Are we becoming a police state?

[Ken Carman]

In Canada our prisons are not privately operated, but I am not sure it effects the cops. I worked with Cops for many years and they do care about innocence or guilt in a general sense, but then again that is why the courts are there. Generally once they think you are guilty in their eyes you are. If something seems to go against that well that is legally trickery that they need to counter with their own. Innocent people get screwed all around.

Well the cop I ran into didn't give a damn about innocent or guilt, but there are bad bananas in any bunch, I suppose. What amazed me was my lawyer didn't care. To her it was all about who I could pay off, and what I could admit to that would make it go away. She wasn't happy when I told her I wouldn't admit to what I know I didn't do.

Perhaps this goes to my bad banana theory? If I had been local I would have simply gotten another lawyer, but it happened when I was on the road, in a different state.

[BlackSheep]

Well the cop I ran into didn't give a damn about innocent or guilt, but there are bad bananas in any bunch, I suppose. What amazed me was my lawyer didn't care. To her it was all about who I could pay off, and what I could admit to that would make it go away. She wasn't happy when I told her I wouldn't admit to what I know I didn't do.

Well the thing to remember a lawyer is a job to them and if it was a criminal defense lawyer then they do deal with a lot of annoying people. My lawyer liked me quite a lot, but in the long run if I didn't pay he was not going to help me. Justice is like a game. There are a lot of people who plead to avoid waiting for the trial and that whole unknown element. I considered it. As a part of my bail, I was not allowed to see my partner. That was very brutal on both of us. I chose to fight it and in the end it cost me that relationship.
Life is certainly not fair, nor is justice.

Perhaps this goes to my bad banana theory? If I had been local I would have simply gotten another lawyer, but it happened when I was on the road, in a different state.

It could be they felt there was no chance any other way. Was this a public defender?

[Ken Carman]

Well the thing to remember a lawyer is a job to them and if it was a criminal defense lawyer then they do deal with a lot of annoying people. My lawyer liked me quite a lot, but in the long run if I didn't pay he was not going to help me. Justice is like a game. There are a lot of people who plead to avoid waiting for the trial and that whole unknown element. I considered it. As a part of my bail, I was not allowed to see my partner. That was very brutal on both of us. I chose to fight it and in the end it cost me that relationship.
Life is certainly not fair, nor is justice.



It could be they felt there was no chance any other way. Was this a public defender?

Ironically this was a for hire lawyer, one my client in town recommended. (Actually his lawyer recommended, since it wasn't his area of expertise.) I was paying her good money. She had been prepaid the required amount and when the "deal" came down she wanted everything in full BEFORE she sealed the deal. I paid it, and it worked out. But she made a big deal about me "trusting my lawyer" several times. Then she, apparently, didn't trust me at the end she was in such a rush to get paid.

She wasn't pleased when I pointed out the contradiction, but whatever. It settled.

Anyway, I find it interesting own close knit all these folks are, and usually it's NOT in your favor. I admit. there's no way to make justice perfectly "fair," that's for sure, but I'd sure like to see the system straightened out so it was more "innocent until proven guilty," and less "you have to have done something wrong." When combined with all that's leaning us towards a police state it's frightening the way it has gone, and is going.

Indefinite detention, for example. Becuase you're accused of maybe having something to do with a thought crime: not just your own but someone you know that knows someone else who MIGHT be thinking of committing what is losely called a terrorist act? Tormenting someone until they admit to what we think they have done?

Exactly where does any of that come into play with the ideals, and the nations, super patriots claim to want to protect? Are we to become what we supposedly defeated in the 80s and the 90s? This is, IMO, beyond "destroy to village to save it" mentality.

[ironeagle]

Absolutely. The federal government and also the states are out of control. No one should be detained indefinatley, no one should be renditioned anywhere outside the U.S. and never in secret, all alleged criminals are entitled to a trial by jury and a legal representative regardless of the crime(s) they committed, anything otherwise is tyranny and is not representative of a civil and intelligent society. I will quote parts of the United States Constitution:

1:Amendment Five of the Bill of Rights:"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, ...."

2:Amendment Six B.O.R: "In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense."

3. Article 3,section 2, paragraph 3: "The Trial of all Crimes, except in Cases of Impeachment, shall be by Jury;..."

4. Article Six paragraph 2: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."

What these are saying is that the Constitution is the Supreme law and all laws created must be based on the Constitution and that all criminals have the right to a trial by jury.

