Man sues American Airlines over identification, jail time(star-telegram.com)
star-telegram.com
Man sues American Airlines over identification, jail time
https://www.star-telegram.com/news/local/fort-worth/article262126407.html
324 comments
> Honestly, at this point in the U.S. maybe we should all have a lawyer on retainer and their phone number memorized and take no such situations lightly.
A retainer would be expensive and unnecessary unless you know that you're at particular risk of arrest and prosecution, but it's not unwise to at least know the number of a well-regarded criminal law firm. Put their number in your phone, and a physical copy in your wallet — along with other emergency contacts (spouse, family members, etc).
A retainer would be expensive and unnecessary unless you know that you're at particular risk of arrest and prosecution, but it's not unwise to at least know the number of a well-regarded criminal law firm. Put their number in your phone, and a physical copy in your wallet — along with other emergency contacts (spouse, family members, etc).
You won't have access to your phone and belongings. They are not trying to make it easy for you. How all these behaviours are sane and legal is of course beyond me. Public tolerates too much.
It depends on the department's policies. Locally, they'll give you brief access to your phone/wallet to copy down phone numbers during initial processing.
If you don't think to ask, however, you're absolutely screwed after that.
If you don't think to ask, however, you're absolutely screwed after that.
> And for God's sake, stop assuming someone that hasn't gone through a trial is guilty -- what is this...
Take notice: some of the people who (rightfully!) express outrage at this story will gleefully demand that all suspects of misdemeanors be imprisoned indefinitely without bail.
Take notice: some of the people who (rightfully!) express outrage at this story will gleefully demand that all suspects of misdemeanors be imprisoned indefinitely without bail.
I was thinking the same thing. This is exactly what "tough on crime" looks like, and those who are complacent in their righteousness never think the coin has a reverse side.
[deleted]
While I agree that detectives and judges should absolutely face charges that could lead to imprisonment (not just fines and not just termination!) if their incompetence or malice results in someone being wrongfully jailed, I worry that it could have unintended consequences: with such a policy, judges would likely help other judges stay out of prison by lying or what have you, and this would make victims look more guilty.
I don't know what to do about it, though.
I don't know what to do about it, though.
Unfortunately it would also make it insanely expensive to hire judges and lawyers. How much would someone have to pay you to take a job where you could go to prison if you make a mistake?
I’m not saying it wasn’t straight up negligence in this case, but that’s definitely how prospective candidates will think about it (I know I would).
Engineers can and do go to prison for mistakes, so at least there is precedent for paying reasonable-if-high salaries. I would expect folks interested in public service and justice would be intrinsically motivated to do a good job, too.
I'd be genuinely interested in reading about an example of that. Do you know of a particular incident that I could search for?
Example/exempli gratia: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/two-foreign-shipping-co...
A lot of us took an engineer oath upon graduation and there is a fiduciary relationship formed with the public in certain contexts -- outside the U.S. There are professional ethics regardless.
In the U.S. with the lack of regulation the topic is a bit hit or miss https://www.natlawreview.com/article/court-holds-engineer-do... vs e.g. some states which regulate the/any engineering profession.
A lot of us took an engineer oath upon graduation and there is a fiduciary relationship formed with the public in certain contexts -- outside the U.S. There are professional ethics regardless.
In the U.S. with the lack of regulation the topic is a bit hit or miss https://www.natlawreview.com/article/court-holds-engineer-do... vs e.g. some states which regulate the/any engineering profession.
You don't need a dedicated attorney on retainer. You can buy legal insurance coverage. Many corporate jobs have this benefit already - ask your HR department.
Also, start actually punishing such mistakes. Detective(s), judge, police, and American Airlines (everyone involved) should be severely punished for once.
More specifically: required to bend over, expose their anuses, and cough. In addition to having a good chunk of their retirement portfolios confiscated, and being required to do at least double the jail time that this poor fellow did.
Because this is America, after all.
More specifically: required to bend over, expose their anuses, and cough. In addition to having a good chunk of their retirement portfolios confiscated, and being required to do at least double the jail time that this poor fellow did.
Because this is America, after all.
Do you know what the yearly fee of having a decent lawyer on retainer?
That varies greatly. Mine was $5k, but I don’t have to repay yearly. Basically I just get easy access to get on his calendar and the first 5k is covered.
That's surprisingly cheap. I always assumed that there would be a yearly fee just to hold them on retainer, and then another fee if you actually use them. Maybe I should get a lawyer on retainer, it is cheaper than some other insurances that I have.
Depends on the size of the firm, and how much you interact with them.
A local law office with 1-2 lawyers and a few assistants; likely $1000-1500 that’s held by them to put towards any future requirements.
Larger firms range from $5000-25000 for an individual, but again, usually this money is held in a trust on your behalf and you can use it to pay down any bills or let them keep it and pay the invoices as they come.
A local law office with 1-2 lawyers and a few assistants; likely $1000-1500 that’s held by them to put towards any future requirements.
Larger firms range from $5000-25000 for an individual, but again, usually this money is held in a trust on your behalf and you can use it to pay down any bills or let them keep it and pay the invoices as they come.
Thank you -- was starting to write the same and then decided to double check nobody beat me to the punch.
Fees are usually not annually but an advance -- but you can have a law firm on retainer on an annul basis -- that is they are expected to deal with a particular legal volume for you annually -- different notion slightly.
Fees are usually not annually but an advance -- but you can have a law firm on retainer on an annul basis -- that is they are expected to deal with a particular legal volume for you annually -- different notion slightly.
Wow this is insane. I hope this blows up in a big way and everyone is aware of what happened here, and I hope Mr Lowe gets a big payday.
>>>"After Lowe had been in jail for eight days, he was taken to a local judge. He still received no information about why he was there, he said. The judge told him his only options were to waive extradition — in which New Mexico would deliver him to Texas authorities — or wait for Texas authorities to pick him up. Lowe, unsure what the legal implications were of either option, waived extradition based on the court’s suggestion that he do so."
This is such a perfect application of the term "kafkaesque".
Also, is it weird that he was brought before a judge without having any sort of legal representation first, and that the judge was able to give Mr Lowe advice as to what to do? Imagining myself in his shoes, I wouldn't say a single word to the judge or anyone really before I had spoken with a lawyer, I don't care how long that takes. One wrong word and it's not hard to imagine his 17 day ordeal turning into something longer and more nightmarish.
>>>"After Lowe had been in jail for eight days, he was taken to a local judge. He still received no information about why he was there, he said. The judge told him his only options were to waive extradition — in which New Mexico would deliver him to Texas authorities — or wait for Texas authorities to pick him up. Lowe, unsure what the legal implications were of either option, waived extradition based on the court’s suggestion that he do so."
This is such a perfect application of the term "kafkaesque".
Also, is it weird that he was brought before a judge without having any sort of legal representation first, and that the judge was able to give Mr Lowe advice as to what to do? Imagining myself in his shoes, I wouldn't say a single word to the judge or anyone really before I had spoken with a lawyer, I don't care how long that takes. One wrong word and it's not hard to imagine his 17 day ordeal turning into something longer and more nightmarish.
These types of occurrences are my number one argument for eliminating qualified immunity. Police officers should face significant, personal liability for flagrant violations of individual rights like this.
It happens every day, and in almost every case, there's literally zero recourse no matter how much money you have to throw at the problem.
It happens every day, and in almost every case, there's literally zero recourse no matter how much money you have to throw at the problem.
This sounds good. What may be the unintentional side-effects? Downsides? I guess, another way to question this is why is it the way it is?
Cops might hesitate to act if their were repercussions, accountability or responsibility for their actions.
Like the cops at our most recent school shooting in Texas, you mean?
Seems like they already hesitate to act.
Seems like they already hesitate to act.
I agree but I also think that lot of cops are good folk and doing dirty work of keeping streets safe. Talk to them sometime outside of the media messaging. Absolute statements painting the entire police force one way or the other is wrong and disingenious.
They already don't act because there's no repercussions for not doing anything; the SF DA is being recalled today because the cops decided they didn't like him and just haven't been doing their job for months as a result.
Chesa Boudin is the opposite problem. The answer to our broke-ass, classist, unjust "justice" system isn't to abandon prosecution almost entirely.
If I had a magic wand, the DA's offices across America would review cases promptly, prosecute justifiable cases, and preemptively drop unjustified cases as soon as possible — and report truly questionable policing to a real oversight board, while actually charging and prosecuting police officers for genuinely bad policing.
In reality, in most jurisdictions, the DA's office often doesn't even look at most cases until the day of arraignment, months after someone's life has already been run through a ringer and they've spent tens of thousands on retaining a defense attorney (if they're lucky enough to afford one), not to mention therapy (again, if they're lucky enough to afford that). All too often they'll try to coerce a plea deal for a bad case, rather than simply dropping it — and people accept the offered deal, because the alternative is incredibly expensive, and incredibly risky.
As for holding police accountable for bad policing? Unless it's a case that garners the political will to prosecute (usually due to massive negative media attention), a ski holiday in hell is more likely.
However, Chesa Boudin's office swung way too far in the opposite direction, failing to even prosecute strong cases for real crimes that resulted in real harm. Eventually, the police gave up — why bother going through the effort of policing if the DA is just going to drop the case anyway? It's like writing code only to have `git` erase your entire branch when you `git push`.
I'm not a police apologist ("fuck the police" would find a spot on my top-100 playlist!) but Chesa Boudin absolutely deserved to be recalled.
If I had a magic wand, the DA's offices across America would review cases promptly, prosecute justifiable cases, and preemptively drop unjustified cases as soon as possible — and report truly questionable policing to a real oversight board, while actually charging and prosecuting police officers for genuinely bad policing.
In reality, in most jurisdictions, the DA's office often doesn't even look at most cases until the day of arraignment, months after someone's life has already been run through a ringer and they've spent tens of thousands on retaining a defense attorney (if they're lucky enough to afford one), not to mention therapy (again, if they're lucky enough to afford that). All too often they'll try to coerce a plea deal for a bad case, rather than simply dropping it — and people accept the offered deal, because the alternative is incredibly expensive, and incredibly risky.
As for holding police accountable for bad policing? Unless it's a case that garners the political will to prosecute (usually due to massive negative media attention), a ski holiday in hell is more likely.
However, Chesa Boudin's office swung way too far in the opposite direction, failing to even prosecute strong cases for real crimes that resulted in real harm. Eventually, the police gave up — why bother going through the effort of policing if the DA is just going to drop the case anyway? It's like writing code only to have `git` erase your entire branch when you `git push`.
I'm not a police apologist ("fuck the police" would find a spot on my top-100 playlist!) but Chesa Boudin absolutely deserved to be recalled.
that's sort of the point, but since accountability or responsibility are words generally given positive spin - that is to say these are things we want everyone to have in society - I'm supposing your post is extremely dry sarcasm?
Cops hesitating to break the law is the goal here.
They already hesitate to do protecting at their own peril, as evidenced by that recent school shooting.
They already hesitate to do protecting at their own peril, as evidenced by that recent school shooting.
Umm...good?
In true life-or-death situations, instinct and training still kicks in.
But maybe cops should be hesitating before deciding to escalate a situation just because someone challenged them when they overstepped their legal authority.
In true life-or-death situations, instinct and training still kicks in.
But maybe cops should be hesitating before deciding to escalate a situation just because someone challenged them when they overstepped their legal authority.
It's well known how courts/DAs here in the states pressure people to accept lesser charges to avoid the expense of a trial. There's no guarantee an innocent party will win at trial, and that risk of losing coupled with the cost of fighting can and does lead innocent parties to accept a plea bargain.
The courts are run like a business, in that efficiency is a concern. Pragmatism outweighs idealism. The downside of taking away qualified immunity for police is the same as the downside of bringing every case to trial. Put simply, it would result in a more costly process, impeding the work of doling out punishment.
> impeding the work of doling out punishment.
I'm OK with this; Blackstone's ratio applies here, too ("It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.")
I'm OK with this; Blackstone's ratio applies here, too ("It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer.")
Yep, the way things operate currently is shameful.
I'm the wrong person to steel-man the argument for qualified immunity, and will have to leave that to someone else.
I'd recommend this argument against, which does provide significant context:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publicat...
I'd recommend this argument against, which does provide significant context:
https://www.americanbar.org/groups/public_education/publicat...
Same for politicians
Eliminating qualified immunity won't help when judges are reluctant to award judgments against the whole department or the municipality that is responsible for them, which are not covered under qualified immunity. First you have to get the judges to stop protecting the executive side of the justice system, and then that may be enough already. (How long would a PD let these things go on if appropriate relief was awarded every time it happened?)
Lawsuits should be filed both against the department and each responsible officer, including any that refuse to help when they know better.
Whenever an officer or public official exceeds his lawful authority, he should have liability same as any random Joe on the street for the same offense.
This sort of thing happens to thousands of people in the US every day, routinely.
Whenever an officer or public official exceeds his lawful authority, he should have liability same as any random Joe on the street for the same offense.
This sort of thing happens to thousands of people in the US every day, routinely.
I mean doctors and engineers can both face jail time for negligence. The US Military has strict rules of engagement and soldiers can face court marshal. There’s no reason the police can’t or shouldn’t be held accountable for negligence or worse behavior.
IMHO you don't even need to remove/alter qualified immunity to make it happen. Instead:
1. make a policeman's professional licensing body and require all police to join it. (Take the police unions and turn them into that.)
2. Have the licensing body introduce the concept of professional malfeasance.
3. Make a simple regulatory statute where professional malfeasance as decided by that licensing body, creates civil/criminal liability.
Y'know — just like engineers!
1. make a policeman's professional licensing body and require all police to join it. (Take the police unions and turn them into that.)
2. Have the licensing body introduce the concept of professional malfeasance.
3. Make a simple regulatory statute where professional malfeasance as decided by that licensing body, creates civil/criminal liability.
Y'know — just like engineers!
The licensing body will quickly fill with people aligned with police and be entirely useless.
