I need to check your receipt

[dburkhead]

OH. yes, i didnt realize you were talking about jail. i concur. jail is stocked with the nicest people youd ever want to meet. what a fool i am.

You might want to look up the term "strawman."

I never said nobody was guilty, I didn't even say the majority were innocent. Just a significant number.

Or are you one of those who believe the police never make a mistake?

 

[Michiana]

I have a problem with selective enforcement.

What bothers me in many cases is not being asked to see my receipt but how many of these people act when checking your items. You can have 60 items in your cart at Sam’s Wholesale and the door guard glances for a half second at your cart and puts a line through your receipt with their felt tipped highlighter and off you go. They don’t have a clue what you have in that cart. I was told by a manager that all they want to do is mark the receipt so you don’t go out to your car, dump off your items and go back and get another cart full of items and go back out using the old receipt. Be honest and quit playing games.

What bothers me at places like Best Buy and Fry’s (the worst) is when you go through the check out and walk fifteen feet and some kid who has been standing there the entire time looking the other way, shooting the bull with some friend asks to see your receipt. If they were doing their job they would see you paying at the cash register and walk right to the door. Half the time these people also do not have a clue what you have in the bag they peek into. They are wasting our time and also implying that we are dishonest which is insulting.

Last Summer I was shopping at a Wal-Mart in NY State and had a small bag with a few items in it; the store was busy and as usual only a third of the registers were open yet there were all kinds of employee’s walking around the store while lines were five deep. Heading out the door I was probably fifth in line and by far the best dressed person. I was stopped by the door guard who asked me for my receipt, which pissed me off as he had not done so to the people in front of me. I asked him “do you think I am a thief?” and continued walking out the door. He called to me to come back and I just ignored him and walked to my car. Had he been checking every shopper I would have had no problem showing my receipt but he was cherry picking people, not necessarily people who look like they might have sticky fingers.

This showing of your receipt is in my opinion infringing on the law abiding customer; they have electronic devices and security people and cameras for that purpose; quit physically block paid customers when they leave the store for another useless check. Put another person on a register so we don't have to wait so long to give them our hard earned money, don't waste it on a door man.

It surprised me reading this thread how many people who take offense when people question their right to carry a gun wherever they feel like have no problem have people question their honesty. What gives with your people?

 

[ihateiraq]

You might want to look up the term "strawman."

I never said nobody was guilty, I didn't even say the majority were innocent. Just a significant number.

Or are you one of those who believe the police never make a mistake?

of course the police make mistakes. theyve mistakenly cuffed me before. semi-mistakenly anyway. but i wasnt referencing anyones guilt. i was referring your allusion to inmates being of higher quality than the guards, or maybe the general public. im not sure which.

 

[dburkhead]

So your experience is base on 1 visit, so there for your knowledge on this subject is the voice of experience buuuuut yet my experience is based on 15 yrs of working there night after night after night and yet I don't know what I'm talking about. I really do appreciate you setting me straight on this, and here I thought I might have some knowledge about jail, the criminal justice system, incarceration and such.

Thanks

Well, thank you for confirming that the police never make mistakes. Except if they never make mistakes why, then why are more than half the people arrested never actually convicted?

I mean, if they're so good as to never arrest innocent people then why aren't they good enough to get actual convictions? Seems to be a disconnect there.

OTOH, when one is going to stuff people into a dehumanizing and humiliating system, oversee it, and participate in that dehumanizing and humiliating, then perhaps it's helpful to be certain in one's own mind that they're "bad people" which makes it all justified.

And I'm pretty sure the people at the Marion County lockup were just as certain of my guilt as you are of all those people under your care.

Here's one for that 15 years of experience to chew on:

When I was in taken back there was a PI also present for some reason. Don't know why, exactly--nothing to do with my case. When they took a bunch of us from the front area to the back (where there are those little windows where you are told the charges and, in my case, told what initial bail would be and that I was automatically under a "no contact" order for the issue), the PI came along (again, don't know why). The corrections officer told the PI to go back to the front and wait. The PI started to raise some objection to doing so (perhaps you can see where this is going?) and the corrections officer got very irate and insisted that he go now.

