DogofWar1

I've been posting a lot in the other thread, but I've said multiple times that there are good cops out there. Here's some nice stories about them: http://www.goodnewsnetwork.org/our-favorite-police-of-2015/

Yeah, that's got to come under review as well, though naturally it mirrors the way many federal agencies are funded, so it seems like an ingrained problem. Hopefully they peel back some of the bigger hardware (like tanks, haha) so that they'll only have stuff they would have naturally used within a year anyway.

Also, I'm not sure it counts, but there's a food network show called Cutthroat Kitchen that's hosted by Alton Brown that's pretty fun. It's a cooking competition show, think "Chopped" but there are wacky sabotages, like someone has to make a grilled cheese sandwich, but they have to use a blow torch as their only source of heat, or maybe all their nice loaves of bread for a sandwich are replaced with breadcrumbs.

TWA, I think you're still misinterpreting the case law you're using to support your position, and there are some cases that come out the other way (and it's solely a Texas thing anyway), but since we're not getting anywhere with each other, for the sake of brevity, agree to disagree. Definitely a little strange. The video I saw had an inside view of the kid for a bit before the police arrived, then went outside for the rest. Maybe the action moved away from the cameras, but I haven't heard much on the issue. I would think if they had one inside camera they'd have a few more in there too and some potential coverage of the action. Maybe they consulted with the police or prosecutors and only things that might not be used in a criminal/civil case were released? I imagine a direct video would taint a jury pool before the trial if it's pretty clear one way or another how the conduct was. That would be pretty interesting actually, the concept that social media coverage of high profile cases creates effectively mass tainting of jury pools. We used to have it with tv a little, but nothing like now. Well, in almost every state but Texas, outside of the (usually somewhat limited) Castle Doctrine, you can't use lethal force to protect property. Texas stands out because of their 2007 law (and subsequent flexible case law on that law) that expanded Castle Doctrine which has significantly boosted the number of justified homicides in the state. The conventional wisdom of the law in most places in the US that aren't Texas is that life must be in danger to use lethal force, under the theory that "life of innocents >> life of criminal >> property." Then again, this is the state that brought us the Cowboys. _______________ We all talked earlier about the militarization of police; it looks like some changes are coming. http://www.stripes.com/how-the-pentagon-s-distribution-of-military-gear-to-police-is-about-to-tighten-again-1.363122 We'll have to see what those changes are exactly, but it looks good from 30,000 feet. Requiring training and local government approval for specialized weaponry definitely should improve situations nationwide.

It doesnt necessarily follow that the shooting perspective is the "controlling" one. We've got two fairly equal perspectives, and even if we give the rookie's some extra weight because of the immediate look (and that ignores that a deadly threat to one is a deadly threat to the other), we have to give the experienced officer weight for his experience too. Use of multiple tasers at once is pretty normal. He used a level of force lower than deadly on the use-of-force continuum. And I've never said he was no threat. Not being a deadly threat does not equal not a threat. Taser would have been fine. But there are different levels of threat. You don't go straight from "no threat" to "deadly threat" without something extra. And I've explained the property law pretty in depth, so instead of rehashing already made points, I'll just borrow a page from your book: you're wrong on property law buddy.

I'm not trying to include it, it naturally ought to be included. You keep trying to exclude his view, because if we accept that the more experienced officer's view counts, then your position goes up in smoke. Nevermind that he was in the same room, looking at the same suspect, making the same evaluation. You're acting like an officer can only make an evaluation when the suspect's attention turns to them, which is clearly not the case. The guy may have been insured, but you're looking at it from Subchapter D, Section 9.42(3)(a), that is, recoverable vs. irrecoverable. There are two justifications under Section 9.42(3), (a) and (b ), the second of which was present in the 4Runner case and neither of which was present in the Christian Taylor case. If you cannot recover the property without putting oneself in deadly harm (and meet all other requirements) you may use deadly force (3)(b ). The insurance point is that neither likely is justified under Subchapter D, Section 9.42(3)(a). Doesn't mean they couldn't be justified under Section 9.42(3)(b ). But that requires objectively reasonable concerns about fear of life. It's not about "fear" of a weapon, it's about the objective reasonableness of the view that a deadly weapon was present. A crazy person who thinks everyone is a lizard person with lasers isn't justified in shooting a bunch of bystanders. That fear is not objectively reasonable. Objective reasonableness mixes the subjective views present with the objective data present. It was more objectively reasonable in the 4Runner case because you have one person's view that there is a weapon, mixed with multiple assailants. In the Taylor case, you have two subjective evaluations to look at and mix with objective data, and only one assailant.

They were breaking into his Toyota 4Runner, and they talk in the article about the extension of it to cars or long driveways. If the guy is a neighbor and his car is parked there, there's likely some sort of licensee/easement situation going on, which might extend the castle doctrine. Even without that, protection of property in that case falls neatly into Subchapter D, Section 9.42(3)(b ), as he had a fear of a weapon, and could not recover the property without fear of said anticipated weapon. However, the fear of a weapon in that case is much more reasonable than in the Christian Taylor case. He confronted them and said he thought they had a gun. Now, here we have ONE point of view, not two, and multiple criminals, not one. If we were to use the standard of objectively reasonable, the subjective weight of the one man's view weighs more than each individual subjective view when there are two points of view. And of course multiple assailants drastically changes the calculus.

Castle Doctrine. No Castle Doctrine in a car showroom.

It's through both officer's eyes, and it's not their subjective view. It's also not a disinterested view, their subjective view comes into it, but it is NOT the end all be all. If so, that notion would justify a mentally disturbed officer shooting someone who is definitively not a threat if the officer is scared enough to shoot. That's not how the standard works. You continue to not grasp the concept that both officers must make the threat evaluation with regards to whether he has a deadly weapon or not. And no, I'm not leaning on policy, I'm leaning on the penal code. I quoted the freaking penal code, and posted the link to it above! You're the one leaning on...well, nothing. You keep saying you can shoot someone to protect property; meanwhile, I post the bloody law on it, and you just dismiss it. Your views are absolutely ridiculous. We're wasting our time on you, and you're wasting your time being crazy.

Haha, TWA talking about spin. Ah, the absurdity. You're misrepresenting Texas law. Deadly force is authorized to protect property when: What about dents and broken windows is irrecoverable, or exposes someone to substantial risk of death or serious bodily injury? The justification can't stem from the property damage. Heck, the police chief talked about the reason they were supposed to hang back was because the harm was merely to property, not lives, specifically saying they had time to create a perimeter because of that distinction. Whatever justification is there must stem from the officer's interactions with the suspect. And that's where they do the threat evaluation, with the older, more experienced officer judging the suspect as not being a deadly threat.

The older officer was only 4 feet behind the rookie according to reports. If we're using the 21 ft rule, they both are likely inside that. Even if the other officer is slightly outside the 21 feet line, he's still making the evaluation on threat, unless you're suggesting that he was remiss in his evaluation. Again, they're both there, looking at the same suspect, who is doing the same things. They both have to think about whether he's got a deadly weapon. Him having a deadly weapon is a "yes" or "no" evaluation. Who he's advancing on is irrelevant if they're both looking at the same things and making the yes/no check on deadly weapon. Not to mention, with the older officer right behind the rookie, he's threatened too by the advancing suspect. If he's got a gun or knife, not being the immediate target doesn't make him safe. He's got to make the same evaluation as the rookie. Objectively reasonable is not really through anyone's eyes. That's the point of it being "objective." It's not really the rookie's view or the older officer's view. HOWEVER, the older officer has significantly more experience and training. If someone is going to have something close to an "objective" view of the situation, it's the guy who's probably been through similar situations and knows what to expect, not the rookie.

First officer being unaware of 2nd is subjective. First officer being afraid of physically subduing the guy is subjective. Without direct evidence of a deadly weapon being present, he should have advanced up the use-of-force continuum. Why is a firearm the right choice, instead of a taser? Here's the other thing, we keep coming back to the potential to have a deadly weapon, and that does matter from the more experienced officer's perspective. If the fear of a deadly weapon is the primary justification for the rookie's actions, then that should also be evaluated from the perspective of the older officer. They both were present, they both made an examination of the suspect and had to evaluate whether he was a deadly threat, with the standard of their conduct being objectively reasonable. Whether the first officer knew of the second officer is not important to the examination of whether their individual appraisals of the suspect's threat were reasonable. If the suspect has a deadly weapon, that's equally threatening to the older officer. He, with his greater experience and training, appraised the student to not be a deadly threat, and took actions well below deadly force on the use-of-force continuum. If both officers have to make the appraisal of the suspect's level of threat (and they did), then why does the rookie's opinion matter more? Because he was more fearful? Why does subjective fear change the objectively reasonable standard?

