Very disturbing evening

[Hawkmoon]

This evening I attended a talk on the court system. There were two presenters: first up was a chief prosecutor, followed by one of the more senior judges in the state.

I took the opportunity to ask the judge if it's really a good idea to be using SWAT teams to be serving search warrants. He said, "It rarely happens, but if there's an armed and dangerous fugitive I don't want one or two cops having to go look for him." I reiterated that I was asking about search warrants, not arrest warrants. Then the judge brought up -- all on his own -- a recent case he heard in civil court. Seems a police department (he didn't name the municipality involved, and his district includes several) got an address wrong. They smashed in the front door of a wrong address (sound familiar?), tossed the house, traumatized the family ... and then just walked away when they realized they were at the wrong address. The family actually had to file a lawsuit to get the municipality to pay for repairing the damage. The judge's view was that "It was an honest mistake by the police."

So I tried to ask the judge if it would have been okay if the homeowner had been armed and shot at the officers, and someone was killed. Hizzoner really REALLY didn't want to go there. He kept talking around it, and ultimately never gave me a straight answer, beyond "Everyone is human, and we all make mistakes." It was clear that his attitude is: If you want breakfast, you gotta scramble some eggs.

Why is it that the same folks who weep and wail and gnash their teeth about "If it saves just ONE child it's ["it" being the Constitutional violation du jour] worth it" have no problem with setting up a system that apologizes for cops who create situations that simply beg for innocent people to be killed? I am angry -- VERY angry.

[wmenorr67]

I find it more troubling that others in attendance didn't back your play.

[Fitz]

Remember, mistakes are only mistakes if the cops make em.


if YOU mistake those cops for an intruder and fire on them, you're a domestic terrorist.

[Hawkmoon]

Remember, mistakes are only mistakes if the cops make em.


if YOU mistake those cops for an intruder and fire on them, you're a domestic terrorist.

Were you i my class? Where were you sitting?

I also asked both the prosecutor and the judge about the burgeoning practice of charging individuals, in individual confrontations, with "terroristic" threatening -- which I consider to be a perversion of the fairly recent laws against terroristic threatening, and a clear case of prosecutorial overreach. Both were obviously uncomfortable with the question, and neither gave a straightforward response to it.

[T.O.M.]

Gotta wonder...what would you want him to say?  That the cops should have been indicted for Burglary and sentenced to prison?  That the homeowner should have blown the cops away as soon as the door opened?  You were at a public event on the court system.  Judges are prohibited from publicly stating how they would rule on any specific issue, from giving legal advice, from saying who should be charged or what they should be charged with.  Break those rules and you run the very real risk of losing your license and your job.

The judge was put in a no-win situation by your question.  Say the cops should be prosecuted, you just committed an ethical violation.  Say the homeowner could have firedin self-defense, and yoou just committed an ethical viiolation.  Dodging your questions was about the.only option if he wanted to keep his job...

[roo_ster]

Gotta wonder...what would you want him to say?  That the cops should have been indicted for Burglary and sentenced to prison?  That the homeowner should have blown the cops away as soon as the door opened?  You were at a public event on the court system.  Judges are prohibited from publicly stating how they would rule on any specific issue, from giving legal advice, from saying who should be charged or what they should be charged with.  Break those rules and you run the very real risk of losing your license and your job.

The judge was put in a no-win situation by your question.  Say the cops should be prosecuted, you just committed an ethical violation.  Say the homeowner could have firedin self-defense, and yoou just committed an ethical viiolation.  Dodging your questions was about the.only option if he wanted to keep his job...

Horsehockey. 

Judge-bo was more than willing to pontificate and comment, excuse behavior by LEOs, a mere mistake...and presumably not want to see those LEOs charged for those actions.  But doing so for Joe Citizen is an "ethical violation?"

Double horsehockey.  Such one-way street "ethics" aren't worth a thimbleful of chicken dung.  Such self-serving ethics cooked up by self-serving people are part of the problem.