A few seconds later another corrections officer comes back, bringing the PI in a pain-compliance hold. When the PI explains that the first corrections officer, who was still there, had told him to go back to the front, the second asks the first if it was true. And the first, with a completely straight--butter wouldn't melt in his mouth--face says "No."

The first corrections officer basically lied through his teeth. Nobody on the "out" there, none of the people at the little windows said anything. The only person who said anything was one of the other inmates (I will admit that I was too cowed to risk drawing attention to myself) who was promptly told to shut up.

I wonder how many years of experience that first correction officer had? Oh, and as an aside, that first corrections office was also the one who took my fingerprints. While doing so, he asked about any health issues and any medications I was on. I reported the medications I was taking. Nothing was actually done about it, but I was asked and I did answer honestly. But if nothing was going to be done about it, why bother asking the question?

You may wonder what I was arrested for?

Well, it's like this. My wife had some post-partum issues after the birth of our firstborn. One day, after topping the fluids on her car, The oil cap hadn't closed all the way and came loose on the road. Oil spray soaked the ignition wires causing the car to run rough and finally die just a few seconds (literally) from home.

She started ranting that I had done it deliberately in an effort to kill her. In the course of her rant, she scooped our son up out of the crib and was holding him so tightly that I feared he couldn't breath. She would not put him down when I asked her too so I tried prying her arms open to set him down so I could start working on getting her calmed down.

Well, I do get him out of her arms and she starts claiming that I assaulted her. She calls the police and....

My wife has a condition known as dermographia. That means that even very modest rubbing, scratching, or the like leaves red welts that last for 10-15 minutes. I was told by the police that there is no discretion in such a situation but that I was to be arrested and charged with domestic battery. (I guess I can be thankful that the police didn't come by some time after we'd had sex.) Even when she calmed down and tried to explain the situation to them, we still had to go through the whole thing, with lawyers, hearings, and finally the charges being dropped literally months later.

And you and Public Servant want me to believe that the things that happened to me were so uncommon that they only apply to one person in a thousand who is arrested?

 

[Pale Rider]

This actually happened to me.
At Wal-Mart in Avon there was an ethnic family and then an ethnic gentleman with full carts in front of me as I exited the interior doors. I too had a full cart. The “Greeter” stepped in front of me and asked for my receipt. In a very loud voice I started in with “ Oh yea pick on the white guy cause you can’t speak Spanish, Go ahead and single me out because you think I’m passive enough to give into your racism, I’m tired of being discriminated against, you think I’m stealing because I’m white? I’m an American, I served my Country, I pay my Taxes, I’m not a Felon, Why does Wal-Mart continue to persecute me as if I had a Tattoo on my forehead saying don’t trust this guy. Why, Why, Why? Either ask every single customer or don’t ask anyone!

About that time a manager was there flailing his arms in the air and saying we are sorry for any inconvenience, Please Sir have a nice day.

I have seen that same greeter since and he hides when he sees me - LOL

define what race "ethnic" is for those of us not up to speed...

 

[JcJ]

I side stepped a receipt checking line at the WallyWorld garden exit a few weeks ago. The old man jumped in front of me blocking the exit stating "I was told to check everyone"

I told him I was sorry about his luck, gently shouldered my way through and kept walking..

Part of the issue I have is some of these people think they are legally entitled stop and search.. It just isn't going to happen unless I feel like letting them..

 

[dburkhead]

of course the police make mistakes. theyve mistakenly cuffed me before. semi-mistakenly anyway. but i wasnt referencing anyones guilt. i was referring your allusion to inmates being of higher quality than the guards, or maybe the general public. im not sure which.

I didn't make any assessment of "overall quality," just of the treatment of others I saw, with my own eyes. Maybe I was there on "arrest a saint" day that happened to fall on the same day as "bring a jerk to work day" but what I saw on that particular day.

Another more modest example than the PI incident I report uptopic.

