Slashdot Mirror


iPhone X Purchase Leads To Police, Battering Ram, and Handcuffs (cbslocal.com)

An anonymous reader quotes CBS SFBayArea: On one recent morning, Rick Garcia and his wife Shannon Knuth woke up to a posse of San Francisco police officers at their front door. "I peered through the peephole and I saw a police officer and a battering ram," Garcia said. "We heard 'SFPD' and 'warrant,' and I was like 'what's going on?'" Knuth remembers. It felt like a nightmare yet it was real. Garcia says that within seconds he was dragged into the hallway of his apartment complex, handcuffed, then whisked away to the Taraval Station.... Meanwhile Knuth, who had just got out of the shower, was ordered to sit on the couch... After rifling through the apartment Knuth says the officers finally told her what they were looking for: Her husband's iPhone X.

According to the warrant, it was stolen but Knuth showed them the receipt which proved her husband bought it. Once the officers realized their mistake they called the police station and a squad car brought Garcia home. "They gathered their pry bar and their battering ram and they left," he said. So how could a mistake like that happen? It's still unclear but it turns out Garcia and Knuth bought the iPhone at an Apple store at Stonestown Galleria just a few weeks after 300 iPhone Xs were stolen from a UPS truck in the mall parking lot.

One former police chief says the way it was handled "kind of boggles the mind...

"This was clearly an incident that should have just been a knock and talk, a couple detectives come to the door, knock on the door and they would have gathered the same info that they gathered after they put him in handcuffs and hauled him off to jail."

411 comments

  1. Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I wish the police would put this kind of effort in to recovering my stolen bike rather than a multi-billion dollar companies product.

    But I guess that doesn't fit their mandate of protecting large corporations profits.

    1. Re:Priorities by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Salaries, probably overtime, equipment, and very likely a payout at least for damage to property if not a settlement fee.

      All for a fucking $1.2k phone.

      Find the perps that took them vs finding what at most is unwitting buyers (if they buy them off the streets) is what's important.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    2. Re:Priorities by vux984 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Finding the buyers can recover the stolen property.
      Finding the buyers can lead you to the sellers.

    3. Re:Priorities by iamhassi · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I wish the police would not use battering rams to recover stolen property.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    4. Re:Priorities by whoever57 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Sue Apple for slander also?

      It was presumably Apple that saw the device activation and told the police about the phone and its location.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    5. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Informative

      They were investigating a $300k theft from a UPS truck, not a single phone or bike.

      There was a mistake somewhere in the passing of data from UPS and/or Apple to SFPD or the processing of that data that led to them going in as if the apartment was full of thugs, but for once it's entirely possible it wasn't the police that made the mistake -- in which case I hope UPS/Apple are falling over themselves to fix the inconvenience before lawyers get too involved.

    6. Re: Priorities by ArmoredDragon · · Score: 1

      Probably because a $300,000 heist is far more likely to be part of an organized crime ring and/or terrorism funding operation than a $300 bike.

      This is the same reason why the FBI doesn't care if you paid $1000 to a Nigerian scammer, but does care if you took out a $100,000 second mortgage to pay a Nigerian scammer.

    7. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We have 8 cops looking for your bike right now you UNGRATEFUL FUCK.

    8. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Except they are looking around that police station. Where it clearly isn't or they would have found it by now.

    9. Re:Priorities by Jeremi · · Score: 2, Informative

      All for a fucking $1.2k phone.

      No, all for fucking 300 $1.2k phones, aka $360,000 worth of stolen merchandise. The police were hoping that they'd find all of the phones (and the thieves) at the same location.

      --


      I don't care if it's 90,000 hectares. That lake was not my doing.
    10. Re:Priorities by BronsCon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yes, but you don't have to ARREST the buyers, unless you have grounds to believe they knew they were buying stolen goods; they've done nothing wrong. Find them, question them, let them point you in the right direction, but don't arrest innocent people.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    11. Re: Priorities by DCFusor · · Score: 1

      No, no, the donut shop...they probably hid it at the police station parking lot or it's a cop who has the bike, they'd never look there, but they might stumble across it at the donut shop - so that's where it ain't.

      --
      Why guess when you can know? Measure!
    12. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2

      A "lawful society" where armed gangs break into your home and threaten your family's lives. Fuck you bootlicker.

      Claymores on the frontdoor do wonders against pigs. Defend your castle.. NO ONE WILL DO IT FOR YOU.

    13. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Yes, because clearly someone who is suspected of possessing a single phone that might have been stolen is a hardened criminal who will promptly open fire on the police. I suppose he can count himself lucky he wasn't shot by the police in "self defense". Land of the free indeed.

    14. Re:Priorities by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 1

      And even that is a drop in the bucket compared to slowing the general unlawful behavior of a population. With police who don't care, thefts would increase.

      --
      (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    15. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Actually he was suspected of having one of the stolen phones that were taken in bulk and they didn't have any leads on them, so they expected he may have more or links to direct perpetrators. Again, it's unfortunate that Apple gave the wrong info. It's like the bank foreclosing on the wrong house - it sucks, but it happens - and in this case the guy is A LOT less damaged than in the foreclosure case, which frankly most Americans just accept as a cost of living in America.

      "Land of the free" hasn't applied since Woodrow Wilson signed us up to be a debtor nation or even before, when we were stealing land from natives under the guise of legal treatises.

      Also, Trump is a treasonous faggot basically flaunting his coup against actual governance, so for you to be outraged about a felony warrant served.. laughable really.

    16. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Tim Cock says otherwise. You are not buying, you are renting.

    17. Re:Priorities by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Breaking the door down is, counter-intuitively, a safety measure.

      That's not a very good "safety measure"; innocent people have a right to be secure in their property, and seeing their door being bashed in without warning, basically gives the inhabitants carte blanche to pull out any guns they can find and open fire in the direction of intruders; the result could be fatalities of members of their "surprise raid team", and it will all be legally protected self-defense.

    18. Re:Priorities by sycodon · · Score: 1

      Property Crimes, even at $300k, are not worth someone potentially being killed, which happens not that infrequently during these kinds of raids.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    19. Re:Priorities by Kjella · · Score: 2

      No, all for fucking 300 $1.2k phones, aka $360,000 worth of stolen merchandise. The police were hoping that they'd find all of the phones (and the thieves) at the same location.

      Yeah, assuming Apple's list was almost right and this was like one phone showing up of 300 stolen it smells like an America's Dumbest Criminals episode. Perp steals 300 iPhones, keeps one for himself or his cousin Bob because they need a new phone. I'd probably just surround the place and knock though, what are you going to do flush 300 phones down the toilet?

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    20. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      Who is buying stupid ugly as fuck iPhone X?

      Obviously they deserve their stupid faces punched in.

    21. Re:Priorities by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      But apple also know who made legitimate purchases. Why don't they subtract the IMEI numbers of purchased phones from the suspect IMEI numbers? Its not like its an ambiguous identifier. Do it in one line of python.

    22. Re:Priorities by vux984 · · Score: 3, Informative

      I never said otherwise. I was only refuting the argument that the police should not be looking for buyers. I agree completely that there is no reason to batter their doors down with a ram.

    23. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      I wish the police would not use battering rams to recover stolen property.

      You'll be glad to know then that there was no stolen property recovered.

    24. Re: Priorities by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      I didn't think you were being that unreasonable, but it never hurts to clarify for the larger audience.

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    25. Re:Priorities by sabri · · Score: 3, Interesting

      but don't arrest innocent people.

      Innocent people are being arrested every day. The legal requirements to get an arrest warrant are very narrow, there is no need to proof "beyond a reasonable doubt".

      That said, I'm sure SFPD will find themselves in court pretty soon, as the amount of force used was pretty unreasonable, not to mention the way that the lady was treated by the police.

      In the end, there is only one question to ask: was this a reasonable thing to do, considering the type of alleged crime? I'm quite sure this will result in a six figure, of not seven, payout.

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    26. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's one of the many tradeoffs of living in a lawful society, you have some bycatch and some unfortunate outcomes

      The corollary is that in a free society such incidents should be made public such that they're recognized as 'unfortunate' and steps taken to prevent repeat occurrences without changing the balance of trade-offs, i.e. the frequency of unfortunate outcomes can be reduced without sacrificing freedoms.

    27. Re:Priorities by nospam007 · · Score: 2

      "No, all for fucking 300 $1.2k phones, aka $360,000 worth of stolen merchandise. The police were hoping that they'd find all of the phones (and the thieves) at the same location."

      Yeah, they are stupid that way.

      Thieves stealing GPS-equipped gadgets activating one with all the loot nearby, do not exist anymore.

    28. Re:Priorities by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "and criminal penalty, as the perpetrator of the crime is that much more likely to resist officers with deadly force."

      So also more likely to have booby-trapped the door with explosives.

    29. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Follow the money. Who's really paying for this terror?

    30. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Keep believing their poisonous "The Dream", while they rob your freedoms blind..

    31. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've never done what your comic-book fantasy advocates for others to do, because you're a blowhard faggot first and a considered mind contemplating government overreach not at all.

    32. Re:Priorities by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      They typically shout 'Police, open up' a half second before breaking down the door. But so do other crooks, that don't wear blue.

      The fact the let this guy answer means they were going easy on him. That and they didn't nail his head to the floor, as a warning.

      SF cops are easy, most places, they'd keep the phone, until your _lawyer_ could 'prove it'. It would come back broken, with some cop's kid's data in the flash. Anybody could have printed that recept.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    33. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Even more this Garcia surely had something else to hide. Living with a white gal, that Garcia.

    34. Re:Priorities by sycodon · · Score: 2

      Really, I don't give a fuck what they were looking for.

      Even $300k isn't worth potentially killing someone in a raid like that. What did they think they were going to do, flush them all down the toilet?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    35. Re:Priorities by sycodon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There was a Sheriff's deputy killed under similar circumstances in Texas.

      Normally, Texas will light you up for killing a cop. But this guy was acquitted because he reasonably believed it was a House Invasion.

      If you REALLY think the house is filled with bad guys with guns, I would think the last thing you do is go barging in. Set up the parameter, then give that phone a call and simply inform that they need to come out or die.

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    36. Re:Priorities by sycodon · · Score: 1

      You can't have the State killing people and then just saying, Whoops! My Bad, here's some cash".

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    37. Re:Priorities by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      This phone was bought at a mall store, and the wife had a receipt detailing exactly that. But by that time, the bacon had already hauled her husband off in chains - according to the TV News report, without telling him what they were looking for or even reading him his rights.

      They have a big fat payday coming.

    38. Re:Priorities by R3d+M3rcury · · Score: 1

      Well, it may depend.

      First, the iPhone in question was--in theory--one of 300 stolen (e.g., around $300,000 worth). I'm sure if your bike was one of 300 stolen from a bike shop, they'd put more effort into it. Second, I don't know how much your bike is worth, but if it's less than $1000, California considers that petty theft and, yeah, the cops aren't going to put in as much effort.

      Don't like it? Then why did you vote for Prop. 47?

    39. Re:Priorities by Hadlock · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I came here to post the same thing. My $1500 bike is just as important for my day to day activities as my cell phone, and cost even more.

      --
      moox. for a new generation.
    40. Re:Priorities by careysub · · Score: 1

      All for a fucking $1.2k phone.

      No, all for fucking 300 $1.2k phones, aka $360,000 worth of stolen merchandise. The police were hoping that they'd find all of the phones (and the thieves) at the same location.

      This hardly makes any more sense.

      What they had to trigger this was the activation of one phone that they (falsely) believed had been stolen weeks before. When thieves steal phones they sell them. The buyers activate them.

      Did they have reason to believe that a phone buyer might be able to give them a tip leading back to the whereabouts of the phones and thieves? Sure. But to believe that this must be one of the thieves is very poor police work. Poor work in one respect does not then provide an excuse for poor behavior in another.

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    41. Re:Priorities by careysub · · Score: 2

      They were investigating a $300k theft from a UPS truck, not a single phone or bike.

      No, they were definitely investigating the activation of a single phone.

      Did they have reason to believe that this single phone possessor might be able to give them a lead to the thieves? Sure. But they were still investigating the possession of one single supposedly stolen phone

      --
      Starships were meant to fly, Hands up and touch the sky - Nicky Minaj
    42. Re:Priorities by LoudPipesSaveLives · · Score: 1

      Insightful? Self-absorbed perhaps. And here comes the slap of reality... They were investigating the theft of 300 iPhones with a retail value over $300,000, probably a few dollars more than your stolen bicycle. People who would pull of this large of a theft are generally bigger fish in the local crime scene, not the meth head that stole your bicycle. But then again, I guess you had to take advantage of a chance to take a swipe at the "large corporations profits" [sic]. You'll be in your folks' basement until you realize that it's probably going to be corporations that will pay your salary some day.

    43. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How could Apple provide this guy's info?

    44. Re: Priorities by Swave+An+deBwoner · · Score: 2

      He bought it at an Apple store so of course they had his info.

      Oh, wait, that seems kind of odd.

    45. Re:Priorities by Zxern · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter what info Apple gave them.

      Did they have a criminal history of any kind? Anything to suggest they we're possibly violent criminals? If not then there is no cause for the police action here. Just because you have a battering ram doesn't mean you use it all the time.

    46. Re:Priorities by Zxern · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It wasn't a violent theft though. Unless they had good reason to believe their suspects were violent or had some criminal history, there was no justification for the tactics they used.

      High dollar amount just raises the penalties, not the force used to apprehend them, if it was we'd have seen tanks knocking down the Enron headquarters.

    47. Re:Priorities by Zxern · · Score: 1

      This was likely a crime of opportunity more than anything else. Someone grabbed a box of phones off unsupervised UPS truck in a mall parking lot. That hardly requires a criminal origination to accomplish. Just grab the boxes that came from apple and run.

    48. Re:Priorities by cayenne8 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree completely that there is no reason to batter their doors down with a ram.

