A Funny Joke

Print This Post

Clark

Clark is an anarchocapitalist, a reader, and a man of mystery. He's not a neoreactionary, but he is Nrx-curious 'til graduation. All he wants for Christmas is for everyone involved in the police state to get a fair trial and a free hanging. Follow him at @clarkhat

67 Responses

  1. Defendants Carpenter, Hughes and Beggs were fired and eventually convicted of crimes for their involvement in Juarez's death, according to the complaint.

    I hate to set the bar too low, but that really does help. Abuse can't be prevented. Abuse with no consequence, though, that's the bad stuff.

  2. Brandon says:

    Michael Donnelly:

    Abuse can't be prevented.

    Not altogether, but you can certainly head it off with recruiting, training, and trying to build a culture of tolerance and intelligence within the PD.

  3. Chris Simmons says:

    Clark, you're starting to sound like Radley Balko. Not that there's a problem with that.

    Please keep talking about these issues.

  4. Scooby says:

    This story is completely unbelievable- not that cops would drop an intoxicated person off at Taco Bell because, hey, he's Mexican; he'll like it. It's unbelievable because the perpetrators were fired and "convicted of crimes". Anyone have a link to the story of the convictions other than Courthouse News (a site that seems to present stories direct from lawsuit filings without any critical review)?

  5. Paul Ritter says:

    http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/public/2013/08/08/appeals-court-rules-for-trooper-fired-in-taco-bell-case.html
    A fucking $1000 fine for one of them, a $20 fine for another, and an overturned conviction with reinstatement for the third. The best part of the joke is that we still refer to this as the "justice system."

  6. Clark says:

    @Chris Simmons

    Clark, you're starting to sound like Radley Balko.

    I'm a fan of the science fiction author John Varley.

    In one of his novels, Steel Beach, he has an extreme libertarian group living in the wreck of an unfinished starship on the moon's surface. The libertarians are fiercely independent, but they share air communally.

    At one point, character X says to character Y "Hey, Y, you're a libertarian…do you know the leader of that group in the unfinished startship?"

    Y says "Yeah, I know him. They share air in common. He's not bad … for a communist."

    So, anyway:

    Radley Balko does good work… for a boot licking statist.

    (Much humor intended; Radley does more good work in a single blog post than I am likely to do in my entire career.)

  7. Kirk Taylor says:

    I can't figure out for sure whether he was still handcuffed when he was struck by a car.

  8. pjcamp says:

    You know what makes it extra funny? Gratuitous union bashing. Because according to the very article you linked to:

    "Defendants Carpenter, Hughes and Beggs were fired and eventually convicted of crimes for their involvement in Juarez's death,"

    So no, the union didn't protect them. But if you CLAIM that it did, hilarity ensues.

  9. Hoare says:

    Want to know what other "troopers" think of one of their own "screwing the pooch"?……

    https://www.facebook.com/OhioTroopers/posts/536232893060516

    They are getting paid to simply make it home alive each night …
    whatever it takes to "safely" get their gov pay check

  10. JTM says:

    So… from what I can tell from the various articles, the police were fired/arrested for releasing from custody a drunk who was too impaired to take care of himself. The cops removed the drunk from his vehicle, and released him at a Taco Bell.

    Since the wrongdoing was that the state didn't take care of the man enough, wouldn't an anti-establishment sort think the police did the right thing? It seems that an anarcho-whatever would think that the man had a right to get drunk, and was responsible for the consequences of his own actions, such as wandering into traffic after being left at a fast food restaurant. What wrong did the police commit from an anti-establishment perspective (other than simply being police)?

    Edited to remove the claim that the car was crashed – seems the guy was just sitting drunkenly in it in the median.

  11. JTM says:

    This is from the police report from that night, according to the Columbus Dispatch:

    "Authorities received six 911 calls after 9 p.m. about a man driving erratically on I-71 in Delaware County.

    Two deputies found Popoca in his vehicle about 9:19 p.m. in the median near the Rts. 36/37 exit. A Highway Patrol trooper also arrived, and found that Popoca already had been handcuffed by deputies.

