# Controversial encounters between law-enforcement and civilians - the omnibus thread **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [October 10, 2014, 7:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942 "2014-10-10T07:35:51Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 141
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2015, 5:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/2801 "2015-05-22T17:59:12Z")
> [@Sinaptics](#): > > Given the stories you’ve just been presented with, do you still think this is a fair and constitutional system? Fair? Not entirely. Constitutional? Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2015, 6:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/2802 "2015-05-22T18:09:18Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Fair? Not entirely. Constitutional? Yes. Not “Supreme Court ruled it constitutional.” Do **YOU** believe it’s constitutional in relation to the 4th’s protections against unwarranted search and seizure? Personally, I find that the courts reasoning to be weaselly in the extreme. IIRC they said that the 4th doesn’t apply because they’re not charging a person, but the property itself witch is, IMHO, ridiculous. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2015, 6:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/2803 "2015-05-22T18:10:22Z")
> [@Sinaptics](#): > > Not “Supreme Court ruled it constitutional.” Do **YOU** believe it’s constitutional in relation to the 4th’s protections against unwarranted search and seizure? I don’t understand the question. The Supreme Court has spoken - the issue is settled. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2015, 6:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/2804 "2015-05-22T18:26:11Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Fair? Not entirely. Constitutional? Yes. Constitutional? 4th Amendment: _The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized._ 5th Amendment: _No person shall … be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation._ I would like to see the Supreme Court case that rules it ok to take an innocent person’s cash and return only a fraction of it. Has an asset forfeiture case been brought before the Court where a conviction was not brought? In many of these cases, the police do not even make any kind of charge against the person. ---
**Author:** ![Sinaptics](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/278dde/32.png) [@Sinaptics](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sinaptics)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2015, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/2805 "2015-05-22T18:28:20Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > I don’t understand the question. The Supreme Court has spoken - the issue is settled. If you were a justice on the Supreme Court, and the issue of the constitutionality of these seizures is in front of you, how would you rule? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2015, 6:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/2806 "2015-05-22T18:28:18Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > I don’t understand the question. The Supreme Court has spoken - the issue is settled. You understand the question, you chickenshit-you’ve been asked for a personal opinion, and you know that an honest answer will make you look like an even bigger police suckuo than you already are. ---
**Author:** ![Kobal2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kobal2/32/20_2.png) [@Kobal2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kobal2)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2015, 6:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/2807 "2015-05-22T18:35:33Z")
Asking \*\*Smapti \*\*to make a personal, conscious judgment ?! Do you want the man to explode, you bastards ? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2015, 6:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/2808 "2015-05-22T18:36:51Z")
> [@Kobal2](#): > > Asking \*\*Smapti \*\*to make a personal, conscious judgment ?! Do you want the man to explode, you bastards ? Trick question! ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2015, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/2809 "2015-05-22T18:40:09Z")
> [@Sinaptics](#): > > If you were a justice on the Supreme Court, and the issue of the constitutionality of these seizures is in front of you, how would you rule? I would likely rule to uphold the seizure - neither the 4th or 5th amendment protects ill-gotten goods. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2015, 6:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/2810 "2015-05-22T18:42:16Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > I would likely rule to uphold the seizure - neither the 4th or 5th amendment protects ill-gotten goods. Even ill-gotten goods require probable cause and a warrant. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2015, 6:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/2811 "2015-05-22T18:44:37Z")
> [@Fear\_Itself](#): > > Even ill-gotten goods require probable cause and a warrant. Probable cause and a warrant relates to _criminal_ actions against _persons_. Money isn’t people, and civil forfeiture is civil, not criminal. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2015, 6:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/2812 "2015-05-22T18:53:09Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Probable cause and a warrant relates to _criminal_ actions against _persons_. Money isn’t people, and civil forfeiture is civil, not criminal. You are mistaken. ---
