      Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
    6. Re:Suprise, surprise by SharpFang · · Score: 1

      We need a harsher laws for destruction of evidence.

      If x is suspect of crime A, and was mandated by law to maintain data that would be an evidence, failure to produce this data should lead to immediate assumption of guilt on the side of whoever should have the evidence, and maximum penalty. ...imagine I have "lost" invoices I had used in my tax deductions.

      --
      45 5F E1 04 22 CA 29 C4 93 3F 95 05 2B 79 2A B2
  7. More too this story methinks by beakerMeep · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It sounds like the cops got caught pretty red handed but I'm having a hard time buying that this douchebag was just politely refusing to show ID. They hit some guy in the head with some kinda nerf ball, which probably is no big deal but then heckled him to the point where he called 911. Now, the Capitol Hill is an area of seattle know for a large Gay community and Gay bashing hate crimes are far from uncommon there. He was also apparently drunk. The whole lot of them sound pretty belligerent in the video. Article seems a bit biased.

    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. :)

    --
    meep
    1. Re:More too this story methinks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      He didn't slice the shot. RTFA.

      FTA "Marcus Johnson of Los Angeles apologetically admitted in an interview that he sliced the ball that hit the victim. Police never detained or identified him, but he and others said Johnson was "in the thick of things" when police arrived."

    2. Re:More too this story methinks by cc1984_ · · 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.

    3. Re:More too this story methinks by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Maybe he needed to be jailed, I don't know. Obviously if the cops lied about evidence they need to be jailed.

    4. Re:More too this story methinks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How can you call another a douchebag when you don't even know the rights? I guess reading comprehension is a quality not all members of the human race get to enjoy. How is he a douche? He didn't fire the shot, all he did was refuse to state his name & I.D.

    5. Re:More too this story methinks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, if you RTFA, you would know that this guy wasn't even the one who took the shot. Although he was belligerent (which isn't a crime), he did nothing wrong. The guy who took the shot didn't even get arrested.

      He is our most recent example of a civil rights "Rosa Parks", where most people would be ignorant to their rights and / or couldn't afford a $3500 lawyer.

    6. Re:More too this story methinks by coaxial · · Score: 1

      I've watched the video, and the only person to raise his voice was the cop. Sounds like he didn't think Racher was sufficiently deferential, and slapped him with a Contempt of Cop charge.

    7. Re:More too this story methinks by beakerMeep · · Score: 1

      Isn't consorting with people who slice their golf shots also a crime? Conspiracy to commit double bogey or something?

      --
      meep
    8. Re:More too this story methinks by Elshifto · · Score: 1

      The person who was arrested wasn't the one who made the shot, nor did he look anything like him. The person who made the shot was not arrested.

      The person who was arrested, was arrested for something that you can not be arrested for in that state (refusing to show ID) and nothing else. His attitude does not matter since it wasn't breaking any laws.

      The police department then dragged on a case while refusing to release the tapes because of an active case, then after they dropped the case (after costing the person who was arrested but did nothing that is a crime or arrestable in the state of WA about $3800) refused to release the tapes, implying that they had been destroyed.

      An internal review that viewed the tapes, backed the cops version of events even though the tapes clearly support the person who was arrested version of events.

      But yea, lets change the focus away from obvious and provable police corruption to someones clearly legal but in your mind "bad" attitude.

    9. Re:More too this story methinks by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hint, read the article yourself. Keeping bad company is not illegal.

      The police (and potentially the city attorney) did lie.

      So you like it if proven liers are working at the police? Hmmm, perhaps they should start to recruit felons on the theory that these are "experts"?

    10. Re:More too this story methinks by Protoslo · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you read TFA, you might note that the it was actually a different guy, not arrested by the police, who sliced the ball. And whether all of the people (security researchers) involved were assholes or not, that doesn't change the law, and the requirement for the police to follow it.

      I think that the video demonstrates that the cop may have very well believed that his request was legal, but I hardly think refusing to comply with his actually illegal request means that the subject was to blame in any way. They were quite civil until he refused to produce ID. Then the cop escalates first, bolstered by his ignorant beliefs about his authority.

      The case alluded to in the article is Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District Court of Nevada, in which the supreme court ruled that Nevada's stop and identify law, which requires only that someone suspected of a crime give his or her name, was constitutional. It was 7-2, with Stevens and Breyer dissenting. In that case, there was a Nevada law explicitly allowing a request for identification (and requiring a response), a situation which does not obtain in Washington.

      Let us consider another example. At first glance, New York's law on this seems particularly heinous, allowing that an officer "may demand of him his name, address and an explanation of his conduct." It doesn't actually say whether the subject is required to respond, however. In fact, New York's law merely limits the scope of questioning to which an officer may subject a suspect before arrest. If other probable cause to arrest is not found, refusal to answer those questions is not grounds.

      So, in New York and most states, you really can refuse to answer police questions. That doesn't make you a "douchebag." On the contrary, because Rachner had been following his state court decisions, he was able to upgrade himself from "drunken nerfball golfer" to "American Hero."

    11. Re:More too this story methinks by cc1984_ · · Score: 1

      Why do I need to know American rights to decide if someone is a douchebag? That just makes no sense. Is there a law defining douchebaggery?

      all he did was refuse to state his name & I.D.

      This is exactly my point; how is this not being deliberately truculent (and don't give me any crap from James Duane. That guy could sell sunglasses to a blindman.)? As I asked earlier, short of just letting this guy get off scot free, is there anything that the police could legally have done?

    12. Re:More too this story methinks by Dr+Damage+I · · Score: 1

      "This is exactly my point; how is this not being deliberately truculent"

      There is nothing wrong with refusing to identify oneself unless doing so is illegal. In this case, refusing to identify oneself is not illegal. The job of the police is not to combat random truculence, but to prevent crime/arrest those people who commit crimes.

      "short of just letting this guy get off scot free, is there anything that the police could legally have done?"

      You only get off scot free if you've done something wrong. He did nothing wrong. He therefore did not get away with anything.

      Not only is there nothing the police legally could have done, there is nothing the police legally should have done. Apart, that is, from nothing. Which is what they should have done.

      --
      "Cursed is he who rises early in the morning..." Isiah 5:11
    13. Re:More too this story methinks by cc1984_ · · Score: 1

      You only get off scot free if you've done something wrong. He did nothing wrong. He therefore did not get away with anything.

      I agree with you, although this smells a lot like "working to rule." If you don't want to help the police, fine, but just be prepared that if you need their help, they don't return the work-to-rule favour.

  8. There's a better charge.. by jcr · · Score: 5, Informative

    "Conspiracy to deprive a person of their civil rights under color of authority". That's good for a ten-year stretch in fort leavenworth, if you can get a federal prosecutor to pursue it.

    -jcr

    --
    The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    1. Re:There's a better charge.. by Pharmboy · · 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.)

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    2. Re:There's a better charge.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      Spelling: that's "bona fide", not "bonifide".

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bona+fide

      No disagreement on your main point.

    3. Re:There's a better charge.. by rickb928 · · Score: 1

      You could say she was 'bonifide'.

      But you'd have to get corroboration that she liked it.

      --
      deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
    4. Re:There's a better charge.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      bonified SNAFU, (Situation Normal, All Fucked Up.)

      Ahh, that's "bona fide." As stated there are other, more colorful, and redundant, interpretations.

    5. Re:There's a better charge.. by physicsdot · · Score: 1
      Really, I read the article, and I felt that it was a concerted effort by the Seattle police dept. to cover up an illegal arrest.