When I was taken upstairs the batch of us were led to a cell that was being used as storage for thin pads that would serve as mattresses for the duration of our stay. The mattresses came in various states of disrepair, some being better padding than others. Some being more duct tape than anything else. The order was simple: take the one off the top and move on. I was lucky. One in decent condition was there when I got to the front of the line. Others not so much so.

And so in the lockup people had all sorts of different qualities of mattresses from some in a bit better condition than mine to some that were little more than two layers of duct tape back to back.

Now, if this were some prison movie there's be fights over the mattresses. Didn't happen, at least not in that cell, that night. Also, people would get called back for arraignment in groups. I can't speak for everyone else, but when I came back from mine (bail set at $30,000), my mattress was still there.

One thing I did see, however, was when people left under conditions where they were to take their mattress with them, those with poor quality mattresses would ask if they'd swap before leaving. Never saw anybody say no. (I didn't when it was my turn.)

I don't claim that this is because these were all "salt of the earth" people, but there is a strong leavening of folk who were arrested who really are innocent combined with people who are not there for major felonies and for everyone this was a short term stay before going elsewhere so there seemed to be an attitude of "we're all in this together."

In contrast we have the PI case; why not let people pick the best from among the mattresses so long as they don't dawdle over it; and the mistreating a prisoner for the "crime" of not waking up the first time his name is called.

Perhaps this was an exceptional day (well, 30 hours to be more precise) where behavior was worse than usual on one side and better than usual on the other, but I suspect it's more likely a typical day.

Does this reflect how the people on either side behave away from that rather limited environment? Probably not. But it was how they behaved then and there.

 

[public servant]

I can't verify any sources...but the last numbers I recall hearing were that an estimated 1/10th of 1% of the people that were incarcerated for a crime were actually innocent...on a national average.

In Marion County an average of 60 to 65,000 people are arrested each year (but I believe that number is down the last few years). That would mean an average of 60-65 of those may actually be innocent. Too high...but not that bad of an average IMO...unless you're one of the 60-65 people. The system isn't perfect...but it's not a bad system.

Again...I can't verify those numbers. It's simply what I was told by a prosecutor. If you want to dispute the numbers...feel free. I'm sure that if you took 30 seconds to look in the right place you could find a questionable source that says 95% of those incarcerated are innocent.

You really mean to sit there and say with a straight face that the police only make a mistake one time in a thousand? I might believe that of the final outcome of the system (and even there, well, I want to see the actual source to see what it actually says and on what it's based and not "what [you] remember hearing"), but from simple arrest?

I'm really not sure with what part of my original post you have issues with. I think I was fairly straight forward when I stated that I could not prove without a shadow of a doubt it's validity. It was merely a statement of what had been conveyed to me by a prosecutor that I feel through his many years in the field I personally would consider an expert on the subject.

I never claimed it was written in stone and carried by Moses among the ten commandments. I feel I made that perfectly clear. It was again...merely a set of statistics with which I feel fairly comfortable with because of the source. I continued to state that I could not prove it. Those numbers were not intended to insult anyone nor were they a claim to the perfection of the job law enforcement does.

Now...on to your claim as to why you personally were incarcerated...pre conviction, if you will...or jailed, if that term makes you feel better. While I have no reason to doubt your tale of the events that led to your arrest...I can tell you with complete certainty that over the years...I've seen hundreds of domestic battery arrests that resulted in the charges being dropped because the alleged battered witness changes their testimony.

Some I'm sure were cases in which momma gets mad and calls the po-po and has the male arrested because she's nothing more than mad about something. No actual battery may have taken place.

Others I'm sure, the complaining party realizes she cannot get along without baby-daddy's paycheck and changes her accounts of the events so the person who actually battered her will continue to support her and the kids.

This is in no way making fun of the seriousness of domestic battery. It is in my opinion a particularly evil and dangerous crime. I'll leave my personal opinion as to what the punishment for the crime should be. I feel it's a shame that some women feel that they are in a position that they have no way out of an abusive relationship. All I can do is offer them alternative ways out and pray they find the strength to get out of their potentially deadly situation...and pray God keeps them safe.

