I've read in the past stories about cops getting tips from people that their stolen stuff is on Craigslist. At the time I thought it's cool they are catching people but I guess if they rely upon the thinking of a civilian who just had their laptop stolen going and saying "omg that's my laptop!!" "I mean sure the serial number is wrong maybe they are lying about that.. It's totally mine.. Hey police you gotta bust that guy!" It seems like that is very likely to result in lots of false positives since your average person is not a detective.. The police should be doing more digging on this stuff before they just assume stuff is gonna be stolen.. Especially if part of their MO is to look for people of color.. Completely unacceptable..
I am responsible for creating a false positive. A notebook was stolen soon after I received it back from an OEM screen repair. The next day the same model showed up on Kijiji of all places. From the pictures, I was certain it was mine because there was an identical ExpressCard, the logo on the back of the screen was bent just as I had received it from repair, 2 of the 4 stickers were removed just as mine were, Also the RAM and hard drive were a non-standard upgraded amount. To top it off, it even had the ubiquitous glowing mushroom background. The cops checked it out, and the serial # and windows product key did not match.
The 'collision' of my cosmetic and functional alterations matching with someone else may have seemed unlikely, but it really wasn't. The laptop did not have a SD card reader (the expresscard), the stickers were in annoying places, of course you're going to get the same size of upgraded hard drive & memory, and that logo attachment sucked. Even the mushroom background was common enough.
The police showed up and asked to match the numbers at the door of the seller. There wasn't. They apologized. They phoned me back, and I apologized for wasting their time. I also made an apology to the seller, who was incredibly cool about it. Probably because no tasers were involved.
This, to me, is the real problem. Not that they investigated an accusation of a crime, but that they immediately resorted to serious threats of violence.
Police officers are trained to do this. The level of fear they carry with them is massive, and so they have an absolute need for control. Watch some police training videos and you'll see, many of them follow the same template of "officer managing mundane situatGUNFIRE!!!", driving home that any suspect could attempt to murder the officer at any sudden snap moment. So the officers are trained to be paranoid and demand complete constant compliance. Every unchoreographed, unexpected movement by the suspect could be preparation to kill, so the police must demand control of every possible movement of every person involved. Imagine how terrifying it would be to be, for example, in a suspect's house with many uncontrolled people wandering around, with that mindset.
I understand that police are trained to control every situation, but the level of violence we read about constantly is disproportionate and ludicrous. It also colors every other interaction with the cops - even when an officer attempts to "control" the situation with the firm voice and glare that we've all seen, what should just be an attempt to project authority is instead an implied violent threat.
With that in mind, it's no wonder that spot-checking/carding programs are getting banned across many major cities. Many police forces have created the impression that it is simply not safe to even have the casual interest of an officer.
So the police act as if targeted by guerrillas at all times? Sounds strangely of actual class-warfare.
As an extreme counter example, I've understood Norwegian police are unarmed and pick guns only if situation obviously requires it. So there is nothing intrinsic in the role of a police officer that would require this level of aggression. Is US really that violent?
To further this: what happens if a Taser is shot close range? I assume the barbs could penetrate the spine. I don't know what would happen to the brain if shocked that close.
It's not merely lack of professionalism, using a taser constitutes deadly force, like having a knife placed in your back. People have died from taser-induced heart attacks.
Since they don't have repercussions from hitting people (like losing their job, etc.) and since they might be sadists and enjoy it (like tons of them are openly racist and sexist), it's not really the length of their training that matters...
There are a lot of cities in the US where thefts are being treated by cops as a "meh sorry just call your insurance company.." So many police depts have been trying to do something to turn that mentality around since people are pretty pissed about it.. I had my laptop stolen about 10 years ago and that's exactly what happened.. The cop showed up like 5 hours after it happened and was like "yea good luck!" And catching people in the act is exciting for cops so it's something they are interested in doing.. It's good PR and interesting for cops.. Until this happens..
Same thing happened to me. I had my laptop stolen in Miami while I was there briefly for work. Spent half the day waiting on police and they wouldn't even write up a report for me. Told me to take it up with insurance when I got home. Of course when I got home, the insurance company said they couldn't do anything for me without a police report.
We throw money at them, tell them they are heroes and don't hold them accountable.
It's the same reason we have no-knock SWAT raids on parents of toddlers. They have the time and resources and want an opportunity to do something different, get dressed up and play with their toys.
