# 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:** 414
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 10:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8262 "2016-05-16T22:34:11Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > If a man commits a murder and nobody ever finds out, is he therefore not guilty of murder? If he’s not convicted of murder in a court of law, then he is not guilty of murder. For someone who claims to worship the rule of law the way you do, you are surprisingly ignorant of the law. > [@](#): > > I repeat; _the rule of law does not forbid me from having my own opinion._ I don’t think you understand the meaning of the words you’re using. You can have any stupid opinion you want. Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion, no matter how stupid. However, you’re not entitled to your own set of facts, and the fact is that the girl did not resist arrest. I understand that you’re not very bright, and your mental illness prevents you from understanding this simple concept, but because the girl was not convicted in a court of law, she is therefore not guilty of resisting arrest. You should probably stop discussing the law if you’re too stupid to understand the concept of presumption of innocence. > [@](#): > > No, I’m thinking of factual guilt. “Moral guilt” is not a concept I have any use for. You’re wrong about even this. The girl is factually not guilty. That’s the fact. That’s the way the law works, you stupid idiot. Your opinion is that she’s morally guilty. You’re wrong about that too, but just add it to the list. > [@](#): > > No trial has been conducted. No shit, Sherlock. > [@](#): > > And at the time the officer believed he had reasonable suspicion of involvement in criminal activity. No he didn’t. Stop using legal terms you don’t understand, you fucking moron. > [@](#): > > That’s nice. It still doesn’t mean she’s been found not guilty of anything. You fucking moron. ---
**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 16, 2016, 10:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8263 "2016-05-16T22:46:52Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > If he’s not convicted of murder in a court of law, then he is not guilty of murder. So unless he’s found guilty, his victim wasn’t murdered? > [@](#): > > However, you’re not entitled to your own set of facts, and the fact is that the girl did not resist arrest. False. > [@](#): > > You should probably stop discussing the law if you’re too stupid to understand the concept of presumption of innocence. Presumption of innocence relates to _legal_ innocence, not _factual_ innocence. > [@](#): > > You’re wrong about even this. The girl is factually not guilty. That’s the fact. That’s the way the law works, you stupid idiot. Your opinion is that she’s morally guilty. No, my opinion is that she committed the act she was accused of committing. > [@](#): > > You fucking moron. Sticks and stones may break my bones… ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8264 "2016-05-16T22:50:03Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > Dismissal of charges is not a finding that no crime occurred. God Dammit! Y’all gotta stop making me agree with **Smapti**! ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 10:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8265 "2016-05-16T22:51:18Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > So unless he’s found guilty, his victim wasn’t murdered? You fucking imbecile. > [@](#): > > False. Literally every word of this response is wrong. Congratulations. > [@](#): > > Presumption of innocence relates to _legal_ innocence, not _factual_ innocence. Remind me again how you feel about the rule of law, moron? > [@](#): > > No, my opinion is that she committed the act she was accused of committing. I don’t give a shit about your stupid opinion. She is factually not guilty. > [@](#): > > Sticks and stones may break my bones… …but words will never educate you. ---
**Author:** ![Steve\_MB](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steve_mb/32/5339_2.png) [@Steve\_MB](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steve_MB)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8266 "2016-05-16T22:55:56Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > That’s nice. It still doesn’t mean she’s been found not guilty of anything. Have you been found not guilty of kidnapping the Lindbergh baby? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8267 "2016-05-16T22:57:31Z")
> [@Typo\_Negative](#): > > God Dammit! Y’all gotta stop making me agree with **Smapti**! Unless a person is convicted of a crime, they are presumed innocent. The fact the charges were dismissed means that a conviction will almost certainly never happen. Maybe, in an unlikely future hypothetical the girl will be later tried and convicted. But until that date she is presumed innocent, no matter how much Smapti would like to twist the law to his purposes. ---
**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 16, 2016, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8268 "2016-05-16T22:58:34Z")
> [@Steve\_MB](#): > > Have you been found not guilty of kidnapping the Lindbergh baby? :dubious: No, and I have a pretty solid alibi in the unlikely event that I’m ever indicted for it. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![Snowboarder\_Bo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/snowboarder_bo/32/229_2.png) [@Snowboarder\_Bo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snowboarder_Bo)\ **Post date:** [May 16, 2016, 11:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8269 "2016-05-16T23:55:24Z")
> [@Smapti](#): > > If she believed she was free to leave, then she should have asked instead of assuming. If she believed she was free to leave, why would she have thought she needed to ask if she was free to leave? ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2016, 1:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8270 "2016-05-17T13:49:05Z")
Maybe **Smapti** could join the Baltimore City PD. His mental issues probably wouldn’t matter: [Mental health screenings for Baltimore police officers were far shorter than required, inspector general finds](http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/crime/bs-md-ci-psychology-contract-20160516-story.html) > [@](#): > > Mental health screenings for many prospective Baltimore police officers were far shorter than required by a city contract with the psychology firm hired to conduct the exams, an investigation by the city’s inspector general has found. > > Nearly three-quarters of officers and trainees interviewed by the Office of Inspector General said their pre-employment screenings with Psychology Consultants Associated lasted 30 minutes or less, according to a newly issued report by the office. The contract required at least an hourlong interview for each job candidate. We know he wouldn’t work out on the street because he’s said he would not even save a hypothetical child of his if he, himself, would be endangered, but I bet he may be able to file paperwork. ---
**Author:** ![Ike\_Witt](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ike_witt/32/283_2.png) [@Ike\_Witt](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ike_Witt)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2016, 2:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8271 "2016-05-17T14:07:54Z")
Now this thread has its mojo back… ---
**Author:** ![Battle\_Pope](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/4bbf92/32.png) [@Battle\_Pope](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Battle_Pope)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2016, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8272 "2016-05-17T22:39:56Z")
> [@dasmoocher](#): > > We know he wouldn’t work out on the street because he’s said he would not even save a hypothetical child of his if he, himself, would be endangered, but I bet he may be able to file paperwork. _[Frank Drebin is emptying out his files after being kicked off the force]_ [Frank](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000558/?ref_=tt_trv_qu): Hey! The missing evidence in the Kelner case! My God, he really was innocent! [Ed](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001421/?ref_=tt_trv_qu): He went to the chair two years ago, Frank. [Frank](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000558/?ref_=tt_trv_qu): Well, uh… _[Frank Drebin quickly shoves the evidence back into the file cabinet]_ ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2016, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8273 "2016-05-17T23:14:01Z")
> [@Battle\_Pope](#): > > _[Frank Drebin is emptying out his files after being kicked off the force]_ > [Frank](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000558/?ref_=tt_trv_qu): Hey! The missing evidence in the Kelner case! My God, he really was innocent! > [Ed](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0001421/?ref_=tt_trv_qu): He went to the chair two years ago, Frank. > [Frank](http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000558/?ref_=tt_trv_qu): Well, uh… > _[Frank Drebin quickly shoves the evidence back into the file cabinet]_ Well, in that case, I’m sure he would believe justice was served. ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [May 17, 2016, 11:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8274 "2016-05-17T23:56:35Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > Unless a person is convicted of a crime, they are presumed innocent. The fact the charges were dismissed means that a conviction will almost certainly never happen. Maybe, in an unlikely future hypothetical the girl will be later tried and convicted. But until that date she is presumed innocent, no matter how much Smapti would like to twist the law to his purposes. That is correct. It is uncommon for charges to be brought again once a judge has dismissed them. But that wasn’t the point in the quote. Mister Nobody is charged with murder. An acquaintance of his was found strangled with his necktie only hours after the two were seen arguing with each other. The Judge in the case dismisses the charges, as there was no physical evidence tying Mister Nobody to the killing, no eyewitnesses either. There was only the coincidence of the argument being directly before the murder. Now, that fact that Judge dismissed the charges doesn’t mean there was no murder. It doesn’t even mean that Mister Nobody didn’t kill him! It just means there wasn’t enough evidence to sustain the charges. And we all know that being acquitted at trial means they are innocent in the eyes of the law, but they still could have done the deed. John Gotti got acquitted a lot. O.J. was acquitted. Robert Blake was acquitted. Point being that charges being dropped or acquitted at trial ain’t the end-all of an argument. ---