This kind of thing works better with skilled professionals which police are not. Plus, nobody wants engineers to build bridges that fall down, plenty of people want police to be abusive and belligerent… to groups of people they don’t identify with.
This kind of thing works better with skilled professionals which police are not. Plus, nobody wants engineers to build bridges that fall down, plenty of people want police to be abusive and belligerent… to groups of people they don’t identify with.
plenty of people also want engineers to make the cheapest possible building
> The licensing body will quickly fill with people aligned with police and be entirely useless.
This, 110%.
It will be useless for the same reason Internal Affairs is useless. The line of "We investigated ourselves and found no wrong-doing" will continue.
Police are buddies with the District Attorneys which are buddies with the judges. The result is nobody wants to prosecute police officers.
This, 110%.
It will be useless for the same reason Internal Affairs is useless. The line of "We investigated ourselves and found no wrong-doing" will continue.
Police are buddies with the District Attorneys which are buddies with the judges. The result is nobody wants to prosecute police officers.
This is why you have an ‘independent’ police complaints authority, and that then ends up between my stacked in much the same way. TIL.
Make the licensing body pay out settlements against its members and you’ll get them to “manage out” the bad apples.
Changing tort law would be an enormous political fight, way bigger than Obamacare or abortion or environmental regulation or gun rights or any of the other big ticket items.
Not sure if I agree with the idea, but it wouldn’t necessarily require changing tort law. Just require that the licensing body also provide liability insurance, as hospitals do for doctors; and “disbar” any police officer who uses anything other than the group-plan insurance to pay out a settlement, or who goes to court.
I believe unions already tend to kick out union members who don’t accept union-appointed lawyers and instead attempt to litigate their own cases. This wouldn’t be much of a stretch from that.
I believe unions already tend to kick out union members who don’t accept union-appointed lawyers and instead attempt to litigate their own cases. This wouldn’t be much of a stretch from that.
Need to make the licensing body act like insurance. Individual policemen receive qualified immunity but their licensing body will pay the fines. Police who are poorly trained or poorly behaved will be ejected by the licensing body because it will deem them too much of a liability.
The result is cops who feel like they have the freedom to do what is necessary, and a licensing body that will only select quality cops.
The result is cops who feel like they have the freedom to do what is necessary, and a licensing body that will only select quality cops.
Or - the result is the body finds a way to have tax money fund the licensing body.
Honestly the details of licensing, while charitable and productive to mention, are nearly irrelevant. The government has no problem setting up licensing systems. The merits can be debated, but doing what you call for is pretty well oiled machinery at this point.
The challenge is you're seeking to overturn the systems of violence with peaceful legislative action. This is a lofty goal with historically rare outcome.
The challenge is you're seeking to overturn the systems of violence with peaceful legislative action. This is a lofty goal with historically rare outcome.
The police aren’t the arm of a ruling class abusing the less fortunate (much though some want to believe this).
They’re just bad at their jobs. There are no incentives really to be good at their jobs, and very few people are motivated to get them to do high quality work. Nobody wants to understand the complexity of a police force, people are either mildly annoyed or can only grasp a message that fits on a protest sign.
“Systems” should be a dirty word when it comes to discussing social issues, it’s just a catchall boogeyman for people who don’t want to understand complexity and often (as is done subtly here) an prelude to suggesting violence.
They’re just bad at their jobs. There are no incentives really to be good at their jobs, and very few people are motivated to get them to do high quality work. Nobody wants to understand the complexity of a police force, people are either mildly annoyed or can only grasp a message that fits on a protest sign.
“Systems” should be a dirty word when it comes to discussing social issues, it’s just a catchall boogeyman for people who don’t want to understand complexity and often (as is done subtly here) an prelude to suggesting violence.
> “Systems” should be a dirty word when it comes to discussing social issues
Likewise, "complexity," as a reason that someone is wrong, yet completely unqualified by a less vague description of an actual error is a cop-out that should have no place in such discussions.
> The police aren’t the arm of a ruling class abusing the less fortunate (much though some want to believe this).
While I can't say for sure that there's a causal relationship between pay-to-win courts, rich people given an express lane to lawmakers and in general a society fundamentally built on the notion that wealth affords power, and the police bias against poor people, I believe that this is the level you have to consider the question at.
That is, the problem can't fully be explained by looking at the police force only but is the result of the police interacting with other authorities and reacting to policy. Normally you would call these interacting bodies "systems" and say that the problem is "systemic" but I guess that's a foul word.
Likewise, "complexity," as a reason that someone is wrong, yet completely unqualified by a less vague description of an actual error is a cop-out that should have no place in such discussions.
> The police aren’t the arm of a ruling class abusing the less fortunate (much though some want to believe this).
While I can't say for sure that there's a causal relationship between pay-to-win courts, rich people given an express lane to lawmakers and in general a society fundamentally built on the notion that wealth affords power, and the police bias against poor people, I believe that this is the level you have to consider the question at.
That is, the problem can't fully be explained by looking at the police force only but is the result of the police interacting with other authorities and reacting to policy. Normally you would call these interacting bodies "systems" and say that the problem is "systemic" but I guess that's a foul word.
>(as is done subtly here) an prelude to suggesting violence.
What is this even supposed to mean? A prelude to suggesting violence? Is that when you don't actually suggest violence but the word 'prelude' is used to make someone fill in the blanks to reinterpret it that way?
It's quite rich that pointing out state violence results in factually incorrect accusations (not to mention personal insult implying I'm not going to "understand complexity") as an attempt to turn the tables and make me sound the violent one instead of the systems that cause innocents to be maimed and killed by police actions.
Yeah, police gangs in LA exist (including those showing police officers glorifying killing) 'but they're not representative' of the problem. No the real problem must be 'preludes' to non-existent suggestions of violence.
>They’re just bad at their jobs.
And it is ever so convenient that they are bad in their jobs in ways that result in the disfavor of the disadvantaged, poor, and certain minorities. I'm sure that does not result in relatively better treatment for those in elevated positions of power (such as high level elected officials, who we don't dare call the 'ruling class'). No these are just happy accidents that are not at all guided by those in elevated positions of power (but not the 'ruling class'!).
What is this even supposed to mean? A prelude to suggesting violence? Is that when you don't actually suggest violence but the word 'prelude' is used to make someone fill in the blanks to reinterpret it that way?
It's quite rich that pointing out state violence results in factually incorrect accusations (not to mention personal insult implying I'm not going to "understand complexity") as an attempt to turn the tables and make me sound the violent one instead of the systems that cause innocents to be maimed and killed by police actions.
Yeah, police gangs in LA exist (including those showing police officers glorifying killing) 'but they're not representative' of the problem. No the real problem must be 'preludes' to non-existent suggestions of violence.
>They’re just bad at their jobs.
And it is ever so convenient that they are bad in their jobs in ways that result in the disfavor of the disadvantaged, poor, and certain minorities. I'm sure that does not result in relatively better treatment for those in elevated positions of power (such as high level elected officials, who we don't dare call the 'ruling class'). No these are just happy accidents that are not at all guided by those in elevated positions of power (but not the 'ruling class'!).
> They’re just bad at their jobs.
This is incredibly naive. In Los Angeles County, for example, there are deputy gangs[0]. That is, the police have their own gang within the department. Often they come from less fortunate backgrounds, but they’re still out to use their power for their own gain. It’s not just being bad at their jobs.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_County_Sheriff's...
This is incredibly naive. In Los Angeles County, for example, there are deputy gangs[0]. That is, the police have their own gang within the department. Often they come from less fortunate backgrounds, but they’re still out to use their power for their own gain. It’s not just being bad at their jobs.
[0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_County_Sheriff's...
The gang problems of Los Angeles are not at all representative of the policing problems in the rest of the country.
They seem to be pretty effective at organizing and advocating for themselves.
Only so effective because of the lack of competent opposition pushing them to be better, as I was trying to express. If you can do your job basically free of corrective feedback, it’s going to get progressively worse.
Police are as good as society forces them to be, marching in the street to abolish them doesn’t put any pressure on them to be better.
Police are as good as society forces them to be, marching in the street to abolish them doesn’t put any pressure on them to be better.
Yeah actually I don't think that's true at all. They're extremely effective at shutting down polite opposition to them.
Maybe a model worth copying would be the Law Enforcement Conduct Commission (LECC) of the Australian state of New South Wales – https://www.lecc.nsw.gov.au/
The NSW state government appoints the Chief Commissioner of the LECC – but by law, they must appoint a (serving or retired) senior judge. The other Commissioner is also appointed by the government, but the Chief Commissioner has a veto over the government's appointment of the Commissioner, and by law cannot be a serving or retired police officer – http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/cons...
It seems to be actually effective – at least sometimes – in going after police misbehaviour, for example: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/are-you-going-to-attack-...
Although in other cases maybe it has not done as good a job: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-20/nsw-police-watchdog-k...
And some view it as overly lenient: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/apr/06/nsw-p...
Still, I wonder what would have been the outcome in those kinds of cases if they had happened in the US?
The NSW state government appoints the Chief Commissioner of the LECC – but by law, they must appoint a (serving or retired) senior judge. The other Commissioner is also appointed by the government, but the Chief Commissioner has a veto over the government's appointment of the Commissioner, and by law cannot be a serving or retired police officer – http://www8.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/viewdoc/au/legis/nsw/cons...
It seems to be actually effective – at least sometimes – in going after police misbehaviour, for example: https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/are-you-going-to-attack-...
Although in other cases maybe it has not done as good a job: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-02-20/nsw-police-watchdog-k...
And some view it as overly lenient: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/apr/06/nsw-p...
Still, I wonder what would have been the outcome in those kinds of cases if they had happened in the US?
Why would you need a quasi-official sanctioning body for a profession that should be sanctioned by the federal government or state in the first place? Is this yet again a case of Americanism that the rest of the world does just not understand?
I’m not American, but yes, it’s a specific Americanism — in that American police regulation happens at the state level, and the federal government doesn’t really get a say in it, and so (as far as I understand) cannot impose such a sanctioning body as a part of federal policy.
(The FBI, in its role of being external federal auditors for police corruption/malfeasance — but with no power over police departments, only the power to charge individual officers with federal criminal acts if that applies — is essentially the best the federal government can do.)
But if there just happened to be a private-corporation licensing body operating in multiple states (and thus performing “interstate commerce”), which police officers in those states were already members of… well, then the federal government would be perfectly within its rights to regulate that corporation! As long as they kept it at arm’s length, and didn’t attempt to nationalize it.
(The FBI, in its role of being external federal auditors for police corruption/malfeasance — but with no power over police departments, only the power to charge individual officers with federal criminal acts if that applies — is essentially the best the federal government can do.)
But if there just happened to be a private-corporation licensing body operating in multiple states (and thus performing “interstate commerce”), which police officers in those states were already members of… well, then the federal government would be perfectly within its rights to regulate that corporation! As long as they kept it at arm’s length, and didn’t attempt to nationalize it.
You're basically reinventing internal affairs, aren't you?
Internal affairs bodies are, as the name suggests, internal — i.e. invisible to the law; and as such, they don’t have the power to create civil/criminal liability.
Whereas a professional licensing body is a separate legal entity from the people the body licenses; and the government can regulate (control, manipulate, coerce) the licensing body without getting tangled up in laws about what the government can or cannot do to protected classes of people.
Whereas a professional licensing body is a separate legal entity from the people the body licenses; and the government can regulate (control, manipulate, coerce) the licensing body without getting tangled up in laws about what the government can or cannot do to protected classes of people.
We need to stop treating people as disposable and subhuman in this country.
Giving him a "payday" alone isn't really justice. Whoever is responsible should spend 17 days in jail. Of course, that will never happen, but it's what should happen if the goal is to prevent "mistakes" like this happening again and again. Same goes for the victims who were "mistakenly" reported (and arrested) as car thieves by rental agencies not that long ago. Money isn't justice.
> Whoever is responsible should spend 17 days in jail.
It still would not be the same. They would have to be pulled out of their lifes randomly without knowing why and how long it will take.
Maybe a factor could be applied to account for that uncertainty. n * 17 days in jail, where n will only be announced after the fact.
It still would not be the same. They would have to be pulled out of their lifes randomly without knowing why and how long it will take.
Maybe a factor could be applied to account for that uncertainty. n * 17 days in jail, where n will only be announced after the fact.
They should have to clean the jail. The story of his detention is bad enough, but the fact we treat human beings in this way simply because they’ve been detained - guilty or not - should be profoundly objectionable to everyone. But there seems to be this emergent belief that jail is supposed to be a house of horrors and the punishment is the horrors of the jail itself, rather than being deprived of freedom.
Jails should be safe and clean, not traumatizing and filthy. The jail isn’t meant to be cruel and unusual punishment, but it has become that.
Jails should be safe and clean, not traumatizing and filthy. The jail isn’t meant to be cruel and unusual punishment, but it has become that.
I admire how Norway treats Anders Breivik. The guy decided to become a monster. Norway decided against becoming a monster. He is in prison, because he cannot be free. His biggest problem in prison seems to be an outdated Playstation.
In his case there is no expectation of reform, so his punishment is not meant to educate him, it basically just does what needs to be done, without being cruel. In OP's case, I think it is reasonable to expect some conversion process. Having to clean the jail sounds like a good way to learn some humility.
In his case there is no expectation of reform, so his punishment is not meant to educate him, it basically just does what needs to be done, without being cruel. In OP's case, I think it is reasonable to expect some conversion process. Having to clean the jail sounds like a good way to learn some humility.
America has a twisted notion of what "justice" means.
They think the goal of prison is punishment, not rehabilitation, so recidivism rates are ridiculous.
They think the goal of prison is punishment, not rehabilitation, so recidivism rates are ridiculous.
Ken White makes a very good observation about the collective reaction to this story
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1534192090111889410
Basically, that we should be just as shocked and appalled when it happens to guilty people as well!
https://twitter.com/Popehat/status/1534192090111889410
Basically, that we should be just as shocked and appalled when it happens to guilty people as well!
