Hacker News Reader

"Then, in February 2011, Rachner met Mocek at an SPD town hall meeting. Mocek had had his own run-in with police. In 2009, security agents at Albuquerque Airport threw him in a jail cell for lacking identification and causing a disturbance. Mocek challenged the misdemeanor charges against him and, like Rachner, won. Their run-ins and legal battles with security agencies galvanized them, they said, to hold police accountable for mistakes and abuses."

So how is upholding the law, "abuse"???

The fact that both won in court against the police for tens of thousands of dollars is strong evidence that what the police did to them really was abuse. And the police were doing something other than upholding the law.

The fact that the police denied having video evidence that they in fact did have (which did not support their case) is further evidence that the police were simply in the wrong.

And finally, the fact that the "professional police review board" did not flag this as something that needs fixing is strong evidence that the review process does not, in fact, work.

I'm one of the subjects of the article. Regarding the 2009 incident at ABQ: I was acquitted of all criminal charges by a jury in 2011. The trial ran two days, during which I did not testify and presented no evidence. Bizarrely, the prosecution presented the [video I made of the incident](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pc5DBUK1K8M) (that he police erased and I recovered) as evidence against me. The jury deliberated just one hour to reach their decision.

Later that year, I filed a related civil rights lawsuit. March of this year, the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals heard arguments on dismissal of that suit. There's no set timeline for a response from the court.

For details, see: - [FAQ: State of New Mexico v. Phillip Mocek](http://papersplease.org/wp/mocek/) - [FAQ: Phillip Mocek v. Albuquerque et al.](http://papersplease.org/wp/mocek2/)

"The fact that both won in court against the police for tens of thousands of dollars is strong evidence that what the police did to them really was abuse. And the police were doing something other than upholding the law."

Did the results in court prove that OJ had nothing to do with his wife's murder? There are plenty of cases in court that are also wrong..and it doesn't 'prove' that the police were definitely abusing anyone.

"And finally, the fact that the "professional police review board" did not flag this as something that needs fixing is strong evidence that the review process does not, in fact, work."

What needs to be fixed? That we shouldn't ask people boarding a plane for ID? Both of the people in this article sound like they cause more problems than they actually are claiming to solve.

If I took everything I read in text at face value, we would have lots of innocent people in prison. It's ridiculous to think that this can even be allowed. Neither of the people in the article have the professional experience or education to make any kind of important decision.

Unions are part of the problem to the extent that they nurture the culture that tolerates and promotes behaviors like the ones discussed in the article, e.g., "trickling" documents in a manner that is legal (but against the spirit of public access laws), intentionally maintaining antiquated systems that keep the wheels of public access nice and sticky, and flat-out denying the existence of records (mighty convenient that that camera was broken, right?).

The point of the article that you seem to be overlooking is the fact that "talking to any cop working right now" is exactly how we end up in situations where police are abusing their power. Yes, I see that you are specifically referring to "excessive force" complaints, but I am also extending it to "cops watching cops" as a method of fair and proper oversight. When only 6.4% of complaints (284/4407) are sustained and no officers are fired for misconduct over the span of 3 years, seems to me that there's a problem with the oversight in place. What employer that has over a thousand employees doesn't have to terminate an employee over the span of 3 years?

>"trickling" documents in a manner that is legal (but against the spirit of public access laws)

Remember, though, that they're asking for an enormous number of documents.

As far as the spirit of the law goes, I think it's more intended for someone to just request the documents that they're interested in, rather than just hoovering up every document the police have.

It's not "every document the police" have, it's every document that a specific office in the police department has. It's an enormous amount of documents, but it's pretty clear that the tactic that the OPA is using is "produce documents for the duo more slowly than they can destroy them." I doubt that there's a stipulation that says the request must be completed and the records maintained until the request is complete. "Oh, it took 5 years to process your request, but due to department policy, we had to destroy all documents from the first year of your request." That's a far grosser violation of the spirit of the public access law than anything a public citizen can do.

And to bring the point back to the unions: the union signed a contract mandating that records be destroyed after 3 years. Not archive, not digitize, but destroy? That destruction isn't to ease job performance, it's to ease long-term liability for the police to the detriment of the general population.

>I doubt that there's a stipulation that says the request must be completed and the records maintained until the request is complete. "Oh, it took 5 years to process your request, but due to department policy, we had to destroy all documents from the first year of your request."

That's an interesting point, and I don't see that that sort of behavior is specifically prohibited anywhere in Chapter 42.56 RCW.

Mocek's arrest, according to the audio recorded when he was arrested, was "for being stupid". The actions he was doing were trying to board a plane with a valid boarding pass but without ID, and taking photos.

An ID is not required for flying in the US. Taking photos is not illegal. The first is a bit surprising to some, and even the second, so I can understand how you may have thought those were a problem, but surely you knew that being stupid is not a crime?

His arrest was so unjustified that he didn't even present a defense at trial. After the prosecution called its witnesses and presented its arguments, and the defense was given its chance, the defense rested without calling any witnesses or presenting any evidence. All the defense did was in closing arguments point out all the holes in the prosecution's claims, and an hour later Mocek was acquitted on all charges.

Rachner was arrested for acts that were not criminal. That in itself is not abuse, since the police can make mistakes. However, they withheld evidence that would have shown they were wrong. That is not upholding the law. That is abuse.

> This entire article is about railing against the police, yet the unions are never mentioned as part of the problem. Very interesting indeed.

For context, The Stranger is Seattle's free alt-weekly. They have a very strong leftist bent, consistently endorse pro-union politicians while calling them "independent" without a hint of irony, and are unlikely to press this issue very much if at all.

Do you read the same free alt-weekly as I do? The Stranger criticizes the Seattle Police Officers Guild (or SPOG) quite regularly.

See http://slog.thestranger.com/slog/archives/2014/12/22/spog-is...

and http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/reform-in-reverse/Content... for examples.

Regarding your comment on "excessive force", I'm reminded of [0] and how the reaction to that in the news has mostly been along the lines: well, the police education in the US doesn't really contain much on how to deescalate situations compared to, e.g., Sweden/EU. Given how "glorified" those cops became for deescalating the situation properly, I'm not sure, whether "excessive force" isn't a very serious and real issue far too often and whether it's just being played down because people aren't used to expecting a different behaviour from cops.

[0] http://nypost.com/2015/04/22/swedish-cops-on-vacation-break-... and

Dash cam video is pretty good context, the observed discrepancy between the observable events on video and the reports officers file is part of how this started.

> Anyone getting arrested and resisting will complain that it's "excessive force" when the police use any sort of force to arrest them.

It remains that 99% of complaint-filers think the police used more force than was warranted. Whether or not the police have the authorization doesn't mean the have the right (or are right).

"If you talk to any cop working right now, they will tell you this. This is why 99% don't see the light of day."

On the other hand, the last couple years we've seen just how willing the justice system is to go after cops.

...threw him in a jail cell for lacking identification and causing a disturbance.

That has got to be the most fake-ass charge I've heard this week. More properly stated, "failing to respect mah authoritay".