You can now get a citation for making direct eye contact with a cop

Ryujin · Sep 3, 2015

Lhorgrim said:
That's true... if it actually happens. Every story I've ever been told about someone being thrown in jail "just for pissing off a cop" has failed to stand up to any scrutiny. An officer just can't take someone to jail without a criminal charge.
It can look that way sometimes though. Say I stop a car for a traffic violation. Driver refuses to provide ID or give his/her information. I could take that person to jail for a simple traffic violation because I'm unable to cite them to court. Also they will not receive a bond at the jail until they see a judge unless they provide their info or ID. I never had that happen. I always warned people what would happen, and they always gave me enough info to issue the ticket. In some states refusal to sign a ticket will get you a trip to jail. In KY the tickets aren't signed by the recipient. If you don't take care of the ticket or come to court...Failure to Appear warrant.
When you hear the stories about people getting arrested for "mouthing off" I would ask that you view them with some perspective. Often the person telling the tale will leave out some details that might change the scenario.
I am positive that there are officers that lose their cool and make bad arrests. They are responsible for those arrests and if a supervisor doesn't nail them, the prosecutor, the judge, or a defense attorney will. Also, the actual victim of a false arrest has recourse. If you are arrested, you will get your day in court if you want it. Any defense attorney worth their salt will crucify an officer that made a bad arrest. That includes public defenders. They may be overworked, but I've never met one that didn't know their business. The ACLU is just waiting for good cases of officer misconduct if the public defender doesn't have the time.

You might want to review some of the incidents surrounding the Toronto G20 summits, in 2010. While some incidents did result in prosecutions, in one case that was decided recently the conviction of a police superintendent on misconduct charges, the vast majority of incidents could not involve prosecution due to an inability to identify the officers involved. Given, that's a rather singular situation, but that sort of thing does happen.

Lhorgrim · Sep 3, 2015

Ryujin said:
You might want to review some of the incidents surrounding the Toronto G20 summits, in 2010. While some incidents did result in prosecutions, in one case that was decided recently the conviction of a police superintendent on misconduct charges, the vast majority of incidents could not involve prosecution due to an inability to identify the officers involved. Given, that's a rather singular situation, but that sort of thing does happen.

I'm not familiar with the details, but Wiki says over 1000 people were arrested and seems to link the arrests to a riot. Excessive force seems to be the main issue in the entry, though some questionable arrests and tactics are mentioned after the initial disturbance.
I don't have much experience with civil disturbance situations. We did have some Black Bloc members at the 2000 Vice Presidential debate, but they didn't try to get through the perimeter to the debate venue. They marched and blocked some streets but didn't engage in any violence, so we didn't respond.
I don't condone the law enforcement tactics at the summit, but I'm not familiar enough with the situation to say how they should have done it instead. I'm not sure how the Canadian system works with criminal charges, but in my area every arrest would be required to have an officer's name attached. It would be easy to hold someone accountable for a bad arrest. In a riot situation where mass arrests are made, the ground supervisor would be responsible. We call it vicarious liability. Ultimately, I feel, the chief/agency head is responsible for civil disturbance response if individual officers can't be identified. The chief should make damn sure that there is a way to secure accountability among the rank and file. I think body cams are part of the solution, but they present their own issues.

Kramodlog · Sep 3, 2015

Recently a protester won 15,000$ after suing the police because they violated his right by detaining him for 5 days. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...-pay-15-000-to-activist-jaggi-singh-1.3205040

Aside from the violation of rights being unacceptable, that it took 8 years and still could be appeal is an aberration by itself. It why we do not see more cases like these. Who has the time, money and will power to go through this? This means cops get impuinity because going after them is just not worth it for individuals.

Lhorgrim · Sep 3, 2015

goldomark said:
Recently a protester won 15,000$ after suing the police because they violated his right by detaining him for 5 days. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montr...-pay-15-000-to-activist-jaggi-singh-1.3205040

Aside from the violation of rights being unacceptable, that it took 8 years and still could be appeal is an aberration by itself. It why we do not see more cases like these. Who has the time, money and will power to go through this? This means cops get impuinity because going after them is just not worth it for individuals.

I read the article you linked. It says the officers arrested him for attending an International Women's Day rally in 2007. They saw "Singh, who had a previous conviction, was forbidden from being on the scene of an event that is not peaceful". The officers contended that the rally wasn't peaceful due to "a crowd that was hostile and yelled out insults" and took him into custody. He was in custody for 5 days while he maintained the event was peaceful. Charges were dropped and he was released. In mid 2015 he was awarded $15k from the constables.

Sounds like a sketchy arrest because the crowd wasn't making threats or damaging property. It is an unusual case, because it sounds as if it would have been a good arrest if someone in the crowd had broken a window or threatened to burn down city hall. This guy wasn't being charged with his actions, he was tagged for a restriction placed on him, I assume by a court? It doesn't say why the case took so long to get through court. Is it a difference in the civil court system? Also don't know why a guy would be held for 5 days. Is there a bond system and he couldn't bond out? It never went to trial, so I'm guessing the prosecutor chose to drop charges?

Umbran · Sep 3, 2015

goldomark said:
Aside from the violation of rights being unacceptable, that it took 8 years and still could be appeal is an aberration by itself. It why we do not see more cases like these. Who has the time, money and will power to go through this? This means cops get impuinity because going after them is just not worth it for individuals.

yes, now note that this case is from 8 years ago.

