Cops Cuffed Me for Selling My Own Mac • Hacker News Board

Re: Cops Cuffed Me for Selling My Own Mac

#61

Post by bearcobra » Tue, May 17, 2016, 5:16 PM UTC

UVB-76 wrote: post #42

bearcobra wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that detainment without probable cause is kind of the underlying message of "Innocent until proven guilty"

Probable cause is not the relevant test for detaining someone. Police can detain with reasonable suspicion alone, and it is entirely likely they had reasonable suspicion in this case.

Is that true? I've always heard that Terry allows officers to stop you, and ask questions under reasonable suspicion, but that performing pat downs and handcuffing is only allowed if there is a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed.

And I'm still not really convinced that there was reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. Wouldn't that mean that any private party sale negotiated in public is inherently suspicious? I know law enforcement has a lot of leeway here but that would be kind of alarming.

Re: Cops Cuffed Me for Selling My Own Mac

#62

Post by krapp » Tue, May 17, 2016, 5:18 PM UTC

The current title ("Cops Cuffed Me for Selling My Own Mac") makes it seem as if the police were perfectly aware that the suspect was trying to sell his own property and just decided to harass him anyway.

Rather, it appears the cops didn't "cuff him for selling his own Mac", they cuffed him because they believed it wasn't his Mac to sell.

Is it too late to ask for a more neutral title?

Re: Cops Cuffed Me for Selling My Own Mac

#63

Post by mcphage » Tue, May 17, 2016, 5:22 PM UTC

dahart wrote: post #43

mcphage wrote: post #15

> Unfortunately, you’ve got a lot of police misconduct, but I never thought it would be on this level. [...] You’re innocent until proven guilty. I was guilty until proven innocent. He was investigated, nothing was found, and he was released. He wasn't arrested, charged, taken to jail, let alone "guilty until proven innocent".

What a dismissive, unsympathetic response. His computer was temporarily seized & searched without his consent, under immediate threat of force with a weapon. He was prevented from even voicing concern or asking questions through threat of violence, and forced to comply with actions that were not backed by a probable cause or even a reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed. In the US, there are laws again…

> Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean only if it takes longer than 5 minutes to prove. It means you start with the presumption of innocence.

Innocent until proven guilty does not mean police aren't allowed to investigate crimes. And it does not mean they are't allowed to detain subjects.

Re: Cops Cuffed Me for Selling My Own Mac

#64

Post by mcphage » Tue, May 17, 2016, 5:23 PM UTC

bearcobra wrote: post #49

mcphage wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? "Innocent until proven guilty" does not mean that police aren't allowed to perform investigations. That's a ridiculous misuse of the phrase.

Investigation does not equal detainment

And neither equal "guilty until proven innocent".

Re: Cops Cuffed Me for Selling My Own Mac

#65

Post by yompers888 » Tue, May 17, 2016, 5:30 PM UTC

UVB-76 wrote: post #42

bearcobra wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue that detainment without probable cause is kind of the underlying message of "Innocent until proven guilty"

Probable cause is not the relevant test for detaining someone. Police can detain with reasonable suspicion alone, and it is entirely likely they had reasonable suspicion in this case.

From reading the end of the story, it is clear that they did not have reasonable suspicion. They had a responsive seller on Craigslist who was selling the same computer as the supposed buyer had lost. Do you believe owning the same model computer is reasonable suspicion? Does use of Craigslist meet your threshold of reasonable suspicion? Their reasonable suspicion was predicated on the signaling of the person inspecting the laptop, and that signal never came.

Interestingly, there was a recent This American Life with almost this exact same setup, but it was approached cautiously and executed correctly. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/549/a...

Re: Cops Cuffed Me for Selling My Own Mac

#66

Post by LargeWu » Tue, May 17, 2016, 5:32 PM UTC

UVB-76 wrote: post #36

1024core wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> He was investigated, nothing was found, and he was released. Let me guess: you're a white male, aren't you? When these things happen to others but don't happen to you, you can pass it off as "mistakes happen". But when these "mistakes" happen only to a certain section of society, it's a cause for concern. Why was he handcuffed and had a taser on his back?? Why was he treated like a criminal in front of everybody? Y…

> Why was he handcuffed and had a taser on his back?? Why was he treated like a criminal in front of everybody? You don't put handcuffs on someone unless you want to detain them. Because he was suspected of handling stolen goods.

What indication was given that there was reasonable suspicion that the laptop was stolen?

Re: Cops Cuffed Me for Selling My Own Mac

#67

Post by dahart » Tue, May 17, 2016, 5:44 PM UTC

mcphage wrote: post #63

dahart wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What a dismissive, unsympathetic response. His computer was temporarily seized & searched without his consent, under immediate threat of force with a weapon. He was prevented from even voicing concern or asking questions through threat of violence, and forced to comply with actions that were not backed by a probable cause or even a reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed. In the US, there are laws again…

> Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean only if it takes longer than 5 minutes to prove. It means you start with the presumption of innocence. Innocent until proven guilty does not mean police aren't allowed to investigate crimes. And it does not mean they are't allowed to detain subjects.