[Muckraker]

It is a horrific process that is just part of the process that is often characterized as innocent until proven guilty. As someone who went through it, it is not the case what so ever. I was innocent. I still was fired, I was put through much humiliation, I was put in a situation of having to choose between helping a loved one or breaching bail, I put under massive stress over a period of two years and the effects destroyed a relationship, a career and did more damage that I could imagine.

I just am not clear on what happened. Your description makes it sound as if you and your girlfriend are walking down the street and a cop stops you because he thinks she "looks young" and he somehow concludes you are having sex with her. Then on a full search he stumbles across an heirloom you were moving to a new location.

I believe that many statutory rape charges result from information given by the pissed parents of the "victim." Did someone sic the cops on you because they didn't like you?

I suggest police procedure be changed. The process is stressful and in the case of a proficient lawyer in most cases the evidence is often inadmissible in court. My partner for example was questioned "voluntarily" after she refused over and over. She was questioned even though it was unconstitutional for them to do so. She was detained to do this even though she refused that request. She was recorded as the complainant even though she didn't complain. The actions of the police in this case caused her to be kicked out of her home. The justice system did far more harm than good.

I would be fine with police procedure being overhauled but the entire legal/justice system would have to follow. If all evidence is to be obtained in a friendly "innocent until proven guilty" mindset then no evidence should ever be suppressed. No records should be sealed. Everything should be full disclosure and decided by a panel of expert jurors instead of a group of random and gullible people that probably don't know anything about anything.

The entire system is based on faulty, quick-fix checks and balances and the system is currently incapable of acknowledging mistakes and addressing them in a timely manner. I agree it's a crappy system. I don't believe there is some unifying ulterior motive, though. Even the violations of rights to thwart "terrorism" are just a clumsy, bumbling, crowd-pleasing overreaction, not a means by which we can disappear all the Muslims in America.

[BlackSheep]

I just am not clear on what happened. Your description makes it sound as if you and your girlfriend are walking down the street and a cop stops you because he thinks she "looks young" and he somehow concludes you are having sex with her. Then on a full search he stumbles across an heirloom you were moving to a new location.

We were stopped in an airport by Homeland Security. We presented ourselves as a couple. On full search of our luggage came across the heirloom that was there by accident.

I believe that many statutory rape charges result from information given by the pissed parents of the "victim." Did someone sic the cops on you because they didn't like you?

Many times a parental complaint in the case of statutory rape, but this was not statutory rape and no one provided information. The police were brought in by Homeland Security.

I would be fine with police procedure being overhauled but the entire legal/justice system would have to follow.

Unsure how that follows. The key issue is that in theory the police are supposed to be non-partisan in a system that has two sides, but this is not true. Once the police strongly suspect someone they switch to being on the side of the prosecution and once there they never return to that non-partisan state no matter the evidence.

If all evidence is to be obtained in a friendly "innocent until proven guilty" mindset then no evidence should ever be suppressed. No records should be sealed. Everything should be full disclosure and decided by a panel of expert jurors instead of a group of random and gullible people that probably don't know anything about anything.

I am unsure why that follows either. What kind of disclosure are you speaking of? To the public at large or to the court? Currently (in theory) the prosecution must surrender all evidence to the defense.
First of all, the only issues I am speaking on it the partisanship of the police, the techniques used in interrogation-like activities and when charges should be laid.

I fail to see why we would need to have a professional jury in the case of a friendly "innocent until proven guilty" mindset. Generally is is harder to deal with the legality of evidence gleaned via lying police with a tired, confused and terrified suspect.

The entire system is based on faulty, quick-fix checks and balances and the system is currently incapable of acknowledging mistakes and addressing them in a timely manner. I agree it's a crappy system. I don't believe there is some unifying ulterior motive, though. Even the violations of rights to thwart "terrorism" are just a clumsy, bumbling, crowd-pleasing overreaction, not a means by which we can disappear all the Muslims in America.

I agree that the system is flawed and pieced together from many elements, but that doesn't mean that we can not try to tweak it.
I don't believe there is any unifying ulterior motive either. I hope I didn't give that opinion.
I agree that there is no ulterior motive to get rid of Muslims with most people, but there is theory and there is practice. In practice peoples lives are destroyed just as well in either case.