In the US, today, that is quickly becoming less and less a threat - the ubiquity of cell-phone movies and social media makes heavy abuse problematic for the cops.

Kramodlog · Sep 3, 2015

Lhorgrim said:
This guy wasn't being charged with his actions, he was tagged for a restriction placed on him, I assume by a court?

Yes.

It doesn't say why the case took so long to get through court.

The 8 years? Rather standard.

Is it a difference in the civil court system?

This is a criminal court case.

Also don't know why a guy would be held for 5 days.

If you break court orders, you go to jail.

Is there a bond system and he couldn't bond out?

There is, but if cops decide you stay behind bars, you stay. Whether is it legal or not.

It never went to trial, so I'm guessing the prosecutor chose to drop charges?

Yup.

Kramodlog · Sep 3, 2015

Umbran said:
yes, now note that this case is from 8 years ago.

In the US, today, that is quickly becoming less and less a threat - the ubiquity of cell-phone movies and social media makes heavy abuse problematic for the cops.

You're far more optimistic than me.

I see cops getting caught on cams, but often getting off without charges anyway. I cite the Tamir Rice and Eric Garner as examples. It takes more than cameras to change things. It takes a justice system willing to procecute offenders, but procecutors and judges work along side cops, so they are more forgiving to them*. It also takes indignation for the population, which isn't a given**. Maybe I just see the glass half empty.

*http://montreal.ctvnews.ca/montreal...g-officer-who-killed-child-in-crash-1.2112657 The cop finally was charged for the death in mai, but it took political interference for it to happen. That is also problematic.

**http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/...uestion_15215.xml?uuid=JdV8dIbKEeSrz1o9ezsguA

Lhorgrim · Sep 3, 2015

[MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION], 8 years is incredibly long for a criminal case here. Almost unheard of. I could see a civil case dragging on that long maybe. Here a judge decides bond, and if you make it you're out until trial date. A prosecutor can review the charges and drop them before court if they don't feel it's a good case.
Generally officers have immunity if they make a bad arrest, as long as they acted in good faith. I take you in for DUI because you were weaving and had balance issues. I don't smell alcohol but believe you are on prescription meds. You bring a doctor's statement to the prosecutor or to court and show that you have a medical condition that mimics intoxication. Charges are dropped, but the officer isn't charged because the arrest met a reasonableness standard. However, if I stop you and you exhibit no indicators of impaired driving and I arrest you anyway, then I could be charged with false arrest. More likely you would go for a civil payout and try to get the city's insurance to write you a check.

Janx · Sep 3, 2015

Staffan said:
As a matter of principle, mocking and challenging authority are inherently good things.

That doesn't mean it's generally a smart move, but the world would be a better place if authorities were mocked more often and thus learned not to take themselves seriously.

I surprised nobody countered this.

Taken literally, I don't see how mocking and challenging authority are ALWAYS good things, and thus not necessarily "inherently good things"

Taking Umbran's point from another thread a while back about the hunt for the boston marathon bombers. When the cops said "stay inside", bostonians kept their butts inside while the cops ran around shooting at the bad guys. As he indicated, it was a good thing folks didn't argue and did what they were told.

I think it is good to take down people who abuse their position of authority. But until you know an authority person is abusive, that does not seem to qualify them for disrespect, just because of their job. Because that is the very point of putting someone in authority, so they have the lawful right to exert control on situations under their domain.

Janx · Sep 3, 2015

Lhorgrim said:
[MENTION=55961]goldomark[/MENTION], 8 years is incredibly long for a criminal case here. Almost unheard of. I could see a civil case dragging on that long maybe. Here a judge decides bond, and if you make it you're out until trial date. A prosecutor can review the charges and drop them before court if they don't feel it's a good case.
Generally officers have immunity if they make a bad arrest, as long as they acted in good faith. I take you in for DUI because you were weaving and had balance issues. I don't smell alcohol but believe you are on prescription meds. You bring a doctor's statement to the prosecutor or to court and show that you have a medical condition that mimics intoxication. Charges are dropped, but the officer isn't charged because the arrest met a reasonableness standard. However, if I stop you and you exhibit no indicators of impaired driving and I arrest you anyway, then I could be charged with false arrest. More likely you would go for a civil payout and try to get the city's insurance to write you a check.

Which could take 8 years to get that check.

And you might not be in a position to get a lawyer to fight for you.

There are lots of people who get screwed by governments and by civil suit-worthy issues (aka businesses, people etc) that just lump it because they do not have the means to pursue it.

I myself am out $500 deductible due to a no-insurance, no license idiot who hit my truck because Allstate couldn't squeeze it out of him (they tried to get my deductible and their money back from him via debt collectors). I don't have time, money or energy to hunt that idiot down. Should have claimed his truck when he came back after he ran and somebody chased him down.

So I have no faith in everybody getting the justice they deserve. There's too much "need money to get money" built into the system.

Heck, those pokemon idiots are going to spend at least 4 months in jail before they get their day in court. Which means if they were innocent in some way (remember that innocent before proven guilty concept), they will suffer the ill-effects of not being at work, etc for nothing.

You can now get a citation for making direct eye contact with a cop

Ryujin

Legend

Lhorgrim

Explorer

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel

Lhorgrim

Explorer

Umbran

Mod Squad

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel

Kramodlog

Naked and living in a barrel

Lhorgrim

Explorer

Janx

Hero

Janx

Hero

Similar Threads