Toronto Police Use Facebook Picture in Online Lineup

An anonymous reader writes "A 28-year-old woman was recently accused of assault and arrested based on a thumbnail photo from her profile pic on Facebook. Artist Lizz Aston was identified in a lineup after police used a picture from her Facebook profile. From the article: 'In an interview she said, "I told the officer I was at an art opening for a friend, then went home with my boyfriend because he injured his knee. We stayed in for the rest of the night and I did research on the computer for an art installation I was working on. The officer didn't care ... I don't think the police looked into it further." Aston said, the officer "read me my rights. I was searched, finger printed and processed."'"

Comments

mistake #1

[Anonymous Coward]

You talked to the police officer.

Re:mistake #1

[superwiz]

Why mistake? Yesterday she was an unknown artist. Today she got her name on Slashdot.

Re:mistake #1

[corbettw]

Bears repeating: never talk to the police. They are not your friend, and they are not there to help you. They are there to close out a case as quickly as possible. Don't give them any ammunition to close it on you.

Re:mistake #1

[DaHat]

I dissagree... the police are fine to talk to when you go to talk to them about something... a basic (but not legally binding) opinion/clarification of a specific criminal law, a break in in your home, a stalker, reporting unsafe drivers, a lost purse you found on a sidewalk (all things I've done... including #5 yesterday)... it's when they come knocking at your door and you are in their sights you alas have to be extra careful due to the whole "Anything you say can and will be used against you" bit.

Re:mistake #1

[Darinbob]

The trouble is that this attitude perpetuates the us-versus-them state of affairs that has been growing. If we want to get back to having police serve and protect then we have to stop treating police as a whole as the enemy and instead single out the bad actors. If people just have a knee jerk reaction that all police are self serving and say so loudly at every opportunity, then the police will become more insular, more resentful of the general public, and the problems will exacerbate. There's nothing like telling the young idealistic police officer new to the job that he's an asshole; it's a great way to make friends.

Re:mistake #1

[Anonymous Coward]

Mistake #0: You use Facebook.

Re:mistake #1

[Anonymous Coward]

You talked to the police officer.

Not talking to the police officer would hardly have stopped him charging her, would it? It would not have saved her the expense having to clear her name in court.

True, it is unwise to agree to a police interview when you don't have to (unless they give you immunity), and it is all too easy to provide police with potentially damaging evidence even when you are think you are giving exculpatory evidence. Therefore it is a good general principle (where you are a potential defendant) not to talk to the police. BUT, this is not a case where such talk led to problems, and in this case talking was no mistake (merely ineffective).

Given the scant evidence the police had, they really should have checked her story out before charging.

Re:mistake #1

[Dunbal]

If we want to get back to having police serve and protect

The police do serve and protect. Only you are under the misguided assumption that it's YOU they serve and protect. No, the police exist to serve and protect government, and they are one of the fingers on the hand of power that said government will use to crush anyone and everyone that poses an inconvenience. The world has ALWAYS been this way. To government you, the individual, have absolutely no value. You only exist to fill statistics, fill government coffers, absorb enemy ammunition, shoot a rifle or fill a grave. You don't believe me? Put government in a tight situation in a natural disaster or losing a war, and you will see just how quickly you will be stripped of all your worldly posessions and sent to the front (to protect the government), or shot on the spot. Your purpose is to do what you are told. And once in a while you will be used and made an example of, criminal, not because government cares about your victims, but because government needs people to BELIEVE that they care.

Of course not everyone can see this. Most will think it's too cynical a view, and they would rather believe in that ideal paternal figure that exists to comfort and care about its people. But where have we seen THAT before? People are always looking for a return the comfort of youth when mommy and daddy took care of all the problems, so they believe in gods and governments and all sorts of comfortable illusions. Reality is different.

Re:mistake #1

[CohibaVancouver]

this is not a case where such talk led to problems

We don't know that. She went in and was 'interviewed.'

Re:mistake #1

[proverbialcow]

Why mistake? Yesterday she was an unknown artist. Today she got her name on Slashdot.

...the hub of taste-makers and cognoscenti of the art world.

Re:mistake #1

[pnewhook]

Wow, I can't believe that attitude, and can't believe it got modded insightful.

Re:mistake #1

[Culture20]

Yeah, just imagine the flavors of wine that could be mashed out with our feet.

Re:mistake #1

[Anonymous Coward]

you're right, its a bit too obvious to consider insight.

Re:mistake #1

[Master Moose]

Kind of like level 1 and 2 tech support

Re:mistake #1

[proverbialcow]

Oh great, now you had to go and make it erotic.

Re:mistake #1

[Anonymous Coward]

Obligatory link to a very informative video. Don't tell police offer that he is an asshole, but remember that you've got no upsides in talking to one. That applies regardless of whether you are guilty, innocent or anything in between. Unfortunately, the dominant strategy is to keep your mouth shut.

Re:mistake #1

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I occasionally start to think about how they're not all 'bad eggs', but then I remember that even if they haven't personally done anything bad, they all tend to buy in to the disgusting 'club' that looks at Internal Affairs as an enemy, and sees investigations into misconduct as a threat. Even most of the 'good' cops end up protecting the bad ones, which makes them all accessory to the 'bad eggs' actions.

The recent early spinning of and then ridiculous lack of response (from the PD or the local government) to accusations in the Kenneth Chamberlain case is an obvious example.

Re:mistake #1

[Anonymous Coward]

If the situation has gotten so bad that being arrested yourself would still be preferable to the situation continuing, THEN go talk to the police. Until then, keep your trap shut.

Re:mistake #1

[Theaetetus]

I dissagree... the police are fine to talk to when you go to talk to them about something... a basic (but not legally binding) opinion/clarification of a specific criminal law, a break in in your home, a stalker, reporting unsafe drivers, a lost purse you found on a sidewalk (all things I've done... including #5 yesterday)... it's when they come knocking at your door and you are in their sights you alas have to be extra careful due to the whole "Anything you say can and will be used against you" bit.

Don't forget that "filing a complaint against an officer" counts as putting you in their sights.

Re:mistake #1

[Kagato]

It's not that cops are assholes. It just there's no good that comes from cooperating with the police. Ever. That's a reflection of a series of badly formed laws that started during the war on drugs and continued through the patriot act.

The crux of the problem is even if you didn't do anything, making false statements to the police is a crime. Often with a bigger penalty than whatever Johnny Law came accusing you about. So now your freedom depends on the recollection of you versus the recollection of an officer. There doesn't even have to be any malice involved. It could be a simple mistake that will land you into jail. You like your freedom and you don't have the political juice to keep the law out of your business, then the best defense is to not say anything. Ever. They can submit questions to your lawyer.

The video break down (Presented by a law professor and a police detective): http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Re:mistake #1

[Spamalope]

So now your freedom depends on the recollection of you versus the recollection of an officer.

Essentially it's an offense if any part of any statement you make doesn't perfectly match every witness statement. If your recollection is correct and the officer's is wrong, you've committed a serious crime.

Re:mistake #1

[Anonymous Coward]

"Suck it up, princess," is the only appropriate response.

No, "You first, Sir," is the only appropriate response.

The depressing thing is that you're both right. Both sides need to de-escalate. Only then can they realize that they're both on the same fucking side.

Re:mistake #1

[bmo]

"The trouble is that this attitude perpetuates the us-versus-them state of affairs that has been growing."

Tough shit.

There are two kinds of cops: bad cops and cops that cover for bad cops. When this situation ends, then maybe we can discuss the adversarial relationship.

Until then, unless I see a threat to someone's life, or a threat to my own life, I'm not calling a cop. Because they're all too likely to fuck it up and then cover up the fuckup.

--
BMO

Re:mistake #1

[Zibodiz]

Not all police are bad, it's just that 95% are giving the other 5% a bad name.

Re:mistake #1

[Anonymous Coward]

Does "Never talk to the police" only apply in the US? I am a US citizen living in Europe and have wondered how the idea would go over here? i can only imagine how it could be constreued as some kind of contempt. (i am surprised that it's not already being done in the US)

Re:mistake #1

[Anonymous Coward]

There's nothing like telling the young idealistic police officer new to the job that he's an asshole ...

If you want to make that young copper happy, ask him to strip-search you (without a warrant); copy the contents of your phone (without a warrant), and arrest you for resisting arrest. I however, will remember, he carries a gun he is allowed to use at any time.

I won't call police men self-serving. But most police officers have a hero complex, which will be frustrated in two ways:
    1. His job involves revenue-raising and protecting the rich who straddle the line between legal and illegal acts.
    2. An inability to save victims because:
        A) of a lack of evidence, and
        B) the victim refuses to:
            i) eliminate the present danger in their lives, or
            ii) assist police in catching the criminal.

Oh! And the 'Bad actors' are the laws which eliminate all oversight from police procedure. Add that to a prosecutor who wants to 'make a name', and abuses will occur with unavoidable regularity.

Re:mistake #1

[dgatwood]

You're way too paranoid. I'm not even slightly concerned about phoning up the local PD to let them know that a traffic light is malfunctioning. I end up reporting malfunctioning lights at least a couple of times a year around here.

I'm also not even slightly concerned about phoning the police to report a car accident, calling 911 to report a fire beside the road, etc.

If the situation involves you in more than a tangential way, regardless of whether you're contacting them or they're contacting you, then and only then does the "don't talk to the police" rule kick in. It does not apply if you are merely a witness who happened to notice something hinky (unless you were somewhere you weren't supposed to be or were otherwise committing a crime at the time).

Re:mistake #1

[abigsmurf]

I always find it amusing that a lot of people use the "even if they're not guilty themselves, they associate with people who may be!" argument to justify their cop hate.

When you use the same type of reasoning dictators use to justify ethnic cleansing or the oppression of minorities, it's probably a sign that an argument you're making isn't as smart as you thought it was...

Re:mistake #1

[Boscrossos]

Can't speak for other countries, but here in Belgium it's not so much the police but the media who will convict you the moment you get even tangentially connected to an investigation. Oversight on the police is pretty strong here, and any kind of procedural fault results in no conviction at all (which is handily abused by lawyers, who will help you get away with mass murder because your arrest warrant wasn't motivated properly). So yes, it seems to be dependent on the country. The media thing gets pretty bad, though, digging into private lives, spreading wild speculations as facts, and then, when it turns out it wasn't you after all, they just jump to the next victim. No apology given.

