Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account


Put down the sparkling water or we'll shoot!


Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.

  • You cannot reply to this topic
47 replies to this topic

#21 SiCrane   Moderators   -  Reputation: 9550

Posted 01 July 2013 - 12:49 PM

Well, if you want more details you can throw "Elizabeth Daly" into your favorite search engine for news sites. From this article it seems that the first person to approach was actually the woman. This article contains the interesting detail that the women were on edge after having just attended a "Take Back the Night" vigil where they listened to the stories of several sexual assault victims before hand.

Sponsor:

#22 tstrimple   Prime Members   -  Reputation: 1718

Posted 01 July 2013 - 12:56 PM

Well, if you want more details you can throw "Elizabeth Daly" into your favorite search engine for news sites. From this article it seems that the first person to approach was actually the woman. This article contains the interesting detail that the women were on edge after having just attended a "Take Back the Night" vigil where they listened to the stories of several sexual assault victims before hand.

 

Interesting. I've seen the video linked before, but I didn't realize is was the same ABC idiots as in this story.

 

 

Something tells me his charges won't be dropped...



#23 Bregma   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4980

Posted 01 July 2013 - 12:57 PM

The only reason you would draw an anti-personnel weapon such as those carried by the police or gangsters is that you are threatening to kill someone.  As in impose the death penalty.  If you do not intend to invoke the death penalty for, say, disobeying an order then there isn't much threat and there isn't any point to drawing the weapon... after all, it could go off accidentally and kill someone.

 

So, the question is, why do people think the death penalty is appropriate for such a situation?  Perhaps it's time for those we appoint to administer order to reconsider their values.


Stephen M. Webb
Professional Free Software Developer

#24 samoth   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4683

Posted 01 July 2013 - 01:05 PM

Well, ATF = looks more like pimp than cop is a fair assumption. Whether or not there was maybe a woman also is allegoric. The victim of the assault may very well not have seen the woman.

 

Also, being "approached in a law-enforcement manner" by unknown people when you have not done anything wrong is a very strong indicator of being assaulted. It doesn't matter who was running or not, it's the same thing to the victim.

 

This is even more true insofar as selling the alleged crime was not in any way plausible to her.

 

Not only had she not done anything wrong, but more: The alleged "beer" (water) may be sold freely in Virginia without special regulations (unless beer in Virginia has more than 14% of alcohol?). Further, the young woman, being 20 years of age is indistinguishable from a 21 year old without having controlled her ID. This is the shopkeeper's duty, and it's normally done in a most pedantic manner. Heck, last time I've been in The Land of The Free, I was 38 years old and they still asked for an ID so I could buy beer.

 

But even assuming definite knowledge that said woman was under age, and if she was really carrying beer, there was no reason to approach (or threaten, or arrest) her, as the state of Virginia explicitly allows underage people to buy, possess (and consume) alcohol

a) as a guest in a private residence

b) for delivery, by order of their parents or guardians.

 

Those ATF hounds had no way of knowing whether the woman was or wasn't 21, and they had no way of knowing whether her parents had sent her to buy alcohol -- even under the assumption that the water was really beer. This means that no matter what the agents assumed or believed or wished for, the benefit of doubt applies.

 

There was absolutely no justification for even talking to her (other than maybe wishing her a good day).

 

Insofar, the entire "operation" was just bullshit, and indeed an assault on an innocent person who had every right to believe that she was being robbed, mugged, raped, and cut to pieces in a dark cellar. No more and no less.



#25 jms bc   Members   -  Reputation: 421

Posted 01 July 2013 - 01:16 PM


The lack of critical thinking in this thread is frankly shocking from a group of people who are apparently interested in a field where critical thinking is a key skill.

 

You're right in that most people here (including me) are filling in the blanks with our expectations of the cops, especially the kind you find in these specialized enforcement agencies (often they have been run out of conventional police departments). I am content with the assumptions that paint the cops in a bad light, because they are consistent with my direct experience. I am also content with assuming much about the ~20 year old sorority girls, though I could probably use a refresher course...


The Four Horsemen of Happiness have left.


