[mcphage]

> Unfortunately, you’ve got a lot of police misconduct, but I never thought it would be on this level. [...] You’re innocent until proven guilty. I was guilty until proven innocent.

He was investigated, nothing was found, and he was released. He wasn't arrested, charged, taken to jail, let alone "guilty until proven innocent".

[thedz]

He was handcuffed publicly, had a taser pointed at him, and suffered a decent amount of emotional duress without even knowing why they did it to him, or what his crime was.

The "innocent until proven guilty" bit might not be 100% accurate, but this is still incredibly irresponsible on the part of the police.

[dahart]

What a dismissive, unsympathetic response.

His computer was temporarily seized & searched without his consent, under immediate threat of force with a weapon. He was prevented from even voicing concern or asking questions through threat of violence, and forced to comply with actions that were not backed by a probable cause or even a reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed.

In the US, there are laws against this. What happened there was illegal, with or without an arrest or charges or jail time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth_Amendment_to_the_United...

And he was presumed guilty until the search was completed, that sounds like 'guilty until proven innocent' to me.

Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean only if it takes longer than 5 minutes to prove. It means you start with the presumption of innocence.

[mcphage]

> Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean only if it takes longer than 5 minutes to prove. It means you start with the presumption of innocence.

Innocent until proven guilty does not mean police aren't allowed to investigate crimes. And it does not mean they are't allowed to detain subjects.

[dahart]

Your first sentence is correct, you're right there. But it does mean they're not allowed to point weapons at people and threaten violence without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. That's what presumption of innocence means, you treat innocent people like they're innocent. Pulling a taser on someone is not presumption of innocence, that's presumption of guilt.

Police are allowed to investigate, and that's exactly what they failed to do in this case. They should have done some basic investigation before they drew weapons and detained someone. The fact that they didn't investigate, and didn't attempt to find probable cause, is precisely why what they did was illegal.

Your second sentence isn't right. It is not legal in the US to detain people for no reason. Arbitrary stop-and-frisks are illegal, arbitrary traffic stops are illegal, arbitrary searches are illegal. That is precisely what the 4th amendment is saying - you have a right to privacy and a right to not be harassed by police without them having a specific reason. And those things are illegal even when weapons aren't involved, but when police draw weapons without reason, it crosses another line.

I'm really not sure why you're still defending the actions of the police, who clearly did something wrong in this case, and dismissing the experience of a citizen who did absolutely nothing wrong and was threatened. What would you do, and how would you feel, if you were surprised and stormed by police and detained with weapons pointed at you while you were minding your own business? Do you want that to be allowed and normal? We've already decided as a country we don't want that. I don't want it, and I think you don't either. So why are you arguing?

[UVB-76]

> Police are allowed to investigate, and that's exactly what they failed to do in this case.

This stop was part of their investigation. How else are they supposed to eliminate the seller from their enquiries into the stolen laptop?

A person can be lawfully detained with reasonable suspicion alone, and it sounds like the police had it in this case.

In the process of detaining someone, the police can use reasonable force. The use of Taser was probably not necessary, but it could well have been reasonable.

The article is silent on the robbery in which Derek's laptop was stolen, but if it were aggravated, and the police had reasonable suspicion they were detaining the person responsible for that robbery, then the use of force is all the more reasonable.

[mcphage]

> I'm really not sure why you're still defending the actions of the police, who clearly did something wrong in this case, and dismissing the experience of a citizen who did absolutely nothing wrong and was threatened.

Because I don't think it's clear (or even true) that the police did something wrong in this case. A crime occurred, through their investigation they believed the author to be a suspect, they investigated him and found out he was not.

> What would you do, and how would you feel, if you were surprised and stormed by police and detained with weapons pointed at you while you were minding your own business?

Obviously it would suck—but that doesn't mean that the police aren't allowed to do that.

> Do you want that to be allowed and normal?

Do I want police to be able to investigate crimes? Yes, I do want that.

> So why are you arguing?

Because this article jumps from "this thing happened to me and it sucks", to "this thing should not be allowed to happen".