Other officer tased the guy. That older officer apparently felt that the rookie was not under immediate threat of death, if he had, it's likely the officer would have pulled his own firearm. He didn't. He was also only a couple feet behind the rookie, so his situation was not radically different from the rookie's. Unless we assume the other officer, who was more experienced and had more training, screwed up with estimating the threat, I'd take his view to be closer to the objectively reasonable line than that of a green rookie. The rookie being subjectively afraid does not make his actions objectively reasonable. You don't get to shoot people as a cop because you're a scaredy cat.

TWA, you say I'm speculating about the officer's safety, but you're speculating also, mainly regarding the chief firing the guy to cover himself. Even setting aside the potential criminal/civil ramifications, isn't it still a for-cause firing to so significantly violate protocol? The key purpose isn't to make the chief's life easier if he's also doing it for-cause. It might be incidentally making his life easier, but only because he's not actively defending the employment of one who should not be employed. And the speculation on officer safety goes both ways, you're speculating that he was in danger. While I respect and generally support unions, they are inherently an advocacy group. Their statement carries the same weight as the chief, and possibly less. The chief certainly is more likely to have complete information on the situation so close to the event, as he is the direct supervisor of the officers who were at the scene. I don't think we have information on how much the union has been debriefed. As for business stuff, as a general rule, property <<< life. You can sue for damages to property to cover premiums and deductibles and actual damages, and be made whole. When a life is taken, it's tough to say that the damages can be made whole. This isn't to say he shouldn't have been arrested and charged, but he should be another sad story of a college athlete who's sitting in jail on felony charges facing a number of years, instead of a sad story about him being shot.

That officer was fired for having that perspective. The other officer, who apparently took the other, seemingly more in line with legal principles perspective, is still employed. As has been mentioned, insurance covers the damages, both in case of a car being totaled and not being totaled (more than likely not totaled, seeing as it's one dude). Sure, we'd prefer they didn't happen, but they are certainly NOT irrecoverable. "Any other means," is a darn high bar legally, and will usually include monetary damages if the property is not sufficiently unique and is replaceable. You have to show that there's no other less harmful option. Tackling the guy is less harmful. If he's driving toward a cliff, maybe there's a point to be made with regard to recovery, but he wasn't even close to that, and even then the monetary damages might have been sufficient, since cars, while expensive, aren't exactly unique. With regard to risk of serious bodily injury or death, nothing from the reports of the scene give any indication that anyone's life was in jeopardy.

I think it's a bit off to say we don't have an expectation to not be shot for petty crimes. The civil and criminal remedies for false positive use of deadly force by police are often insufficient to address the harm. The police seizing and then junking a car can be remedied, the police ending a life cannot. That's why there are fairly high guidelines for the use of deadly force in most places. By your definition, we technically can't have an expectation in literally anything that we have, including our constitutional rights. Expectations don't always match reality, BUT if the criminal activity you're engaged in does not fulfill the legal requirements for action where deadly force is authorized against you, then you DO or at least SHOULD have an expectation that deadly force will not be used against you. It sort of mirrors expectation of privacy concepts. You can have an expectation of privacy in something, and that expectation can be violated by overzealous parties. However, simply because that expectation of privacy CAN be violated, does not mean the expectation does not exist. Where your conduct does not legally give someone the legal right to use deadly force against you, you effectively have an expectation to not be shot.