But...without fact to prove otherwise...we'll have to assume your accounts of the events are indeed truthful and accurate. I'm sure there will be those that have doubt...but everyone is entitled to their opinion...right?? Again...not that I'm doubting your word or anything. It's not for me to judge guilt or innocence...or wonder if the guilty party got a walk. I am however, certain it's happened before and it will undoubtedly happen again.

 

[Indy317]

" But thank you for demonstrating what has been told to me before and that I didn't want to believe: if a person is found "not guilty" the assumption of the police is not that they got the wrong guy (and thus might actually look for the person who is actually guilty) but instead that the person "got away with it."

Why should the police assume they got the wrong guy? Should they go out and arrest others? Sometimes the guilty go free, but just because they go free doesn't mean they are innocent.

My cousin just told me that he recently went to jury duty. He got dismissed because of having LEO in the family, as he has had discussions on the issue of breath testing and all that with them. He said he recalled the defense attorney saying something like 'Do you think a person should go to jail based upon a machine?' Obviously he wanted to fight the operating with a .08-.15 charge. My cousin said it almost sounded like they were conceding on the driving while intoxicated charge. Anyways, my cousin said there was this really old lady in the pool. He said she reminded him of our grandmother, very slow to speak, didn't remember things well at all. He got the boot, she gets to stay.

Another co-worker told me of a guy that 11 out of 12 of the jurors wanted to convict. They asked one lady why she thought the guy didn't do it (I guess the entire defense case was really weak), as they figured that is why one would vote "not guilty." You know what her answer was: "I do think he did it, but I don't think I could live with myself sending someone to prison!" Yea, jurors sometimes vote on emotion, not facts. Eventually they convinced her that she needed to vote based upon the case, not her feelings. She ended up voting guilty eventually.

Trust me, I am not saying it is right or wrong, that is our system. A finding of "Not guilty" never means the person didn't do it, it means that either a judge or jury felt, for whatever reason, that the state didn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt the person did it. In the worst case scenarios, juries vote on pure emotion and toss out the rule of law for the rule of emotion.

Judges and juries don't find people "innocent," they find that the state can't hold that person responsible for the underlying criminal act. There is a massive difference.

It blows my mind that anyone could claim a 99.9% accuracy record in arresting the actual guilty party with a straight face.

Why? Do you prefer robots doing police work? Innocent people will go to jail. Sometimes cops _think_ they know the law, but they don't. What is your solution, more training? They already have a ton of training. Trying to lure better people into the job is one thing that _might_ help, but I doubt it. When nice suburban departments that are paying $55K/year (after three to seven years) _plus_ a take home vehicle (worth an extra $5K/year) _plus_ a decent 20 year retirement pension _plus_ over-time _plus_ holiday pay _plus_ off-duty work can only muster up around 150 applicants in a metro area with a population of 1.2 million, something is wrong folks.

The thing is, no one hardly wants to be a cop. They all want someone else to do the job. Well, if 90%+ of all the bright, logical people take a pass, even with decent benefits and pay, what do you think is left in the applicant pool? I have been to processes that have the benefits noted above, in the Indy area, and people are not only coming from out the metro area, they are coming from out-of-state!!

So we can either have a very, very small number of people falsely arrested, hopefully right them down the road, and go on with the status quo.....or maybe we should junk the system all together and do what they do in Mogadishu? If you really want to fix the system now, I know of a few things you can do:

#1: If you have some decent intelligence and logic skills, start applying to work as a police officer. The job you take from someone else with a little less intelligence may be the difference if someone is wrongly jailed/imprisoned in the future.
#2: If you believe that we should never be under 100% of wrongly imprisoned persons, then you need to start fighting against the death penalty. If the state can't bat 100%, then no one needs to be sentenced to death since there might be that slim possibility they didn't do the crime.
#3: Get involved (and that does mean monetarily as well) in something like the innocence project: The Innocence Project - Home

 

[dburkhead]

I'm really not sure with what part of my original post you have issues with. I think I was fairly straight forward when I stated that I could not prove without a shadow of a doubt it's validity. It was merely a statement of what had been conveyed to me by a prosecutor that I feel through his many years in the field I personally would consider an expert on the subject.

