# 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:** 585
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2017, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11682 "2017-10-22T16:53:47Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Unless the person threatening you is a cop. Or, of course, if your home is invaded by criminals, you need to ask them for ID before shooting them, ot make sure that they are not a cop serving a no-knock warrant at the wrong house. > > And if an unarmed man is running from you, obviously you have the right to shoot him, and plant evidence to make it look like he was a threat to others. > Like a complete lack of weapon on the dead body? Cameras showing that the cop was the aggressor and escalator in the situation? > > In your world, I could walk up to you on the street, shoot you in the head, and no one could convict me, because I would claim that I thought I saw you make a gesture that I perceived as threatening, and there would be no way to prove that I didn’t think that I saw a gesture that I percieved as threatening. > [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Why are we still feeding the troll? :rolleyes: ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2017, 5:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11683 "2017-10-22T17:05:15Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > :rolleyes: :rolleyes: Is that a question, or a complaint? It’s the pit, whatever. If he likes eating shit, then I’ll keep feeding him shit. You don’t have to watch, I understand. It’s not pleasant, even in schadenfreude to watch such disgusting actions as he enjoys, but well, if someone is volunteering to be shat upon, who am I (or you) to argue? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2017, 7:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11684 "2017-10-22T19:48:02Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Unless the person threatening you is a cop. Or, of course, if your home is invaded by criminals, you need to ask them for ID before shooting them, ot make sure that they are not a cop serving a no-knock warrant at the wrong house. Whether they are a cop is irrelevant, if they are threatening you. However, like many people here, you confuse cops doing their jobs with being threatening. You don’t, under any circumstances, have the right to shoot a cop who is doing their job - including serving a no-knock warrant. > [@](#): > > And if an unarmed man is running from you, obviously you have the right to shoot him, and plant evidence to make it look like he was a threat to others. No, you don’t have that right, cop or otherwise. If the state can prove that no-one could reasonably have considered him a threat, then find the shooter guilty. > [@](#): > > Like a complete lack of weapon on the dead body? Cameras showing that the cop was the aggressor and escalator in the situation? You are allowed to shoot, and kill, someone if you falsely but reasonably believe they are a serious, imminent threat to you. You are in many states (and morally, everywhere) innocent of murder unless it can be proven that they could not reasonably have been considered a threat. > [@](#): > > In your world, I could walk up to you on the street, shoot you in the head, and no one could convict me, because I would claim that I thought I saw you make a gesture that I perceived as threatening, and there would be no way to prove that I didn’t think that I saw a gesture that I percieved as threatening. Wrong. To claim that means you haven’t bothered to read my posts, find out how the law works, or look at the practicalities of the criminal justice system. The most important part of the latter being that very few people will claim self defence, as it means admitting to the killing. If you shoot someone in a dark alley with no one watching, you are not going to admit the killing unless you’re a fucking idiot, you’ll provide evidence that suggests you were miles away. The only way your position makes sense is if you don’t want people to be able to kill ins self defence, which is a despicable position, and only justified if you think that stronger people should be able to do whatever the fuck they like. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2017, 7:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11685 "2017-10-22T19:50:15Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > :rolleyes: > > Is that a question, or a complaint? > > It’s the pit, whatever. If he likes eating shit, then I’ll keep feeding him shit. > > You don’t have to watch, I understand. It’s not pleasant, even in schadenfreude to watch such disgusting actions as he enjoys, but well, if someone is volunteering to be shat upon, who am I (or you) to argue? The only disgusting things here are people who love to see innocent people jailed, and people punished for defending their own lives or the lives of others. You know what a cop who saves people’s lives by shooting a fleeing criminal is? They are a fucking hero. That could be you or your loved ones he’s saved, and you want to fucking jail him. You are scum. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2017, 8:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11686 "2017-10-22T20:17:33Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Whether they are a cop is irrelevant, if they are threatening you. However, like many people here, you confuse cops doing their jobs with being threatening. You don’t, under any circumstances, have the right to shoot a cop who is doing their job - including serving a no-knock warrant. Which is why you have no right to defend yourself from home invaders until you have checked their ID. > [@](#): > > No, you don’t have that right, cop or otherwise. If the state can prove that no-one could reasonably have considered him a threat, then find the shooter guilty. Yuo have argued the opposite, at least be consistent. > [@](#): > > You are allowed to shoot, and kill, someone if you falsely but reasonably believe they are a serious, imminent threat to you. You are in many states (and morally, everywhere) innocent of murder unless it can be proven that they could not reasonably have been considered a threat. And that level of reason, to you, is if there is if they make that claim. > [@](#): > > Wrong. To claim that means you haven’t bothered to read my posts, find out how the law works, or look at the practicalities of the criminal justice system. The most important part of the latter being that very few people will claim self defence, as it means admitting to the killing. If you shoot someone in a dark alley with no one watching, you are not going to admit the killing unless you’re a fucking idiot, you’ll provide evidence that suggests you were miles away. No, that means that I have had the unfortunate pleasure of having read your posts. You have defended self-defense on the flimsiest of circumstances. You defended a guy who killed someone because his radio was too loud. If you consider that to be a reasonable use of self defense, then yes, any form of murder can be justified that way. The reason that people don’t claim self defense is becuase you currently need to prove that, and if you are not a cop, or at least white with a black victim, juries aren’t going to believe you. In your world, juries would believe you. There literally is no other requirement for you other than the shooter claims that they perceived that they were in danger. > [@](#): > > The only way your position makes sense is if you don’t want people to be able to kill ins self defence, which is a despicable position, and only justified if you think that stronger people should be able to do whatever the fuck they like. It could also make sense if I want some sort of evidence that the shooter was in danger, rather than just taking their word for it. It would make even more sense if there is not evidence that the shooter was not in danger, and that the shooter lied about the circumstances of the shooting, but you still take their word for it. The only way your position makes sense if if you want anyone to be able to claim any killing was self defense, which is a very dangerous proposition, and only justified if you think that unethical people should be able to do whatever the fuck they like. > [@Stephoan](#): > > The only disgusting things here are people who love to see innocent people jailed, and people punished for defending their own lives or the lives of others. You know what a cop who saves people’s lives by shooting a fleeing criminal is? They are a fucking hero. That could be you or your loved ones he’s saved, and you want to fucking jail him. You are scum. [Who’s life was saved here?](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/apr/08/us-police-fatal-shooting-south-carolina-phone-footage-viral-video) Yeah, I want to fucking jail murderers. You are the peice of shit that wants to see them have a chance to kill another. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2017, 10:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11687 "2017-10-22T22:35:58Z")
Just as a reminder for those engaging with **Steophan** , he’s an [incredibly lazy liar](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=835614). He’ll make uncited accusations and utterly refuse to back them up, insisting that they’re true without any support at all. Not sure if it’s productive engaging with a liar like him. ---
**Author:** ![k9bfriender](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/k9bfriender/32/3283_2.png) [@k9bfriender](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/k9bfriender)\ **Post date:** [October 22, 2017, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11688 "2017-10-22T23:03:58Z")
> [@iiandyiiii](#): > > Just as a reminder for those engaging with **Steophan** , he’s an [incredibly lazy liar](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=835614). He’ll make uncited accusations and utterly refuse to back them up, insisting that they’re true without any support at all. Not sure if it’s productive engaging with a liar like him. True, and I do not feel as though there is really a point anyway. If it really feels as though it takes away from this pit thread, I can agree to ignore as well. But, you know, it’s life, and there are alot of people who piss me off on a regular basis, alot of people who shit on me and expect me to take it. I am not vindictive, and there are none who I would volunteer to shit upon in return. But if someone volunteers themselves to be my punching bag, a catharsis that allows me to get off my chest things that I can’t with anyone I hold any respect for, then I don’t really see it as an ethical issue to take the free hits. I don’t expect to change any minds, especially not his, but I do feel as though I’ve gotten a bit of steam out of the system after I explain to him, once again, how stupid he is, and yes, a liar too. That’s what the pit is for in the first place, isn’t it? In any case, if you feel as though engaging with this lying piece of shit troll does detract meaningfully from our ongoing shock thread on how those who are given power and authority abuse it to damage their communities, I can agree to throw him on ignore and find another way to get my daily dose of catharsis. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2017, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11689 "2017-10-23T01:12:07Z")