      "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."

      "There is absolutely nothing in the activity log to support that claim," said Rachner. "Moreover, if the video was unavailable, it was dishonest of them to claim the video could no longer be obtained because it was past the 90-day retention period. It is completely at odds with what they told me in writing."

    6. Re:There's a better charge.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      what did i say a moment ago? drunk people, with their aggravationsess.... and.... uh... not remembering what they said a moment ago...
      "as i was saying, i have a recording device."
      "you already said that and didn't remember that you did."
      "OBSTRUCTION!"

      -Drunken Cowardice!

      p.s. at least he understands what high density foam is......is.

    7. Re:There's a better charge.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and this was a bonified SNAFU

      Yeah, off-topic, but... Bonified? Really? Is that some kind of lolspeak for 'bona fide' or something?

    8. Re:There's a better charge.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Situation Normal: All Fouled Up ... No situation merits being vulgar. Be a good example your Internet peers.

      I now step away an watch this explode.

      ROFL... the capcha was "swearing"

    9. Re:There's a better charge.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's the point of spelling out the acronym if you're only going to use it once, and then why even use it if you're going to spell it out.

    10. Re:There's a better charge.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Its not Seattle police. It is ALL police.

      Cops get away with crimes including murder every day.

      View the videos of the pigs executing Oscar Grant in a Bart station... the vids of pigs torturing tree sitters by handcuffing them, then painting pepper spray under their eyelids with cotton swabs... the 10s of racist murders by the pigs in New Orleans after Katrina... The hundreds of vids of pigs torturing folks with Tasers... every day many times a day pigs abuse their authority.

      Police do not exist to protect the people, they serve power and their own sadistic tendencies.

      No despot anywhere in the world stays in power without the aid of police violence.

    11. Re:There's a better charge.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't that be bonefied? Satisfied with a bone?

    12. Re:There's a better charge.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Situation Normal, AUTHORITIES Fucked Up.

      FTFY.

    13. Re:There's a better charge.. by budgenator · · Score: 2, Funny

      No, obviously your confusing

      bona fide
      Etymology: Latin, literally, in good faith Date: 1632

      1 : made in good faith without fraud or deceit
      2 : made with earnest intent : sincere
      3 : neither specious nor counterfeit : genuine

      with

      bonified
      The act of being boned and then feeling satisfied.

      Dude, yesterday I totally boned miley cyrus, it was awesome.

      Really?

      Yeahhh, it was great.

      Did she like it?

      Well I knew she did when she said, " Omg, baby you left me bonified.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    14. Re:There's a better charge.. by Yvanhoe · · Score: 1

      Which makes it more urgent to correct. But, well, activists would laugh at that article. Police harassment is really common these days.

      --
      The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
    15. Re:There's a better charge.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      True justice would require the arresting officer to be put down like a rabid dog.

    16. Re:There's a better charge.. by epo001 · · Score: 1

      ... this was a bonified SNAFU, (Situation Normal, All Fucked Up.)

      That's "bona fide", but I quite like your version, made me smile.

    17. Re:There's a better charge.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    18. Re:There's a better charge.. by L1feless · · Score: 1

      Even if this is true. I am certain we can find dozens of cases where average citizens have been charged with any or all of the charges above with similar situations. I personally agree with making an example of those officers who provided false information. The bigger question remains though how many officers are involved in providing false information to average citizens and more importantly how high up in the organization does it go? Something else which concerns me is how many criminals can now claim they were not provided details and get a new-trial?

    19. Re:There's a better charge.. by jra · · Score: 1

      Naw; that's 42USC1983, and it provides for treble financial damages, not imprisonment.

      I'm going to go whisper it in this guy's ear, though.

    20. Re:There's a better charge.. by volpe · · Score: 1

      and this was a bonified SNAFU

      The SNAFU was turned into bone? You mean, like, petrified?

  9. this is a good thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    People, this guy might just be the beginning. If there's one thing we need right now is to make democracy controlled by the people again, to get rid of all the pseudo-aristocracies that have formed.

    I for one welcome the new surveillance state! The one in we're the ones doing the surveilling!

    Think about it: If we manage to put our entire state apparatus under constant surveillance, then all the corruption that was possible once becomes much more difficult. I imagine video feeds, e-mails, phone transcripts, bank accounts: Total transparency. Not the citizen should be the one to suffer under these burdens - it is the ones that we pay to do their jobs, that we elect to represent us, that should be under the inceasing scrutiny of the global citizens.

  10. They should have been arrested, but not for that by zero_out · · 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.

  11. Both sides are guilty by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 0

    The cops are guilty of destroying evidence. The golfers are guilty of assault, public drunkenness, obstructing traffic, and other shenanigans. The cops were right to arrest these assholes for the charges listed here. (Not that you'll hear one peep of disapproval about these hooligans from any other Slashdotter.) The cops were wrong to obstruct justice and should be fired and prosecuted.

    1. Re:Both sides are guilty by demonlapin · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'll condemn them heartily. They should be arrested if they're causing real problems and don't immediately respond to police presence by quieting the hell down and dispersing. But once the cops decide to start arresting people, they'd better be damned sure they follow the law - because when they don't, they further undermine their legitimacy.

    2. Re:Both sides are guilty by MarkvW · · Score: 1

      Bullshit. We don't do collective criminal responsibility here. Victim was only arrested for obstructing.

      Obstructing arrests--when the only charge is obstructing--must be carefully screened by the prosecutor. Otherwise, there's a risk of enabling angry SELF-RIGHTEOUS cops. Jurors hate that shit and it gives cops with self-restraint a bad name.

      That arrest stinks ten thousand universes away.

  12. Slice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its all about the right hand. You have to get that thing further to the right to avoid the slice.

  13. Re:Wow, what a waste of time and money by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

  14. Why do geeks cricle the wagon? by Sycraft-fu · · Score: 4, 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.

    1. Re:Why do geeks cricle the wagon? by mikael_j · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Actually, with the Reiser case a lot of people on slashdot and other places weren't rooting for him, most "pro-Reiser" comments seemed to be of the "I suppose it's possible that he's innocent because... ...and I sure hope that's the case" variety.

      And this is hardly the Reiser case, this guy was innocent, the police lied about the footage and audio recordings, Reiser murdered his wife and eventually confessed.

      As for the Terry Childs case, that's a pretty infected issue that's hardly over yet. My personal impression is that Childs was following the rules to the letter even though it should've been obvious that he was putting himself in a bad place...

      --
      Greylisting is to SMTP as NAT is to IPv4
    2. Re:Why do geeks cricle the wagon? by fotbr · · Score: 1

      I'm probably wrong, but I didn't see too many people insisting that Reiser was innocent, other than Reiser himself. I saw much concern about what would happen to ReiserFS if he was found guilty, but didn't see anyone insisting he didn't kill his wife.

      On the other hand, cops will insist, and continue to in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary, that the cop's actions were justified, etc.

      I've got some respect for individual officers I've dealt with in the past, but as a profession, I've got absolutely zero respect for them, and that extends to the individual until the individual officer actually earns some respect. Until then, I treat them with the same contempt they treat everyone else.

      In this case, enough bad officers acted together that I can pretty safely assume that all in the department are corrupt, and to be avoided at almost any cost.

    3. Re:Why do geeks cricle the wagon? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      As for the Terry Childs case, that's a pretty infected issue that's hardly over yet. My personal impression is that Childs was following the rules to the letter even though it should've been obvious that he was putting himself in a bad place...As for the Terry Childs case, that's a pretty infected issue that's hardly over yet. My personal impression is that Childs was following the rules to the letter even though it should've been obvious that he was putting himself in a bad place...