I have a problem with the idea that you, who claim to be a law enforcement officer (and I have no reason to doubt said claim), can sit there and repeat as even within the realm of plausibility that police officers only make mistakes when it comes to who they arrest for a crime one time in a thousand (on average).

Do you really think that highly of your own near infallibility?

Why? Do you prefer robots doing police work? Innocent people will go to jail. Sometimes cops _think_ they know the law, but they don't. What is your solution, more training?

How about recognizing that a significant number of folk who are arrested are not actually guilty of the crimes they're charged with? (Note, I said "significant number" not "majority.") How about treating people who have not been convicted as human beings with a bit of decency?

I'm not saying that innocent people being locked up temporarily while the facts are sorted out via the courts is unacceptable. It's the attitudes and automatic assumption that the police are right and that a "not guilty" verdict doesn't mean the police made a mistake but that the person "got away with it." That one in ten-thousand factoid is a classic example. Last time I dug up the numbers about 40% of people arrested have charges dropped. Of the remainder between one and two thirds (depending to a large extent on the charge--conviction rates were higher on more serious felonies than on misdemeanors). That means that at least half of the people arrested were not convicted of anything. And yet, if my experience was any indication, every single one was treated as scum by "the system" before that eventual outcome.

Is treating someone who has not been convicted "beyond a reasonable doubt" as a human being until or unless he (or she) is proven undeserving really that much to ask?

That's all I've ever asked for in this context.

 

[Indy317]

I never said nobody was guilty, I didn't even say the majority were innocent. Just a significant number.

Or are you one of those who believe the police never make a mistake?

How many do you believe are innocent?

 

[2ADMNLOVER]

can only muster up around 150 applicants in a metro area with a population of 1.2 million, something is wrong folks.

1. Are you talking about Indianapolis ?

2. Do you mean to say that only 150 apply , or only 150 can make it through training ?

 

[Indy317]

And you and Public Servant want me to believe that the things that happened to me were so uncommon that they only apply to one person in a thousand who is arrested?

So what is your _solution_? How many people are innocent? How do you think we can train the police to be mind readers? Should we force people to have cameras in their homes running 24/7 to prove these issues? Should someone who did beat their wife, who has the same condition as your wife, be given a pass because he says he is not guilty, and the wife, wanting a bad relationship instead of no relationship, lies to the cops? What if the cops leave and two hours later she is dead? Is more death better than even one innocent person spending a couple days in jail with a few grand in lawyer fees? Should we just let people be and not worry about things that happen in the confines of a private household?

Again, what is your _solution_? And that solution needs to be reasonable and apply to everyone equally. If you think cops should have doctors on staff, available 24/7, say so...and say how you plan on paying for that. If you think jails should be at least AAA rated two start facilities, say that...and say how you plan on paying for that. There are many solutions I can think of, but many would only grow the criminal justice system, especially in terms of money.

 

[Indy317]

1. Are you talking about Indianapolis ?

2. Do you mean to say that only 150 apply , or only 150 can make it through training ?

#1: Seems to be the typical applicant class size (from what I heard) of Carmel, Fishers, Brownsburg, etc..

#2: The applicant processes I have been to had less than 150 show. Out of 150, it seems about 15-20 can't do the ILEA physical standards, so there is usually 100 or so at the written test. It blows my mind that we have 1.2M people in our metro area and these places can only draw these folks. Not only that, if you talk to those there, they are the same people applying all over the place. So it wouldn't surprise me if say 50 of the applicants you see at a Carmel process you see at Greenwood, Fishers, IMPD, ISP, etc.. I am even blown away further by the fact that at least 10% or so will be from out of the metro area and/or even out-of-state.

 

[dburkhead]

How many do you believe are innocent?

I don't know. I have repeated some numbers several times that are suggestive but I don't claim they are definitive.

