Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Ok-Survey406 t1_jcc0s5y wrote

I’m not pro police by any means but this seems like a pretty standard arrest.

−22

popetorak t1_jcc38hr wrote

>I’m not pro police

thats a lie

16

Ok-Survey406 t1_jccsb5e wrote

Why do you say that?

−4

QuarterInchSocket t1_jccw2t9 wrote

Because it has the same stink as "I'm not racist, but...."

5

popetorak t1_jcfyudw wrote

>Because it has the same stink as "I'm not racist, but...."

"its not about gay people its about grooming children!"

2

Ok-Survey406 t1_jcdh00p wrote

Maybe so. Feel free to look at my post history and the subs I’m active in. I think it’s possible to have views while also trying to be objective. I don’t think every conversation has to devolve into ‘you’re either with us or against us.’

1

popetorak t1_jcfyoxk wrote

because you didn't read and immediately was on the cops side

2

LeeOblivious OP t1_jcc3mmz wrote

He was arrested for a crime he did not commit and had proof that he had not committed. The database the officer used should not have shown he was a felon as that record was ordered sealed. And when he presented a certified official copy expungement the officer chose to ignore it.

Law enforcement made three failures here that compromised this man's rights. First, they did not follow the courts order and statutory process when his record was expunged. Rather they completely ignored it and continued to have his information listed as a convicted felon. Secondly, when presented with the official certified copy of the expungement they refused to accept it because it could be fake. If a certified official copy does not count as an official record anymore because it could be fake, then a whole lot of people just lost their citizenship, professional licenses, and other status's that rely on such documentation. And, thirdly, as a result of their unlawful action they kidnaped and held this man illegally under threat of official violence.

So no it was not a pretty standard arrest.

14

Ok-Survey406 t1_jccrocj wrote

It’s unfortunate that it happened. It’s also not that noteworthy.

He had a gun. He had proof his record had been expunged. The HP didn’t think his proof was sufficient. They arrested him. Was his proof sufficient? Who knows, the article doesn’t elaborate.

Either way, It doesn’t seem like any law was broken. Unless you can prove this, the civil suit has no chance. You mention kidnapping. That is extremely unlikely.

−9

LeeOblivious OP t1_jcctx8n wrote

What more elaboration do you expect than the statement that it was an official copy and that it was certified? Do they need to go into detail on what all that means in a word limited article? Or can we just conclude that the words mean what they say they do?

The laws that were broken have been laid out already. First the expungement statute, next the 4th amendment to the US Constitution. I could also make a 5th and 14th amendment due process argument.

Kidnaping is the taking and holding someone by force (or threat of force even if only implied or understood) unlawfully. Clearly as there was NO LAWFUL reason to arrest this man, his subsequent arrest and detention was unlawful. By definition! An ok sorry my bad I made a mistake does not make it not kidnaping.

The lawsuit has apparently already passed through initial motions to dismiss as the judge has sent it to mediation. If it had no grounds to stand on it would not have gotten this far. And when a Judge sends a case to a mediator that is them generally trying to tell the sued side to settle or else face a worse outcome in front of a jury.

7

KlounceTheKid t1_jccckx7 wrote

It’s okay to support the police AND it’s also okay to say “wow they fucked up there”. Because she did.

HwyP didn’t do their job on the front end and update MULES/NCIC , she doesn’t believe a certified court document is real 🙄🙄 give me a break. If she was that concerned she has the ability to contact the court and verify the record not to mention she has all his information.. write a pc statement drop the warrant and pick him up later. You can support things and recognize the failures…

6

Ok-Survey406 t1_jccvepp wrote

I don’t support the police. This is not a noteworthy incident in my opinion.

The patrolman arrested him because he didn’t believe his documentation was sufficient. Was it sufficient? I don’t know. The article doesn’t elaborate. The bill that restored gun rights to felons is only 1.5 years old. Bureaucracies are notoriously bad/slow about updating systems/databases/ policies procedures. It’s also possible they’ve not encountered this situation much.

Did they fuck up? Most likely. It’s still notoriously hard to sue a government entity. You need proof they knowingly violated a well established law. I don’t think that’s the case here.

1

SansSheriff_MO t1_jcg095j wrote

>The bill that restored gun rights to felons is only 1.5 years old.
>
>You need proof they knowingly violated a well established law.

So how many years after enactment does a law become "well established"?

​

Edit to add: This may not be noteworthy to you right now, but the precedent it could set is noteworthy. If an officer believes your proof is fake, what's to stop them from charging and arresting you? Who determines what is fake? Will these "fakes" start to pop up more? How will the number of "fakes" across various races be affected? Will we start to see more BIPOC citizens getting arrested for alleged fakes, even if they're just as credible as the expungement record Joe Bob showed the officer a half hour earlier? This needs to be viewed as a possible infringement on a person's second amendment rights.

3

ArtisticTomatillo106 t1_jcft5b5 wrote

He did have the right to have a fire arm and the police said we don't care what evidence you have to the contrary we are arresting you anyway. Not any kind of normal arrest the cop knowingly arrested a man for no reason other than he wanted to.

2