"The new law also gives people the right to sue if they think they were the target of unlawful facial recognition tech."
And there's the out.
If the last 2 months of police rioting has shown us anything it's that police have utter contempt for any law that limits their power.
Until there is some punishment tied to the actual cop who breaks the law, they will ignore it. The idea that the city may get sued is of no impact and no concern to the lawless law enforcement officer.
"somewhat salaciously -- that the sites seized were used to identify "numerous victims of child sex trafficking," including a "13-year-old Jane Doe."
Police charging documents have become little more than PR lies to media for reprint.
Back when MyRedBook was taken down in 2014, an FBI agent had a claim of a minor involved in commercial sex inserted into the charging documents despite there being no evidence of any such thing.
She became a rescue industry hero for inserting that false claim and it has been going in ever since. Prosecutors use their absolute immunity to knowingly include lies in charging documents and the salacious media blindly re-prints them to sell clicks. It's absolutely disgusting and I see no sign it will ever stop.
"While generally familiar with stop bars, and believing
This isn't even subjectively reasonable, says the court."
This is the real disappointment. What's the point of spending all our tax money on the largest and most militarized police force in the world if we can't even train them to effectively lie under oath in a credible fashion? It's not enough to provide them with a Bill of Rights so they know what to ignore if we are unwilling to provide the training needed to ignore our rights in a credible manner.
One could argue it was his inexperience that made him too green to convincingly under oath, but the solution there is to ensure he always has a cute police dog with him to provide cover for unreasonable violations of the 4th amendment with impunity until he has mastered the art of "protecting and serving" on his own.
To their credit, I doubt would see this type of amateur our in places like New York, LA or Seattle. There they put in the hard work to train new officers to credibly plant evidence and lie under oath in a way the court can support without the risk of public embarrassment. The judiciary can do their part to excuse routine police misconduct, but the police need to step up and do their part to make it, at least on the surface, credible.
Correction:
"It appears we have a situation where an awful lot of bad apples are ruining things for the small handful of honest cops we have out there."
Ya, I'm calling bullshit on the "a few bad apples" shtick.
Policing in America is a toxic environment that rewards sadists and sociopaths. It's irrelevant if "good people with honest intentions" go into law enforcement, which is an unproven assumption on your part. The culture rewards criminals and those who at a minimum turn a blind eye to all the criminality around them.
This is not even where someone starts. It's a simple rule of human nature that if you create positions with no oversight, not accountability and a monopoly on violence in any society, then the least evolved members of society will be drawn to that work and those who are not will be drummed out.
Police unions, cooperative prosecutors and judges, rules like qualified immunity guarantee you will create a culture of monsters and that is exactly what he have done as every police state before us has done.
This is a very incomplete list, but USA today has recently started pulling together reports of misconduct by police around the US and we are at 85,000 over the last decade alone. Mind you, reporting is optional and most police departments work hard to cover up police corruption within their department. The state of California law enforcement, which is LA shows literally no distinction between themselves and the gangs they cooperate with more than fight refuses to report at all.
It appears we have a situation where an awful lot of bad apples are ruining things for the small handful of cops we have out there.
If law enforcement is viewed as the organized criminal organization I believe they are, this new law is more dangerous than no new law at all.
Like all laws passed to protect our civil rights from law enforcement, it includes no actual sanction for when (and it will be when) they simply ignore the law without consequence.
When we pass these toothless "police restriction" laws it's nothing more than grand standing directed at our entirely unaccountable law enforcement agencies. Naive citizens who grew up on COPS, Adam 12 and NCIS incorrectly believe police actually follow the laws the way citizens do and that has never been the case.
What do you think the odds are that cops will follow a law that prosecutors and judges don't even need to go through the regular qualified immunity free pass to violate the law process they usually fall back on when there are sanctions?
Arresting someone is a form of state violence whether they are ultimately charged or not. Before the State commits violence against 12 year old girls, they better have a damn good excuse beyond "she pointed her finger gun at someone!"
Your pandering to police brutality is exactly why people increasingly don't trust our out of control police Barney Fife driven police force.
Ironically, if the resource officer (cop) had pulled out his gun and returned real fire to match her imaginary bullets, thus killing her, they would likely get off under qualified immunity.
Meanwhile, guys like you would be calling the little girls police execution "a valuable lesson for other 12 year old girls with finger guns."
"You think telling a lie to somebody on the street is the same as giving testimony in court?"