#26 phantom   Moderators   -  Reputation: 7065

Posted 01 July 2013 - 01:31 PM

Yeah, you know what... clearly this thread is nothing more than a 'police are bad and do things for bad reasons' jerk off so I'm out...

I'm never moving to the USA, you guys have SERIOUS social issues over there that I don't want to touch with someone elses 80ft barge poll...

#27 FLeBlanc   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3101

Posted 01 July 2013 - 01:36 PM

Yeah, you know what... clearly this thread is nothing more than a 'police are bad and do things for bad reasons' jerk off so I'm out...

I'm never moving to the USA, you guys have SERIOUS social issues over there that I don't want to touch with someone elses 80ft barge poll...

 

This isn't really the case. We have LEO agencies that do the right thing in the vast majority of cases, but nobody gives two shits for cops that do the right thing so it never gets reported. And we have a segment of society that can be summed up by the NWA lyrics of the song "Fuck The Police." In this age of media sensationalism, that leads to pretty much one thing: threads like this. The vast majority of people aren't that polarized.



#28 samoth   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4683

Posted 01 July 2013 - 01:58 PM

Yeah, you know what... clearly this thread is nothing more than a 'police are bad and do things for bad reasons' jerk off so I'm out...

 

Seriously now? It was you who complained about lack of critical thinking, remember. So I've presented you with something that's in my opinion "critical enough" insofar as critical thinking is exactly what demonstrably lacked with the police in this case.

 

Given the laws of the state they live in (which you may assume the police should know!) they had no base to assume that what the woman was doing was wrong or against the law in any way. In a state which pretends being a constitutional state, people are innocent until there is proof (or at least a stong appearance) of guilt.

To the best of their knowledge and to all appearances, without any evidence or appearance of a felony, all this woman did was arguably and plausibly in perfect conformance with the law (coming out of a shop an going to her car).

 

Approaching and stopping the woman was therefore indiscriminate harrassment.

 

So now that I've given you a good argument that the "police screwed up" opinion is not at all unfounded, you just turn around and say "I'm out".



#29 Prinz Eugn   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3578

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:07 PM

I have a hard time blaming either side. Jumpy girls panic when approached by an unusual number of police officers, police officers take unexpected panic as a sign that something is more wrong than they thought, and since in their line of work they're used to dealing with evasive and violent people, they act appropriately for those people. 

 

But who knows, maybe the Virginia Alcohol Beverage Control (it's not the ATF, per the articles) is institutionally messed up.

 


I'm never moving to the USA, you guys have SERIOUS social issues over there that I don't want to touch with someone elses 80ft barge poll...

 

Imagine the ire if you were an American saying that about literally any other place ever. It's a big, complicated place all up in here, just like everywhere else.


-Mark the Artist

Digital Art and Technical Design
Developer Journal


#30 tstrimple   Prime Members   -  Reputation: 1718

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:10 PM

Yeah, you know what... clearly this thread is nothing more than a 'police are bad and do things for bad reasons' jerk off so I'm out...

I'm never moving to the USA, you guys have SERIOUS social issues over there that I don't want to touch with someone elses 80ft barge poll...

 

Every place has it's own set of issues. These things make the news, but the vast majority of people who never have serious interactions with the police are clearly not newsworthy. Considering the size and population of the US, of course it's going to look like everything is fucked up from a news perspective. 



#31 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4688

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:19 PM

 

Well, if you want more details you can throw "Elizabeth Daly" into your favorite search engine for news sites. From this article it seems that the first person to approach was actually the woman. This article contains the interesting detail that the women were on edge after having just attended a "Take Back the Night" vigil where they listened to the stories of several sexual assault victims before hand.

 

Interesting. I've seen the video linked before, but I didn't realize is was the same ABC idiots as in this story.

 

 

Something tells me his charges won't be dropped...

 

 

WTF did I just watch? Jesus.


Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

#32 Alpha_ProgDes   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4688

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:21 PM

So Phantom is right. We don't know what happened and he's brought some very good points. I haven't come across an article that laid out a clear timeline. But it seems that the AG in the case agreed that the girl's recount of what happened was factually correct. So, hopefully more facts are laid out.


Beginner in Game Development? Read here.
 
Super Mario Bros clone tutorial written in XNA 4.0 [MonoGame, ANX, and MonoXNA] by Scott Haley
 
If you have found any of the posts helpful, please show your appreciation by clicking the up arrow on those posts Posted Image
 
Spoiler

#33 SiCrane   Moderators   -  Reputation: 9550

Posted 01 July 2013 - 02:49 PM

The victim of the assault may very well not have seen the woman.

Actually, if you read other sources such as the first one I posted earlier, the woman seems to be the one to approach Daly first.

Another interesting point I saw is in a blog entry that someone posted (that I can't find again) that states that all the publicly available details indicate that Daly followed the exact procedure that law enforcement personnel recommend when a woman is confronted by a stranger in order to avoid assault.

#34 samoth   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4683

Posted 01 July 2013 - 05:16 PM

 

The victim of the assault may very well not have seen the woman.

Actually, if you read other sources such as the first one I posted earlier, the woman seems to be the one to approach Daly first.

Another interesting point I saw is in a blog entry that someone posted (that I can't find again) that states that all the publicly available details indicate that Daly followed the exact procedure that law enforcement personnel recommend when a woman is confronted by a stranger in order to avoid assault.

 

 

The second point very strongly suggests that she felt being about to be assaulted, do you not think so? Why would she apply anti-assault techniques otherwise? Surely you're not doing this if you are in your comfort zone.

 

I read that other source, but it's irrelevant who approached the young woman first. Not only is it conceivable (rare, unlikely, but conceivable) that a woman assists a man in a violent crime or even commits one herself. Although upwards of 90% of violent crimes are done by men, this still leaves a large enough share in which women are the felons, and in not few of these cases, women assist their spouse. A woman approaching and talking to you (distracting the target?) while from the corner of your eyes, 3 or 4 men are moving in the dark surely doesn't help making the situation more relaxed.

 

But more importantly, the entire act of approaching the young woman was not justified as I've pointed out earlier. Since she may legally buy and possess alcohol given instructions by her parents even as a minor (and this is something the police cannot know without having asked the parents, and they obviously cannot have asked when pressing hard a "random" young woman in the street of whom they do not even know the name), there is no base for suspecting a felony in the first place.

 

It is thus equally irrelevant whether the woman was below 21 years of age, and even assuming she had bought alcohol (which was very evidently not the case, unless police is entirely dyslectic or so blind they can't decipher the 5'' tall name of a well-known water brand), there is no indication of a felony, no proof of guilt, and not even an appearance.

 

If you're caught with bloody hands and a knife in your hands bent over a dead body, this does not prove that you murdered that person. However, there is undeniably a strong appearance which comes close to circumstantial evidence, so this would warrant an arrest (including drawing and pointing a gun), but it would as such not justify shooting the person, nor would (should) it lead to a conviction per se.

 

On the other hand, if your only "verdict" is coming out of a shop with a few bottles of water under your arm, this is an entirely different situation. Even if they're bottles of beer (which they weren't). Maybe you're a bit young, you could be 20 or 22. OK, but so what, there's the delivery-for-parants law in Virginia, and whoever thinks you might be too young really doesn't know (also, if you bought alcohol, it is reasonable to expect that the shopkeeper verified your ID). All in all, this doesn't warrant anything. The appearance and circumstantial evidence is "normal".

 

You are thus by definition innocent, and you have the right to be treated as such. And that is really all that matters.

 

You have the right to go where you want, the right to remain undisturbed. Nobody shall stop you, or even point a gun at you.



#35 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 01 July 2013 - 05:55 PM

But more importantly, the entire act of approaching the young woman was not justified as I've pointed out earlier.

Police are allowed to approach people and ask them questions. You are likewise allowed to not answer them. If you flee from a police officer who is trying to ask you questions you can be charged with obstruction.

It was just a shitty situation where everybody saw every action in it's worst possible light and made the legal decisions that happened to escalate the situation the most from what I've read.