      At the VERY least, I hope this couple has lawyered up and are preparing to sue the living shit out of the PD and the city if not state and whomever else they can.

      The authorities need to take a hit on this one and learn the lesson that not every "house call" demands SWAT type levels of entry and treatment of the residents.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    49. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And if they're not answering the phone? Maybe they're in the shower, or taking a dump, or making love, or sleeping?

      Well, tough shit I guess.

    50. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Police overreach settlements need to come from the police retirement fund. That's the only way to get direct accountability. Then the cops will have an incentive to get rid of their worst.

    51. Re:Priorities by toonces33 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Apple effed up as well. They were the ones that gave the info to the police. If it were me, that would be the last Apple product that I would ever buy.

    52. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Paid for by the citizens and their taxes.

      The police won't lose a dime.

    53. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Heck US police shoot dead more people each year than total murders in the UK. So they should just be thankful they escaped with their lives.

    54. Re:Priorities by jrumney · · Score: 1

      What punishment did Apple get for the blatant insurance fraud?

    55. Re:Priorities by sycodon · · Score: 1

      If it means not accidentally taking a life they can chill for an hour or two.

      WTF is your problem?

      --
      When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
    56. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Calling someone a "treasonous faggot" is all the reason anyone needs to ignore anything you say. Next time, cite your sources and use constructive language and you may actually get someone to give a damn about what you have to say.

    57. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      After reading TFA... This incident is an embarrassment to the city of San Francisco, the state of California, and the United States of America.

      Everyone involved in that incident all the way up to the mayor needs an official reprimand or a bar to re-appointment or re-election.

      The city needs to issue a formal apology signed by chief of police and mayor.

      I'm not a fan of huge payouts for wrongdoing as usually it's hard to put a real price on stress and emotions and the money doesn't fix it anyway. They should get enough money to repair damage done to their home, including a cleaning, and for counseling or therapy if they need it, and to buy a competing leading phone with suite of apps to replace their iPhone X. They could use the money for those things or for whatever they want.

    58. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually that's a good way to get killed by the cops, and even if you survive, they'll prosecute you for attempting to murder the cops. It's already been done a couple of times in the US, though obviously exact response will vary by state and a few other factors. They let the cops go the self defense route, but not the people the cops were attacking. To say the system tends to be rigged for the cops to get away with murder would be an understatement.

    59. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fucking idiot. Blow up a cop at your front door and they will set your house on fire.

    60. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You have retardedly naïve opinions about the criminal gangs in the US. Oh mr. MS-13 enforcer, would you please not take this opportunity to shoot at police officers. I realize that we're about to come find evidence that might lock you up for life, but please take your time destroying it and killing anyone inside who might rat.

      Fuck that. The police did exactly what they should have. Given reasonable evidence, they obtained a search warrant, knocked before beating the door down, nobody got killed, and the suspect was released and given a ride home and apology immediately upon presentation of evidence that demonstrated innocence. The only bad apple here is, once again, Apple computers.

    61. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And how or why is $400k of phones worth less effort than your stolen bike? You live in the United States.

    62. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but don't arrest innocent people.

      Innocent people are being arrested every day. The legal requirements to get an arrest warrant are very narrow, there is no need to proof "beyond a reasonable doubt".

      And yet an officer gunning down an innocent civilian on camera no less doesn't get arrested until the video gets out to the public. Think about that for at least 2s.

    63. Re:Priorities by hcs_$reboot · · Score: 1

      Stolen iPhones are locked by Apple. So why would people buy a stolen iPhone since it cannot be used?

      --
      Slashdot, fix the reply notifications... You won't get away with it...
    64. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I wish the police would just go away.

      For more info, search: Voluntaryism

    65. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sounds like someone has a chance for a payday from the police. Excessive force to start with. 300 iPhones stolen. That should never under any circumstance need this sort of force. Unless of course tim cook ordered the police to do this through his connections

    66. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It should come directly out of all the funds of the people personally responsible for the mistake. We need more individual responsibility not group punishment.

    67. Re: Priorities by Uberbah · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Paid for by the city's insurance company

      FTFY. But if you had a line item for police brutality on your taxes, you might just be motivated enough to do something about it.

    68. Re:Priorities by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      300 phones is a hefty size. Even if you have one of those really big long coats like goths wear you'd barely get half that number in your pockets.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    69. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Go fuck yourself.

    70. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No one in authority takes a hit, ever. The money comes out of the general fund or some insurance policy and the cops are like, meh, not our money. Take it out of their pension fund, then perhaps you will see their attitude change.

    71. Re:Priorities by OneAhead · · Score: 2

      Set up the parameter, [emphasis added] then give that phone a call and simply inform that they need to come out or die.

      By reference or by value?

    72. Re: Priorities by TheRaven64 · · Score: 2

      How big is a box of 300 iPhones? They come in pretty small boxes, and 300 is only a 10x10x3 cuboid. I wouldn't be surprised if you could easily pick up a box of 300 iPhones and walk off with it. It's just as likely to be an underpaid UPS employee wandering off with a package or leaving the back of their van open during a delivery so someone else walks off with it. Walking off with a box that's small enough to carry sounds much more like opportunist theft than organised crime.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    73. Re: Priorities by Cederic · · Score: 2

      No. The police work for an agreed sum, and they have already earned their retirement income. Do not steal from them.

      If they're breaking the law then arrest and prosecute the individuals involved. If they're not breaking the law then change the law or accept that they're acting legally, in which case there is no case to answer.

    74. Re:Priorities by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Thieves stealing GPS-equipped gadgets activating one with all the loot nearby, do not exist anymore.

      You seriously overestimate the intelligence of thieves.

      Don't forget, if they were in the upper echelons of the intelligence spectrum they'd be making far more with lower risk white collar crimes.

    75. Re: Priorities by AvitarX · · Score: 1

      I bet closer to 12*14*12 to fit them.

      10*10 seems capable of fitting six in a layer at best, and I really doubt the boxes are 4mm thick.

      A more cube box with padding seems most likely.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    76. Re: Priorities by Cederic · · Score: 1

      The phones alone weigh 52kg, and I'd double that to cover the packaging, chargers, etc. This isn't a slim box you can tuck under your arm.

    77. Re: Priorities by Cederic · · Score: 1

      I don't think that was his argument.

      The loss of his bike is also likely to be significantly higher impact to him than the impact from the loss of the phones to the company.

      I'm also confused why you mentioned where he lives?

    78. Re:Priorities by misnohmer · · Score: 1

      Even if they offered up lifetime of free products as part of the settlement after you sue them for swatting you?

    79. Re:Priorities by misnohmer · · Score: 1

      Why slander? SWATt'ing maybe? Filing false police report?

    80. Re:Priorities by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Why is it again so few people trust/like cops?

    81. Re:Priorities by MitchDev · · Score: 1

      Yep, and I hope it goes to at least 8 digits. Reminds people why cops can't be trusted and MUST MUST MUST be held to higher standards

    82. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Itâ(TM)s a lot more fun for the cops to do it this way, plus, it keeps them off the streets and out of the weather for a while.

    83. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amen brother.

      When it's a stolen car, or laptop or TV, or child, they say "we will get back to you".

      Even if you know who the thief is and where they are at, the police just put it on their list. Yet, when it's a single phone that Apple claimed was theres, the police break into a home and TERRORIZE a family.

    84. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The buyers of stolen property yes, but Apple won't have record of who they are. The fact that police knew it was her husband's iPhone X is proof that Apple sold it to him.

      Especially since he had proof of purchase.

    85. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Add apple to the parties to be sued. They gave the wrong info so liable as well. (and with deep $)

    86. Re: Priorities by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      Arrest and prosecution is the answer, even if it's a pipe dream. Financial penalties might mitigate things, but they need a clear criminal record.

    87. Re:Priorities by edtice1559 · · Score: 1

      Good idea. Gives them time to destroy evidence!

    88. Re:Priorities by Br00se · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I'd rather see someone in charge of making these decision demoted or fired and sued in civil court, rather than see the taxpayers pay a bunch of ambulance chasers.

    89. Re: Priorities by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      The phones alone weigh 52kg...

      Well, it's good to see that Apple stopped prioritizing low weight quite so much.

    90. Re:Priorities by dontfearthereaper · · Score: 1

      More proof that you are guilty until proven innocent. So much for the justice system....

    91. Re:Priorities by BronsCon · · Score: 1

      That became true in the eyes of the people long ago; it only follows that it should, then, be true in the eyes of a government which represents the people. It's certainly an interesting time we live in.

      Love your username BTW

      --
      APK quotes people (including myself) without context and should not be trusted. Just thought you should know.
    92. Re:Priorities by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Same reason people steal them. People are stupid.

    93. Re: Priorities by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 2

      No. The police work for an agreed sum, and they have already earned their retirement income. Do not steal from them.

      Yes, because instead of a "blue wall" of cops protecting bad cops from the consequences of their actions, cops would gladly inform on each other to protect their pensions.

    94. Re:Priorities by vandamme · · Score: 1

      If it were me, that would be the first AND last Apple product I would buy.

      Well, I did have an Apple ][c computer, but it was a hand-me-down. Last Apple I had.

    95. Re:Priorities by OffaMyLawn · · Score: 1

      Exactly. My pickup currently has a cap on it, so it's not like it's difficult to hide a box. Pull up next to UPS, put box in bed of truck, drive off.

      Not that I would, or did, just saying it's not hard to come up with a simple scenario of taking boxes from an unsupervised truck.

      Please don't break down my door...

    96. Re: Priorities by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Collective punishment is bad, do not do it.

    97. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you were out sick when the Google Search School of Law held it's class on slander.

    98. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California is a fascist police state. This is just another reminder.

    99. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'll just leave this here:

      “The affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions ... It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security.” Adam Smith, the Wealth of Nations, circa 1776

      If you expect the police to be for the common man, think again. To protect and serve means the rich get the service and we get the shaft

    100. Re:Priorities by ausekilis · · Score: 1

      I wish the police would not use battering rams to recover legally purchased property. FTFY

    101. Re:Priorities by mikeiver1 · · Score: 1

      Pursuant to a lawfully issued warrant they carried out the above noted action. They will say sorry about that and that is just about it... The guy will have to fix the door on his own dime and then try to sue the department to recover cost. If Apple did in fact list his phone as one of the devices stolen in error and then contact police when it was activated then they may be partially on the hook for damages and duress. Either way the guy and his wife should get a lawyer as they will have a long road to being whole again. Apparently a fool and his money are soon parted more than once in the case of buying an apple product!

    102. Re: Priorities by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Insurance evens out risk. It doesn't eliminate it. If a city has to pay out too many judgments, their premiums go up to compensate.

      Insurance companies aren't stupid. The average customer pays a little more than the losses covered.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    103. Re:Priorities by Agripa · · Score: 1

      That said, I'm sure SFPD will find themselves in court pretty soon, as the amount of force used was pretty unreasonable, not to mention the way that the lady was treated by the police.

      In the end, there is only one question to ask: was this a reasonable thing to do, considering the type of alleged crime? I'm quite sure this will result in a six figure, of not seven, payout.

      If the police relied on the warrant in good faith then qualified immunity covers them. The judge who signed the warrant has absolute immunity. The court remedy would usually be suppression of evidence but if they are not charged and brought to trial, they have no standing and no remedy. That leaves suing the police department and city in civil court which is hardly a deterrent.

    104. Re:Priorities by Agripa · · Score: 1

      Even $300k isn't worth potentially killing someone in a raid like that. What did they think they were going to do, flush them all down the toilet?

      It is when the cost to the police is so low. They are not being payed to not shoot people.

    105. Re:Priorities by Agripa · · Score: 1

      That's not a very good "safety measure"; innocent people have a right to be secure in their property, and seeing their door being bashed in without warning, basically gives the inhabitants carte blanche to pull out any guns they can find and open fire in the direction of intruders; the result could be fatalities of members of their "surprise raid team", and it will all be legally protected self-defense.

      In a word, no. Even if the police lacked a warrant, innocent people would still lack any right to be secure or be armed.

      https://www.washingtonpost.com...

    106. Re:Priorities by Agripa · · Score: 1

      You can't have the State killing people and then just saying, Whoops! My Bad, here's some cash".

      That is not the current situation. The State never admits to wrongdoing and does not pay damages.

    107. Re:Priorities by toddestan · · Score: 1

      The reality of it they got a report of a single one of the iPhones being activated. The bigger fish in the local crime scene are not going to be that stupid, so chances are pretty damn good you're dealing with some poor schmuck who bought one off of craigslist or eBay. i.e. not the big time criminals you are looking for. At worst, you might be able to say the guy in that hypothetical situation should have known it was likely stolen, but that's not really the police's job to decide.

    108. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Some of the money is to punish the wrong doers in hopes that they learn to behave different. Not that it works

    109. Re:Priorities by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      Because the latter two are criminal matters and can only be prosecuted by the state. IOW, the victim doesn't get any money from them.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    110. Re:Priorities by misnohmer · · Score: 1

      So there are no civil equivalents for SWATing or providing police incorrect information causing you damages? Similar to "wrongful death" being the civil equivalent of murder?

    111. Re:Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Innocent people are being arrested every day.

      Sure, but not necessary in this case. It ought to go like this:
      "We believe you have a stolen phone! Prove otherwise, or come with us!"
      "I have the receipt right here"
      "Uh, looks legit. sorry for the inconvenience"

    112. Re:Priorities by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      There may be, but I'm not a lawyer and have never studied law, so really I have no clue what I am posting about.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    113. Re:Priorities by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      unwitting buyers (if they buy them off the streets) is what's important.

      Hang on - it's an iDevice in question, isn't it? I thought they were only available from iShops and (fairly large) authorised resellers (large department stores, computer stores, phone dealers etc.) So automatically you know that if it's for sale "on the street", then you know that it's stolen.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
    114. Re: Priorities by Agent0013 · · Score: 1

      Collective ganging up on the civilian population is bad and illegal. The scum in blue should not do it. Any cop who says their job is dangerous should be immediately shot to prove that they will not end up dead on the street, they end up dead because they are too stupid. They don't even make the top 10 of dangerous jobs.