Good point, while cops regularly lie under oath in a court of law with complete impunity in the rare event they are caught (they even have a cute name for that it's so common: testilying), they have not made it official written policy. It's just understood that a police officers job is to make up any lie they can to secure a conviction. I think it falls under the same "blue code" that covers police never reporting on each other when commit crimes.
"If I were a defense attorney and any portland police were testifying against my client, I would be sure to bring up the fact that portland allows their officers to lie as the basis for why no testimony from this witness should be listened to be given any credibile"
The trouble with your logic is it assumes you have some third party you can appeal to within in criminal system to get the facts to a jury. That the prosecutors and judges (who are generally ex-prosecutors) do more than protect and enable corruption within the police.
Before a trial begins, you would submit a request to mention this fact (that cops lie) in a motion called "in limine'" The prosecutor would call to have that excluded as "irrelevant to the case," the judge with an eye on their police union voters would reflexively uphold that request and prohibit you from mentioning this at trial.
People wrongly believe trials are about justice and fact finding. They are simply a way to ensure the jury only hears the 10% of the facts that supports they police view while actively exclude any fact that contradicts it and might prevent a conviction. Juries generally walk out of a trial with such a skewed version of the facts that they actually know less than when the came in since they now believe a lot of things that simply weren't to in order to ensure a conviction.
While police have qualified immunity, judges and prosecutors have ABSOLUTE immunity. They may perhaps be the only people in the system that are even bigger habitual liars than the police they are are sworn to shield from public accountability.
I find it instructive that a cop can literally film himself having sex with a 15 year old that be goes on to show to follow cops and friends and be aquitted of everything but the misdemeanor of official misconduct
but a 12 year old with a finger gun is sent to jail and charged with a felony and there there is an idiot in this threat arguing that this will teach her a lesson. Given how many underage girls are raped by cops in custody, exactly what type of "lesson" does he expect this girl to learn?
What a disgusting country this has become.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Dari.
Lawless Law Enforcement is the problem
"The new law also gives people the right to sue if they think they were the target of unlawful facial recognition tech."
And there's the out.
If the last 2 months of police rioting has shown us anything it's that police have utter contempt for any law that limits their power.
Until there is some punishment tied to the actual cop who breaks the law, they will ignore it. The idea that the city may get sued is of no impact and no concern to the lawless law enforcement officer.
(untitled comment)
"somewhat salaciously -- that the sites seized were used to identify "numerous victims of child sex trafficking," including a "13-year-old Jane Doe."
Police charging documents have become little more than PR lies to media for reprint.
Back when MyRedBook was taken down in 2014, an FBI agent had a claim of a minor involved in commercial sex inserted into the charging documents despite there being no evidence of any such thing.
She became a rescue industry hero for inserting that false claim and it has been going in ever since. Prosecutors use their absolute immunity to knowingly include lies in charging documents and the salacious media blindly re-prints them to sell clicks. It's absolutely disgusting and I see no sign it will ever stop.
(untitled comment)
"While generally familiar with stop bars, and believing
This isn't even subjectively reasonable, says the court."
This is the real disappointment. What's the point of spending all our tax money on the largest and most militarized police force in the world if we can't even train them to effectively lie under oath in a credible fashion? It's not enough to provide them with a Bill of Rights so they know what to ignore if we are unwilling to provide the training needed to ignore our rights in a credible manner.
One could argue it was his inexperience that made him too green to convincingly under oath, but the solution there is to ensure he always has a cute police dog with him to provide cover for unreasonable violations of the 4th amendment with impunity until he has mastered the art of "protecting and serving" on his own.
To their credit, I doubt would see this type of amateur our in places like New York, LA or Seattle. There they put in the hard work to train new officers to credibly plant evidence and lie under oath in a way the court can support without the risk of public embarrassment. The judiciary can do their part to excuse routine police misconduct, but the police need to step up and do their part to make it, at least on the surface, credible.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Insanity
Correction:
"It appears we have a situation where an awful lot of bad apples are ruining things for the small handful of honest cops we have out there."
https://news.yahoo.com/found-85-000-cops-ve-012000534.html
Re: Re: Re: Re: Insanity
Ya, I'm calling bullshit on the "a few bad apples" shtick.
Policing in America is a toxic environment that rewards sadists and sociopaths. It's irrelevant if "good people with honest intentions" go into law enforcement, which is an unproven assumption on your part. The culture rewards criminals and those who at a minimum turn a blind eye to all the criminality around them.
This is not even where someone starts. It's a simple rule of human nature that if you create positions with no oversight, not accountability and a monopoly on violence in any society, then the least evolved members of society will be drawn to that work and those who are not will be drummed out.