Unless we're on the close order of Public Servant's one in a thousand, I don't see that the exact number matters that much, particularly as I am not saying "don't arrest them" or even "don't lock them up," but rather "remember that some of these people are actually innocent and treat them like human beings until proven otherwise."

How many innocent people are you willing to see humiliated, threatened, and otherwise harmed in the pursuit of "justice"?

 

[dburkhead]

So what is your _solution_? How many people are innocent?

Have you actually read my posts?

 

[Indy317]

How many innocent people are you willing to see humiliated, threatened, and otherwise harmed in the pursuit of "justice"?

I don't want to see anyone, innocent or otherwise, humiliated, threatened, or otherwise harmed outside of doing their time, probation, etc..

 

[emsdial911]

As much as I despise the process, it does help to keep the prices down due to shoplifting.

Bull! I walk out with a shopping cart full of bags, asked to show my receipt and what happens? They look at the receipt and the cart and say OK. Now, how in the hll do they know I don't have something in the bags that I have stolen? If you are going to accuse me and check my receipt then check every item against the receipt!! Plus how many times have you seen a customer ahead of you checked and the alarm goes off anyway? Usually they are just waved on.

 

[dburkhead]

I don't want to see anyone, innocent or otherwise, humiliated, threatened, or otherwise harmed outside of doing their time, probation, etc..

Then we're in agreement. All I'm really asking is for the folk who have charge of people who have been arrested, but not convicted, to remember that these folk have not been convicted and that a significant percentage of them are actually innocent and treat them accordingly.

I mean seriously, how often does it really happen that someone being called to be released likes being in lockup so much that they will play games and not answer when their name is called? Do people find lockup so fun that they want to stay there? (In case there was any doubt, the person to whom I referred to uptopic who fell into an exhausted sleep and missed the first calling of his name was me.)

What really am I supposed to think after that? Had I been foul-mouthed, rude, or argumentative, let alone physically aggressive, I would have reasonably expected harsh treatment. But I wasn't that stupid. I was polite and soft spoken throughout. When I was asked why I didn't answer to the first call, I was honest and polite, "I'm sorry, sir, but I fell asleep and I guess I just didn't hear."

Interesting story that's only somewhat related. My lawyer on the issue (the state wouldn't drop the charges even though my wife argued for doing so--policy, and one I happen to agree with even though it "bit" me in this incidence), told of another client of his who spent every summer in jail. Seems an ex-girlfriend of his was more than a bit on the nuts side (thus "ex"). Every summer she'd call the police and charge him with stalking her. They'd arrest him. He'd spend the time in jail until his trial. Ex would not show up for trial so charges would be dropped, repeat next year. I asked if the police didn't "get" what was going on and he said that they'd see just see that this guy had the long arrest record so that only served to lend credence to the ex's accusations.

There are folk caught in the system who don't belong there, who are having their lives made miserable through no fault of their own (except maybe in a bad choice of girlfriends sometime in their past, or being unlucky in having a wife with medical issues that cause emotional outbursts). Is it really too much to ask that the folk who have charge of these people, as much as it is possible consistent with serving the public trust, treat folk in their charge with the recognition that that might just be true in any given case?

 

[wtfd661]

I don't know. I have repeated some numbers several times that are suggestive but I don't claim they are definitive.

Unless we're on the close order of Public Servant's one in a thousand, I don't see that the exact number matters that much, particularly as I am not saying "don't arrest them" or even "don't lock them up," but rather "remember that some of these people are actually innocent and treat them like human beings until proven otherwise."

How many innocent people are you willing to see humiliated, threatened, and otherwise harmed in the pursuit of "justice"?

now thats funny right there, you admit you don't know if your numbers are correct you just ASSUME they have to be, because, by God you certainly can't be wrong unlike the people who actually work in the system (and have for a number of years).

And as far as the statement of

remember that some of these people are actually innocent and treat them like human beings until proven otherwise."

why do you feel as if you know me or can judge me without even having met me, all again based on your one experience. I on the other hand have met and know a lot of fellow officers and jailers and the vast majority (notice I didn't say a significant number) are great people trying to do a crappy job in a terrible environment, but hey you know it all.

Your killing me