[dahart]

Okay, I understand where you're coming from. The police should be allowed to do their jobs, and I don't think the article is claiming otherwise, nor am I.

"This should not be allowed to happen" isn't saying the police can't investigate. The "this" that's being discussed is whether they should be able to storm the situation SWAT style with weapons drawn, not whether they should attempt to locate a perp, verify stolen property, or do the proper paperwork.

The problem I have with your argument is that you're glossing over the threat of violence and use of weapons. You're calling that "investigate" and painting it as something demure. I don't feel like you're being completely honest by insisting on calling it "investigate". Drawing weapons is not an investigation, that's a detainment of a suspect. The investigation could have happened another way, it could have involved asking first, it could have involved checking the serial numbers they already had access to, it could have involved everything without the taser, it could have been conducted in private, the police could have announced their intentions and their names and not tried so hard to scare the guy into submission.

Regardless of what the article said, and whether you like it or not, "this" already isn't allowed to happen under the law, it's just not enforced much. The law is already clear that police can't pull a weapon on someone or detain them unless they have reason to believe that specific person was involved in a crime. We already decided this, it's a done deal. So the article is right, it should not be allowed to happen this way.

[coldtea]

So, let's see how content with you'll be with technical platitudes if it happens to you...

[UVB-76]

Your timeline doesn't match his account.

He consented to the search of the laptop before being detained. He did not know it was an undercover police officer conducting the search, but that is not relevant.

He was subsequently detained, until such time as it became obvious he was innocent, and then released.

[dahart]

That's weird; I didn't present a timeline.

> He consented to the search of the laptop before being detained. He did not know it was an undercover police officer conducting the search, but that is not relevant.

I'm not sure you know what "consent" actually means.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consent_search

A consent search requires the individual whose person or property is being searched to freely and voluntarily waive his or her Fourth Amendment rights, granting the officer permission to perform the search. Where consent is obtained through "deception" on the part of government personnel, the search may be determined to be an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.

[UVB-76]

The matter of consent is much more nuanced than that, but as another comment on this thread points out, the search was not conducted by a police officer, so Fourth Amendment arguments are moot.

He consented to a stranger searching his laptop, and the Fourth Amendment provides no protections against that.

[philh]

The prospective buyer wasn't a police officer.

[UVB-76]

That's an even better point. The Fourth Amendment doesn't protect you from letting a stranger search your laptop.

[tremon]

He was investigated, nothing was found, and he was released.

That doesn't follow. Why did he need to be released?

[refurb]

He was detained. Thus he was released after.

[bearcobra]

I'd argue that detainment without probable cause is kind of the underlying message of "Innocent until proven guilty"

[mcphage]

What? "Innocent until proven guilty" does not mean that police aren't allowed to perform investigations. That's a ridiculous misuse of the phrase.

[bearcobra]

Investigation does not equal detainment

[mcphage]

And neither equal "guilty until proven innocent".

[UVB-76]

Probable cause is not the relevant test for detaining someone.

Police can detain with reasonable suspicion alone, and it is entirely likely they had reasonable suspicion in this case.

[yompers888]

From reading the end of the story, it is clear that they did not have reasonable suspicion. They had a responsive seller on Craigslist who was selling the same computer as the supposed buyer had lost. Do you believe owning the same model computer is reasonable suspicion? Does use of Craigslist meet your threshold of reasonable suspicion? Their reasonable suspicion was predicated on the signaling of the person inspecting the laptop, and that signal never came.

Interestingly, there was a recent This American Life with almost this exact same setup, but it was approached cautiously and executed correctly. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/549/a...

[bearcobra]

Is that true? I've always heard that Terry allows officers to stop you, and ask questions under reasonable suspicion, but that performing pat downs and handcuffing is only allowed if there is a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed.

And I'm still not really convinced that there was reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. Wouldn't that mean that any private party sale negotiated in public is inherently suspicious? I know law enforcement has a lot of leeway here but that would be kind of alarming.

[coldtea]

>He was investigated, nothing was found, and he was released. He wasn't arrested, charged, taken to jail, let alone "guilty until proven innocent".

