| |
| ▲ | caconym_ 3 hours 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 3 hours 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. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 3 hours ago | parent | next [-] | | > 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 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | As I mentioned elsewhere, neither currently apply because due process of law was followed. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | How can a deliberate blatant violation of the First Amendment be "due process of law"? | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 2 hours 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. | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | No, it isn't. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habeas_corpus | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | What does that have to do with the elements of false imprisonment? | | |
| ▲ | ceejayoz 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | "invoking the jurisdiction of a court to review the unlawful detention or imprisonment of an individual" would seem to indicate that such a detention can be deemed unlawful, yes? | | |
| ▲ | ikeboy an hour ago | parent [-] | | In short, unlawful means different things in different contexts. In the context of false imprisonment, it generally means without legal process, and legal process later overturned does not count. See eg. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/court/us-supreme-court/549/384.h... >Reflective of the fact that false imprisonment consists of detention without legal process, a false imprisonment ends once the victim becomes held pursuant to such process--when, for example, he is bound over by a magistrate or arraigned on charges. Dobbs, supra, §39, at 74, n. 2; Keeton, supra, §119, at 888; H. Stephen, Actions for Malicious Prosecution 120-123 (1888). Thereafter, unlawful detention forms part of the damages for the "entirely distinct" tort of malicious prosecution, which remedies detention accompanied, not by absence of legal process, but by wrongful institution of legal process |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | caconym_ 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-] | | > 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 2 hours 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_ 2 hours 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. |
|
|
|
|
|