#36 Prinz Eugn   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 3578

Posted 01 July 2013 - 06:15 PM

Samoth...

 

http://www.virginiarules.org/virginia-rules/alcohol-tobacco

 

So... I don't know where you read about the parental puchase thing, but the government of Virginia seems to disagree.

 

http://www.aclu.org/drug-law-reform-immigrants-rights-racial-justice/know-your-rights-what-do-if-you

 

The police can stop people and ask questions, there's nothing at all unusual about that (and she would have the right to refuse to answer them). Reasonable suspicion is a pretty well-documented idea. Age is difficult to tell, so if they just gave everyone who looked around 20-ish a pass, they wouldn't be enforcing the law, which is the raison d'etre for law enforcement. If police didn't stop possible crimes in progress just because there was some nominal chance that they weren't actually crimes they wouldn't really be doing their jobs. "I guess he knows the owner, who I guess wanted his stereo ripped from his car dashboard at 3am". 

 

If they just arrested her the second they saw her, that would be a problem, but they didn't. It was dark and she was probably rushing, or it could have been in a bag or any number of million reasons they couldn't tell it was just water. I sure can't recognize the brand, and it looks like it could be wine coolers or some other alcohol (but not really beer). Plus, since she was jumpy from all the sexual assault information she got, she might have been acting suspiciously (ie, rushing to her car faster than normal for a regular grocery stop, looking around a lot.)

 


It was just a shitty situation where everybody saw every action in it's worst possible light and made the legal decisions that happened to escalate the situation the most from what I've read.

 

Exactly.


-Mark the Artist

Digital Art and Technical Design
Developer Journal


#37 SiCrane   Moderators   -  Reputation: 9550

Posted 01 July 2013 - 06:23 PM

I read that other source, but it's irrelevant who approached the young woman first.

a) It's hard to take your arguments seriously if you admit to saying things you know not to be true as the basis for those arguments. Lying to present a point often has the effect of making your side look desperate and irrational. b) It's actually possible to do things like have an open mind, withhold judgement or consider both sides of an argument. Just because someone makes a post in a thread doesn't mean that they've automatically taken sides on an issue. Just because someone identifies something you've said as incorrect doesn't mean that everything they've said is meant as a disagreement. Critical thinking skills, remember? You seem to think that I meant following anti-assault guidelines as an argument against your point of view when I was merely pointing out an interesting thing that someone else said somewhere else. You'd come across as much more reasonable and rational if you didn't have this knee jerk reaction to lash out.

#38 samoth   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 4683

Posted 02 July 2013 - 03:43 AM

Police are allowed to approach people and ask them questions. You are likewise allowed to not answer them. If you flee from a police officer who is trying to ask you questions you can be charged with obstruction.

Yes, but you are also perfectly allowed to flee from or resist "police" that isn't recognizable as such and who tries to "stop" you (rob you) under a false premise. If three guys who look like gang members knock at your door and shout "Police! Open!", do you open the door, or do you get your shotgun out of the closet? If a hobo in the subway who "works for the NSA" wants to confiscate your laptop because you are an alleged spy, do you give him your laptop?

 

Complying with "police" presumes plausibility. If someone who doesn't look like police comes at you in a dark street for an alleged crime that you know you didn't commit, they probably are not police, and it's probably a good idea to either flee or tazer them.
 

So... I don't know where you read about the parental puchase thing, but the government of Virginia seems to disagree.

The NIH says so: ""making a delivery of alcoholic beverages by order of his parent". To me this reads like you're allowed to carry alcohol in Virginia if your parents told you to go and get some, no matter how old you are.

Now, that girl might have bought alcohol without her parents' knowlegde, or she might have been carrying a written permit that she had shown to the shopkeeper, or the shopkeeper might just sell her alcohol because she comes twice per week on her parents' order.

 

We cannot know this, and neither could the police that evening (well, we do know now, because charges were dropped, so she demonstrably had nothing illegal, including alcohol, on her).

 


Reasonable suspicion is a pretty well-documented idea.

That's exactly what I was saying earlier. But "reasonable" is the important detail.