Police unions, cooperative prosecutors and judges, rules like qualified immunity guarantee you will create a culture of monsters and that is exactly what he have done as every police state before us has done.
This is a very incomplete list, but USA today has recently started pulling together reports of misconduct by police around the US and we are at 85,000 over the last decade alone. Mind you, reporting is optional and most police departments work hard to cover up police corruption within their department. The state of California law enforcement, which is LA shows literally no distinction between themselves and the gangs they cooperate with more than fight refuses to report at all.
It appears we have a situation where an awful lot of bad apples are ruining things for the small handful of cops we have out there.
(untitled comment)
If law enforcement is viewed as the organized criminal organization I believe they are, this new law is more dangerous than no new law at all.
Like all laws passed to protect our civil rights from law enforcement, it includes no actual sanction for when (and it will be when) they simply ignore the law without consequence.
When we pass these toothless "police restriction" laws it's nothing more than grand standing directed at our entirely unaccountable law enforcement agencies. Naive citizens who grew up on COPS, Adam 12 and NCIS incorrectly believe police actually follow the laws the way citizens do and that has never been the case.
What do you think the odds are that cops will follow a law that prosecutors and judges don't even need to go through the regular qualified immunity free pass to violate the law process they usually fall back on when there are sanctions?
Re: Re: Insanity
Arresting someone is a form of state violence whether they are ultimately charged or not. Before the State commits violence against 12 year old girls, they better have a damn good excuse beyond "she pointed her finger gun at someone!"
Your pandering to police brutality is exactly why people increasingly don't trust our out of control police Barney Fife driven police force.
Ironically, if the resource officer (cop) had pulled out his gun and returned real fire to match her imaginary bullets, thus killing her, they would likely get off under qualified immunity.
Meanwhile, guys like you would be calling the little girls police execution "a valuable lesson for other 12 year old girls with finger guns."
Re: Re:
Not true.
Often you can instead expect the cop to murder someone because they were "afraid for thier safety" from 12 year old girls with finger guns.
Best to view cops as equivalent to the crips or bloods, but without any legal ramifications when they break the law.
Re: Re: A Defense attorneys dream statement
"You think telling a lie to somebody on the street is the same as giving testimony in court?"
Good point, while cops regularly lie under oath in a court of law with complete impunity in the rare event they are caught (they even have a cute name for that it's so common: testilying), they have not made it official written policy. It's just understood that a police officers job is to make up any lie they can to secure a conviction. I think it falls under the same "blue code" that covers police never reporting on each other when commit crimes.
Re: A Defense attorneys dream statement
"If I were a defense attorney and any portland police were testifying against my client, I would be sure to bring up the fact that portland allows their officers to lie as the basis for why no testimony from this witness should be listened to be given any credibile"
The trouble with your logic is it assumes you have some third party you can appeal to within in criminal system to get the facts to a jury. That the prosecutors and judges (who are generally ex-prosecutors) do more than protect and enable corruption within the police.
Before a trial begins, you would submit a request to mention this fact (that cops lie) in a motion called "in limine'" The prosecutor would call to have that excluded as "irrelevant to the case," the judge with an eye on their police union voters would reflexively uphold that request and prohibit you from mentioning this at trial.
People wrongly believe trials are about justice and fact finding. They are simply a way to ensure the jury only hears the 10% of the facts that supports they police view while actively exclude any fact that contradicts it and might prevent a conviction. Juries generally walk out of a trial with such a skewed version of the facts that they actually know less than when the came in since they now believe a lot of things that simply weren't to in order to ensure a conviction.
While police have qualified immunity, judges and prosecutors have ABSOLUTE immunity. They may perhaps be the only people in the system that are even bigger habitual liars than the police they are are sworn to shield from public accountability.
Insanity
I find it instructive that a cop can literally film himself having sex with a 15 year old that be goes on to show to follow cops and friends and be aquitted of everything but the misdemeanor of official misconduct
https://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/nyc-crime/ny-cop-acquitted-of-sex-with-teenage-girl- 20191002-7cwx4o2s4jfv3p3cuc7b5azf2i-story.html
but a 12 year old with a finger gun is sent to jail and charged with a felony and there there is an idiot in this threat arguing that this will teach her a lesson. Given how many underage girls are raped by cops in custody, exactly what type of "lesson" does he expect this girl to learn?
What a disgusting country this has become.
Techdirt has not posted any stories submitted by Dari.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt