Hacker News Reader

Comment by maximinus_thrax | Hacker News Reader

I wouldn't hold my breath. I'd prefer the federal government to take the lead here. There's a clear conflict of interest.

> The KBI said it was asked by Marion police and Marion County Attorney Joel Ensey to join an investigation into accusations of “illegal access and dissemination of confidential criminal justice information.” Ensey will decide whether to file criminal charges after the KBI forwards the findings of its investigation.

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article2...

View on HN

Yes, but the person with the conflict of interest has asked an outside party to conduct the investigation. That's proper behavior. Ensey should probably recluse himself entirely but not being a lawyer or overly familiar with Kansas law it's not clear what options the county attorney has.

The fact and the conditions under which the raid/search took place in the first place? Oh boy, that's problematic.

The guy who asked for the investigation has a clear conflict of interest. That doesn't mean that the KPI has one.

Ensey maybe should be more cautious about opening that door. He may not like what walks through it...

I'm tired of the cynicism. We aren't even at that point yet- their investigation just started.

You're tired of cynicism against American justice systems? How many times do systemic abuses need to be brought to light before you warrant cynicism as the default?

If These cops were properly checked by these higher authorities we wouldn't be in this situation to begin with.

> How many times do systemic abuses need to be brought to light before you warrant cynicism as the default?

The number of occurrences is not important unless paired with total opportunity for occurrences.

Ten out of a hundred is pretty damn bad, but ten out of a billion is a statistical rounding error.

It's up to you to decide whether you want to make arguments to sway people by emotion and based on popular opinion or based on facts. To be clear, you may be completely right in this case (I don't know the statistics), but it's up to you to decide whether you're happier winning an argument or being right, because how you argue the point will often tend to put you in one of those categories from the beginning.

Police corruption and abuse are real. Failures of the justice system are real. We must also acknowledge that the system often works correctly, even in high profile cases. As I write this, there is a real chance the former president will serve jail time after a fair trial. The police who murdered George Floyd are in jail, and serious reforms were enacted as a result of their misconduct. It is healthy to sniff for corruption. It isn't healthy to smell it before it is there.

> The police who murdered George Floyd are in jail, and serious reforms were enacted as a result of their misconduct.

This is probably the highest profile situation that worked out as it should (with the PD firing the officers within 24 hours of the event). Oftentimes, this does not happen. Let's look at several high profile deaths:

Eric Garner - no indictments, no charges.

Michael Brown - County, DA, DOJ all declined to press charges.

Tamir Rice - all charges declined.

Laquan MacDonald - officer guilty of second degree murder, released 3 years in to a 7 year sentence.

Walter Scott - officer found not guilty of murder, guilty of violating federal civil rights. State dropped charges.

Freddie Grey - six officers charged, three cases dropped, three acquitted. DOJ declined charges.

Philando Castile - officer acquitted of manslaughter despite their own bodycam (but to your point, he was charged).

Justine Damond - shot after calling 911 to report being raped. Officer convicted of murder and manslaughter, murder overturned on appeal.

Breonna Taylor - no charges filed, and officials stated it was justified because someone else was firing at them. One officer convicted of negligence after shooting at entirely the wrong home.

Many of the above charges also only came about after significant public protest over PD/DA/DOJ initially declining any charges or denying there was any issue.

> As I write this, there is a real chance the former president will serve jail time after a fair trial.

You are entirely too optimistic. Realistically, at best, he will be placed under limited house arrest.

> We must also acknowledge that the system often works correctly

Any system that treats non-violent drug offenders as hardcore criminals may be a system that is working correctly (as designed) but is not working justly.

This is changing the subject. My point was that 1) corruption exists and 2) it is not (in my opinion) a dominant factor in the justice system.

Regarding drug use: I do not think I have a right to tell other people what to put in their mouth / nose / whatever. It should be legal to use recreational drugs, just as it is legal to do many other very stupid things.

Please explain how one can use any illicit hard drug without causing harm to others. Just because addicts aren’t killing people themselves doesn’t mean their actions have no consequences.

(I say this as an opioid addict myself who will forever have to wrestle with the money I gave to violent cartels to support my habit.)

If someone is growing magic mushrooms for their own consumption, how does that harm anyone at all?

I've always believed that the pushback against private consumption of mind-altering substances is due to the puritanism underlying American culture.

“Puritanism: The haunting fear that someone, somewhere, may be happy.” - H.L. Mencken

Is it only American tho? Lots of countries in Asia have death penalties for drug crime.

A lot of those sentiments probably trace back to Britain introducing opium to China and the resulting damage of that

A have opioid addicted friends that just order their supply from off-shore pharmacies that ship genuine meds - they aren't hurting anybody, well, other than the US government by avoiding having to pay tax on medication.

Their investigation is 'find out if the newspaper broke the law', not 'find out how a judge signed off on a totally insuffincent search warrant on a newspaper that may be a smokescreen to stop their investigation into the newly appointed chief who may have been allowed to quit before their were fired for sexual misconduct at their previous job'.

I'll go with cynical here.

They are investigating the entire situation, including the circumstances behind the search.

I guess we will see.

The police chief is new and not from Kansas. The KBI nothing to gain by covering for him.

Cynicism is warranted, as there's a conflict of interest. Hope my comment doesn't imply deafeatism or anything, but for 'local' 'small town' corruption, I wouldn't trust the county or even the state to do be impartial as the phrase 'small world' has a completely different meaning. I'd prefer the feds to step in, that's all. Why is that considered cynical when the DOJ in the past has investigated countless civil rights violations by local or state level institutions?

I'm also tired of cynicism, but this is a useful comment pointing out a valid conflict of interest, and suggesting a better alternative ("I'd prefer the federal government to take the lead here"). It's not just a lazy "don't engage, don't vote, nothing will ever get better" type of comment, which is probably what you're actually tired of.

In this case the cynicism is warranted. There is a HUGE conflict of interest here.

I get it but nobody should blindly trust authority. They must earn our trust.

Right...which is what state investigators are in the process of doing.

The KBI director's early comments on the case were borderline retarded, and the Kansas Attorney General came out publicly in defense of those comments. I imagine things will work out okay, since the law appears to be pretty thoroughly against law enforcement here, but let's not pretend it's not idiots all the way down.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com