      --

      -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
    115. Re: Priorities by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Collective ganging up on the civilian population is bad and illegal. The scum in blue should not do it

      I can agree with that too. It doesn't invalidate my point.

      Any cop who says their job is dangerous should be immediately shot to prove that they will not end up dead on the street, they end up dead because they are too stupid.

      I disagree with this hyperbole though. How about just fucking educating and training them instead?

    116. Re: Priorities by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...turns out Garcia and Knuth bought the iPhone at an Apple store...

      Nothing stolen, so no reason for the harassment.

  2. Proof of US police incompetence by Bruce66423 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It is sad to see such mistakes, and defence lawyers should highlight them in court when police evidence is supposed to be taken seriously. There is a serious problem with the police; it requires a certain type of personality to spend one's life confronting bad guys, and the culture of many police departments is toxic. However in this case there is the added element of a warrant being issued: someone made a false statement to the judge who issued it, and that should also be investigated.

    1. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They are lucky they weren't shot for having their hands near their waists

      (you know, the location where most humans' hands naturally hang)

    2. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful
      To the contrary. It's not a problem of the police. It's a problem of people wanting such a police force. If you elect officials on a "tough on crime" platform, you get police brutality and police actions out of proportions. If you approve sales of armored vehicles and assault rifles to police forces, you get a military force instead of a police. And instead of a friend and helper, you get an occupation force.

      In the end, you get what you deserve.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    3. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by saloomy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This. We elected and installed these asshats. The police are overbearing and overtly militarized. There's a reason you can't use the military for civil ip law enforcement, so they went around and created a "non-military military".

      Tough on crime and tough on drugs is "weak on civil liberties".

    4. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      And instead of a friend and helper, you get an occupation force.

      I have lots of friends and helpers; I don't ned taxpayer money to pay someone to do that. I'm sorry if you do. What I want taxpayer money to go towards is creating an armed force willing to go into situations that make my friends and helpers shit themselves. What would you suggest?

    5. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      However in this case there is the added element of a warrant being issued: someone made a false statement to the judge who issued it, and that should also be investigated.

      That would be Apple, who apparently also have the ability to track a phone to a physical location.

      They reported the phones stolen and presumably are the ones who gave his address to the police. I'd assume that they listed the serial numbers as stolen and then have a system that lets them locate phones by serial number.

      I have to assume all this because neither Apple nor the police will explain exactly what happened - but it's the only reasonable explanation for why the police would have targeted him. Maybe now he'll think twice about supporting a company that routinely works with law enforcement to hand over your private information.

    6. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by iamhassi · · Score: 1

      We can have tough on crime *and* not break down doors and shoot everyone for a stolen phone. There's a huge grey area in there that the police need to go back to.

      --
      my karma will be here long after I'm gone
    7. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by arth1 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It is sad to see such mistakes

      These are not "mistakes". They did this deliberately. It's how modern police operates. They think they are military, and that everyone else are hostiles.
      Don't ever think that modern plod are your friends or even public servants. There's nothing servile at all in the way they operate.

    8. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by The+Grim+Reefer · · Score: 1

      To the contrary. It's not a problem of the police. It's a problem of people wanting such a police force. If you elect officials on a "tough on crime" platform, you get police brutality and police actions out of proportions.

      I both agree and disagree with you. Part of the issue is historic, and before many on /. we're alive and/or can remember. In the late 1970's and early 80's crime was much worse and criminals in many cases were much better armed than the police. Granted, the war on drugs fueled most of this. But you can't have a police force using revolvers going up against criminals with fully automatic weapons. Part of the reason (certainly not all) crime stats were lowered is that police were able to get SWAT teams and APC's.

      However they aren't really needed as much anymore. But like most government programs, they're hard to get rid of once they are in place. I'd certainly like my local law enforcement to have the tools they need in cases where they are appropriate, but it's also difficult to make the right call on this. You sure don't want to be the guy in charge and send a bunch of your subordinates to be slaughtered when you could have equipped them properly. But you don't want to send in an Abrams tank for a domestic call either. I'm not sure what the solution is though. Better training would obviously be a good start, and better psychological screening would also be smart. But obviously there's going to be a lot of push back from senior officers.

    9. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by sjames · · Score: 1

      I don't recall ever voting for someone because of a tough on crime stance. In fact, I tend to see that as a negative when sizing up candidates exactly because I want an effective system of justice and corrections, not goons with guns tossing people in cages using the nearest convenient excuse.

    10. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the only options are "friends and helpers" who won't protection and an "occupation force"?

      Go away, troll.

    11. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by sjames · · Score: 1

      So some guy buys an over-priced iPhone and you find that to be a situation that makes your friends and helpers shit themselves?

      First, I suggest less wimpy friends and helpers. Next, I suggest police that understand a measured response to a situation. Also who don't kill people when they get bad information.

      Remember, next time they get it wrong, you could be the person who ends up dead or gets his door smashed in in the middle of the night.

    12. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by arth1 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      But you can't have a police force using revolvers going up against criminals with fully automatic weapons.

      You can have police that's unarmed until attacked go up against criminals with fully automatic weapons.
      It is common practice in many countries, and works surprisingly well. Police knocks on the door, and informs them that they're under arrest, and surrounded. By police who are currently unarmed, but will get authorization to break out their sealed arms the minute they hear a gunshot.
      When the criminals don't feel their lives are threatened, and no one points a weapon at them, there's no strong drive for them to start shooting. In fact, there's less, because they have a good chance go get a far lighter sentence. But when cops go in with drawn guns, their hands are forced and you do get shootouts.

      I'm a law-abiding fellow, and the only reason I would want a gun is to be able to protect myself from the police. I have never had a "criminal" point a gun at me, but I have had cops do it twice. That's reality in the US these days.

    13. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whatâ(TM)s really interesting is that if you or I called Apple to ask them to help retrieve OUR stolen iPhone, you KNOW they would claim they donâ(TM)t have the ability to track it.

    14. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Those are the only options he gave, troll.

    15. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Haha, Flaimbaite, but so true.

      The USA is the only nation I'm aware of where police officers legaly can trick unsuspecting citizens, or more important: tourists! into commiting a crime. Get away with it, and get the victim convicted.

      How retarded is that ....

      Police officers that get promoted on numbers of prisoners taken or convicted. Sherrifs (re)elected on the amount of prisoners or convicted ... ha ha ha. Same for state attorneys.

      Judges owning prisons. Prisons run by private corporations instead of the state.

      A law system where a 'grand jury' can say: no the case where this white officer shot and killed a black guy into the back does not deservve to be investigated.

      A law system were a culprit like O Simpson get sentenced unguilty in a criminal case but gets called guilty in a civil case to pay damages for the murder of his wife, ha ha ha ha.

      Your country is so retarded I doubt there are many that are worth ...

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    16. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      So some guy buys an over-priced iPhone and you find that to be a situation that makes your friends and helpers shit themselves?

      No, not at all. Why would you suggest something so stupid?

      Next, I suggest police that understand a measured response to a situation. Also who don't kill people when they get bad information.

      This is like saying "I suggest hiring programmers who don't write any bugs". The more of your comment I read, the more ridiculous you sound.

      Remember, next time they get it wrong, you could be the person who ends up dead or gets his door smashed in in the middle of the night.

      Wow, really, it could be me??? The thought never occurred to me. I totally thought that I was completely immune to any mistakes or accidents.

      Now that you've made me think about it ... would you say it could be me burning to death on a highway tomorrow because some jackass was following too closely???

      Goddamn. I'm never driving again.

    17. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not to mention being in possession of an iPhone and the name Garcia.

    18. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      it requires a certain type of personality to spend one's life confronting bad guys

      Poor excuse. All over the world police don't have a problem but still spend their entire life confronting bad guys.

    19. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If Trump really wants to keep Americans safe, he needs to look no further than putting America's law enforcement on a leash. People are going to start fleeing to Mexico if it gets much worse.

    20. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by fustakrakich · · Score: 0

      It is sad to see such mistakes

      These aren't "mistakes". At best it is negligence, and it's intentional. The sad part is that people sanctify the authorities and tell us we should accept it, and they reward the job to exactly the wrong kind of people, those that want it.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    21. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's still better than your home in Russia, where your government murders the opposition's politicians and steals billions every year.

    22. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      We need Andy Griffin and Barney Fife. They were real po-lice.

    23. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are not all bad.
      I've had police be polite and helpful. One afternoon my radiator was failing. I pulled off the road to let the engine cool and started calling home to say I would be late, but was OK. A policeman stop and asked if I needed help as people don't generally stop where I stopped. I explain the situation and said I as like two miles from home after a while. He offered help.

    24. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by HiThere · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As far as I can tell, most police intend to be helpful. But there are a poisonous number who aren't, and the police forces seem to protect and encourage them rather than actually discipline or fire them, or, in some documented cases, charge them with appropriate crimes.

      This makes it difficult to trust "police", as opposed to trusting some particular policeman that you happen to know. There are also documented cases where policemen have been disciplined for *not* being abusively belligerent.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    25. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by HiThere · · Score: 2

      The O.J. Simpson case *is* weird. I'm rather sure he was guilty. However.....
      It is appropriate that the standard for criminal conviction is higher than the standard for civil torts.

      It's also true that I encountered several people who assumed that he was innocent, and only charged because he was black. And I only assumed that he was guilty because he had a history of wife beating, and this is often associated with murder. I didn't evaluate the evidence myself. But it was a highly political case because he was such a prominent public figure and because of the racial aspect. It was probably impossible to get an unbiased jury.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    26. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flee to Mexico? Not once the wall is in place!

    27. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, I think I would prefer the actual military. They have Rules of Engagement that would have prevented a lot of civilian deaths, and a lot of cops would be summarily court-martialed or put in military prison for what they've done.

    28. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Well, the real question is what kind of discipline are the individual police going to get from this abuse, and whose budget pays for the door and the inconvenience and danger entailed by needing it repaired.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    29. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apple sure can spin lies when its in their best interest

    30. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      As far as I can tell, most people intend to be helpful. But there are a poisonous number who aren't, and society seem to protect and encourage them rather than actually discipline or fire them, or, in some documented cases, charge them with appropriate crimes.

      This makes it difficult to trust "people", as opposed to trusting some particular person that you happen to know.

      FTFY.

    31. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by sjames · · Score: 1

      No, not at all. Why would you suggest something so stupid?

      Because you posted a rebuttal to the idea that policing needs to be something other than just a heavily armed force responding forcefully.

      TFA is all about such an armed force reacting forcefully to a situation that should have been handled by a friendly and helpful conversation. Did you not even read the summary?

      This is like saying "I suggest hiring programmers who don't write any bugs"

      More like suggesting that you shouldn't hire a demolition company to solve your ants in the kitchen problem.

    32. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by c6gunner · · Score: 1

      You seem to be having difficulties differentiating between generalities and specific situations. I suggest you work on that.

    33. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I shudder to think what would have happened to the couple if they were black.

    34. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As far as I can tell, most people intend to be helpful.

      Citation needed.

      Sincerely,
      One of your 13 year old douche bag peers

    35. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, you're just making retarded generalisations.

    36. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      dont forget the secret FISA courts that rubber stamp any and all warrants!

    37. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So if Adolf Hitler once stopped to help a stranded motorist... would that make the holocaust okay?

    38. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by anegg · · Score: 2

      When phrases like "tough on crime" are used I want them to refer to the consequences handed out to people who are found guilty of crime in a court of law. I wish for the police to be always professional and enforce the law, making arrests when appropriate, but I don't want them being "tough on crime." I want prosecutors and judges to be "tough on crime."

    39. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's easy to say until you have to live with the results of being "soft on crime", which is lots of worse crime.

      Look at Sweden for example: their police was so soft on crime they got overwhelmed with criminals who took advantage of the situation. Now they have to consider using the military to fight gang violence because their police isn't equipped to deal with criminals using bombings to fight back.

    40. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your mommy said so.

    41. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Except that actual evidence doesnâ(TM)t support your little right wing wank-fantasy

    42. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

      I think we already know the answer to both. There's little point in even bringing it up since nothing will be done.

      --
      “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
    43. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Excellent Godwin!! Thanks for the laughs

    44. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You obviously don't understand anything about which you speak. An armored vehicle is in no way more dangerous than an unarmored vehicle. The police aren't being given/sold tanks, they are getting troop transports, many of which have 100% civilian counterparts that you or I can purchase. But even if they did get something we can't purchase, the weapon systems on them are what makes them tools of war- armor is inherently DEFENSIVE.

      The so-called "assault weapons" are the same as you, or I, can purchase (well, I can, because I'm not a felon- I don't know about you). They aren't even weapons with the "fun" features like full-auto, short barrels, high-explosives in an under barrel grenade launcher, or belt fed weapons (aka- actual weapons of war). They are semi-auto, everyday commercial off-the-shelf type weapons. But, again, full-auto weapons, grenade launchers, and even flamethrowers are legal, you just have to fill out a ton more paperwork and spend more money for most of them.

      So, really, your complaint(s) are that the Police don't have to pay retail for the things they need to effectively do their job without having to risk their life needlessly, but you'd probably also complain that they spent too much if they did pay retail.

      The most ridiculous thing about your complaint is that a lack of DEFENSIVE capabilities actually makes things MORE dangerous for all parties involved. If you can safely move through a "kill zone" (i.e. where those who would attack you will likely fire upon you) to an area to breach or enter, you reduce the likelihood of having to use suppressive fire (firing to keep enemy shooters heads down, or stop them from attacking you). Most small arms is woefully inadequate vs all armor systems, although there is a satisfying *plink* for everyone inside as those shooting at you waste ammunition attacking something with a weapon that barely chips the paint from your vehicle. Less bullets fired = less potential loss of innocent life. Not to mention it gives you a way to evacuate the wounded without putting them, or the casevac team in danger to do so- otherwise you might not evacuate casualties until it is known safe, which can take hours when people have minutes to live. But hey. What the fuck do I know? -Some Iraq war veteran and EMT that has dealt with situations described above.

