Though that's not really the point of those things in the legal code; the point is not for you to stop a cop from doing it at the point of abuse, but for you to have a legal arm to sue the fuck out of them afterwards, or to get a pass out of jail because the cops violated procedure. Yeah, it sucks for you, but it's supposed to be a deterrent to prevent cops from abusing their power in the future.
Now, that obviously that is not super effective for other reasons (QI; courts - an agent of the state - being overly deferential and siding with the state; etc.).
The problem with expecting accountability is that system will fail you at the next step: the courts. You have to survive that process too, where the judge and prosecutor will believe the cop nine times out of ten. As a sitting federal judge once said, “truth and justice have no relevance; it is a court of law.” The law will take the side of the system.
This. The police will lie and the judge will take their word. In my case the police said they can break 2048-bit AES encryption easily and as a backup could unsolder the chips (they didn't say which chips) and put them in another device to get the data. The judge believed it all. The police had no qualifications in computer science or encryption.
This is a bit insane. You mention in another comment you spent 8 years in jail because you didn't give your password. Does a judge not connect the two things and say "okay, well why haven't you done that then?" Seems like if they could (I know they can't) then they would be wasting everyone's time.
The law is a bit complicated. I did give up my password when they threatened my wife. The judge ruled they obtained my password by coercion so they weren't permitted to use it. But then they came forward and said they would have eventually cracked my encryption anyway as they can crack 2048-bit AES easily, and even if they couldn't have cracked the encryption they would have unsoldered the chips (which chips?) and put them in another device and got access that way. The judge said in that case you can use the password you got through coercion because you would have got in anyway. That is allowed by the law, in the USA at least.
I assume that your lawsuit is that they couldn't have actually done that? Honestly sounds like a shitty judge. That's fucked up (even if you did something fucked up).
>> courts - an agent of the state - being overly deferential and siding with the state
I am highly cynical about this methodology but it DOES work for the group, even if it is inefficent at it (and progressively getting more inefficient). Over the long run cops learn that they can't do X or Y, except for a few "new" abuses (e.g. civil asset forfeiture) we are probably better off than we were 50 or 60 years ago. At some point if we get too inefficient about it (which we may have already crossed), though, the equilibrium change will move towards regression since it is a cat-and-mouse game to some degree; cops are clever and talk to each other to strategize against protections, too.
You're being unnecessarily negative here. You're claiming that the system is broken wherever it could possibly be broken as evidenced by...your own paranoia.
If you want to suggest an alternative, you have a captive audience including myself. Otherwise you're just fearmongering to fearmonger.
You just blatantly ignored years and years of news in all media and occasionally even here.
Usually I'm against posts making claims without adding a link, but please, this stuff has been all over sooooo many times, and singling out a few random examples doesn't do it justice.
As for individual examples, I only follow major news sources and I see posts about such cases several times every single week, have been seeing it for years. I would have to intentionally ignore the news to not see them all. I don't even want to see them since I can't do anything about it anyway and since I already read more than enough by now so making my day worse has no benefit any more if I read <yet another piece. But I can't even avoid it. So I don't understand at all where you are coming from claiming
> You're being unnecessarily negative here.
All the evidence points to it being realism and not. Sometimes it's reality that is "being negative".
>not super effective for other reasons (QI; courts - an agent of the state - being overly deferential and siding with the state; etc.).
and
>The problem with expecting accountability is that system will fail you at the next step: the courts. You have to survive that process too, where the judge and prosecutor will believe the cop nine times out of ten. As a sitting federal judge once said, “truth and justice have no relevance; it is a court of law.” The law will take the side of the system.
The claims here are that cop malfeasance against US citizens will go unpunished because courts will pardon the cop under any circumstances, specifically because the "judge and prosecutor" will pardon the cop.
However, judges/prosecutors don't actually find citizens guilty - juries do. Furthermore, the defendant has a direct stake in how the jury is selected via their own attorney during voir dire. Therefore, the claim that judges/prosecutors will specifically pardon the cop doesn't hold water.
Furthermore, the claim that intimidation are coercion are viable strategies for the cops is bold in the face of bodycams during arrest and security cams during interrogation. Those two combined eliminate 99% of a cop's ability to harass or harm a suspect and not face repercussions.
So, the individual made two claims that don't stand up to scrutiny and did not offer an alternative that would solve their claims.
As for your claims of a preponderance of evidence, I've seen only anecdotal evidence over the past few years. The most evidence I've seen of system violence are the BLM riots and the crime statistics showing that African-Americans commit 52% of murders in the US[0].
file under "other" reasons. To be sure, the governments don't want to keep getting sued so they start putting in policies to mitigate damage, but it is a source of inefficiency. It's also too easy for state and locals to float bonds and go into debt to cover these things, push the payoff problem to a future generation of voters/future generation of immigrants into the city. If there were a real hammer up against their heads (say, if municipal bonds and state bonds were outlawed), the efficiency would go up.
Getting sued is just seen as a cost of business for the government. Having sued and won against the government I have seen that 99% of the time they do not change policy to avoid getting sued again. I'm currently suing the government for violating the Constitution in a case they already lost a couple of years ago and didn't fix the problem and just kept committing the violations.
Now, that obviously that is not super effective for other reasons (QI; courts - an agent of the state - being overly deferential and siding with the state; etc.).