> I wouldn't say a single word to the judge
I’d be saying things like “I don’t know why I am here”, “I’ve been in jail for 17 days with no explanation”, I want to talk to a lawyer… and so on.
I’d be saying things like “I don’t know why I am here”, “I’ve been in jail for 17 days with no explanation”, I want to talk to a lawyer… and so on.
> I want to talk to a lawyer
Honestly, I'd be worried that they'd just say "cool, that's nice, good for you." Probably better to be 100% explicit: "I am invoking my right to speak to an attorney" (as opposed to just saying you want to do something)
Honestly, I'd be worried that they'd just say "cool, that's nice, good for you." Probably better to be 100% explicit: "I am invoking my right to speak to an attorney" (as opposed to just saying you want to do something)
This is the advice I've heard before. Explicitly state you're exercising your right to remain silent and your right to speak to an attorney. There was some sort of precedence for it being important in a particular instance though I can't recall what the story behind it was.
[deleted]
My limited experience (thank god not 17 days) being held for almost a day with border patrol is that complaining about being held just encourages them. Yes they live for that shit.
As someone with a 'flagged' US passport (despite no criminal record nor violating US border related law) who is repeatedly been detained and thrown in a cell without even being arrested or charged with a crime, I've become quite accustomed to how agents of the state treat those under their detainment. The best strategy is to pretend like you don't give a fuck and that you enjoy the experience; then the agents lose their amusement with you and eventually grow bored of fucking with you. If you act annoyed they latch on to you and toy with it the way a cat toys with prey.
Sadly this guy made the mistake of thinking jailers are not psychopaths. Never give psychopaths an opportunity to see your weaknesses.
As someone with a 'flagged' US passport (despite no criminal record nor violating US border related law) who is repeatedly been detained and thrown in a cell without even being arrested or charged with a crime, I've become quite accustomed to how agents of the state treat those under their detainment. The best strategy is to pretend like you don't give a fuck and that you enjoy the experience; then the agents lose their amusement with you and eventually grow bored of fucking with you. If you act annoyed they latch on to you and toy with it the way a cat toys with prey.
Sadly this guy made the mistake of thinking jailers are not psychopaths. Never give psychopaths an opportunity to see your weaknesses.
How is this reasonable, if not criminal behavior?
If your jailers keep you without explaining what you are detained for, or if that reason turns out to be incorrect, it aught to be a crime.
If your jailers keep you without explaining what you are detained for, or if that reason turns out to be incorrect, it aught to be a crime.
Once you're in a cell, whether it is reasonable or not becomes irrelevant (or at least not too useful to fixate on in the short run). You deal with the reality and debate the reasonableness after you attain freedom.
Do you have any links to explain this. I don't understand what gives them the power to detain you...?
https://reddit.com/r/acab
The guns and support they have give them the power.
The law does not always support them, but often does.
Watch the videos in the link and the corresponding lack of justice to understand what our reality is.
The guns and support they have give them the power.
The law does not always support them, but often does.
Watch the videos in the link and the corresponding lack of justice to understand what our reality is.
The Constitution does not apply at the borders
That's not true, see: https://www.aclu.org/other/constitution-100-mile-border-zone. In fact "the Constitution doesn't apply at the borders" is what border cops want people to think, so repeating it is doing their work for them.
Unfortunately authority 'given' to CBP at the actual border (for crossers) significantly exceeds that of the 100 mile zone. They can basically detain you indefinitely without charging you with a crime and meanwhile strip search you, finger print you, toss you in a cell, etc.
The constitution doesn't apply at the border. Maybe in theory it does, but in reality it doesn't. CBP Officers specifically told me "I consent to whatever happens afterwards when I cross the border."
[ Also been told once, me a US citizen with a passport, that they had decided not to let me in my own country. Was not let through until an HSI detective came to "make sure I wasn't ISIS." ]
You get no attorney. You can't contact anyone. You can't touch your phone, if you have one. You can be tossed in custody without any oversight, and without being mirandarized. I have been booked, finger printed, tossed in a cell as a US citizen who provided a legal passport and violated no laws. You can be tossed in a van, cuffed and shackled and driven wherever they like, including hospitals where they will try to convince doctors to anal probe you (this is a real example from my personal experience).
I've studied the court cases involving US citizens, including a woman who had her orifices brutally penetrated until they were raw by a doctor[0]. THe federal docket shows no real result, and that the CBP investigated themselves and determined they did nothing wrong.
In the end the courts don't give a fuck, and most Americans don't even have a passport. I'm quite sure a good 10% of Americans would go along with a proposal that said "We should allow border patrol to shoot any suspicious persons at our borders." Border and immigration are notoriously dystopian arms of the government, because citizens either have bigger concerns or just don't give a shit what happens there.
If you contact a lawyer regarding border abuse, they will basically refer you to the (swamped) ACLU, because they know it's a waste of their time to even try.
[0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.985...
The constitution doesn't apply at the border. Maybe in theory it does, but in reality it doesn't. CBP Officers specifically told me "I consent to whatever happens afterwards when I cross the border."
[ Also been told once, me a US citizen with a passport, that they had decided not to let me in my own country. Was not let through until an HSI detective came to "make sure I wasn't ISIS." ]
You get no attorney. You can't contact anyone. You can't touch your phone, if you have one. You can be tossed in custody without any oversight, and without being mirandarized. I have been booked, finger printed, tossed in a cell as a US citizen who provided a legal passport and violated no laws. You can be tossed in a van, cuffed and shackled and driven wherever they like, including hospitals where they will try to convince doctors to anal probe you (this is a real example from my personal experience).
I've studied the court cases involving US citizens, including a woman who had her orifices brutally penetrated until they were raw by a doctor[0]. THe federal docket shows no real result, and that the CBP investigated themselves and determined they did nothing wrong.
In the end the courts don't give a fuck, and most Americans don't even have a passport. I'm quite sure a good 10% of Americans would go along with a proposal that said "We should allow border patrol to shoot any suspicious persons at our borders." Border and immigration are notoriously dystopian arms of the government, because citizens either have bigger concerns or just don't give a shit what happens there.
If you contact a lawyer regarding border abuse, they will basically refer you to the (swamped) ACLU, because they know it's a waste of their time to even try.
[0] https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.985...
I'm sorry that all happened to you, that sounds really bad. I'm not doubting your experience. However I think it's important for Americans in particular to maintain the distinction between "the Constitution applies and border police are acting illegally" and "the Constitution literally has no force in these situations" when discussing these problems in forums like this one. A lot of the recent creeping fascism involves the fascists treating the law as if it didn't exist, but when actually called on it they back off.
Of course as a practical matter anyone crossing a U.S. border should understand the risk of arbitrary violence, deportation, detention, or having all your stuff taken.
Of course as a practical matter anyone crossing a U.S. border should understand the risk of arbitrary violence, deportation, detention, or having all your stuff taken.
I feel it. My only point was that "the Constitution applies and border police are acting illegally" and "the Constitution literally has no force in these situations" are both simultaneously true.
Honestly illegal border crossers are the only ones who maintain their constitutional rights, because once they've crossed it is impossible to prove it unless someone actually saw them do it. I've read border patrol officers comment that if a US citizen is found at the border there's basically not much they can do unless someone caught them crossing in the act.
Honestly illegal border crossers are the only ones who maintain their constitutional rights, because once they've crossed it is impossible to prove it unless someone actually saw them do it. I've read border patrol officers comment that if a US citizen is found at the border there's basically not much they can do unless someone caught them crossing in the act.
I'm not sure what you mean by illegal border crossers. Do you mean U.S. citizens who sneak back into the U.S.? It actually never occurred to me that was punishable (instead of just a bad idea) but it looks like it is. I learned something new.
By the way, if you haven't seen it, you might like this old favorite of mine: "Born in East L.A." with Cheech and Chong, parodying Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the U.S.A.": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFUFw1GH6ic. I was going to it's funny but in light of this discussion, maybe not. Not as funny, anyway.
Thanks for sharing.
By the way, if you haven't seen it, you might like this old favorite of mine: "Born in East L.A." with Cheech and Chong, parodying Bruce Springsteen's "Born in the U.S.A.": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sFUFw1GH6ic. I was going to it's funny but in light of this discussion, maybe not. Not as funny, anyway.
Thanks for sharing.
Because half the country thinks it's a great system.
Which is why law & justice style TV shows display and glorify this kind of psychopathic, picking on the weak and helpless behavior, right?
Or do they show the criminal justice system as staffed by noble individuals that, on the rare occasion they cross a line, it is done with the best intentions, and bad apples and mistakes are a rare exception?
The system they think is great is imaginary, not the system you actually have. Try and think things through before you so casually condemn people.
Or do they show the criminal justice system as staffed by noble individuals that, on the rare occasion they cross a line, it is done with the best intentions, and bad apples and mistakes are a rare exception?
The system they think is great is imaginary, not the system you actually have. Try and think things through before you so casually condemn people.
I cannot watch any sort of cop show or Law & Order for this exact reason. It's a bunch of glorification of the government infringing on people's rights and normalizing it as some sort of reality of how the justice system should work. I wish there would be a version of law and order where no one ever talks to them without a lawyer present and they constantly get frustrated with their lack of progress despite their best efforts to circumvent the legal process.
[deleted]
> just encourages them
Who?
My comment was more about the hearing.
Who?
My comment was more about the hearing.
Oh I see now, you were referring to exclusively speaking to the judge. Yes maybe that makes more sense. I have no idea if judges are as psychopathic as jailers are.
They absolutely can be. There are many stories of judges getting kickbacks for sending people off to prison and there's the FISA court rubberstamping (nearly) all requests from law enforcement.
The whole ordeal would still be kafkaesque and cruel even if he had been guilty. I'd rather be a dog in a shelter than a prisoner awaiting trial in Texas.
I see that more of an indignation of a completely defunct judiciary of New Mexico. The airline maybe expected more due diligence too but it is still no excuse they identified him wrongly of course.
I had to look up what "kafkaesque" means [1]
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkPR4Rcf4ww
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wkPR4Rcf4ww
[deleted]
Your right to remain silent only applies to statements made to police and more specifically, those statements being used in court. You don't have a right to refuse to answer a judge, for example.
You also don't have a right to refuse to answer a police officer generally, such as when they're asking you questions as part of booking you (do you have health conditions they need to know about, for example), and furthermore, during (say, a threshold inquiry or administrative detention) police are legally allowed to treat you refusing to answer them as guilty behavior.
To be clear, in very simplified layman's terms: threshold inquiry = "Hi there, can I ask you a few questions?" and administrative detention = a traffic stop, or "Hi there, come over here, I have some questions to ask you." The primary difference between TI and AD is that in a TI the police ask, and in AD, they order. If you're being ordered to do something, yes, You Are Being Detained, and no, you are not Free To Go. IANAL, etc etc and this shit is annoyingly complex, so please do your own research, folks.
Kafkaesque....try this on for size: thanks to the Berghuis v Thompkins USSC ruling in 2010, it is no longer sufficient to remain silent. You now have to specifically state you wish to remain silent when you are Mirandized.
I wish I were making this up. The court flipped Miranda on its head almost completely. Prior to v Thompkins, the state had to prove, with high standard of evidence, that you had willingly waived your right to remain silent. Now remaining silent isn't enough...and aying anything is taken as an immediate implied waiver.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins
You also don't have a right to refuse to answer a police officer generally, such as when they're asking you questions as part of booking you (do you have health conditions they need to know about, for example), and furthermore, during (say, a threshold inquiry or administrative detention) police are legally allowed to treat you refusing to answer them as guilty behavior.
To be clear, in very simplified layman's terms: threshold inquiry = "Hi there, can I ask you a few questions?" and administrative detention = a traffic stop, or "Hi there, come over here, I have some questions to ask you." The primary difference between TI and AD is that in a TI the police ask, and in AD, they order. If you're being ordered to do something, yes, You Are Being Detained, and no, you are not Free To Go. IANAL, etc etc and this shit is annoyingly complex, so please do your own research, folks.
Kafkaesque....try this on for size: thanks to the Berghuis v Thompkins USSC ruling in 2010, it is no longer sufficient to remain silent. You now have to specifically state you wish to remain silent when you are Mirandized.
I wish I were making this up. The court flipped Miranda on its head almost completely. Prior to v Thompkins, the state had to prove, with high standard of evidence, that you had willingly waived your right to remain silent. Now remaining silent isn't enough...and aying anything is taken as an immediate implied waiver.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Berghuis_v._Thompkins
I am, in fact, a lawyer. Please consult a criminal attorney as you have no idea what you are talking about. HN is not a place for lawyer wannabes to make incorrect assertions about the law.
At the very least, please refer to this helpful reference from the ACLU, who are also staffed with actual lawyers who know what they’re talking about: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/stopped-by-police
At the very least, please refer to this helpful reference from the ACLU, who are also staffed with actual lawyers who know what they’re talking about: https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/stopped-by-police
> HN is not a place…
However, HN is a place where we prefer to explain why someone (or something) is wrong instead of just saying that they are wrong with no further justification.
However, HN is a place where we prefer to explain why someone (or something) is wrong instead of just saying that they are wrong with no further justification.
They identified as a lawyer. Explaining what you’re asking could be construed as offering advice on the Internet, which is potentially perilous for their ongoing livelihood. That’s not unique to the law, either, and is common in licensed professions where the license permits you to wield your knowledge at great risk to another (i.e., a physician).
I, for one, am glad otterley pointed it out. It’s an effective caution and prompted me to consider it critically. Given the OP cited case law and therefore sounds somewhat informed, I can understand the urgency of the caution, and I think otterley is (skillfully) balancing that caution against their ongoing responsibilities due to what I’m telling you.
I, for one, am glad otterley pointed it out. It’s an effective caution and prompted me to consider it critically. Given the OP cited case law and therefore sounds somewhat informed, I can understand the urgency of the caution, and I think otterley is (skillfully) balancing that caution against their ongoing responsibilities due to what I’m telling you.