Re:mistake #1

[Anonymous Coward]

You're way too paranoid. I'm not even slightly concerned about phoning up the local PD to let them know that a traffic light is malfunctioning. I end up reporting malfunctioning lights at least a couple of times a year around here.

But what has that to do with the local PD? In a paranoid world, they would simply come down and harrass folk for driving through a junction when the light was supposed to be red (because the one the other way was green). Revenue is important, right? Better you report that to the local amenities department who are responsible for fixing the light..

I'm also not even slightly concerned about phoning the police to report a car accident, calling 911 to report a fire beside the road, etc.

Strictly, when you call 911 you are calling the emergency dispatcher, not the police.. if there is a fire then they would call a fire truck first, though they might assign a police officer to direct traffic away from the incident but you did not call the police, you called the emergency dispatcher

Just sayin'

Re:mistake #1

[JWSmythe]

In the US (I know, the story is about Canada. I believe similar laws apply), statements made before the Miranda warning is given, and not in a line of questioning, is a spontaneous confession.

    For example, if you walk up to an officer, and say "I just shot someone", that can, and will be used against you.

    If he asks "What's going on here?" , and you say "I just shot someone", it also will be used against you.

    If he asks "Did you shoot John Smith behind the Kwik-E-Mart on May 4th at 2am?", you are being questioned in relation to a crime. If you were not read your rights, it might be refused as evidence.

    There is a very short list of things that you should ever say to a law enforcement officer. It depends on the circumstances. If you were just mugged, talk away about the suspect and the situation. If you involved in a traffic stop, you have to provide your drivers license, registration, and proof of insurance. If they ask "is this your car?", and the registration is accurate, and does state that it *is* your car, say "yes sir." There isn't much beyond that, that you should say.

From the article,

She said she received an e-mail in January from a Toronto Police officer in 14 Division "asking me to contact them about an incident that occurred at The Piston (on Bloor St. W., Nov. 19, 2011)."

    She should have contacted an attorney *first*, who may have advised her to STFU, or say "I wasn't there, sorry." Instead, she was arrested, and had to go through the courts. Her attorney could have conveyed the necessary facts to the police, without involving her at all, saving her court time and extensive legal fees.

    STFU is always the best option.

    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8167533318153586646

    IANAL, and I don't live in your jurisdiction. Consult with a local attorney for the laws as they apply where you are.

   

Re:mistake #1

[sco08y]

I dissagree... the police are fine to talk to through a lawyer

FTFY. Basic principle: if there's no tangible benefit that outweighs the risks / costs, don't bother. In most situations, the question that makes it clearest is, "is it worth paying a lawyer or some professional to discuss this?"

The reason isn't that cops are bad or crooked. Your mistake is you think, well, I'm a good person, so I should report bad people to the cops, and the end result will be Justice!

But you have to look at it from the cop's perspective: they don't see a dispute with a good person and a bad person. It's almost invariably two lying assholes, and if one person looks honest, he's probably just a better liar.

And from your perspective, this other person is a bad person; you tried handling it like adults, but they are so anti-social that you want to call the cops on them! Base on prior behavior, you would expect that they're going to lie their asses off with the intent of using the law against you as a weapon.

But let's look at your examples:

a basic (but not legally binding) opinion/clarification of a specific criminal law

I think this perfectly illustrates the principle. You're wasting your time and theirs. "Not legally binding" means "worthless." You also undervalue actual legal advice. At my present job, I took my employment contract to a lawyer and we went over it for an hour. For $250, I've got a professional opinion of what I've legally agreed to, not what the HR guy thinks I agreed to. The practical benefit is that if we get into a dispute, there's a much greater chance that we can resolve it like adults, and I can say, "no, this is what my lawyer says it means."

a break in in your home

After you've consulted your homeowner's insurance company, sure, file a police report. Your insurance company actually has extensive experience with that area of the law and can advise you on how to safely report the break in. And the report may be necessary to collect the insurance, so there's a tangible benefit.

a stalker

Stalking is invariably a case where two parties have a history of grievances against each other, and that's *exactly* the case where you want a lawyer to help resolve it as quickly as possible. The police are useless: they just want you to quit bothering them. (And, to be fair, can you imagine anything more awful than dealing with domestic squabbles?)

reporting unsafe drivers

Which is going to accomplish what? Again, if it's not worth the hassle and expense of a lawsuit, don't bother. And, again, driving is an area where you routinely get grievances on both sides. On the odd chance the police actually do something about it, this driver can lie to them and get you in trouble for filing a false report.

a lost purse you found on a sidewalk

Hell no! Good God, what if there are drugs (or any kind of residue) in the purse?! Or it was related to a serious crime? And there are *no* benefits, to you or anyone else. Most likely, that person is going to do the logical thing of retracing their steps, or someone else who is capable of not randomly dropping things they've strapped to their body can make use of it.

I might ask a cop for directions or report a traffic light being out, because that's something that is immediately useful.

Classic example that I actually did: I once called a police station because a buddy of mine had gotten drunk the night before and disappeared. What did they do? Told me to call hospitals to see if anyone checked in, and that they weren't going to do anything because (you have to admit this is true) idiots get drunk all the time and disappear. Call us again if he's gone for 72 hours or more.

No benefit to me or anyone else whatsoever, and if he actually had disappeared, their primary lead would have been the idiot who called them.

Re:mistake #1

[Anonymous Coward]

I assume you are an US citizen? The amount of hate against "the government" is quite puzzling for me... let me show you what a typical western European opinion would be:

[...] the police exist to serve and protect the people, and they are one of the fingers on the hand of power that said the people will use to crush anyone and everyone that poses an inconvenience. The world has ALWAYS been this way. To the people you, the individual, are simply a part of. [...] You don't believe me? Put the people in a tight situation in a natural disaster or losing a war, and you will see just how quickly you will be stripped of all your worldly posessions and sent to the front (to protect the the people), or shot on the spot. Your purpose is to do what you are told. And once in a while you will be used and made an example of, criminal, not because the people care about your victims, but because the people need people to BELIEVE that they care.

While I don't agree that this is how things should be, the above version is reality.

By the way, what's the difference between "me and my neighbours" and "the government"? Well, none at all, except that "the government" includes more neighbourhoods than just mine.
But then again, most of our governments seem to be a bit more democratic than the US one ;)

Of course not everyone can see this. Most will think it's too cynical a view, and they would rather believe in that ideal paternal figure that exists to comfort and care about its people. But where have we seen THAT before? People are always looking for a return the comfort of youth when mommy and daddy took care of all the problems, so they believe in gods and governments and all sorts of comfortable illusions. Reality is different.

There is no "paternal figure", that's religion talk. There is only you deciding to be active in politics, in which case you are the representative government, or passive, in which you still are part of the legislative government (votes and ... "named" and "binary" votes I guess... heck, you don't even have two different words for the most basic categories of voting. What's it called over there when the population votes yes/no if they want to pass a new law?)

Re:mistake #1

[Anonymous Coward]

(votes and ... "named" and "binary" votes I guess... heck, you don't even have two different words for the most basic categories of voting. What's it called over there when the population votes yes/no if they want to pass a new law?)

You're looking for "binary vote" and "election". The latter matches nicely with most other languages, but the former is somewhat ambiguous in English.

Re:mistake #1

[silentcoder]

I can't speak for all countries but in mine at least if you are the first driver to pass an accident scene you are legally obligated to stop, offer help AND (if possible - i.e. you have a cellphone) phone the police. Failing to do so can be charged with aggravated assault if anybody was injured (as you didn't attempt to get them helped).

On the other hand if you're any car AFTER the first you are legally obligated to just drive past and NOT stop (in the interest of not blocking up the scene so emergency personnel can actually get to the victims). Not that I've ever really seen this one enforced...

Re:mistake #1

[Anonymous Coward]

no, it's common sense, aiding and abetting is a crime - and that is exactly what those cops who help protect their criminal bretheren do. Thus guilty by association is entierly appropriate.

Re:mistake #1

[Anonymous Coward]

Absolutely. I don't want to live in the often suggested slashdot world where the police are the enemy. I guess, if I ever end up in one of the situations posited, I might change my mind. For now, the police are there to help.

I'm British, which helps. Last time I was in the USA, the police carried guns and wore dark glasses. Makes them look paranoid, unprofessional and unfriendly.

Re:mistake #1

[Dunbal]

I assume you are an US citizen?

And you would be quite wrong about this, and pretty much everything else that follows. While I am sure not every government employee is a psychopath, the aggregate result of thousands of government employees, all of which have a sense of entitlement because of their thankless "sacrifice", and all of whom who believe they know better than the common man because, after all, they are the government; this aggregate cannot help but produce an entity that dehumanizes, compels and destroys people.

Re:mistake #1

[yoshi_mon]

But you have to look at it from the cop's perspective: they don't see a dispute with a good person and a bad person. It's almost invariably two lying assholes, and if one person looks honest, he's probably just a better liar.

The problem is that it is worse than that. A cops motivation is not tied to you being innocent, rather once they make the decision to arrest someone they now have put their career on the line to make sure that person is found GUILTY.

And look, to those good LEOs who actually do care about justice thank you. But again as a rule once a cop decides to arrest to you they are basically on board with the fact that you are GUILTY and their job is not to protect your rights, not to protect you even, it is to make sure that when their yearly review comes around that they had that collar in their jacket.

Re:mistake #1

[lourd_baltimore]

I might ask a cop for directions or report a traffic light being out, because that's something that is immediately useful.

You sure you want to do that?

Re:mistake #1

[Ogive17]

I'm curious to know where everyone grew up that they have such a negative view on all police officers.

While I may be a bit biased due to my dad being a retired cop, I had a few "run-ins" with the local police during the 90s (my teenage years) doing typical teenage stuff with friends. The only reason we ever had these run-ins was due to nosey people who didn't like the idea that a group of kids might be out having innocent fun, making movies (cops called twice on us even though we had permission from the property owner), having bonfires on private property, driving around town while fiddling with a cap gun (ok, this one was a legit reason to call, not a smart thing to do on our part.. but once the cops saw the cap gun they just told us to use a little more common sense next time).

Of course just about every department will have a few bad apples, just like every office will have that guy who's willing to throw everyone else under the bus to further his own career. Most are out there trying to do a good job while at the same time making sure they go home to their families. Cops are paranoid because, to be honest, just about any person could be a threat considering the amount of guns floating around the country.

Re:mistake #1

[TheRaven64]

Not all police are bad, it's just that 95% are giving the other 5% a bad name.

