So this woman was written up on charges for Distribution/Manufacture of Schedule 1 drugs (among other things)[0], and was subsequently the subject of a minor inconvenience when she discovered that she was being (legally) monitored by the cops. The cops then asked for their property back.
And the result of this was a sympathetic write-up of the poor, mildly inconvenienced drug dealer?
We are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in our search for victimization porn...
The most important rights to protect, in my opinion, are the rights of people accused of a crime. Everything needs to be done transparently, legally, and fairly, no matter how bad the alleged crime is.
We are in total agreement with regards to the principles involved. So... in what way were her rights not protected? Cops can do surveillance, right? They got a warrant, after all. There is plenty of loaded language and implied wrongdoing, but what was done that was actually wrong?
She could be a serial killer that’s not the point.
It doesn’t matter if she’s guilty or not, what matters is can you be charged with a crime if you remove a piece of surveillance equipment from your own property if so it sets a very bad precedent what’s next if the police sets a wiretap on your phone and you switch numbers you gonna be charged with interfering with a police investigation or some other nonsense too?
She might as well be very much guilty in regards to the drugs offenses but it doesn’t mean she can or should be guilty of theft or any other offense due to removing a device from her car.
>what matters is can you be charged with a crime if you remove a piece of surveillance equipment from your own property if so it sets a very bad precedent
Did you read the article? She wasn't charged. There is no indication she was charged or will be charged. There is just a claim by a third party that the police "demanded" the return of the device, and some armchair lawyering (citing out-of-state case law) that's intended to imply police overreach where none exists.
Take this as you may, but I would just like point out that this is even more strongly implemented in courts via an offence called 'contempt of court'.
Here is what is advised to do to avoid being charged with contempt of court. 1) Know the etiquette and court standards of the court for which you will appear, including dress codes; [1] 2) Avoid raising your voice, outbursts, or any other display of anger or adverse reactions to an order. [1]
Here are some selected things that can get you a contempt of court offence: 1) Criminal Contempt: being rude or disrespectful to court proceedings, the judge, or attorneys in the proceedings, or causing some type of disturbance in the courtroom. [2] 2) Direct Contempt: an action taken in the presence of the court, which is intended to cause embarrassment or show disrespect for the court. [2] 3) Indirect Contempt: actions taken away from the court, which are intended to mock, degrade, or obstruct the court or court proceedings. ... In addition, publishing or handing out flyers intended to cause disrespect for the court may be considered an act of indirect contempt. [2]
Here is an explanation of being imprisoned for contempt of court: Even in cases of civil contempt, jail time is sometimes threatened, though if imposed it is usually brief. In fact, jail time usually ends when the individual complies with the judge’s order. In this situation, the jailed individual is usually placed in the custody of the local sheriff or other court officer and, because he is said to “hold the keys to his own cell,” due process of law is not necessary. [2]
Now from this you can see that someone could honestly criticize the courts and be imprisoned forever until they lie they lie and say that the court is great. If they are too honest and aren't willing to lie or be dishonest then they will stay imprisoned until they die, with no due process.
Now you can imagine how this can translate to a police officer being able to arrest or lock up people for not being respectful enough to them. The different levels of law enforcement are not unlinked, from the legislature down to the police. Scary to think about legal punishments for criticizing the wrong people/institutions. Instead of just looking at police, it may be much more beneficial to look at the whole system (including the police), seriously look at the whole system.
Here is an example of someone getting huge fines and jail time is right here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe2BfdlzwgI (CNN: Judge flips out after getting flipped off). I personally found that disgusting and it stuck in my head, although as from [1] the defendant apologized about the outburst and said she was under the influence at court after four days in jail. If she was unwilling to be dishonest and thought that the punishment was excessive, she could still be in jail today.
Note: It should go without saying but I am most definitely not a lawyer, who has not studied the law in any slightly significant way, this is just what I have observed during ordinary life. And for the 5 people who read this, sorry if this comment was too long.
Doesn't look to me like the 'bottom of the barrel' comment was applied to the social status of the woman. Looked more like parent was making the point that it's a stretch to call the drug dealer the victim...that the reporter must be scraping the 'bottom of the barrel' of their story ideas.
You're going to have to be a lot more specific. What makes you think 'bottom of the barrel' was referring to the social status of the woman?
What's your experience of drug dealers? I'm really curious where this new age anti police pro drug peddler mentality is coming from because I've had multiple friends over my 40 years lost to drugs so what the fuck is the defence of these people about? Many people that can be sold drugs are victims.. so yeah these drug dealer cretins are low status.
It's the result of the influx of young western kids smoking weed. They think they will go to prison for 800 years if they are caught, so they become anti police to feel better about their bad habits.
Or it could because there is increased awareness of the originally racist and authoritarian motives for modern drug laws? I'm not of the mind that weed cannot and does not frequently become a bad habit but weed abuse is far less problematic than alcohol abuse yet the former is treated as a criminal affair.
Black people are the most consistently anti-police demographic so I don't know where you're getting the idea that it's "young western kids" that are propagating the anti-police rhetoric.
And the result of this was a sympathetic write-up of the poor, mildly inconvenienced drug dealer?
We are really scraping the bottom of the barrel in our search for victimization porn...
[0] https://www.publicpolicerecord.com/louisiana/batonrouge-jail...