Pre-Crime: Man Arrested And Beaten For Being In "Computer Predicted Crime Hot Spot"

a reply to: Taupin Desciple

Yes for the most part the individual persons that make up what we call law enforcement are not bad.

They are sorta like the rest of us except when faced with a decision to violate a persons rights or quit they generally keep their job and then just refer to the majority of their job that is above board then they push the incident to the far reaches of their minds in order to keep functioning in a system that allows for a certain amount of injustice.

The moment they all stand up and draw the legal line of things they are comfortable with and that which we call injustice then we will all be on our own to protect ourselves. That would be fine by me.

Statistical analysis should not be used as justifiable evidence to do searches or suspect an individual of a crime because they are nowhere near 100% accurate. That parking spot could have simply had a 10% higher crime rate than other areas. This is not proof of guilt, and it does not mean that 100% of the people that park there are criminals.

Apparently, police are using statistics to suspect people of crimes more and more, as that is also what they are doing when they see someone look at their lap and assume they are a druggie.

In the end, parking in a certain spot should not be justifiable evidence to suspect an individual of a crime.

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: Taupin Desciple



If the Cops thought he was in that car park as a 'John'..surely it would have been a better idea to have simply watched him,

I thought the same thing. Just park directly in front of him and........stare at him. Chances are pretty good that the kid would have went elsewhere pretty soon, and it probably wouldn't have been to pick up his "niece".

No, it was public land, and like this guy in the OP..i had a perfect right to be there, without offering any explanation as to why.

Sometimes no explanation is needed. If someone is in a public place that is known to have illegal activity on it, with police reports to prove it, that simple act of being there should be enough to warrant the reasonable suspicion needed to question and search people. If you can't see that line of reasoning then, by all means, frequent high crime areas where no police presence is so you can enjoy your constitutional rights to............whatever.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

Well there goes our freedom! He was in the wrong place at the wrong time so he must of deserved it! Welcome to the future!

What will people do about this. . . . ABSOLUTLY NOTHING LOL! As usual!

What is it YOU are going to do about it? I'd assume something, considering your comment.

a reply to: Taupin Desciple

by all means, frequent high crime areas where no police presence is so you can enjoy your constitutional rights to............whatever.

Going running and training is what you're looking for..remember?

Or are you so bent up out of shape, you want to accuse me of being in the place i mention for illicit reasons too?

Blimey, you can't help yourself can you...i'll say again, it's a bloody good job you're a cab driver and not a cop.

a reply to: WP4YT

Good on you BUT that croneyism / nepotism stuff has gotta stop too.

a reply to: Taupin Desciple

Only this didn't result in a stop and question then release when no crime was found situation. It resulted in some very questionable criminal charges, a Tazing, pepper spraying and a beating.

Even if this kid was up to no good... the abuse is an issue.

The fact that they found nothing makes it exponentially worse.

In fact I am a bit surprised that the gun advocacy crowd has not yet chimed in to discuss the fact that this kid had a legal weapon and that this fact may have contributed to his woes.

a reply to: Taupin Desciple

If someone is in a public place that is known to have illegal activity on it, with police reports to prove it, that simple act of being there should be enough to warrant the reasonable suspicion needed to question and search people

No. Not at all.

It only gives cause to watch further.

I do not lose my rights because I hang with the wrong crowd or park in the wrong spot.

Any good cop knows that and would take the info and start to form a profile on suspect but no right to harass or search yet.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

Then you are no better than the officers if you feel it is justified to violently assault a private citizen due to the answers he may have provided you while he was NOT in the commission of a crime.

Most cops wouldn't do that. And really, I just said that because I see no justification whatsoever to tell a grown man in a uniform something that any reasonable adult would see is a lie. It goes to show the mindset of the kid who said it, and I for one don't assault the feeble minded among us.

Bottom line is this: Predictive policing software is redundant. Stopping crimes from happening before they happen......proactive policing, will produce less victims of crime. If that means ignoring what has become a redundant piece of 250 year old parchment, them so be it.

Call me an advocate for the rights of victims at the expense of a few rights that most people either don't understand or abuse anyway.

originally posted by: Taupin Desciple

And you know this how? Because they didn't catch him red-handed?

Yes, precisely. You cannot arrest someone for a crime that you can't prove happened. Probable cause and all, first you need a crime to suspect a person of, and then you need some sort of evidence they've done something related to that crime.

Picking a random person and then beating them just because they're in a high crime area is not how the law says we go about things.

originally posted by: Taupin Desciple
Call me an advocate for the rights of victims at the expense of a few rights that most people either don't understand or abuse anyway.

I would rather call you an advocate for tyranny.

How many innocent people do you detain, question, and lock up in order to make sure you get the bad guy?

It's interesting that you reject the constitution and freedom, because you clearly want safety above all. The problem is that safety means restraint. Do you know how to make the safest society possible? Put each of us in a small cell that has no contact with anyone else. Freedom requires risk.

originally posted by: Taupin Desciple

Most cops wouldn't do that.

And you know this, how?

And really, I just said that because I see no justification whatsoever to tell a grown man in a uniform something that any reasonable adult would see is a lie.

Whether someone thinks it is a lie or not is irrelevant, that is not how the law works.

Bottom line is this: Predictive policing software is redundant. Stopping crimes from happening before they happen......proactive policing, will produce less victims of crime. If that means ignoring what has become a redundant piece of 250 year old parchment, them so be it.

You are all over the place. The instance in the Original Post was not 'proactive policing', it was felony assault based on faulty supposition. The victim was not being detained under suspicion of having committed a crime.