    At 9:32 p.m., the deputies took Popoca to a Taco Bell on Rt. 36 west of I-71. They left him off and told him to call someone for a ride.

    Twelve minutes later, a Taco Bell worker made three 911 calls, saying Popoca was walking around the restaurant intoxicated. In the final call, the worker said Popoca had left and was walking west on Rt. 36. Motorists then called to say Popoca had almost been struck by cars near Rt. 36.

    A driver then called at 10:34 p.m. to say he had struck a pedestrian. The westbound SUV was driven by Jeffrey S. Detmer, 51, of Findlay, who was not hurt."

    http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2012/08/18/man-killed-after-deputies-drop-him-off.html

  12. Ken says:

    Defendants Carpenter, Hughes and Beggs were fired and eventually convicted of crimes for their involvement in Juarez's death, according to the complaint.

    I hate to set the bar too low, but that really does help.
    Indeed. At least they paid for their part in killing that man.

    Delaware County Deputy Christopher Hughes… pleaded no contest yesterday in Delaware Municipal Court to a minor-misdemeanor charge of failure to assist a law-enforcement officer. He then was found guilty and fined $20 plus court costs.

    Apparently his part amounted to twenty dollars. But surely the other guys – the ones who were more directly responsible, actually paid a real price, yes? After all, they didn't plead down

    "Delaware County deputy Derek Beggs and Ohio State Highway Patrol trooper Sean Carpenter were found guilty on two counts each of dereliction of duty. They were sentenced to a fine of $1,000 each"

    Now there's a sentence with some TEETH, brother. Hell, they may have to work as many as 3 or 4 extra days of overtime to pay that bad boy off.

    Abuse can't be prevented. Abuse with no consequence, though, that's the bad stuff.

    Sarcasm aside, I agree with you. But for all practical purposes, this is a case of abuse without consequences

  13. sinij says:

    The only negligence/abuse I can see from the troopers is letting drunk driver go.

  14. DRJlaw says:

    Retracted – found in first sentence of article.

  15. JP says:

    "predictably killed by a passing motorist"

    This phrase gave me cancer.

    If it was so "predictable" as to be a foregone conclusion long before it happened, has the driver been arrested for 'Premeditated vehicular homicide?

  16. JW says:

    those men should be tried for conspiracy and murder

  17. JTM says:

    @JW

    Why?

  18. JTM says:

    @Paul Ritter

    What do you suggest would be an appropriate response to the officers' conduct, and why?

  19. Richard says:
    "predictably killed by a passing motorist"

    This phrase gave me cancer.

    If it was so "predictable" as to be a foregone conclusion long before it happened, has the driver been arrested for 'Premeditated vehicular homicide?

    I can see your point that the police officers may not have been able to predict that he would wander into traffic, but I think they mean "predictable" in that the officers should have seen that there was a possibility/probability that the victim would come to harm. The fact that harm might be predictable by the officers does not mean that it was predictable by everyone (e.g. a random passing motorist).

    By your logic, if a mustache-twirling villain tied a damsel to the railroad tracks, the engineer on the train should be arrested for murder when she gets run over… because her getting run over is the predictable result of being tied by the railroad tracks, and if it's "predictable," the engineer should have been able to predict it.

  20. freedomfan says:

    At least one of the involved officers has been re-hired and "will be compensated for lost wages and benefits for the remaining time lost." Just to be fair to the department, I get the impression the system makes it pretty nearly impossible to maintain the officer's dismissal after a court had overturned his conviction, which had been the basis for firing him, something about which the police union was adamant.

    It's hard to know how exactly to react to that last part. I mean, I find police unions to be thuggish, generally opposed to measures that would increase police accountability, and in favor of policies that increase police power over the the rest of the public. Those are all bad things and it often puts the union in the position of defending the worst officers and downplaying despicable police actions. But, I also understand that it's basically part of the union's job to defend cops when their jobs are on the line. So, would I expect anything different?

    BTW, Clark seems to be implying that the victim was dropped off at the Taco Bell and left there still handcuffed, whereupon he wandered off into traffic and was fatally struck. However, none of the reports I have read make it clear that the officers left him still handcuffed.