    45. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well I did. I saw the WHOLE OJ trial on TV. I saw more than the jury did plus the huge media bias during the whole thing. I found him not- guilty and I still stand bye the decision. It was quite easy if you actually watched it and it didn't surprise me the jury took so little time.

      BTW, I'm white, middle class and live in the suburbs (obviously I had a lot of time to watch the whole trial at the time) and I HATE football, I might not have made it on the jury because I was happy a football player finally got into trouble without a lot of unfair help and support that nobody else would get. OJ got the opposite; I enjoyed it but by the end it was clear he wasn't getting fair treatment from our society. After the trial everybody was upset but I could see why, I had seen the coverage and how it created the biases the public had. I also learned how the media fucked up reporting the whole thing without completely lying (FOX couldn't help themselves, they often just made stuff up like they weren't even there; however, it was odd to often see FOX do a better job reporting than all the others... it was almost like the FOX staff were compensating for their usual propaganda.)

    46. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This. We elected and installed these asshats. The police are overbearing and overtly militarized. There's a reason you can't use the military for civil ip law enforcement, so they went around and created a "non-military military".

      Tough on crime and tough on drugs is "weak on civil liberties".

      How about "tough on fascists(*)"? These are okay I assume?

      (*) where "fascist" obviously means anyone who doesn't vote for Dems

    47. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      I reckon he was probably guilty, but the cops tried to frame him anyway. In that situation I think it's right he gets to walk, because if you let the cops get into the habit of gilding the lily then next time it might be somebody innocent. Me. You.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    48. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

      The reason that the US military are prohibited from law enforcement was a compromise thrown to viciously racist traitors. The more you know!

      Plus, it's not really kosher to criticize Obama's legacy of militarized police. I'd tone that kind of thing down if I were you. Just kind of stop bringing it up.

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    49. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      OJ was guilty of not telling law enforcement who killed his wife.
      He did not do it. He was extremely protective of who killed his wife.

    50. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Most small arms is woefully inadequate vs all armor systems

      Bollocks.

      While I'd much rather be tucked behind thick armour if someone's shooting at me, it's rather better to be not getting shot at.

      Armour isn't perfect and can be penetrated.

    51. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sweden's problem is not being soft on crime, but allowing Muslims in the country at all. That's a kind of person you DON'T want around. They must remove kebab from premises!

    52. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Holocaust: it didn't happen, but it should have.

    53. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's not weird at all, the jurors were mostly black and they treated it as "us vs them."

    54. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Mexico is the only country I have been to where the police pull over tourists and toss you in jail unless you give them cash. No charges, no crimes committed, just toss your ass in jail until you cough up some dough.

    55. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm a law-abiding fellow, and the only reason I would want a gun is to be able to protect myself from the police. I have never had a "criminal" point a gun at me, but I have had cops do it twice.

      You should be glad you didn't have a gun, as there is a strong chance the police would have done more than point their guns at you.

    56. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only problem is that I get what they deserve as well

    57. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because I lived in a high crime area at one point in my life, I have interacted with maybe 100 cops. of those, I believe 1 was 'trying to be helpful' the others? Not one bit. They were on a power trip.

      Sure, that is a small sample size, from Brockton, in Massachusetts, during the 1980's, but it is the only sample I have and is about 99% of my interactions with police, so, I am going to say, No, Cope are not 'mostly' trying to be helpful. Mostly they are power-tripping thugs with a gun and a badge that they think gives them a license to kill anyone they want.

    58. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by sjames · · Score: 1

      The generalized situation leads directly to this specific one. If you hire goons, they will act like goons. In every situation they're allowed to touch. If that's not what you want, hire people capable of and inclined to a measured response appropriate to the situation

      Often, the latter will result in friendly and helpful activity.

    59. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "it's rather better to be not getting shot at."

      I'm not sure you understand how being shot at works. You don't get to choose not to be shot at, someone does it against your wishes and desires, often times they give you little-to-no warning. Many times the first shot IS the warning. This is really basic stuff, bordering on what I would assume was common sense.

      Vehicle armor is extremely effective. Body armor is effective enough to be worthwhile, even if it is not as effective as vehicle armor. When I was in Iraq we had E-SAPI plates. One person I know had five 7.62 rounds stopped by a single plate in one firefight- and that is only a 10x12 plate worn on the chest. The plates in my duty vest are rated against armor piercing 30-06 rounds (Level 4). Many of the 1099 program vehicles will defeat most, if not all common rounds used in the United States, and most of the special rounds too.

    60. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Oh, I don't know, maybe because THAT IS THE FUCKING CONTEXT OF THIS DISCUSSION?

      Debating the merits of having a SWAT team at all is not the topic here. A commando raid on your house because you bought an overpriced iPhone is.

    61. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      "People" are generally mostly harmless to me, and if they turn harmful they've got a reasonable chance of being caught and punished. Police carry firearms and can use them almost with impunity. They can also legally haul my ass in and throw me in a jail cell for a few days, something most people simply aren't going to do.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    62. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Was it Mark Fuhrman who faked up the evidence against him? If Simpson had actually committed the murder, he should be grateful to Fuhrman.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    63. Re: Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ha ha. The actual military has rules. And if they think you're going to take them to court over them, they will use their equipment to arrange your death. "We came under attack. We took out the attacker. Turned out to be a rouge civillian/terrorist - he had a gun & some grenades, probably stolen from us." Or you'll be "collateral damage" when they take on someone more important.

    64. Re:Proof of US police incompetence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Flamebait?! Oh dear! A little tyrant is calling out to his mommy! Denial of the fundamentals will be your downfall, mon cher petit général

  3. pigs by iggymanz · · Score: 1, Flamebait

    many militarized city police forces in the USA are now purposely using excessive force to instill a compliance mindset through fear. Sometimes the younger officers get a little too hyped up and gun down innocents. they are disciplined but the order cops still get the benefit of obedience of the terrified masses

    1. Re:pigs by iggymanz · · Score: 1

      sure there are cities with fantastic police forces....but there are more than "once incident of excessive force" in many cities, like in the big city next to me. Cops grabbing women pretending they are investigating prostitution then raping them, beating up people in bars after hours for jollies, members of criminal gangs, gunning down unarmed blacks who are fleeing for their lives....

    2. Re:pigs by HiThere · · Score: 1

      *Will* they be disciplined? More than a slap on the wrist (or possibly on the back)?

      It often turns out the the abusive police are essentially not disciplined...and the departmental reactions are often those that one would expect if the "offenders" were carrying out unofficial department policy. Usually, though, we either don't hear what happens, of the punishment turns out to be a few days off work at full pay.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  4. Shannon Knuth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    Any relation to Donald Knuth?

    I've really learned a great deal from TAOCP. I've gotten to page 10 of book 1.

    1. Re:Shannon Knuth by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I've really learned a great deal from TAOCP. I've gotten to page 10 of book 1.

      Better stop right there, or you'll become over-qualified for any web developer job.

  5. So what did the warrant application say? by John+Jorsett · · Score: 3, Interesting

    It will be interesting to see what the cops claimed in their application for a search warrant, such as their reason to suspect the phone was stolen. Somebody screwed up royally here.

    1. Re:So what did the warrant application say? by alvinrod · · Score: 1

      If they were stolen from a truck, Apple probably had a range of serial numbers (or some other identifier like an IMEI) for the phones that should have been on the truck. I could easily see them getting that wrong in some way or accidentally adding a few additional devices to the list of those suspected stolen. Since someone had bought this one and activated it, it showed up on the grid. I don't know whether or not Apple can see that themselves, but they would have given the numbers to the major carriers who would certainly be able to tell.

      Normally you probably wouldn't expect a huge response over a stolen phone, but from the perspective of the police this one showing up might not just be one phone, but the person who took the whole lot using one of the devices or at least someone related to the criminal enterprise responsible. The cops probably thought that they were busting a criminal with a closet full of stolen goods, or could at least easily imagine that scenario.

      Of course the kind of thieves that would knock off a truck with iPhones in it know better than to activate any of these anywhere in the country. If you're smart enough to learn which truck to hit, and to pull off the theft without getting caught while doing it in a mall parking lot, then it's probably safe to say you know what not to do with your new ill-gotten cargo. These are going to be on their way to Asia or some other part of the world where the carriers don't really give a shit.

    2. Re:So what did the warrant application say? by borcharc · · Score: 1

      It doesn't matter what they say. If you spent some time reviewing issued search warrants it becomes obvious that judges will sign anything put in front of them. They consider themselves on the same team as the police, American justice is beyond broken.

    3. Re:So what did the warrant application say? by angel'o'sphere · · Score: 1

      The 'carriers give a shit' everywhere.
      But no one informs them.

      If you think the world outside of the US is lawless, you are an idiot.

      --
      Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
    4. Re:So what did the warrant application say? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      It would not surprise me if Apple gave them a list of serial numbers of phones which were stolen from the store which included all of the iphones which were supposed to be at that store...AND that Apple also told the police that "this one is registered to this person at this address", with no one at Apple ever cross referencing their database to notice that the owner had actually bought it from the store.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    5. Re:So what did the warrant application say? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they were stolen from a truck, Apple probably had a range of serial numbers (or some other identifier like an IMEI) for the phones that should have been on the truck

      This makes no sense. Ranges of serial numbers are of little value. Apple should know the exact serial number and IMEI of every stolen phone. Apple absolutely does know the IMEI of every phone they have sold. Its a simple matter to subtract the sold phones from the stolen phones before sending a list to the police.

    6. Re:So what did the warrant application say? by MichaelSmith · · Score: 1

      Apple also told the police that "this one is registered to this person at this address"

      But obviously a phone registered in that way could not be a stolen phone because the registration happens when the phone is sold.

    7. Re:So what did the warrant application say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I moderated number of posts on this thread so I stay AC although maybe I should not. It really annoys me that people use abusive statements not bringing anything to the discussion like the end of post here. I feel it is wrong to moderated your comment because it contains also valid point but why this ad hominem ? I sometimes feel agitated too and I understand the urge but in this case there was no trigger to go and throw abuse or?

    8. Re:So what did the warrant application say? by kimvette · · Score: 1

      This. So much this. They know every serial number of every phone they sell. It's even on the receipt. This required very little effort from Apple. They failed, just as the police failed, and I hope the Garcias sue and win big from both the inept police department and from Apple.

      --
      The Christian Right is Neither (Christian nor right). See: Matthew 23, Matthew 25, Ezekiel 16:48-50
    9. Re:So what did the warrant application say? by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      You start with a wildly general statement.

      You end with a criticism of a wildly general statement, that wasn't actually in the GP's post.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    10. Re:So what did the warrant application say? by Attila+Dimedici · · Score: 1

      Well, yes, but the police could not know that because Apple told them it was stolen.

      --
      The truth is that all men having power ought to be mistrusted. James Madison
    11. Re:So what did the warrant application say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The list may have been compiled manually, leaving room for human error. Also you are assuming that the phone was sold before the list was compiled. If it was sold after the list of stolen phones was compiled (as was implied by the summary), how would subtracting sold phones from the list have helped?

    12. Re:So what did the warrant application say? by houghi · · Score: 1

      What might have happened is that the thieves opened the truck and took almost everything, leaving 1 or 2 boxes behind. The person who made the list with IMEI numbers likely was just asked to gove the list of the delivery and that was then send to a different person who send it to the police, thinking it was a list of stolen good, because somebody in their panic said "They took everything". Instead of calmly saying "They took everything, except for phone X that they dropped. It does not look damages, so we will be still selling it."

      Now even IF the person was the thief himself, I still think the action was way over the top. Where I live (Belgium) many police officers would get fired of this. And I am somebody where they broke down the door and was held a gun to my head as king where was.

      Seriously, a storming ram for an iPhone? With me it was just 3 uniformed agents and one that was not.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    13. Re:So what did the warrant application say? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Were any phones actually stolen? I could easily see one of those fly-by-night third party phone subcontractors reporting a missing box of phones to their insurance company, blaming UPS for not delivering the box or even having someone cop the box from the UPS truck or the driver colluding with them to make the box disappear and then selling the phones out of their store at the mall.
      Yeah we know they're almost certain to get caught eventually, but some of these guys aren't the sharpest pencils in the box.

  6. Taxes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    I wonder if the police would launch an assault against a residence on my behalf if someone stole my iPhone... But oh no, taxes are far too high for rich people, we should totally have a flat tax to make things "fair".

  7. Re:first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And also, you are a failure, as your post isn't first. And you are doubly a failure for giving a shit about getting first post.

  8. "Guns are real, ... by Qbertino · · Score: 1

    ... blue uniforms are real, cops are social fiction." - Robert Anton Wilson

    --
    We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
    1. Re:"Guns are real, ... by borcharc · · Score: 2

      Murder is still Murder. Kidnapping is still Kidnapping. Theft is still Theft. Regardless of the costume you wear.

    2. Re:"Guns are real, ... by HiThere · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No murder and kidnapping are not real. They are legal constructs. Killing someone is real, but murder is a legal construct.
      Carrying someone off against their will is real, but kidnapping is a legal construct.

      E.g., depending on the laws (and the lawyers), the exact same instance of carrying someone off against their will could be kidnapping, arresting, or protective custody.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    3. Re:"Guns are real, ... by HornWumpus · · Score: 3, Funny

      Or a marriage proposal.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  9. Incompetence or improper training? by QuietLagoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Instead of being trained not to over-react in situations, it appears as if police are being trained to over-react in situations.

    1. Re:Incompetence or improper training? by bugs2squash · · Score: 2

      That and the three killings a day is why it's clear that the police need more protection against lawsuits.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    2. Re:Incompetence or improper training? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or you could cry bloody murder about this while a fraud and traitor sits in the highest office in the land, sure.

