Hacker News Reader

Comment by qeternity | Hacker News Reader

> In every state of the US (and most countries), people disobeying law enforcement will die. If you want to live, you comply, and you fight in court.

This is one of the worst takes I have ever seen, to the point that you must just be trolling.

Disobeying law enforcement is not a death sentence. It is often not even illegal. Just because LEO shouts "I am giving you a lawful order" does not in fact make it a lawful order. And this certainly is not happening in most other countries.

The desire to be part of the Trump Tribe has made people forget what actually made America great.

View on HN

If it's not a lawful order, you fight that in court. It's almost a free pass to get out of whatever you did.

But what she was given was a lawful order. That's the one I'm talking about.

I'm not a trump voter.

How did you determine "what she was given was a lawful order" without a trial?

Because I have at least a bare minimum understanding of what a lawful command is.

Law enforcement can order you out of your vehicle, and you must comply.

ICE aren’t law enforcement and can’t legally effect traffic stops. Their orders to Good were not lawful as they had no PC related to immigration violations.

ICE aren't law enforcement? What do you think they are? What do you think the E stands for?

They’re customs enforcement. That’s distinct legally and practically from law enforcement. They have no legal right to effect traffic stops, for example. They can search people only insofar as the border proximity exemption is in effect; I would assume Minneapolis is outside of this range.

Can you show me how specifically you fight it in court when the person abusing you is a federal officer? Bivens is basically dead.

Well, you can see the alternative. Get shot in the street and get a lot of twitter posts.

If the claim is that you can fight it in court then I want to know how you'd do that. Because from where I sit there are mountains of procedural barriers to actually doing this. A lot of people assume that you can just get some remedy in court, but this is often not true.

When an ICE agent shot and killed a kid their Bivens claim was still denied.

"Just go to court to solve it is not serious.

...many people get off because of police procedure problems.

I see it constantly in my courtroom youtube feeds. Judge: "And what was the probable cause?"

Prosecutor: "(some bullshit that's not legit PC)"

Judge: ::incredulous look:: "Mr. Criminal, I'm going to dismiss this case based on lack of probable cause. I suggest you take this opportunity to fix your problems and stay out of my courtroom...blah blah blah"

The smaller the crime (like obstruction, not exactly murder or anything), the more likely it works. I think because police often use small crimes as retaliation.

There's no mountain-sized barrier, you just have your attorney bring up probable cause with the judge.

This only works for excluding evidence acquired illegally. Cases are not dismissed based on lack of probable cause. You also cannot exclude the person even if the method of their arrest was illegal. Watching some court room feeds online doesn't actually teach you meaningful things here.

And what you describe only helps you avoid a conviction. It does not actually remedy the violation of your rights. If a federal agent just beats the shit out of you for no reason and then you are not charged then the mechanism of suing them is Bivens, which has been gutted by the courts.

> Cases are not dismissed based on lack of probable cause.

I must insist that they are.

"Police must have probable cause to arrest you, and when officers lack sufficient facts and circumstances to justify arrest, courts dismiss resulting charges. Arrests based on hunches, profiling, or insufficient information violate Fourth Amendment protections."

One of the first Google results for my search. Several others say the same.

https://collincountylaw.com/blog/top-signs-your-case-might-g...

4th amendment violates are cured by the exclusionary rule, which only applies to evidence. "Oopsey-doopsey your arrest was illegal" does not actually turn into a complete dismissal automatically.

And with Bivens basically dead you cannot sue the agent for violating your rights.

> courts dismiss resulting charges

Because of the exclusionary rule for evidence collected during an illegal arrest.

You are free to keep insisting that these phantom resolutions exist.

Enslavement, genocide, domination, and extraction made it great. For those who forgot.

What we're watching is the collapse of such an unsustainable approach.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com