I find the justification comes in the first sentence?
At the very least I’m more likely to believe the unqualified assertion from a lawyer.
At the very least I’m more likely to believe the unqualified assertion from a lawyer.
I'm an astronaut with a degree in nuclear physics and a minor in underwater basket weaving, would you like advice on anything?
More like: I'm an astronaut with a degree in nuclear physics and a minor in underwater basket weaving and while I cannot give you personalized advice I can suggest reviewing this general information produced by professionals that are interested in this cause: insert link here.
Is isn’t it hard to weave underwater? What kind of materials do you actually use for that?
But seriously, most people that aren’t a lawyer are very likely to IANAL on the internet, the ones claiming to be one (especially on HN) are more likely to actually be.
I’d need some research to back that up, but since I am lazy I’m going to go with my gut on this.
But seriously, most people that aren’t a lawyer are very likely to IANAL on the internet, the ones claiming to be one (especially on HN) are more likely to actually be.
I’d need some research to back that up, but since I am lazy I’m going to go with my gut on this.
Didn't you hear? On HN, some anonymous commenter claims they're something and we all just believe it with absolutely zero evidence.
That ACLU flyer is wildly out of touch with reality.
"You have the right to remain silent during a traffic stop." Yeah. Sure. You try that and let me know how it works out for you...after your car has been disassembled, all its upholstery ripped, and put in impound. After you are released from jail exactly 47.9 hours later, or charged with "interfering with the duties of a police officer" or "obstruction of justice" or "causing a public disturbance (which may or may not be dropped by the DA. Or thrown out at your hearing the next afternoon, by the judge.)
"If your rights are violated while being arrested, take notes" - with what, exactly? The pen and paper the people who violated my rights gave me? These people live in a alternate reality.
The ACLU has no concept of what constitutes practical advice for dealing with abusive police or the issues the vast majority of Americans face when stopped by an officer...like ending up in jail and missing work the next day, your car destroyed, and being summarily fired for failing to show.
Congrats! You are now unemployed, with an arrest record, probably your name in the newspaper police blotter, and a bunch of legal expenses from the trumped-up charges.
But hey, you followed the advice of an organization that will do absolutely nothing to help you after you followed their instructions and it caused you to end up unemployed, in debt to an attorney, with no wheels...then homeless because you missed your rent.
I don't think a single person at the ACLU has ever had to worry about having enough money to buy groceries, lived one paycheck away from missing rent, or worked a job where if they didn't show up for a shift on time, they were fired.
"You have the right to remain silent during a traffic stop." Yeah. Sure. You try that and let me know how it works out for you...after your car has been disassembled, all its upholstery ripped, and put in impound. After you are released from jail exactly 47.9 hours later, or charged with "interfering with the duties of a police officer" or "obstruction of justice" or "causing a public disturbance (which may or may not be dropped by the DA. Or thrown out at your hearing the next afternoon, by the judge.)
"If your rights are violated while being arrested, take notes" - with what, exactly? The pen and paper the people who violated my rights gave me? These people live in a alternate reality.
The ACLU has no concept of what constitutes practical advice for dealing with abusive police or the issues the vast majority of Americans face when stopped by an officer...like ending up in jail and missing work the next day, your car destroyed, and being summarily fired for failing to show.
Congrats! You are now unemployed, with an arrest record, probably your name in the newspaper police blotter, and a bunch of legal expenses from the trumped-up charges.
But hey, you followed the advice of an organization that will do absolutely nothing to help you after you followed their instructions and it caused you to end up unemployed, in debt to an attorney, with no wheels...then homeless because you missed your rent.
I don't think a single person at the ACLU has ever had to worry about having enough money to buy groceries, lived one paycheck away from missing rent, or worked a job where if they didn't show up for a shift on time, they were fired.
IAAL but this is not legal advice.
You’re mixing up a number of distinct concepts and problems. The ACLU’s advice is not meant to insulate you from lawful investigatory procedure. It’s meant to help minimize the likelihood that you will be convicted of a crime and to maximize the likelihood that unlawfully-obtained evidence will be suppressed at trial.
They say in the U.S., “you can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.” This is true. You can assert your rights, but it’s best not to interfere or say anything other than “I do not assent to search” during the initial encounter. But you might be arrested, taken to jail, etc. Does it suck? Yes. But if I have no other choice, I’d rather spend a week in local lockup while everything gets cleared up than a year or more in state prison (and potentially the loss of other rights afterwards) because I got convicted of a crime.
Sometimes there is just no way out of a bad police encounter here. I wish there was, but the best we can do as a society is vote to change the laws around policing.
Finally, keep in mind that your perspective may be distorted by the news, in a sort of reverse survivorship bias. For every instance of police abuse during an encounter, there could be 10 or 100 where asserting one’s rights leads to no dramatic episode at all, and where the ACLU’s advice led to a conflict-free outcome. You don’t have the full picture, and it’s best not to draw conclusions with certainty if you’re not an expert. (Even experts usually temper their analyses.)
You’re mixing up a number of distinct concepts and problems. The ACLU’s advice is not meant to insulate you from lawful investigatory procedure. It’s meant to help minimize the likelihood that you will be convicted of a crime and to maximize the likelihood that unlawfully-obtained evidence will be suppressed at trial.
They say in the U.S., “you can beat the rap, but you can’t beat the ride.” This is true. You can assert your rights, but it’s best not to interfere or say anything other than “I do not assent to search” during the initial encounter. But you might be arrested, taken to jail, etc. Does it suck? Yes. But if I have no other choice, I’d rather spend a week in local lockup while everything gets cleared up than a year or more in state prison (and potentially the loss of other rights afterwards) because I got convicted of a crime.
Sometimes there is just no way out of a bad police encounter here. I wish there was, but the best we can do as a society is vote to change the laws around policing.
Finally, keep in mind that your perspective may be distorted by the news, in a sort of reverse survivorship bias. For every instance of police abuse during an encounter, there could be 10 or 100 where asserting one’s rights leads to no dramatic episode at all, and where the ACLU’s advice led to a conflict-free outcome. You don’t have the full picture, and it’s best not to draw conclusions with certainty if you’re not an expert. (Even experts usually temper their analyses.)
I'm not a lawyer but I've studied criminal law, am generally anti-cop and really sympathize with all the "don't talk to cops" videos and pamphlets out there. I understand that mens rea or premeditation can be argued and proven by a single stray comment you make to police.
However there's always been a big gap for me because, I mean, obviously there are some times where it makes sense to talk to police.
* The cops knock at your door, your neighbor has been murdered, were you at home last night and did you hear anything? And you were and you did but if you go all ACLU and say nothing while carefully keeping the cops out of your home, you're withholding information that might catch the real killer and in any case now the cops might be a lot more interested in you.
* The cops want to search your trunk at a traffic stop. If you hand them your keys that can be interpreted as consent. However if you don't, it's obvious they will drag you out of your car and beat you, take your keys, maybe plant some drugs or a gun because you got all uppity, and lie about it all later. So why not just hand the keys over and save yourself the trouble?
Etc. I feel like all the pamphlets and so on don't really get into these real situations.
However there's always been a big gap for me because, I mean, obviously there are some times where it makes sense to talk to police.
* The cops knock at your door, your neighbor has been murdered, were you at home last night and did you hear anything? And you were and you did but if you go all ACLU and say nothing while carefully keeping the cops out of your home, you're withholding information that might catch the real killer and in any case now the cops might be a lot more interested in you.
* The cops want to search your trunk at a traffic stop. If you hand them your keys that can be interpreted as consent. However if you don't, it's obvious they will drag you out of your car and beat you, take your keys, maybe plant some drugs or a gun because you got all uppity, and lie about it all later. So why not just hand the keys over and save yourself the trouble?
Etc. I feel like all the pamphlets and so on don't really get into these real situations.
> However if you don't, it's obvious they will drag you out of your car and beat you, take your keys, maybe plant some drugs or a gun because you got all uppity, and lie about it all later
Here we go again with that troubling word at HN: “obvious.” Best to strike that from your vocabulary; things you might think as obvious both rarely are so, and often much more complicated than you think.
What you’re describing is a situation that does sometimes happen in the worst cases, but by no means is it normal or frequent relative to the number of ordinary police encounters every day. These episodes make the news because they are out of the ordinary (“newsworthy”). If they happened at every stop, they wouldn’t be reported in the news.
Do these things happen? Sure, and they are awful. But they are by no means standard procedure and they are unlikely to happen to you. And if it does, lawyer up right away.
Here we go again with that troubling word at HN: “obvious.” Best to strike that from your vocabulary; things you might think as obvious both rarely are so, and often much more complicated than you think.
What you’re describing is a situation that does sometimes happen in the worst cases, but by no means is it normal or frequent relative to the number of ordinary police encounters every day. These episodes make the news because they are out of the ordinary (“newsworthy”). If they happened at every stop, they wouldn’t be reported in the news.
Do these things happen? Sure, and they are awful. But they are by no means standard procedure and they are unlikely to happen to you. And if it does, lawyer up right away.
> Here we go again with that troubling word at HN: “obvious.” Best to strike that from your vocabulary.
My fault for sloppy wording. I was supposing for the sake of the hypothetical that the police made it obvious to you personally that they would attack you if you fail to comply.
In any case the ACLU-type advice of "stay silent and don't consent to anything" assumes some strange middle ground, where the cops in front of you are hostile enough to be actively fishing for something to arrest you for, but not hostile enough to just beat you, plant stuff and lie. And, further, that I, a random person who rarely deals with the cops, will be able to correctly sense what sort of encounter I'm having, against police who do this dozens of times a day, who are very scary, and who might be specifically trying to trick me.
Or just to rephrase what you said, the ACLU-type advice is great if you're the sort of person for whom awful police encounters are unlikely and who can lawyer up right away if things go wrong.
My fault for sloppy wording. I was supposing for the sake of the hypothetical that the police made it obvious to you personally that they would attack you if you fail to comply.
In any case the ACLU-type advice of "stay silent and don't consent to anything" assumes some strange middle ground, where the cops in front of you are hostile enough to be actively fishing for something to arrest you for, but not hostile enough to just beat you, plant stuff and lie. And, further, that I, a random person who rarely deals with the cops, will be able to correctly sense what sort of encounter I'm having, against police who do this dozens of times a day, who are very scary, and who might be specifically trying to trick me.
Or just to rephrase what you said, the ACLU-type advice is great if you're the sort of person for whom awful police encounters are unlikely and who can lawyer up right away if things go wrong.
[deleted]
And that decision was in 2010 before Kavanaugh replaced Kennedy and Barrett replaced Ginsburg. It isn't going to be getting better any time soon.
That decision does not say what the commenter thinks it says. It says that if you start silent and then start talking, your earlier silence does not prevent your later statements from being used as evidence. It does not say that you can’t continue to remain silent or refuse to testify against yourself.
For those wondering why he's not suing the government:
Suing a government entity is a very long and costly affair, and is fraught with difficulties.
Suing a company is MUCH easier by comparison. Unlike governments, companies tend to be very sensitive to bad press, and thus much more likely to yield to legal pressure.
Therefore, your most promising tactic is to use the suit against the company to build a war chest and establish official records of fact that can then be drawn upon in the longer government campaign.
Suing a government entity is a very long and costly affair, and is fraught with difficulties.
Suing a company is MUCH easier by comparison. Unlike governments, companies tend to be very sensitive to bad press, and thus much more likely to yield to legal pressure.
Therefore, your most promising tactic is to use the suit against the company to build a war chest and establish official records of fact that can then be drawn upon in the longer government campaign.
Generally, you can only sue the state if the state lets you. It's called sovereign immunity.
This is technically true, however, in many cases the government has already waived immunity through past legislation, or a court has already found that immunity doesn't apply to particular cases due to for example constitutional reasons. Crucially, it's not like everyone who sues the government has to beg a judge every time before filing the suit.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit....
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_immunity_in_the_Unit....
Sovereign immunity only applies to the individuals that work for the state while executing their job. You can absolutely sue the state, federal agencies, or your town hall. They get sued all the time.
Derek Chauvin is getting the dogshit sued out of him now because he exceeded his duty and no longer qualified under sovereign immunity.
Derek Chauvin is getting the dogshit sued out of him now because he exceeded his duty and no longer qualified under sovereign immunity.
You’re describing Qualified Immunity.
Sovereign Immunity does indeed apply to the government itself, as well as heads of state and representatives of that government.
It’s a superset of qualified immunity and absolute immunity.
Sovereign Immunity does indeed apply to the government itself, as well as heads of state and representatives of that government.
It’s a superset of qualified immunity and absolute immunity.
Aren't things like being offered an attorney and being informed of your charges legal requirements for detention in USA. What grounds would the state have to refuse a court case based on such things?
I'm hoping they'll get a massive payout and use some of it to launch a case against the authorities who allow such injustice to go unchecked.
I'm hoping they'll get a massive payout and use some of it to launch a case against the authorities who allow such injustice to go unchecked.
Yeah, that was my thought as well. But I'd also think this is the kind of thing that an organization like the ACLU would jump on.
This is infuriating. How does it get to seventeen days in jail without talking to a lawyer? It was probably some COVID thing, but that's just not right.
AA needs to pay. First thought is some overly enthusiastic AA security person going way too far in doing the identification that they should be leaving to law enforcement.
AA needs to pay. First thought is some overly enthusiastic AA security person going way too far in doing the identification that they should be leaving to law enforcement.
I was detained by the LASD and asked to speak with a lawyer >20 times. They just kept coming back and trying different lines of questioning. They don't care about the law or your rights. It's all a big joke to them.
Were you able to follow-up on this clear mistreatment after you were released?
While I agree with you, how would you even prove it? Police are likely to just say "he/she never asked for a lawyer", it has been clear over the decades that they lie for their own interest.
As the other commenter pointed out there is really nothing you can do about it. It is your word vs theirs.
There is also the very real possibility of retaliation if I were to attempt to follow up with any sort of complaint process. This is a department that is notoriously infested with gangs. They have sent deputies to threaten a FBI agent, "lost" a FBI informant in their jails for weeks, etc.
There is also the very real possibility of retaliation if I were to attempt to follow up with any sort of complaint process. This is a department that is notoriously infested with gangs. They have sent deputies to threaten a FBI agent, "lost" a FBI informant in their jails for weeks, etc.
Wow thanks, sounds like a lost cause indeed.
> First thought is some overly enthusiastic AA security person going way too far
Anecdotal evidence hints that that may be part of their training. I was held in line for check-in for checking in in LAS for about 1h, prevented from speaking with somebody at the actual check-in counter, all because I couldn't provide proof on my phone that I had uploaded COVID documents to the VeriFly app (which wouldn't allow me to upload said document because the first leg of the trip back to Europe was through UK which lifted all restrictions). The AA staff person threatened to call security if I tried to move ahead and speak with the check-in counter staff and instead told me to wait until he sorted out things.
After a few exchanges like that where I was in retrospect way too polite and complying, he smiled and told me that I'm stuck there and there is no way I'm going to fly home.
At the end of his shift, the next person was super polite and wanted to help me, but it was too late since the check-in window was closed.
I can only describe this behaviour as sadistic. It seems to me that this person had been told that his job was to make sure order was upheld and he used that as an excuse to exercise power over other people.
Anecdotal evidence hints that that may be part of their training. I was held in line for check-in for checking in in LAS for about 1h, prevented from speaking with somebody at the actual check-in counter, all because I couldn't provide proof on my phone that I had uploaded COVID documents to the VeriFly app (which wouldn't allow me to upload said document because the first leg of the trip back to Europe was through UK which lifted all restrictions). The AA staff person threatened to call security if I tried to move ahead and speak with the check-in counter staff and instead told me to wait until he sorted out things.
After a few exchanges like that where I was in retrospect way too polite and complying, he smiled and told me that I'm stuck there and there is no way I'm going to fly home.
At the end of his shift, the next person was super polite and wanted to help me, but it was too late since the check-in window was closed.
I can only describe this behaviour as sadistic. It seems to me that this person had been told that his job was to make sure order was upheld and he used that as an excuse to exercise power over other people.
I'm sorry to complained this happened to you. Definitely file a complaint with the DOT. Depending how much you want to push things, this could qualify as involuntary denied boarding (IBD). I would definitely pursue this.
You might also consider disputing the charge on your credit card. In the end, you presented yourself for check-in and were unjustifiably barred from the flight through no fault of your own.
You might also consider disputing the charge on your credit card. In the end, you presented yourself for check-in and were unjustifiably barred from the flight through no fault of your own.
Thanks for the pointers, but I'm in the privileged position to not have to care about the details since it was a work trip handled by my employer.
I just wanted to share my anecdote for the human angle: some people enjoy exercising power over other people. It's not dissimilar to issues that the police force faces, although I would expect an airline to be better placed at rooting out this kind of bad elements from their workforce.
I just wanted to share my anecdote for the human angle: some people enjoy exercising power over other people. It's not dissimilar to issues that the police force faces, although I would expect an airline to be better placed at rooting out this kind of bad elements from their workforce.
Police are not interested in justice or ensuring everyone is treated well and given a chance to articulate their situation.
They are interested in what makes their lives easier, which is to pack people into cells and wait for the notoriously slow justice system to sort things out. There's no consequences for mistakes, so there's no incentive to improve.
It should be shocking to the core that anyone, innocent or guilty, would be subject to these conditions. But police just aren't interested in improving them.
I don't deploy it lightly, but the reason I've come around to ACAB (All Cops Are Bastards) has nothing to do with the personalities of individual officers (many of whom are quite nice people). Instead, it's an acknowledgement that every officer subjects people to this sort of treatment as a matter of course. They cannot avoid treating people inhumanely with the current incentives.
They are interested in what makes their lives easier, which is to pack people into cells and wait for the notoriously slow justice system to sort things out. There's no consequences for mistakes, so there's no incentive to improve.
It should be shocking to the core that anyone, innocent or guilty, would be subject to these conditions. But police just aren't interested in improving them.
I don't deploy it lightly, but the reason I've come around to ACAB (All Cops Are Bastards) has nothing to do with the personalities of individual officers (many of whom are quite nice people). Instead, it's an acknowledgement that every officer subjects people to this sort of treatment as a matter of course. They cannot avoid treating people inhumanely with the current incentives.
Unrelated rant: Someone please explain to me how does COVID precisely delay things? It has become blanket excuse for anything and everything. I'd like step-by-step, minute-by-minute timeline on how exactly the risk of COVID delays things by days. I used to give this thing some leeway and benefit of doubt, but my default stance these days is that it is bullshit. Restroom closed? Because COVID. Fan not working in the office? COVID. Hiking trail fenced off? COVID. I can understand if someone is sick because of literally any disease or illness, we'd just make that an exception, not the norm.
> how exactly the risk of COVID delays things by days
Availability of judges and the staff to move people and so on?
Availability of judges and the staff to move people and so on?
Pretty much all of this is normal. Flights are operating. Traffic is flowing albeit gas prices are high. How exactly does it affect judges and the staff to move people? and so on?
I don’t know what you’re asking. I feel like I answered it. If you don’t have enough staff … you don’t.
Surely you’ve experienced situations where staffing impacted things…
Surely you’ve experienced situations where staffing impacted things…
Unemployment rate is back to normal: https://www.google.com/search?q=unemployment+rate
We can debate small perturbations and shifts in employment, but I am not at all convinced this is the reason for majority of the COVID excuses. Especially for a judicial process where people's employment is pretty much secure and hasn't had that much of an impact. Nurses? Sure. Package delivery? I can give them the benefit of the doubt. I see a disproportional number of things are out of order because of COVID. We can act in good faith for a while, but to me it has started to raise my cynicism.
We can debate small perturbations and shifts in employment, but I am not at all convinced this is the reason for majority of the COVID excuses. Especially for a judicial process where people's employment is pretty much secure and hasn't had that much of an impact. Nurses? Sure. Package delivery? I can give them the benefit of the doubt. I see a disproportional number of things are out of order because of COVID. We can act in good faith for a while, but to me it has started to raise my cynicism.
It's the new 9/11.
We moved during COVID. We called the city (Berlin) to collect bulky waste, they won't because of COVID. They were collecting other waste though.
I am not sure who is to blame: the airline, the police, the airport. probably equal blame to go around
The airline created the situation.
The police willfully caused it to continue.
The police willfully caused it to continue.
It's really fucked up that so much discussion revolves around the more peripheral issues (the evidence from American Airlines, getting access to a lawyer, why bail wasn't set, whether or not it's appropriate for a judge to give legal advice to an accused person, etc) and not around the central issue. It's like everyone just accepts it's OK that being held in jail for a relatively short amount of time is a traumatizing experience.
People held in jail are wards of the state. It is utterly unacceptable that people being held in jail have to fear for their physical safety. It is utterly unacceptable that people being held in jail have to fear sexual assault. It is utterly unacceptable that jails do not take appropriate precautions around communicable diseases. It is utterly unacceptable that people being held in jail are treated disrespectfully by jail staff.
People being held in jail pending a hearing have been convicted of no crime. Jails should be safe and comfortable. Jail staff should be held to the highest standard.
People held in jail are wards of the state. It is utterly unacceptable that people being held in jail have to fear for their physical safety. It is utterly unacceptable that people being held in jail have to fear sexual assault. It is utterly unacceptable that jails do not take appropriate precautions around communicable diseases. It is utterly unacceptable that people being held in jail are treated disrespectfully by jail staff.
People being held in jail pending a hearing have been convicted of no crime. Jails should be safe and comfortable. Jail staff should be held to the highest standard.
"It is utterly unacceptable that people being held in jail have to fear sexual assault."
It looks like society disagrees, I'm astonished how nearly every "hero" in every TV show hints at "sexual assault" when someone goes to jail, does not want to talk etc. as something the person deserves.
It looks like society disagrees, I'm astonished how nearly every "hero" in every TV show hints at "sexual assault" when someone goes to jail, does not want to talk etc. as something the person deserves.
Indeed. The brutal treatment of ""criminals"", up to and including summary execution in the street, is something that has very wide support. We went through all this with BLM and "defund the police", and people were very clear that this kind of treatment was what they definitely did want funded.
People are very afraid of crime and will support anything happening to other people if they think it might reduce that.
People are very afraid of crime and will support anything happening to other people if they think it might reduce that.
This story is bizarre and a complete nightmare, but there are just too many unexplained elements of the story for me to pass judgment yet:
1. The word "bail" doesn't occur in the story anywhere. Even if he were to be extradited, he would have to be offered bail, especially after he waived extradition. Why was no bail offered?
2. Being informed of charges against you is one of our most basic constitutional rights. Why didn't this happen?
2. Now, I'm not saying that some horrible local bureaucracy couldn't have put this man through this, but if that's the case, why is his lawyer only suing AA? There are like a million civil rights violations in this story as it is told - it's difficult for me to understand why a lawyer wouldn't go after those responsible for those violations.
Again, I'm in no way saying I don't believe what happened to this man, but I would like to understand more of the missing details in this story.
1. The word "bail" doesn't occur in the story anywhere. Even if he were to be extradited, he would have to be offered bail, especially after he waived extradition. Why was no bail offered?
2. Being informed of charges against you is one of our most basic constitutional rights. Why didn't this happen?
2. Now, I'm not saying that some horrible local bureaucracy couldn't have put this man through this, but if that's the case, why is his lawyer only suing AA? There are like a million civil rights violations in this story as it is told - it's difficult for me to understand why a lawyer wouldn't go after those responsible for those violations.
Again, I'm in no way saying I don't believe what happened to this man, but I would like to understand more of the missing details in this story.
> Mr. Lowe was provided no clarification regarding his arrest, other than being shown a copy of his Tarrant County warrants. Informed that bail would not be set for him because he was a fugitive from justice, Mr. Lowe was told his only options were to waive extradition so that Texas could come pick him up or hope that the Governor of New Mexico would block the extradition.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22054162/michael-lowe...
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22054162/michael-lowe...
Thanks, that's helpful. And I am definitely not a lawyer, but I thought to be considered a "fugitive" in that context that you have to have been previously served.
I'm not doubting that this actually happened, but again, why isn't the lawyer suing the NM jurisdiction, too?
I'm not doubting that this actually happened, but again, why isn't the lawyer suing the NM jurisdiction, too?
I think you might have a bit too much faith in the criminal Justice system, no single person I know working in it respects it and considers its rules a burden to their job.
Again, I totally agree with this, but if that's the case, why isn't the lawyer suing the jurisdiction as well?
AA took it upon themselves to identify the guy and made a false accusation against him. They also have deep pockets. They're likely both the easy and big-paying target. If I was suing everyone, I'd get the big payout first and then sue everyone else using that payout to fund the lawyers.
The government is really hard to sue. And technically they thought they had the right guy, hopefully he sues the gov using AAs payout, I would!
IANAL, probably the best outcome here is identifying an entity that can be sufficiently proven to have f'ed up and squeezing them hard.
Reading the descriptions of the prison system in the US, it's hard to believe they call themselves a developed nation.
Yes. The US has become a third-world country with an admixture of rich people.
The experience reported here is absolutely normal for underclass people.
The experience reported here is absolutely normal for underclass people.
> US has become a third-world country
Not sure why people like to say this
Not sure why people like to say this
Because the US has close to 20% of the world's prison population. Because we regularly experience power outages in major areas, killing hundreds or thousands of people, due to political corruption. Because our health care system only works if you are employed and relatively wealthy. We're comfortable treating our prisoners worse than livestock (and, in fact, it's still legal to require forced labor from prisoners). Because we have religious fundamentalists taking away the rights of minorities and women. Because our infrastructure is collapsing and we refuse to invest in maintaining it. Because we've invested next to nothing in mass transit, trains, or electrification of transit. Because we have a widening class divide that is increasingly extracting wealth from the poor. Because we've got a food system built around sugar and corn packaged into premade snacks.
Do you need more? Because there's more. Political corruption. Prison recidivism. Military spending at the cost of supporting education, healthcare, housing. Increasing limits on speech. (A state just said that men have to dress like men if they are performing for kids.)
Edit: because we still haven't addressed the Flint water crisis. Because we still have starving children despite producing more food than we can eat. Because care for even routine medical procedures can bankrupt a family.
Do you need more? Because there's more. Political corruption. Prison recidivism. Military spending at the cost of supporting education, healthcare, housing. Increasing limits on speech. (A state just said that men have to dress like men if they are performing for kids.)
Edit: because we still haven't addressed the Flint water crisis. Because we still have starving children despite producing more food than we can eat. Because care for even routine medical procedures can bankrupt a family.
Did that feel good?
Now make a list of things that make the US a developed nation rather than a “third world country”.
Now make a list of things that make the US a developed nation rather than a “third world country”.
You can have first world features while still skirting the line of what it means to be a first world country. Honestly the healthcare system alone is plenty to bring into doubt whether the USA can really be compared to most of western europe.
Hmm... That's much harder. I can list plenty of things, only, they apply only to the wealthy.
60 years ago I'd have a huge list. But we sorta stopped caring and we've been costing on that historical success.
60 years ago I'd have a huge list. But we sorta stopped caring and we've been costing on that historical success.
Because to someone from Europe it looks that way.
Though to me, whenever I have been there, especially California, it looks more like the American South before the Civil War, with poor people doing bad jobs (people with broken arms at the cash register, Mexicans doing hotel rooms or people 70+ years old packing groceries) and rich people in big cars driving around with an oversized cup of coffee. There is the rich elite and the servants.
So this is why people say this.
