Over-policing plus justified fear of impersonators

[anomie]

It was a drug bust on an Arizona family home with children inside at 6 in the morning, if I remember correctly. The former Iraqi vet had worked the night shift and had only been asleep for 30 min when his wife woke him and told him men were looking in the windows.

I am remembering something about a judge actually ruling that a guy was justified in his actions because the people conducting the raid did not properly identify themselves - and I also remember it being earlier than 2011 that I read about it.

That said, my memory is sometimes terrible so this may well be it.

[chasfm11]

Doesn't matter why I would think it or what you might think. In this case depending on the flavor I think the carton has colors and designs that would lead me to think it was beer not soda. Now other people may look and use different input to draw other conclusions but if the agent saw something and that led them to believe that the package was likely beer. What matters for the RS for the stop to be found legal in court is that the agent can articulate the reasons for their belief and that a judge find that explanation of the agents belief reasonable. The judge doesn't need to agree or think that he would also think the same just that to the agent it was reasonable. I hope I gave a decent explanation because an expert I'm not. Is it a bit arbitrary? You could look at it like that. You can take 5 cops have them look at a situation and only 1 may see RS and even though no one else sees RS if the 1 cop can explain it in court then it may well be good RS.

I'm sorry but what you said scares the heck out of me. Paraphrased, it says "justice administered by the officer with the most vivid imagination." I don't accept that. In this case, there compound mistakes. I judge the worst of those mistakes to be the DA going along with the events and filing the initial charges against the girls. There should have been more of an investigation before that happened.

We seem to have lost the concept that there are checks and balances. For me, one of the first checks should be from police administration who reviews what an individual officer does and allows it to continue or stops it right there. The second check is that the DA should be carefully reviewing what is brought to him or her to make sure that the elements necessary to prosecute the case are available or that they are not.

I would submit that if 5 officers review a situation and 4 of them don't see RS, retraining is needed. Either 4 of them are missing things or the 1 is finding things that aren't there. I completely understand that breakthroughs in some cases come from a single officer finding a piece of evidence that was overlooked. For me, that is vastly different than 5 officers looking at a live scenario and only one of them seeing something that requires further action. There are enough blatant infractions of the law that we don't need to be pursuing subtleties

[JP171]

I have been thru all 11 pages so far, sorry to say there is an individual that is nothing more than a police apologist and I disrespect that wholly and emphatically. the ABC agents were in the wrong in how the situation was handled and some acts by the agents were bordering on criminal so they made up something( lets lie and get them arrested for contempt of cop) that would allow them to be taken into custody. this type of activity should have strong consequences for the agents such as termination, jail time and never being able to be any type of LEO anywhere. We all need to remember that the law enforcement community is there to maintain order as civil SERVANTS not as those who are appointed to control us, this is not a police state and I pray hope and dream that it never will be. I know that most LEO's are generally good people who have a hard job, but then you have a small minority that believe it is their life's mission to control and abase all subjects of the crown of police power, the thin blue line needs to be abolished and penalized as an illegal and terrorist organization, make the LEO's responsible to the people not for them, remind the would be KGB type of LEO's that they too are human and not exempt

[EEllis]

Doesn't matter why I would think it or what you might think. In this case depending on the flavor I think the carton has colors and designs that would lead me to think it was beer not soda. Now other people may look and use different input to draw other conclusions but if the agent saw something and that led them to believe that the package was likely beer. What matters for the RS for the stop to be found legal in court is that the agent can articulate the reasons for their belief and that a judge find that explanation of the agents belief reasonable. The judge doesn't need to agree or think that he would also think the same just that to the agent it was reasonable. I hope I gave a decent explanation because an expert I'm not. Is it a bit arbitrary? You could look at it like that. You can take 5 cops have them look at a situation and only 1 may see RS and even though no one else sees RS if the 1 cop can explain it in court then it may well be good RS.

I'm sorry but what you said scares the heck out of me. Paraphrased, it says "justice administered by the officer with the most vivid imagination." I don't accept that. In this case, there compound mistakes. I judge the worst of those mistakes to be the DA going along with the events and filing the initial charges against the girls. There should have been more of an investigation before that happened.

We seem to have lost the concept that there are checks and balances. For me, one of the first checks should be from police administration who reviews what an individual officer does and allows it to continue or stops it right there. The second check is that the DA should be carefully reviewing what is brought to him or her to make sure that the elements necessary to prosecute the case are available or that they are not.

I would submit that if 5 officers review a situation and 4 of them don't see RS, retraining is needed. Either 4 of them are missing things or the 1 is finding things that aren't there. I completely understand that breakthroughs in some cases come from a single officer finding a piece of evidence that was overlooked. For me, that is vastly different than 5 officers looking at a live scenario and only one of them seeing something that requires further action. There are enough blatant infractions of the law that we don't need to be pursuing subtleties

Look this is not new. Heck there are more restrictions of cops now that there ever were in the history of this country. They just also have a bit better protections than before in some jurisdictions, meaning they can only be fired when they violate the law or their dept regs not just because there is bad press.