What do you base that on? Sure, it's a glib remark, but what are your experiences with the police? Every time I've encountered them, I've found them helpful, polite, and courteous. Maybe it's just my good fortune to always interact with the 5% though.

Re:mistake #1

[Zibodiz]

First off, it was a joke.
That having been said, I (and several friends and family members) have been harassed by police mercilessly at times. I've had friends who were Sheriff's Dept, and will testify that some are great guys -- but I have never met a city or sate police officer who was even courteous. Oh, except for one, who (after giving me a ticket for not slowing down quickly enough coming into his town of 500 people) said "Thanks, have a great day!" in a snarky voice.
I have a clean police record (except for breaking curfew when 13, and minor traffic violations), don't have an offensive bumper sticker or anything, wasn't a partier or any nonsense like that (c'mon, I'm on Slashdot), yet at one point, I was pulled over by police 8 times in two months, and given a ticket every time for one thing or another, including a failed headlight at 1am (even though we lived in a small town, where no stores were open at that time, and it had just failed that night -- I worked a night shift, and was on my way home), and a $400 ticket for not having insurance, because I couldn't find the slip fast enough (the cop gave me less than a minute to find it -- and the EXACT SAME OFFICER had pulled me over a week or so previous, so he knew I had insurance). I've been accused of being drunk more than once while on my way home from work, simply because it was 1am and I was a 20-something guy in a car alone.
And my bad experiences don't just extend to traffic incidents. I was walking in the park one day when I saw a cash box laying in the edge of the lake, so I called the police to report it. Before calling them, I walked over to it (didn't touch anything), to make sure it really was a cash box, not a tackle box or something. When they showed up, they accused me of being involved in the theft, then once I had convinced them that I wasn't, I was severely chewed out for the fact I had left footprints near the scene ('disturbed the evidence', even though I stayed about 10 feet away).
Oh, and another time, I was given a $45 ticket for 'uncertainty' (can you believe that's a crime!?!? I don't recall what the 'actual crime' was, but that's why the cop told me he was giving me the ticket.) because I went about 35 in a 45mph construction zone while in Denver, CO, while trying to get to my hotel. At the time, the city traffic made me nervous, as I had only driven in small towns.
So yeah, I think I'm justified in my distrust of the police.

Re:mistake #1

[digitalsolo]

That's a pretty terrible law as described. Short of calling emergency personnel (no real need to stop to do that), the average person is likely to make a situation WORSE by trying to help. Unless a car is on fire and you're pulling people away from danger (at which point you are putting yourself IN danger, which seems unlikely to be required by law), a person without medical training may likely aggravate injuries by failing to handle an injured person properly and/or injure themselves in the process of trying to help.

I have some medical training, and honestly, unless there was imminent danger to the person(s) in the accident, I would phone emergency personnel and stay away from the accident. In this country (the US) I'd fear legal repercussions from those I'm trying to help. A sad statement on the state of people in this country, but an accurate statement nonetheless.

Re:mistake #1

[silentcoder]

I should clarify, there is no requirement to actually do anything, just stop and, if possible, make a phone call.

It's more about being on the scene so that the EMS people can find it more easily, if they get lost,they can call you. As soon as they arrive, you're free to leave. Of course if you have CPR training I would say you are morally obliged to offer assistance but there is no requirement to do so. Your obligation as the person to discover the scene is just to stop and do all you can to get emergency services to the scene.

I'm not a lawyer btw. this question is a requirement for getting a drivers license here so that's how I know this, there is probably a lot more subtlety in the fine details of the law.

Re:mistake #1

[digitalsolo]

Thank you, that clarification makes much more sense.

Re:mistake #1

[gnasher719]

That's a pretty terrible law as described. Short of calling emergency personnel (no real need to stop to do that), the average person is likely to make a situation WORSE by trying to help. Unless a car is on fire and you're pulling people away from danger (at which point you are putting yourself IN danger, which seems unlikely to be required by law), a person without medical training may likely aggravate injuries by failing to handle an injured person properly and/or injure themselves in the process of trying to help.

That's why I had to do a first aid training course in order to get my driving license. Within a few hours you can get just enough training to keep a person alive until someone with real medical experience appears on the screen.

On the other hand, I was told this definition of a civilized country: In a civilized country, when you see a traffic accident, you stop and help. In an uncivilized country, you don't stop. By this definition, the USA is not a civilized country.

Re:mistake #1

[ArsenneLupin]

a lost purse you found on a sidewalk

Hell no! Good God, what if there are drugs (or any kind of residue) in the purse?! Or it was related to a serious crime? And there are *no* benefits, to you or anyone else. Most likely, that person is going to do the logical thing of retracing their steps, or someone else who is capable of not randomly dropping things they've strapped to their body can make use of it.

Or it could have been stolen, stripped of its valuable contents, and discarded. Victim will be happy to retrieve item, because some contents that is not valuable to the average thief (id documents, photos, ...) is still useful to the victim (who would else have a lot of hassle to get duplicatas issued). And in this scenario, victim would be unlikely to know/guess where thief might have discarded the item.

So, in a reasonable country, it would still be useful to bring such item to the lost & found office.

In an unreasonable country, cops might just assume that you stole any money that might be missing from the item.

Re:mistake #1

[TheGratefulNet]

all I can say is, mod parent up.

a truer, more honest post could not be made.

read it and understand what the real world is like.

its NOT a disney movie out there; and cops are not interested in justice. government is not interested in justice. its always been about those in the system having control over everyone else.

that's modern life in a nutshell.

avoid the police. at all costs. just avoid them. you could be seriously hurt just interfacing with them. this is not a joke, either.

Re:mistake #1

[operagost]

I wouldn't wait that long in many scenarios. For example, if you are being threatened with physical harm by a person. Massad Ayoob (a self-defense instructor) wrote a recent article in Backwoods Home about this. The police have a tendency to believe the first "complainant" is the victim, and if an incident occurs they will remember that. If you wait until your adversary decides to attack you, even if you win you lose because the loser goes in the ambulance while the "winner" goes in the police car-- because they don't know any better.

Re:mistake #1

[digitalsolo]

I think it's unreasonable to expect that the average person has sufficient medical training to be more help than hindrance. I know that the average person I meet in public is not someone I would want tasked with making quick, high pressure decisions related to keeping me alive.

A few hours training can teach you CPR and a few other things. Blindly applying CPR will not help in all situations. Shoot, it won't help in MANY situations. Knowing WHEN and WHY to do WHAT is the important part, and that will not be learned in 3-5 hours of training. The ability to stay calm and collected in high pressure situations often cannot be taught at all.

By all means, I feel there is a moral imperative to try and get assistance to help others. I've stopped on the side of the road to help stranded drivers more than once, and phoned emergency services for an accident as well. I would not want nor expect the average passerby who took a 3 hour course to assist in major medical needs any more than I would want my mailman who took a 3 hour computer training course to design my network.

Re:mistake #1

[Anonymous Coward]

Also various more mainstream news outlets. It doesn't talk about or show her art though, but perhaps it might still be helpful

Re:mistake #1

[Anonymous Coward]

If you rant and rave in person the same way you do in your response, I'm not surprised the cops treat you like the self-righteous jerk you are. Maybe the problem is with your attitude more than it is with theirs.

Re:mistake #1

[operagost]

People stop to help in the USA. Where did you get that idea?

Re:mistake #1

[operagost]

So do I stop if I don't have a cell phone? What about my business? What if I miss a wedding, the birth of my child, or an important meeting because the EMS got lost? Helping is the moral thing to do, but codifying this in law just begs for abuse. Stupid law.

Re:mistake #1

[alexo]

Not all police are bad, it's just that 95% are giving the other 5% a bad name.

What do you base that on? Sure, it's a glib remark, but what are your experiences with the police? Every time I've encountered them, I've found them helpful, polite, and courteous. Maybe it's just my good fortune to always interact with the 5% though.

A bad cop can be courteous, polite, helpful, great with children, properly house-trained, etc.
It's only in a situation where they can (illegally) abuse their authority for some personal benefit, cover for a fellow cop's transgressions and suchlike that you see their true nature.

Since all but the most egregious incidents of police abuse are "investigated" internally and end up with the perp getting a nice paid vacation following which the incident is quietly swept under the rug, I'd tend to see the 95% figure as the lower limit.

Re:mistake #1

[eam]

Lawyer & cop tell you, don't talk to the police:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jhbJd2USUDI
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stN3KjsVT-A
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akLryWyf2Kg

Re:mistake #1

[mcgrew]

And look, to those good LEOs who actually do care about justice

This is slashdot. We're nerds, not cops. To us, LEO stands for "Low Earth Orbit". "Cops" is easier to type, too, since it has the same number of letters and you don't have to use the shift key.

If you're talking about rockets, LEO is a perfectly good acronym here. If you're talking about cops, LEO leaves most of us non law enforcement personnel scratching our heads.

They have wi-fi at the donut shops now, officer?

Re:mistake #1

[shbazjinkens]

You must not be aware of this, but I was informed when I took first aid training & CPR that because I was a certified first responder, many states require me to ask if the person would like assistance, and comply if they respond affirmatively. If they respond negatively, or cannot respond, then almost every state absolves you of liability. "Good Samaritan" laws typically protect you from legal repercussions if you help and screw up. It's a civil suit, case law issue though - not usually enforced by statute.

Re:mistake #1

[barc0001]

We see it all the time where "a few" bad cops are protected by the Thin Blue Line. To actually be good cops, cops should be incredibly proactive about cleaning house on any bad elements in their force but instead the opposite is true, in many cases the cops who try to clean house are labeled as rats.

Re:mistake #1

[Anonymous Coward]

I have a hard time picturing bears repeating "never talk to police".

Re:mistake #1

[mcgrew]

I'm curious to know where everyone grew up that they have such a negative view on all police officers.

With me, it's Illinois, where graft and corruption reign. When I was a teenager working at a drive-in theater my boss had the cops paid off. We kids who worked there could do no wrong. One of the Sergents chewed me out once for paying a speeding ticket! They would confiscate liquor from underage drinkers, then drink it with us when the drive-in closed. Two of the cops then are now sherrifs in different counties, close to retiring.

Fifteen years later my home was broken into, and I later found out that they found the burglar, and let him go and even let him keep my belongings for turning in a dope dealer.

Cops are like lawyers -- the bad ones give the good one a bad name. Your old man isn't telling you everything.

