Hacker News Reader

Comment by chrisco255 | Hacker News Reader

If this is true the guy can sue and should do so.

I don't think he should have to. If a police force isn't automatically held accountable in such a case you are looking at a systemic issue.

Except that litigation is expensive, slow, and tiresome and he'll probably be subject to threats to his person, property, and family from dirty cops.

The cops aren't the ones who get sued. It's the city government. So no, there's no chance of that. Threats to person, property or family are illegal and punishable. Not all cops are dirty. The vast majority are ethical.

> Threats to person, property or family are illegal and punishable.

What's your point here? Isn't planting evidence also illegal? The problem is that, well, the law is expensive, slow, and tiresome, and there's an inherent power imbalance.

The topic here revolves around how law enforcement officers are able to act with impunity.

> Threats to person, property or family are illegal and punishable

So is planting drugs, and obviously the law's not being enforced.

> Not all cops are dirty.

Of course not. But that doesn't make OP's comment "he'll probably be subject to threats to his person, property, and family from dirty cops" less true.

Yes it does, because one was a dirty cop acting in isolation without observation. The follow up with a threat to person, property, or family would be beyond a major felony and egregious. Many people, cops included have been convicted for such things. So no, it's not likely. If this cop escaped charges on some technicality, he sure as hell wouldn't escape charges for a direct threat.

There isn't really such a thing as acting in isolation in a police department. They work together a lot, even in departments that don't do two man patrols.

The police are a fraternity. They have a code. At worst, they actively protect and cover up bad actors. At best, they just don't report it. That's why you rarely hear about officers being whistleblowers, or departments doing internal investigations and finding wrongdoing. Things rarely gets past the blue wall.

Policing in America is fundamentally broken, from urban areas where people are framed, to rural areas where people are robbed.

This doesn't mean that all police are bad, but the culture around policing certainly seems bad.

> Many people, cops included have been convicted for such things.

> So no, it's not likely.

Has it occured to you that if cops have been convicted for such things it's because they have at some point engaged in such behavior? Sure, it would be foolish to do so given the risks of getting caught, and yet you could say the same thing about every cop ever convicted of a crime.

Nothing to see, move along.

depends heavily on what you mean by ethical. would they commit those offenses themselves? maybe not. but - and this is absolutely crucial - many of them will refuse to tattle. if they do, they'll get blackballed. ref: blue wall of silence or related terms.

I cannot blame them for that, as the elected government does not stand up to the abusers and will not provide any worthwhile backing to an officer who does.

A lawsuit will merely increase costs to government without solving anything. Maybe this officer will be fired (and probably rehired in a different precinct), but they won't learn anything other than to be more careful about the body cam.

Ideally, we should legalize victimless "crimes" like drug possession. If there isn't a clear victim, it shouldn't be illegal. That alone might be enough to refocus police departments on their proper role in society. But in the meantime, we should aggressively prosecute crimes like these.

Clearly the vast majority of cops will protect other cops against the law, including dirty cops.

Is that ethical ?

>Threats to person, property or family are illegal and punishable. Not all cops are dirty. The vast majority are ethical.

Frank Serpico and Adrian Schoolcraft.

Two cops who tried to expose corruption.

Serpico got shot in the face in an arrest attempt with the other officers doing nothing even refusing to call it in.

Schoolcraft was forcibly admitted into a psychiatric institution to discredit him.

There is a logical progression here that I think means sueing isn't necessary:

Are police protected by law from coming under charges such as assault, kidnapping, breaking and entering, manslaughter, etc, if those things are done in the course of duty? - Yes

Are police required to follow certain regulations in order to retain those legal protections? - Yes

Do those regulations allow for drugs to be intentionally planted, then used as false evidence for an arrest? - No

Were these officers under special legal protection during this arrest? - No

Was this arrest legal? - No

Are these officers solely liable for their actions, as any other person would be? - Yes

Did they assault and kidnap a man, then perjure themselves on a legal document? - Yes

Is the State District Attorney required to press criminal charges against them? - Yes

Are they required to be tried in front of a jury of 12 other citizens? - Yes

Will this progression be followed? No.

Can someone please identify and name the DA who's not doing his job? This guy needs notoriety. Where best to put a billboard?

Bringing a case to trial costs $10-20k on the low end, and there’s the risk that their coworkers do it to you again as you drive home from the civil court.

Heck, it seems like a good investment. It's a clear-cut case with media exposure, relatively limited downside, and unlimited upside.

Most people harassed by the police don’t have even $5000.

Furthermore, ifwhen they win, the money paid out as settlement/judgement comes from local taxpayers via the city, not the cop. It’s not legally possible to sue an individual cop for violating your rights, so the individual cop in question suffers no real consequences.

There is also the history of the incredibly harsh retaliation by other cops against people who bring evidence to light against cops:

https://www.theverge.com/2019/3/13/18253848/eric-garner-foot...

Oh, I'm not saying the dude should invest. I'm saying someone like Thiel could invest, as he did in the Gawker lawsuit. Alternatively, a lawyer could invest their time. In either case, I'm saying a 3rd party could step in and facilitate a lawsuit and, apart from doing the right thing, could be financially rewarded for it, in the end.

Would this be a good use of gofundme? Not sure if they have restrictions on paying for civil lawsuits. I would gladly contribute money towards holding public officials accountable for abuses of power.

He's poor, so no. If he was already rich then yes.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com