Tar, feathers, and a stout beating with a 2x4 to encourage the others.

[brimic]

Judges make 'honest mistakes' too.

[lupinus]

Gotta wonder...what would you want him to say?  That the cops should have been indicted for Burglary and sentenced to prison?  That the homeowner should have blown the cops away as soon as the door opened?  You were at a public event on the court system.  Judges are prohibited from publicly stating how they would rule on any specific issue, from giving legal advice, from saying who should be charged or what they should be charged with.  Break those rules and you run the very real risk of losing your license and your job.

The judge was put in a no-win situation by your question.  Say the cops should be prosecuted, you just committed an ethical violation.  Say the homeowner could have firedin self-defense, and yoou just committed an ethical viiolation.  Dodging your questions was about the.only option if he wanted to keep his job...

Then why are they doing a public event and taking questions on such issues? Or as already said, giving a nod to police policy but not to the opposite end of that policy?

Sent via tapatalk

[T.O.M.]

Never mind.

[Jamisjockey]

Horsehockey. 

Judge-bo was more than willing to pontificate and comment, excuse behavior by LEOs, a mere mistake...and presumably not want to see those LEOs charged for those actions.  But doing so for Joe Citizen is an "ethical violation?"

Double horsehockey.  Such one-way street "ethics" aren't worth a thimbleful of chicken dung.  Such self-serving ethics cooked up by self-serving people are part of the problem.

Tar, feathers, and a stout beating with a 2x4 to encourage the others.

I sense a disturbance in the force.  It's possible the devil himself has given up his ways and begun serving ice cream in hades.

I agree with Rooster.

The judge already pontificated about excusing bad behavior by the police as a "mistake".  He's picked his side.

[TechMan]

I sense a disturbance in the force.  It's possible the devil himself has given up his ways and begun serving ice cream in hades.

I agree with Rooster.

The judge already pontificated about excusing bad behavior by the police as a "mistake".  He's picked his side.

Holy *expletive deleted*it, you just caused a rift in the space time continuum.

[Nick1911]

Horsehockey. 

Judge-bo was more than willing to pontificate and comment, excuse behavior by LEOs, a mere mistake...and presumably not want to see those LEOs charged for those actions.  But doing so for Joe Citizen is an "ethical violation?"

Double horsehockey.  Such one-way street "ethics" aren't worth a thimbleful of chicken dung.  Such self-serving ethics cooked up by self-serving people are part of the problem.

Tar, feathers, and a stout beating with a 2x4 to encourage the others.

You know, perhaps we should listen to Chris's perspective on this - being as it is derived from real personal experience being trained and working as a lawyer, and then as a magistrate - instead of offering conjecture of how things "should" work.  We would perhaps learn something from understanding why officials in question answered the way they did; likely a more useful discussion then the suggestion that violence should be initiated against state officials for answering a question "incorrectly".  Maybe they are JBTs, or maybe there are other factors in play here that need to be understood.

[Jamisjockey]

You know, perhaps we should listen to Chris's perspective on this - being as it is derived from real personal experience being trained and working as a lawyer, and then as a magistrate - instead of offering conjecture of how things "should" work.  We would perhaps learn something from understanding why officials in question answered the way they did; likely a more useful discussion then the suggestion that violence should be initiated against state officials for answering a question "incorrectly".  Maybe they are JBTs, or maybe there are other factors in play here that need to be understood.

As told from Hawkmoon's perspective, it sounds like the judge defended the "mistake" of the cops. 

"It was an honest mistake by the police."

That sounds like a contradiction to Chris's opinion.  The Judge is already prejudging the actions of the police is how it sounds to me. 

[RevDisk]

As told from Hawkmoon's perspective, it sounds like the judge defended the "mistake" of the cops.   That sounds like a contradiction to Chris's opinion.  The Judge is already prejudging the actions of the police is how it sounds to me. 