Re:mistake #1

[Anonymous Coward]

You call that an analysis? Sounds like you pulled all of that from your ass.

Re:mistake #1

[silentcoder]

>So do I stop if I don't have a cell phone?
Yes the law predates cellphones.

>What about my business?
The five minutes till the next car arrives will almost certainly not make you broke, but it could mean somebody else dies who would have lived.

You yourself concede a moral responsibility, here the law recognizes that as a legal one.

>What if I miss a wedding, the birth of my child, or an important meeting because the EMS got lost?

Seriously ? Where in the world does the EMS take so long to respond that you could possibly miss more than the first few minutes of any of those things even if they got lost ? I can tell you I - I do NOT want to live there.

>Helping is the moral thing to do, but codifying this in law just begs for abuse

Being a socialist libertarian I am off the opinion that the law should be whatever the community wants it to be. There are no considerations like that in my mind. But I daresay most communities would feel that you do have a legal responsibility to save a life when it's in your power to do so, especially when all it could possibly cost you is maybe half an hour of your time.
The nice thing about decentralized self-governances is that the possibility for abuse of power is removed (by removing power - or rather distributing it equally - abuse of power is only possible if somebody has more than you)

Any justice system that does not count 80 years of somebody else's life as more valuable than 20 minutes of yours is fucked up.

That said - how serious is your charge ? How much does this law beg for abuse... well let me think, has there been a single news story of anybody even being charged with this crime in my entire life ? Do I know anybody who has been so much as questioned ? Nope.
Clearly almost nobody would break this law anyway (it's merely codifying what for almost everybody is natural behaviour anyway) and the few others raise the critical question of how anybody would even know.
Just about the only scenario I could see is if a cop was practically right behind you - in which case he would stop for the accident, and even if he took your plates how would he prove you hadn't seen him (which would absolve you).

Begs for abuse ? Well perhaps, but apparently nobody is generous to give that beggar what he wants - and this in a country with notoriously some of the most corrupt police in the world. Nah, doesn't add up. If this was begging for abuse, it would be getting abused.

Re:mistake #1

[operagost]

No seriously, I'd like to know what the person who first arrives is supposed to do after they stop. Should they attempt to administer medical assistance, even if they are befuddled by a BAND-AID? Should they attempt to push disabled vehicles off the road, even if they may be about to burst into flame? Do you have to be arrested and prosecuted before they determine in court that you really couldn't do anything? This is some kind of "feel good" law that accomplishes nothing. Your claim that it hasn't been enforced just reinforces my claim that it is pointless... people don't obey laws that aren't enforced. If they stop, it's because it's right to do so when you think you can help. Claiming you don't know of it being abused is an argument from ignorance.

Being a socialist libertarian

Sounds dangerously contradictory.

Re:mistake #1

[mcgrew]

The trouble is that this attitude perpetuates the us-versus-them state of affairs that has been growing.

And who is responsible for the "us vs them?" That's right, the cops. If the cops don't want an us vs them attitude they should start acting professionally.

Illinois outlawed the death penalty and set half of its death row free when it was revealed that half of death row inmates were there on trumped up charges. And people wonder why folks are leery of cops?

John Burge, now in prison for lying under oath, presided over a Chicago police department that routinely tortured false confessions out of people who had been arrested, and you wonder why there's an us vs them?

Wake up, apologists like you are a big part of the problem.

Re:mistake #1

[jsepeta]

The police are not your friends. They've fucked me over several times in several states for minor infractions. Think of the bully assholes you knew in high school. That's who become cops - small-brained, adrenaline junkies with penis envy.

"Hey, you mean I can drive as fast as I want and I get to shoot people? Cool."

Fuck the police.

Re:mistake #1

[silentcoder]

If you read the whole thread you would have seen that I specifically said they are not required to actually do anything except get help.

>>Being a socialist libertarian

>Sounds dangerously contradictory.
Only to American idiots who don't know what libertarian means. Or socialist for that matter. Here's a hint - neither of their definitions include the word "state".

Re:mistake #1

[g0bshiTe]

Does she have a keyboard between her tits?

What? No? Then she is still unknown!

Re:mistake #1

[CODiNE]

Thing about not talking to the police is... you're not saying they're bad people or even corrupt cops. It comes from a basic understanding of what their part is in crime investigation. They simply do NOT look for innocence nor do they let people go as suspects. Their job is to collect evidence to be used against people and let the courts sort it out. Sharing any information at all with them puts you in danger, it's that simple.

Overall it's a drag-net style of collecting multiple suspects and releasing the innocent when they're cleared of the charges, but on a personal level it can ruin your life.

Re:mistake #1

[g0bshiTe]

Several years ago I had 2 plain clothes officers knock on my door at 2am. They were down the street on a stakeout watching for a wanted person, when one noticed footprints in snow up to several vehicles in the vicinity. They followed the tracks which led them to two idiots who chose to go out breaking into cars just after a snow storm. Mine was one they had broken into. The neighborhood at the time was a bad one, I had answered the door pointing a loaded gun at them, they were more than understanding as the time they were knocking and as soon as I saw proof of ID, I put my weapon away. They completely understood, and admitted had it been them they would have done the same. Not all cops are asshats.

Re:mistake #1

[Dr Damage I]

Are you familiar with all 20000 pages of law to be aware of every instance in which you broke the law?

Re:mistake #1

[Dr Damage I]

"Not all cops are asshats."

True enough. But even the non asshats wont arrest other cops who break the law.

Re:mistake #1

[dgatwood]

But what has that to do with the local PD?

Two reasons. First, they're a good point of contact who should know the right person to contact about the problem, first. Second, the last time this happened to me, the light was malfunctioning in a dangerous way—failing to give a left turn arrow for several cycles in a row, resulting in left-turn traffic backing up into the straight lane. That's a public safety issue and demands that either the problem be resolved immediately by rebooting the light or an officer going down there to direct traffic.

Strictly, when you call 911 you are calling the emergency dispatcher, not the police.

Depends on where you live. In many places, E911 is handled by the police department. Admittedly, you're usually not talking to a police officer, but it's a very fine line.

Re:mistake #1

[HeadlessNotAHorseman]

In Australia you must get consent before applying first aid, unless they are unconscious and cannot provide consent. This leads to an interesting potential situation where a bleeding person could refuse consent, and you have to wait until they pass out before attempting to apply first aid. If you apply first aid against consent, you can be charged with assault, so in the training they teach you to always ask first.

The Australian first aid law also talks about "duty of care" - if you are trained in first aid you have a duty of care in basically any situation in which you have a relationship with the person requiring aid. For example, if a friend, family member, or work colleague required first aid and I refused, I could be charged with negligence. If I was walking down the street and saw someone have a heart attack, or saw a horrific car crash, I would be under no legal obligation to help (moral obligation notwithstanding). However, if I were to talk to the victim, e.g. ask if they are ok or need help, then a relationship has been established and I would be legally obligated to apply first aid until a trained responder arrived.

Re:mistake #1

[Anonymous Coward]

my dad being a retired cop,

You answered your own question. Cops protect their own, and that includes their families. Pretty much every experience I've had with cops has been negative. From a SWAT member on a ride-along complaining because he'd never been given the kill order when he wanted very badly to put someone down to being threatened to a cop following me for a half-hour over dozens of miles of various roads simply because I had a shitty car - he didn't find anything wrong and simply kept driving once I turned into my driveway, to being arrested for refusing an officer when he asked to search my home - he had a warrant for my brother but he didn't have a search warrant. Cops almost universally have the attitude that they can do what they want without consequence because, well, who you gonna call if they fuck with you? It's not like another cop is going to arrest them.

Re:mistake #1

[Anonymous Coward]

What if I was texting on a cell phone and totally missed the accident?

Re:mistake #1

[Anonymous Coward]

If you rant and rave in person the same way you do in your response, I'm not surprised the cops treat you like the self-righteous jerk you are. Maybe the problem is with your attitude more than it is with theirs.

You have no idea how ironic your post is, do you?

Re:mistake #1

[sco08y]

So, in a reasonable country, it would still be useful to bring such item to the lost & found office.

In an unreasonable country, cops might just assume that you stole any money that might be missing from the item.

The US is a perfectly reasonable country. You have a constitutional right not to speak to the police. If you choose not to exercise it, that's on you.

Re:mistake #1

[uninformedLuddite]

Congratulations you have won the anonymous dickhead of the day award

Re:mistake #1

[sjames]

It's really up to the police to back away from the adversarial position they take with the general public. For the general public, taking the first step runs the serious risk of jail time or even a beat down.

Re:mistake #1

[sco08y]

But you have to look at it from the cop's perspective: they don't see a dispute with a good person and a bad person. It's almost invariably two lying assholes, and if one person looks honest, he's probably just a better liar.

The problem is that it is worse than that. A cops motivation is not tied to you being innocent, rather once they make the decision to arrest someone they now have put their career on the line to make sure that person is found GUILTY.

Wow, the depth of ignorance (and the resulting paranoia) on /. about how our justice system works is breathtaking. Like all government employees, cops don't actually have to do their job to draw a paycheck, they just have to show up. Cops are promoted based on how successfully they kiss ass and check boxes. "Suspect was cleared" is just as good a checkbox as "suspect was brought to trial." And whether or not suspect is guilty is handled by the prosecutors, an entirely separate branch of the government!

Myspace

[smc170]

Use Myspace! You could throw someone off a bridge and nobody would ever look there!

Re:Myspace

[gstrickler]

MySpace is the first place I would to find someone who has thrown people off bridges.

Re:Myspace

[Boscrossos]

When.... I mean if I throw someone off a bridge, they won't be able to recognize me when I'm standing right in front of them doing my best "me" impression.

Re:Myspace

[CODiNE]

You accidentally the whole MySpace!

So what?

[Kenja]

You make information public, it will be used publicly. Why shouldn't they have used a profile picture?

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing the point of the article. She claims she wasn't in the bar that night.

Re:So what?

[mpoulton]

You didn't read the article. She was arrested SOLELY based on a person's identification of her Facebook picture, completely out of context. She was not present at the alleged altercation, and had a solid alibi. They proceeded anyways.

Re:So what?

[LordLucless]

I think you're missing the point.

The headline's trying to beat-up the Facebook connection, to tie into the anti-Facebook zeitgeist that pervades Slashdot. The actual story is that police didn't actually investigate thoroughly, and ignored all other evidence. That would have been a problem even if they'd used, say, a photo from a school yearbook, or from a publicity shot from her art exhibition.