    This is not to excuse what these cops did. But, I think it mischaracterizes the situation to imply that they let him wander into traffic while still bound.

  21. DP says:

    Another example of failure to appropriately supervise and punish the HS bully-teenagers. Appropriate punishment is to be tried for a hate crime (assuming Ohio has such a law) including all applicable aggravating circumstances and penalties as would happen to any other "regular people" in our society.

  22. Richard says:

    @freedomfan:
    From the first line of the article Clark linked (emphasis mine):

    A drunken driver was run over and killed after police who arrested him left him handcuffed in a Taco Bell parking lot, his survivors claim in court.

    I have no idea if the article itself is accurate, but Clark is representing it accurately.

  23. JTM says:

    @Richard

    That article, which is based solely on the allegations in the family's complaint, is inconsistent with all other reports of the incident. News reports and the appellate decisions consistently say that the man was dropped off at a Taco Bell to wait for a ride.

    See, e.g., http://www.fifthdist.org/august052013/beggs.pdf (affirming conviction of Officer Beggs for dereliction of duty).

  24. DRJlaw says:

    @Freedomfan

    Clark isn't implying it. He's saying it. The first sentence of his linked article says it too. I sniped about Clark's "hands behind his back" bit before I reread the article and saw where it was essentially stated — his linked source.

    I agree that it's likely not true, since searching the local big paper (dispatch.com — Delaware country is just north of Columbus, the state capital) doesn't appear to have jumped on any such fact, but it's also not the main thrust of his point.

    BTW: I've had the drunk-drop-off at the local diner treatment (once, and wasn't driving FYI). I don't think that my rights were violated or that the officer should have been fined, fired, or tried in court. I can't tell whether Clark's outrage is that they didn't arrest the guy for drunk driving (the linked article suggests that they couldn't pin him down as driving or even being in control of the car) or that they didn't jail the guy for being drunk. I'm quite curious as to which it is…

  25. James Pollock says:

    I can see your point that the police officers may not have been able to predict that he would wander into traffic, but I think they mean "predictable" in that the officers should have seen that there was a possibility/probability that the victim would come to harm.

    Let's assume that is true. Now, moving forward. Was the deceased in danger at the time he was released by police? We're assuming yes. So… what is the source of the danger? Is it "not being confined by police" or "having become so intoxicated as to be unable to function"? If you picked the first one, why is it the police's responsibility? And if you picked the second one, why is it the police's responsibility?

    I mean, last year I tripped while I was in the bed of my truck, and fell backwards, causing myself injury (no, I was not intoxicated, but that injury could have been prevented entirely had the police taken me into custody.)

    I'm with the commenter above who seemed puzzled that Clark can't seem to make up his mind… he objects when police act, and he complains when police don't act. It's almost like police can't win with Clark…

  26. AlphaCentauri says:

    If they dumped him in the parking lot with handcuffs on, then it's a clear-cut situation. Given that they probably didn't really do that, it then gets more debatable. It becomes a question of what the city's police protocols and community standards are.

    Where I live, the police will transport people for medical/psychiatric evaluations if there is a question of them being an immediate threat to themselves or others. However, we have multiple emergency rooms, psychiatric crisis centers, and a psychiatric mobile crisis team. Even if you are uninsured or unable to remember if you have insurance, no one is going to even ask about your insurance until you have been triaged by someone with medical training. If you are too drunk to know you are wandering in the road, they are going to make sure you aren't having a diabetic emergency and they will check your alcohol level to make sure you aren't in danger of dying of alcohol poisoning, then they'll probably let you sleep it off before you are allowed to leave.

    However, in a lot of other communities, no insurance=triage and release, even if you're pretty sick. Police policies would obviously be different if they don't have any safe place to bring someone who is dead drunk. Leaving him at an all-night restaurant would be safer than leaving him on the median with his car, and it could well be safer than locking him up in a cell with a few dozen drunks, shooters, and rapists waiting for their preliminary hearings on Monday.

    I'd want to know what the established protocols for officers in that town are and whether they followed them.

  27. AlphaCentauri says:

    Add: It appears the guy was not in the US legally, so the options were leave him at the restaurant or have him deported.

