The Glade 4.0

Like what happened in this case?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warren_v._ ... f_Columbia

_________________

No. Detain is for investigative purposes, in order to establish probable cause, and is for a short period of time. Although no specific time standard exists, the courts have stated it must be no more than is reasonably neessary to establish or dispel probable cause. In other words, the police must do whatever they need to do as rapidly as is practicable, and not put things off or drag their feet to slow them down.



The fact that they didn't file charges doesn't mean they couldn't file charges, just that they didn't proceed. If you're arrested, you're entitled to a probable cause hearing at which the police must establish that they. There's nothing "unjust" about it.



You're not the only person who does it, you're just the person doing it right now. Instead of expounding your bullshit opinions on what's unjust and police power and consequences to the government, why don't you get on Wikipedia and try reading about a few of these things that you're ignorant about. Preferably with an eye to gaining information rather than trying to find excuses why all of it is unfair and unjust. All of what I'm telling you is material you learn in the first couple weeks of a police academy, so that you don't violate someone's rights, get you and your department sued, and fired. Hopefully.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

First, while you're technically correct that it's not in their job description, they still prevent worse crimes from happening when they show up to arrest someone for breaking into a house, before he can do something worse to the people inside. The official job description is also not what DFK originally posted about, he said that police "are not about crime or harm prevention," as in they don't do either of those two things at all.

Second, I also take issue with your position (and DFK's implication) that the government should not protect you. Simply because the courts have ruled that they do not have a constitutional duty to do so does not mean they should not do it. At best your philosophy requires every individual to own a firearm and learn how to use it, as well as be ready to kill another person if necessary, simply as a matter of basic survival. That last one is extremely difficult for most.

At which point it has already happened. The police don't show up and prevent it, they show up and try to arrest whoever did it or was in the process of doing it, which may or may not be too late for your butthole expansion. Police presence has a generally deterring and preventative effect on crime to some degree, but the police do not and cannot prevent or deter individual crimes, except in occasionaly cases where they just happen to get lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Not exactly. The part where they broke in already happened, but the cops showing up will certainly prevent the rest of that list from occurring.

The fact that police do prevent some crimes does not mean it is their job to prevent crimes.



So what? You say "at best" as if either of those things is actually a problem. People can and should learn to be able to use deadly force in self defense.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

And breaking in is a crime. Furthermore, the only reason this is true is because of authorial fiat (yours) in your hypothetical, and is constructed that way only in order to support your point. In real life we could hardly be sure that was the case.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I will point out that the desire to deter or prevent crime is the entire basis of the Patriot Act and all this NSA bullshit we are worried about now.

Ever had anything yelled at you through a standard cell door in a correctional institution? It's rarely intelligeble.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

That's nice, but is entirely irrelevant to this case. Furthermore, much of the point of the NSA actions and Patriot Act are prevention of external attacks by enemies. The government most certainly does have a duty to do that, and can do it, to a certain degree. They also need to know against whom to retaliate if we are attacked.

That is not to say either of the things you mentioned are a good idea, but the situation is different and is entirely a distraction to the matters at hand.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm not even talking to you DE, jesus. You don't need to respond to every post. I'm pointing out to Xeq that his line of thinking can lead to unintended consequences.

You're posting in the thread, I'm posting in the thread, and you didn't address it to anyone in particular. Quit your **** whining.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Gotcha. Well, whether or not it's part of an official employment agreement or PD policy, deterrence (i.e. prevention) is an implicit purpose of having a body of criminal laws in the first place and thus in having police to enforce those laws and apprehend offenders. Arresting offenders and deterring/preventing crime are basically inseparable.

Moreover, I would argue that since society has given the police and the courts a near monopoly on the enforcement of laws and protection of rights (outside of an emergency clearly requiring self-defense, people are largely prohibited from engaging in self-help remedies, and even emergency self-defense is significantly constrained), that grant of authority was made with the implicit understanding that it came with a corresponding duty to provide such enforcement and protection.

Deterrence and Prevention are not legitimately duties, they are effects. Providing enforcement does this, but the actual act of enforcement is reactive.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

By your logic, noone is capable of preventing crimes. Even if you have a gun and are prepared to use it, you still can't actually do anything with it to prevent a crime from occurring, the criminal has to commit an actual crime against you before you're allowed to use it. While you looking intimidating by carrying the gun, or the fact that the criminal knows that you have one might cause them to not come after you, this is not really any different from the criminal not attacking you because he knows police patrol the area and/or that they will respond to reports of a disturbance.

To be clear, Warren's holding simply provided that cops don't have an enforceable duty to protect specific individuals unless the cops themselves have done something to create a "special relationship" with those individuals (e.g. by creating or aggravating a dangerous situation or inducing reliance), not that they have no duty to protect the public at large. Also, Warren was only applicable to DC, not nationally. And lastly, many people (myself included) think it was an appallingly bad ruling even by its own logic, since the dispatcher's actions certainly seem to have induced reliance.

Correct. Unless somebody has a mind control device, or a prognosticator and the authority to arrest and convict based on said prognostication, Minority Report-style, the only person who can prevent crime is the potential criminal. Everything else is reactionary, or stamping out freedom by trying to punish based on ambiguous and arbitrarily actionable areas like "intent" while claiming to read minds and/or the future.

_________________
"Aaaah! Emotions are weird!" - Amdee
"... Mirrorshades prevent the forces of normalcy from realizing that one is crazed and possibly dangerous. They are the symbol of the sun-staring visionary, the biker, the rocker, the policeman, and similar outlaws." - Bruce Sterling, preface to Mirrorshades

This ^, plus this:




Having a justice system and consequences is the deterrent: fear of consequence. Nevertheless, police do not prevent crimes, and the mission creep people want to put on police is part of what caused the problem in the OP.





DE:

As to arrest vs. detain, it sounds like this kid was detained for questioning. No problem. Per link-throughs to the original news coverage, he was never arrested, so detainment sounds like the correct term. Why would somebody not be released after detainment? Additionally, again, what charge would fit for detaining somebody and never letting them go?

_________________
“The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.” - Thomas Paine

I'll respond to as many or as few posts as I damn well feel like. I don't give a **** who you were responding to; you were posting irrelevant nonsense and you certainly gave no indication that you were responding to anything specifically. Get the **** over yourself. You are not special.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

Yes, technically they do have to. If they threaten you to the point that you need to defend yourself, that threat is a crime in itself. If a crime is prevented, we never know about it at all; it's a non-occurrence.

I don't know why you think this is a problem.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm sorry you managed to post twice in between me hitting "reply" and "submit" you speed posting ****. I didn't feel the need to quote Xeq because I expected my post to be under his.

I'm honored you felt the need to respond to the same post twice, though. Apparently I AM special.

I already explained this. Once they detained him longer than was reasonably necessary to affirm or dispel probable cause and did not release him, the detainment became an arrest. This means that the agents were now obligated to demonstrate probable cause for the arrest (unless the defendent waived the hearing, but he never went to court). If they did not have it, then they were in violation of his rights just by continuing to have him in custody in addition to the fact that they negligently let him suffer in a waterless cell for 4 days.

The charge would be the federal civil rights charge used for "color of authority" violations, and possibly false arrest as well, and the charge for leaving him unattended for 4 days would be dereliction of duty.

I don't give a **** how it sounded in the media. He was arrested. If the media says otherwise, then they don't understand the legal principles involved either. Taking someone into custody in the manner this man was taken into custody is arresting him whether anyone ever said "you're under arrest" or informed him of the charge, or not.

I also don't know why you're disputing this; it certainly does not make things look any better for the agency involved.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm sorry you have your panties all in a twist because your mind wasn't read.

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."

I'm sorry you felt the need to argue with a post I made when we were in agreement about the topic at the time, that police officer's jobs are not to deter or prevent crime. My secondary post was merely pointing out situations in which our government has gone too far in the effort to prevent crime.

I'm sorry I was arguing with a post totally unrelated to that. Do you not understand the difference between law enforcement and national defense?

_________________
"Hysterical children shrieking about right-wing anything need to go sit in the corner and be quiet while the adults are talking."