In short, the summary's trying to turn the story into a "OH NOES! Facebook is the end of privacy!" when really it's a "OH NOES! Police are sloppy and lazy" story.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

And WTF did you think would happen if police can match any picture with any description? Yeah, much easier to arrest someone. And in a society that presumes that someone must be guilty (or at least involved) if they are arrested, well, there you go.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

You're missing the point of the article. She claims she wasn't in the bar that night.

No, that's the point of the summary. The article makes things less clear. In the article a victim identifies her using a photo. The accused shows the cops some text messages to suggest she was somewhere else. Given these unequal pieces of evidence, informing a person in such a situation that they are a suspect, reading them their rights and fingerprinting them seems a pretty normal thing for police to do. People get arrested and processed when they are mere suspects. The fact that the photo came from facebook isn't really relevant.

Re:So what?

[Osgeld]

I wasnt there and my boyfriend can back me up is about as solid as unset pudding

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

In the article a victim identifies her using a photo

No, in the article, a victim identifies her using a thumbnail of a photo. Was the thumbnail cropped, or was it resized into a blurry mess like every other thumbnail?

Re:So what?

[Dr Herbert West]

"Police are sloppy and lazy" is not a story, or news of any kind. I respect police officers in general because I know they have a shitty job where they see the worst of everyone, all the time-- but I also know when invesitgating a crime they will always look for the easiest explanation that requires the least amount of paperwork, and preferably does not require them to get out of a squad car.

Oh, and... don't ever talk to cops. They sent this person an email and she voluntarily went down to the station to "help" with the investigation? Silly rabbit. The only way you'll get me down to the station is if I'm served a warrant, or bailing a buddy out of jail.

Re:So what?

[viperidaenz]

A thumbnail of a photo is still a photo, just a photo smaller than the original.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

A thumbnail of a photo is still a photo, just a photo smaller than the original.

Was it smaller because it was cropped, or was it smaller because it was shrunk until details were no longer discernable?

Re:So what?

[Dyinobal]

Yep if she had a lawyer present when they initial questioned her with regards to the crime in question she wouldn't of been arrested. They wanted to do a 'peace bond' which means they wanted her to get worried and nervous and cave. It didn't matter if she did it or not, so long as they could show a 'case closed' and solve on their records. It is all a numbers and percentage game for them.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well maybe if cops wouldn't be so "sloppy and lazy" then they wouldn't see just the worst of everyone and more of the public would respect them instead of treating them with fear and contempt.
They cop in this story arrested the wrong person and didn't even consider the possibility that that he was wrong. He made a mistake that caused a person grief, anguish, frustration, and not to mention a fair chunk of coin to get her name cleared, which didn't even happen until the media got involved. For that mistake the cop will not get reprimanded but will probably get a promotion for 'taking action' or 'showing initiative' or some stupid reason like that. If an ordinary Joe screwed up as much at his job he'd be fired on the spot.

Re:So what?

[farble1670]

visual identification is pretty strong evidence.

by your logic, as long as i can find a buddy to lie for me, i can commit any crime i want. doesn't matter if anyone sees me or not, as long a my buddy corroborates by alibi.

Re:So what?

[stephanruby]

Yes, the actual story is that the police didn't do their jobs, but that's certainly not anything new and it's certainly not the only story.

Another underlying story here is that given a big enough sample size, it's highly probable to find someone who's going to be a doppelgänger of the person you're looking for. This goes for a search on looks, partial fingerprints, or even partial dna.

Historically, this hasn't been much of a problem, but as technology advances -- getting larger and larger samples sizes of data is becoming easier and easier even for the average police man, so this kind of problem is only going to grow and grow as time goes on.

Re:So what?

[Mr. Underbridge]

Well, it's both, right? The cops can't use the photos if they're in an album on your bookshelf. Or if they're displayed privately.

Re:So what?

[Scarletdown]

I must say, if any authorities tried to identify me by my FB avatar pic, they would be trying to book a trip to Tatooine:

Oo-Tee-Dee!!!

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh, no. Eyewitness IDs are notoriously unreliable.

Re:So what?

[pnewhook]

Yes, the actual story is that the police didn't do their jobs, but that's certainly not anything new and it's certainly not the only story.

Well in this case they actually followed up on a complaint and arrested who they thought might be the accused based on a positive id of a witness (although apparently incorrect).

Contrast that to the police in Florida where a guy shoots an unarmed person for simply walking down the street and don't even bother trying to arrest the guy responsible when it is clearly a murder. I'd rather action that is a mistake rather than complete inaction and incompetence.

Re:So what?

[SydShamino]

As are photo lineups.

Re:So what?

[haruchai]

See the worst of everyone all the time? I'm pretty sure the soldiers in Afghanistan & Iraq have it much worse and they can't get away with the bullshit that cops do on a regular basis.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Well to be fair, if I don't have a Facebook account, that certainly won't help the police now will it.

Re:So what?

[Cwix]

visual identification is pretty strong evidence.

Go read this:

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

Then come back and apologize for making shit up.
But since I know you wont here's a snippet. A quote from a Supreme Court Justice.

Justice Brennan also observed that "At least since United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 (1967), the Court has recognized the inherently suspect qualities of eyewitness identification evidence, and described the evidence as "notoriously unreliable"

Re:So what?

[j-beda]

visual identification is pretty strong evidence.

I'm not so sure - the few studies I have seen indicate that eye witness identification is actually pretty shitty.

Re:So what?

[Maow]

You're missing the point of the article. She claims she wasn't in the bar that night.

No, that's the point of the summary. The article makes things less clear. In the article a victim identifies her using a photo. The accused shows the cops some text messages to suggest she was somewhere else. Given these unequal pieces of evidence, informing a person in such a situation that they are a suspect, reading them their rights and fingerprinting them seems a pretty normal thing for police to do. People get arrested and processed when they are mere suspects. The fact that the photo came from facebook isn't really relevant.

I was with you up until the "reading them their rights" part. Unless it was a very clear photo, with a rather unique face, I'd question whether taking it beyond suspect was warranted.

I would hope that more than one witness would have identified the suspect based pm that thumbnail, for example, before an arrest was made.

While showing some text messages from the date in question isn't particularly compelling, they're also difficult to fake. That alone would offset, in my mind, the value of a single ID based on a thumbnail.

This post created without knowing all the facts, all IMHO, etc.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

IAAC and IAAFM, americans are a much bigger pain in the ass than iraqis. And you're more likely to get killed in the u.s. as well.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Soldiers have it bad? What about the Afghans and Iraqis who had their countries invaded and can't get away from it all?

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

can't it be both?

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I got the shit kicked out of me a few years ago, and had to go to a lineup to pick out the attacker.

They had a couple of suspects and a bunch of volunteers. Despite thinking I had a good look at him I honestly couldn't pick him out. Maybe he wasn't there, maybe he was but the person who looked closest to my recollection of the guy was one of the volunteers.

Weirdly I know this because the police here (UK) aren't allowed to tell you if you identified a suspect, but they are allowed to tell you if you didn't.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

> She was arrested SOLELY based on a person's identification of her Facebook picture

So the new rule is: Don't TALK to police, and also don't FRIEND them on the Facebook.

Re:So what?

[ArsenneLupin]

...and had a solid alibi.

The alibi was actually not that solid. She left the art opening early to tend to her boyfriend's broken knee. Theoretically she could have rushed to the bar instead. The only witness to her alibi is her boyfriend, hardly an uninterested party.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

So... you're for the guy in Florida shooting the man because it was action rather than inaction?

Re:So what?

[s0nicfreak]

Oh please. Cameras and resizing software are so good nowadays that things are still discernible in a thumbnail.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

The wikipedia article doesn't prove that visual identification is not strong evidence. I would say in most ways it reinforces it. It does clearly state that eye witnesses should not be relied upon because they have been proven to be horribly inaccurate but it also tells you the juries eat that shit up.

It even goes so far as to say this

"Another commentator observed that the eyewitness identification of a person as a perpetrator was persuasive to jurors even when "far outweighed by evidence of innocence."[6]"

So even though the eyewitness could be completely wrong, in a jury trial it would still be very strong evidence.

I did not read the rest of the parent's statement though so hopefully they didn't go on to make grand statements about Xenu saving there soul or something.

Re:So what?

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed.
I have been told several times(6+) that I look just like someone the person I was talking to knew from when they were younger.
On the latest occurrence, the person had a picture of the other guy on their phone. Sure enough, the photo of the other guy was nearly spot-on, hairstyle included. If I had seen that photo in a line-up, I'm not sure I could have identified them as another person if they had left out the background and t-shirt.

Re:So what?

[sjames]

I was at a public art opening is pretty good. Certainly stronger than being identified in a thumbnail photo.

"On the INTERNET!"

[Daniel Dvorkin]

That's all this story is, really. It's not a Facebook problem, it's a bad police work problem. People have been misidentified from photographs as suspects in a crime, and suffered as a result, since as long as there have been such things -- and police have been refusing to admit any wrongdoing, in this or any other aspect of their work, for at least as long.

Re:"On the INTERNET!"

[Anonymous Coward]

What's the problem? An assault victim has been identified the suspect by a photograph. Further investigation will include the victim confirming or denying this suspect by direct view. If confirmed, the suspect will get their day in court.

It's assault -- it's a very serious crime. They have to arrest the suspect unless an air-tight alibi is presented. It wasn't, so they did. Case now moves to next step.

This is not "bad police work". This is what they're supposed to do.

Re:"On the INTERNET!"

[pipedwho]

What's the problem? An assault victim has been identified the suspect by a photograph. Further investigation will include the victim confirming or denying this suspect by direct view. If confirmed, the suspect will get their day in court.

It's assault -- it's a very serious crime. They have to arrest the suspect unless an air-tight alibi is presented. It wasn't, so they did. Case now moves to next step.

This is not "bad police work". This is what they're supposed to do.

It depends on how they got the photo. If for example, the photo came about because [prior to finding the photo] the person of interest was known to be in that area at the time, the perpetrator was already known to the victim, or was tracked down because she'd dropped some identifying information, then the photo is valid.

If, however, the photo was obtained after trawling a large number of online photos of people that live 'in the area', using automatic 'face recognition'. And assuming at best the face recognition was as good as 99% reliable (which is better than the average person would be at recognising an unfamiliar person). Then there would be a huge number of false positives. If the person is identified by this type of system, then statistically speaking, the match should never be used as evidence. And if the resulting match is then used to obtain corroborating evidence that is itself related to the search (eg. a police lineup using a human to verify the recognition), then the corroborative evidence is statistically useless.