Yeah, that's pretty unusual. In my experience the police prefer to have the victim as hands-off as possible to avoid further drama. (And the S/N is still printed on the bottom of the case, right?)
I assume it is to help you empathize with the person the story is about. Some people are interested in the human element of news stories, the photos are for those people.
> Unfortunately, you’ve got a lot of police misconduct, but I never thought it would be on this level. [...] You’re innocent until proven guilty. I was guilty until proven innocent.
He was investigated, nothing was found, and he was released. He wasn't arrested, charged, taken to jail, let alone "guilty until proven innocent".
He was handcuffed publicly, had a taser pointed at him, and suffered a decent amount of emotional duress without even knowing why they did it to him, or what his crime was.
The "innocent until proven guilty" bit might not be 100% accurate, but this is still incredibly irresponsible on the part of the police.
His computer was temporarily seized & searched without his consent, under immediate threat of force with a weapon. He was prevented from even voicing concern or asking questions through threat of violence, and forced to comply with actions that were not backed by a probable cause or even a reasonable suspicion of a crime having been committed.
In the US, there are laws against this. What happened there was illegal, with or without an arrest or charges or jail time.
Your first sentence is correct, you're right there. But it does mean they're not allowed to point weapons at people and threaten violence without probable cause or reasonable suspicion of criminal activity. That's what presumption of innocence means, you treat innocent people like they're innocent. Pulling a taser on someone is not presumption of innocence, that's presumption of guilt.
Police are allowed to investigate, and that's exactly what they failed to do in this case. They should have done some basic investigation before they drew weapons and detained someone. The fact that they didn't investigate, and didn't attempt to find probable cause, is precisely why what they did was illegal.
Your second sentence isn't right. It is not legal in the US to detain people for no reason. Arbitrary stop-and-frisks are illegal, arbitrary traffic stops are illegal, arbitrary searches are illegal. That is precisely what the 4th amendment is saying - you have a right to privacy and a right to not be harassed by police without them having a specific reason. And those things are illegal even when weapons aren't involved, but when police draw weapons without reason, it crosses another line.
I'm really not sure why you're still defending the actions of the police, who clearly did something wrong in this case, and dismissing the experience of a citizen who did absolutely nothing wrong and was threatened. What would you do, and how would you feel, if you were surprised and stormed by police and detained with weapons pointed at you while you were minding your own business? Do you want that to be allowed and normal? We've already decided as a country we don't want that. I don't want it, and I think you don't either. So why are you arguing?
> Police are allowed to investigate, and that's exactly what they failed to do in this case.
This stop was part of their investigation. How else are they supposed to eliminate the seller from their enquiries into the stolen laptop?
A person can be lawfully detained with reasonable suspicion alone, and it sounds like the police had it in this case.
In the process of detaining someone, the police can use reasonable force. The use of Taser was probably not necessary, but it could well have been reasonable.
The article is silent on the robbery in which Derek's laptop was stolen, but if it were aggravated, and the police had reasonable suspicion they were detaining the person responsible for that robbery, then the use of force is all the more reasonable.
> I'm really not sure why you're still defending the actions of the police, who clearly did something wrong in this case, and dismissing the experience of a citizen who did absolutely nothing wrong and was threatened.
Because I don't think it's clear (or even true) that the police did something wrong in this case. A crime occurred, through their investigation they believed the author to be a suspect, they investigated him and found out he was not.
> What would you do, and how would you feel, if you were surprised and stormed by police and detained with weapons pointed at you while you were minding your own business?
Obviously it would suck—but that doesn't mean that the police aren't allowed to do that.
> Do you want that to be allowed and normal?
Do I want police to be able to investigate crimes? Yes, I do want that.
> So why are you arguing?
Because this article jumps from "this thing happened to me and it sucks", to "this thing should not be allowed to happen".
Okay, I understand where you're coming from. The police should be allowed to do their jobs, and I don't think the article is claiming otherwise, nor am I.
"This should not be allowed to happen" isn't saying the police can't investigate. The "this" that's being discussed is whether they should be able to storm the situation SWAT style with weapons drawn, not whether they should attempt to locate a perp, verify stolen property, or do the proper paperwork.
The problem I have with your argument is that you're glossing over the threat of violence and use of weapons. You're calling that "investigate" and painting it as something demure. I don't feel like you're being completely honest by insisting on calling it "investigate". Drawing weapons is not an investigation, that's a detainment of a suspect. The investigation could have happened another way, it could have involved asking first, it could have involved checking the serial numbers they already had access to, it could have involved everything without the taser, it could have been conducted in private, the police could have announced their intentions and their names and not tried so hard to scare the guy into submission.
