you no longer have a 4th Amendment

[SmarterthanYou]

They didn't say you could not attack, they just sails it wasn't a good idea. I would hate to be in the situation, it is very hard to prove a cop is in the wrong. The system is heavily weighted in the ops favor, it is wrong, but it is fact.

are you doing anything to change it? or are you just accepting it as 'the way that it is'?

 

[Bonestorm]

here's where I have issue with your opinion. YOU may not consider orders to place your hands on a wall and endure a search as an 'assault', yet when a person is just mowing his lawn, the police have no probable cause or reasonable suspicion to stop you from what you are doing. By YOU disregarding this persons constitutional rights to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures, YOU are giving police carte blanche to stop and search anyone for anything.

It doesn't have to be characterized as an "assault" for me to advocate for a more meaningful remedy than those available. The fact that it is a constitutional violation is enough for me. No need to characterize it as an assault to advocate for a strong remedy. I also recognize that I'm a privileged white guy and that someone in the shoes of the defendant in this case can rightly view the same conduct as an assault. Let's try not to get caught up on verbiage.

the defendant most likely opted for the bench trial thinking that the judge would know his rights much better than a jury of his peers, obviously neither of them care about his rights, only what police officers do to keep them safe, so his bad.

My guess is that the defendant has a criminal history and thought he'd get a fairer shake from a judge than a jury. In this case it appears uncontested that the police officers violated the guy's rights.

I believe we have a very serious disconnect in this country now, where are rights are judged willy nilly by judges whose apparent motivation is protecting the servants of the government. how do you feel about that?

I'd disagree. Did you read the concurring opinion in this case? If not, you should. Unfortunately, once the judge determined as a matter of fact that the defendant elbowed the police officer, there is nothing that can be done about it. Hitting a cop is not an appropriate remedy for a 4th Amendment violation.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

It doesn't have to be characterized as an "assault" for me to advocate for a more meaningful remedy than those available. The fact that it is a constitutional violation is enough for me. No need to characterize it as an assault to advocate for a strong remedy. I also recognize that I'm a privileged white guy and that someone in the shoes of the defendant in this case can rightly view the same conduct as an assault. Let's try not to get caught up on verbiage.

strange, since I could care less the color or race of a person who's had their rights violated like that, maybe that comes from looking like a long haired biker instead of a privileged white guy.

I'd disagree. Did you read the concurring opinion in this case? If not, you should. Unfortunately, once the judge determined as a matter of fact that the defendant elbowed the police officer, there is nothing that can be done about it. Hitting a cop is not an appropriate remedy for a 4th Amendment violation.

so you're still advocating the position that a person should just endure the assault and file a complaint afterwards. would that apply to a cop raping your wife?

and do you mean this part of the concurring opinion?

I will agree with the defense . . . and I think it’s uncontested that the
defendant and Mr. Wo[]mack were not doing anything wrong or illegal
at that point [when the police approached them]. And I’ll even agree
with the defense that the police did not have any right to go up and
start searching them, which is pretty much what they did. They went
up and seized them, told them to turn around, and started patting them
down. And I wish those officers were in the courtroom today, because
there’s a clear violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. Like[,]
they were not allowed to do that, and I hope that the prosecutor will

convey to them that that is the case. That just because it’s a high crime
neighborhood, or they’re on some kind of a patrol, they’re not allowed
to go and just search people with no reason at all. So I will agree that
that was uncalled for, and that was wrong.​

so the judge can say 'bad police officer, bad!!!!'

because that's all that would happen.

 

[Bonestorm]

strange, since I could care less the color or race of a person who's had their rights violated like that, maybe that comes from looking like a long haired biker instead of a privileged white guy.

The question is whether the violation of rights is also an assault. For me personally, I do not view a pat down as an assault, but I can understand that others may view it hat way.

so you're still advocating the position that a person should just endure the assault and file a complaint afterwards. would that apply to a cop raping your wife?

I'm still not talking about rape or sexual assault and am talking only about the facts of the case in the OP.

and do you mean this part of the concurring opinion?

