| |
| ▲ | postflopclarity 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > each side trying to imprison the other, you're implying that the two sides are morally and legally equivalent, and both are just engaging in retaliatory squabbling. that is a ridiculous implication one "side" routinely flaunts the law, steals from the public, abuses and ignores the courts, and has a complete disregard for civil rights, legal procedure, and credibility. it uses the DoJ as a personal henchman, stringing up frivolous charges targeted at political enemies. the other "side" is trying to enforce the law. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | The thing is, each side will think you're talking about the other side. I view it differently. To me there's the pro incarceration side and the anti incarceration side. Both parties institutionally are pro prosecution and have failed to reign in abuses. Both sides have abused the courts. Instead of arguing over which side has abused them worse (I may not even disagree with you on that!) I prefer to focus on reducing the potential for abuse. | | |
| ▲ | mckn1ght 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > I prefer to focus on reducing the potential for abuse. Sounds great in theory but at the end of the day the backstop to bad behavior is force, one avenue of which is incarceration. This is just the paradox of tolerance. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > The system needs to change so pursuing frivolous or weak charges doesn't work. Agreed. Cases this knowingly frivolous, for example, should be treated as the criminal kidnapping or false imprisonment it would be if any other citizen perpetrated it. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | How is that an example? Whatever you do now doesn't work retroactively. Changing the system means removing the potential for abuse of power, not punishing abuse of power after the fact. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > Whatever you do now doesn't work retroactively. The point of such a thing is to deter similar conduct in the future. The fact that this isn't a crime, and that qualified immunity typically means they can't even be held responsible civily, is part of what encourages police to commit misconduct like this. The only folks punished here were the local taxpayers footing the bill. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | If you're going to change the system, which you need to do to make it possible to bring charges in a case like this, the other changes I suggested would be more effective and harder to weaponize. The core problem here is that the system allowed an innocent person to stay in jail. That needs to be fixed on a system level, not by trying to punish people after the fact for bad outcomes. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > The core problem here is that the system allowed an innocent person to stay in jail. No; the system got the innocent person out of jail and a hefty settlement for their trouble. The system is now, unfortunately, allowing the guilty parties to stay employed as cops after performing a kidnapping. > That needs to be fixed on a system level, not by trying to punish people after the fact for bad outcomes. An accidental positive on a drug test is a bad outcome. Locking someone up for more than a month because they posted a photo of the President and a quote he actually said is a crime. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | See I don't view the guy getting out after 37 days as a success. It's a failure but it could have been worse. I also think every party involved in that failure should be fired and rendered unemployable in the field. |
| |
| ▲ | SpicyLemonZest 28 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | What could a systemic solution to this possibly look like? He didn't stay in jail for 37 days because the system left no room for any other possible outcome. There were a number of points at which he could have been released had the system worked correctly. But Sheriff Nick Weems, an official in a key position of authority administrating the local justice system, decided that he'd like to subvert the system and steal this man's freedom. So he used his authority and expertise to ensure the system did not work correctly. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 7 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The magistrate judge should not have approved the warrant. They should have had a bail hearing within 24 hours, at which it would have been clear that they posed no threat. Instead somehow bail was set at $2 million and the hearing to reduce bail was delayed. Those are flaws in the system that should be fixed, and will continue harming people even without bad faith from sheriffs. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | mindslight 41 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Changing the system means removing the potential for abuse of power, not punishing abuse of power after the fact. At a certain point, punishing abuse of power after the fact is the only way to discourage the potential abuse of power. Like there is nothing that actually stops you or me from going and kidnapping someone. And that same dynamic applies to someone who happens to also be a sheriff who controls a jail due to his employment. There is no magic wand for the system to wave that makes it so that the individuals employed by that system can't simply break the law. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 26 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The warrant here was approved by a magistrate judge, and I would suggest making the process for approval more robust to reduce this kind of abuse. Personal civil liability and firing can also help. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | caconym_ 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | I don't think both-sidesing this is particularly appropriate. Law enforcement officers who abuse their position to harm people under false pretenses should be prosecuted as criminals, because that's what they are. This is true in any political environment and entirely distinct from the Trump administration's malicious and baseless abuse of the legal system against Trump's perceived enemies. You are demonstrating what I think will be one of the most pernicious outcomes of the Trump administration's transformation of the Justice Department: the blurring of lines between law enforcement, criminality, and corruption as the institution is debased and public trust is lost. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Public trust should be lost, because these institutions were never trustworthy. I am not both sidesing. I'm saying that there are better reform options than adding additional criminal statutes that are likely to be abused. Put simply, do you want the Trump administration to be able to bring criminal charges against any prosecutor or judge that they can argue brought a bad case? | | |
