ADVERTISEMENT

I guess you can be arrested with no proof of a crime

FCB 2013 treble

Well-Known Member
Dec 14, 2016
2,721
2,112
113
In this story a guy was arrested and in jail for 17 days. Later the police found out they made a mistake. The guy is suing American Airlines (American Airlines was just in the news recently about having bugs or insects in one of the inflight meals) but should he also be able to sue the police department?

 
  • Like
Reactions: Flameout12
While I believe the claim that "it infects virtually his every decision and action" is probably being embellished, there is no doubt he suffered emotional and likely psychological distress from this. I hope he can get a fortune from AA in particular, and a large amount from Tarrant County and whichever agency held him in New Mexico.
 
Had he committed a crime, he probably would have been out within 24 hours.
If I was head of the Department of Justice, I would make this scumbag punishment sentence be dropped off at the North Pole and let the cold weather or Polar Bears kill him. This guy has a criminal history.

 
  • Like
Reactions: bucketdad
If I was head of the Department of Justice, I would make this scumbag punishment sentence be dropped off at the North Pole and let the cold weather or Polar Bears kill him. This guy has a criminal history.

Tie him to the tracks and roll the train in slow, really slow…………. Plenty of time to think about what’s fixing to happen.
 
What is this story doing on Gamecock Scoop?
It's Summer. Not much going on with the Gamecocks at the moment.

You've signed up as a Gold Member and now have 14 posts including a couple that resemble this one. It's still very easy to find a sports related thread on the board.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: cocks rule

I guess you can be arrested with no proof of a crime​


This is not exactly a new or recent development. People have been falsely accused and arrested since the Salem Witch Trials.
Correct. And now he has the opportunity hold the offending parties accountable, a right not afforded to citizens everywhere.
 
You need proof for a conviction. Not an arrest itself. Maybe an by attorney can chime in.
The standard for arrest is probable cause (low) and for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt (very high). That said after arrest you have a right to a lawyer, to know what you are charged with, except in unusual cases to have bond set (and shop lifting is the opposite of unusual), etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: rogue cock
People have been going to jail for decades for a long time that were innocent. It's as American as apple pie.

Influential Texas Commission Says Blood-Spatter Testimony in Joe Bryan’s Murder Case Was “Not Accurate or Scientifically Supported”​


 
  • Like
Reactions: rogue cock

I guess you can be arrested with no proof of a crime​


This is not exactly a new or recent development. People have been falsely accused and arrested since the Salem Witch Trials.
What! In my previous life I knew witches…….and what’s more I can still spot them today…….gawd knows New England is still full of em today😝
 
The standard for arrest is probable cause (low) and for conviction is beyond a reasonable doubt (very high). That said after arrest you have a right to a lawyer, to know what you are charged with, except in unusual cases to have bond set (and shop lifting is the opposite of unusual), etc.
Probable cause gives us the right to search/investigate. It doesn't give us the right to detain except while searching for said probable cause.
Every situation is different so it's hard to ever know exactly what's the deal when looking from the outside at a story.
 
In this story a guy was arrested and in jail for 17 days. Later the police found out they made a mistake. The guy is suing American Airlines (American Airlines was just in the news recently about having bugs or insects in one of the inflight meals) but should he also be able to sue the police department?


"We done smoked it,"
 
Not only does probable cause (so long as you actually have it) warrant detain, so does reasonable suspicion, because RS is supposed to give police a lower standard to do their job (legally) and which is the whole reason for Terry v. Ohio, which imo remains one of the Top 10 landmark cases in SCOTUS history. But yes, PC is needed to arrest, which of course allows a legal warrant less search.
 
If you are a minority, stay away from Des Moines.



This is a great video. Sadly, there are hundreds and hundreds of videos like this and the problem seems to be getting worse - even with all the media attention.

I think the main problem is that many officers just do not receive quality training and their system is set up to reward officers who tally large numbers of arrests.

Recently, in a local county in South Carolina, the sheriff awarded an officer an "officer of the year" award for the most DUI arrests.

What the sheriff nor the department mentioned was how many of those arrests resulted in prosecutions and guilty pleas or convictions.

as I have explained to my wife, one officer misinterpreting the law (and sadly it happens a lot- there are hundreds of videos one can watch to see the evidence) can result in an innocent citizen losing their career, their family, and their life savings.

I am amazed at how many law enforcement officers don't know the law they are supposed to be enforcing.
 
Last edited:
You need proof for a conviction. Not an arrest itself. Maybe an by attorney can chime in.
To make an arrest you have to have "probable cause." Being an incompetent investigator and failing to do your job does not constitute probable cause. It does, however, create legal liability in civil court.
 
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT