Severe enough to me would be to account for the fact that being caught up in this could ruin someone's life. I know in my civilian and military job (with security clearance) this would not go over very well. Even if later on it was determined to be false nobody will ever look at you the same. I don't see anywhere in the particular law unless I missed it that there were repercussions for false reporting unless you are just referencing general false reporting repercussions. I would hope that at the ground level a false reporting or a vindictive he said she said situation would be quickly sorted out before it went any further. The civil liability angle is a joke. How many average joe's can really afford a lawyer to go after someone and in the end a loser that makes a false complaint is likely not going to have anything to go after anyway. It's likely unrealistic that a normal upstanding person would ever find themselves involved in anything like this but I think that's where peoples apprehension is at.
Oh no, that part is true...Amazon was "hiring" people so they could be used as food for the wealthy
I agree with you most of the time. I have to point out that the officers in the original complaint do not seem to fit your narrative though.Please forgive me for not engaging in every heretofore unproven hypothetical.
Your hope concerning how false claims play out on the ground is well-placed. We do our very best to sort out all the facts of every situation and give the accused every benefit of doubt. Sometimes to our detriment, as guess who gets blamed every time a whacko with a gun kills a bunch of people after having had contact with LE sometime beforehand?
We aren't out here swiping guns and ruining lives at every whipstitch. Cops still belong in the "good guys" camp, and law enforcement is still a noble profession.
I agree with you most of the time. I have to point out that the officers in the original complaint do not seem to fit your narrative though.
I think it's fairly obvious that you're not defending the profession as a whole. We all know about the Daniel Harless-types, and how rare they are; The concerning part of that is that some agencies seem to actively recruit guys like that and foster that kind of culture. Canton tried to keep him on, and wanted to rehire him, as I recall! Thankfully, that's Ohio, not IN, and for my part, I don't go there.Valid point!
With the caveat of I don't know anything other than what has been reported:
Absolutely. This case should not have made it past a report. Had this incident occurred in my jurisdiction, it would not have. I have confidence that this case will end in affirmation of overreach.
That said, I dont know what the law is in Rhode Island. If it allows for this, it should be challenged and overturned. If it doesn't, then the cops are going to have to present a pretty compelling case for doing what they did.
I fear that my commentary may be perceived as defending every cop ever. It's not. It is a response to the notion that all cops equal the worst examples we can find across a nation with 18,000 disparate agencies and 697,000 officers.
Bloomington has nothing on Canton, and most especially N Canton, for feckless wealthy people of a hardcore progressive bent promulgating asinine SJW sophistryI think it's fairly obvious that you're not defending the profession as a whole. We all know about the Daniel Harless-types, and how rare they are; The concerning part of that is that some agencies seem to actively recruit guys like that and foster that kind of culture. Canton tried to keep him on, and wanted to rehire him, as I recall! Thankfully, that's Ohio, not IN, and for my part, I don't go there.
You tell me and we'll both know!Alright so wait, I can’t keep track. Are we the bad guys again?
I know if someone turned me in with false claims and my firearms are taken from me once it's over I should be allowed to sue them for everything they have. Defamation of character whatever.What's severe enough? What's false enough? What's enough damage to differentiate between false because the complainant simply doesn't know enough about the situation/law/applicability and someone who maliciously creates a potentially damaging situation? Who gets to make determinate decisions concerning these matters?
They open themselves to civil liability, with strong legal standing on the part of the complainant.
Here is some information to aid you in obtaining a basic understanding of Laird.
I believe the brush is much more narrow in this one or it should be anyway.Alright so wait, I can’t keep track. Are we the bad guys again?
When it comes to those that break laws, ignorance of the law is not a viable excuse for breaking the law. Why not apply that same standard to those that make reports that seem to lack merit? Why give them a pass?What's severe enough? What's false enough? What's enough damage to differentiate between false because the complainant simply doesn't know enough about the situation/law/applicability and someone who maliciously creates a potentially damaging situation? Who gets to make determinate decisions concerning these matters?
They open themselves to civil liability, with strong legal standing on the part of the complainant.
Here is some information to aid you in obtaining a basic understanding of Laird.
When it comes to those that break laws, ignorance of the law is not a viable excuse for breaking the law. Why not apply that same standard to those that make reports that seem to lack merit? Why give them a pass?
So then prosecuting a false report is an uphill battle both in terms of proving it and having a prosecutor who gives a damn?As indicated earlier, false reporting is a crime. Making a report in good faith is a defense under that section. The onus is on the prosecution to prove the false report was provided knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly.
We don't jail people for reporting violent domestics that turn out to be rough sex, we don't jail people for reports of child abuse that don't have merit, and we don't jail people who report mental/emotional problems that turn out to be false. We investigate the report and make decisions based on the evidence. If the evidence supports the claim, we move forward with appropriate measures. If it does not, we don't.
If good faith reporting becomes a prosecutable offense, society is in a world of trouble.
If it ruined a person's character or had a God given right taken away that person or person should be held liable be it in jail or sued in civil court.As indicated earlier, false reporting is a crime. Making a report in good faith is a defense under that section. The onus is on the prosecution to prove the false report was provided knowingly, intentionally, or recklessly.
We don't jail people for reporting violent domestics that turn out to be rough sex, we don't jail people for reports of child abuse that don't have merit, and we don't jail people who report mental/emotional problems that turn out to be false. We investigate the report and make decisions based on the evidence. If the evidence supports the claim, we move forward with appropriate measures. If it does not, we don't.
If good faith reporting becomes a prosecutable offense, society is in a world of trouble.
So then prosecuting a false report is an uphill battle both in terms of proving it and having a prosecutor who gives a damn?