      You don't know how felony warrant serving goes, that's your ignorance. There's nothing overreacting about it, the problem was Apple gave them the wrong device ID saying this was the guy that stole hundreds of thousands of merchandise. He'll get his door paid for, the police will track down the other #'s, and life goes on.

    3. Re:Incompetence or improper training? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      while a fraud and traitor sits in the highest office in the land

      But Clinton got thrown into a van like a side of beef. Our President is President Trump.

      Man, derangement syndrome shows some really Alzheimers-like symptoms when it goes terminal, I guess.

    4. Re:Incompetence or improper training? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      ... more protection against lawsuits.

      The police are above the law and it's time citizens accepted that fact.

    5. Re:Incompetence or improper training? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Cops in the US are trained to neutralize threats vs public safety.

      I'm guessing they were expecting to find 300 iPhone Xs in their apartment.

    6. Re:Incompetence or improper training? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      use-or-lose

  10. USA! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm so glad I don't live in the Usa.. land of the free..

  11. it smells like lawyer time by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    so there's this really good lawyer ...

  12. Apple Swats Customer by MatthiasF · · Score: 0

    Welcome to the walled garden, biaaatch!

  13. USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    FREEDOM!!! The BEST country on EARTH.

    In the US, you are FREE!

  14. Time to sue by chromaexcursion · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wrongful arrest, and a laundry list of other complaints,
    This is SO blatant, it will settle out of court, for a lot of money.

    1. Re:Time to sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're ignorant of reality. He'll get his door paid for, but he was felony warrant detained per the law for less than 48 hours. That's not an arrest. Learn actual law.

    2. Re:Time to sue by kqc7011 · · Score: 2

      If there is a settlement the money ought to come from two people, the officer who requested the warrant and the judge who approved it. However, Qualified Immunity will prevent this. And Qualified Immunity is a legal policy, not a law that has been passed and signed into force.

      --
      Passionately Indifferent
    3. Re:Time to sue by HornWumpus · · Score: 2

      The average settlement for being falsely accused of shoplifting is $50k.

      Apple is almost certainly on the hook in this case. They will settle quickly and quietly, to limit bad press. It will be well over $50k.

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    4. Re:Time to sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's horseshit Wumpus, you're full of it.

    5. Re:Time to sue by borcharc · · Score: 3, Informative

      So what? They will hand over some of the taxpayers dollars and continue to do it again. Monetary damages have no effect on the police, they don't care.

    6. Re:Time to sue by thegarbz · · Score: 0

      Time to sue

      Yep the American solution to everything which evidently does wonders in solving the problems.

    7. Re:Time to sue by ArchieBunker · · Score: 2

      The courts have already proven that if police "believe" they are following the law then they can't be held accountable for wrong doing. Was the response blown out of proportion? Yes. Were any laws actually broken? Sadly not.

      --
      Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    8. Re:Time to sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The alternative for the person that was arrested is do nothing and take the police brutality.

      Why would you, thegarbagz, want people to choose the latter?

    9. Re:Time to sue by gnasher719 · · Score: 2

      If there is a settlement the money ought to come from two people, the officer who requested the warrant and the judge who approved it. However, Qualified Immunity will prevent this. And Qualified Immunity is a legal policy, not a law that has been passed and signed into force.

      There was nothing wrong with the warrant. What was wrong was that the police didn't take the warrant, knock on the door, and ask if they could have a look at the iPhone, but went in with brute force first. I know there are situations where they will break in unannounced, if they suspect armed and dangerous people in the house, or they suspect that evidence could be destroyed very quickly (drugs going down the toilet), but neither was the case here.

    10. Re:Time to sue by gnasher719 · · Score: 1

      Apple is almost certainly on the hook in this case. They will settle quickly and quietly, to limit bad press. It will be well over $50k.

      Except that nobody knows whether and how this was Apple's fault. Just speculation.

    11. Re:Time to sue by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      So what? They will hand over some of the taxpayers dollars and continue to do it again. Monetary damages have no effect on the police, they don't care.

      That old saw. It's not taxpayers on the hook, it's the insurance company. But if you had a line item for "police brutality" on your taxes, maybe you and your fellow sanctified taxpayers may just get motivated enough to do something about it.

    12. Re:Time to sue by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Plus on this occasion, other than the forced entry there doesn't seem to have been an undue level of force.

      I think the police should be responsible for repairs to the property but the arrest itself was legal as per the warrant and while inconvenient was reversed reasonably fast.

    13. Re:Time to sue by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

      How could it not be apple's fault?

      First: For normal theft victims, the cops will write you a report, for you insurance. Fuck off if you want anything more. Note how similar this story is to the dude that found the iPhone prototype in a bar. Apple owns at least a few cops...they jump for Cook.

      Second: Who included this phone in the stolen batch? Could it be anyone but Apple?

      --
      John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
    14. Re:Time to sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And who pays the insurance, dumbass? You'll defend any deplorable piece of shit won't ya?

    15. Re:Time to sue by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The courts have already proven that if police "believe" they are following the law then they can't be held accountable for wrong doing. Was the response blown out of proportion? Yes. Were any laws actually broken? Sadly not.

      Incorrect: the Bill of Rights - the highest law in the land - was violated. The public has a right arising under the 9th Amendment (unspecified rights retained by the people) and the 10th Amendment (unspecified rights reserved to the people) to expect reasonable conduct from government officials.

      As they officer did in fact have reasonable alternative, their behaviour was not reasonable. As such, this constitutes an infringement of fundamental rights "under the colour of law", which under US federal law is both grounds for criminal prosecution, and civil suit. The civil suit option is there to handle the situations where government officials refuse to prosecute their peers in violation of their oaths.

      Further, the 9th Amendment right to ethical practice of law comes into play here: making people scared of their own government creates an artificial demand for the services of lawyers. Even the appearance of conflict of interest must be avoided when alternatives exist - as they clearly did in this case.

      Further, the Nuremberg Precedent can be asserted under the 9th Amendment, and thus is part of US law: I'll let you look that up.

      In short, multiple 9th Amendment violations happened here. The highest law in the land was broken.

      The judge issuing the warrant violated his or her oath to uphold the Bill of Rights, and engaged in unethical practice of law - by failing to ensure that the behaviour of the police was appropriately constrained.

      The same applies to the prosecutor asking for the warrant.

      As this is a matter involving the 9th Amendment, as a matter of ethical practice of law the normal immunity or even right to pardon can not apply: otherwise the government could violate any rights the people might wish to retain and there would be no rights retained by the people (a contradiction, and hence unethical practice of law).

      The police officers, of course, also violated their oaths. There are plenty of ways to make police work a reasonably safe job without the police being the ones to initiate violence (which includes drawing and pointing their weapons). This wouldn't have happened in most civilized countries.

      In short, this is a significant screw up by several people in the government. It will be interesting to see whether they sweep this under the carpet with a quiet settlement - the US legal profession has a huge vested interest in not allowing the 9th Amendment to become a matter of public awareness, and they contribute large sums in the form of campaign contributions to politicians.

      It's worth nothing this sort of thing has happened before. For eample, the owners of King Schools (a flying school) had a similar experience of wrongful arrest a few years back. In that case, the FAA stupidly re-issued a plane identification number for a plane that had been stolen to the flying school - and when the owner/instructors landed their plane, a legally purchased plane which had been mistakenly given the number of a previously stolen plane, the police were waiting for them, pointed their guns, and made an arrest - without bothering to get any of the facts.

      No police officer should ever draw a gun unless there are reasonable grounds to use it - a clear and present danger, not just a potential danger - and that used to be the way they were trained. It still is - in many countries.

    16. Re:Time to sue by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      And who pays the insurance, dumbass?

      Insurance rates don't skyrocket after a single incident, dumberass.

      You'll defend any deplorable piece of shit won't ya?

      That would people the people bitching about taxpayers paying for police brutality, slick. Look in the mirror.

  15. Im guessing? by Hentai007 · · Score: 1

    Some anonymous informant told the cops he was too poor to afford an iphone and suddenly had one?

    I guess the SWAT type tatics were used because the more you use it the easier it is to justify the cost?

  16. Re: USAmericans Love Their #Freedumbs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yes because omg this happens everyday and only in America! Cops in other places are perfect because there is zero crime!

    One of my British coworkers honestly believed you can legally walk the streets anywhere in the US with a 50 caliber machine gun.

  17. Greetings from China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hello from Xingxiao China. Something is wrong in your country. Your police are acting very irresponsibly.

    1. Re:Greetings from China by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Post something about your Mr. Xi like what has been posted here about President Trump on your PRC government mandated man-in-the-middle'd Internet connection, and see where that gets you. Then come back and tell us something is wrong with *our* country.

  18. They never by denisbergeron · · Score: 1

    Do this for my wrangler.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
  19. who reported them as having the phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I assume Apple? But then Apple would have a purchase record. Sounds strange.

    1. Re:who reported them as having the phone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apple spyware built into the phone ratted him out.

  20. Re: Over-militarized pigs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    No, that won't solve anything. That's counterproductive, and I sincerely hope you don't mean that.

    I'll tell you what needs to happen. Police need to understand that it's their job to protect and serve the people, rather than to enforce the law through any means necessary. Police need to fear the people, that if they abuse their power, they will face the same consequences as anyone else. They need to fear that if they cross the line and use excessive force, there will be lengthy prison sentences. Police need to understand that they work for the people, and that the people will hold them accountable when they fail in their obligations.

    Unfortunately, there's a segment of the American public that seems to defend the police no matter what. This has unfortunately become clear in the recent killings of unarmed black men by police. Even when the circumstances are egregious, there are people who will continue to defend the police. As long as the people are split on this issue, there won't be any reform.

  21. The worst gang is that, with a monopoly on power. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And that's the only difference.
    Where it should be, that more power comes with a higher risk and *higher* punishment when abusing it. Not a lower one.

    Frankly, there are Mafias who would probably literally do a better job. And be cheaper too.
    At least you could be sure that they would be fired (often quite literally) if they fucked-up.

  22. Wait, let me get this straight.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A crowbar, battering ram, and a posse of SFPD....for an iphone. A phone. Wow. What the fuck.

  23. SubjectIsSubject by p0p0 · · Score: 1

    The UK sounds like such a police-state shithole.

  24. New sales slogan by Tablizer · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "Nobody's got beaten over an Android"

    1. Re:New sales slogan by Actually,+I+do+RTFA · · Score: 1

      That's not true. When those Androids were catching fire, people got beaten and arrested over trying to bring phones on their planes.

      --
      Your ad here. Ask me how!
    2. Re:New sales slogan by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      psst, ad slogans are not intended for accuracy

    3. Re: New sales slogan by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      At least until we live in caves of steel...

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
  25. wtf is wrong with you americans? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    wtf is wrong with you Americans?

    The whole country is just a joke in the eyes of the rest of the world.

  26. Sue by Berkyjay · · Score: 1

    Sue the department back to the stone ages. It's the only way they'll change their "M.O."

    1. Re:Sue by kobaz · · Score: 2

      That only works if you're a billionaire...

      Look at all the recent cases where police shot and killed unarmed people, beat suspects to death, and all around committed crimes that would put anyone else in gitmo. And what happened after it all went to court????

      NOTHING!

      --

      The goal of computer science is to build something that will last at least until we've finished building it.
    2. Re:Sue by sjames · · Score: 1

      Also sue Apple for selling a phone and then reporting it stolen.

    3. Re:Sue by swb · · Score: 2

      It doesn't even work for people who have legitimate claims. They're fairly fenced in by accepted losses and settlement amounts, and most people need to get back to living their lives or need the settlement money to get out of the hole being beat senseless and losing their jobs. Plus even the best motivated attorneys are going to advise most of them that whatever the proposed settlement amount is, it's as good as they can expect and that a trial may make it much less or none at all.

      I actually think the civil claims process it the wrong place to seek to "solve" the police violence problem. The real issue is that prosecutors are basically on the same team as the police and just will not do much to prosecute cops.

      I think there needs to be a completely separate court & prosecution system for law enforcement that ONLY handles police misconduct. It should have its own investigators. With this, you'd at least have a prosecution system less influenced by every day law enforcement and prosecution also trying to handle police misconduct.

    4. Re:Sue by pauljlucas · · Score: 1

      Also sue Apple for selling a phone and then reporting it stolen.

      Nothing in the linked-to article says Apple did that.

      --
      If you reply, do so only to what I explicitly wrote. If I didn't write it, don't assume or infer it.
    5. Re:Sue by Zxern · · Score: 1

      Someone had to report it stolen, how else would police have tracked them down through the phone? They didn't report it stole, the carrier didn't, the only one who could have was Apple.

  27. death penalty for these cops by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    with great responsibility comes great punishment.

  28. The problem is lack of police accountability by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Even when cases of police shooting unarmed people who were sticking up there hands get investigated they are done so by the police departments involved in committing the crime in the first place. There is a lack of police accountability when the person investigating is the same person who was at your wedding. Unfortunately this is exactly what happens and is routine. We need independent organizations which prohibit anybody whom is involved in government or has been apart of government or any government body or even knows anybody in government from sitting on the board which whose job it is then to investigate government crime.

  29. But its more fun to gear up and break down doors by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Police are people too, they deserve to have fun when they can for putting their lives on the line every day!

  30. Re: USAmericans Love Their #Freedumbs! by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Yes because omg this happens everyday and only in America!

    Somehow I wouldn't be too surprised if this particular thing actually did. Other places have their own problems, too, but usually with other things than policetary asaults on the population. In most other places, cops don't have enough money for such exercises.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  31. Trumps America by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Welcome to Trumps wet dream of a police state

    1. Re:Trumps America by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

      You have that wrong. All that started under the last administration. Remember? Trump is trying to stop it.

  32. Shameful moderation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I posted the parent comment in a good faith attempt to point out that BLM is a prominent organization that supports responsible policing. I posted this to point out that excessive use of police force is a problem for everyone, and perhaps we ought to work together to demand police reform. For no obvious reason, my comment was moderated to -1.