The same failure applies to DNA database trawling, followed by matching something directly derivable from the search result - eg. someone's DNA matches a sample from the crime scene (again with a huge false positive rate across a large (or incomplete) enough database). And the corroborating evidence is that the guy also had red hair, freckles and light skin - must be him! Fail.

Re:"On the INTERNET!"

[MrAngryForNoReason]

It depends on how they got the photo

If you read the article you will see that they had the victim look through the photos of people who had liked the bar's facebook page on the basis that they were likely to be customers of the bar so may have been there on the night of the assault.

Re:"On the INTERNET!"

[pipedwho]

Read the article? Dude, this is Slashdot.

Besides, my response was a generic rebuttal to the parent as opposed to a comment on specific nature as described in the article.

But, even then, the probability that a human can reliably recognise an unfamiliar face based on a Facebook photo would be quite low. From Facebook profile photos, I have trouble working out which 'Mike Smith' on Facebook is the one that I've known for years. In some cases it might be easier if the person was very unusual looking, and the photos were very good.

Given a large enough 'database' and/or a high enough false positive likelihood, any system of trawling is guaranteed to produce statistically unreliable results. This includes the example in the article, along with any similar method whether it be computerised or manual.

The only thing it may be useful for is to give an investigator a non-admissable lead as to where they might look for real evidence. At worst, it may produce a 'fruit of the poisoned tree' argument that causes all further evidence gathered to also become inadmissible. For conviction purposes, eye-witness testimony needs to be rock-solid.

Not just "I think that's the guy I saw blow away my mate Joe."

But, "Yeah, I saw my neighbour Dave standing on his front lawn pull out a shotgun and pump two cartridges into my mate Joe." Then they find Dave's shotgun has been fired with Dave's fingerprints still on it, and that Dave hated Joe ever since Joe ran over his dog. Now you have a case.

Re:"On the INTERNET!"

[Anonymous Coward]

The reliability of the eyewitness testimony isn't for the police to decide unless it's grossly evident that it's a lie.

A witness identified a suspect. The supect was arrested and charged. The paperwork was filled out. The vast majority of the police work is done at this point.

The rest is up to the lawyers and judges who, by the way, only get to debate whether witness testimony is legitimate or not after they've been arrested and brought to court.

Re:"On the INTERNET!"

[Anonymous Coward]

That's all this story is, really. It's not a Facebook problem, it's a bad police work problem.

Yes and No. The story is providing an example of how facebook is creating new and exciting ways to contribute to bad police work.

Yet another reason

[koan]

To not use Facebook.

On a side note my friends and I all have a saying "never volunteer information" so Facebook is the ultimate violation of this credo.

Re:Yet another reason

[Obfuscant]

To not use Facebook.

No, another reason not to upload your photo to facebook.

If your friends don't know what you look like, are they really your friends?

If someone tries using my facebook photo to identify me as the person who slugged them in a bar, unless the cops are really really stupid they'll arrest the guy for filing a false police report. Let's just say that my photo isn't a good likeness of me.

Mistake #0

[Taco Cowboy]

You put your pics online

Re:Mistake #0

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought mistake #0 was that she didn't check in with foursquare!

Re:Mistake #0

[the eric conspiracy]

Mistake -1: you have more than 0 social media accounts.

Re:Mistake #0

[Grimbleton]

He said, posting on Slashdot.

Re:Mistake #0

[icebike]

Mistake -1 was joining Facebook.
Seriously, when are you lonely sad people going to learn!

Re:Mistake #0

[Anonymous Coward]

He said, posting on Slashdot.

This isn't social networking, it's antisocial networking.

(And to get serious for a nanosecond, that's why I like it here. It took the rest of the internet took six years to do what we no longer have the guts to do.)

Re:Mistake #0

[craash420]

I was hoping for the obligatory XKCD but this is the best I could do. http://www.notquitewrong.com/rosscottinc/2012/01/04/the-system-552-antisocial-networking/

28 year old woman: "I was at an art opening..

[Anonymous Coward]

...but then my boyfriend took an arrow to the knee,"

Re:28 year old woman: "I was at an art opening..

[tompaulco]

...but then my boyfriend took an arrow to the knee,"
So there IS such a thing as too much Skyrim.

Mistake #0.5

[walkerp1]

You either friended a pig or accepted the default - ah who am I kidding. See mistake #0.

I don't get what the problem is.

[BitterOak]

Police use photos all the time to get witnesses to ID suspects. What difference does it make if the photo comes from Facebook, a driver's license, a mugshot, or a candid shot taken by a police detective across the street? What does the fact that it happened to come from Facebook have to do with anything at all? It sounds like a routine witness identification. She'll still get a trial and can present her alibi there, and the jury will decide which side is more credible.

Re:I don't get what the problem is.

[Anonymous Coward]

An innocent person with a solid alibi shouldn't have to go to trial to prove her innocence.

In this case, the real victim is the woman whose rights were violated by the police (and the false accuser).

Re:I don't get what the problem is.

[Anonymous Coward]

are you retarded?

Re:I don't get what the problem is.

[Anonymous Coward]

your a moron, the alibi is the dude she is fucking and no one else

Re:I don't get what the problem is.

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if I would call it a completely solid alibi. The article is light on details, but presumably, the only other person who may be able to corroborate her location at the time of the incident would be her boyfriend, who of course wouldn't have any motive to lie for her. That she was at an art exhibit earlier where many people saw her means nothing if the altercation in which she is accused of taking part occurred later when she claimed to be at home.

She may be guilty, or innocent. I have no clue, but if she was positively identified and police had no other suspects, it's not unlikely for her to be arrested. Perhaps there was other evidence such as a past history between the victim and the accused that lead police to make the arrest rather than just calling her in for questioning and releasing her. We don't have the full details so it's a little silly to start second guessing the actions of the police based on the sparse details from a news report. Considering that the story reeks of link-bait, I'm not surprised at the lack of information. All we really have is a lot of hearsay.

Re:I don't get what the problem is.

[TranquilVoid]

Exactly, but the summary is shooting for the angle that Facebook has provided new and easier means of obtaining photos, and by extension we can discuss how technology changes our expectations in society (ready: have a flamewar over Facebook).

Of course the attacked girl could have whipped out her mobile phone and taken a photo of the girl who allegedy attacked her then taken that to the police. Perhaps we should have a similar argument about how evil it is to put cameras in mobile phones?

It wasn't a lineup.

[russotto]

In a lineup, you get a bunch of people who match the general description given by the witness, including one who you suspect. You then ask the witness to identify the guilty party out of them. You can do it in person or with photos.

In this case, they apparently showed the victim a bunch of pictures of people who had "friended" the bar, got an ID based on that, and failed to investigate further -- just arrested, charged, and let her try to prove her innocence, which she was fortunately able to do.

Re:It wasn't a lineup.

[perpenso]

In this case, they apparently showed the victim a bunch of pictures of people who had "friended" the bar ...

Is that what happened? Or did the victim check the friends of the bar on her own and then go to the police saying "this person attacked me"?

Re:It wasn't a lineup.

[BitterOak]

In this case, they apparently showed the victim a bunch of pictures of people who had "friended" the bar, got an ID based on that

Please read the article more carefully. It says no such thing. What the article says is " 'I was recently accused of assault and arrested based on a thumbnail photo from my profile pic on Facebook,' she wrote on the very same Facebook page. 'Please let this be an eye opener.' " Nowhere does it say the police were the ones that used Facebook to identify her. It could well have been the victim that did so. Also, it doesn't say anywhere that she friended the bar, as you assert.

Further on, the article says "She said she received an e-mail in January from a Toronto Police officer in 14 Division 'asking me to contact them about an incident that occurred at The Piston (on Bloor St. W., Nov. 19, 2011).' " Now this is just bizarre. Since when did the police e-mail suspects inviting them to come in and be arrested? And who in their right mind would accept such an invitation? I think there must be more to this story than we're seeing.

Re:It wasn't a lineup.

[russotto]

Since when did the police e-mail suspects inviting them to come in and be arrested? And who in their right mind would accept such an invitation?

Stupid criminals and innocent people. It's true there are a lot of the former -- and the cops don't believe in the latter.

Re:It wasn't a lineup.

[Mashiki]

Of course it wasn't a lineup. Lineups aren't used in Canada for the purposes of identification, and the SCC(supreme court) ruled that it's illegal to do so. The only proper way is to use a photo for investigation. Using photo's like that, is the proper way. Whether digital or out of a photobook full of random pictures.

Re:It wasn't a lineup.

[farble1670]

And who in their right mind would accept such an invitation?

an honest, upstanding citizen interested in helping? crazy, i know.

Re:It wasn't a lineup.

[Ronin Developer]

If this is the case, she may have a possibility for claiming defamation of character against the person who accused her and the police officer who failed to follow up by doing a proper line-up with properly taken images. If she is picked out a second time, it's time to dig deeper, like verify her alibi before arresting her. Of course, procedure in Toronto may be different than in the US.

The biggest problem isn't that the charges were dropped. Rather, she now has to answer affirmatively on a job application that she has been arrested and then explain herself. Worse yet, what if the story hits the papers or online news media? Good luck containing that.

Unless her record is expunged, this will haunt her forever.

Yeah...that sucks and she has to has to fight so hard to get her character back.

Re:It wasn't a lineup.

[Yaztromo]

Please read the article more carefully....Also, it doesn't say anywhere that she friended the bar, as you assert.

Ahem...

She described it as "outrageous" that someone could "scroll down the friends list for the bar and point out someone that had brown hair and bangs"

Yaz

Re:It wasn't a lineup.

[perpenso]

... what if the story hits the papers or online news media? ...

Like slashdot or the news site that the slashdot article linked to? ;-)

Re:It wasn't a lineup.

[Anonymous Coward]

>The biggest problem isn't that the charges were dropped. Rather, she now has to answer affirmatively on a job application that she has been arrested and then explain herself

what job apps ask if you have been arrested? Here in the states, they ask if you have been convicted

Re:It wasn't a lineup.

[russotto]

The biggest problem isn't that the charges were dropped. Rather, she now has to answer affirmatively on a job application that she has been arrested and then explain herself.