In my experience policing mentality is we can do anything we can get away with to save society from itself. I don't think in most cases these actions are motivating by pleasing the crowd at all. They are motivated by judgmental police who will do what they can until they are told to stop doing it. Fear is a wonderful tool here. Police at the same time increase our fear of criminals and themselves.

[grandpa]

Someone in Google Groups:
"We are deathly afraid of offending some Islamic Woman in a Burka that is
covering a C-4 Vest impregnated with nails"
Homeland Security spent $5 billion on private contracts in first year - misc.survivalism | Google Groups

In other words, you're either with us or you're with the terrorists!

Grandpa h.

[NoJingoLingo]

I'm not saying every single entanglement with law enforcement requires you to confess your sins, but the example provided about being pulled over and asked about searching your vehicle.... assuming you have nothing to hide, there are zero reasons not to cooperate.

Oh really? Let me give you some personal examples. In California medical marijuana is legal. My friend (a black man who makes a good living driving for Fed-x but drives a shitty old car) got pulled over for "speeding" and the cop asked to search his vehicle. He had nothing to hide so he "cooperated". Cop finds a joint on the passenger side in between the door and the seat. Unbeknownst to my friend the joint fell out of his buddies pocket, his buddy has a medical marijuana card. What do you think happened?

Regarding my attitude, did you notice how I was humble, apologetic and forthright with the cop who pulled me over for speeding when I actually was compared to the cop who profiled me?

I lived next door to a cop in CA. He was also on the "swat team" (I think they called it the Reactionary force) and was applying to the Sheriffs department. 4th of july rolls around and my cop neighbor comes out with a big bag of illegal fireworks for us to set off. Where did he get those illegal fireworks? Take a guess. Every hear "cops have the best weed"?

I moved back to Illinois recently and got pulled over by one of my towns cops. I was driving home from a gig at 2am and with my brights on I could see the cop car sitting perpendicular to the road in the median. I dim my lights as a courtesy to him. The speed limit is 55 and about 500 feet from his location is the beginning of a 45 zone. I have a radar detector and received no signal from it. I was doing about 60 before I saw him and simply took my foot off the gas to slow down as I passed in front of him. He profiled me and decided to pull me over to check if I was intoxicated. I was not. He comes to my window which I rolled down about 3 inches. He says he pulled me over for speeding. I say "bullshit". He says I got you on radar. I point to my detector and say "bullshit, that is a radar detector" (remember, he is perpendicular to the road which means his radar won't pick up anything until it crosses directly in front of his car). He asks if I have been drinking and I say "no, can I go now?" He asks me to roll my window down and I tell him it's down far enough. He asks for license and insurance and says I'm going to write you a ticket for speeding. I say "you're a liar, we both know I saw you because I dimmed my lights and you didn't even have your radar on" he says "go ahead and tell the judge you have a radar detector and see where that gets you". He wrote me up for 69 in a 55.

I could relate many stories that I've been told by cops who were either neighbors or acquaintances at parties. Cops are not your friends, their job is to find a reason to "pad their record for promotions" as I was told by one.

[Muckraker]

Oh really? Let me give you some personal examples. In California medical marijuana is legal. My friend (a black man who makes a good living driving for Fed-x but drives a shitty old car) got pulled over for "speeding" and the cop asked to search his vehicle. He had nothing to hide so he "cooperated". Cop finds a joint on the passenger side in between the door and the seat. Unbeknownst to my friend the joint fell out of his buddies pocket, his buddy has a medical marijuana card. What do you think happened?

I find all these "I got a speeding ticket and the cops searched my car" stories very interesting. I'm trying to put myself in the cop's place. If the only reason I pulled you over because you were speeding and from what I can see when I give you a ticket there is no reason to think anything else is going on then why in the world would I ask to search your car? Do I search every car that gets a speeding ticket? I understand that in this case it is likely it was racial profiling but it seems strange to me that so many cops are doing more work than they have to just because.