I will agree with the defense . . . and I think it’s uncontested that the
defendant and Mr. Wo[]mack were not doing anything wrong or illegal
at that point [when the police approached them]. And I’ll even agree
with the defense that the police did not have any right to go up and
start searching them, which is pretty much what they did. They went
up and seized them, told them to turn around, and started patting them
down. And I wish those officers were in the courtroom today, because
there’s a clear violation of the defendant's constitutional rights. Like[,]
they were not allowed to do that, and I hope that the prosecutor will

convey to them that that is the case. That just because it’s a high crime
neighborhood, or they’re on some kind of a patrol, they’re not allowed
to go and just search people with no reason at all. So I will agree that
that was uncalled for, and that was wrong.​

so the judge can say 'bad police officer, bad!!!!'

because that's all that would happen.

I was talking about the concurrence as a whole. That's all the judge can possibly do on an appeal of an assaulting an officer conviction where it is found as a factual matter that the defendant assaulted the officer.

 

[christiefan915]

are you doing anything to change it? or are you just accepting it as 'the way that it is'?

What do you suggest we do to change things?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I was talking about the concurrence as a whole. That's all the judge can possibly do on an appeal of an assaulting an officer conviction where it is found as a factual matter that the defendant assaulted the officer.

so the only part of the concurring opinion that matters to you is the simple 'pass the buck' explanation that their hands are tied? isn't that pretty much supporting the whole notion that one has to endure an assault by police, no matter how bad the assault it?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

What do you suggest we do to change things?

1) learn about jury nullification and use it.
2) when judges and lawyers tell you jury nullification is wrong and shouldn't be used, laugh at them and use it anyway.
3) call all elected representatives to repeal those laws that remove rights.
4) impeach judges who rule based on public policy instead of the constitution.

as a last resort (and if the current downward spiral continues) defend yourself with deadly force. that might be too difficult for most people to swallow though.

 

[Bonestorm]

so the only part of the concurring opinion that matters to you is the simple 'pass the buck' explanation that their hands are tied? isn't that pretty much supporting the whole notion that one has to endure an assault by police, no matter how bad the assault it?

No, it isn't. I was addressing your comment that judges don't give a shit and just want to find in favor of the police in all cases. I don't think that is true and I think the concurrence is evidence of that.

And it isn't a pass the buck explanation. Appeals court judges have very very very limited ability to overturn a factual finding. There was conflicting testimony regarding whether the guy elbowed the cop. An appeals court judge reviewing a factual determination that the guy elbowed the cop can only overturn if there was no evidence from which the jury (or in this case, judge) could find that the guy elbowed the cop. That isn't the case here.

 

[Rationalist]

Naaaa just having fun. I mean when I was an active Republican and attended party meetings this is what we used to laugh about. How we manipulated rural and blue collar Americans with these wedge issues to distract you from the fact that we were selling you down the river for a buck. Eventually I realized that if they could do it to you....they could, would (and did) do it to me as well.

If you give these sort of issues your priority don't be surprized if you make $10 an hour or less for the rest of your life.

You're such a liar; it is truly astounding. You never attended any meetings where you plotted to dupe the common folk (obvious bullshit), and you were never an "active republican" any more than I was an "active communist." Hell, you make Obama look like a moderate.

Also, your lie makes you look like an asshole, since you're essentially admitting that you were completely bankrupt of any morals. Might want to come up with a better lie next time.

 

[Don Quixote]

freedom is gone. you have none anymore. you will live, die, or be imprisoned at the whim of the government.

http://www.theagitator.com/2011/12/19/kafka-surrenders/

here’s a ruling from the D.C. Court of Appeals demonstrating just how powerless citizens are when accosted by a police officers—even when the cops themselves are clearly in the wrong. What’s most troubling about the ruling is its mundanity. The law is established here. There’s really nothing to debate. It’s just a matter of the government rattling off the appropriate precedents.

The appellant is Terrance Crossland, who is asking the court to overturn his conviction on two counts of assaulting a police officer. Last April, Crossland and his cousin were approached by two D.C. Metro officers on patrol “to gather information about a rash of recent shootings and drug sales in the area.” Crossland was mowing his grass while smoking a cigarette. The police acknowledge that neither Crossland nor is cousin were doing anything unlawful. The two men were told to turn around, put their hands against a fence, and submit to a search. By both accounts, Crossland initially complied, then said, “Fuck this shit. I’m tired of this.”