    Do we know what the source of the information is that the officers were mocking him for being Mexican, other than the lawsuit filed by people who weren't there?

  28. deskmerc says:

    Obviously, the correct course of action is to ban Taco Bell, so that citizens cannot misuse them this way.

  29. Well, piss. Guess that teaches me to skip chasing down the final order. Fines and nothing.

    The streak of bad behavior with no justice remains regretfully intact.

  30. Andy says:

    @Brandon

    Not altogether, but you can certainly head it off with recruiting, training, and trying to build a culture of tolerance and intelligence within the PD.

    Sounds expensive. HURR TAXES BAD! POLICE BAD! NOT SEE HOW OPPOSITION TO ONE MAKES OTHER WORSE! HURRR SMASH!

    HULK IS MOST ANARCHO CAPITALIST ONE THERE IS!

    THE MADDER HULK GETS, THE MORE HULK LOOKS LIKE AYN RAND! HURRRRRR!

  31. Sami says:

    … the fuck?

    This is multi-directionally a total clusterfuck by the cops, because they were so racist and stupid that they also failed to arrest and charge the guy for an actual crime he actually committed.

    I don't even.

    Meanwhile, in my city, the cops are on a blitz whereby they've doubled their rate of handing out tickets… for driving without due care and attention. Their new strategy involves unmarked motorcycle cops with helmet cameras to record people texting at the wheel, and marked ones to intercept them, pull them over, and issue the infringements.

    Some people are complaining about this. That is the major complaint about the police where I live right now.

  32. Tarrou says:

    I gotta say, I don't see anything wrong here. I'm all about hating on the cops for being overzealous jackboots. These guys exercised their discretion to let a guy off. They were asses about it, with the zipcuffs and possibly the location (though everyone imputing racism simply from that have their work cut out for them). The guy then exercised his drunk-ass prerogative to wander into traffic. I gotta say, I hope if I ever get nabbed drunk, they let me off at a Taco Bell. I can get out of zipcuffs, and by that point in an evening, I'm hungry as shit.

    Are we really going to criticize the cops for NOT arresting a guy and not having clairvoyance to know that he might have been better off? Are we really going to hate cops so much we'll criticize them for not caring for us enough? For not arresting us enough? Apparently.

    This is a case of cops doing the right thing in spite of the law (and possibly in spite of their intentions). And now they get punished for it. This is not cause for celebration. This is just cop-bashing despite the fact that we should applaud police who don't feel the need to arrest every single goddamn person they legally could.

  33. ElSuerte says:

    The courthouse news service article is really a bad one. It gets quite a few details wrong. Principally that Popcoa was handcuffed when they dropped him off.

    Personally, I think this was a pretty good example of community policing. They offered to let him arrange a ride home instead of saddling him with a career ending/preventing DUI conviction. If he was an illegal (not sure as the various sources only identify him as a native of Mexico), they even gave him a pass on immigration issues. I would appreciate that kind of discretion if I drank. It's just too bad that Popcoa decided he'd rather have a Darwin award.

    I agree with the other posters, this is just knee jerk cop bashing with a side of ginned up racism. I can not seriously believe that we have an enemy of the police state objecting to the cops not copping hard enough.

  34. Clownius says:

    Im of the firm opinion they should have thrown him in the cells for the night to sober up at least. No real need to go much further than that. Where i live that would be normal. Drink driver or just drunk and wandering your probably going to the fish tank (clear Plexiglas cell so you can be monitored). If your charged with anything or not comes down to the discretion of the police involved.

    Of course i have no idea what the local laws and rules allow for this way.

    Its called a duty of care. They had one the second they took him into custody by cuffing him. He was now their responsibility to a fair extent.

    The sad part is they probably had tried to cut him a break. Due to not wanting to do the paperwork or out of kindness im not sure. But the end result was tragic. Wild guess he was probably wandering back to the car…..

  35. Suedeo says:

    If he had had identification, he would likely have been booked and incarcerated.

  36. Suedeo says:

    I'm glad to know that our high-quality beer and liquor and roads were all to this gentleman's liking during his visit to my country.