I'm sorry you have such an issue with the RS doctrine but you do realize that it has only gotten stricter over the years requiring even more from law enforcement. As to your "submission" , it's impossible to say that with the info given!!! That's why we have judges who review RS. Maybe the guy notices some smell, has better vision, haw 30 years of experience, has a pet parrot and happens to know exotic pet statutes the others don't. You would take Sherlock Holmes and kick him out of the Dept because he is too observant? Yes he is fictional but serves a point. I made the 5 to 1 comment to illustrate it was just about what is in the mind of the individual officer and their ability to articulate it to the court that determines RS. Does that leave a lot to the vagaries of human opinion? Well yes but until the robots take over that is what we are stuck with.

Now as for as the DA taking charges I think you are even farther off base. You have suspects who fled the scene and hit 2 agents. After investigating the DA felt that prosecution would be wrong but deciding without info would of been just a dereliction of his duty.

[EEllis]

I have been thru all 11 pages so far, sorry to say there is an individual that is nothing more than a police apologist and I disrespect that wholly and emphatically. the ABC agents were in the wrong in how the situation was handled and some acts by the agents were bordering on criminal so they made up something( lets lie and get them arrested for contempt of cop) that would allow them to be taken into custody. this type of activity should have strong consequences for the agents such as termination, jail time and never being able to be any type of LEO anywhere. We all need to remember that the law enforcement community is there to maintain order as civil SERVANTS not as those who are appointed to control us, this is not a police state and I pray hope and dream that it never will be. I know that most LEO's are generally good people who have a hard job, but then you have a small minority that believe it is their life's mission to control and abase all subjects of the crown of police power, the thin blue line needs to be abolished and penalized as an illegal and terrorist organization, make the LEO's responsible to the people not for them, remind the would be KGB type of LEO's that they too are human and not exempt

And I would say many things but I believe that I would be violating the comment policy which I believe you just did in your comment. You have based your opinion on a pr piece put out by the girls defence attorney designed to get them off from their charges. You are calling for firing and jail time but haven't pointed to any violation of the, you know, actual law or even that the agents violated any of their agencies policies. Cops are human beings and are entitled to the same protections that we all enjoy and deserve. Due process, to be considered innocent until proven guilty, the chance to confront their accuser, and here is a big one to actually break a law before going to jail. "But the girls didn't break any law!" You'll cry in response to the last. Yes they did. They resisted, they fled, they assaulted. Not their explanation is because they were just that scared as to why they did so. Fine, but that doesn't mean they didn't do the crime just they had a reason they shouldn't be held guilty for the crimes. The rest of your screed was so off point that I'm not even going to bother.

[JP171]

woohoo my point is made

[chasfm11]

Look this is not new. Heck there are more restrictions of cops now that there ever were in the history of this country. They just also have a bit better protections than before in some jurisdictions, meaning they can only be fired when they violate the law or their dept regs not just because there is bad press.

I'm sorry you have such an issue with the RS doctrine but you do realize that it has only gotten stricter over the years requiring even more from law enforcement. As to your "submission" , it's impossible to say that with the info given!!! That's why we have judges who review RS. Maybe the guy notices some smell, has better vision, haw 30 years of experience, has a pet parrot and happens to know exotic pet statutes the others don't. You would take Sherlock Holmes and kick him out of the Dept because he is too observant? Yes he is fictional but serves a point. I made the 5 to 1 comment to illustrate it was just about what is in the mind of the individual officer and their ability to articulate it to the court that determines RS. Does that leave a lot to the vagaries of human opinion? Well yes but until the robots take over that is what we are stuck with.

Now as for as the DA taking charges I think you are even farther off base. You have suspects who fled the scene and hit 2 agents. After investigating the DA felt that prosecution would be wrong but deciding without info would of been just a dereliction of his duty.

In other words, the act of enforcing a law that wasn't being broken against two scared girls created criminals. And you don't have a problem with that? I do. I also had a problem with the man being killed in his garage in Ft. Worth when he wasn't breaking any laws either. I will always have a problem with the act of police enforcement creating criminals who weren't before the act began.

I'm a great supporter of LE. Our daughter is a dispatcher. But I think that one of the most effective tools that departments have is Internal Affairs and believe that IA should be involved in every case where otherwise innocent people suddenly are criminals. You can say that the girls used bad judgement in trying to protect themselves. But their "crime" in no way justifies the end result.