    This story isn't a technology story. It's a story about police abusing their power that just happens to involve an iPhone X. Comments about police using excessive force are absolutely relevant to this story, even though it's not clear how this is relevant to Slashdot.

    The moderation on this site is useless, and it reflects the dumbing down of Slashdot. There was a time when there were passionate disagreements in comment threads, and posts on both sides were moderated to +5. The users were generally able to moderate based on the quality of the post and whether it was insightful, rather than simply whether they agree or disagree with it. These days, we have political stories that stir up dissent and moderators seem to use their mod points based on whether they agree or disagree with comments. Moderators with liberal views mod down conservative posts. Moderators with conservative views mod down liberal posts. The quality of discussions are terrible and Slashdot has been dumbed down to barely above the level of discussions in Facebook comments.

    I'd like to think nerds are smart enough to put aside political differences and appreciate even logic and reason we disagree with. I suppose I was wrong. I started reading and posting on Slashdot in the late 1990s. Perhaps it's time to follow the exodus of long-time readers of this site.

    1. Re:Shameful moderation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You posted an obvious offtopic lie and got correctly downmodded. Quit your bitching.

    2. Re: Shameful moderation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What specific parts of my post were untrue? If my post is a lie, as you claim, you should have no problem saying specifically what was false. Put up or shut up.

      As for it being off-topic, I specifically addressed the issues or the article about excessive use of police force. At best, it's your opinion that my post was off-topic.

    3. Re: Shameful moderation by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The primary purpose of Black Lives Matter is to call attention to the disproportionate use of force against black people. However, they are more generally concerned about excessive use of force by the police and the militarization of the police.

      Is a lie. BLM is all about race. Poor white 'trailer trash' are their natural ally against cops, but BLM hates them, calls them rednecks. It's right in the name.

  33. If only they had computers to track this stuff by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I'm wondering why Apple's computers couldn't track this down right? I mean they're collecting all my personal info, how could they screw it up?

  34. Suspect detained but not arrested by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Article doesn't indicate person hauled of to police station was arrested, that is how police avoid a lot of those civil suites. The police should not be able to remove you from a location unless they arrest you & a false arrest should always have consequences for either police or person who accused the victim.

  35. All that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    For a phone.
    Wow.
    Guess I'll make sure to keep all my receipts, who knows when insane cops will come crashing down the door.

  36. stolen iphone sold at apple store??? by FudRucker · · Score: 2

    sounds like those stolen phones were an inside job, they should be investigating apple store employees and managers

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  37. Former police chief shocked at this? by Zontar_Thing_From_Ve · · Score: 4, Informative

    Guess he doesn't read the news then. Just a few weeks ago it made national news where a "swatting" incident happened and an innocent man was shot dead by police after they got a call claiming that the house where he lived had a hostage situation. Cops showed up in force under the assumption the call could only be true, made no attempt to determine if there was actually a hostage situation or not, and when the owner came out they shot him dead, claiming they thought he was armed. That wasn't the first time police showed up on a swatting call and made no attempt to determine the validity of it before taking action, but the previous ones usually don't end in death of a citizen. Cops routinely shoot unarmed civilians because the cop is "scared". So the only surprise to me is not that the cops went in like this but that the homeowner is still actually alive because I'd have expected a hair trigger hyped up cop to be ready to gun anybody down at a moment's notice.

    1. Re:Former police chief shocked at this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Guess he doesn't read the news then. Just a few weeks ago it made national news where a "swatting" incident happened and an innocent man was shot dead by police[...]

      Bzzzt. We are not talking about an "innocent man" but an entirely unrelated man. He wasn't even the target of the swatter. An actual target may even have a better chance at survival than an unrelated person because he might recognize the situation faster for what it is.

    2. Re:Former police chief shocked at this? by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      We are not talking about an "innocent man" but an entirely unrelated man.

      No distinction or difference, pedant.

  38. Re:The Nazi's wanted to Make Germany Great Again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kill the traitors, no appeasement for nazi faggots, Amen.

  39. Here is what likely happened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Truck claims 300 iPhone Xs stolen.

    Fewer than that stolen, or iPhone Xs not stolen as reported, or some put back in inventory.

    Phone with that IMEA number sold to Garcia.

    Police see phone registered to Garcia and go "AHA! Time to arrest."

    They bust in, arrest, and then find legal receipt for iPhone X.

    Garcia goes free, police embarrassed.

    Someone lied about the theft of the iPhone Xs in some way. Maybe it was actually an insurance claim? Or a UPS workers heist?

    1. Re: Here is what likely happened... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      - Apple employee notices 250 iPhones missing in shipment from truck
      - Apple employee has money making idea
      - Apple employee reports 300 iPhones missing; some he kept and some were stocked and sold normally (so when this gets looked into he has some plausible deniability "ah some were actually here? Maybe I reported it wrongly--my bad")
      - This Garcia guy unluckily gets one of the stocked-but-reported-stolen ones

      Just one possibility.

  40. There has to be paper work by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

    So the public can find out all the names, Judge included that authorized this for a single iPhone?
    Everyone from the Judge, along with all supervisors in the chain of command that signed off, need to removed from public service.

    But that will never happen! They are public servants protected by their unions and the most they get will be a paid week off. And a request to be a little more careful! "NOT" like that will happen ;)

    Until these individuals are removed from public service nothing will change. Paid vacations will not make a change happen.

    This is especially important because we have little idiots(criminals) doing this swatting thing for cred/fun for the internet/self gratification.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

    1. Re:There has to be paper work by jaa101 · · Score: 1

      that authorized this for a single iPhone?

      The story will be that they were hoping that this one iPhone would provide clues on the theft of all 300 that were stolen. If it was one of the stolen batch then finding out how the purchasers obtained it could help the police to trace the thieves. Unfortunately it looks like Apple screwed up and marked an iPhone they sold normally as being one of the 300 stolen.

    2. Re:There has to be paper work by oldgraybeard · · Score: 1

      I am sure you are right! but still ;)

  41. Re:The Nazi's wanted to Make Germany Great Again! by FudRucker · · Score: 0

    you make a good point, when fascism comes to america it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross, and these fucking idiots on slashdot modded you down are part of the problem because they dont see it either

    --
    Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
  42. The dog survive by Bruinwar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The dog is lucky it was small & cute & didn't get shot. She was lucky they allowed her a towel when she was sitting on the couch while law enforcement officers were rummaging through their home. He's lucky he was able to keep his mouth shut & they didn't knock him around a bit before taking him in. They are all lucky to be alive to tell their tale.

    --
    SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
    1. Re:The dog survive by atherophage · · Score: 1

      Lucky to be alive; still rattled. Both are likely to be employed; both will not be 100% on task the next day at work. Who pays for the loss of productivity - a loss that could persist? Sleepless nights? This is an event not soon to be forgotten by those falsely accused.

    2. Re:The dog survive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is not likely to be employed for much longer now that he has an arrest on his record.

    3. Re:The dog survive by Bruinwar · · Score: 1

      Nope, they just "detained" him. No arrest.

      --
      SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
    4. Re:The dog survive by SuiteSisterMary · · Score: 1

      If you don't feel like you're allowed to leave, you're under arrest. They don't need to say any magic words.

      He was handcuffed and put into a squad car; he was under arrest.

      --
      Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
  43. Re:The Nazi's wanted to Make Germany Great Again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hitler Did Nothing Wrong.

  44. Re:The Nazi's wanted to Make Germany Great Again! by sjames · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up

  45. Sue Apple by Bruha · · Score: 1

    At minimum I would sue them for a new phone as it came out for the rest of my unnatural life along with free Apple PCs etc.

    And a billion dollars. They screwed up and the man is lucky the police didnâ(TM)t shoot him and his wife.

    1. Re:Sue Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But, the police didn't shoot anyone so the actual damages are minimal - indeed, it sounds like there wasn't even property damage (there's no mention of the battering ram being used).

      About the only claim would be for emotional distress and that would be minimal unless one or both of these people are willing to make up a PTSD claim and live the rest of their lives (or at least a few years) putting up with therapy and continuing the charade (such as not working because PTSD prevents them from doing so) and fooling friends and family also.

      They probably couldn't find a lawyer to take it on contingency and probably, even in the best case if they are unwilling to perjure themselves, the award would be far less than their legal fees if they "self fund" a suit.

  46. Cops are out of control! And nobody cares.. *sigh* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I was really hoping that society could hold together for at least forty more years, but now? Who knows?

  47. Re:The Nazi's wanted to Make Germany Great Again! by HornWumpus · · Score: 1

    Obama is out of office now. We're OK in the short term. One or two dead SC justices and we're good for a generation or two.

    The current, somewhat popular, fascists are waving hammer and sickle flags. But they're just fringe loonies, no power off university campuses.

    --
    John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
  48. Re: Over-militarized pigs... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And there's another segment of the American public that seems to oppose the police, no matter what.

  49. Art of Computer Programming by hraponssi · · Score: 2

    Knuth could've just showed them some of the more cryptic pages from the collected volumes in Art of Computer Programming. They would've run away in terror. Or maybe they would've been arrested for that actually..

  50. A friend had Best Buy email re iPhone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Best Buy emailed my friend that her iPhone X was being delivered to an address in Texas from someone else's credit card in Wisconsin. We live in NY. Best Buy told UPS to send it back to the warehouse in N. Carolina before delivery was completed. There is a lot of credit card games being played over this holiday season. Police reports were filed.

  51. Re:The Nazi's wanted to Make Germany Great Again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Another place you'll never cut it, college. Your nazi faggot tears are delicious, I can't wait to hear your whiny bitching when Trump goes to prison and dies there lol. You're a faggot, not an American. Say Hi to Vlad when you blow him.

  52. Not one to let this slide by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Every day is a good day for a lesson. The cops have a lot on their plate, but they can learn lessons too. Smashing a door: damages: at least $600 for the door, around another $1000 for the casing. Ruining the rug in the front and other incidentals (smashed lamp, entry table): $1000. Cleaning apartment $7500. Loss of damaged, irreplacable heirlooms: $35000. Injury to persons, loss of income, mental distress: $140,000 (if there were injuries incurred, then also physiotherapy, loss of income, potentially $1,500,000-$3,500,000).
    Also public apology: priceless, but informative for the future
    Tally: Lower limit: $185,000.-
                        Upper limit: $3,685,100.-
    A quick "sorry our mistake" isn't going to cut it. A public apology, a large payout, and a promise to do better will cut it. Its the best kind of lesson: the kind that hurts. If it doesn't hurt, then there is no lesson. If its not inconvenient, then its not a lesson. Its like fines to large companies with massive amounts of money: they don't work, it doesn't work, its not a lesson. Suspending a business license for n-days where n depends on the serious nature of the offense *will* hurt. Don't like the fine, don't do the crime.

  53. Re:The Nazi's wanted to Make Germany Great Again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And somehow no one saw any of this coming... and we can't see it today either.

    Oh, you can. You just want it to happen. The "can't see it" thing is for afterwards.

  54. Police are worse than nazis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    What kind of horrible person doesn't question such an order? Those cops actually thought it seemed reasonable to show up in force with a battering ram for a phone?

    I hate all of the police. Those people are lucky they weren't shot and killed. Lucky they don't own a dog, because cops sadistically enjoy shooting those too.

    1. Re:Police are worse than nazis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      apple probably bribed all the police involved in this.

  55. frisco by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    REMEMBER THE MURDER OF IAN MURDOCH, creator of Debian Linux and leading member of the Free Software community, killed Christmas 2015 by the notoriously corrupt San Francisco police department.

  56. Gee, really? by sootman · · Score: 1

    One former police chief says the way it was handled "kind of boggles the mind..."

    It's almost as if the police are power-tripping self-righteous morons whose starting assumption is that they're never wrong, and in fact can't be wrong, so the ONLY obvious course of action is to go full-nuclear in every situation. Who knew...

    --
    Dear Slashdot: next time you want to mess with the site, add a rich-text editor for comments.
  57. Another Reason not to buy Apple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... Remotely activated swatting in their products.

  58. Lesson Learned by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't buy an iPhone X. You don't even want to know the penalty for jailbreaking one is.

  59. Re: first post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Subsequent post!

  60. dumb cops by JustNiz · · Score: 1

    Apparently just politely checking first was too hard for the cops to think about.

  61. Two Questions Come To Mind... by magusxxx · · Score: 1

    1) Does this police department get to keep confiscated property if the person is found guilty? You know, like certain police departments whose budget relies on doing just that.

    2) Was it really 300 phones? Or was it 250 phones and someone added an extra 50 to the insurance claim? This could explain how actual sold phones were mysteriously added to the list.

    --
    Care killed the cat, but satisfaction brought it back.
    1. Re:Two Questions Come To Mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or it could just be that someone gave the police the manifest of phones in the original shipment and didn't realize that the shipment had been split into two by UPS and that some of those phones had been sold (or, even, were sitting in the back room and were sold a couple days later). Most likely this was a stupid "clerical" error by Apple and not an attempt to scam an insurance company or UPS -- Apple really doesn't need to do that.

    2. Re:Two Questions Come To Mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The person doesn't have to be guilty for them to keep the property. Look up Civil Forfeiture. They can keep anything they want without ever charging anyone with a crime. The phone may have been used to communicate with a criminal, so we get to keep it. The cash in your wallet might have come from a drug sale, so we get to keep it. Your car may have been used to transport stolen goods, so we get to keep it. A drug sale might have occured in your house so (unless you can absolutely prove differently with security footage of every square inch of your property for every second that you've owned it) we get to keep it. The cops are the thieves. That's why they had the battering ram....they were going to shut down the competition.

      Lol, Captcha: pardoned

    3. Re:Two Questions Come To Mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought it was supposedly stolen out of a mall parking lot. So, I thought whatever store it was supposedly being delivered to would have filed an insurance claim.