I moved back to Illinois recently and got pulled over by one of my towns cops. I was driving home from a gig at 2am and with my brights on I could see the cop car sitting perpendicular to the road in the median. I dim my lights as a courtesy to him. The speed limit is 55 and about 500 feet from his location is the beginning of a 45 zone. I have a radar detector and received no signal from it. I was doing about 60 before I saw him and simply took my foot off the gas to slow down as I passed in front of him. He profiled me and decided to pull me over to check if I was intoxicated. I was not. He comes to my window which I rolled down about 3 inches. He says he pulled me over for speeding. I say "bullshit". He says I got you on radar. I point to my detector and say "bullshit, that is a radar detector" (remember, he is perpendicular to the road which means his radar won't pick up anything until it crosses directly in front of his car). He asks if I have been drinking and I say "no, can I go now?" He asks me to roll my window down and I tell him it's down far enough. He asks for license and insurance and says I'm going to write you a ticket for speeding. I say "you're a liar, we both know I saw you because I dimmed my lights and you didn't even have your radar on" he says "go ahead and tell the judge you have a radar detector and see where that gets you". He wrote me up for 69 in a 55.

25% of drivers are drunk between the hours of 1am and 3am. Police can block off an entire road and require everyone to pass through a drunk-driving check--even a seat belt check. He probably pulled you over to see if you were drunk. He probably would have let you off with a simple "slow down" if you weren't immediately antagonistic. You started the "whose dick is bigger" contest and he won.

The cop could very well have just come from a scene where a drunk driver hit a minivan and decapitated a family of four. And now he's dealing with some guy that thinks he's an evil, abusive, police-state puppet. They're still people. Sometimes they make mistakes. Sometimes they abuse power. Sometimes they take advantage of job "perks." The only difference between this and other jobs is the cops are more affected by their work and they have a lot more ability to affect your life than the McDonald's manager you just reamed out.

I could relate many stories that I've been told by cops who were either neighbors or acquaintances at parties. Cops are not your friends, their job is to find a reason to "pad their record for promotions" as I was told by one.

How successful is that padding going to be if they are pulling people over for no reason and repeatedly giving tickets or charging people on flimsy or non-existent evidence? --Especially knowing there is a good chance all their actions are being recorded and will wind up on Youtube...

While it seems that all the cops some people encounter are oppressive and abusive, all the cops I've encountered have been nice, respectful, and helpful--even the ones giving me a ticket--even the ones giving me a ticket for something I didn't think I deserved a ticket for. I had two cops crawling through insulation in my garage attic because I saw a light on up there and thought an intruder was laying in wait. Turns out a raccoon had somehow pulled the cord on the light-bulb. Those two cops could have gone from that call to a drunk driving decapitation or a shootout and then closed out the night having to justify themselves to a belligerent driver.

[BlackSheep]

Let me throw something new into the mix.
Yesterday a friend of my daughter emancipated herself from her mother due to abuse. She was scared of mother retaliating and came to my house as there is no room in shelters. Now as mentioned before I was previously charged with a sex offence in a similar situation (I was found innocent) and now of course the so called victim of my crime is concerned that it could be bad for her I help her and so she tried to help her. Then she realizes that it also may not look good with her trying to help her. Something is wrong when people are afraid of the police when all they want to do is help someone.
Fear to simply help someone in need - a very vulnerable person. I would have just helped her, but everyone else if freaking out. It seems to me that is a clear indication of something at least on it's way to being a police state.

[BlackSheep]

I find all these "I got a speeding ticket and the cops searched my car" stories very interesting. I'm trying to put myself in the cop's place. If the only reason I pulled you over because you were speeding and from what I can see when I give you a ticket there is no reason to think anything else is going on then why in the world would I ask to search your car? Do I search every car that gets a speeding ticket? I understand that in this case it is likely it was racial profiling but it seems strange to me that so many cops are doing more work than they have to just because.

Cops rarely do anything just because. Most cops got into the job to catch bad guys. Most cops really don't like handing out speeding tickets and some cops think they can tell if you are good or bad by looking at you. So they pull you over for speeding and maybe they think you look bad and hell why not ask if they can search your car. You do look like a bad guy.

25% of drivers are drunk between the hours of 1am and 3am. Police can block off an entire road and require everyone to pass through a drunk-driving check--even a seat belt check. He probably pulled you over to see if you were drunk. He probably would have let you off with a simple "slow down" if you weren't immediately antagonistic. You started the "whose dick is bigger" contest and he won.

The cop could very well have just come from a scene where a drunk driver hit a minivan and decapitated a family of four. And now he's dealing with some guy that thinks he's an evil, abusive, police-state puppet. They're still people. Sometimes they make mistakes. Sometimes they abuse power. Sometimes they take advantage of job "perks." The only difference between this and other jobs is the cops are more affected by their work and they have a lot more ability to affect your life than the McDonald's manager you just reamed out.