      Pretty much exactly what has gone on here, then.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    4. Re:Why do geeks cricle the wagon? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 1

      Apologies for the double paste of the quote.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    5. Re:Why do geeks cricle the wagon? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I never claimed that Reiser couldn't have done it, but I was among those insisting that there was overwhelming doubt. They didn't even have any evidence that she was dead. The guy behaved like a moron in court - or rather, like a geek. That's no crime, but my impression was that was what got him convicted. I would probably be just as bad myself, being a geek and all (heck, I'm posting on Slashdot right now). Usually I'm pretty good at shutting up, but the thought of being locked up for years will put anyone in a panic. I could just as well have been convicted, and I never killed anyone.

      He did the crime. He was the only one who knew where the body was. However, that wasn't proven until after he was convicted.

    6. Re:Why do geeks cricle the wagon? by Some+Bitch · · Score: 1

      Pretty much exactly what has gone on here, then.

      Are you serious? You think one case where someone followed the rules exactly and another case where someone didn't follow the rules then others lied about the evidence are pretty much exactly the same? How's the weather on your planet?

    7. Re:Why do geeks cricle the wagon? by HeckRuler · · Score: 1

      What? You thought Geeks were immune to human nature?
      A few on here were very vocal believers in Reiser simply because they were fans, or trusted their fellow geek over, well, anything else. But a lot of people here didn't blindly defend him. I didn't go one way or the other as I honestly didn't care that much. I believe that slashdot, on the whole, is better about blind faith then other subsets of the populous. We're more rational. Except for Microsoft, those fuckers can DIAF.
      And I saw slashdot split on the Terry Child's case down the boss/worker line. A lot of people quickly assumed details based on the initial reporting. I followed this one a little more closely, but this one looked a little worse. The first reports came out blatantly against Childs, and a lot of people wouldn't give up on that disposition against him when the facts came to light. So yeah, after going over the case, I'm siding with Childs as he followed policy.

      We are hardly immune to the fallacies of humanity. It may be pride, but I think we're better then the common lot. But if we ever fail to self-police ourselves, and call bullshit for what it is, then we will be as corruptible as anyone else.

  15. Procurement Contract and System Specs by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    From the article:

    Rachner didn't hack the police computers, but with attorney Stockmeyer's advice he spent several late nights starting in October poring line-by-line over technical aspects of the video and audio recording system. He examined the Houston-area manufacturer's contracts, specifications and procedures.

    Rachner hit pay dirt when a procurement contract and system specs revealed that a computerized log is kept permanently on every video and audio recording, showing when anyone uploads it, flags it for retention, plays it, copies it or deletes it.

    He also discovered recordings aren't regularly destroyed every 90 days, but are kept for a variety of reasons. While they can be destroyed after three months, that erasure isn't mandated."

    I wonder if the police department lawyers are scrambling to get the procurement contract and system specs 'modified'.

    Police Department: Damn Open Source Software!

    1. Re:Procurement Contract and System Specs by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      More likely, they are scrambling to get those documents reclassified as "security sensitive."

      --
      Palm trees and 8
  16. Sooo Eeeeee! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    STF up PIG!

  17. Re:Wow, what a waste of time and money by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    Really. In the good old days they would have just beaten his ass silly.

  18. Actually, not really by daveschroeder · · 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.

    1. Re:Actually, not really by demonlapin · · Score: 1

      This really isn't about "papers, please". It's about a law enforcement officer making a legitimate, legal request

      A legitimate request is "Get the hell off the streets before I arrest you for loitering or public intoxication". "Show me your ID" is not legit, and may not even be legal.

    2. Re:Actually, not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      t'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.

      No. Police can request anything they like, and many people freely answer:

      Q: Where were you last night?
      A: I was at home.
      Q: Did you call 555 555 5555 last night?
      A: Yes.
      Q: Did you see anything suspicious last night?
      A: No.

      The police can ask anything they like, but (generally speaking) you are under no obligation to answer their questions. In some jurisdictions you can be required to identify yourself.

      There is a world of difference between a request and an obligation.

      If a cop knocks on your front door and asks, "Can we look inside your home?", that is a legal request. The police officer is breaking no law. You are under no obligation to answer, or to comply with their request and let them in.

      If a cop shows up at your front door with a search warrant for your home, you are obligated to let them in, and if you interfere you can be prosecuted.

      Do you see the difference between a request and an obligation?

    3. Re:Actually, not really by beakerMeep · · Score: 1

      Yeah, the slice shot part was a joke, and I was running fast and loose with the details; but wow it really whooshed over Slashdot.

      Anyways, the way the officer was talking to him in the video gave me the impression the lot of them were being belligerent. The article mentioned one even left the scene. Clearly there is more going on there than can be seen in the video.

      --
      meep
    4. Re:Actually, not really by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    5. Re:Actually, not really by Some+Bitch · · Score: 1

      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

      I had to check this as I know the UK law but was unsure whether US law followed a similar pattern (it does). You DO have the power of arrest, however several circumstances have to apply and you'd better be absolutely 100% right on every point unless you enjoy being charged with false arrest, kidnapping, etc. In practice it's almost always a foolish thing to do but you DO have the right.

  19. Get enough people like you together... by Concern · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And pretty soon you have no rights left to give away.

    --
    Tired of Political Trolls? Opt Out!
  20. Re:They should have been arrested, but not for tha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    s/assault/battery/

  21. Exaggeration by jDeepbeep · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

    If you read the article, it says one person hit a passerby. Not the guy in question here. In fact, it says he did not even resemble the one who had hit the passerby with the foam ball.

    --
    Reply to That ||
  22. "Stop and identify" statute by SheeEttin · · Score: 5, Informative

    If an officer of the law requests to see your ID, you must present it.

    According to Wikipedia, Washington does not have a "stop and identify" statute. So, unless there's other relevant legislation, no. You don't.

  23. Re:Show ID by chill · · Score: 1, Informative

    If an officer of the law requests to see your ID, you must present it.

    You are factually incorrect. You are not required to produce any form of ID on demand in the United States. The worst anyone can do is deny you entry or purchase, if it is based on ID or ID as proof of age/residency/etc/. The exception would be driving a motor vehicle on public roads, where you are required to be licensed and show proof on demand.

    There is nothing to lobby your Representative about, because this isn't against any law.

    --
    Learning HOW to think is more important than learning WHAT to think.
  24. Widespread abuse of power and corruption. by hackus · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    It is all over the place. Watch the news.

    American society is a ticking time bomb, 1 in 4 kids are now on food stamps, the unemployment figures have potentially reached critical mass of 21% where money comming in vs money going out only makes it a matter of time now.

    Pick one:

    1) Death by civil unrest.
    2) Death by starvation and hyper inflation.
    3) Death by war, which the power elite are already planning.

    There is so much criminality running rampant now in our government no amount of voting I believe will change the outcome of the above three choices.

    Due to the terrible weapons technology the power elite now control, owning a gun is essentially useless. If number one is pursued, millions will be squashed like a bug trying to apply the consitutional fail safe of bearing arms and destroying tyranny.

    It is all going to end very badly and personally, my bet is on #3.

    After the war is over, a new dark age for mankind will be the spoils for the victor.