Police say Crossland then elbowed one officer in the head, at which point he was punched, taken to the ground, kicked several times, and pepper sprayed. Both the trial court, the appeals court, and even the prosecution acknowledge that because Crossland was doing nothing wrong before the incident, it was illegal for the police to stop, detain, and search him. Nevertheless . . .

. . . as the trial court recognized, the APO statute “prohibits forceful resistance even if the officer’s conduct is unlawful.” Dolson v. United States, 948 A.2d 1193, 1202 (D.C. 2008) (explaining that the rationale for this rule is to “deescalate the potential for violence which exists whenever a police officer encounters an individual in the line of duty”) . . .​

So even if the police illegally stop you, detain you, and beat you, you aren’t permitted to resist. Just roll over and take it. Submit.

But we aren’t done, here. Crossland, backed by more than one witness, denied at trial that he ever threw the alleged elbow that led to his beating. The trial judge didn’t believe him.

The court specifically credited Officer Baldwin’s testimony, noting that it was corroborated by the testimony of Officer Castan. The court explained that it did not credit appellant’s testimony or that of the witnesses he called because “[a]lmost all of them had a bias” and because it was “not credible . . . that the police were out that day, randomly beating people up for no reason” and that even if they were doing that, it made no sense “that they would beat up [appellant], as opposed to Mr. Wo[]mack, whom they had a history with” and had arrested the week before.​

The court also points out that one of the officer could be heard over his radio shouting “Stop resisting,” a phrase that seems to be ingrained in the heads of D.C. Metro cops who want to dish out some punishment.


The notion that the witnesses other than Crossland and his cousin are “biased,” but the cops aren’t, is also dubious. If Crossland didn’t throw an elbow, then he was illegally detained, then searched, beaten, and pepper sprayed for nothing more than mouthing off. That’s more than enough to get beyond qualified immunity in a civil rights lawsuit against the two police officers. So yes, they would have a pretty strong incentive to say Crossland did more than swear at them before they began to beat them.

Most importantly, consider what just happened here. The trial court, the appellate court, and the prosecution all concluded that these two cops broke the law, yet still, all three have deemed that the cops’ testimony is more credible than the testimony of Crossland, his cousin, and the other witnesses—none of whom was doing anything wrong before the confrontation. To be fair, the evidence has to be pretty overwhelming for an appeals court to overturn a trial court on witness credibility. But still. Only one party broke the law before the confrontation. But because that party sports a badge and works for the government, they still get the presumption of credibility over the guy who was minding his own business, his cousin, and the other witnesses.

making rude comments to cops is stupid, but should not result in a beating

but an illegal search and seizure is also wrong

i blame the drug laws on the deterioration of police/civilian relations

 

[SmarterthanYou]

No, it isn't. I was addressing your comment that judges don't give a shit and just want to find in favor of the police in all cases. I don't think that is true and I think the concurrence is evidence of that.

And it isn't a pass the buck explanation. Appeals court judges have very very very limited ability to overturn a factual finding. There was conflicting testimony regarding whether the guy elbowed the cop. An appeals court judge reviewing a factual determination that the guy elbowed the cop can only overturn if there was no evidence from which the jury (or in this case, judge) could find that the guy elbowed the cop. That isn't the case here.

I have to disagree. it's way too coincidental and it's the job of the appeals court to make sure all was done right at the trial level. otherwise, it just seems like a trial judge rubber stamping.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

making rude comments to cops is stupid, but should not result in a beating

but an illegal search and seizure is also wrong

i blame the drug laws on the deterioration of police/civilian relations

while drug laws do play a part, I think it's rather small. the issue seems to be judges making decisions based on public policy and politically correct ideology instead of the constitution and the law.

 

[Bonestorm]

No, it isn't. I was addressing your comment that judges don't give a shit and just want to find in favor of the police in all cases. I don't think that is true and I think the concurrence is evidence of that.

I have to disagree. it's way too coincidental and it's the job of the appeals court to make sure all was done right at the trial level. otherwise, it just seems like a trial judge rubber stamping.

Pretend it was a jury trial instead of a bench trial. Do you think it is appropriate for the appeals court to overturn a jury decision on a question of fact where there is conflicting testimony? I don't.