I believe that blind support of the outcomes of cases like this does more to undermine public confidence in LE than an honest evaluation of the outcome and making adjustments to the protocols as needed. I sense that you would want to see this situation repeated again under similar circumstances. I don't see much that I would ever want repeated. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[EEllis]

woohoo my point is made

Great now we are reduced to primary school debate tactics. Cant wait for the "I'm rubber, you're glue" argument.

[EEllis]

In other words, the act of enforcing a law that wasn't being broken against two scared girls created criminals. And you don't have a problem with that? I do. I also had a problem with the man being killed in his garage in Ft. Worth when he wasn't breaking any laws either. I will always have a problem with the act of police enforcement creating criminals who weren't before the act began.

I'm a great supporter of LE. Our daughter is a dispatcher. But I think that one of the most effective tools that departments have is Internal Affairs and believe that IA should be involved in every case where otherwise innocent people suddenly are criminals. You can say that the girls used bad judgement in trying to protect themselves. But their "crime" in no way justifies the end result.

I believe that blind support of the outcomes of cases like this does more to undermine public confidence in LE than an honest evaluation of the outcome and making adjustments to the protocols as needed. I sense that you would want to see this situation repeated again under similar circumstances. I don't see much that I would ever want repeated. I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

In theory, because we really don't know enough about what happened, the girls knew they were not committing a crime but the agent had RS to investigate if they were. So far no one has indicated what laws they feel the agents may have broken or policies they may have violated. I have no issue with the incident being investigated at all. Heck it should be. I would just wait till I had more than the self serving PR piece from the girls lawyer before condemning anyone. But that's just me.

As to creating a criminal I don't know if I would put that much blame on law enforcement in these situations. Sometimes they do but other times it's like they stumbled on a tripwire. Sure if they hadn't gone down that path they wouldn't of tripped it but the major factor about guilt , to me, would be if they were legal in going down the path not what would've happened without all law enforcement involvement. Do you see what I mean? If what the cops did that causes the reaction is ok, then I can't see holding them responsible.

[talltex]

These were ABC agents. Most likely if they were not with licensing enforcement in a college town their big thing would be catching minors with booze. I know people think that is a horrible use of resources but at least be honest about it that agenda is politically motivated and has been pushed big time by groups like MADD and many others. Reminiscing about how it used to be is neither particularly revealing or relevant. So you have a group of State Booze cops whose main job is to catch minors with booze see what they believed was a minor carrying what appeared to be a 12 pack of beer. That is and has long been RS for a stop by law enforcement. More so in this case because this would be on of the main jobs for the agents so it should be well within their expertise.

Their MAIN job is to enforce the regulations governing the ESTABLISHMENTS that are LICENSED for the SALE AND DISTRIBUTION of alcoholic beverages...not to try and "catch minors with booze". Regardless of their job description, having SEVEN Agents doing a stakeout to "catch minors with booze" is a ridiculous waste of manpower and tax dollars. I'd like to see some of their reports showing how many violations they usually issued citations for and the dollar revenue generated compared to what the Agency spent in salaries, benefits and overtime to have seven agents sitting out there all evening. As for the relevancy of "how it used to be", I think the differences, between now and then, is one of the reasons we don't currently have the same respect and trust for law enforcement agencies we used to.
And also, the Virginia ABC has an "Underage Buyer Program" in which they utilize underage operatives, who go into licensed establishments to attempt to purchase alcoholic beverages. They work in conjunction with ABC Special Agents to uncover violations by the License Holders....so, why are they out doing stakeouts like this at all ?

[Redneck_Buddha]

FWIW...I don't consider calling out LE for ineptidute and aggression "childish debate tactics", but I do consider unwillingness to cede points on which I am clearly proven wrong childish.

[EEllis]

Their MAIN job is to enforce the regulations governing the ESTABLISHMENTS that are LICENSED for the SALE AND DISTRIBUTION of alcoholic beverages...not to try and "catch minors with booze".

I'll be honest I don't know anyone from VABC and I don't know what they were doing that night but in general "catch minors with booze" is a huge part of the job of state ABC agencies.

Regardless of their job description, having SEVEN Agents doing a stakeout to "catch minors with booze" is a ridiculous waste of manpower and tax dollars. I'd like to see some of their reports showing how many violations they usually issued citations for and the dollar revenue generated compared to what the Agency spent in salaries, benefits and overtime to have seven agents sitting out there all evening. As for the relevancy of "how it used to be", I think the differences, between now and then, is one of the reasons we don't currently have the same respect and trust for law enforcement agencies we used to.

If it's for our children and their future you know the money doesn't matter. Please read that with a bit of a sarcastic tone. That's a policy decision. These agents don't decide that stuff, heck even the higher up basicly react to the politicians who react to the screaming lobbyists. Since I live in Texas I really don't think it's my place to worry about how another State spends its money.

And the last thing I remember saying about "how it used to be" was to those who were complaining about no RS and that now law enforcement has much less freedom nevermind those that claim are rights are being run roughshod over by the cops. It's funny the more we restrict our cops the more we think they should be restricted. Mind you I'm not arguing for or against just marveling at the logic.