    4. Re:Two Questions Come To Mind... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are misinformed. Many times the police get to keep the confiscated property without ever even having to file charges. They have no incentive to actually collect evidence, since it doesn't matter if a conviction results. Under the civil forfeiture laws all they need is reasonable cause to believe the assets are being used as part of a criminal activity. No conviction is necessary. Usually they get to keep 80% of the value.

    5. Re:Two Questions Come To Mind... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The person doesn't have to be found guilty. The police can take stuff and claim it was involved in a crime, and at that point it gets real hard to stop them legally. The Supreme Court has ignored the Fourth Amendment and allowed civil forfeiture to continue.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  62. Apple Phone Users Lives Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This rampant police brutality against Apple Phone Users has to stop.

    1. Re:Apple Phone Users Lives Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe he was punished for being a fanboi in forums.

  63. Re: USAmericans Love Their #Freedumbs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Doesnt happen in France.
    Doesnt happen in Sweden.
    Doesnt happen RIGHT NEXT DOOR in Canada.

    I hope you get to experience the prideful handgun ownership of a family member killing themself with your freedom penis replacement. Dont worry, it's only twice as likely as you shooting a robber! And maybe the cops who come to shoot you will only grab your wife by the pussy. Maybe. But the important thing is it's a lawful society alright! Just like the Founding Fatherlanders(tm) envisioned!

    #freedumbs

  64. Re: The Nazi's wanted to Make Germany Great Again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Do you enjoy fellating banksters, or do you just do it for the money?

  65. Welcome to Brazil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    They should not have released him. Who keeps receipts that long.

    1. Re:Welcome to Brazil by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Depends on the warranty of the product. I still have my receipts for my electric stove and electric generators bought last 2014. No time to sort out those old receipts in my filing cabinet. But good point, the receipt should have specific serial number for the unit sold. Who knows, maybe it was a receipt of a different "not stolen" unit.

  66. Just remember.... by Rick+Zeman · · Score: 1

    ...a SWAT team's like a penis. If you have one, you're gonna want to use it.

  67. Re:The Nazi's wanted to Make Germany Great Again! by Vermonter · · Score: 1

    Think about it....

    They wanted to make their country great again...
    They had a crazy leader that everyone followed blindly...

    "Crazy" and "Extremely brash and right leaning" are not the same, but regardless...

    Their leader called himself a Christian but was anything but...

    The same argument could be made about the majority of US presidents

    They forced kids to say pledges of allegiance in school...

    Requiring kids to say the pledge of allegiance is a matter of state laws (and not all states require it). Also this has been around for many decades.

    They militarized their police force and knocked down doors...

    Police militarization has been happening since before Trump, and includes Democrat presidents as well.

    They created their own media and claimed everyone else as false...

    The left is just as guilty as the right on this one. In fact media outlets in the US are far more likely to lean left than right.

    They created a government rule to give him more power at his request...

    Again, the same was happening under Obama, and also Bush Jr.

    And somehow no one saw any of this coming... and we can't see it today either.

    Plenty of people have been witnessing it and complaining, but when a Republican is doing it, Republicans tend to ignore it, and when a Democrat is doing it, Democrats tend to ignore it.

  68. Another lease on life by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the guy was lucky he wasn't executed right there and then. His wife, too.

  69. Insurance fraud ? by AncalagonTotof · · Score: 1

    Did the store add not stolen phones to the list of stolen ones ? Just to get more money from the insurance ?

    --
    Totof
  70. This is crazy by stikves · · Score: 1

    I had a friend whose laptop (Apple brand), money and passports were stolen from the car. There was at least several thousand dollars of property theft and damage.

    Thanks to Apple tracking, they were able to locale the address of the burglar, and asked police to help. Did the police enter the house with a battering ram? No, the knocked the door, asked a few questions, and left. Even though they knew the stolen property was inside that address they did nothing. They did not pursue the case any longer, and my friend was left with no recourse.

    And the incident happened in the Bay Area, same area where they behaved much differently to a person who was not even a suspect. I'm not sure what to say about the inconsistency of the conduct.

    1. Re:This is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The police here were tracking a much larger theft than your friend's burglary. 300 iphones vs. one laptop, some money (I assume the amount of cash a person would typically have on themselves -- but unless they had the serial number), and a passport which has minimal value (cost of replacement is not high).

      Police generally will spend more energy on a $150,000 crime than a $4,000 crime.

    2. Re:This is crazy by jaa101 · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure what to say about the inconsistency of the conduct.

      Searching for thieves who stole 300 iPhones is in a different league to chasing "several thousand dollars of property theft."

    3. Re:This is crazy by PPH · · Score: 1

      several thousand dollars of property theft

      That is probably over the minimum limit for grand theft. So, a felony charge right there. And many police departments realize that chasing a single theft (even smaller) often leads them to larger rings of criminals. And greater recoveries of stolen property. All of which look better on the 5 o'clock news.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:This is crazy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, the knocked the door, asked a few questions, and left.

      They probably realized hat this guy was paid up for his protection.

    5. Re:This is crazy by rainer_d · · Score: 1

      Due to the larger theft (the lot of 300 iPhones) and the publicity behind the heist, some ADA probably wants to make a name for himself.

      If people are looking for who to blame, this is where I would start.

      --
      Windows 2000 - from the guys who brought us edlin
  71. Re: Black Lives Matter by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Interesting side note... The iPhone X was originally named iPhone Little. But it chose to reject its slave name and changed its name to iPhone X.

  72. iPhone X by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "This was clearly an incident that should have just been a knock and talk, a couple detectives come to the door, knock on the door and they would have gathered the same info that they gathered after they put him in handcuffs and hauled him off to jail."

    Not when you live in a police state.

  73. Proof by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That phone is important enough to law enforcement (and intelligence) to even have that much data to get a suspect, though the wrong one, and use a battering ram over a smart phone. What a creepy as hell product.

  74. Be in a fascist country, enjoy fascist method by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    In the *entire* EU it is illegal to arrest you without proof. If it's needed to search a private property
    they only can do that, not arrest you until the proof is verified.

    1. Re:Be in a fascist country, enjoy fascist method by Cederic · · Score: 1

      In the *entire* EU it is illegal to arrest you without proof

      Bullshit.

      I mean, look at the phrasing. "You are under arrest on suspicion of ..."

      No proof required.

  75. Details about the heist? by Chewbacon · · Score: 1

    Wonder if the suspects were thought to be armed. That would give some idea as to why a warrant was served in this manner.

    --
    Chewbacon
    The Bible is like Wikipedia: written by a bunch of people and verifiable by questionable sources.
  76. walls by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

    If Garcia and his wife had just had a walled garden this wouldn't have happened.

  77. Re:The dog survived by Bruinwar · · Score: 1

    He better be able to keep his job. He's gonna need to pay off that phone... the receipt shows he paid $1498.84! Holy crap! & I thought my S8 was too expensive at $180 (after the credits, rebates, & trading in my S7 with a cracked screen).

    --
    SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
  78. U.S.: Often angry, unstable people are leaders. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Collapse of U.S. society? More details of the collapse:

    Links about Trump
    from 18 different organizations

    Trump moving toward starting a nuclear war:

    > Trump Says His "Nuclear Button" Is "Much Bigger" Than North Korea's (Jan. 2, 2018, New York Times)
    Two unstable people threaten each other.

    > How Does Trump Trump Trump? Start a War. (Jan. 6, 2018, Huffington Post)

    > Cartoon: "My nuclear button is bigger than yours!"" (Jan. 4, 2018, Gary Varvel at ArcaMax.com)

    Trump's lies:

    > In 298 days, President Trump has made 1,628 false and misleading claims. (Nov. 13, 2017, Washington Post)

    > President Trump's Lies, the Definitive List (Dec. 14, 2017, New York Times)

    > In a 30-minute interview, President Trump made 24 false or misleading claims. (Dec. 29, 2017, Washington Post)

    > 10 Falsehoods From Trump's Interview With The Times (Dec. 29, 2017, New York Times)

    > Trump takes credit for zero aviation deaths worldwide. (Jan. 2, 2018, Trump's Twitter account)
    Replies:
    "I'm gonna take credit for puppies being cute..."
    "Guess who's responsible for designing the cute kangaroo pouches that keep little Joeys safe? That right, it was Me. ME. ME!"
    "That's a job well done, thank you, but don't forget I gave dolphins their blowholes! Without me, they would've drowned!"

    Books about Trump:

    > Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House by Michael Wolff (Published Jan. 5, 2018)
    Four days after publication, there were 1,432 customer reviews; 82% were 5-star reviews.

    > Trumpocracy: The Corruption of the American Republic by David Frum (Published Jan. 16, 2018)

    > Devil's Bargain: Steve Bannon, Donald Trump, and the Storming of the Presidency by Joshua Green (Published July 18, 2017)

    > Collusion: Secret Meetings, Dirty Money, and How Russia Helped Donald Trump Win by Luke Harding (Published Nov. 16, 2017)

    > It's Even Worse Than You Think: What the Trump Administration Is Doing to America by David Cay Johnston (Published Jan. 16, 2018)

    Sexual abuse:

    > The 19 Women Who Accused President Trump of Sexual Misconduct (Dec. 7, 2017, The Atlantic.com)

    Trump is said to have paid to avoid publicity:
    Lawyer paid $130k to silence adult-film star over sexual encounter with Trump: report (Jan. 12, 20

  79. Citizens, Clean up Your Police Forces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Citizens, now is the time to clean up your Police Forces.

    Our town doesn't have these problems because we got rid of all the bad apples, and replaced them with good citizens who want to raise their families here, and be a part of our community, not macho cop wannabees.

    You can do it in your towns and cities too, but it takes a concerted effort by the citizens to make it happen.

    Do it now, before it's too late for you to make positive change.

  80. Is Apple Paying Police? by BrendaEM · · Score: 1

    This is not the first time that the police have been Apple's goons.

    Ye, when people were shooting in Oakland, the police would not even come out.

    --
    https://www.youtube.com/c/BrendaEM
    1. Re:Is Apple Paying Police? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's because the people shooting in Oakland were of the right political beliefs. Or rather, I should say, the left political beliefs.

  81. Another good reason by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    never to buy a phone from Apple.

  82. Re:The Nazi's wanted to Make Germany Great Again! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > In fact media outlets in the US are far more likely to lean left than right.

    Imagine actually believing this, christ americans are totally brainwashed.
       

  83. Lesson learned by PPH · · Score: 2

    Never open the door for the police.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  84. Miranda warning by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Cops are not obligated to read you your rights until they begin an official interrogation. As such, it is in their interests to postpone that as long as possible so that you might incriminate yourself before you are Mirandized. Anything you say will be admissible as long as they were not 'questioning' you at the time. Yes, this does suck. No, you will not prevail on appeal.

    Do not talk to cops in their official capacity. They are professionals at talking to you, you are an amateur at talking to them.

    Further, if you are talking and it is not being actively recorded, cops can mis-remember what you said and how you said it. Nothing can stop the dishonest cop from lying, but silence will prevent the many honest cops from mis-remembering.

    So, stop talking. Seriously.

    1. Re:Miranda warning by jwhyche · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Damn Straight. The first words our of your mouth should be "I want my lawyer." Then shut the fuck up till you get one.

      --
      I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    2. Re:Miranda warning by Tuidjy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Cops are not obligated to read you your rights until they begin an official interrogation. As such, it is in their interests to postpone that as long as possible so that you might incriminate yourself before you are Mirandized. Anything you say will be admissible as long as they were not 'questioning' you at the time.

      Are you a corrupt cop trying to mislead people, or are you just completely ignorant of what you're talking about?

      This is how it works:
      - first of all, the police are not obligated to read you your Miranda rights, at all. It is in their interest to do so as soon as they detain you.
      - if you are detained in any way, that is, if your freedom of movement and action is restricted, nothing you can say can be used against you unless you have already been read your Miranda rights.
      - if you are not under any restrictions, i.e. free to move, leave, etc. but talk to the officers, everything you reveal can be used in court. That includes stuff you show them, contents of areas where you invite them, and of course anything you say.

      In the specific case, the police had already arrested the man. They have no interest in delaying the Miranda briefing. What police officers do is NOT detain the person, and just talk to him. Completely different situation.

      As for not talking to police officers... it depends. I've been in law enforcement myself (as military, long time ago, in a country far far away) and have talked to US police officers while aware of the pertaining laws multiple times. It's never gotten me in trouble, and has often saved me a lot of inconvenience and probably a fair bit of money. Police are people. They respond well to being treated as such. All you have to do is be less abrasive than the people whose interests conflict with yours... although if those are the police officers themselves, tough shit.

      I am not a lawyer, though. Clamming up when confronted by police may save you a ton of trouble! But the first thing you should ask a police officer is "Am I detained, sir/ma'am?"

      --
      No good deed goes unpunished...
    3. Re:Miranda warning by Cederic · · Score: 2

      But the first thing you should ask a police officer is "Am I detained, sir/ma'am?"

      I'd ditch the sir/ma'am. It immediately puts you in a position of showing respect to the individual (even if you only meant it to their uniform) and while I wouldn't show contempt, I think it's important to demonstrate that they have no superiority over you.

      My interactions with the police (in the UK, Germany, America and Morocco) have all been respectful and relaxed, without use of honorifics. Even when I've broken the law, an opening smile and relaxed greeting has massively helped the subsequent conversation.

    4. Re:Miranda warning by Highdude702 · · Score: 1

      they can not detain you without reading you your rights either, if they put you in handcuffs and take you anywhere before you were read your rights, you have been kidnapped. go to your best local lawyer and file a suit. obviously after you haven't told the cops anything except "I want my lawyer"

    5. Re:Miranda warning by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      US police expect a certain level of subservience from "civilians". Old white guys get away with calling them out, but as a racially ambiguous large male, I'll stick with sir / ma'am.

      I once tried to diffuse an obviously irritated cop with a smile and a wave. The neighbor of my girlfriend at the time.
      This resulted in getting pulled over by a buddy of his and threatened because I "disrespected him in front of his wife".
      The cop in question wasn't allowed to pull over his neighbors because he had been in trouble for throwing his weight around previously.