    -Hack

    --
    Got Geometrodynamics? Awe, too hard to figure out? Too bad.
  25. Re:Show ID by jDeepbeep · · Score: 2, Informative

    If an officer of the law requests to see your ID, you must present it.

    [citation needed]

    --
    Reply to That ||
  26. Re:They should have been arrested, but not for tha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    btw, deceit is not spelled like receipt...

  27. Re:Show ID by Wyatt+Earp · · Score: 1

    Even if its not required by law? Just always do what Officer Friendly demands.

  28. Seattle cops don't like video by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Because they like to beat up 15 year old girls.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cl67FmVRjYs
    http://www.seattlepi.com/local/401779_schene28.html
    http://blogs.seattleweekly.com/dailyweekly/2010/01/former_deputy_paul_schene_says.php

  29. Re:Show ID by larry+bagina · · Score: 1

    The Washington state supreme court says otherwise.

    --
    Do you even lift?

    These aren't the 'roids you're looking for.

  30. Should've read TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > It sounds like the cops got caught pretty red handed but I'm having a hard time buying that this douchebag was just politely refusing to show ID.

    Well, the police DO have a video they could have used to prove that, you know. Which they decided to delete for some reason (after which they lied about it).

    TFA says that the guy didn't say anything, but showed them where they could get his wallet (which had ID). I thought we had the right to remain silent, so I don't see the problem. Whatever the cop was worried about, well, he had it all on tape. There's no expectation of privacy here, given the circumstances, so he could easily prove that he did things by the book had he done things that way.

  31. getting hit by a ball is to be expected by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    its not as if the guy picked up the ball with his hand and threw it, he sliced it while playing golf. He is not Tiger Woods, he can't hit the guy with the ball at will, it was an accident, and EVERY single golf player expects as normal part of the game that they might be hit by a ball

    1. Re:getting hit by a ball is to be expected by zero_out · · Score: 1

      its not as if the guy picked up the ball with his hand and threw it, he sliced it while playing golf. He is not Tiger Woods, he can't hit the guy with the ball at will, it was an accident, and EVERY single golf player expects as normal part of the game that they might be hit by a ball

      Read the article. They were in the middle of Seattle, late at night, drunk from bar hopping, hitting a foam ball around in the streets. Actually, they were hitting the ball from bar to bar, drinking at each stop. They then went on to mock the guy who got hit. I don't walk around a city at night, heading home from a movie theatre, expecting to get hit in the face/head by a foam ball. I might expect to be gunned down and my kid growing up to be a rich insomniac vigilante.

      If I were on a 'public' golf course, in the middle of the day, then no, I wouldn't be surprised if I got hit by a golf ball, though I would expect to hear 'fore' before getting hit.

  32. Go Parity! by TheBeardIsRed · · Score: 1

    nice job.

  33. Kudos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Job well done, fellow hacker. Instead of applause, let's all leave anonymous words of encouragement on his desktop background.

    And maybe a goatse, just to razz him a bit.

  34. Nothing will change without transparency by schwit1 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    1. Re:Nothing will change without transparency by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 1

      That is truly scary. I am at a loss for words -- a citizen was killed, and there cannot be public scrutiny over what happened?

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    2. Re:Nothing will change without transparency by BountyX · · Score: 1

      Damn. With that kind of lack of oversight its difficult to view those officers as anything other than a danger.

      --
      Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
  35. Re:They should have been arrested, but not for tha by Goldsmith · · Score: 1

    It is really interesting that these guys were doing something that was crazy enough to actually warrant an arrest. A group of drunken guys hitting a lone guy with a ball (even on accident), then sticking around (in a group!) to heckle him should be a slam dunk arrest. People get arrested and instantly convicted for less at Eagles games in Philly. How routine must civil rights violations in Seattle be for the police to casually mess this one up?

    The police involved should be fired for violating this guy's rights, then fired again for being such bad police that they couldn't remember how to properly arrest drunken, rowdy people.

  36. New Event at DefCon / Toorcon? by birukun · · Score: 1

    God I hope this translates into a new event (foam drunken golf) and a good discussion at DefCon or Toorcon (David Hulton also was tagged as a naughty monkey!)

    Great work, this illustrates the huge gap in modern Law Enforcement and the failure to keep up with and understand the impact of new technology.....

    --
    Self Defense - A Human Right www.a-human-right.com
  37. Re:Show ID by The+Moof · · Score: 5, Informative

    You are factually incorrect. You are not required to produce any form of ID on demand in the United States

    You are also factually incorrect. "Stop and Identify" laws vary by state.

  38. Listen to the audio by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    1. Re:Listen to the audio by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      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.

      Basically, yes. I work for a city, and this sort of thing does happen in the police department. Usually the strategy is something like to tell the person they are being let off, and let them go. That way the person thinks they got lucky and hopefully never realizes that the police screwed up (thus avoiding lawsuits and such). Then the officer(s) receive training and everyone gets memos about what to do in similar situations. I think I work with a pretty good department.

      It all depends on the police department. Some try to fix their problems, and others circle the wagons and are ready to go down in flames before admitting someone did something wrong.

      One officer at our city transferred to a county sheriff position in the area a year or so ago. More recently, that same officer pulled someone over, the situation got a little messy, and he handled it completely wrong in multiple ways. The tape from his car of the incident made the national news (you probably saw it), and one of his commanders did a video interview saying the officer had done nothing wrong and they were standing behind him.

      Everyone in our police department (from the chief on down) shook their heads and stated that it was obvious from the tape what he'd done wrong, and that the sheriffs needed to take responsibility for it. Instead, everyone has lost faith in the sheriff's department.

  39. Wow.. AC for a comment of this quality? by chaboud · · Score: 1

    Seriously, moron.

    There is no legal requirement to identify yourself on demand in the state of Washington.

    There are 24 states with stop-and-identify statutes. Washington is not one of them.

    1. Re:Wow.. AC for a comment of this quality? by spun · · Score: 1, Troll

      How many states have laws against drunk and disorderly conduct? How many have laws against assault? All of them. The cops were assholes, but that does not mean this guy is a good guy. Try a little nuance in your thinking, not everything is black and white, the hero fighting the villain. Sometimes it's just two villains fighting.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    2. Re:Wow.. AC for a comment of this quality? by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

      How many states have laws against drunk and disorderly conduct? How many have laws against assault?

      All of them. Obviously this guy wasnt drunk, disorderly and didn't commit assault. The cops didn't even accuse him of such. He was arrested because the cops had his wallet and didn't want to open it to ID him and he wouldn't give them the ID, which is perfectly legal.

      If they felt they needed to arrest people for being drunk and disorderly, they would have, but they didn't. They weren't even capable of finding the guy who did the assault, who later apologized for the very, very minor assault. (foam ball to the face.)

      RTFA

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    3. Re:Wow.. AC for a comment of this quality? by Kuroji · · Score: 1

      If they wanted to arrest him on drunk and disorderly, they should have. Instead they arrested him for failing to show his ID, which is a failure on the part of the officer to do their damn job properly.

    4. Re:Wow.. AC for a comment of this quality? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm pretty sure intent is required for it to be assault or battery. In cases of battery, theoretically even hitting someone with a foam ball and causing no damage counts. However, this was an accident and not intentional, therefore it would fall under negligence. I'm pretty sure for it to qualify as criminal negligence, there has to be actual harm or damage. It was a foam ball. The guys head would have had to have been a soap bubble for there to be damage. A nice fat raindrop hurts more.

    5. Re:Wow.. AC for a comment of this quality? by WNight · · Score: 2, Funny

      You are so fucking dumb I expect your head to implode.

