| |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 4 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 4 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 4 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 4 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. | | |
| ▲ | kyleee an hour ago | parent [-] | | You may want to explain a bit better, as stated it sounds like you’d prefer he’d still be in jail: “ See I don't view the guy getting out after 37 days as a success” | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 44 minutes ago | parent [-] | | The case shouldn't have been brought, but even if brought he should have had a prompt bond hearing and been let out within 24 hours. |
|
|
| |
| ▲ | SpicyLemonZest 2 hours 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 2 hours 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 3 hours 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 2 hours 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. | | |
| ▲ | mindslight 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I don't think magistrates rule on questions of law (maybe you were implying this, but maybe not). But in general the whole legal/justice system is basically blind to the harm it itself causes, so I don't think an actual judge looking at the merits of a warrant would be terribly adversarial to a sheriff either - they work together all the time, and most of the warrants presented by the sheriff are legitimate. I do agree with you in general that we should aim to split system functions between multiple people. But this merely raises the bar, it doesn't make corrupt actions impossible. Which means we should be focusing on both avenues of reform, rather than emphasizing one to downplay another. Especially as when you do this, the entrenched system seems to takes advantage of the downplaying while resisting the solution being emphasized. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | Magistrates are supposed to verify that the warrant contains probable cause and reject ones that don't. You could make the system more adversarial at that point, although I think enforcing bail hearings where a public defender can argue would help in this and many other cases. | | |
| ▲ | mindslight an hour ago | parent [-] | | Shooting from the hip, I'd think a properly adversarial/just process would be something like a public defender (or other attorney of the person's choosing) who is paid out of government funds. Then there should probably be different classes of warrants, with the lowest class being something like the person is notified and able to choose their representation to challenge the warrant before it's even issued (presumably non-violent, no flight risk, etc), with escalating classes based on those factors. But even then, abuse of that classification is something that could routinely happen and would need to be punished post-facto. Imagine the same sheriff looking to perform the same retaliation, so he checks all the boxes for a no-notice no-knock warrant that still results in an arrest with a weekend in jail. Which is why my main point is that we shouldn't argue against one avenue of reform with the goal of emphasizing a different one. | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy an hour ago | parent [-] | | My concern is that new crimes will be weaponized. | | |
| ▲ | mindslight 19 minutes ago | parent [-] | | As opposed to the current status quo where would-be criminal actions of public officials against otherwise-uninvolved private citizens go unpunished? I don't find this argument compelling, as it would at least limit the blast radius to people who get involved in public office. And once again there isn't much that can be done about corrupt public officials unjustly prosecuting/persecuting former officials as it comes down to that same human problem rather than a system problem. The persecutions of Comey and James rely on a post-truth electorate that doesn't care, and who chose to reelect a destructive tyrant who repudiates our American values merely to stick a fork in the eye of "the elites". And while we can also talk about ways of reforming the system to prevent that (eg Constitutional amendment that explicitly divides power amongst independent agencies), I don't think it has much bearing on how we should be drawing legal lines in the sand to constrain public officials. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