Ehh, I gotta go with Chris on this one. "Mistakes happen" is a fairly neutral saying, regardless of who it is discussing. It's not discussing specific circumstances. Now, if he was saying that if say, Department XYZ kicking in your door at 123 Main St and shooting you John Doe on a wrong address, well, yea, obviously. Cases are and should be judged on their individual merits. SWATting happens, and is well documented. SWAT teams need to be aware there is a very much nontrivial chance they're making a mistake. Politicians and judges need to make sure said teams have procedures that comply with the law and public safety. Politicians, for before they do something. Judges for after.

Tis what I personally would have said. "If you want to head things off at the pass, talk to your local politicians and police brass. Not my job to speak there. I generally only deal with the aftermath, and each case is handled by related guidance from the law and superior courts, plus individual circumstances."

[Hawkmoon]

Gotta wonder...what would you want him to say?  That the cops should have been indicted for Burglary and sentenced to prison?  That the homeowner should have blown the cops away as soon as the door opened?  You were at a public event on the court system.  Judges are prohibited from publicly stating how they would rule on any specific issue, from giving legal advice, from saying who should be charged or what they should be charged with.  Break those rules and you run the very real risk of losing your license and your job.

The judge was put in a no-win situation by your question.  Say the cops should be prosecuted, you just committed an ethical violation.  Say the homeowner could have firedin self-defense, and yoou just committed an ethical viiolation.  Dodging your questions was about the.only option if he wanted to keep his job...

The judge gave us that speech when he opened his remarks. Since this was a case that had already been decided, by his explanation of the rules he was NOT ethically prohibited from commenting on it. Further, my question was not about that case -- my question was about the abuse of SWAT teams and dynamic entries to serve routine search warrants. The judge mentioned the case -- I didn't even know about it, and since he didn't mention the case by name I still don't know what case it was. If he didn't think he could/should comment on it, he didn't have to mention it.

The question was about why judges sign warrants allowing for such abuse. My sense from his response was that he signs them because he can, and because he has enough of a workload that he doesn't care to be bothered asking himself nuisancy questions when a police officer asks him to sign a warrant.

[Hawkmoon]

Ehh, I gotta go with Chris on this one. "Mistakes happen" is a fairly neutral saying, regardless of who it is discussing. It's not discussing specific circumstances. Now, if he was saying that if say, Department XYZ kicking in your door at 123 Main St and shooting you John Doe on a wrong address, well, yea, obviously. Cases are and should be judged on their individual merits. SWATting happens, and is well documented. SWAT teams need to be aware there is a very much nontrivial chance they're making a mistake. Politicians and judges need to make sure said teams have procedures that comply with the law and public safety. Politicians, for before they do something. Judges for after.

This was what I was hoping to hear some passing reference to. To reiterate, every time I tried to ask what might have happened if the innocent people at the wrong address had been armed and fired on the home invaders, the judge interrupted me. Someone else in the room yelled out that the cops wear uniforms. That, of course, proves nothing. I can buy police uniforms over the Internet. The patch may not say "Cleveland, Ohio" on it, but when there's a team of them smashing through your door who has time to read the fine print on the patch?

No, this particular judge clearly thinks abuses by cops are excuseable and, if they make an occasional mistake, "Oh, well."

Mercifully, he mentioned that he is near retirement. Unfortunately, he'll undoubtedly be replaced by someone equally or more liberal.

[AJ Dual]

I think the whole thing is a PRIME example of how I keep harping on "institutional evil" as an emergent property of any system.

Nobody has to cackle with evil by fire-light twirling a mustache and twiddling fingers as they plan nefariously. People choosing the path of least resistance, incompetence, inertia... can all lead to tyranny.

I think this is what most people, especially those on the political Left have as a blind spot. They think that "evil people" have to willfuly plan for it to happen. The framers/founders knew better even back then.

[zxcvbob]

Holy *expletive deleted*, you just caused a rift in the space time continuum.

a colossal negative space wedgie of great power coming right at us at warp speed...