And because they have that ability to ruin your life then we fear them. That fear is the wedge of a police state. That humanity is what pushes the wedge in. It is a difficult job for many reasons, and because of that they need to be scrutinized more.

While it seems that all the cops some people encounter are oppressive and abusive, all the cops I've encountered have been nice, respectful, and helpful--even the ones giving me a ticket--even the ones giving me a ticket for something I didn't think I deserved a ticket for. I had two cops crawling through insulation in my garage attic because I saw a light on up there and thought an intruder was laying in wait. Turns out a raccoon had somehow pulled the cord on the light-bulb. Those two cops could have gone from that call to a drunk driving decapitation or a shootout and then closed out the night having to justify themselves to a belligerent driver.

Most cops are nice and respectful. They were nice respectful when they arrested me based on procedure. They were nice and respectful when they took the "victim" to the police station to help her even when she refused the help she unknowingly wanted. They were nice and respectful when they tried to trick me into saying things to incriminating myself, because they knew if I could just get past my denial me confessing would be best. (They knew I was guilty and were just trying to help me.) They didn't do the good cop-bad cop thing. Just nice and respectful.

Actually the bail judge was the least nice and respectful when she threatened the "accuser" with contempt when she voiced her opinion that she was not the accuser. She was not nice or respectful when she kicked her out of her home of over a year to protect her when there was no evidence of harm and only evidence of support.

I was also nice and respectful to the police. I thanked them and wished them a good day.

[Muckraker]

We were stopped in an airport by Homeland Security. We presented ourselves as a couple. On full search of our luggage came across the heirloom that was there by accident.
Many times a parental complaint in the case of statutory rape, but this was not statutory rape and no one provided information. The police were brought in by Homeland Security.

What was the reason you were initially pulled aside? Did they see the gun on x-ray, was it bum luck on the random passenger searches, or did it somehow involve your girlfriend?

Unsure how that follows. The key issue is that in theory the police are supposed to be non-partisan in a system that has two sides, but this is not true. Once the police strongly suspect someone they switch to being on the side of the prosecution and once there they never return to that non-partisan state no matter the evidence.

Is it really possible for humans in that line of work, or any line of work, to be truly non-partisan? I agree that not remaining open to all possibilities is unacceptable. I disagree that police, in general, do that. There are good cops, hero cops, incompetent cops, evil cops, and in every combination and to every degree possible.

I am unsure why that follows either. What kind of disclosure are you speaking of? To the public at large or to the court? Currently (in theory) the prosecution must surrender all evidence to the defense.
First of all, the only issues I am speaking on it the partisanship of the police, the techniques used in interrogation-like activities and when charges should be laid.

The police are the people most familiar with the situation. They were there first. They see the suspects and witnesses immediately after a crime happens. I also imagine there is a benefit to trying to extract truth early--before the suspect has had time to calm down and mull over all their options, details, and explanations--before the witness has forgotten the details. What I'm asking is how you propose the system should work if the first responders are cut out of the equation and questioning is done at a later date, by an uninvolved 3rd party, and using no tactics meant to "trick" the suspect?

How do you propose we hold someone for questioning if we don't charge them? Isn't that unconstitutional?

The prosecution must surrender all evidence to the defense but the people deciding guilt do not receive all the evidence. They don't get all the history. They don't get critical, damning evidence if there was even one miniscule human error in collection, processing, storage, or even the paperwork. If it no longer possible to use interrogation for additional evidence then all evidence should be presented as it is--just with footnotes saying where the clerk made a typo or the cop didn't follow procedure.

I agree that the system is flawed and pieced together from many elements, but that doesn't mean that we can not try to tweak it.

In a convoluted system, though, every tweak may, and probably will, have unforeseen consequences and unexpected results.

In practice peoples lives are destroyed just as well in either case.

That's one of those unavoidable things we obviously want to minimize. So what are the concrete ways we can do this while remaining within the constraints of constitutional rights?

In my experience policing mentality is we can do anything we can get away with to save society from itself. I don't think in most cases these actions are motivating by pleasing the crowd at all. They are motivated by judgmental police who will do what they can until they are told to stop doing it. Fear is a wonderful tool here. Police at the same time increase our fear of criminals and themselves.

But do you at least acknowledge this position is subjective and a generalization? It probably takes a lot of energy to be in a constant judgmental state while dealing with criminals and wary witnesses and citizens--especially when your own actions are being constantly judged and recorded by everyone around you.