Call me an advocate for the rights of victims at the expense of a few rights that most people either don't understand or abuse anyway.

Your skewed personal perception is not the template for the determination as to what others understand or not.

a reply to: Hefficide

I'd be suing the hell out of these idiot cops, that was the stupidest arrest ever made.

originally posted by: Beach Bum
a reply to: Hefficide

I'd be suing the hell out of these idiot cops, that was the stupidest arrest ever made.

Fair for the innocent guy, but really this in itself is an issue that should concern the Public...it's their tax money that is being frittered away on law suits against bad cops.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
This could be the best thing to ever happen to this kid. I smell a multi-million dollar lawsuit.

There should be many, many more of these lawsuits a,and then, maybe, when local governments get tired of flipping these bills, or should I say insurance companies start refusing coverage for this crap cuz it becomes too expensive, city officials might start taking out the trash!

This behavior isn't becoming less prevalent, it's spreading. Are the police intentionally trying to get the masses to turn against them? This does no good for anyone.

Most cops wouldn't do that.

And you know this, how?

By living in the real world on the ground level. I've lost count of the interactions I've seen with police and citizens, and not once have I seen a cop beating one. Not to say it doesn't happen, but I've never seen it. What else can I base my opinion on? Am I going to ignore what I've seen in favor of popular opinion? Doubtful. I'm not a sheep.

And really, I just said that because I see no justification whatsoever to tell a grown man in a uniform something that any reasonable adult would see is a lie.

Whether someone thinks it is a lie or not is irrelevant, that is not how the law works.

Um.......it kind of is. Perjury is legal speak for lying, and it can land you jail. And common sense is used to determine a lie without proof. Do we even remember what common sense is in society anymore, or have we lost sight of that as well in favor of our constitutional rights? (Something that politicians wrote up BTW)

Bottom line is this: Predictive policing software is redundant. Stopping crimes from happening before they happen......proactive policing, will produce less victims of crime. If that means ignoring what has become a redundant piece of 250 year old parchment, them so be it.

You are all over the place. The instance in the Original Post was not 'proactive policing', it was felony assault based on faulty supposition. The victim was not being detained under suspicion of having committed a crime.

Not really, I'm standing firm. The problem stated in the OP was predictive policing. You are correct. Being used in the context that it was, is redundant, it's stupid and it is not what those algorithms were initially intended for. I brought up proactive policing so people could see the difference. IF IT WERE USED MORE, we would have less crime. Proactive policing is predictive policing without the software. Software designed by people experienced in creating algorithms and statistical analyses......... not less victims.

Call me an advocate for the rights of victims at the expense of a few rights that most people either don't understand or abuse anyway.

Your skewed personal perception is not the template for the determination as to what others understand or not.

Ditto. Just because your perception of this issue and the subsequent opinion you have of it is based on the constitution......that doesn't make your opinion any less skewed than mine. In other words, not living by the constitution makes me less American? I would rather have my opinions based on real life, than a constitution that has to be amended time and time again. I know that no system is perfect, but really, how many times do you have to tweak something in order for it to be acceptable by a big enough majority to where you don't have to anymore? When is it ever going to be good enough? Is our country really going to be in a perpetual state of flux? Is that freedom? No it's indecision, and I can't base my life on that.

It was nice trading licks with you, but something tells me that neither of us are going to change the others' mind anytime in the near future. I respect your opinion as I hope you do mine, and maybe we can learn a little something from the other side of the fence today.

originally posted by: Taupin Desciple

By living in the real world on the ground level.

Personal anecdotes are not evidence.

Um.......it kind of is. Perjury is legal speak for lying...

Perjury occurs when you are giving sworn testimony, not when a member of law enforcement is asking you questions.

Not really, I'm standing firm. The problem stated in the OP was predictive policing.

What the officers did by beating him was not predictive policing.

Ditto. Just because your perception of this issue and the subsequent opinion you have of it is based on the constitution......that doesn't make your opinion any less skewed than mine.

I am not using my opinion, I am using the law and facts.

The victim was not being detained for committing a crime, the officers did not operate within the parameters of the Constitution, the law was not observed. These are facts and not my opinion. If you think otherwise present your evidence.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Taupin Desciple

Only this didn't result in a stop and question then release when no crime was found situation. It resulted in some very questionable criminal charges, a Tazing, pepper spraying and a beating.

Even if this kid was up to no good... the abuse is an issue.

The fact that they found nothing makes it exponentially worse.

In fact I am a bit surprised that the gun advocacy crowd has not yet chimed in to discuss the fact that this kid had a legal weapon and that this fact may have contributed to his woes.

I agree 100%....the abuse is an issue. Based only from what I read in the article, that cop has no business being one. He did a VERY bad job that, again, was based on something that should not have been used for that purpose.

And yes, they found nothing........not even the niece I'll bet.

And the gun? I didn't read in the article where the kid told the cop upfront that he had one. Legal or not, this is meed-to-know information for police officers. Without that information, if they find one, legal or not, they can only assume that you're hiding that fact for a reason. People can scream about rights all they want, during that situation as it was being played out in real time, the officers were thinking about their own safety, especially after they found the gun.

Again, common sense and mutual respect need to be practiced in situations like this, otherwise, you have the kind of outcome that we had. Not a good one to say the least.

a reply to: Taupin Desciple

What gun???

a reply to: Taupin Desciple

From the article:

He grew agitated, objected to any searches and tried to prevent police from accessing his pocket, where a fully loaded gun magazine was eventually found, police said in a statement. - See more at: www.unionleader.com...

I know NOTHING about guns, but isn't a "fully loaded gun magazine" like a box of ammo?