      They don't need your name to arrest you. Had they actually had a reasonable suspicion that he had broken a law they could have arrested him immediately.

      The only thing they didn't need was his name.

      I heard some good advice recently, tell me what you think: Try a little nuance in your thinking

      I think it's a good idea, but you don't seem to...

      not everything is black and white, the hero fighting the villain. Sometimes it's just two villains fighting.

      After all there's ZERO evidence that this guy is even a jerk, let alone that he did anything wrong, and you're trying as hard as Glen Beck to paint him as the problem.

      There's a rape victim. Go not-so-subtly blame her clothing, or judgment. Quickly, for great justice!

    6. Re:Wow.. AC for a comment of this quality? by spun · · Score: 1

      I never even talked about this guys arrest. The fact that he was arrested was wrong. I said it before, the cops fucked up. You can't see nuance, can you? You seem to think that if the cops are bad, this guy must be good?

      Seriously, though, why so angry? I was merely pointing out a fact. This guy was wandering around drunkenly hitting foam golf balls at people who they then heckled. Nobody denies that. They were being assholes. But I never claimed that being an asshole was a reason to get arrested.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    7. Re:Wow.. AC for a comment of this quality? by spun · · Score: 1

      Of course the cops fucked up. I said they fucked up. But from the sound of it, so did he. I'm not claiming his fuck up as justified their fuck up. I'm just saying, sounds like he was being a drunken dick that night.

      --
      - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
    8. Re:Wow.. AC for a comment of this quality? by WNight · · Score: 1

      You can't see nuance, can you? You seem to think that if the cops are bad, this guy must be good?

      What I can't see is any reason to bring it up, even if you were right.

      I was merely pointing out a fact.

      Picking a piece with corn out of your ass?

      This guy was wandering around drunkenly hitting foam golf balls at people who they then heckled.

      FAIL. He was with a group, some members of which did something resembling that at least once.

      You claim they hit multiple balls at multiple people, all of whom were mocked. Instead the article says one guy hit one ball into one person, who felt heckled.

      Nobody denies that.

      Yeah, EVERYONE denies that. The "victim", the cops, the guy who really did it, etc.

      Seriously, though, why so angry?

      Stupid little lying fucker trying to shit-disturb. I can't imagine why everyone hates you. /sarcasm

  40. Douchebag by automag · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I went to High School with Eric. I thought he was a douchebag then, and I'm sure he's still a douchebag now. Don't read that as support of the police, 'cause it ain't. Just saying that sometimes only a douchebag has enough of a "F**k the World" spirit to get the job done...

    --
    ---As my daddy used to tell me: "You gotta be smart before you can be a smartass."
  41. Next step on this drama: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    He will now be sued for hacking the state and breaching security systems without a clearance.

    Yeah, but he is now my new Kevin Mitnick.

    1. Re:Next step on this drama: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      If you read the article (or if the person who made the article summary didn't write it in such a misleading manner) you'd know that he didn't 'hack' anything. He read the technical specifications for how the system works (by getting the documents from the systems manufacturer), found out that it kept a log of all transactions and requested the log. The log showed that the video had not been deleted, and the video was actually included WITH the log.

  42. One hell of a swing by Bluebottel · · Score: 1

    Near the last "hole" a sliced shot hit a 22-year-old passerby in the face. The 1 ½-inch foam ball caused no harm other than a sting, but when the golfers laughed at and "heckled" the victim he called 9-1-1, the police report said. Seattle police responded in force.
    Say what? Who calls 911 for that?! Im guessing that he didnt have to pay for eiter, talk about a waste of time and money.

    1. Re:One hell of a swing by BountyX · · Score: 1

      It probably went down like this...
      911: Please state your emergency
      Passerby: I'VE JUST BEEN HIT IN THE FACE WITH A FOAM BALL.
      911: Sir, calm down. We are sending our entire police force now.

      --
      Trying to install linux on my microwave, but keep getting a kernel panic...
  43. Not in Washington by Mantrid42 · · Score: 2, Informative

    Refusing to show ID is not illegal as Washington does not have a Stop and Identify statute: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_and_identify

    1. Re:Not in Washington by BrookHarty · · Score: 1

      Laws doesn't mean shit on the street.

      Laws come into effect when you're in court, if you make it to court, alive.

  44. Who the hell wants to be a police officer? by Sowelu · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This is not a "corrupt people seek out the profession" troll.

    No, I mean...Where are you going to find better people? Who grows up wishing to be a police officer any more? You guys go on about how these people should be suspended or fired. Who the bloody hell is going to take their place?

    They work in a high-edge profession that, in some ways, is kind of like some medical or military fields: You have to take care of a problem FAST, and mistakes are going to happen. That's a really shitty job. Their nerves are shot. And believe me, they would be way happier if there was more funding so they could have better people on the force, or more backup. But until awesome people start wishing to be cops again, until the profession starts paying better, we won't see any improvement...

    ...and people will still make mistakes in the heat of the moment, because that's what it is, the heat of the moment. Sometimes it's because the situation is escalating fast, sometimes it's because there's somewhere else they have to be, but circumstances just aren't in cops' favor most of the time.

    1. Re:Who the hell wants to be a police officer? by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

      no one is saying there aren't going to be mistakes.

      What most of us ARE saying is that that profession seems to attract the wrong kind of person. The bully, the below average intelligence, the sociopath.

      Who should be replacing them is well adjusted, tempered people. Unfortunately our society produces so very few of those sort these past 3 decades.

      --
      They're using their grammar skills there.
    2. Re:Who the hell wants to be a police officer? by RoboRay · · Score: 2, 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.

    3. Re:Who the hell wants to be a police officer? by Anonymous Coward · · 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.

    4. Re:Who the hell wants to be a police officer? by mrchaotica · · Score: 1

      Refusing discovery and Freedom of Information Act requests months and months later are not "mistakes in the heat of the moment!"

      --

      "[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz

    5. Re:Who the hell wants to be a police officer? by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

      And believe me, they would be way happier if there was more funding so they could have better people on the force, or more backup. But until awesome people start wishing to be cops again, until the profession starts paying better, we won't see any improvement...

      The last thing the police in most cities need is more funding. The fact that SPD responded to a report of "accidentally hit by a small foam ball" and "he insulted me" with a whole gang of cops, suggests there are too many police chasing too little real crime. Now sure, you could make a quite reasonable argument that the cops aren't over-funded per say, they just make excruciatingly poor decisions about how to use their resources. But that doesn't make me want to give them more tax money either.

    6. Re:Who the hell wants to be a police officer? by ntrfug · · Score: 1

      Their job wouldn't be so high-stress if honest cops would refuse to cover for the bad apples.

      The community would better support a more honest police force.

  45. Re:They should have been arrested, but not for tha by zero_out · · Score: 1

    Noted

  46. Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? by Kittenman · · Score: 1

    I just thought it needed to be said.

    --
    "The greatest lesson in life is to know that even fools are right sometimes" - Winston Churchill
  47. Principles. by FatSean · · Score: 1

    Some people have them. Some value them more than others.

    --
    Blar.
  48. Freedom vs. Convenience. by FatSean · · Score: 3, 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.

    --
    Blar.
    1. Re:Freedom vs. Convenience. by HeronBlademaster · · Score: 1

      Oh, I agree too. Did I say something to indicate otherwise?

    2. Re:Freedom vs. Convenience. by Kral_Blbec · · Score: 2, Informative
      Don't get me wrong, I applaud what he did and am glad it worked out for him in the end. But....there is one more possible motivation (that I hardly fault either).