  37. G. Filotto says:

    Hahhahhaha! This actually got me to laugh out loud for real. In a restaurant. People stared and stuff. And I am still chuckling :-)

  38. Tarrou says:

    Its called a duty of care. They had one the second they took him into custody by cuffing him. He was now their responsibility to a fair extent.

    And punishing the officers for that? Just functionally made it illegal for police to let drunk people go. Now the already statist jackwagons know they can be punished for being nice, but not if they just haul everyone in to jail. THAT'S what a libertarian law blog is arguing for, on the basis of some fake-ass race-baiting worthy of a Ta-Nehisi Coates?

    Christ on a fucking crutch, Clark is a goddamned anarcho-capitalist or some shit, I don't think he even believes in having police at all, and apparently he'd like to reduce their discretion and increase their arrest powers, as long as he can get a shot in.

    This is a weird case. Weird cases make bad law. Now every cop in the country knows, let a drunk go, lose your job. That is the worst possible outcome here. A man lost his life, some police lost their jobs, and now the hand of the state clamps ever tighter, cheered on by those who claim to protest it, provided they can beat a dead hobbyhorse.

    How's that for a mixed metaphor?

  39. James Pollock says:

    Its called a duty of care. They had one the second they took him into custody by cuffing him. He was now their responsibility to a fair extent.

    Yes, while he was in custody, they have a duty of care to protect him from dangers he can no longer protect himself from. But… he was not in custody when he was injured, and he was not in a dangerous situation when released from custody.

  40. En Passant says:

    ElSuerte wrote Jan 10, 2014 @12:29 am:

    The courthouse news service article is really a bad one. It gets quite a few details wrong. Principally that Popcoa was handcuffed when they dropped him off.

    Citation needed. All the news reports I've found are at best ambiguous on that point.

    If they abandoned him in handcuffs, then there is at least a reasonable inference that they did not legally release him from custody. Or worse, that they were attempting to make it appear that he had escaped custody.

    The courthousenews.com report has at least one entirely correct detail: He is properly called Mr. Juarez, not Mr. Popoca.

    The article notes:

    Hispanic surnames may be double, with the second surname the matronymic. Juarez Popoca's "last name" (patronymic) was Juarez; his mother's maiden name was Popoca. Hence he would have been called Juarez, just as former Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari was known as Salinas, not as Gortari.

  41. eddie says:

    My outrage over this depends entirely upon whether the gentleman was left handcuffed and abandoned or was released as a free and unrestrained albeit intoxicated pedestrian.

    I think police rightfully have a duty to remove intoxicated persons from vehicles that they have been driving, even if at the moment the vehicle is merely parked in the middle of the road. I don't think they have a duty to convey an intoxicated person to their home, family, friends, or other place where they can be prevented from taking any of the many actions dangerous to self or others which intoxicated persons might be prone to.

  42. David C says:

    Are we really going to criticize the cops for NOT arresting a guy

    For drunk driving? Yes. If you think he's drunk enough that you can't allow him on the road, then you should give him a breath test. If he fails it, you should arrest him. Maybe if he blew something exactly on the borderline you could then consider letting him arrange transportation. But something tells me that this guy was much drunker than 0.08.

    Now, if his hands were not tied, then the police bear a lot less responsibility for his death. But regardless of that, I still want drunk drivers to be arrested when they are caught unless there is a good reason not to.

    Clark is a goddamned anarcho-capitalist or some shit, I don't think he even believes in having police at all, and apparently he'd like to reduce their discretion and increase their arrest powers

    This does not increase their arrest powers; they could already have arrested the guy (and should have.) And the more discretion the police have, the more they can let the people they like do whatever they want while hammering the people they don't like with however much jail time they want.

    I'm not saying ALL discretion is bad. Discretion can be a good thing when you're faced with a child who brought a plastic knife to school to cut his birthday cake. You wouldn't arrest someone for speeding if he's doing so because someone started shooting at his car. And once I had a burned out brake light in a blizzard and the police car behind me decided it would probably be unsafe to pull me over, or that he had better things to do (like respond to one of the many people who drove their car into a ditch.) But discretion is a bad thing when you let a drunk driver go because… you don't feel like doing the paperwork? You're feeling generous? You don't want to deal with someone who can't speak English well? Seriously, why did they let him go without so much as a breath test if they felt he was unsafe to drive? When you exercise discretion you should have a good reason for doing so.

