Young Turks: Cops Use Stimulus Money to Trick Criminals

[CherylK]

Run time: 02:22 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGrnYwfBuNQ   Posted on YouTube: September 05, 2009 By YouTube Member: Views on YouTube: 0   Posted on DU: September 09, 2009 By DU Member: CherylK Views on DU: 867

 
http://www.reuters.com/article/oddlyEnoughNews/idUSTRE57R3HM20090828

[paulsby]

1. i applaud this kind of police ruse tactic

as cenk notes (and as i have witnessed firsthand) this is a very safe (for the criminal, the cop, and bystanders) to apprehend warrant suspects/fugitives.

it is a CLASSIC example of a legal ruse that we should encourage law enforcement to engage in.

which has less chance of harm (and uses less resources) and is more likely to result in a better result for the criminal, the cops, and bystanders?

1) a forced entry warrant to a residence
2) inviting a criminal under a ruse, to appear at a location, and taking him into custody in a controlled environment with no unknown hazards?

the answer is clear.

fwiw, i learned a lot from the RCMP (canadian federal cops) who use some very clever ruses to catch car thiefs, with fully loaded bait cars with remote shutoff, etc.

this is GREAT police work, and i applaud this type of tactic.

fwiw, the law is clear on ruses. they are legal AS LONG AS they do not "shock the conscience"

if a cop posed as a priest for example to get a confession, that would shock the conscience.

examples like that are clear.

telling some dumbasses they have some federal money waiting for them does not shock the conscience.

and this is a great legal way to take warrant suspects off the street and into the CJ system

[PM Martin]

2. It does work better.

It beats police raids.

[paulsby]

3. i agree

the people here who deride (alleged) excessive uses of force (i am not saying excessive force does not occur, i am saying many allegations of excessive force here are bogus imo), should be APPLAUDING these tactics.

to get the desired result through deception (see: sun tsu) is preferable to trying to get it through brute force.

SOMETIMES, brute force is required. but when we can do the job w/o it, EVERYBODY wins -cop, criminal, public at large.

also, these operations are generally much more cost efficient than organizing warrant raids, especially in terms of overtime for SWAT guys, civil liability , etc.

win/win/win

[PM Martin]

10. We will disagree on what constitutes "excessive force"

as a am a minimalist when it comes to the power of authority.

[dbmk]

6. I agree

But how can you call the law clear if it is based on something as unprecise and subjective as "shock the conscience".

[paulsby]

8. even a brief study of the law yields similar

unprecise and vague concepts:

probable cause: facts and circumstances that would lead a reasonable and prudent police officer to believe a crime is being committed, has been committed, or is about to
be committed

"reasonable" "prudent"

those are subjective, although case law (just like in shock the conscience) gives guidance

also, look at the states of mind to prove various offenses: "wanton" "reckless". those are also somewhat vague and subjective.

the law draws many bright lines. age of consent for instance.

but many other concepts are necessarily vague, because the law is a blunt instrument

this is why, amongst other reasons, that i take a relatively libertarian/anti-statist stance towards new legislation that criminalizes stuff. iow, i place a VERY high burden (that many here do not) in justifying, from a policy perspective, new laws (see: anti-bullying, etc.)

[ihavenobias]

4. Kick n/t

[ScottLand]

5. I agree with Cenk on this one

but they're really funny together. Why aren't they on prime time?

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[WhoIsNumberNone]

9. OK so dumbass criminals don't read the papers...

But are you telling me they don't watch the Simpsons? Remember the episode where Homer gets busted by this very trick? I say if you get caught this way the judge should be required to laugh at you at your trial.


BTW Anna- why do you have to be giving me inappropriate thoughts with the whole 'naughty policeman' thing? :evilgrin: