Remix.run Logo
Remix clone Hacker News
new | show | ask | jobsGithub
▲ multjoy 5 days ago

They were allowed to gather the evidence - they had a warrant from a judge. The judge erred, not the police.

▲gylterud 5 days ago | parent | next [-]

But the point is justice for the people put through curt. It does not matter to them whose mistake it was.

▲vermilingua 5 days ago | parent [-]

No, that is not the point. Common law does not exist to render justice to the people in and of itself, it exists to give the people a mechanism of getting that justice themselves.

I expect anyone that was convicted due to this dragnet would now be able to appeal.

▲9dev 4 days ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Explain again why the police is "punished" if someone isn’t detained in court?

▲RHSeeger 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

Where is it written that, if a judge tells a police officer they can do something, they are legally allowed to do it, no matter how blatantly illegal it is? I'm open to being corrected, but I have a hard time believing that, if a judge told a officer they have permission to go out an summarily execute 40 random people in the mall, it would be legal for the officer to do so. And once _anything_ can be illegal even if a judge tells them two, you're now in a grey area figuring out what is/isn't illegal.

At the moment, I would believe they were both wrong, and that the officer broke the law. I _think_ the judge also broke the law, but I don't know exactly how that works.

▲AStonesThrow 5 days ago | parent [-]

Who commands the police officer to do things? Is it his/her superior, or the judge directly?

If there is a chain of command in any police department or Sheriff's Office, then the judge is not going to jump that chain and interpose herself in giving orders to a lowest-level officer who is on-the-ground and doing things.

The order's going to go to the office of their commander, who's going to evaluate it, and then it'll go through proper channels, so by the time your hypthetical "Police Officer in Summary Execution of 40 Innocent Consumers" then the order's been interdicted or validated as totally within the law as they interpret it?

▲RHSeeger 4 days ago | parent [-]

I think there's a disconnect in the way we're looking at this. It seems like you feel the person who told the officers to "go do this" is at fault, and anyone who did <this> isn't. I feel strongly that both are at fault. If a mob boss orders a murder and a hitman carries it out, they're both at fault. Same deal here.

▲AStonesThrow 4 days ago | parent [-]

“You feel”? Who is “you”? Are you referring to me? I have no feelings or judgement on any particular case. I have no facts about them. I don’t care because I am not involved and I am not in authority.

Please do not ascribe judgements to me that I am not making. I was simply asking questions to clarify a typical process that may be hypothetically followed. Thank you.

▲RHSeeger 4 days ago | parent [-]

Sorry, there's multiple people in the conversation. I was originally speaking to the person that said this

> They were allowed to gather the evidence - they had a warrant from a judge. The judge erred, not the police.

And that statement makes it very clear that, if the judge gives the ok to do something, then the judge is at fault; and _not_ the person that actually does the thing. I disagree with this. The person who does the thing is responsible for their own actions. The judge may _also_ be at fault, but that doesn't absolve the officer who took the action.

Your response (in the context of what I said)

>> if a judge tells a police officer they can do something

> Who commands the police officer to do things? Is it his/her superior, or the judge directly?

Seems to indicate you think I said the judge is the one who ordered the officer to do the thing. I didn't. I said the judge gave permission for it.

To be very clear, in a situation where

1. Tier 1 officer orders Tier 2 officer to have a thing done

2. Tier 2 officer orders Tier 3 officer to do the thing

3. Judge authorizes Tier 3 officer to do the thing

4. Tier 3 officer does the thing

If "the thing" is clearly illegal (to a reasonable person), then ALL of those individuals are at fault. And Tier 3 officer clearly broke the law when doing the thing.

I believe that