Though to me, whenever I have been there, especially California, it looks more like the American South before the Civil War, with poor people doing bad jobs (people with broken arms at the cash register, Mexicans doing hotel rooms or people 70+ years old packing groceries) and rich people in big cars driving around with an oversized cup of coffee. There is the rich elite and the servants.
So this is why people say this.
It is this way here because the people whose preferences count want it that way.
The changeover happened in the early 1970s. The Powell Memorandum spells out the political program enabling it. Starting in the '70s, while the GDP has continued ever upward, middle income leveled off, and has barely risen since. All of the difference has been carefully diverted into the pockets of the 0.1%. Now the US has many billionaires and many, many millionaires, and "the rest", who are what is called a "managed population", our apparent collective consent to all this carefully curated.
Rebelliousness is channeled carefully into increasing the divide. The radical increase in fortunes of billionaires over the past four years is always blamed on something about COVID, not on very deliberate policies enacted by the government in power at the time.
The changeover happened in the early 1970s. The Powell Memorandum spells out the political program enabling it. Starting in the '70s, while the GDP has continued ever upward, middle income leveled off, and has barely risen since. All of the difference has been carefully diverted into the pockets of the 0.1%. Now the US has many billionaires and many, many millionaires, and "the rest", who are what is called a "managed population", our apparent collective consent to all this carefully curated.
Rebelliousness is channeled carefully into increasing the divide. The radical increase in fortunes of billionaires over the past four years is always blamed on something about COVID, not on very deliberate policies enacted by the government in power at the time.
I think it's a stretch. I came from third world, had parasites, pull water out of a well, lived on dirt, crapped in the woods. I would not consider the US third world.
Plenty of folks in the US do that, and not by choice.
I had to laugh out loud, speaking as a Norwegian-Australian.
I mean, this article.
You'd never experience injustice like this in any of my countries. It is the stuff of a second rate third world country, not at all becoming of a developed one.
We also generally don't need to fear random gun slaughter. I've not once worried about that for my children when at school etc, only errant drivers and pm25 pollution enters my mind.
I mean, this article.
You'd never experience injustice like this in any of my countries. It is the stuff of a second rate third world country, not at all becoming of a developed one.
We also generally don't need to fear random gun slaughter. I've not once worried about that for my children when at school etc, only errant drivers and pm25 pollution enters my mind.
Oh, that’s utter bullshit.
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/aboriginal-activists-australia...
https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/5dgm8q/indigenous-austra...
https://abcnews.go.com/amp/US/aboriginal-activists-australia...
https://www.vice.com/amp/en/article/5dgm8q/indigenous-austra...
Things are not all rosy elsewhere, but it means they remain or get more like the US.
Always remember that they are a country with slavery enshrined in their constitution. That is they fully support it in certain cases. Should tell everything about their justice system.
Also a country that fought a bloody civil war to abolish slavery less than 90 years after its founding.
The US didn't abolish slavery, they made it illegal "except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted," meaning only the federal and state governments were allowed to practice slavery from that point forward.
That intentional backdoor has been used to oppress and re-enslave America's black population via unjust laws, incarceration and forced labor ever since that bloody civil war ended. There's a reason prisons in the South make their (predominantly black) inmates pick cotton, and it isn't because that's cost effective. Prison labor is a direct reinstatement of the former slave labor system, and many prisons in the South were formerly slave plantations.
That intentional backdoor has been used to oppress and re-enslave America's black population via unjust laws, incarceration and forced labor ever since that bloody civil war ended. There's a reason prisons in the South make their (predominantly black) inmates pick cotton, and it isn't because that's cost effective. Prison labor is a direct reinstatement of the former slave labor system, and many prisons in the South were formerly slave plantations.
Or was it about control, subjugation and power? Ofc, centuries of propaganda and mind washing does wonders. After all history is written by victors...
100% about slavery (from the mouth of the southern states themselves):
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati...
That was just the first result from searching for "letters of secession"
https://www.battlefields.org/learn/primary-sources/declarati...
That was just the first result from searching for "letters of secession"
Question wasn't about secession, but the following invasion.
The invasion was in response to Confederate attacks on Union forts - starting with Fort Sumter.
Saying the civil war is not about slavery because the invasion was about responding to Confederate belligerence is like saying that someone who died with Covid-19 actually died from heart failure. You might be technically correct (most people's hearts fail when they die), but it's at best pedantic and at worst disingenuous.
Saying the civil war is not about slavery because the invasion was about responding to Confederate belligerence is like saying that someone who died with Covid-19 actually died from heart failure. You might be technically correct (most people's hearts fail when they die), but it's at best pedantic and at worst disingenuous.
As opposed to which other superpower?
Note that I said 'developed nation', not 'superpower'.
A superpower can afford not to be a hellhole for the majority of its citizens, and may choose that. Less powerful countries often succeed at it.
I'm so confused here. Why is American Airlines involved at all?
> surveillance cameras caught the suspect boarding a flight headed to Reno. American Airlines reported the theft to DFW Airport police,
Why is AA reporting thefts from airport stores to police? Does AA have retail stores?
> American Airlines identified Lowe as the shoplifter seen in the surveillance footage
Why is AA involving itself in identifying shoplifters?! Providing footage I understand, but ID'ing?
> surveillance cameras caught the suspect boarding a flight headed to Reno. American Airlines reported the theft to DFW Airport police,
Why is AA reporting thefts from airport stores to police? Does AA have retail stores?
> American Airlines identified Lowe as the shoplifter seen in the surveillance footage
Why is AA involving itself in identifying shoplifters?! Providing footage I understand, but ID'ing?
Seems like an error, considering the complaint doesn't state that AA reported the burglary. They were served a search warrant for records of everyone on the flight, and only produced this person's info.
Innocent, accused, or even found guilty — the conditions in American jails and prisons are barbaric and anathema to the proclaimed values we claim to hold.
Our media and politicians are quick to portray deplorable conditions in Russia et al, but it happens right here all the time.
I've had a couple family members and friend experience such treatment, including losing employment while it was getting sorted out. It's awful and needs more attention to change this.
(Scandinavia is as close to an ideal that I can imagine, though I know American society is so focused on antiquated notions of revenge and punishment that it's going to be a long time coming to view these as places of rehabilitation and reintegration than of violent, dehumanizing retribution. The state has a duty to ensure humane and dignified treatment for everyone in its care.)
Our media and politicians are quick to portray deplorable conditions in Russia et al, but it happens right here all the time.
I've had a couple family members and friend experience such treatment, including losing employment while it was getting sorted out. It's awful and needs more attention to change this.
(Scandinavia is as close to an ideal that I can imagine, though I know American society is so focused on antiquated notions of revenge and punishment that it's going to be a long time coming to view these as places of rehabilitation and reintegration than of violent, dehumanizing retribution. The state has a duty to ensure humane and dignified treatment for everyone in its care.)
Yes it might be more humane and better conditions for inmates but the problem is that it's too far to the other side.
Instead of having the threat of jail time in a harsh environment, prisoners see it as a resort and a break from the criminal life they are living with full access to almost anything and they even have leave(!?) multiple times during their stay.
Inmates have access to Playstation, Xbox, Netflix etc and better food than the schools serve to our children.
Jail time is a joke as well, armed robbery 2 months, rape 3 months, assault 2-4 months, murder 4 years (with good behavior) and if they commit multiple crimes they get a discount(!?).
I would prefer the harsher variant because now we have an influx of criminals from other places in the world where they have real punishments and they probably just laugh when they get sentenced here.
Instead of having the threat of jail time in a harsh environment, prisoners see it as a resort and a break from the criminal life they are living with full access to almost anything and they even have leave(!?) multiple times during their stay.
Inmates have access to Playstation, Xbox, Netflix etc and better food than the schools serve to our children.
Jail time is a joke as well, armed robbery 2 months, rape 3 months, assault 2-4 months, murder 4 years (with good behavior) and if they commit multiple crimes they get a discount(!?).
I would prefer the harsher variant because now we have an influx of criminals from other places in the world where they have real punishments and they probably just laugh when they get sentenced here.
Why would you prefer it the US way? Doesnt the data show that the humane approach is actually reducing recidivism?
Many people in the US actively want harmful punishment. They approach crime as "getting back" at the criminal, instead of thinking "how can we encourage this person to take healthy part in society, or keep them safely away from society otherwise"
Someone who cannot safely be in normal society still deserves basic dignity
Someone who cannot safely be in normal society still deserves basic dignity
This might be true, but here it has gone so far that the prisoners complain when they don't get enough candy when they watch "Let's dance".
A prisoner doing time for assault and kidnapping has the audacity to complain about things like this. It is a mockery to the victims that have had their lives ruined by this individual.
Punishment must have a deterring factor to it, imprisonment is just a joke in Sweden right now.
A prisoner doing time for assault and kidnapping has the audacity to complain about things like this. It is a mockery to the victims that have had their lives ruined by this individual.
Punishment must have a deterring factor to it, imprisonment is just a joke in Sweden right now.
Why is the ACLU not involved here? This seems to fit the definition of false imprisonment and depriving someone of their civil rights under color of law.
The ACLU is no longer interested in protecting the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens.
See https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html
See https://www.nytimes.com/2021/06/06/us/aclu-free-speech.html
Remember that this is the organisation that helped a malicious domestic abuser make malicious defamatory statements in such way they wouldn't be considered defamatory. Should really be no respect left for such evil and vile group of people...
And then went on to sue the victim of domestic abuse, as proved by court
DrewRWx(5)
These kind of things are very common for black and other minorities in the US that they are not even reported . There have been so many cases involving black and latinos incarcerated based on some grainy picture on a security cam.
The police are negligent too if they held him for 17 days with just a name from American Airlines. The video evidence would've shown that wasn't him. When they didn't review the evidence until was already free and pleaded for them to review it, that's negligence. It sounds like they delayed getting him a lawyer too.
Police are routinely negligent and not much happens.
I personally experienced something similar 20 years ago. Mine was due to piss-poor policing as well. Thank The Universe that I wasn't in a jail-cell for two weeks and it wasn't during a pandemic.
My story.
I was living in Utah and a City police department in Idaho had a larceny warrant out for my arrest.
Why? Before I had moved to Utah, I lived in Idaho. I drove a friend to another friends house and dropped them off. I later picked them up again. He didn't have a license or a car. Unbeknownst to me, allegedly, he stole a laptop when they were at the other persons house. The plates for my vehicle were written down and filed in the police report as a detail. The police report was clear that I didn't commit the theft, the other person did, but I drove them. The detectives were supposed to come get my statement and used my vehicle registration to call me and investigate. Someone got lazy and they put the arrest warrant out on me as the owner of the vehicle.
Two years later, I'm driving to work one day and I get pulled over for a missing taillight and as they run my information, they find I have a warrant for Larceny theft for something over $2,500 out of Idaho. They throw me in Jail and keep me for four days. I was a naive and unexperienced "kid" (21 years old) thrown into a rough environment where others really had stolen cars, had hard drug problems and violent offenses and Utah was just waiting for as long as they wanted to extradite me back to Idaho. The environment was shocking to me. Insinuations of violence if I didn't give another "kid" my pillow, extreme anger and extreme homophobia everywhere.
I couldn't get arraigned or get in front of a Judge since it wasn't a warrant out of Utah. My family in Idaho retained a lawyer, the lawyer interviewed the person who filed the police report and she knew who stole it and knew it wasn't me and she even told the police as much which cleared my name and got the warrant squashed and got me released.
The company I worked for let me go without cause. Right to work state - Utah. The situation made them uncomfortable.
Of course, no repercussions for a false warrant. I was in jail for four days, I lose my job, during the arrest they impounded my vehicle and I have to pay fees to get it out. I'm fortunate my family had the means to retain a lawyer and get the warrant squashed but if it wasn't for that luxury, I likely would have been there for at-least another week as Idaho took their sweet time to send a Sheriff to Utah to come pick me up.
There really should be reform for the criteria required for a warrant and the criteria and timeframe for extradition. It should be a crime to imprison someone for four days or two weeks without being arraigned even if extradition is involved. It's 2022, can't extradition be required within 24-hours? We have planes and that expense would hopefully encourage a police department to be smart about the warrants they place.
I wonder if I could have won a civil case for the shoddy police work leading to my legal expenses to get me out and my lost wages but didn't have the means to pursue it against the City Police Department. I licked my wounds, moved on and didn't really think about it again until this article.
My story.
I was living in Utah and a City police department in Idaho had a larceny warrant out for my arrest.
Why? Before I had moved to Utah, I lived in Idaho. I drove a friend to another friends house and dropped them off. I later picked them up again. He didn't have a license or a car. Unbeknownst to me, allegedly, he stole a laptop when they were at the other persons house. The plates for my vehicle were written down and filed in the police report as a detail. The police report was clear that I didn't commit the theft, the other person did, but I drove them. The detectives were supposed to come get my statement and used my vehicle registration to call me and investigate. Someone got lazy and they put the arrest warrant out on me as the owner of the vehicle.
Two years later, I'm driving to work one day and I get pulled over for a missing taillight and as they run my information, they find I have a warrant for Larceny theft for something over $2,500 out of Idaho. They throw me in Jail and keep me for four days. I was a naive and unexperienced "kid" (21 years old) thrown into a rough environment where others really had stolen cars, had hard drug problems and violent offenses and Utah was just waiting for as long as they wanted to extradite me back to Idaho. The environment was shocking to me. Insinuations of violence if I didn't give another "kid" my pillow, extreme anger and extreme homophobia everywhere.
I couldn't get arraigned or get in front of a Judge since it wasn't a warrant out of Utah. My family in Idaho retained a lawyer, the lawyer interviewed the person who filed the police report and she knew who stole it and knew it wasn't me and she even told the police as much which cleared my name and got the warrant squashed and got me released.
The company I worked for let me go without cause. Right to work state - Utah. The situation made them uncomfortable.
