Ridiculous Police News (Specific events)

[Nephlite]

I dunno how that's going to fly, but the DA holds the reins on reviews like this. Seems like she got punked pretty hard and didn't try to fight it.

[jmc]

I dunno how that's going to fly, but the DA holds the reins on reviews like this. Seems like she got punked pretty hard and didn't try to fight it.

It won't fly at all, there is no way.

[Nephlite]

http://krqe.com/2015/01/13/da-my-off...investigation/

Looking a bit further in to it, the law states the presiding agency has the authority to appoint the review board for the shootings. So instead of going to the DA's office, they chose another city prosecutor to oversee the case. The mayor says they circumvented the procedures put in place by the DOJ, but according to what's on paper, it looks like the DOJ allowed them leeway to be able to loophole this type of decision and bring their own people in.

Ah, lawyers. Gotta love them.

I would like to point out it was a prosecutor that barred the Chief DA, and not the police.

[Mazmaz]

Supreme Court doing more god damn dandy work.

[djzombie]

so ignorance of the law is an excuse for police who are paid to know and uphold it. g fuckin g

[jmc]

Just another reason why officers can't be human I guess.

Lets go robocop!

[Blubbartron]

Just another reason why officers can't be human I guess.

Lets go robocop!

I think the point is that it would be fine, providing it were an acceptable excuse for your everyday average person, which it's not.

That said, I think there's an important distinction to make for stuff like this. Ignorance of the law SHOULD be a viable excuse, depending on the law. This is especially true for obscenely retarded laws that are technically on the books and generally unenforced. It's not a viable excuse for obvious and serious things like murder, theft, etc.

[jmc]

I think the point is that it would be fine, providing it were an acceptable excuse for your everyday average person, which it's not.

When it comes to court though, is that actually true?

I've been to court multiple times on minor infractions (speeding, running red lights, tint violations etc....) and majority of the time cases can get tossed due to a misunderstanding of the law on behalf of the citizen.

I might be the minority in having incidents like that in court though.

[hey]

I've been to court multiple times on minor infractions (speeding, running red lights, tint violations etc....) and majority of the time cases can get tossed due to a misunderstanding of the law on behalf of the citizen.

As in, they didn't realize they were committing the crime at all? That's not the same as not knowing what they were doing was a crime.

[hey]

That said, I think there's an important distinction to make for stuff like this. Ignorance of the law SHOULD be a viable excuse, depending on the law. This is especially true for obscenely retarded laws that are technically on the books and generally unenforced. It's not a viable excuse for obvious and serious things like murder, theft, etc.

The problem is, if it was a defense you could just always claim you didn't know it was illegal, no matter what. There's no way to prove you did or didn't. It is your responsibility to always know the laws concerning what you are doing. If a law doesn't make sense at all, then they should be removed.

[jmc]

As in, they didn't realize they were committing the crime at all? That's not the same as not knowing what they were doing was a crime.

Sometimes from not realizing they were commiting a crime, speeding would be a common occurrence.

[hey]

Sometimes from not realizing they were commiting a crime, speeding would be a common occurrence.

Yeah, that is not the same thing as claiming you did not realize speeding was illegal.

[jmc]

Well I had a long thing written up, but lost it on a refresh and I don't want to type it again.

Anyways, its usually just a excuse to get off.

No one ever realizes they were committing a crime after they got caught. Well, not the people I catch at least.

[Blubbartron]

The problem is, if it was a defense you could just always claim you didn't know it was illegal, no matter what. There's no way to prove you did or didn't. It is your responsibility to always know the laws concerning what you are doing. If a law doesn't make sense at all, then they should be removed.

Not no matter what. It's called a reasonable belief that something is ok. No reasonable person believes killing people for fun is ok. A reasonable person thinks that anal sex with a consenting partner in the privacy of your bedroom is ok, but that's technically illegal in some places to this day. There are tens of thousands of laws in most places, and it's completely unreasonable to expect any one person to know all of them.

I agree that ridiculous laws need to be removed, but in the meantime, we need to make sure we aren't fucking peoples' lives up because some random person gets a burr up their ass and decides to enforce it.

[Nephlite]

Not no matter what. It's called a reasonable belief that something is ok. No reasonable person believes killing people for fun is ok. A reasonable person thinks that anal sex with a consenting partner in the privacy of your bedroom is ok, but that's technically illegal in some places to this day. There are tens of thousands of laws in most places, and it's completely unreasonable to expect any one person to know all of them.

I agree that ridiculous laws need to be removed, but in the meantime, we need to make sure we aren't fucking peoples' lives up because some random person gets a burr up their ass and decides to enforce it.

This is exactly what "ignorance of the law" means in a court setting. The prosecution can reasonably prove that you had a fundamental knowledge that what you did was illegal, because they can apply objective reasonableness to you (the defendant making the claim).

There's plenty of instances of ignorance of law in the criminal justice system. I've seen people get off because they were too young, too old, had a variety of different conditions such as autism, retardation, schizophrenia, and the courts didn't want to spend the money to try to prove otherwise.

The main reason I see people get off is just pure honest mistake stuff, and I think allowing the courts (and officers) to have discretion and the ability to make informed decisions on what is or what is not truth or fiction in regards to a "ignorance of law" rebuttal is essential to our justice system. Making it black and white is not only a terrible idea, but stacks the deck against defendants in every situation.

As far as police officers "ignorance of the law" goes, I have never personally heard of a case where that applied. My squad mate just got a fat fine for reckless driving (25 over) that he tried to use that "I didn't realize I was going that fast" excuse. Judge had no mercy for him. I have seen and have gotten out of tickets myself by using that defense, but it was for minor crap.