> [@k9bfriender](#): > > Which is why you have no right to defend yourself from home invaders until you have checked their ID. False. You have the right to defend yourself against people who enter your home without permission. That doesn’t apply to cops doing their job, as they have permission. It’s not difficult to tell the difference between a swat team and a burglar. > [@](#): > > Yuo have argued the opposite, at least be consistent. I’ve never argued that anyone, cop or otherwise, has the right to plant evidence. That’s absurd. > [@](#): > > And that level of reason, to you, is if there is if they make that claim. I’m honestly not sure what this sentence means. I _think_ you are saying that I would automatically believe any claim of self defence. If so, that’s not what I’m saying, I’m saying that, as a potential juror, whether I believe it is irrelevant - all that matters is whether it can be proven false. > [@](#): > > No, that means that I have had the unfortunate pleasure of having read your posts. You have defended self-defense on the flimsiest of circumstances. You defended a guy who killed someone because his radio was too loud. > > If you consider that to be a reasonable use of self defense, then yes, any form of murder can be justified that way. That’s not what happened, the killing wasn’t because of the volume of the radio. No one claimed that, not the killer, not the friends of the victim, and not the lawyers on either side. What was claimed is that he killed because he was threatened after asking them to turn down the radio. I also said in that case that the conviction for attempted murder, as he shot at the car driving away, was absolutely correct. Which people should bear in mind when they claim that I’m saying it’s OK to shoot someone who’s fleeing. > [@](#): > > The reason that people don’t claim self defense is becuase you currently need to prove that, and if you are not a cop, or at least white with a black victim, juries aren’t going to believe you. In your world, juries would believe you. There literally is no other requirement for you other than the shooter claims that they perceived that they were in danger. They don’t have to prove it, at least in many states, and more are adopting such laws. And as I said, it doesn’t matter what I believe happened, it matters whether they can be proven not to have killed in self defence. That’s how it should be, because _killing in self defence is not just legally allowed, but morally justified._ If someone claims to have killed in self defence, there should be pretty strong evidence that they are lying before they are even charged. > [@](#): > > It could also make sense if I want some sort of evidence that the shooter was in danger, rather than just taking their word for it. It would make even more sense if there is not evidence that the shooter was not in danger, and that the shooter lied about the circumstances of the shooting, but you still take their word for it. > > The only way your position makes sense if if you want anyone to be able to claim any killing was self defense, which is a very dangerous proposition, and only justified if you think that unethical people should be able to do whatever the fuck they like. A fundamental principle of justice is that people do not have to prove their innocence. That cannot be negotiable if you want a just system. If someone claims they killed someone in self defence, without proof that they did not they are no more guilty of murder than you or I, and it would be just as much a travesty of justice to punish them for it as it would to punish someone who was nowhere near the scene. This may well allow some people to get away with murder. So what? That’s a tiny price to pay to allow everyone to protect themselves without fear of legal punishment. > [@](#): > > [Who’s life was saved here?](https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/video/2015/apr/08/us-police-fatal-shooting-south-carolina-phone-footage-viral-video) > > Yeah, I want to fucking jail murderers. You are the peice of shit that wants to see them have a chance to kill another. He’s jailed, despite not actually being a murderer. You should be happy with that. And as I said, some people going free to kill again is a tiny price to pay for a system that protects everybody. I’d rather risk being murdered by a freed killer than risk falsely being imprisoned by an arbitrary court system, and so would anyone with the slightest bit of sense. ---
**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:** [October 23, 2017, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11690 "2017-10-23T07:08:09Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > False. You have the right to defend yourself against people who enter your home without permission. That doesn’t apply to cops doing their job, as they have permission. It’s not difficult to tell the difference between a swat team and a burglar. It may be hard for me to hold off a swat team, armed with just my 5 shotguns, four Glocks and a couple of butt stocks, but a more reasonable threat is a single rogue cop. A rogue cop _without a warrant._ > [@Fourth 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. You gun-nuts are so proud of your Amendments and the need for arms to protect from tyranny. Yet you’re going to bow down to every guy with a badge, doing a no-knock without asking to see his warrant? Really?? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2017, 7:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11691 "2017-10-23T07:38:44Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > False. You have the right to defend yourself against people who enter your home without permission. That doesn’t apply to cops doing their job, as they have permission. It’s not difficult to tell the difference between a swat team and a burglar. Would you be willing to bet everything you own (I’d say your life, as that is what is literally at stake here, but neither murder nor imprisonment is allowed even when contractually obligated) on getting this right in ten consecutive attempts at random times? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2017, 12:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11692 "2017-10-23T12:25:11Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > Would you be willing to bet everything you own (I’d say your life, as that is what is literally at stake here, but neither murder nor imprisonment is allowed even when contractually obligated) on getting this right in ten consecutive attempts at random times? What a ridiculous argument. This is something that never happens to most people, let alone ten times. What possible situation could occur where SWAT teams wrongly enter my house ten times in a row? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2017, 12:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11693 "2017-10-23T12:26:56Z")
> [@septimus](#): > > Yet you’re going to bow down to every guy with a badge, doing a no-knock without asking to see his warrant? Really?? I mean, that’s the whole point of a no-knock… If you disagree with them, that’s a political issue, and doesn’t give you the right to shoot a cop who’s there legally. ---
**Author:** ![kayaker](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kayaker/32/441_2.png) [@kayaker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kayaker)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2017, 12:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11694 "2017-10-23T12:31:58Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > I mean, that’s the whole point of a no-knock… If you disagree with them, that’s a political issue, and doesn’t give you the right to shoot a cop who’s there legally. Is he there legally if the address on the warrant doesn’t match the house that is being forcibly entered? ---
**Author:** ![Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/budget_player_cadet/32/205_2.png) [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Budget_Player_Cadet)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2017, 1:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11695 "2017-10-23T13:04:21Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > What a ridiculous argument. This is something that never happens to most people, let alone ten times. What possible situation could occur where SWAT teams wrongly enter my house ten times in a row? 10 is just a reasonable sample size to ensure that should it really come to it, you’re prepared and won’t make a mistake. Although if we take a person getting it right 50% of the time (i.e. chance) as a null hypothesis, 5 would be enough to ensure that someone getting it right each time would have P\<0.05. So okay, would you be willing to bet everything you own on being able to get it right 5/5 times? ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2017, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11696 "2017-10-23T16:35:28Z")
> [@Budget\_Player\_Cadet](#): > > 10 is just a reasonable sample size to ensure that should it really come to it, you’re prepared and won’t make a mistake. Although if we take a person getting it right 50% of the time (i.e. chance) as a null hypothesis, 5 would be enough to ensure that someone getting it right each time would have P\<0.05. So okay, would you be willing to bet everything you own on being able to get it right 5/5 times? Your question is literally “would I recognise a cop”. Yes, yes I would. ---
**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:** [October 23, 2017, 4:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11697 "2017-10-23T16:50:17Z")
[Police cases over 137-shot barrage unsettled 5 years later](https://apnews.com/7e48702594ad4696931c41f9468b8d52/Police-cases-over-137-shot-barrage-unsettled-5-years-later). > [@](#): > > Nearly five years after two unarmed black suspects died in a 137-shot barrage of Cleveland police gunfire, five officers fired for their roles are set to return to duty this week after an arbitrator reinstated their jobs. > > Meanwhile, discipline and criminal charges against some officers involved in the case remain unsettled, lingering in what a union leader and a defense attorney describe as an unfair limbo. > > Five supervisors accused of dereliction of duty are on restricted duty while waiting to see whether those charges are re-filed in a different court, and dozens of patrol officers disciplined for their roles in the chase await an arbitrator’s decision on whether to rescind that discipline. > > Driver Timothy Russell and passenger Malissa Williams were killed in a suburban school parking lot in November 2012 after a chase that reached speeds of 100 mph and involved more than 60 police cars and 100 officers. The shootings drew international attention for the ferociousness of the police gunfire and questions about how and why it even happened. This happened before the thread was started, but the repercussions are still going on so I figured we should include it. ---
**Author:** ![Crazy\_Canuck](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/crazy_canuck/32/5282_2.png) [@Crazy\_Canuck](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Crazy_Canuck)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2017, 6:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11698 "2017-10-23T18:19:20Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > It’s not difficult to tell the difference between a swat team and a burglar. This is false, due to the phenomenon called flash blindness, which I have pointed out to you earlier in this thread with a cite and everything, you fucking liar. ---
**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:** [October 23, 2017, 7:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11699 "2017-10-23T19:09:47Z")
[Wichita, Kansas for this](https://apnews.com/3e379716ed9e4dba83412311eaadfd08/Wrongful-conviction-no-surprise-to-Kansas-black-community). > [@](#): > > Rose McIntyre says she wonders whether her refusal to grant regular sexual favors to a white detective prompted him to retaliate against her black son, who spent 23 years in a Kansas prison for a double murder he didn’t commit. > > “I do believe that if I had complied with his request for me to become his ‘woman,’ that my son would likely not be in prison,” she said in a 2014 affidavit. > > Her son, Lamonte McIntyre, 41, walked out of a court hearing on Oct. 13 a free man after Wyandotte County District Attorney Mark Dupree asked that charges from the 1994 murders be dismissed because of “manifest injustice.” > [@](#): > > Documents made public during an 8-year effort to exonerate Lamonte McIntyre allege homicide detective Roger Golubski used his power to prey for decades on African-American women, including Rose McIntyre. They also accuse the prosecutor in the case, Terra Morehead, of intimidating witnesses who told her McIntyre was not the killer. And they say the presiding judge, Wyandotte County District Judge J. Dexter Burdette, had a romantic relationship with the prosecutor before the trial that neither disclosed at the time. > > None of them has faced discipline. Golubski rose through the ranks to detective and captain. He retired from law enforcement last year. Morehead is now a federal prosecutor in Kansas City. Burdette is still on the bench. :eek::mad:😕:eek::mad: But wait; it get’s worse when you know the details: > [@](#): > > Lamonte McIntyre was 17 when he was given two life sentences for the 1994 murders of Doniel Quinn, 21, and Donald Ewing, 34. They were shot in broad daylight as they sat in a car in a drug-infested neighborhood of Kansas City. No physical evidence linked him to the crime, and he didn’t know the victims. > > When police showed eyewitnesses a photo lineup of five people to identify the shooter, three of those photos were Rose McIntyre’s relatives — her two sons and a nephew. > [@](#): > > At the trial, two planned eyewitnesses to the murders told Morehead when they saw Lamonte McIntyre in person that she had the wrong man, according to court filings. Niko Quinn signed an affidavit that she lied on the stand because Morehead threatened to have her arrested and have her children taken away if she did not testify. Morehead sent the other witness, her mother Josephine Quinn, away without calling her to testify. Those exculpatory statements were not disclosed at the time to Lamonte McIntyre’s defense lawyers. > [@](#): > > Rose McIntyre recounted in her affidavit that Golubski coerced her into a sexual act in his office in the late 1980s and then harassed her for weeks, often calling her two or three times a day, before she moved and changed her phone number. > > “He had total power, and I was terrified that he would try to force me again to provide sexual favors,” she said in the affidavit. “I also knew that there was no one I could complain to, as Golubski was known to be very powerful in the community and in the police department.” > [@](#): > > Golubski was so involved with black female prostitutes and drug addicts that he fathered children with some of them, according to an affidavit from retired police officer Ruby Ellington, a 25-year Kansas City police department employee. > > “Roger Golubski’s involvement with them was no secret,” Ellington said. “It was simply accepted as part of what Roger Golubski was able to do without repercussion.” This guy was like an actual Bad Lieutenant ffs. > [@](#): > > Kansas City Police Chief Terry Zeigler said in an emailed statement that the FBI looked into Golubski’s conduct and could not find any incidents within the statute of limitations, which is five years for such allegations. They consider the matter closed. Zeigler added that he worked with Golubski and “never saw anything that caused me concern.” :eek:😕 So Mr. McIntyre lost more of his life than he had when he was incarcerated, while those who wronged him have only prospered. I feel like I hear about that last bit happening too often lately. ---
**Author:** ![Kinthalis](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kinthalis/32/16084_2.png) [@Kinthalis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kinthalis)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2017, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11700 "2017-10-23T20:41:29Z")
> [@Snowboarder\_Bo](#): > > [Wichita, Kansas for this](https://apnews.com/3e379716ed9e4dba83412311eaadfd08/Wrongful-conviction-no-surprise-to-Kansas-black-community).:eek::mad:😕:eek::mad: > > But wait; it get’s worse when you know the details:This guy was like an actual Bad Lieutenant ffs.:eek:😕 > > So Mr. McIntyre lost more of his life than he had when he was incarcerated, while those who wronged him have only prospered. I feel like I hear about that last bit happening too often lately. Jesus fucking christ. This kind of shit happens and yet we have the board’s shit sack, Steophan, bemoaning the terrible injustice suffered by the racist murdering fuck hole who executed his daughter’s boyfriend, for two whole pages. ---
**Author:** ![Steophan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/steophan/32/9595_2.png) [@Steophan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Steophan)\ **Post date:** [October 23, 2017, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942/11701 "2017-10-23T22:57:56Z")
> [@Kinthalis](#): > > Jesus fucking christ. This kind of shit happens and yet we have the board’s shit sack, Steophan, bemoaning the terrible injustice suffered by the racist murdering fuck hole who executed his daughter’s boyfriend, for two whole pages. The injustice caused by an unfair trial is an injustice regardless of the race or job of the accused. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=584) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/controversial-encounters-between-law-enforcement-and-civilians-the-omnibus-thread/700942.md?page=586)