If gunshots and cries are being heard and you leave a bank wearing a black mask a moment later, it is reasonable to suspect that you're committing a crime. In this situation, it is even justified to point a gun at you. Most people coming out of banks do not wear black masks, and usually there are no gunshots and cries.

If a group of teenagers or "youngish people" is sitting at the beach with no "obviously adult" people around and they're being loud, uninhibited, and drinking alcohol, it is reasonable to suspect that they might be under age and might not have their parents' permission, so it's justifiable to ask for an ID to verify their age.

 

If you're a mean looking guy with a beard and wearing dark sunglasses, and the child next to you is crying "Help me, help me", it is reasonable to stop your car under the assumption of kidnapping (but it's not justifiable to shoot you down, the child might be doing a prank).

If the same child is just sitting next to you or maybe asking "Daddy, can we have some icecream?" it is not reasonable to stop your car, even if you have a beard and wear sunglasses, or if you look like Denny Trejo.

 

If you come out of a shop, the reasonable assumption is that whatever you bought in that shop is legitimate. Millions of people come out of shops every day, and most of them bought legal things legitimately.

 

And it is not only reasonable, the presumption of innocence is the base of the entire legal system. If you turn the presumption of innocence into a presumption of guilt, the legal system becomes a mockery.

 

Police like to see themselves as "the law" (or above the law) and so often ignore this petty detail. Alas, they are not "the law" and they do not make "the law", they are to serve it. If you come out of a shop and there's nothing else to it (no gunshots, no blood, no broken glass, no alarm, no people running for their lives), it's nobody's fucking business who you are, how old you are, or what you're carrying. The assumption is first and foremost that you're innocent.

 


they wouldn't be enforcing the law, which is the raison d'etre for law enforcement

If your law enforcement has "SS" tattooed on their arms in Arian runes, yes. Otherwise no. Most people, police included, forget what the police is about and what their duty is. Their duty is to serve and protect the citizens (US police even have this written on their badges). Yes, this includes making sure that people follow the law. After all, the law, too, is to serve the people.

However, their duty is not to harrass and oppress people, nor to suspect and "criminalize" people when according to the situation, it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that they're not doing anything wrong.

 


It's hard to take your arguments seriously if you admit to saying things you know not to be true as the basis for those arguments. Lying to present a point often has the effect of making your side look desperate and irrational

How is it lying or admitting to know points are not true if I say I've read that other article? The article states that the police spokesman (Carol Whateverhername) said the female officer was the first to approach the girl. Where is a truth in this? This is the spokeman's (spokewoman's -- does that exist in English?) story, and of course according to her the police did everything right, what else. You certainly don't expect the police spokesmen to make a press statement like "Yeah, sorry, our guys were a bit rough when they gangbanged her".

The female officer might as well not have been the first to approach the girl, and the girl might not have seen her at all, but only men rushing at her. She may have been pressed into staying quiet on the details on the premise that otherwise some cocaine was "found" in her car, but charges would be dropped if she played along. We simply don't know.

All we know is that the girl was arrested and released with charges dropped, which is a strong indication that she was entirely innocent and the cops couldn't charge her with anything even after trying hard to find something (questioning and searching her, and presumably searching the car too).

 

But my point is that it's irrelevant what Carol the Spokesman said or even what actually happened during this manueuver, since the entire manueuver was unjustified from the beginning.

 

You seem to think that I meant following anti-assault guidelines as an argument against your point of view when I was merely pointing out an interesting thing that someone else said somewhere else.

Not at all, I interpreted this as something you stated, which indeed showed rather agreement from your sie than disagreement. Why on earth would you use something that is obviously an argument for the girl feeling ambushed/assaulted if your opinion was the opposite?

I may come over as a bit "excentric" sometimes, but hey, please don't take me for a complete fool smile.png


Edited by samoth, 02 July 2013 - 03:48 AM.