Really? Canada allows employers to ask about arrests without convictions? A little searching online seems to indicate otherwise. It's not quite illegal to do so in the US (though it is in some states), but it's risky enough (can result in an Equal Opportunity Commission complaint) that most employers don't.

Worse yet, what if the story hits the papers or online news media? Good luck containing that.

Fortunately the story about the false accusation is also in the media this time.

Re:It wasn't a lineup.

[ThreeGigs]

Sorry, but _you_ need to read more carefully and thoroughly.

FTFA:
"She described it as "outrageous" that someone could "scroll down the friends list for the bar and point out someone that had brown hair and bangs" and that would be enough to enter someone into the justice system."

Note the "friends list for the bar" bit. Meaning, she must have friended the bar to be on its friends list.

You seem to have failed at either reading comprehension, or simple deductive logic.

Re:It wasn't a lineup.

[Anonymous Coward]

Further on, the article says "She said she received an e-mail in January from a Toronto Police officer in 14 Division 'asking me to contact them about an incident that occurred at The Piston (on Bloor St. W., Nov. 19, 2011).' " Now this is just bizarre. Since when did the police e-mail suspects inviting them to come in and be arrested?

It's called arresting by appointment, and it's absolutely standard for cases where the suspect is unlikely to run (or at least the appointment part is; not sure about doing it by email).

And who in their right mind would accept such an invitation?

Why, rationally, would you not attend? It's not like the police are going to say ``oh, they missed their appointment, I guess we'll drop the whole thing''. If you fail to attend, they're just going to come and get you from your house, and possibly add resisting arrest to the charge list.

Re:It wasn't a lineup.

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the one who isn't reading carefully enough. The article does say she friended the. at on Facebook.

facial recognition search

[j-stroy]

If facial recognition on a dataset is used to find potential matches this seemingly would increase the chances of a false identification being made. After all, some people do look alike, and the more similar they are, the more likely a human witness would get it wrong when presented with those artificially limited choices.

/sit down citizen

Its not clear if the police used facebook ...

[perpenso]

Its not clear if the police used facebook. The victim of the assault *may* have used facebook on her own and then went to the police with the photo. From the article:

"When she called an officer told her "there was an altercation at the bar, two girls got in a fight and the girl who was assaulted has pointed you out as being her assaulter through a photo on Facebook.""

Yet another reason to ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Stay off Facebook. And all social media. It can only come back to haunt you.

And never, under any circumstances, talk to the police. It can't help.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

Police lineups are a sham

[VinylRecords]

Mistaken eyewitness identification is one of the leading causes of false arrests and convictions. The average civilian is absolutely terrible with memorizing and correctly identifying the actual guilty suspect.

Even worse is that most police lineups and photo arrays (or photo lineups) are presented as a "multiple choice" test. Where the victim or accuser feels like they must choose someone rather than admit that they don't recognize anyone or are unsure. They'll just pick the closest person that they think fits the person that they saw earlier. And earlier might be hours, days, or even weeks or longer. Academic studies have shown that if you give the average person a lineup of random innocent people that most people will finger one of them for the crime.

And of course we have police that coach someone going into a lineup. "Here we have suspects one, two, three *cough* FOUR, and five. Please identify which suspect you think robbed the convenience store". "Uh....it was person number four".

And lastly, one of my best friends is a cop,and he says as a joke that they put cops into lineups all of the time. Then they bet if the civilian will identify the cop as the shooter or rapist or whatever. I know one department even had a jackpot where if you went into a lineup and got chosen as the criminal you got a free golf club.

Re:Police lineups are a sham

[bitt3n]

if you went into a lineup and got chosen as the criminal you got a free golf club.

my department does this, and you're absolutely right about how bad people are at identifying perps. you wouldn't believe how many homicides I had to pull off before I got my goddamn nine iron.

Re:Police lineups are a sham

[rayharris]

You broke the code!

1. Become a cop
2. Shoot someone
3. Get your picture in the line up
4. Get selected
5. Profit

Cause a cop would never shoot someone, right?

Re:Police lineups are a sham

[Dyinobal]

To be the fair the one time I was involved in identifying a suspect the police handed me a huge book with a bunch of pictures and to select the two guys I saw. I selected one correctly, and I didn't select the other suspect they had. It was enough how ever to put the one of the pair in the area and they managed to get him to cave on his buddy. I was in no way coached though and the detective was very professional about it.

Re:Police lineups are a sham

[martin-boundary]

They'll just pick the closest person that they think fits the person that they saw earlier. And earlier might be hours, days, or even weeks or longer. Academic studies have shown that if you give the average person a lineup of random innocent people that most people will finger one of them for the crime.

And that, kids, is why you don't wear a beard or keep long Jesus hair. Remember, the Son Of God Himself was innocent, but with the way he looked he still got fingered in a lineup and ended up on the cross. Hippies, eh? They never learn!

Re:Police lineups are a sham

[Anonymous Coward]

Hans? Is that you? When *is* the next ReiserFS release?

Re:Police lineups are a sham

[PPalmgren]

You know, there was a series on National Geographic recently called "Brain Games" that significantly increased my humility regarding my memory and other aspects of my brain. One episode was centered around memory, and they surprised a group of volunteers with a mocked robbery and investigation. Part of the investigation was the perp lineup, and a lot of people chose the wrong person because they simply associated them with the scene. Turns out he was a bystander. That episode was really worth watching, puts your memories in perspective and makes you a lot more forgiving of misunderstandings.

Re:Police lineups are a sham

[TheGratefulNet]

some of the cops are honest? wow.

that's definitely '5 informative'.

too bad its not '6 universal'...

Law and Order Lawyer Here

[Anonymous Coward]

But isn't the eye witness ID like the last piece of information that is needed in the arrest process?

Foursquare mayors ...

[Anonymous Coward]

I thought mistake #0 was that she didn't check in with foursquare!

Foursquare mayors do not receive "professional courtesy" from the police. She would still have been arrested. :-)

I don't think the police looked into it further

[cpu6502]

Of course not. They don't care if they arrest an innocent person. It's up to the defense lawyer to free you from jail, not the police.

How Police Get the Innocent
"In nearly every case, interrogators fed the suspects those details, sometimes even correcting them when they botched a fact. Many of the suspects were mentally impaired or ill, while others were underage or simply caved to police pressure." --- http://www.newser.com/story/100509/how-police-get-the-innocent-to-confess.html

Could be worse....

[BLKMGK]

If you lived in the US apparently you would be strip searched to top off the evening...

She received an Email?

[inject_hotmail.com]

FTFA:

"She said she received an e-mail in January from a Toronto Police officer in 14 Division "asking me to contact them about an incident that occurred at The Piston (on Bloor St. W., Nov. 19, 2011)."

And then she did? WTF! That's the last thing anyone should do.

So...you received an Internet message from someone claiming to be a cop? Step #1: Ignore it. There's no way on god's green earth that anyone should respond to a frickin' electronic message from a cop. Clearly the cops didn't think it was important enough to send a car around to her place. If she ignored it, it probably would have went no where. The only possible first step is contact a lawyer. She believed she'd be cleared because that she is innocent? What?! Is she new? Since when has that ever happened? Cops are interested in closing the file...if your name is in it, or someone else's, it doesn't matter.

DO NOT TALK TO POLICE, especially on purpose. Talk to your lawyer, have your lawyer talk to police.

Re:She received an Email?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't have a lawyer, and I've been contract jumping (damn industry), so I haven't been in one place for more than ~8 months. Where should I get a lawyer, how should I get a lawyer, what does "having a lawyer" even mean?

Re:She received an Email?

[inject_hotmail.com]

Yellow pages, 411.com, or perhaps the local legal aid. You can just call one and set an appointment. Trust me, they like to take new clients, it equals more money for them. "Having a lawyer" means you've been to one, and have agreed that you can call them on any particular matter (some lawyers know civil law, some know only criminal law, some family law...you get the point). If you are charged with a criminal offence, just ask for 'duty council'...it's the lawyer that's on the clock at that time...you can ask for advice and it's free.

It's not always the best advice though...pay for it yourself if you want decent advice.

Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. But even if I was, I'd have a lawyer.

Yeah, the police are sooo stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Because no guilty person would ever make claims of having an unsupported alibi. They should have totally just ignored the witness who identified her as the assailant and let her go. In fact, they should have bought her a pony and some ice cream just for being so friendly and helpful!

What's the problem again?

[viperidaenz]

She was a suspect, the police arrested her, then let her go. No charges laid yet. Her only alibi was "The guy I sleep with will say I was with him the whole night, we left the art opening early (in time to commit alledged assult) because he hurt his knee, which you'll have to take his word for."

Re:What's the problem again?

[Anonymous Coward]

She was charged. RTFA

Re:What's the problem again?

[Anonymous Coward]

Shh, that sounds far too much like common sense for Slashdot these days. Make it sound more like an advertisment.

Re:What's the problem again?

[sjames]

You left out the part about her being out thousands of dollars she didn't really have, having her life turned upside down, and to add insult to injury, they falsely show her to be under a peace bond. All that because they couldn't be bothered to actually investigate beyond someone pointing at a thumbnail photo.

That's a lot of crap considering she wasn't even there.

Talking to the arresting cop.

[Nethead]

There is no need to talk to the arresting cop, there is nothing he can do. He's got a warrant with your name on it and he has to bring you in for booking. That's really all there is to it and there is nothing that you can do at that point that isn't going to cause you actually pain, and another charge. The cop has no choice. What is he going to do, go back to the detective that got the warrant and say you convinced him you didn't do anything? The judge signed the warrant, you beef is with him now.

Can compressed images be trusted for ID purposes?

[mc6809e]

I'm concerned about using digitally compressed images and video for anything serious like trying to positively identify a person involved in a crime. It's claimed that lossy compression schemes only remove unimportant details, but I'm not so sure that's the case. There are also times when removing information can also introduce artifacts.

What happens when the compressor causes a fine identifying scar to disappear? Or worse, maybe a new feature appears as the result of artifacting which matches the feature of someone else?

Images and video are often damning evidence. How do you convince those viewing the images or video that they can't always trust what they're seeing?

I remember once arguing with someone over details that appeared in the digitized images of Obama's birth certificate as a result of artifacting. To someone unfamiliar with distortions introduced by lossy compression, claims that what they're seeing in a image isn't really there sound like complete BS.

Fuck the police.

[Anonymous Coward]

That's right, FUCK the police.

They get it wrong far more often than they get it right, and when they get
it wrong, they are not accountable.