**Author:** ![eschereal](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eschereal/32/18939_2.png) [@eschereal](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/eschereal)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2015, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/2813 "2015-05-22T21:30:50Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Probable cause and a warrant relates to _criminal_ actions against _persons_. Money isn’t people, and civil forfeiture is civil, not criminal. Here is the problem: the money is seized as 'evidence" of wrong-doing. Evidence is a thing to be used in the course of prosecution on criminal charges. No prosecution occurs, because no charges are brought. Hence, the authorities are obligated to return the “evidence”. If they charged the “suspects” with something, anything, they may hold what ever evidence is relevant to the charges, instead they just take the money and force the proper owner to go to great effort to get it back. Which supports my assertion: in order to catch criminals, the police have to be able to think like criminals, and in the end, it becomes a habit, they _become_ like criminals. And the Supreme Court has not ruled on the practice of arbitrary asset seizure, the chargeless, arrestless kind, because it has not come before them. It is still unconstitutional, by letter, until the Court says that it is ok. This is exactly the kind of thing the Bill of Rights was intended to prevent. ---
**Author:** ![Smapti](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/smapti/32/17938_2.png) [@Smapti](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Smapti)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2015, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/2814 "2015-05-23T16:35:29Z")
So, if we may revisit a topic that was raised a couple dozen pages ago, [Michael Brelo has been found not guilty of manslaughter.](http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/05/23/3662433/cleveland-police-officer-acquitted-deaths-2-unarmed-victims-59-car-police-chase/) > [@](#): > > In his ruling Saturday morning, O’Donnell reasoned that he couldn’t find beyond a reasonable doubt that the deaths of Russell and Williams were caused by Brelo’s gunshots, since some of the 12 other officers who fired gunshots could have contributed to their deaths. He also said the actions of all of the officers were justified by their reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm at the time, even though the officers later learned that neither Russell nor Williams had a gun in their car as they fled from officers. > > “Brelo did not fire too quickly or at a person that was clearly unarmed or clearly unable to run him over,” O’Donnell said. “He did not fire at someone walking or running away…” > > O’Donnell acknowledged that Brelo violated his training and put other officers at risk when he stood on the hood of a car without any cover and continued firing. But he nonetheless maintained the action was justified. > > “I reject the claim that 12 seconds after the shooting began it was patently clear from the perspective of a reasonable officer in Brelo’s position that the threat had been stopped,” he said. In other words, I was right. ---
**Author:** ![Morgenstern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/f9ae1b/32.png) [@Morgenstern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Morgenstern)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2015, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/2815 "2015-05-23T16:51:54Z")
The fact that it took 14 officers, and 135+15 shots to kill 2 _innocent_ people tells me something about the lack of training and professionalism in that police department. I can understand Brelo’s acquittal given there was no way to determine which of the 150 shots killed the 2 people. Those officers need to all be looking for new jobs tomorrow, preferably at Walmart. ---
**Author:** ![bobot](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bobot/32/21622_2.png) [@bobot](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/bobot)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2015, 5:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/2816 "2015-05-23T17:33:06Z")
Having a stroke? Perhaps this taser and some pepper spray might help. It’s cool right? How 'bout if we call you “Sir”. Yee-haw. > **[SEE IT: Virginia cop resigns after using Taser, pepper spray on possible...](https://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/va-resigns-taser-pepper-spray-stroke-victim-article-1.2232948)** > > A Virginia police officer resigned amid claims of excessive force when he Tasered and pepper sprayed a man having a medical emergency. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2015, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/2817 "2015-05-23T18:04:49Z")
> [@Morgenstern](#): > > … preferably at Walmart. Is there one in Antarctica? ---
**Author:** ![monstro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/ba9def/32.png) [@monstro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monstro)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2015, 6:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/2818 "2015-05-23T18:24:34Z")
> [@bobot](#): > > Having a stroke? Perhaps this taser and some pepper spray might help. It’s cool right? How 'bout if we call you “Sir”. Yee-haw. > [SEE IT: Virginia cop resigns after using Taser, pepper spray on possible stroke victim – New York Daily News](http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/va-resigns-taser-pepper-spray-stroke-victim-article-1.2232948) He blasted that guy in the face with pepper spray for 8 seconds. People treat roaches they are trying to kill with more respect than that. ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2015, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/2819 "2015-05-23T19:03:52Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > In other words, I was right. Yep. You were right that a criminal justice system that lets cops get away with just about anything, as long as the cop repeats the mantra that he feared for his safety, would find a cop who shot two unarmed people not guilty. Kudos. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2015, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/2820 "2015-05-23T19:21:14Z")
Hey, with all those bullets flying, blood spraying around, perps thrashing around from bullet strikes, they _might_ have been reaching for a weapon! How could he be sure they weren’t? Moving your hand to the general vicinity of your waist band is enough. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=140) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=142)