Your first sentence is correct, you're right there. But it does mean they're not allowed to point weapons at people and threaten violence without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. That's what presumption of innocence means, you treat innocent people like they're innocent. Pulling a taser on someone is not presumption of innocence, that's presumption of guilt.

Police are allowed to investigate, and that's exactly what they failed to do in this case. They should have done some basic investigation before they drew weapons and detained someone. The fact that they didn't investigate, and didn't attempt to find probable cause, is precisely why what they did was illegal.

Your second sentence isn't right. It is not legal in the US to detain people for no reason. Arbitrary stop-and-frisks are illegal, arbitrary traffic stops are illegal, arbitrary searches are illegal. That is precisely what the 4th amendment is saying - you have a right to privacy and a right to not be harassed by police without them having a specific reason. And those things are illegal even when weapons aren't involved, but when police draw weapons without reason, it crosses another line.

I'm really not sure why you're still defending the actions of the police, who clearly did something wrong in this case, and dismissing the experience of a citizen who did absolutely nothing wrong and was threatened. What would you do, and how would you feel, if you were surprised and stormed by police and detained with weapons pointed at you while you were minding your own business? Do you want that to be allowed and normal? We've already decided as a country we don't want that. I don't want it, and I think you don't either. So why are you arguing?

Re: Cops Cuffed Me for Selling My Own Mac

#68

Post by bearcobra » Tue, May 17, 2016, 5:48 PM UTC

mcphage wrote: post #64

bearcobra wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investigation does not equal detainment

And neither equal "guilty until proven innocent".

Isn't it an underlying principle? It's meant to prevent detainment without proof of guilt. Otherwise, people could be held indefinitely for no reason. Now obviously there is a gray area between "hey we can't hold on to anyone until the courts say so" and "I don't like the look of that guy, lets put him in jail." But I don't think it's unfair to argue that handcuffing and pointing a weapon at someone who has not posed a threat and is only under suspicion (unreasonably in my opinion) of stealing a laptop is an over reaction and in conflict with that principle. To me, the level of detainment is not commensurate with what is reasonably required in order to investigate or protect the public interest.

Re: Cops Cuffed Me for Selling My Own Mac

#69

Post by mcphage » Tue, May 17, 2016, 5:55 PM UTC

dahart wrote: post #67

mcphage wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean only if it takes longer than 5 minutes to prove. It means you start with the presumption of innocence. Innocent until proven guilty does not mean police aren't allowed to investigate crimes. And it does not mean they are't allowed to detain subjects.

Your first sentence is correct, you're right there. But it does mean they're not allowed to point weapons at people and threaten violence without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. That's what presumption of innocence means, you treat innocent people like they're innocent. Pulling a taser on someone is not presumption of innocence, that's presumption of guilt. Police are allowed to investiga…

> I'm really not sure why you're still defending the actions of the police, who clearly did something wrong in this case, and dismissing the experience of a citizen who did absolutely nothing wrong and was threatened.

Because I don't think it's clear (or even true) that the police did something wrong in this case. A crime occurred, through their investigation they believed the author to be a suspect, they investigated him and found out he was not.

> What would you do, and how would you feel, if you were surprised and stormed by police and detained with weapons pointed at you while you were minding your own business?

Obviously it would suck—but that doesn't mean that the police aren't allowed to do that.

> Do you want that to be allowed and normal?

Do I want police to be able to investigate crimes? Yes, I do want that.

> So why are you arguing?

Because this article jumps from "this thing happened to me and it sucks", to "this thing should not be allowed to happen".

Re: Cops Cuffed Me for Selling My Own Mac

#70

Post by UVB-76 » Tue, May 17, 2016, 6:09 PM UTC

dahart wrote: post #67

mcphage wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Innocent until proven guilty doesn't mean only if it takes longer than 5 minutes to prove. It means you start with the presumption of innocence. Innocent until proven guilty does not mean police aren't allowed to investigate crimes. And it does not mean they are't allowed to detain subjects.

Your first sentence is correct, you're right there. But it does mean they're not allowed to point weapons at people and threaten violence without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. That's what presumption of innocence means, you treat innocent people like they're innocent. Pulling a taser on someone is not presumption of innocence, that's presumption of guilt. Police are allowed to investiga…

> Police are allowed to investigate, and that's exactly what they failed to do in this case.

This stop was part of their investigation. How else are they supposed to eliminate the seller from their enquiries into the stolen laptop?

A person can be lawfully detained with reasonable suspicion alone, and it sounds like the police had it in this case.

In the process of detaining someone, the police can use reasonable force. The use of Taser was probably not necessary, but it could well have been reasonable.

The article is silent on the robbery in which Derek's laptop was stolen, but if it were aggravated, and the police had reasonable suspicion they were detaining the person responsible for that robbery, then the use of force is all the more reasonable.