**Author:** ![Evil\_Economist](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/c89c15/32.png) [@Evil\_Economist](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Evil_Economist)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2016, 1:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8275 "2016-05-18T01:10:04Z")
> [@Typo\_Negative](#): > > And we all know that being acquitted at trial means they are innocent in the eyes of the law, but they still could have done the deed. John Gotti got acquitted a lot. O.J. was acquitted. Robert Blake was acquitted. > > Point being that charges being dropped or acquitted at trial ain’t the end-all of an argument. Someone murdered Nicole Brown. In fact, it’s pretty clear to me that OJ is the one who killed her. But it’s also a simple fact that OJ didn’t murder Nicole, because the word “murderer” only applies to someone convicted by a jury of his peers of the act of murder, and that’s not OJ. Now I wouldn’t bother arguing about the legal definitions of words, because I’m not **Bricker** , thank god. But our mentally ill friend \*\*Smapti \*\*has an unhealthy and abnormal fixation on the rule of law, so unless he’s legitimately retarded, he understands concepts like presumption of innocence. So when he claims that the officer was justified in manhandling that girl because she was “resisting arrest,” he’s a lying sack of shit, because the girl factually did not resist arrest, just like OJ didn’t commit murder. Anyway, my whole point is that Smapti claims to hold the rule of law inviolate, but the second he starts to lose an internet argument he throws that shit out the window. So it’s probably not the cornerstone of his ethos the way he claims it is. ---
**Author:** ![septimus](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/septimus/32/410_2.png) [@septimus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/septimus)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2016, 5:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8276 "2016-05-18T05:04:54Z")
Common sense tells us (well, most of us) that throwing a child to the ground and tasing her is an excessive response to a minor “crime” like riding a bicycle. It’s better to risk letting such a minor “criminal” escape than to risk injuring her. But is this common-sense also reflected in police training? Or is my “common sense” wrong? And why hasn’t that officer been fired? ---
**Author:** ![dasmoocher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/dbc845/32.png) [@dasmoocher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dasmoocher)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2016, 6:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8277 "2016-05-18T06:45:38Z")
I think the current thinking is that it’s better to taze 10 innocent people rather than let one guilty person go untazed. Just to be sure and safe, ya know. Suggestions that these are sadistic motivations for unqualified cops are just appeals for anarchy! ---
**Author:** ![Typo\_Negative](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/typo_negative/32/484_2.png) [@Typo\_Negative](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Typo_Negative)\ **Post date:** [May 18, 2016, 4:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8278 "2016-05-18T16:22:21Z")
> [@Evil\_Economist](#): > > But it’s also a simple fact that OJ didn’t murder Nicole, because the word “murderer” only applies to someone convicted by a jury of his peers of the act of murder,and that’s not OJ. Well, you and I are going to have to disagree on that point. ---
**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 20, 2016, 4:35am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8279 "2016-05-20T04:35:15Z")
San Francisco police shoot and kill an unarmed black woman. Mayor Ed Lee asks SF Police Chief Greg Suhr to resign. Suhr complies. > [@](#): > > For the mayor, the shooting happened under the worst circumstances at the worst possible time — what appeared to be an unarmed woman who was black, shot by a sergeant who apparently used none of the deescalation tactics that Suhr and Lee had been pushing for months. > > Before the shooting, there was a feeling in the mayor’s office that public anger about police conduct had peaked and the chief could stay in his position, at least for several months, said a source close to Lee who was not authorized to speak for attribution. > > Thursday’s shooting made that possibility untenable, said the source. [SF Chronicle](http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Police-Chief-Greg-Suhr-resigns-after-killing-of-7758122.php) ---
**Author:** ![Shalmanese](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/45deac/32.png) [@Shalmanese](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Shalmanese)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2016, 1:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8280 "2016-05-20T13:40:15Z")
> [@mhendo](#): > > San Francisco police shoot and kill an unarmed black woman. > > Mayor Ed Lee asks SF Police Chief Greg Suhr to resign. Suhr complies. > [SF Chronicle](http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/Police-Chief-Greg-Suhr-resigns-after-killing-of-7758122.php) It was the straw that broke the camel’s back. There was a [17 day hunger strike](http://www.sfexaminer.com/activists-hunger-strike-suhrs-job-amid-police-reforms/) against Suhr that only ended last week and now this. Let’s see if firing Suhr has any effect on the persistent problems that have plagued the SFPD. ---
**Author:** ![Hooleehootoo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/eada6e/32.png) [@Hooleehootoo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hooleehootoo)\ **Post date:** [May 20, 2016, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/8281 "2016-05-20T23:36:00Z")
Another [horrible story](http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/21/us/chase-sherman-video-georgia.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&clickSource=story-heading&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0), in this instance, lacking a racial element. I think it is clear that Mrs. Sherman realized the Police were making the situation gravely more dangerous for her son, and in the absence of a threat to anyone else they should have left. But no, they have their blood up, and don’t put away their tasers until they defeat their enemy. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=413) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=415)