Now, ignorance of law in terms of force used is pretty much an unacceptable excuse. Most of us know what the policies are of our departments and what we can and cannot do. However, there's a lot of factors that go in to that. Does the department annually or bi-annually test officers on their knowledge of the Continuum? What about bi-annual recertification? Is the officer able to retain information? Is there other factors outside of training that led to the use of force such as exhaustion, injury, stress, or medical issues? Those can be precipitating factors to a sort of "ignorance of law" rebuttal, in which a mistake or improper usage is attempted to be covered up by a "I don't know what I was doing, I didn't think it was wrong" defense.

[Qalbert]

are you all missing the point that the ignorance of the law here isn't "didn't know X was illegal" but "tried to enforce Y even though it WASN'T illegal"? that's a pretty big difference. Police shouldn't be able to just make up a bullshit reason for a stop, use that to then justify an actual arrest (in this case I think it was drugs?) and then go "oops I thought the bs reason I used was a law my bad lol".
inb4 hurr durr well the person had drugs so who cares, the point is "i thought X was a crime therefore probable cause" sets a dangerous precedent with a huge potential for being abused.

[notorious bum]

MARKHAM, Ill. (AP) - A suburban Chicago police officer who fired bean bags at a knife-wielding 95-year-old man who later died says his action was prompted by the fear he had for his life.

Park Forest Officer Craig Taylor made the assertion during testimony Thursday in his trial on felony reckless conduct charges in the death of John Wrana Jr.

Taylor was one of several officers dispatched to the assistance-living facility where Wrana lived after a staff member reported the man had become combative. Wrana was shot five times with a beanbag gun before he dropped the knife and cane he was wielding.

Taylor testified he was following the instructions of his superior when he fired five beanbag rounds from a shotgun at Wrana.

On cross-examination, a Cook County prosecutor pointed out the difference in size between Wrana and Taylor.

http://www.kfvs12.com/story/27863878...ring-bean-bags

[hey]

The main reason I see people get off is just pure honest mistake stuff, and I think allowing the courts (and officers) to have discretion and the ability to make informed decisions on what is or what is not truth or fiction in regards to a "ignorance of law" rebuttal is essential to our justice system. Making it black and white is not only a terrible idea, but stacks the deck against defendants in every situation.

As far as police officers "ignorance of the law" goes, I have never personally heard of a case where that applied. My squad mate just got a fat fine for reckless driving (25 over) that he tried to use that "I didn't realize I was going that fast" excuse. Judge had no mercy for him. I have seen and have gotten out of tickets myself by using that defense, but it was for minor crap.

This is not ignorance of the law. This is ignorance of the fact that they were breaking a law. It is totally different. Ignorance of the law would be a 1 year old stealing a candy bar. They legitimately do not know any better. For sane adults, this can never be a valid excuse, because then you could simply say you did not know it was a crime, and no one could ever prove otherwise. On the other hand, the officer you mentioned knew that driving 25 over was illegal, but simply did not realize he was doing it. This would be similar to stealing a candy bar, because some one gave it to you, and said they already paid for it, when in reality they had not. This situation should be judged on a case by case basis, based on whether they reasonably should have known they were breaking the law.

[Nephlite]

are you all missing the point that the ignorance of the law here isn't "didn't know X was illegal" but "tried to enforce Y even though it WASN'T illegal"? that's a pretty big difference. Police shouldn't be able to just make up a bullshit reason for a stop, use that to then justify an actual arrest (in this case I think it was drugs?) and then go "oops I thought the bs reason I used was a law my bad lol".
inb4 hurr durr well the person had drugs so who cares, the point is "i thought X was a crime therefore probable cause" sets a dangerous precedent with a huge potential for being abused.

How are they different? As long as there's reasonable and articulatable grounds for both a stop and an arrest, and it's made in good faith, versus ignorance of a law on the books because there's no burden of proof that x-defendant should have known that said law was on the books is judged reasonable are perfectly acceptable practices.

Additionally, I hate these commentators that do these reviews. They cite one case and suddenly make it a national topic or agenda and try to paint the picture that it's going to suddenly become national practice or the norm. It's fear mongering 101, and their assertion (as in most of these pieces they do) that police responses to fear are unreasonable to due their low statistical chance of the incident repeating is hypocritical to their own "reporting".

Just remember: these are opinion pieces as well, and are based off of far-reaching rationale. Whatever is interpreted by these people is hardly a legal definition or standard.

[Nephlite]

This is not ignorance of the law. This is ignorance of the fact that they were breaking a law. It is totally different. Ignorance of the law would be a 1 year old stealing a candy bar. They legitimately do not know any better. For sane adults, this can never be a valid excuse, because then you could simply say you did not know it was a crime, and no one could ever prove otherwise. On the other hand, the officer you mentioned knew that driving 25 over was illegal, but simply did not realize he was doing it. This would be similar to stealing a candy bar, because some one gave it to you, and said they already paid for it, when in reality they had not. This situation should be judged on a case by case basis, based on whether they reasonably should have known they were breaking the law.

A sane adult making a left turn on red, which is legal in one jurisdiction, and making that same left turn in another jurisdiction and unknowingly realizing it was an offense, is ignorance of law.

It's not reasonable to think everyone knows every single law, but if it's an apparent law that's broken, and there are reasonable markers in place to prevent that type of ignorance, then there is no excuse. Speeding can be a case of "I just wasn't paying attention". But, you can't honestly say that, and ignored the speed limit signs, your own speedometer, and the flow of traffic around you that was probably going significantly slower than you were traveling. There's just no reasonable defense to such a marker in place.