And also, the Virginia ABC has an "Underage Buyer Program" in which they utilize underage operatives, who go into licensed establishments to attempt to purchase alcoholic beverages. They work in conjunction with ABC Special Agents to uncover violations by the License Holders....so, why are they out doing stakeouts like this at all ?

Yeah cus they can only do the one thing? Mind you I don't even know that they were doing a stake out. For all we know they were planning to do clubs that night and just were meeting up in the parking lot of the grocery store. None of us has the slightest idea but why not make declarations and sweeping statements about crap we have no idea. It is the internet afterall.

[chasfm11]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/va- ... id=d_pulse

The Washington Post
By Lori Aratani, Updated: Saturday, July 6, 3:17 PM

At least one uniformed officer will accompany plainclothes officers when such an operation is being conducted, officials said

It looks like more changes to policies could also be in the works, based on the article. This is confirmation for some of us who have had problems with the original policy. Everyone needs to learn from their mistakes. I'm glad that this didn't turn into another "stonewall."

[sodchemist]

And I would say many things but I believe that I would be violating the comment policy which I believe you just did in your comment. You have based your opinion on a pr piece put out by the girls defence attorney designed to get them off from their charges. You are calling for firing and jail time but haven't pointed to any violation of the, you know, actual law or even that the agents violated any of their agencies policies. Cops are human beings and are entitled to the same protections that we all enjoy and deserve. Due process, to be considered innocent until proven guilty, the chance to confront their accuser, and here is a big one to actually break a law before going to jail. "But the girls didn't break any law!" You'll cry in response to the last. Yes they did. They resisted, they fled, they assaulted. Not their explanation is because they were just that scared as to why they did so. Fine, but that doesn't mean they didn't do the crime just they had a reason they shouldn't be held guilty for the crimes. The rest of your screed was so off point that I'm not even going to bother.

i agree; the law enforcement officers of course deserve due process per criminal charges (and civil charges, which will cost someone money--hopefully not the public). but officers such as these (or at least the officers that were leading the mob) need to be terminated immediately because their poor judgement is a financial and safety liability; the officers displayed incompetence. if i was leading this agency, and hired people such as these to perform a duty, and then i received this unprofessional display of immaturity, poor judgement, and incompetence, then i would definitely fire the leader of law enforcement mob. there just isn't any reason to keep officers such as these on payroll when there are so many other better candidates and veterans willing and able to do a better job. someone could have gotten seriously hurt. personally--and i know this will be unpopular--i don't even care if the story we are hearing is one-sided and biased to the young innocent student. law enforcement officers need to be above reproach, or the public will lose trust. firing a public servant in order to restore or repair broken trust is more important than preserving a few mediocre careers. we do it in politics all of the time.

[EEllis]

And I would say many things but I believe that I would be violating the comment policy which I believe you just did in your comment. You have based your opinion on a pr piece put out by the girls defence attorney designed to get them off from their charges. You are calling for firing and jail time but haven't pointed to any violation of the, you know, actual law or even that the agents violated any of their agencies policies. Cops are human beings and are entitled to the same protections that we all enjoy and deserve. Due process, to be considered innocent until proven guilty, the chance to confront their accuser, and here is a big one to actually break a law before going to jail. "But the girls didn't break any law!" You'll cry in response to the last. Yes they did. They resisted, they fled, they assaulted. Not their explanation is because they were just that scared as to why they did so. Fine, but that doesn't mean they didn't do the crime just they had a reason they shouldn't be held guilty for the crimes. The rest of your screed was so off point that I'm not even going to bother.

i agree; the law enforcement officers of course deserve due process per criminal charges (and civil charges, which will cost someone money--hopefully not the public). but officers such as these (or at least the officers that were leading the mob) need to be terminated immediately because their poor judgement is a financial and safety liability; the officers displayed incompetence. if i was leading this agency, and hired people such as these to perform a duty, and then i received this unprofessional display of immaturity, poor judgement, and incompetence, then i would definitely fire the leader of law enforcement mob. there just isn't any reason to keep officers such as these on payroll when there are so many other better candidates and veterans willing and able to do a better job. someone could have gotten seriously hurt. personally--and i know this will be unpopular--i don't even care if the story we are hearing is one-sided and biased to the young innocent student. law enforcement officers need to be above reproach, or the public will lose trust. firing a public servant in order to restore or repair broken trust is more important than preserving a few mediocre careers. we do it in politics all of the time.

and so it goes again. More condemnation and calls for firing based on a one sided PR piece and without actually saying what they did wrong except "bad Judgment"? By the way most cops for any major agency are civil service. Fire them for "bad Judgment" and when they sue and get their jobs back it will cost the agency even more money.