Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by 1QAm1 3734 days ago
Try dealing with any of these "mandatory XYZ" crimes. In Colorado, for instance, when couples fight and the police are called, someone goes to jail, a mandatory order of protection is issued, you lose the ability to collect anything that you own in person (you must go through "mutual friends"), and if you live with your girlfriend/wife/fiance, you've also just lost the right to go to your own house.

So, having a fight that triggers a call to the police (even a verbal one, or slamming a door) will result in the XY going to jail for the night, paying for it, losing their house and most of their belongings, losing their job, being arrested (which is never expunged, even if innocent), and being homeless while you get a new job, house, clothes, etc.

Even if you're acquitted (I was completely acquitted of the lowest charge possible, which is a 3rd degree misdemeanor), it's not like your things magically show up, you still went to jail and lost your job, and the state doesn't care at all. The records should be expunged, the money that I paid to stay in jail ($35) should be refunded, and I should be given a police escort to force her to relinquish my things (thousands of dollars of things, photos, etc).

The system in CO is just a race to call the cops. Whoever goes first, wins. Slamming a door will immediately tag you as a "Domestic Abuser" and any guns (and ammo) must be kept at a friend's for the duration of the trial (which takes 6 months).

I won, and it certainly doesn't feel like "winning". :(

7 comments

In TX, I called the cops on my (insane, belligerent, beating down my front door) ex and all she had to do was lie to get me arrested. The police are dumber than rocks and I had to wage a credible threat to prosecute my lying ex for perjury and false statements to police to get my case dropped.
That sounds horrible. But it's not as bad as SF, where the SFPD shoots first and asks questions later.

Edit: why the downvotes? I can provide an innumerable amount of sources.[0][1][2]

[0] http://m.motherjones.com/politics/2015/12/police-shot-and-ki...

[1] https://www.aclunc.org/sites/default/files/A%20Department%20...

[2] http://www.zdnet.com/article/debian-linux-founder-ian-murdoc...

I get that it's easy to bury your head in the sand when it comes to these things, but there is a major league problem with the police here in SF. They are accountable to nobody and continue to harass and intimidate everyone, not just minorities.

I get that it's easy to bury your head in the sand when it comes to these things, but there is a major league problem with the police here in SF. They are accountable to nobody and continue to harass and intimidate everyone, not just minorities.

A lot of people don't understand this.

It starts off with minorities because, being minorities, they don't have the political clout to do anything about it.

The downtown decision makers don't care if some black or brown kid gets his head split open for not moving fast enough when the police ordered him to leave.

They don't care until it's someone that is important to them. When it's John Q MiddleClassSuburbanWhiteTeen who gets arrested for a made up offense, it's too late to fix the problem. At that point, the machinations are already in place to abuse everyone.

What they do to the minorities, they'll eventually do to you.

First they came for the Mexicans, and I did not speak up, for I am not Mexican.

Then they came for the tech bros.

Austin has plenty of problems with cops killing black people. It's an utter disgrace.
I agree. There are too many cases in the city where innocent people have been shot for no reason and nobody is punished.
Citing the Mario Woods shooting does nothing for your case. For those who haven't been following along, Woods had just stabbed a total stranger on the street and police showed up to apprehend him. He would not drop his knife after repeated orders and use of less lethal force like pepper spray and bean bag rounds. After a few minutes, he tried to break through the perimeter the cops had set up around him. At that point, the police could have either let a dangerous man escape, they could put themselves in great peril by physically stopping a charging man with a knife, or they could shoot him and end the threat to the public and themselves.

I'm not saying that the police couldn't have handled this better, but characterizing this incident as "shoot first and ask questions later" is mendacious.

Edit: And Ian Murdock? What evidence is there that police killed him?

Yeah I think most states are like that now. Here in Kansas I think that's how they roll as well. Doesn't matter who did what ONE of you is going to jail. Cops don't give a shit. "We're just doing our jobs and the law says...."

Police discretion be damned.

> Police discretion be damned.

That's the problem, as a mandatory law, there is no discretion, which makes the legal system too inflexible to be just. The problem with civil forfeiture is the opposite, as there is too much discretion, which allows it to be abused and used unjustly.

Agreed. But again I say produce a victim or there is no crime. What individual is the victim in civil forfeiture? No one but the owner of the property in question. That individual is the one harmed by the state. And should have redress for the states theft of his/her property. CF my $50,000 in gold bars? I'll sue for the return of my property AND ten million in damages. No cap in damages. Make the state bleed. CF is a crime.
> But again I say produce a victim or there is no crime.

To all laws are criminal, and not all crimes have a singular, discrete victim. Laws are also used as disincentives.

> CF is a crime.

CF is used in a lot more instances than the simplistic example you are putting forth. For example, CF is what is used to justify seizure of contraband at the border (imagine a shipping container full of guns with no known owner). Grouping all usages under a simplistic, unrealistic reading of the law doesn't lead anywhere useful.

> "imagine a shipping container full of guns with no known owner"

Assume CIA? :D

Jesus. That's incredibly disturbing.

I'll remember to keep the cops on speed-dial if I ever move there.

This is horrible, I hope you're well now.

Also, thanks for sharing this. Horror stories like yours are awakening young men everywhere about the risks of co-habitation and having LTRs.

Welcome to the Duluth model of domestic abuse cases.
This is a good reminder that when something is happening that feels out of control, turn on your camera and record.
Which in sometimes can get you killed ("he was holding something we thought was a gun").
That seems a little niche, let alone the fact that your phone camera probably has a light on it.
A light might not help you. The police might think that it's a laser sight, and be even more likely to shoot you:

The officers claim that the Taser projected a red light, which they assumed was the laser sight of a handgun, and feared for their lives. At 7.18:43pm, Schiff and Sawyer began barraging Nieto with .40-calibre bullets.

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/mar/21/death-by-gent...

Flashlights are also commonly attached to firearms.

In fact, it would be hard to distinguish between someone holding a phone with a light on or someone holding a gun with a light attached.

I'm not defending police brutality, but these are often difficult situations.

Well, people have been shot with far less obvious things on their hands mistaken (or "mistaken") for guns.

Besides, what phone camera has a light on it that's visible?

None that I can think of in day/noon/afternoon time. Some have a focus assist light and/or flash at night time -- but taking out of one's pockets and pointing a small object at a US policeman at nighttime, and especially in an aggressive scenario as the one we're discussing, that I would advise even less.

Oops that was an accident downvote, sorry :(