Well, the objectively reasonable part stems from Supreme Court jurisprudence, which doesn't really delve into the details. State law however does delve into those details, but that varies from state to state. I don't know if any state uses the word "clear" in reference to an "imminent threat," but case law in California (which is thankfully explained in the website I posted so I don't have to dig around too much elsewhere) moves towards the concept of "clear threat," if not in words then at least in spirit. For example, the cases where a person is behaving beligerently and then suddenly reaches for their waist and they get shot generally are justifiable, unless there's something else going on. But other cases have limited that. With regards to California law, probably the best shorthand to describe justified homicide by police is that it's justified where there is a "clear probability of imminent serious bodily injury or death." It bridges the gap between the potential that someone has a gun* and the potential that they do not. Belligerent person reaching for their waist presents a clear probability of imminent serious bodily injury or death. However, simply having a deadly weapon on their person, or the probability of having one, if there is not some sort of apparent imminent intent to use it, is not sufficient. Some measure of clarity of threat needs to be there. Right, that was under the Texas website I posted as well, Subchapter D, protection of property. Police pretty clearly fall under 9.43, Protection of Third Person's property so long as they fall under 9.41 or 9.42. 9.42, which you posted. The relevant parts are: With the way the statute is written, using "and" between each section, you need each subsection to be fulfilled, that is, you have to fulfill the requirements of 9.41 (subsection (1)), as well as one of (A) or (B ) in subsection (2), and either (A) or (B ) in subsection (3). In the Christian Taylor case, subsection 1 is likely fulfilled with regards to section 9.41. (A) in subsection (2) is likely fulfilled too, as Taylor's actions would likely constitute theft during the nighttime. HOWEVER, he likely does not meet subsection (3). The deployment of the taser by the partner suggests the officers were close enough to immediately apprehend the suspect with less than deadly physical force, or even if they weren't immediately next to the kid, they could have given chase and likely apprehended him quickly with less than deadly force. As a result, protection of the property could likely have been completed through alternative means. In addition, the issue of recovery remains, a vehicle is generally recoverable, though of course if it can be protected by alternative means the recovery issue doesn't even appear. (3)(B ) similarly appears to fall as Christian did not pose a substantial risk of serious bodily injury or death. Based on reports, he was outside of a vehicle on the showroom floor. With neither part of subsection (3) seemingly met, the shooting to protect property does not meet the requirements necessary. *The statistics with regards to weapons on people killed by police is sort of a reverse examination. If we presuppose that the vast majority of cops DO follow laws and guidelines (even if they don't stop other police from failing to follow them), then naturally the instances where deadly force is used will show a smaller "unarmed," portion, as they're following laws and guidelines and not shooting unarmed people without a REALLY good reason. However, that doesn't mean there's a presumption of individuals being armed. That would require significantly more data. We could probably start with the "% of all crimes where suspect carried a deadly weapon." That would be the most general data-point, and the one where we could best determine the presumption that "average suspect A" was carrying a deadly weapon. We could further break that down by category of crime. If the percentage there is very high, then yes, there would be a presumption that an average suspect is carrying a potentially deadly weapon, but then, again, we likely need some indication of intent to use it. I'd also contest the "vehicle" category to an extent. A knife or gun is obvious, but vehicles are generally not viewed as a "weapon." While a vehicle can be a weapon, I imagine the intent element regarding the "weapon" needs to be enhanced, that is, there is an intent to use the vehicle as a deadly weapon; driving towards and officer vs. driving away/fleeing from an officer.

One problem that pops up is that the exact criteria differs from state to state. However, there's something of a floor that has been set by the Supreme Court that force be objectively reasonable. Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989). Generally, states tend to differ on what's "objectively reasonable," usually based on what specific felonies are sufficiently heinous enough This is a pretty good rundown of California law, but it also hits on more common law in the 9th Circuit and some Constitutional principles: http://www.legalupdateonline.com/4th/140#cont159 Of course California may be different from other states, that is to say, Larry's standard and TWA's standard may both be fairly close to specific states. Larry's standard is pretty close to California's, in that either an atrocious and heinous crime needs to be ongoing or imminent (burglary is not a part of that, btw), or an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm is present for the officer. Texas law (some statutes here: http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/SOTWDocs/PE/htm/PE.9.htm) goes pretty close to Larry's too. Subchapter E covers law enforcement. The relevant part is: So Larry is actually pretty close. Generally for deadly force, there are a certain set of felonies which either have, are being, or will be committed for which deadly force used to prevent/end those crimes is reasonable, and in self-defense of very near in time seriously bodily injury or death. Which specific felonies allow deadly force vary and case law in individual states might creates rubs elsewhere.

So you mean the officer who discharged a deadly weapon in a situation where it clearly wasn't warranted? You're wrong. It's that simple. You posts reveal your position. You view anyone who's committed any sort of crime and could be construed as maybe a threat, however remotely, as fair game to be killed by police. Do you really think the officer would have been fired so quickly if there'd been a legitimate threat to someone's life? Of course not, he'd be on paid leave. Luckily, reasonable human beings, including the police chief who fired the guy, disagree with your craziness.

There's TWA again, devaluing human life again. It's sad, really. I feel like TWA is not actually from our reality, but from a parallel one that looks a lot like the Judge Dredd universe. I mean, jeez, the guy was fired. The usual response to police committing violence that may or may not have been illegal is to put them on paid leave and wait until the investigation happens (we all know this because some of you guys spent the last half page arguing about paid leave in the Rohnert Park case). Firing him demonstrates the officer's conduct rose above that grey area into the danger zone.

Depends what rules. Boxing rules, Mayweather wins. Any other rules, it's much closer. I think Ronda said a "no rules" match, and I tend to agree with her that she wins. Mayweather is boxer, a great one, but it's a much more narrow art. It's superior in its circle of influence, but MMA deals with much more. If Mayweather is anything but standing at any point in the match, he probably loses. Quickly. I do sort of wish she'd lay off though,since it tends to create some dissonance with her very legitimate reasons for not fighting Cyborg. There's wiggle room, but the question "if she's willing to fight Mayweather no rules, why won't she fight Cyborg 140" does pop into one's head. That being said, Mayweather doesn't get enough heat for his extracurricular activities, so I don't mind seeing him get chewed out. It also helps ease the pain of paying for that Pacquiao PPV, imagining Ronda armbar him.

It's worth noting you're the first person to talk about this specific instance of policing/shooting. There's probably a reason for that. In your post above, you've painted the side seeking police reforms as one that would oppose the use of force even when a suspect is known to have and has used a gun. That is definitely not the case. I, and I imagine the others who wish to see reform in this thread, am more than fine with police conduct in cases where there is a clear and demonstrated threat (as opposed to a paranoid and hypothetical one). There is a Grand Canyon's worth of difference between Bland, DuBose, Rohnert Park, and Hammond incidents compared to this Ferguson one. It's a pretty obvious difference too, in this Ferguson case someone actually has a gun, a demonstrated danger; in the previous cases, the "danger" to the officer has not been demonstrated, it's imagined by the officers, and a long stretch at that. I hope this is the case. The interesting thing that police will find is that accountability will likely be easier than they thought. Remove the bad apples, and the heat will die down. Heck, the vast majority of the people don't care about illegal searches and seizures, they're fine with that remedy being in court. Keep your beating/kill count low by tossing the few officers who make it high, and your station is suddenly a-ok. With regards to the monitoring and red tape, with great power comes great responsibility. There's a reason the standard to convict someone of a crime in the US is (or at least supposed to be...post 9-11 murky activities notwithstanding) "beyond a reasonable doubt," and also a reason why otherwise slam dunk cases can be tossed on technicalities. Freedom and Liberty are two strong ideals. We do make some small sacrifices in the name of the social contract, but we also have protections in the form of the amendments, as well as further statutes. False positives are despised and we seek to prevent them. Police have the power to take away someone's freedom and liberty. For all the monitoring and red tape that bureaucrats/employees who don't hold people's lives in their hands have to go through, both in the public and private sectors, it should be no surprise at all that accountability is asked for from those who do have such power, and that there's concern where there isn't accountability and outrage where there are abuses. If you're referring to us wanting to take away the pay/jobs of the abusive officers, certainly. If you abuse the power to take someone's liberty, that's a grave offense. if you're referring to people in this thread wanting to cut pay for police generally, I can't speak for others, but I am most definitely NOT for that. In fact, if it were up to me, tomorrow the money flowing to police around the country would increase significantly. Police are underpaid, as are teachers, and maybe other workers in plenty of industries. Police do indeed have a unique situation in that their line of work carries significant risk. I'm all for increased wages for them (of course, that means more taxes too). However, low wages do not excuse poor performance, not with so much at stake, and I think while plenty of people would want to see police paid more, they'd probably want to see some more accountability and cleanup before more tax money goes to police, which isn't unreasonable. It's interesting that you brought up soldiers, because as MrSilverMaC noted above, soldiers have a higher bar for engagement with force than police often do. Drawing a weapon can have constitutional implications, and it will often have police guideline and rule implications. Doing so when it is not appropriate is not a small matter. Cops have resigned and been fired for such things. The key is whether there's some sort of reasonable independent reason for drawing a weapon. A cop can use their experience and training, but when the situation is explained objectively, other people need to reach the same conclusion the officer did with regard to safety. One case from a short while back was the beating at the pool of the African American girl, where the cop drew his gun as people tried to help the girl mid-beating. He resigned pretty quickly and was blasted by the police chief. The initial story was that he felt threatened when the boys moved towards him. But a reasonable objective examination (boosted by the tape) shows that the alleged danger the officer felt was unsubstantiated. In those cases, drawing one's weapon is inappropriate. The pool beating case is similar to the Rohnert Park case. Is it reasonable to construe any man with a hand in their pocket as a potentially deadly threat where drawing a weapon is a reasonable response? That's a broad category, with pretty problematic implications, seeing as pockets are ubiquitous, and are meant to have hands in them. You need something more than that, just as in the pool case they needed something more than the two boys moving to try and help the girl pinned under the officer. Heck, I'd argue that two people moving towards an officer is much closer to the line than merely standing there with one's hand in one's pocket. If the pool case is inappropriate, the Rohnert Park case is doubly so. If an officer is so easily stressed that they draw their weapon even when there's no evidence of independent and objectively apparent danger, then perhaps they should be re-assigned to desk duty. An overly fearful cop is a danger to he community, all it takes is one incident where things get a little out of hand when their fears take hold of them, and someone innocent can end up dead. The "we're gonna run out of cops" argument is a bit too alarmist I think. There are plenty of cops in the US who follow the rules just fine. There are entire countries where LEOs manage to adhere to principles similar to our own rights. We've had some people mention that individuals were turned away for being "overqualified." Hire those guys. Moreover, how do we separate reasons for dropping recruitment numbers? Isn't it just as possible that people don't want to join the police, not because of the monitoring and red tape, but because they don't want to be a part of what is perceived to be (and sometimes is) a corrupt system? Think about Enron, I imagine a decent percentage of people would seek employment elsewhere because of the negative reputation and implications stemming from Enron's own conduct. Similar principles may apply here. We can't become alarmist about police recruitment numbers until we can separate those not applying because of the public's conduct from those not applying because of their potential employer's conduct.

Her previous nutritionist told her she couldn't cut the weight, not without serious health concerns. Her new nutritionist seems to have some sort of plan set up. I agree she'd prefer to bait Rousey into a 140 fight, but I think the stalling was because she both couldn't cut the weight and for baiting. Her new nutritionist must have just come up with a plan for her to cut down. Of course, now she's kinda committed. She says she's gonna make 135 by April 2016, she can't back out in March and go fight another Invicta fight at 145 without losing whatever credibility she has left. That is, I suppose, assuming Dana plays nice in terms of setting it up, though he's got understandable concerns.

YES! Oh yeah. Christmas coming 13 days early in MMA world. I'd love to see it happen, but I'll believe it when I see it. George Lockhart must be a miracle worker. Then again, next April might be long enough for her to lose the weight safely, since it's going to take her some time to do it.

Hey, I'm as opposed to 2nd hand smoke as anyone, but if you've got a right to smoke it, you've got a right to smoke it. Cop could have finished giving her the ticket and everyone could have been on their way as quickly as she could have put it out. Instead, he escalates and orders her to put it out, which he doesn't have the authority to do. Automobile exception generally requires reasonable suspicion, but searches then can only extend to areas and containers in which the potentially offending item is supposedly placed. Comes up sometimes in drunk driving cases where officers search tiny closed/locked containers and find small amounts of weed or something. Reasonable suspicion is oftentimes discussed as reasonable "articulable" suspicion, that is, you are suspicious of a specific crime occurring at the time and can state which crime. It's why the Bland case is so wacky, she asks him what she's being charged with and he's just flatly silent for like 3 seconds before doing anything else. It's not about reading minds. It's about reasonably responding to the situation. By the logic of "we don't know, therefore display maximum force," police should pull guns on EVERYONE. Again, we don't know if Granny has a gun in her bra or not. Anyone wearing a second layer of clothes in the winter could be hiding a gun. Carrying a work briefcase? Gun. That is a patently ridiculous world to live in, and most other countries (and most police standards here in the US) understand that. It's one of the reasons that cop who beat up the black girl at the pool got in trouble (and ultimately resigned), he pulled his gun on people who did not represent a sufficient threat for him to pull his gun. You can't pull your gun because you subjectively are paranoid that a threat exists while all sensory evidence says there isn't one. There are often constitutional implications (liberty w/out due process), police guideline implications (generally not allowed to do that), and common sense implications. The point about background checks in corporate America is that an officer arresting someone needs to be arresting them for the right reasons. If they've committed a crime worthy of arrest and there's evidence of it sufficient to arrest, by all means, police should arrest them. At that point mistakes are on the state records, background checking companies, and the corporation the person has applied to. However, there is a not insignificant number of cases where there is no crime and a person is arrested, or charges are effectively made up and later dropped (or nolle prosequi), or rights are violated during the stop which leads to the person being found not guilty during trial or charges being dropped before trial. In those kinds of cases, there is a very real harm to police abuses and violations that extends into job searches. It's another reason police must be held to a higher standard when performing their duties. Lax standards lead to abuses, and those abuses have far reaching consequences beyond simply how many days a person has to sit in jail. Just wondering, are you saying if we feel strongly against your entire post, or just the part about the Sovereign Citizen movement? Because I lean towards agreement on that, but feel strongly against the rest (and would contest what follows, but I want to make sure I've got my interpretation right before I respond).