Of course, no repercussions for a false warrant. I was in jail for four days, I lose my job, during the arrest they impounded my vehicle and I have to pay fees to get it out. I'm fortunate my family had the means to retain a lawyer and get the warrant squashed but if it wasn't for that luxury, I likely would have been there for at-least another week as Idaho took their sweet time to send a Sheriff to Utah to come pick me up.
There really should be reform for the criteria required for a warrant and the criteria and timeframe for extradition. It should be a crime to imprison someone for four days or two weeks without being arraigned even if extradition is involved. It's 2022, can't extradition be required within 24-hours? We have planes and that expense would hopefully encourage a police department to be smart about the warrants they place.
I wonder if I could have won a civil case for the shoddy police work leading to my legal expenses to get me out and my lost wages but didn't have the means to pursue it against the City Police Department. I licked my wounds, moved on and didn't really think about it again until this article.
Not only do we have planes, many courts went fully virtual during COVID, doing everything over Zoom. If they can do it then, they can do it for extradition arraignments.
That is scary. Thanks for sharing it.
The tone of this article that describes the conditions as inhumane and grotesque to the subject of the article feels real weird. It's not just dehumanizing to the one innocent person there, it's grotesque to treat anyone like we treat our prisoners. (Especially those not yet convicted.)
While I recognize the impact to this one man was serious, and I hope he gets the help and support he needs to recover, we need to stop thinking about these one off failures in the system and start looking at what our prisons and policing do to everyone who passes through their custody.
While I recognize the impact to this one man was serious, and I hope he gets the help and support he needs to recover, we need to stop thinking about these one off failures in the system and start looking at what our prisons and policing do to everyone who passes through their custody.
What a nightmare. If you (God forbid) find yourself falsely charged/arrested: Shut up. Get a lawyer. Don't talk to the police: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE
You might think you can convince the authorities to see reason, but you're wrong. If they were reasonable people they would be in a different line of work. This is a problem to be fixed by a lawyer. You can afford it. You can repay debt when you're alive and free.
You might think you can convince the authorities to see reason, but you're wrong. If they were reasonable people they would be in a different line of work. This is a problem to be fixed by a lawyer. You can afford it. You can repay debt when you're alive and free.
I love that "Don't talk to the police" video and recommend it to everyone I can. But it doesn't look like his words led to his arrest or incarceration here. The warrant was from a distant jurisdiction, so the police who picked him up and incarcerated him didn't really know anything about the original charges.
This case highlights about a dozen different horrific government abuses and systemic injustices, yet the airline is the organization he's most likely to get any sort of restitution from. That in itself is a sad state of affairs.
This case highlights about a dozen different horrific government abuses and systemic injustices, yet the airline is the organization he's most likely to get any sort of restitution from. That in itself is a sad state of affairs.
Police have a lot of nasty tricks they can use to get people to talk, including the ability to lie about nearly anything. They can claim things are 'off the record' when they're not, lie about evidence or witness testimony, claim you being silent will result in them e.g. arresting your family members, and all other sorts of insane stuff. All completely legal.
It's easy to say don't talk, it's another altogether when you're surrounded by people whose entire profession includes getting people who don't want to talk, to talk.
It's easy to say don't talk, it's another altogether when you're surrounded by people whose entire profession includes getting people who don't want to talk, to talk.
For those of us who are slower: Shut the f*k up, Pot Brothers At Law
https://twitter.com/facebookvillain/status/13661666082684354...
https://twitter.com/facebookvillain/status/13661666082684354...
How would that have played out here?
Would shutting up have resulted in less jail time?
After he got out of jail, he "decided to find a lawyer. After weeks of searching for one he could afford, Lowe retained Palmer."
What should have have done that while in jail?
Would shutting up have resulted in less jail time?
After he got out of jail, he "decided to find a lawyer. After weeks of searching for one he could afford, Lowe retained Palmer."
What should have have done that while in jail?
Reading between the lines, I would guess that this poor soul believed that the system is reasonable, and if he just had a chance to speak, everything would be cleared up.
That's how a justice system should work, but that's not the reality. In fact, there never should have been an arrest warrant issued with such a weak "case" comprised entirely of exculpating evidence.
What he should have done was stop speaking immediately, use the first available opportunity to call family, a friend, or anyone else capable of securing a competent defense attorney, and retained their services.
Unfortunately, it can be hard to find a competent criminal attorney even when you're not in jail. If you unexpectedly find yourself in jail, you have no access to any resources other than a payphone, and whatever phone numbers the desk officer allowed you to copy out of your phone. All your outgoing calls use an exploitative collect-call system that charges obscene amounts and requires the receiver to listen to a robo-caller greeting — and set up an account with a credit card — before they can accept your call.
If you received a random call from an unknown New Mexico number, with the caller ID of "Quay County Jail", would you even answer? If you answered, and heard a robocall announcement asking if you want to accept a collect call from an inmate, would you even wait for the message to finish?
> What should have have done that while in jail?
He should have found a lawyer as soon as he could — but that's easy to say when you're not experiencing the incredibly dehumanizing reality that is our criminal "justice" system.
That's how a justice system should work, but that's not the reality. In fact, there never should have been an arrest warrant issued with such a weak "case" comprised entirely of exculpating evidence.
What he should have done was stop speaking immediately, use the first available opportunity to call family, a friend, or anyone else capable of securing a competent defense attorney, and retained their services.
Unfortunately, it can be hard to find a competent criminal attorney even when you're not in jail. If you unexpectedly find yourself in jail, you have no access to any resources other than a payphone, and whatever phone numbers the desk officer allowed you to copy out of your phone. All your outgoing calls use an exploitative collect-call system that charges obscene amounts and requires the receiver to listen to a robo-caller greeting — and set up an account with a credit card — before they can accept your call.
If you received a random call from an unknown New Mexico number, with the caller ID of "Quay County Jail", would you even answer? If you answered, and heard a robocall announcement asking if you want to accept a collect call from an inmate, would you even wait for the message to finish?
> What should have have done that while in jail?
He should have found a lawyer as soon as he could — but that's easy to say when you're not experiencing the incredibly dehumanizing reality that is our criminal "justice" system.
I'm not defending our system, but I do want to point out one problem with any ideal of how the system ought work. In reality, most of everybody will claim that they're innocent, including those that are not. And so from the perspective of anybody working in law enforcement/corrections, somebody claiming they're innocent is not only a criminal but a liar on top. And the vast majority of the time, they'd be right.
And every system enabling you to challenge your detention is going to be built with the knowledge of the sort of system it's working within. I live abroad now and in the system here defendants who lie about their innocence will face greatly lengthened sentences, so most people not only don't bother lying, but actually have to reenact their crime for police. But of course the obvious problem there is that it greatly increases the risk for challenging any arrest when you actually are innocent, though for a case like this (where there was 0 argument whatsoever that he was guilty) - that would obviously be a better system.
And every system enabling you to challenge your detention is going to be built with the knowledge of the sort of system it's working within. I live abroad now and in the system here defendants who lie about their innocence will face greatly lengthened sentences, so most people not only don't bother lying, but actually have to reenact their crime for police. But of course the obvious problem there is that it greatly increases the risk for challenging any arrest when you actually are innocent, though for a case like this (where there was 0 argument whatsoever that he was guilty) - that would obviously be a better system.
The police here are similarly allowed to lie. They're allowed to lie so forcefully that they're able to extract false confessions. It's not a rare occurrence.
>If you received a random call from an unknown New Mexico number, with the caller ID of "Quay County Jail", would you even answer? If you answered, and heard a robocall announcement asking if you want to accept a collect call from an inmate, would you even wait for the message to finish?
Is there a tech solution here ? I used to have an obi device that bridged pstn and voip lines and would do call forwarding. I suppose I can set up a DID number that can then patch to a real connection. The main issue would be automating the "accept collect call" part and avoiding abuse.
Is there a tech solution here ? I used to have an obi device that bridged pstn and voip lines and would do call forwarding. I suppose I can set up a DID number that can then patch to a real connection. The main issue would be automating the "accept collect call" part and avoiding abuse.
It's not a tech solution because it's not a tech problem. The prisons don't use these convoluted solutions because they can't just use a normal phone and give the prisoners calls on a normal phone contract for free, they do it this way because it's profitable
My question was whether I can create a gateway so that if I had to call from a prison, I can still reach friends/family/lawyer without the call being marked as spam, collect fees etc.
That's a compelling point, but have you considered that penitentiary communication could be expedited by the blockchain?
Shutting up and asking for a lawyer even an overworked public defender would have gotten him better advice that would lead to him being arraigned and out on bail instead of letting his constitutional rights get violated for a fortnight.
>Would shutting up have resulted in less jail time?
Talking will never, absolutely never, result in anything but more jail time. There is absolutely zero benefit for you to answer police questions past basic things such as identifying yourself/things like showing license/registration at a traffic stop. At no point would talking ever make your case better.
Talking will never, absolutely never, result in anything but more jail time. There is absolutely zero benefit for you to answer police questions past basic things such as identifying yourself/things like showing license/registration at a traffic stop. At no point would talking ever make your case better.
You are absolutely right.
Also, it should be seen as a torture situation: they are professionals that will throw the full arsenal at you, including delaying your requests as long as they can get away with (I assume there can just lie about getting you a lawyer and have your requests memory holed. BTW do you even have rights to one depending on what form they took to keep you ?). They can put physical and mental pressure on you for days and days, and your only path is to shut up, if you’re not willing to give them what they want. And at no point you can afford to break down.
Overall, that’s a stacked game I’m not sure you can really win depending on how dirty they want to play it, except if you get external help that they couldn’t shut down.
Also, it should be seen as a torture situation: they are professionals that will throw the full arsenal at you, including delaying your requests as long as they can get away with (I assume there can just lie about getting you a lawyer and have your requests memory holed. BTW do you even have rights to one depending on what form they took to keep you ?). They can put physical and mental pressure on you for days and days, and your only path is to shut up, if you’re not willing to give them what they want. And at no point you can afford to break down.
Overall, that’s a stacked game I’m not sure you can really win depending on how dirty they want to play it, except if you get external help that they couldn’t shut down.
I think there is some information missing. He would have been offered a public defender before the judge.
Probably not until he made it to Texas.
He would have been entitled to an attorney when he went before the NM judge if he’d asked for one. Whatever that proceeding was, it would definitely have triggered the right to counsel.
On one hand, yes, but on the other, the way they allegedly honored habeas corpus, I find it hard to believe they'd find a lawyer.
I completely agree, but it's got to be one of the most razor thin thresholds for habeas corpus I've seen.
It reads like something written by Kafka (no, not the queue)!
It reads like something written by Kafka (no, not the queue)!
Crime TV shows often show investigators chatting with suspects. There is no law that requires you chat with anyone but your lawyer. It would make for a boring show though if everyone was silent though.
As explained by the cops of Homicide:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DH4FdxKCNg
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DH4FdxKCNg
Even more, though this would only have delayed the inevitable, was that he should not have identified himself to the police when questioned about the incident unrelated to him, that led to his arrest. You do not have to identify yourself unless, and this varies by State in the U.S., you are arrested or they have "RAS" Reasonable Articulable Suspicion informed by Specific Articulable Facts that you have or are committing a crime.
So basically, NEVER TALK TO POLICE!
So basically, NEVER TALK TO POLICE!
[deleted]
Is this a sequel to Franz Kafka's "The Trial"?
This sort of thing happens all the time in big cities. Person is arrested, life up ended, and charges end up being dropped or dismissed. Their personal life has suffered a major setback, all for a government oversight.
USA Greatest country in the world!
Or so we’re told. You guys need to get your shit together, this is pathetic
Or so we’re told. You guys need to get your shit together, this is pathetic
What this man went through is horrible, the kind of living nightmare that most people in polite society never experience or even see.
Now consider: there are hundreds (if not thousands) of people just like him, going through the exact same thing, right now. Their only differences: the overwhelming majority are poor and brown, and not all survive[1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalief_Browder
Now consider: there are hundreds (if not thousands) of people just like him, going through the exact same thing, right now. Their only differences: the overwhelming majority are poor and brown, and not all survive[1].
[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalief_Browder
Considerably more than thousands. It's not acceptable to treat anyone this way.
For those saying that he should have sued the state because the police were at fault too for accepting AA's info at face value, he probably is focusing on the quickest way to settlement - a private company would settle quicker than the state and the payout could be pretty decent. Though it would be just to have the police face consequences too for their wrongdoing, can't blame him for going after the financial aspect and trying to put this behind him as quickly as possible.
I get why he sues them, because he has a chance there that he wouldn't have against "the system".
But guilty or not, nobody should have to endure what he experienced in a so-called civilized society, there is no way such experiences would help people reform, if anything, it would serve as a strong indication that there indeed is no right or wrong in the world, that the establishment is not deserving of respect and that the real priority should be avoid getting caught.
But guilty or not, nobody should have to endure what he experienced in a so-called civilized society, there is no way such experiences would help people reform, if anything, it would serve as a strong indication that there indeed is no right or wrong in the world, that the establishment is not deserving of respect and that the real priority should be avoid getting caught.
[deleted]
Situation normal in America. Sadly this isn’t uncommon at all, I hope he takes the airline for all they are worth.
A very good account to follow on Twitter who is fighting for our rights:
https://twitter.com/equalityAlec
Because of this post on HN, I've set up a monthly donation.
https://twitter.com/equalityAlec
Because of this post on HN, I've set up a monthly donation.
Now imagine you're not a US citizen and this happens to you at an airport.
Welp, I've got one more reason to consider fleeing to a civilized country
What I don’t get is AA isn’t in control of the court system or what happens in jail. I can totally get behind identifying the wrong guy, how can they be blamed for shitty conditions?
[deleted]
Execs need jail time and asset forfeiture over this. Quite simple.
Reading about the way US law enforcement works gives me the shivers. The system is truly done for if there are no consequences to injustices like these.
> Lowe said he didn’t even find out what he was charged with until after his release.
The finest treatment you can get, right there.
The finest treatment you can get, right there.
That is kafkaesque level absurdity.
[deleted]
[deleted]
>Instead, American Airlines “departed from its established procedures,” according to the lawsuit, and sent police a single passenger’s information — Lowe’s.
Has American Airlines said if they departed from their established procedures here, would be interesting to know. Because if they say they departed from established procedures that's really bad for them in court, but if they complied with their established procedures then they would have a reason why those are their procedures which they would have to say.
hmm, well we have this procedure of telling the police who to pick up so as to protect the privacy of all our other passengers - that won't go very well for them in court either because big time they're liable.... sure doesn't look good for American Airlines
Has American Airlines said if they departed from their established procedures here, would be interesting to know. Because if they say they departed from established procedures that's really bad for them in court, but if they complied with their established procedures then they would have a reason why those are their procedures which they would have to say.
hmm, well we have this procedure of telling the police who to pick up so as to protect the privacy of all our other passengers - that won't go very well for them in court either because big time they're liable.... sure doesn't look good for American Airlines
American surely gets subpoenas for manifests all the time. It's extraordinary unlikely their procedure is to do anything else other than provide the entire manifest.
What probably happened was they provided a single passenger instead of the whole manifest due to human error. Of course the police should have actually confirmed there was only a single passenger and it wasn't a mistake.
What probably happened was they provided a single passenger instead of the whole manifest due to human error. Of course the police should have actually confirmed there was only a single passenger and it wasn't a mistake.
Just went and double checked, don't see anything about a subpoena in the article?
Yeah, the article is trash. The actual complaint has a story that makes sense.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22054162/michael-lowe...
It was a search warrant, not a subpoena.
https://s3.documentcloud.org/documents/22054162/michael-lowe...
It was a search warrant, not a subpoena.
17 days in jail for shoplifting??? What is that about??
Reminds me of the Ousmane Bah v. Apple situation
This is totally fucked, but the sad truth is that we’re only hearing about it because he’s not poor and black. It happens ALL THE TIME; just ask Kalief Browder’s family.
>>>Instead, American Airlines “departed from its established procedures,” according to the lawsuit, and sent police a single passenger’s information — Lowe’s.
If an innocent man goes to jail, the penalties should be so profound that it hurts. They should be levied a billion dollar penalty and I would say even that would be generous.
If an innocent man goes to jail, the penalties should be so profound that it hurts. They should be levied a billion dollar penalty and I would say even that would be generous.
I don't understand how AA is the one getting sued here. The police is the one who ends up making determinations right? Along with the whole "17 days without knowing what the crime was"...
What was going on with the justice system here? Of course AA is a component in the events that lead up to his arrest, but surely our justice system should not just arrest people on AA's word and not provide any recourse. Why are we putting shoplifters into a jail cell for 17 days _even if you knew they were shoplifters_. How does a judge look at this situation and determine that this person is a flight risk?
There are so many points where humans could have intervened and stemmed the damage, but didn't.
What was going on with the justice system here? Of course AA is a component in the events that lead up to his arrest, but surely our justice system should not just arrest people on AA's word and not provide any recourse. Why are we putting shoplifters into a jail cell for 17 days _even if you knew they were shoplifters_. How does a judge look at this situation and determine that this person is a flight risk?
There are so many points where humans could have intervened and stemmed the damage, but didn't.
Both are at fault, but good luck getting a judgement against the state.
> but surely our justice system should not just arrest people on AA's word and not provide any recourse
If you are still ignorant enough to believe that, I have 1024 bridges to sell you in the tri-state area.
If you are still ignorant enough to believe that, I have 1024 bridges to sell you in the tri-state area.
I meant my statement to be about what things should be like. I am shocked at this case, but I am not too naive to believe that the justice system in the US (and elsewhere) is close to what it should be.
If society wants things to be better, repeating how we think things should be over and over is helpful! It's better to have a place to go, rather than just declare we are not in the right place.
Guess I'm a bit naive.
If society wants things to be better, repeating how we think things should be over and over is helpful! It's better to have a place to go, rather than just declare we are not in the right place.
Guess I'm a bit naive.
> I don't understand how AA is the one getting sued here
The article indicates that AA inexplicably identified the victim alone as the perpetrator, rather than sharing the passenger list with police. One imagines they'll be facing many, many millions in damages for such negligence.
The article indicates that AA inexplicably identified the victim alone as the perpetrator, rather than sharing the passenger list with police. One imagines they'll be facing many, many millions in damages for such negligence.
But... I mean.... AA says "this is the guy". Police says "OK", they go to person, who says "wait what?". Police had the footage right?
I imagine that AA is not doing something out of malice. Maybe everyone who is arrested claims they're innocent, but if you're going to put someone in jail for 2 weeks you better have good evidence! Yeah, maybe it's annoying, but so what? Everyone has to do annoying shit for work.
I imagine that AA is not doing something out of malice. Maybe everyone who is arrested claims they're innocent, but if you're going to put someone in jail for 2 weeks you better have good evidence! Yeah, maybe it's annoying, but so what? Everyone has to do annoying shit for work.
> Yeah, maybe it's annoying, but so what? Everyone has to do annoying shit for work.
Have you ever interacted with American cops? They are on average completely useless, either unwilling or unable to follow their job description. Some of it isn't even any individual officer's fault (training is a joke, no performance standards, dysfunctional culture). But the end result is that they don't make up a high-quality set of civil servants, even by the not-very-high standards of American civil servants.
Have you ever interacted with American cops? They are on average completely useless, either unwilling or unable to follow their job description. Some of it isn't even any individual officer's fault (training is a joke, no performance standards, dysfunctional culture). But the end result is that they don't make up a high-quality set of civil servants, even by the not-very-high standards of American civil servants.
Would be good for things to be better!
Right, police are the perpetrators here. The problem is that they exist to protect wealth & property (AA, DFW shops), not people.
That is just inaccurate, the police don't even do a good job of that. The police, like every other bureaucracy with unchecked power, exists to perpetuate itself and enrich its members. This is not specific to the police except insofar as the police are exceptionally powerful and unchecked, and it is less a conspiracy of the powerful and more a typical dysfunction of government taken to an atypical extreme.
It’s not clear to me that AA said the guy was the perpetrator.
“ sent police a single passenger’s information”
That almost reads like they sent the wrong data and someone interpreted it as IDing him as the perpetrator.
I wonder who decided it was an ID.
I don’t have a problem with AA paying here but there is a lot to this story that just raises new questions.
“ sent police a single passenger’s information”
That almost reads like they sent the wrong data and someone interpreted it as IDing him as the perpetrator.
I wonder who decided it was an ID.
I don’t have a problem with AA paying here but there is a lot to this story that just raises new questions.
> our justice system should not just arrest people on AA's word and not provide any recourse
There is recourse against the government. But it's long and winding and expensive.
A private airline is under different constraints. I'm surprised AAs' lawyers let it get this far without settling. (Unless the plaintiff jumped the gun, in which case he likely gave up his strongest card.)
There is recourse against the government. But it's long and winding and expensive.
A private airline is under different constraints. I'm surprised AAs' lawyers let it get this far without settling. (Unless the plaintiff jumped the gun, in which case he likely gave up his strongest card.)
qualified immunity
> There are so many points where humans could have intervened and stemmed the damage, but didn't.
There are so many points where humans intervened and ensured the damage was inflicted!
There are so many points where humans intervened and ensured the damage was inflicted!
I don't understand how AA is the one getting sued here.
In a situation where multiple parties have wronged you, you can bring suit against any of them. In this case, the State has immunity and the individual at AA likely doesn't have enough assets to be worth suing. That leaves AA potentially holding the bag.
In a situation where multiple parties have wronged you, you can bring suit against any of them. In this case, the State has immunity and the individual at AA likely doesn't have enough assets to be worth suing. That leaves AA potentially holding the bag.
Would it even matter if AA misidentified him if the American justice system wasn't so terrible?
The idea that a simple accusation immediately results in rather extreme punishment is the real problem, isn't it?
The idea that a simple accusation immediately results in rather extreme punishment is the real problem, isn't it?
The story is insane and i hope he squeezes every dollar he can out of AA
American Airlines is a scapegoat for the broken justice system.
Are you suggesting AA is an innocent party here? They messed up big time. Those accusations change lives.
Nor is the American Justice system innocent, their handling of the situation was terrible, likely criminal.
Nor is the American Justice system innocent, their handling of the situation was terrible, likely criminal.
Police asked for a manifest.
AA replied with a single passenger.
Police should have realized right away this was an error and re-requested the manifest. Stills from surveillance footage (included in the actual complaint another poster linked to) show multiple people boarding the plane.
The was this article is written is very bad journalism, AA (obviously) didn't know anything about the theft in a completely unrelated store, and didn't report it. The only thing they did was replied to a subpoena incorrectly. This article makes it sound like AA was doing their own investigation into a crime they knew nothing about.
AA replied with a single passenger.
Police should have realized right away this was an error and re-requested the manifest. Stills from surveillance footage (included in the actual complaint another poster linked to) show multiple people boarding the plane.
The was this article is written is very bad journalism, AA (obviously) didn't know anything about the theft in a completely unrelated store, and didn't report it. The only thing they did was replied to a subpoena incorrectly. This article makes it sound like AA was doing their own investigation into a crime they knew nothing about.
They are saying that the police should not have taken the action they took based solely on the unconfirmed identification provided by AA, which is correct.
[deleted]
Why AA?
They didn't put him in jail for 17 days under cruel conditions.
Everything after the wrong identification was done by the state. Especially if the differences between the wanted perpetrator and the arrested person is obvious.
Because you haven't a prayer of punishing the state (although you may squeeze some money out of tax-payers who never agreed with the actions to begin with).
Had some less egregious shit happen to me (border patrol lied and said a dog determined there were drugs up my ass). Got strip searched, taken to multiple hospitals across the state of Arizona against my will based on utterly fabricated 'probably cause' for attempted warrantless search of my body cavities. Cuffed and strutted and talked down to by doctors who called me a druggy purely based on entirely fabricated evidence, spending nearly a day in lobbies of hospitals while health care professionals ignored HIPAA and patient consent laws to do the bidding of border patrol. Looked up the court cases, a woman in identical situation was even raped by the doctors in every orifice on the same accusations and she didn't get jack.
Step A when you've been wronged by the state is to find the most proximal private entity and put them through the ringer. In this case that's AA. The state will protect itself and even if you succeed you'll need to move afterwards.
-------------
To the person who asked for link of the woman:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.985...
Had some less egregious shit happen to me (border patrol lied and said a dog determined there were drugs up my ass). Got strip searched, taken to multiple hospitals across the state of Arizona against my will based on utterly fabricated 'probably cause' for attempted warrantless search of my body cavities. Cuffed and strutted and talked down to by doctors who called me a druggy purely based on entirely fabricated evidence, spending nearly a day in lobbies of hospitals while health care professionals ignored HIPAA and patient consent laws to do the bidding of border patrol. Looked up the court cases, a woman in identical situation was even raped by the doctors in every orifice on the same accusations and she didn't get jack.
Step A when you've been wronged by the state is to find the most proximal private entity and put them through the ringer. In this case that's AA. The state will protect itself and even if you succeed you'll need to move afterwards.
-------------
To the person who asked for link of the woman:
https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.azd.985...
I'm shocked.
That sounds like a corrupt third world country.
No it doesn't.
It might have sounded like a corrupt third world country before we had ready access to information other than what the local newspaper and encyclopedia could provide. But now that the individual has the tools to consider the bigger picture, this sounds exactly like the United States that I've been hearing about for well over a decade. Much of that I've become aware of right here on HN.
It might have sounded like a corrupt third world country before we had ready access to information other than what the local newspaper and encyclopedia could provide. But now that the individual has the tools to consider the bigger picture, this sounds exactly like the United States that I've been hearing about for well over a decade. Much of that I've become aware of right here on HN.
The United States is a corrupt third world country.
Welcome to the US.
Supposedly everybody wants to come here.
Supposedly everybody wants to come here.
I'm sorry this happened to you.
> Looked up the court cases, a woman in identical situation was even raped by the doctors in every orifice on the same accusations and she didn't get jack
Do you have a link to this?
> Looked up the court cases, a woman in identical situation was even raped by the doctors in every orifice on the same accusations and she didn't get jack
Do you have a link to this?
Why not go after both?
What happened to "It is better that 10 guilty persons escape, than that 1 innocent suffer"[0]
Seems like the current US legal system is optimizing for false positives.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio
Seems like the current US legal system is optimizing for false positives.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone%27s_ratio
I think terminating a companys existences. Or at least all of it's operation and for a period of let's say 3x is reasonable. If they are people we should be able to jail them. Have there be period where no one can work there and they can't operate.
[deleted]
See. They usually do randItem(suspectList) but they didn’t know suspectList was untrusted user input that only contained a single element
Horrible experience the poor man went through. I hope he finds justice and peace.
> Despite the discrepancies in their appearances, American Airlines identified Lowe as the shoplifter seen in the surveillance footage
I’m a little confused here. Just sending that … someone had to decide that they were the same person and pass that on to an attorney right?
And then at the hearing did he ask any questions/ for a lawyer?
Not blaming the guy, just wondering about how this played out.
I’m a little confused here. Just sending that … someone had to decide that they were the same person and pass that on to an attorney right?
And then at the hearing did he ask any questions/ for a lawyer?
Not blaming the guy, just wondering about how this played out.
Haven’t trusted AA since 911, glad to see my hunch is correct.
Could you perhaps elaborate?
Was there any specific that American (and United, I suppose), did differently from other airlines that enabled the attack?
Was there any specific that American (and United, I suppose), did differently from other airlines that enabled the attack?
Also, start actually punishing such mistakes. Detective(s), judge, police, and American Airlines (everyone involved) should be severely punished for once. And for God's sake, stop assuming someone that hasn't gone through a trial is guilty -- what is this...
And for God's sake -- I know some other sibling commenter posted it too, but honestly just in case anybody misses it: Don't talk to the police. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE -- his situation could have been worse unfortunately.