Regardless of what the article said, and whether you like it or not, "this" already isn't allowed to happen under the law, it's just not enforced much. The law is already clear that police can't pull a weapon on someone or detain them unless they have reason to believe that specific person was involved in a crime. We already decided this, it's a done deal. So the article is right, it should not be allowed to happen this way.
He consented to the search of the laptop before being detained. He did not know it was an undercover police officer conducting the search, but that is not relevant.
He was subsequently detained, until such time as it became obvious he was innocent, and then released.
> He consented to the search of the laptop before being detained. He did not know it was an undercover police officer conducting the search, but that is not relevant.
I'm not sure you know what "consent" actually means.
A consent search requires the individual whose person or property is being searched to freely and voluntarily waive his or her Fourth Amendment rights, granting the officer permission to perform the search. Where consent is obtained through "deception" on the part of government personnel, the search may be determined to be an unreasonable search in violation of the Fourth Amendment.
The matter of consent is much more nuanced than that, but as another comment on this thread points out, the search was not conducted by a police officer, so Fourth Amendment arguments are moot.
He consented to a stranger searching his laptop, and the Fourth Amendment provides no protections against that.
Isn't it an underlying principle? It's meant to prevent detainment without proof of guilt. Otherwise, people could be held indefinitely for no reason. Now obviously there is a gray area between "hey we can't hold on to anyone until the courts say so" and "I don't like the look of that guy, lets put him in jail." But I don't think it's unfair to argue that handcuffing and pointing a weapon at someone who has not posed a threat and is only under suspicion (unreasonably in my opinion) of stealing a laptop is an over reaction and in conflict with that principle. To me, the level of detainment is not commensurate with what is reasonably required in order to investigate or protect the public interest.
From reading the end of the story, it is clear that they did not have reasonable suspicion. They had a responsive seller on Craigslist who was selling the same computer as the supposed buyer had lost. Do you believe owning the same model computer is reasonable suspicion? Does use of Craigslist meet your threshold of reasonable suspicion? Their reasonable suspicion was predicated on the signaling of the person inspecting the laptop, and that signal never came.
Is that true? I've always heard that Terry allows officers to stop you, and ask questions under reasonable suspicion, but that performing pat downs and handcuffing is only allowed if there is a reasonable suspicion that the suspect is armed.
And I'm still not really convinced that there was reasonable suspicion that a crime is being committed. Wouldn't that mean that any private party sale negotiated in public is inherently suspicious? I know law enforcement has a lot of leeway here but that would be kind of alarming.
>He was investigated, nothing was found, and he was released. He wasn't arrested, charged, taken to jail, let alone "guilty until proven innocent".
The docility with which the american public takes those abuses (in a country with record police shootings and a wholly disproportionate number of inmates) always amuses me...
> He was investigated, nothing was found, and he was released.
Let me guess: you're a white male, aren't you?
When these things happen to others but don't happen to you, you can pass it off as "mistakes happen". But when these "mistakes" happen only to a certain section of society, it's a cause for concern.
Why was he handcuffed and had a taser on his back?? Why was he treated like a criminal in front of everybody? You don't put handcuffs on someone unless you want to detain them.
> Why was he handcuffed and had a taser on his back?? Why was he treated like a criminal in front of everybody? You don't put handcuffs on someone unless you want to detain them.
Because he was suspected of handling stolen goods.
This is an extremely shitty and racist argument to make, particularly on the internet where you shouldn't make assumptions about who people are.
Were the cops wrong in being overzealous? Obviously. Is the poster automatically a "white male" because they consider an alternative perspective? No, they just have a different opinion than you.
Let me give you an example. I'm not a white male. My girlfriend is white. I have learned, after several experiences, that if you are pulled over, you roll down your window, keep your hands on the steering wheel, look straight and answer "yes sir", "no sir". Deviation from this protocol can result in anything from a search, to a beatdown (in extreme cases).
She, on the contrary, has not. She has been pulled over a few times, of course.
2 months ago, coming back from visiting a friend in NorCal, I pulled on to the highway and as I was merging, sped up. A CHP car just happened to be there, and tagged me. We were pulled over. I immediately assumed the aforementioned stance. She, on the other hand, decided to cheerfully take off her seatbelt, turn around and start digging into her bag on the rear seat, looking for a book, her glasses, etc. And the officer could see this rummaging from his vehicle.