The docility with which the american public takes those abuses (in a country with record police shootings and a wholly disproportionate number of inmates) always amuses me...

[1024core]

> He was investigated, nothing was found, and he was released.

Let me guess: you're a white male, aren't you?

When these things happen to others but don't happen to you, you can pass it off as "mistakes happen". But when these "mistakes" happen only to a certain section of society, it's a cause for concern.

Why was he handcuffed and had a taser on his back?? Why was he treated like a criminal in front of everybody? You don't put handcuffs on someone unless you want to detain them.

[UVB-76]

> Why was he handcuffed and had a taser on his back?? Why was he treated like a criminal in front of everybody? You don't put handcuffs on someone unless you want to detain them.

Because he was suspected of handling stolen goods.

[LargeWu]

What indication was given that there was reasonable suspicion that the laptop was stolen?

[searine]

>Let me guess: you're a white male, aren't you?

This is an extremely shitty and racist argument to make, particularly on the internet where you shouldn't make assumptions about who people are.

Were the cops wrong in being overzealous? Obviously. Is the poster automatically a "white male" because they consider an alternative perspective? No, they just have a different opinion than you.

[1024core]

Let me give you an example. I'm not a white male. My girlfriend is white. I have learned, after several experiences, that if you are pulled over, you roll down your window, keep your hands on the steering wheel, look straight and answer "yes sir", "no sir". Deviation from this protocol can result in anything from a search, to a beatdown (in extreme cases).

She, on the contrary, has not. She has been pulled over a few times, of course.

2 months ago, coming back from visiting a friend in NorCal, I pulled on to the highway and as I was merging, sped up. A CHP car just happened to be there, and tagged me. We were pulled over. I immediately assumed the aforementioned stance. She, on the other hand, decided to cheerfully take off her seatbelt, turn around and start digging into her bag on the rear seat, looking for a book, her glasses, etc. And the officer could see this rummaging from his vehicle.

What ensued, was not pretty. Lets just say that my GF has a new perspective on how to behave when pulled over.

My point is: unless you belong to a set that is consistently treated differently, you will never understand their point of view.

[searine]

> if you are pulled over, you roll down your window, keep your hands on the steering wheel, look straight and answer "yes sir", "no sir".

This is just common courtesy? I've always acted this way, and never had bad experience with the police, because I treated them with respect.

Sounds like your GF showed a lack of couresty/respect for the officer's safety and got treated like a threat as a result.

That's not racism. That's an officer protecting himself from an unknown quantity.

>you will never understand their point of view.

Because every human being is completely devoid of empathy...

[jmcmichael]

If one has ever been cuffed or had a weapon pointed at them, they're far less likely to be so cavalier in dismissing another's similar experience.

Given that African Americans are far, far more likely to be unjustly detained in such a matter, it seems reasonable to assume that mcphage is a white male, given his callous response.

[searine]

>it seems reasonable to assume that mcphage is a white male

Being racist might seem reasonable, but it is not constructive because you use it to ignore the content of the poster's argument.

Even if the content of the poster's argument is flawed, attack the flaws, not the person.

[jmcmichael]

> Being racist

That word doesn't mean what you appear to believe that it means. I do not hold the belief that one race is superior to another, nor do I hold the belief that society should exploit or disadvantage individuals based on their race. Therefore I am not being racist, nor was my statement.

It's perfectly within the bounds of reasonable discourse to question the underlying assumptions of another's worldview to show that their assertions come from a biased perspective that requires examination.

[searine]

> to show that their assertions come from a biased perspective that requires examination.

But you didn't show it. You assumed it, based on their race.

[ChemicalWarfare]

+1. He was a suspect. Things didn't check out and the cops let him off without even taking him to the station.

So now whether they had the probable cause to search his computer or not - that is unclear as we obv don't have a full story from the law enforcement side of things. I highly doubt that someone calling the cops and telling them - 'someone on craigslist is selling a laptop that was stolen from me' without any proof would trigger this ordeal.