#39 way2lazy2care   Members   -  Reputation: 782

Posted 02 July 2013 - 06:30 AM

Yes, but you are also perfectly allowed to flee from or resist "police" that isn't recognizable as such and who tries to "stop" you (rob you) under a false premise. If three guys who look like gang members knock at your door and shout "Police! Open!", do you open the door, or do you get your shotgun out of the closet? If a hobo in the subway who "works for the NSA" wants to confiscate your laptop because you are an alleged spy, do you give him your laptop?

 

 

You are making a lot of assumptions about the situation here. Your two fictional situations aren't even remotely the same as an officer showing their badge and detaining you for questioning, which police officers are allowed to do.

 

IANAL, but I would strongly advise anybody reading this not to take this advice. If a police officer identifies themselves and asks you to stop, if you flee you are breaking the law.



#40 Bacterius   Crossbones+   -  Reputation: 8512

Posted 02 July 2013 - 07:10 AM


If a police officer identifies themselves and asks you to stop, if you flee you are breaking the law.

 

I don't know dude, if someone walked up to my car and started breaking the windows and pulling out their handgun, I think I'd get the hell away even if they could produce a badge. Screw the law, I'd rather stay alive and defend my case rather than end up a statistic shot down by an overzealous cop (let's face it - it does happen).

 

If the situation really happened as described it was an unacceptable show of force and I don't blame the girl for getting the hell away. I mean, six people, in civilian clothing, with handheld guns and other weapons, walking towards you, at night? For all you know they are out there to steal your car and mug you, or worse. At least the first thought to my mind would not be "hey, those are police officers. I'm going to wait till they get here and greet them warmly". Even the most well-meaning person will not respond well to being threatened or put in an ambiguous situation where they feel there is a chance they may be in danger.

 

Again, as said by someone in this thread (did not read it all), the police exists to protect citizens against danger and enforce order on some level. It is not there to terrorize people and beat them into submission. I wouldn't be surprised if a few policemen found their line of work just so they could fulfill their perverted fantasies of domination by abusing the power society has entrusted to them.

 

I think the question here, is what are we arguing about? It's obvious the official report is going to be partly distorted and manipulated. All news is. But somehow I don't think this would have made the headlines if those police officers actually walked over to that girl, identified themselves in a civilized manner and asked to see her purchase. That is perfectly routine and I don't think anyone would fundamentally object to complying unless the cop was being very suspicious. It's clear something much different happened this time, and given that charges were dropped I'm inclined to think the college students didn't actually do anything illegal. But without any further information to go on this is purely speculation.

 

It's all about what really happened, anyway. It's difficult to predict how a given individual will react to such and such behavior, it's very subtle and you really have to know both sides of the story to accurately make up an informed opinion. I would expect people to make the right choice on average, though. There are ways to approach people for information without freaking them out, the one depicted in the report wasn't one of them, period.

 

As for the "iced tea" video, well, even if the so-called officer was being unreasonably obnoxious with his apparent need to perform an extensive molecular analysis of the liquid in question, I think the other guy was being rather dumb showing him the can's label multiple times, obviously that's not what the cop wanted. How hard was it to hand him the can, let him check and embarass himself? That said I've never lived in the USA so I don't know how this is handled over there, do people routinely steal soda cans by pretending to be policemen? Or maybe it's a principle thing, I don't know.. just kind of weird how the two interacted. Feels kind of scripted and fake in fact.


Edited by Bacterius, 02 July 2013 - 07:14 AM.

The slowsort algorithm is a perfect illustration of the multiply and surrender paradigm, which is perhaps the single most important paradigm in the development of reluctant algorithms. The basic multiply and surrender strategy consists in replacing the problem at hand by two or more subproblems, each slightly simpler than the original, and continue multiplying subproblems and subsubproblems recursively in this fashion as long as possible. At some point the subproblems will all become so simple that their solution can no longer be postponed, and we will have to surrender. Experience shows that, in most cases, by the time this point is reached the total work will be substantially higher than what could have been wasted by a more direct approach.

 

- Pessimal Algorithms and Simplexity Analysis





Old topic!
Guest, the last post of this topic is over 60 days old and at this point you may not reply in this topic. If you wish to continue this conversation start a new topic.



PARTNERS