| ▲ | caconym_ an hour ago | parent [-] | | You could make this argument about anything. We should have no laws, because they might be abused by a malicious prosecutor. Utter nonsense. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy an hour ago | parent [-] | | We should indeed get rid of many laws because the benefit is outweighed by the abuse. America has one of the highest rates of incarceration in the world (used to be #1) but suggest that maybe we're overcriminalized and you must be talking nonsense. | | |
| ▲ | caconym_ an hour ago | parent [-] | | You are not suggesting that "maybe we're overcriminalized". You are suggesting that we should not hold law enforcement accountable for egregious abuses of power that do real harm to real people. You think it should
not be considered criminal for a police officer to put somebody in prison (under threat of bodily harm or death, by default) just because they feel like it, or whatever. You think police officers should be able to rape innocent travelers on the side of the road and face no consequences for it. You think police officers should be able to scream conflicting orders at somebody and then shoot them in the head because "they were reaching for a weapon". Or do you not? All these things happen in America, and the officers involved almost never face meaningful consequences. Where do you draw the line, if at all? | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy an hour ago | parent [-] | | I haven't said those things. Rape and murder are existing crimes, and they should be applied equally to police officers. I think that the core problem with the system is not individual bad actors, but overcriminalization and the acceptance of that by judges and juries. To solve that you need actual reform, and adding a new crime that would inevitably be weaponized is not the way. The whole concept of holding people "accountable" is the wrong frame. It's precisely that mindset that created this highly flawed system. I want to reduce bad things, not to feel good because people who did bad things are punished. And when you think about how to prevent bad cases from being brought, you need to systematically reduce the power of those who can make such decisions. Added: I do want strong civil liability for these cases, which we do have, which is why OP was able to get a good settlement. We should expand that to federal cases and lower the threshold. | | |
| ▲ | caconym_ 38 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | > I haven't said those things. No, but they clearly follow from what you have said. > Rape and murder are existing crimes, and they should be applied equally to police officers. Okay, but they aren't, because police enjoy broad immunity and benefit of the doubt from (and during) prosecution. How do you suggest we fix this? Additionally, I am not sure you appreciate the magnitude of harm that can be caused by locking somebody up for months. They can lose their house, their job, their pets, their kids. They miss important life events. The payout in this case was fully justified, though, of course---since the officer himself was not held accountable---it is the taxpayer who will foot the bill. > The whole concept of holding people "accountable" is the wrong frame. It's precisely that mindset that created this highly flawed system. I want to reduce bad things, not to feel good because people who did bad things are punished. Holding people accountable is not the same as pursuing retributive justice for its own sake. I agree that the latter is bad and that it is pervasive in our justice system. But I don't agree that we shouldn't hold people responsible in any way for what they have done, especially if there are no mitigating factors. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 32 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I would get rid of all forms of immunity and mandate body cameras. Probably also raise requirements for police officers. And part of it is reducing the scope of what the cops are meant to enforce. I appreciate the massive harms done by incarceration, which I why I support vastly reducing it. | | |
| ▲ | caconym_ 8 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > I would get rid of all forms of immunity IIUC getting rid of "all forms of immunity" would essentially make it impossible for police officers to arrest anybody in good faith without exposing themselves to criminal prosecution (maybe that's what you want). But weakening or eliminating QI, which shields officers from civil liability, is sorely needed. You didn't ask, but I'm not necessarily in favor of throwing cops in jail in many of these misconduct cases (for practical reasons at the very least). What should happen is that they be thrown off the force for good and prevented from working in law enforcement ever again. I don't believe you would need new criminal statutes to accomplish this, but what you would need (per jurisdiction) is political will to make it happen, perhaps starting with an independent review commission or similar, but making sure they can't just go one county or state over will be much more difficult. > mandate body cameras They just turn them off, or the footage gets "lost". This won't work without much broader reform (and, dare I say it, accountability). > Probably also raise requirements for police officers I agree. |
|
| |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 44 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | > Rape and murder are existing crimes, and they should be applied equally to police officers. How about kidnapping and false imprisonment, as in this case? | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 28 minutes ago | parent [-] | | As I mentioned elsewhere, neither currently apply because due process of law was followed. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 12 minutes ago | parent [-] | | How can a deliberate blatant violation of the First Amendment be "due process of law"? | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 2 minutes ago | parent [-] | | Look up the elements of false imprisonment. When there's a warrant, even if wrongly granted, the arrest and imprisonment is considered lawful. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
