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."

237 of 411 comments (clear)

  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 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.

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

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

    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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!
    10. 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.

    11. 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.

    12. 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.
    13. 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.

    14. 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.
    15. 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
    16. 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.

    17. 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.

    18. 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.

    19. 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.
    20. 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.
    21. 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.

    22. 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.

    23. 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'
    24. 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.
    25. 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.
    26. 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.
    27. 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.

    28. 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?

    29. 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.
    30. 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
    31. 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
    32. 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.

    33. 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.

    34. 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.

    35. 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.

    36. 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.

    37. 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.........
    38. 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.

    39. 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.

    40. 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.

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

      What punishment did Apple get for the blatant insurance fraud?

    42. 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.
    43. 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.

    44. 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...
    45. 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.

    46. 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."
    47. 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?

    48. 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
    49. 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.

    50. 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.

    51. 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
    52. 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.

    53. 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?

    54. 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?

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

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

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

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

    57. 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

    58. 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.

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

      Good idea. Gives them time to destroy evidence!

    60. 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.

    61. 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.

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

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

    63. 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.
    64. Re:Priorities by vux984 · · Score: 1

      Same reason people steal them. People are stupid.

    65. 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.

    66. 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.

    67. 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...

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

      Collective punishment is bad, do not do it.

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

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

    70. 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!

    71. 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
    72. 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.

    73. 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.

    74. 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...

    75. 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.

    76. 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.

    77. 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!
    78. 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?

    79. 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!
    80. 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"
    81. 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.
    82. 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?

  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 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.

    10. 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.

    11. 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.
    12. 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.

    13. 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.

    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.

    17. 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.
    18. 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.

    19. 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.

    20. 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.

    21. 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."

    22. 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

    23. 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!”
    24. 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."
    25. 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!
    26. 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.

    27. 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.

    28. 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
    29. 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
  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 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
    8. 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'
    9. 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
    10. 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.
  6. "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'
  7. 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: 1

      ... more protection against lawsuits.

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

  8. USA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    FREEDOM!!! The BEST country on EARTH.

    In the US, you are FREE!

  9. 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 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
    2. 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'
    3. 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.

    4. 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
    5. 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.

    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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.

    9. 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'
    10. 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.

  10. 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?

  11. They never by denisbergeron · · Score: 1

    Do this for my wrangler.

    --
    Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
  12. SubjectIsSubject by p0p0 · · Score: 1

    The UK sounds like such a police-state shithole.

  13. 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
  14. 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.

  15. 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
  16. 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
  17. 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 Uberbah · · Score: 1

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

      No distinction or difference, pedant.

  18. 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 ;)

  19. 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 Bruinwar · · Score: 1

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

      --
      SLOWER TRAFFIC KEEP RIGHT
    3. 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.
  20. Re:The Nazi's wanted to Make Germany Great Again! by sjames · · Score: 1

    Mod parent up

  21. 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.

  22. 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'
  23. 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..

  24. 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.

  25. 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.

  26. 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.
  27. dumb cops by JustNiz · · Score: 1

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

  28. 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 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
  29. 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.

  30. 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.

  31. 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
  32. 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 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
  33. 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.
  34. walls by Paradise+Pete · · Score: 1

    If Garcia and his wife had just had a walled garden this wouldn't have happened.

  35. 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
  36. 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
  37. Lesson learned by PPH · · Score: 2

    Never open the door for the police.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  38. 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 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.

  39. '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.

  40. Remind me... by MerlTurkin · · Score: 2

    ...to never buy an iPhone. Never mind, I'll remember.

  41. 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.
  42. 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.

  43. "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.

  44. 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.

  45. 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...

  46. 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
  47. 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**
  48. 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.
  49. 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.

  50. 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.

  51. 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.

  52. 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.

  53. 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.

  54. 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.

  55. 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**
  56. 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.

  57. 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.

  58. 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.
  59. 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.

  60. 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.
  61. Customer Buys iPhone X... by Dr_b_ · · Score: 1

    Then, apple swatted a customer for buying it

  62. 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
  63. 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,"