      Custody for Rachner lasted two hours, not days, but a charge was leveled against him in Seattle Municipal Court for obstructing a public officer. Controversial laws known as obstruction, "stop and frisk" and "stop and identify" statutes have been abused in other cities like New York, studies and news stories show. An obstruction case cited in a 2008 Seattle Post-Intelligencer investigation ended with a federal jury hitting Seattle police with a six-figure penalty.

    3. Re:Freedom vs. Convenience. by Sprouticus · · Score: 0, Troll

      Well I hope your not hispanic in Arizona then...

    4. Re:Freedom vs. Convenience. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just to clarify:
       
      In Germany, you are not required by law to carry your id card with you. You are, however, required to own an id card or passport.

      Don't confuse Nazi movies with modern day Germany.

    5. Re:Freedom vs. Convenience. by TheTurtlesMoves · · Score: 1

      Most of the World still requires presentation of ID if requested by the police. Most of the EU its fine-able offense to not have an ID on in some member states.

      Really i don't get the big deal. Its just proof of name or whatever. So what. What rights has been infringed?

      --
      The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
    6. Re:Freedom vs. Convenience. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Having ID cards does not lead to a totalitarian state. Ya'll need to drop the paranoia.
      Just like the gun restrictions (let's not start that one, pls) that were first instated in Europe in the UK, not Germany.

      The problem is that totalitarian states will just use what tools they can.

      In the US you still need some kind of ID, regardless if it is gov/state provided or not!
      Not to mention you do have a Social Security number.

    7. Re:Freedom vs. Convenience. by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      And when did that German relatives of yours actually live in Germany? In the 30's or in the DDR prior to 89? I am living here for 35 years now and sure as hell never been asked "Papers, please" and never had to show anything to a policeman except for my license at a traffic stop.

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
    8. Re:Freedom vs. Convenience. by azalin · · Score: 1

      It's not like the stop you on the street and ask you for ID just for the sake of it.
      On the other hand a friend of mine had to spend an our at a police station while waiting for his mother to pick up the wallet he forgot at home. Why? Well apart from his ID card the wallet also contained his monthly bus ticket that he could not show to the other guy asking for "die Fahrkarten bitte". After being able to show both ticket and ID card the wished him a nice day and that's it.
      It always depends on what you do and what people around you do.
      Had the event (streetgolfing) in question happened in Germany, they of probably would have asked for the IDs of everyone present, as either witnesses or possible being the one shooting Styrofoam balls into other peoples faces and mocking them about it. So they would have known whom to contact if the whole thing went to court. If one of them did not have an ID (or didn't want to admit it) they probably would have let him leave if someone else confirmed his identity. Even if they took him with them, he would not have been under arrest and would have been free to go, as soon as his identity was confirmed.

    9. Re:Freedom vs. Convenience. by FatSean · · Score: 0, Troll

      I guess I misread your post. Sorry!

      --
      Blar.
    10. Re:Freedom vs. Convenience. by Mindcontrolled · · Score: 1

      Well, if you are using public transport, you can reasonably expect to be asked for your ticket. Sure he had to go to the police later? Usually this is completely handled by the transport authority. Anyway, good question what would have happened here in that streetgolfing incident. I guess it depends on where you are. In my hometown (rather small), the cop would have yelled at the golfer to get the fuck home if they can't handle their beer and then he'd proceed to chew the ass off the guy calling it in for wasting his time. Where I live now (Munich) - perhaps ID, but usually you just get yelled at to stop it or else... And yeah, you won't get arrested for missing ID. As I said, I never even got asked for it in 35 years-

      --
      Ubi solitudinem faciunt, pacem appellant.
  49. Re:Show ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Instead of claiming that chill is wrong and linking to no such proof, please point to a state that requires you to produce ID upon a "stop and identify" situation. Ihe ones I'm familiar with require some set of verbally giving your name, address, date of birth, and an explanation of your conduct. I'm not familiar with one that requires you bust out an ID card.

  50. "Ignorance of the law.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ...is no excuse." That's what LEOs always love to throw in your face. It should be no different for them.

  51. Re:Show ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You're right that they vary, but if you read the article you linked to you'll see that he's not incorrect:

    the statute does not require a suspect to give the officer a drivers license or any other document. Provided that the suspect either states his name or communicates it to the officer by other means—a choice, we assume, that the suspect may make—the statute is satisfied and no violation occurs.

    There's a difference between identifying yourself and showing a "form of ID".

  52. Eh.... by pjt48108 · · Score: 0

    As cool as his follow-up actions may be, don't forget he WAS in a group of douchebags, participating in an act of general douchebaggery, when arrested.

    --
    Mmmmmm... Bold, yet refreshing!
    1. Re:Eh.... by the+eric+conspiracy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      1. Douchebaggery is not a crime.
      2. He was arrested illegally and the police acted to cover up evidence of that fact.

  53. Re:Show ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Stop and Identify means "Who are you?" "I am X.X" Not "Who are you show me gov ID as proof or I can take you to jail"

  54. Re:They should have been arrested, but not for tha by ejasons · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Some people have the guts to stand up for their rights, even when doing do nets them nothing.

    Others prefer to post anonymously.

    The latter group owe a huge debt to the former...

  55. Kudos, dude by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Way to go.

    About time someone called them on that.

    (signed)

    Will in Seattle

  56. sorry for hitting you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Look man, I'm sorry for hitting you in the face, ok? just let it go already.

  57. He should have gone to jail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This idiot and his hooligan friends were a bunch of drunk fucks that were causing trouble with their booze-fueled retarded "sport".

    This story would have been great if he wasn't in the wrong, but as it stands Rachner should sober up and start acting like a grown man instead of some dipshit teenager. I'm sure he's a marijuana supporter and a vegan too.

    If you act like a fucking idiot in public, the cops will react. No surprises in this story, other than this dumb fuck is trying to make it harder for the police to take care of scum like him.

    Rachner, you are a tool.

    1. Re:He should have gone to jail. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      No, you are a tool for jumping to conclusions.

      Drinking != drunk.

      If you listen to the freaking audio you can hear the officer talking with one of the participants and making mention that this was the first time that there had been any trouble with this group, which suggests that they'd been doing this for a while. Also, if you listen to the audio you can pretty readily tell that the people there were acting in an appropriate manner. Hell, the officer even made a statement to one of the participants about being able to pick Rachner up at the precinct depending on if he makes it into court that night or not. That would imply that the officer believed his friend was sober enough to be driving.

      The only one acting like a douchebag was the person who hit the golf ball and laughed when it hit the guy in the face (although I'd have laughed as well, while 100% sober, I'd also have the common decency to apologize to the person afterwards).

      And what does supporting marijuana or being a vegan have to do with anything? I support marijuana even though I don't use it, and being a vegan is a lifestyle choice that has absolutely no impact on my meat-eating lifestyle so I fail to see your point.

  58. Re:Show ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "Identify yourself" != "produce a form of ID", moof.

    "Hi, I'm Mr. Anonymous Coward!" There, I just identified myself.

  59. And you say you have nothing to hide... by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

    Here's a fact. The police will find ANYTHING to arrest and charge you if they feel they want to.

    There are so many laws, and they know them more than us... and they have an army that will back them up no matter what, even when they're lying.

    Not to to say that all cops are evil. They're not. But they do stick together, and soemtimes they stick together for what they think is the right reason... but they do it in wrong ways.