Well, fuck this shit.

I prefer the law of the jungle.

Re:I wish they would invent synthohol.

[wmbetts]

Why? Unless you're a borg or non-human and lack the enzyme that breaks down sythoholic drinks correctly you won't get drunk. If by some feat you are something that lacks that enzyme then you might as well drink the real stuff, because it'll have the same effect on you. Yeah, you get a small buzz and no hangover, but you can get the same thing by just drinking a couple of beers and stopping.

Re:Mistake #-1

[farble1670]

you used facebook.

Comes from 3 ways

[dutchwhizzman]

You have a fair point. However, the police is being paid by the public and show no initiative as an organization to act this way as well. That's two ways it has to come from. The third is the government that is chosen and paid for by the corporatio^Wpublic. They don't show any initiative to change the current status quo as well. Until then, it's best to assume that talking to the police makes you a criminal, whether you committed a crime or not. Maybe we should start thinking about a different way to fund government and police. That could be the only solution to this in the long run.

prove innocense

[dutchwhizzman]

You don't have to do that, ever. You are innocent, until proven guilty by a court of law. To be proven guilty, someone else must convince a group o gullible people called "jury" that you in fact committed a crime, or if you're lucky, a bored judge that has a case load that will keep them busy for the next 120 years at least, if they have to actually listen to every relevant argument that can be made in those cases. If you feel the urge to refute anything that will be given in evidence against you, best keep that until your day in court, if it ever comes. Never ever do so against a po-po. They aren't judge or jury. They tend to play mind games to get people to think they are, but really, they are not.

They don't serve and protect

[ArchieBunker]

The courts have ruled several times that the police are under no obligation to protect you from anyone.

In a few months that young idealistic officer will be tasing the elderly/children and lying through his teeth while under oath in court.

There are no good police until there are no bad police. End of story.

Re:They don't serve and protect

[Anonymous Coward]

While that may be generally true in the United States it is not in Canada, insofar as police liability in concerned. There was a precedent setting case in Toronto where the police were found liable for not alerting residents of a neighborhood that a serial rapist was frequenting their area.

Re:They don't serve and protect

[busyqth]

And just what did that "liability" consist of? What punishments were imposed upon individual police officers?

Re:They don't serve and protect

[msimm]

By your logic, there are no good people until there are no bad people. It's fine and dandy to lump people together glibly, but I don't see how it's intelligent or insightful.

Re:They don't serve and protect

[Serious Callers Only]

It's fine and dandy to lump people together glibly, but I don't see how it's intelligent or insightful.

This is slashdot.

Re:They don't serve and protect

[Anonymous Coward]

By your logic, there are no good people until there are no bad people. It's fine and dandy to lump people together glibly, but I don't see how it's intelligent or insightful.

YOUR logic seems to be at fault here: Not all people are cops.

Re:They don't serve and protect

[T Murphy]

I think proper wording would be "there are no good cops in a police department until there are no bad cops". While a cop in LA has no influence over what kind of cops work in New York, cops within a department are responsible for one another.

If someone beats another man half to death and leaves him on the street, it doesn't reflect upon me if I'm unaware of the situation, but it certainly reflects poorly upon me if I do nothing despite being a witness, or even if I just come upon the victim later and do nothing to help. Along the same lines, so long as a bad cop's behavior is (or should be) known by other cops in the department, those other cops aren't really good cops if they do nothing about it.

Re:They don't serve and protect

[Anonymous Coward]

We cant control who becomes a person.
We can control who become a cop.

Re:They don't serve and protect

[DinDaddy]

Good people in general have their society create rules and systems to punish bad people, diversion of that authority by rich and powerful not withstanding.

Show me where police do that.

Re:They don't serve and protect

[Dr Damage I]

The community was compelled to compensate the injured party. Since cops are part of the community, they were "punished". Doesn't that just make you feel all warm and fuzzy?

facebook is perfect for this

[dutchwhizzman]

Where else will you find pictures of people doing silly things while intoxicated in bars? Brilliant detective work!

Strip Search Time!

[V-similitude]

She should just be happy she's in Toronto. If she were in the US, it'd be strip search time.

Re:Strip Search Time!

[haruchai]

Oh Canada, they' re not that different http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1136659--kitchener-dad-arrested-at-school-after-daughter-draws-picture-of-gun

Re:Strip Search Time!

[haruchai]

And here's another. Must be the US influence from TV or something. Or maybe just Blame Canada

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qFq66qIWajo

Re:Strip Search Time!

[haruchai]

My, my, it seems that some Canadian authorities have a deep fascination for what might be found in ( 15000 ) rectums

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Class+action+sought+against+Vancouver+police+department+over+strip+searches/6408727/story.html

14 Division

[Ashenkase]

I stopped reading after "14 Division".

Mistake #0.1

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not talk to Police Officers!

Reason: Police Officers are by 99% 5th grade drop-puts. Their stint in the Army and later the Police Academy, which graduates 100% of inductees, gives them skills in luring victums to fullfil their sexual needs and domination over women fantasies.

Two questions..

[Anonymous Coward]

1) How did the police/witness identify the suspect through the bazillions of people on facebook? ("ok witness, let me know when you're done and we'll get to the next million.."), and

2) How did they get her email address (facebook?)

It would seem that the two involved knew each other already and that the five-0 were just trying to get some quick and easy closure to the incident.

Strip Search

[witherstaff]

I didn't see a pic in the article of the artist. Is Canada like the States, where you can be strip searched for anything, even a traffic violation? http://www.aclu.org/criminal-law-reform/aclu-says-supreme-court-decision-upholding-strip-searches-puts-privacy-rights Maybe the police just wanted a private showing of the artist

Interview did not cause arrest just set time/place

[perpenso]

this is not a case where such talk led to problems

We don't know that. She went in and was 'interviewed.'

The victim of an assault pointed at her photo and said she committed the assault. That is why she was arrested. Going in for the interview merely set the time and place that the arrest would occur. If she declined the interview, they would have come to her home or workplace and taken her to the police station. Arrests occur upon serious suspicion, not upon establishment of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The only way to avoid arrest is to lower the level of suspicion. Silence does not reduce the suspicion. Having your statement come from your attorney does not reduce the suspicion any more than if it came directly from you. If she went to her attorney and said I have a couple of text messages and an alibi from a boyfriend the attorney would have probably said "you are going to need more than that, lets go get some affidavits from other people who attended the art opening art opening before we talk to the police". Such is the value of an attorney.

Even in a perfect world...

[JetScootr]

The cop's job is to get people in trouble. In a perfect world, it's the people that deserve trouble that get it, but even then, the very best you can hope to get from the police is to be left alone. There's no need to characterize cops as bullies or incompentent - even the good cops have to look at citizens as potential targets. The course of action when the cops want to talk to you is immediately get legal counsel, then follow that counsel in dealing with the police.
As for us v them - police are no longer part of the communities they patrol. They only see the worst in the community, and that biases their perspective. Also, they are trained and equipped more as an invading army than as "public servants", so seeing them as the enemy is an obvious and natural result.

So that's why some have Obama on their profile!

[rcasha2]

Sorry Mr. President, you're under arrest. You're being charged with 1,984 different crimes committed yesterday evening in 78 different countries.

Lucky her!

[mwvdlee]

She didn't even get stripsearched.

Re:Can compressed images be trusted for ID purpose

[gl4ss]

it's more of how easy it is to go as the victim and decide who is the perp and then have multiple images of the alleged perp you can give to the police and say this is the guy who did it.

Re:Interview did not cause arrest just set time/pl

[realityimpaired]

The victim of an assault pointed at her photo and said she committed the assault. That is why she was arrested. Going in for the interview merely set the time and place that the arrest would occur. If she declined the interview, they would have come to her home or workplace and taken her to the police station. Arrests occur upon serious suspicion, not upon establishment of proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The only way to avoid arrest is to lower the level of suspicion. Silence does not reduce the suspicion. Having your statement come from your attorney does not reduce the suspicion any more than if it came directly from you. If she went to her attorney and said I have a couple of text messages and an alibi from a boyfriend the attorney would have probably said "you are going to need more than that, lets go get some affidavits from other people who attended the art opening art opening before we talk to the police". Such is the value of an attorney.

This. It's also worth pointing out that in Canada, there's no such thing as a 5th Amendment. The closest we have is section 11c of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms ( http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/page-1.html ) which says you can't be compelled to bear witness against yourself.

She should definitely sue the city for legal expenses... this definitely sounds like they violated her Section 9 right not to be arbitrarily detained. The police developed tunnel vision, and ignored her alibi. They basically discounted her testimony on the word of somebody who had been drinking and could not have had the best recollection of the sequence of events. When they drop the charges, it's not a judgement in her favour, which means she has to do more than file a motion asking for reimbursement for expenses.

Also, despite what some people are saying, she's not an unknown within the art community. I have heard of her, and don't even live in Toronto. (though to be fair, I'm the kind of person who would rather go to a vernissage than a sporting event).

Dutch police kills

[Anonymous Coward]

Antone who testifies against the Dutch police of the Netherlands usually gets a premature death.

hey

[ILongForDarkness]

buddy you don't own the rights to that image. I'm suing for copyright infringement. :-)

Bring back the neighbourhood "bobby"

[phorm]

It used to be that police were more active in the neighbourhood. They'd have regular routes where they'd travel, and generally were known to those in the neighbourhood - were helpful - and had decent relations therein. When the police get to know the neighbours, and the neighbours get to know the police, then a mutual respect can often build that prevents foolishness.

Cities have gotten larger, but so have police departments. Why not bring back the "neighbourhood cop", and re-humanize the relationship between citizens and law enforcement.

Fuck the Police

[Anonymous Coward]

Both sides need to de-escalate. Only then can they realize that they're both on the same fucking side.

Both sides de-escalate? No. I think one side needs to escalate a hell of a lot more. I think people need to start swarming and beating bad cops. Perhaps even killing a few of the worst ones. Then and only then, will there will be less bad cops, and less of an incentive to be a bad cop.

But not jailed for a week

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone notice that in Canada you are not jailed, in that nice PRIVATE prison, for a week or two while things get sorted out. And this was an assault, not a traffic ticket.

Also notice that this lawyer, like most, was the good guy.

Re:Mistake #-1

[madhi19]

You gave your name and address to Facebook!

Re:Mistake #-2

[rilian4]

you "...trusted the system..." (direct quote from the article)