What ensued, was not pretty. Lets just say that my GF has a new perspective on how to behave when pulled over.
My point is: unless you belong to a set that is consistently treated differently, you will never understand their point of view.
If one has ever been cuffed or had a weapon pointed at them, they're far less likely to be so cavalier in dismissing another's similar experience.
Given that African Americans are far, far more likely to be unjustly detained in such a matter, it seems reasonable to assume that mcphage is a white male, given his callous response.
That word doesn't mean what you appear to believe that it means. I do not hold the belief that one race is superior to another, nor do I hold the belief that society should exploit or disadvantage individuals based on their race. Therefore I am not being racist, nor was my statement.
It's perfectly within the bounds of reasonable discourse to question the underlying assumptions of another's worldview to show that their assertions come from a biased perspective that requires examination.
+1. He was a suspect. Things didn't check out and the cops let him off without even taking him to the station.
So now whether they had the probable cause to search his computer or not - that is unclear as we obv don't have a full story from the law enforcement side of things. I highly doubt that someone calling the cops and telling them - 'someone on craigslist is selling a laptop that was stolen from me' without any proof would trigger this ordeal.
Yeesh. I know I would react badly to having a weapon pointed at me by someone who is not in uniform. I hate hearing that this stuff is becoming more commonplace because I know if it happens to me I'll react badly and it will be my own fault when I end up dead or in jail. I guess now I have a super compelling reason to practice more mindfulness.
If this can happen over a stolen laptop, we have given the police too much power, resources and authority, and too little training, education and accountability.
They are essentially armed goons for those with property and the right complexion.
The people responsible for these actions make upwards of $180k a year and will suffer no repercussions for their actions. Let that sink in.
I generally agree with you and I'm generally very critical of the police and I think they handled this very poorly, but I don't think we know enough to say they shouldn't have been involved at all. If Derek is telling the truth that his stolen laptop with lots of personal information on it has turned his life into a movie then it sounds like there is a lot more to know.
It's okay for them to have been involved, but it certainly wasn't okay for them to use violence in this situation. A taser is a potentially deadly weapon; it should only be used in response to deadly force not simply because someone is suspected of theft.
I completely agree. Like I said, they handled it very poorly. But OP made it sound like they shouldn't have even been involved and I don't know that part is true.
I can't think of a situation where events in someone's life justify this kind of behavior being inflicted upon an innocent person.
I'd love to be proven wrong, though.
They certainly should have been involved, but the way the went about their investigation was unprofessional and significantly affected a person who was completely uninvolved in the original crime.
The current title ("Cops Cuffed Me for Selling My Own Mac") makes it seem as if the police were perfectly aware that the suspect was trying to sell his own property and just decided to harass him anyway.
Rather, it appears the cops didn't "cuff him for selling his own Mac", they cuffed him because they believed it wasn't his Mac to sell.
I don't know Macs, but dell tag numbers are burned into the BIOS. Possibly checking that instead of a sticker that could have a fake serial is a more reliable method of verifying the number. i.e. your less than technically competent thief might not know about this or how to change the BIOS one.
Phonetically C-number and serial number sound close enough that I'd suspect C-number is a memetic mutation of serial number. I wonder if "Derek" was trying to look up the UUID of the system.
To the police, this was a sting. I'm not sure, but maybe warrants aren't needed for those? The "suspect" willingly allowed the property to be searched (drive attached and booted). The police overreacted, and according to Derek, ignored the plan and substituted their own. There's no detail on how Derek was robbed, but if it was more of a mugging, the police would consider any suspect "armed and dangerous" in ANY context.
Unless I'm misunderstanding his account of events, the police did not search his property. The person whose laptop was stolen searched it, and the owner of the laptop consented to that search.
The police detained him, I suspect, because they were satisfied they had reasonable suspicion he was handling stolen goods.
Please don't invoke someone's personal details here to make a point in an argument. That's a significant breach of HN's rules, and this argument is already nasty.
> My dad had given me his extra computer, so I decided to sell mine: a 14-inch, 2012 MacBook Pro.
Perhaps the cops were going after him for false advertising...
Edit: A point made in jest, but in all seriousness, if he had actually advertised it as a 14-inch model, it would add to a reasonable suspicion that the laptop was not his.
You see this all the time with stolen bicycles advertised online. You can spot the stolen ones a mile off, because the seller doesn't have a clue what it is they are selling.