    This is why privacy is important. Once the system has its eye on you.... you can easily become a victim of the system because they have too much power as it is.

  60. Re:Show ID by selven · · Score: 1

    There's a difference between identifying yourself and showing ID.

  61. Down low on Seattle by sgt_doom · · Score: 2, Informative
    I have several pertinent comments on this matter:

    First, when one examines the typical city budget (in this case Seattle) you will note millions of dollars in a miscellanous account line; this is for all those damages paid out in lawsuits against the Seattle Police, the Seattle Utilities departments.

    Secondly, I have long held that Cleve Stockmeyer is, hands down, the finest attorney in the Northwest. He was also the finest board member on the Seattle Monorail Project which, if Seattle wasn't even more riddled with corruption than even San Diego, we would actually have a city-wide monorail today, instead of continuing to be fleeced with millions of dollars in payouts due to the highly-paid Seattle police department and Seattle utilities people.

  62. Re:Show ID by Trepidity · · Score: 1

    It would be particularly difficult to require suspects to show ID, because you aren't even required to have ID. Sure, in practice it's difficult to avoid getting a government-issued ID (can't do lots of things without one), but there's no law mandating it, if you don't drive and don't need to exit/reenter the country.

  63. Re:Show ID by Jaime2 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Nope. Never talk to a cop. Ever.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik

  64. Re:They should have been arrested, but not for tha by r_jensen11 · · Score: 1

    Oh, and the one that hit the other guy in the face with the foam ball should have been arrested for battery.

    fixed that for you, since there is a difference between the two
    See: http://www.diffen.com/difference/Assault_vs_Battery

  65. Re:They should have been arrested, but not for tha by mmaniaci · · Score: 1

    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

    Says you! Those hooligans could be a welcomed part of the weekend bar crawl. Business seems to be booming in the video, although I didn't see any golfers. Go worry about your lawn.

  66. Never, ever, ever, ever talk to a cop by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The only things you should ever say to a cop:
    "Am I free to go."
    If answer = yes
    then leave
    else if answer = no
    then say "lawyer" and STFU.
    end if
    Law school professor explains why on youtube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

  67. Re:They should have been arrested, but not for tha by russotto · · Score: 1

    Oh, and the one that hit the other guy in the face with the foam ball should have been arrested for assault.

    Accidentally hitting someone in the face with a foam ball is probably not a crime at all, and it's only going to be a cause for civil action if it actually causes damage.

  68. Big surprise by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The cops in this city are fucking assholes.

  69. Stupid travel advice? by mjwx · · Score: 2, Informative

    I dare you to go to any foreign country and walk around without your passport.

    Wow, that's the stupidest bit of travel advice I've ever heard.

    Never walk around with your passport when you don't have to. Leave it locked in the hotel safe, take a photocopy if you need it.

    Now I've been able to walk around unharrased without my passport in every nation I've been to, including but not limited to:
    - Thailand
    - Malaysia
    - Philippines
    - Singapore
    - New Zealand
    - Cambodia
    - Vietnam
    - China
    - Indonesia

    BTW, I'm an Australian.

    --
    Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
    1. Re:Stupid travel advice? by desertjedi85 · · Score: 1

      Never walk around with your passport when you don't have to. Leave it locked in the hotel safe, take a photocopy if you need it.

      Exactly but at least take a photocopy if you are in a country that if you get arrested have no limits on how much they can beat you for interrogation (I think they only reserve this for us Americans tho :) ) When I was in Kuwait tho I carried my passport on me everyday just in case.

    2. Re:Stupid travel advice? by mjwx · · Score: 1

      Exactly but at least take a photocopy if you are in a country that if you get arrested have no limits on how much they can beat you for interrogation (I think they only reserve this for us Americans tho :) ) When I was in Kuwait tho I carried my passport on me everyday just in case.

      The vast majority of travellers wont ever visit a place like that, however the last thing you want is for your passport to be stolen (tourist zones in 3rd world nations tend to attract the quick fingered). Most places would accept a US/UK/EURO/AU/CA drivers license as a form of ID. Personally I have a laminated colour photocopy of my passport for ID purposes. Without your real passport it quickly becomes very difficult to enter or leave a country and replacing them is very expensive (A$250+ for Australians)

      --
      Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
  70. Re:They should have been arrested, but not for tha by thebigmacd · · Score: 1

    Depends where in the world you are. In Canada there is no such thing as Battery, only Assault and Aggravated Assault.

  71. Re:They should have been arrested, but not for tha by jmcvetta · · Score: 1

    They were all a bunch of hooligans, and a public nuisance.

    Hooligans? Because they played nerf golf in the street while drinking? My dear sir, sometime you must spend time around real hooligans, so that you may come to appreciate the silliness of your overstatement.

  72. Tell them the police are not above the law by PghGuy · · Score: 1

    Let the county prosecuting attorney know what you think: Prosecuting.Attorney@kingcounty.gov

  73. Woa. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Did you just compare Terry Childs with corrupt cops?

    Come on, man. Terry Childs is an IT administrator who has been stuck in jail for over a year on $5 million bail for essentially, refusing to commit a felony and being a dick to his former bosses after they fired him. I don't know if he deserved to be charged or not, but I do know that he's about a thousand points closer to good on the scale of good-to-evil than a cop who regularly abuses his authority.

    Hans Reiser dolooks

  74. Re:They should have been arrested, but not for tha by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Oh for f*ck's sake. I was on the train a year or so ago and some drunk hooligans splashed Pepsi on me and some other people as they ran out the doors at the downtown stop. I guess I should have called the cops and filed assault charges. Boo hoo. A foam ball shot at me would have been about the same.

  75. If he was in Arizona by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The sheriff here would have deported him, failure to show proof of residence = deport your *behind*

    Try not showing your id here ...

  76. Some additional informatiom... by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

    AZ SB 1070 Sec. 11. Severability, implementation and construction

    B. The terms of this act regarding immigration shall be construed to have the meanings given to them under federal immigration law.

    C. This act shall be implemented in a manner consistent with federal laws regulating immigration, protecting the civil rights of all persons and respecting the privileges and immunities of United States citizens.

    --
    I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
  77. Lobby for what? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'd like to hear what you feel people should be lobbying for in this case?

  78. Definition of "more" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Spun wrote, regarding someone hit by a foam ball accidentally:

    who knows how many more folks these assholes intimidated that night, or how much more damage they did?

    Aside from assuming facts not in evidence, your post reminded me of the following from the works of Lewis Carroll:

      `Take some more tea,' the March Hare said to Alice, very earnestly.

    `I've had nothing yet,' Alice replied in an offended tone, `so I can't take more.'

  79. A solution to local / state government abuse? by corndogg · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I am upset about these kinds of situations not only because it's a clear abuse of power but also because thoughless actions such as these waste millions of taxpayer dollars.

    Here's what I think could work as a deterrent to abuse by government officials...

    For every lawsuit that is lost by the city, county, state in similar matters... the offending department has their next yearly budget reduced by half of the judgement. So if the police department does something bad and ends up settling out of court or loses a court case to the tune of 1 million... then their next yearly budget would automatically get reduced by 500k.

    There has to be some sort of penalty to government workers that is more meaningful than just dipping into the general budget (our tax dollars) to pay for mistakes.

    1. Re:A solution to local / state government abuse? by ntrfug · · Score: 1

      That's a terrible idea, because the taxpaying public loses.

      A much better solution would be to put the offending police and prosecutors in prison. Revoke the police officers' law enforcement certifications so they wouldn't be able to get badges anywhere else. Disbar the prosecutors.

      That would punish the actual perpetrators without impacting the general level of service to the public.

  80. Re:Show ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesn't matter what the Stop and Identify law is, it is generally assumed that you cannot require anything more than your full name without running afoul with the US constitution. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiibel_v._Sixth_Judicial_District_Court_of_Nevada

  81. Just a note by Effugas · · Score: 5, Informative

    OK, I was actually there. Not, "I heard this from a guy." I mean, I'm Dan Kaminsky, who's named in the article.

    This was kind of a silly situation. One of the guys in our group hit the ball and it sort of sailed into this guy's face. It's a styrofoam ball, the maximum speed of those things is maybe ten miles an hour. It's actually slower than a Nerf ball.

    Anyway, the guy who actually hit the thing was sort of an awkward nerd, and laughed about it nervously. You know in the article when the guy's like, it was just one guy? That's because it was just him. There was certainly no mob taunting.

    Really, this was a bunch of nerds and burners. There was no damage going on, just general silliness and large scale commerce with institutions that were each contacted in advance and specially staffed to seat all of us. I don't think it'll happen again, and that's sort of sad. Urban golf was a lot of fun for everyone.

  82. Re:Show ID by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Being required to give your name is not the same as being required to present physical ID. There's a U.S. Supreme Court case on the subject.

  83. The land of freedo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm a frenchie and the one thing that would make me hesitant about coming and living in the USA is the power the cop have on the people.

    I have visited California for 3 months in 1998 and never saw so many cops in the streets in my life.

  84. What one lies they all swear to by dugeen · · Score: 1

    It's not that all police officers are corrupt thugs, but a large enough proportion of them are to make it dangerous to assume that any particular cop you encounter is honest.

  85. Police as an institution should be reorganized by S3D · · Score: 1

    It's more or less clear that modern police, institution evolved in XIX-XX centuries have troubles keeping up with modern society. One way to reorganize it would be separated into several independent structures. Traffic police should have nothing to do with criminal police. Criminal police shouldn't keep order on the streets and answer 911 etc. They should access each others databases only by court order, and could be used to investigate each other misconducts. Some system of checks and balances is needed.

  86. Wasn't that dismissed? by RingDev · · Score: 1

    IIRC The McGhee and Harrington case was dismissed a few months ago after the former prosecutors and them reached a multi-million dollar settlement.

    -Rick

    --
    "Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
  87. Re:They should have been arrested, but not for tha by DavidTC · · Score: 1

    Yeah, a lot of people seem to think that's assault. That's not assault, assault is threatening people. It would be battery, and it's not that either!

    The rule about what battery is very very lax, and can include things like simply touching others...but it always requires intent.

    If you're walking down the road, and trip and fall against someone, that's not illegal in any sense. Neither is accidentally hitting them with an object you threw.

    Now, if you were throwing it to miss, but to intimidate them, that can be assault. That is 'threatening' others. And if your intimidation attempt accidentally hit, it might be battery, just like swinging a baseball bat around to threaten someone and accidentally hitting them with it might be battery, depending on the law. But none of that applies here, where people were holding some sort of game and not taking notice of others.

    Now, of course, causing harm to someone, even accidentally, can be a civil offense. Of course, as you pointed out, that would be hard to do for a foam ball.

    Police, OTOH, are entirely capable of demanding that said group playing with foam balls in the street and hitting people accidentally move along, as that's textbook loitering. But the fact they could have given reasonable orders doesn't mean that can arrest people for random stuff that isn't illegal.

    --
    If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  88. Reasonable suspicion is not probable cause by MMInterface · · Score: 3, 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?

    1. Re:Reasonable suspicion is not probable cause by FatAlb3rt · · Score: 1

      Would the question be easier to answer if you could see what I looked like, or how I talked?

      Yes, it could be. Observing the propensity for a non-English speaking Hispanic-looking person to be illegal doesn't make you any more racist than holding the door for someone walking with a cane.

    2. Re:Reasonable suspicion is not probable cause by MMInterface · · Score: 1

      Would the question be easier to answer if you could see what I looked like, or how I talked? Yes, it could be. Observing the propensity for a non-English speaking Hispanic-looking person to be illegal doesn't make you any more racist than holding the door for someone walking with a cane.

      I didn't say he was racist. I said his example was ironic as is your response. On one hand he is saying this law is needed because there is a real need to profile Latinos. On the other hand he is saying that this a simple law that isn't really about Mexicans, and they need to commit an infraction first blah blah.

      I'm just pointing out the charade he was putting up. There are a lot of US citizens that are Latino and don't speak English. The law was made to cover law enforcement's ass so they can wade through the Latinos to find out who is illegal with little to no evidence without explicitly stating so. If your example of profiling was accurate enough they wouldn't have used the vague term "reasonable suspicion." They would have defined reasonable suspicion to include your observation of Mexicans who can't speak English.

    3. Re:Reasonable suspicion is not probable cause by Low+Ranked+Craig · · Score: 1

      but your proof is like asking people to play dumb.

      What proof? I offer a personal experience and a link to the bill. I offer no proof. The bill speaks for itself.

      I don't know where you live, but the cops here have a pretty good idea of what "reasonable suspicion" means. If the cop has a reasonable suspicion then:

      A REASONABLE ATTEMPT SHALL BE MADE, WHEN PRACTICABLE, TO DETERMINE THE IMMIGRATION STATUS OF THE PERSON. THE PERSON'S IMMIGRATION STATUS SHALL BE VERIFIED WITH THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PURSUANT TO 8 UNITED STATES CODE SECTION 1373(c).

      The hospital example is right on. If you talk to personal who work in ERs you will understand that a significant portion of illegals use the ER as their sole medical care. The two I was that evening weren't "rushed to the ER" and made no attempt to provide any identification to the staff (My wife speaks Spanish) - they didn't forget their ID - they didn't have any.

      And in typical fashion we finally come to this:

      Would the question be easier to answer if you could see what I looked like, or how I talked?

      Ah, yes, the race card. Not well played. people such as you seem to be don't seem to be able to separate race from the issue (illegal is not a race) and can't seem to grasp that "illegal immigration" is not the same as "immigration". It really is quite simple: immigrants are the super-set of people that immigrate to a country. These can be subdivided in to 2 groups: legal and illegal. Legal immigrants play by the rules, illegal immigrants, by definition, do not.

      And for the record, my wife is Japanese, my great grandfather was Portuguese, my business partner is black, and two of my very best long term friends are a Mexican from Mexico City, and a half-Mexican. So kindly take your race card and shove it straight up your ass. Douchebag.

      --
      I still cannot find the droids I am looking for...
  89. Obstruction by k1mgy · · Score: 1

    Withholding or destroying evidence used to be called "Obstruction of Justice" which is a felony. Whether the police or a defendant does it, it's a crime. If a prosecution has evidence that would exonerate a defendant, they are obliged to turn it over in discovery. Failure to do so is, to my knowledge, not as clear-cut as Obstruction, but morally it comes close enough. While a case is active I should think the police ought to be under obligation to retain all records, including recordings. This case looks like one that should lead to legislation demanding these recordings be retained.

  90. compensation by hesaigo999ca · · Score: 1

    Now he has proof, and that not only was he unfairly treated, but that the cops tried to cover up their mistake, and that should cost them, as they should be made examples of, just like citizens in this case were made examples out of....it is only fair, as well he should receive a large sum for his losses, and also his defamation.