    6. Re:Miranda warning by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Did you raise an official complaint? Sounds like harassment to me.

      Police officer or not, I'd cause them grief over shit like that.

    7. Re:Miranda warning by pnutjam · · Score: 1

      No, I was too young and inexperienced.
      Even now, I would fear retaliation, which is why most complaints go unfiled.

    8. Re:Miranda warning by null+etc. · · Score: 1

      I think it's important to demonstrate that they have no superiority over you.

      Cops absolutely DO have superiority over you. They can "interpret" your act of putting your hand into your pocket as a material threat to their lives, if they choose, and not be punished for killing you in response. Hell, I'm sure they could even claim they thought you were trying to pull a gun out of your nose, if they had to.

    9. Re:Miranda warning by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Cops absolutely DO have superiority over you.

      No, and establishing up front (through relaxed courtesy) that they don't helps remind them of this.

      They can "interpret" your act of putting your hand into your pocket as a material threat to their lives, if they choose, and not be punished for killing you in response. Hell, I'm sure they could even claim they thought you were trying to pull a gun out of your nose, if they had to.

      Being a mindless thug doesn't make someone superior.

    10. Re:Miranda warning by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are YOU trying to mislead people? If you are in a community you trust, and you feel like taking the risk, go ahead and talk to the police.

      Speeding and get pulled over? I'd probably talk to the cops. You both know what is going on. Cops knock and your door to ask you questions? Hell no. You are at a severe disadvantage and what you say can ONLY hurt you.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

    11. Re:Miranda warning by vux984 · · Score: 1

      At the very least, I'd respond in kind. Police have usually addressed me as sir, there's no reason I wouldn't return the favor.

      Plus you need to call them -something-; if you don't know anything else to call them 'sir/maam' is a reasonable placeholder.

  85. 'Whoops! My Bad, here's some cash' by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Saying 'Whoops! My bad," would at least be a start. Admitting the error is important, and it isn't always a given.

    The US would benefit greatly by having mandatory reporting of activity of this type at the national level. As it is, there is not even an authoritative number for police killings of civilians each year.

    "What gets measured, gets managed."

    Also, "here's some cash," seems like the least they could do.

  86. Remind me... by MerlTurkin · · Score: 2

    ...to never buy an iPhone. Never mind, I'll remember.

  87. Police State by jwhyche · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How do you know you live in a police state?

    When you fear the police more than you fear the people the police are supposed to be protecting you against.

    --
    I read at +2. If your post doesn't reach that level I will not see or respond to it.
    1. Re:Police State by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Compton & Watts for example.

  88. Regarding consequences by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Convicted felon, here.

    I mostly agree with you.

    I would just point out that as the judges get tougher, the stakes get higher. At some point you start to incentivize behavior that you really don't want. Not too bad at the lower levels. At the higher levels, though, perpetrators will start to rapidly escalate violence because they feel they have more to lose by getting caught. This is known in prison as holding court out in the street (apparently this is a movie reference?).

    When I got caught coming out of the bank, I surrendered peacefully because I knew it would not be the end of my life. When you make a guy feel that it is the end he may decide differently.

    At some point I think we need to be looking at outcomes.

  89. Finally a swift and just response by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To penalize apple nuts
    will they ever learn

  90. "Weak on Civil Liberties" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    That's brilliant -- every media outlet who wants to steer the narrative back on track in the US should be pummeling every public figure they interview from now on with that phrase.

  91. American culture by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 1

    As an American I feel I should throw this out there. America is one of (if not THE) most violent cultures going. Americans are prone to over-reacting and escalating, especially here in the South. It should not be surprising that the police reflect the same attributes.

    1. Re:American culture by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      America is one of (if not THE) most violent cultures going

      Nitpick: You're not even close. But you are one of the most violent in a small subset of safe western countries. :-)

      The problem really is violence begets violence. You treat your police with violence, they treat you with violence, and it's an endless circle of viciousness. I remember showing an American friend around Vienna one day (a city I've visited many times over the years), and this was the days before smartphones. We got turned around and couldn't find our way to the subway station, so I just casually walked up to two police officers carrying assault riffles and asked them for directions. They were kind, friendly and really helpful. I expect American police would actually be similar, but it blew my friend's mind that I would willingly talk to a police officer. He'd had it drummed in his head that the only words to ever say to a police office was "I want my lawyer".

      Toxic culture that would be.

      Also had an incident in Australia where I was accused by the police of fraud. They showed up, invited them in, made them coffee and discussed in detail how it went about that my identity was stolen. My nextdoor neighbour had a room mate who was dealing drugs so police came and executed a warrant for search and arrest. That started with a simple knock on the door and a ride down the station. No battering ram, no ransacking the house, and no handcuffs on roommate either.

    2. Re:American culture by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 1

      That's not nitpicking, that's pointing out a serious error, but I think you're right. I do contextualize us among the 'western' countries, even when it makes no sense. Dang it.

      Thanks.

      I do wish we could have police/community relations like the two incidents you describe.

  92. I wonder by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 1

    Was it targeted or did the driver just leave the door unlocked while he ran inside somewhere else?

    Casual thief sees the truck, jumps inside, sees a giant box with the Apple logo on the side, WOOHOO!!!

    Maybe I should start reading these articles...

  93. Law Professor Explains Why Never Talk to Police by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative
    1. Re:Law Professor Explains Why Never Talk to Police by PackMan97 · · Score: 1

      This +1000, someone with mod points needs to upvote the parent. You do not talk to police, ever. Certainly not without your attorney present and definitely not without it being recorded. The police are not your friend. They do not want to help you out. They want to get a conviction and close a case.

    2. Re:Law Professor Explains Why Never Talk to Police by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      You can talk to police if you initiate the conversation, say if you want the officer to do something for you. If they are questioning you, shut up except for asking for your lawyer.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  94. I smell... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    LAWSUIT!

  95. There isn't a day that goes by that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... the US reminds us how much they resemble a 3rd world country when it comes to police force...

  96. That's why we call them... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    jack-booted thugs.

  97. Sex offenders registry by ghoul · · Score: 1

    Similar to the sex offenders registry we shoul have a public registry with name and address of all cops who have used excessive force. Name and shame these guys.

    --
    **Life is too short to be serious**
    1. Re: Sex offenders registry by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There s a list of cops who have lost their jobs because of abuse of power or excessive force - it's their own internal recruitment paper.

  98. Well... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Shithole country

  99. Apple just lost a customer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That will be the last iPhone that guy ever buys.

  100. People with mental health problems have guns by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Too many people with mental health problems have weapons. The cop in charge of this operation is one of them. We used to call them pigs.

  101. Welcome to Commiefornia by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The Socialist Utopia, the crime and the illegals in California are turning out so great, the police has to fear armed criminals all the time everywhere. Another proof that gun laws don't make a state safe, but the wrong people make it unsafe.

  102. policy story by sad_ · · Score: 1

    these police stories we get from the US all the time are plain crazy.
    your policy force has an image problem that reaches far beyond the US alone.

    --
    On a long enough timeline, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero.
  103. Re: USAmericans Love Their #Freedumbs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Depending upon the city in the US, if you have the appropriate licence, you can open carry a 50 calibre. I don't recommend doing so, but it would be legal.

  104. Weird? by jf_moreira · · Score: 1

    This is so weird, this guy here, Knuth, has the same last name as the guy in the last article about The Art Of computer programming and stuff.

  105. That will teach you to buy Apple products by misnohmer · · Score: 2

    Do you really want to buy a product from a company which will SWAT you in return (intentionally or by accident)? I guess charging to audio jack adapters hasn't yielded sufficient profit, so now they are desperate to protect every dollar of profit.

  106. I'd be scared to death! by Striikerr · · Score: 1

    After seeing what can happen to innocent citizens, http://www.cnn.com/2017/12/11/... and https://www.engadget.com/2017/... , I would have been terrified to see what was waiting outside the door. I know that the examples which I cited are an exception to what happens however it still is something which would immediately come to mind if I were in such a situation.

  107. 1984 - but worse? by zarmanto · · Score: 1

    So the question we have to ask ourselves is: what do you do when Big Brother turns out to be very real indeed... but repeatedly gets their facts wrong?

    Because that's essentially what we're faced with, at this point.

  108. Lucky her husband was not a dog by mpercy · · Score: 1

    He'd have been shot on sight as soon as they broke the door down.

  109. It is apparent the reason for this by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... is the squad are android users trying to terrorize the iOS users :D

  110. Violent cop registry by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 1

    Hmm. If we could all agree that they were using excessive force, we could probably all agree to kick them off the force. So I guess official policy is out of the question. I wonder if there is any unofficial listing?

    A quick Google and presto:
    http://www.motherjones.com/cri...

    Also:
    http://www.ratemycop.com/

    Apparently closed since 2015. Well, thinking about it, this is never gonna be functional. I know way too many criminals that refuse to take responsibility for their actions, and have completely unrealistic expectations about how LEOs treat them.

    Still, nice idea, though.

    1. Re:Violent cop registry by ghoul · · Score: 1

      Many cops stay on the force and admit no wrongdoing and public money is used to pay settlements to victims. At least for those cases where the city settles name and shame the culprits causing our taxes to go up.

      --
      **Life is too short to be serious**
  111. Gestapo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The militarization of the US Police causes them to desire to always act like jackbooted thugs, rather than to take a reasonable man approach, and to presume that someone who may have purchased a stolen iPhone may not have any idea that it is stolen, but it is more 'fun' for the cops to kick in your door and arrive onsite in battle armor with fully automatic weapons, ready to kill, rather than to simply knock and talk...

    That 'raid' on his apartment probably cost the police department $20,000. It is just good luck that no one was killed.

  112. Miranda by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 2

    Are you a corrupt cop trying to mislead people, or are you just completely ignorant of what you're talking about?

    Neither, as it happens. I'm a convicted bank robber, arrested and questioned by local police and the FBI. Maybe you were in military law enforcement, cool. You have detention and Miranda all wrong.

    I spent years behind bars reading case law and statutes. Some states have constitutions that provide more protections than the US Constitution but they're all different and I can't speak to those. I CAN speak about the way the federal system works, though.

    A cop can stop you for investigation of any reasonable suspicion of a law being broken, for example a TRAFFIC STOP. This is a detention. Yet, miraculously, they never read you your rights during a traffic stop. If you admit to the cop that you were speeding (in hopes of earning leniency) and then try to fight the ticket in court you ABSOLUTELY WILL hear about your admission in court from the ticketing officer.

    - first of all, the police are not obligated to read you your Miranda rights, at all.

    Well, no. They aren't. But if they don't, they can't use any answers you give them in questioning against you. So, in practice, they always do. Unlike on television, they usually do this at the beginning of a custodial interview, not as they apply the cuffs. Any voluntary statements made before being Mirandized ARE ADMISSABLE, unless they are made in response to questions. If they are made in response to questions there will probably have to be an evidentiary hearing to determine admissibility.

    It is in their interest to do so as soon as they detain you.

    That's hilarious. They don't benefit from you shutting up, which is very common right after the Miranda warning. It is in their interest to give you as much rope as you need to hang yourself before they are required to Mirandize you in order to preserve the evidentiary value of your answers to questions. There is a whole body of law about how to tell if an interview/interrogation is inherently coercive (also, how 'custodial' it is).

    I can't believe we're having this discussion.

  113. Detention by BankRobberMBA · · Score: 1

    This is a common misconception.

    The Miranda warning only preserves the evidentiary value of answers you provide during 'questioning'. It is not a required element of either detention or arrest.

    Cops can arrest you, cuff you, throw you in a car and cart you off to the pokey, all without Mirandizing you. They have to tell you that you are under arrest, and most places require they tell you what charges will be filed against you. Miranda doesn't come into it until someone tries to question you.

    I definitely recommend that people find a lawyer and ask about required behavior and what they should do if detained/arrested. It is amazing what people don't know about the laws under which they live. It's really not like TV.

  114. Gee, I wonder ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ... why people don't trust the police anymore.

    Soldiers in war zones treat civilians better than American cops treat U.S. citizens.

  115. Vetting?! by martinfb · · Score: 1

    WAY too many bullshit incidents happen.
    We need a far better way of vetting those officials we allow to hold enforcement offices.

    Police need to understand that they are here to SERVE THE PEOPLE, not serve their need to feel superior!

    Tell me, how in the world a stolen iPhone would warrant such extreme measures?!
    Everyone from the warrant-issuing judge to the hand-job cops needs to be fired, labeled, and sued for this one!

    --


    Self-importance and self-indulgence is the root of ALL evil.
  116. You normally would by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    To be fair to everyone else with a memory longer than 5 minutes, it's not surprising you got the response you did. You usually post a bunch of crazy conservative bullshit so we expected you to 100% support the gestapo. What is surprising really is that BronsCon wasn't right there with you cheering on a bunch of libruls getting the old boot heel.

  117. Suppose he threw the receipt away by ebvwfbw · · Score: 1

    Imagine what he would have gone through if his wife didn't have that receipt. Or if she was mad at him and decided to not show it to them for a while.

    1. Re:Suppose he threw the receipt away by Cro+Magnon · · Score: 1

      Worse, what if the receipt was in his pocket. He reaches for it, and BAM!

      --
      Slow down, cowboy! It has been 4 hours since you last posted. You must wait another few hours.
  118. Customer Buys iPhone X... by Dr_b_ · · Score: 1

    Then, apple swatted a customer for buying it

  119. Re: Over-militarized pigs... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

    There's quite a few people who know they're good people, and the police will never hassle them (even when they commit crimes, they're good people). These are the people who push for police violence, thinking it's only against bad people. They never think that they might be subject to a police error or anything.

    In my experience, if someone's for law and order, they want order, and don't give a crap about the law.

    --
    "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  120. Applies to most police interaction. by nobuddy · · Score: 1

    99.999% of all SWAT/no-knock raids fall under "This was clearly an incident that should have just been a knock and talk,"