  43. James Pollock says:

    If you think he's drunk enough that you can't allow him on the road, then you should give him a breath test. If he fails it, you should arrest him.

    That's only true if they catch him driving. They did not catch him driving.

    the more discretion the police have, the more they can let the people they like do whatever they want while hammering the people they don't like with however much jail time they want.

    If you substitute in "school officials" for "police", this is the argument for "zero tolerance" policies.

    Seriously, why did they let him go without so much as a breath test if they felt he was unsafe to drive?

    Because he wasn't driving when they drove up on him. This means that they probably A) had evidence of public intoxication (assuming this is criminal behavior in Ohio) and B) had limited evidence of DWI (i.i., no witness who could say "I saw that guy behind the wheel"). Some states solve this problem by making being inside the car while intoxicated count as a DWI offense, whether the car is running or not.

  44. sinij says:

    the officers should have seen that there was a possibility/probability that the victim would come to self-inflicted harm.

    So you are saying they should have put every drunk they happen to encounter on a suicide watch? Why stop at drunks?

    Just functionally made it illegal for police to let drunk people go. Now the already statist jackwagons know they can be punished for being nice, but not if they just haul everyone in to jail. THAT'S what a libertarian law blog is arguing for, on the basis of some fake-ass race-baiting ?

    This.

  45. Kilroy says:

    so if I understand this correctly, Clark is now on the side that says cops should always arrest and not use discretion? How dare they not arrest an intoxicated man? Clearly, we need more police that should monitor everyone's drinking. I'm convinced. thanks, Clark.

  46. rsteinmetz70112 says:

    The State Trooper seems to have been the one second most screwed by this clusterflop.

    He apparently arrived after the deputies had the intoxicated pedestrian in custody and left when they decided to release him at the Taco Bell. Somewhere in the mix a Spanish speaking Corrections Officer spoke to the intoxicated pedestrian and elicited the name of a person he was going to call for a ride.

    I suppose the State Trooper should have arrested the two deputies for failing to arrest the drunk Mexican, rather than cutting him a break and letting him go?

    Of course since they were armed he would have had to call in back-up possibly a paramilitary SWAT Team to deal with the possible armed confrontation.

  47. Goober says:

    To me, the way that i feel about this event hinges 100% on whether they left him handcuffed in the parking lot or not. I can't find any article that clears up whether this was the case.

    If they took off the cuffs and released him into the wild, especially if they left him to "wait for a ride" then I see this as a moment of mercy from the police officers that backfired on them. No good deed goes unpunished.

    If they dumped a drunk guy in handcuffs at the taco bell bec0ause he's a messican, then they need to be fired, at a minimum.

  48. ElSuerte says:

    En Passant • Jan 10, 2014 @9:12 am

    ElSuerte wrote Jan 10, 2014 @12:29 am:
    ———————-
    The courthouse news service article is really a bad one. It gets quite a few details wrong. Principally that Popcoa was handcuffed when they dropped him off.
    ———————-
    Citation needed. All the news reports I've found are at best ambiguous on that point.

    I read a couple of appeals from the deputies and trooper involved as well as the estate's lawsuit. They don't claim he was left handcuffed after they dropped him off at the Taco Bell.

    http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2013/2013-ohio-3439.pdf
    http://www.sconet.state.oh.us/rod/docs/pdf/5/2013/2013-ohio-3440.pdf
    http://www.gbfirm.com/litigation/documents/65_BearComplaint.pdf

  49. ElSuerte says:

    @ En Passant
    I just posted a post with links to the cases I based my post on, but it might be stuck in mod for a while.

    Reading the lawsuit makes for an interesting contrast with the recent stop and frisk scandal.

  50. AlphaCentauri says:

    If a guy is drunk, you can smell it. But if he's using another intoxicant, the police may only have suspicions.

    The family's lawsuit alleges that it was entirely predictable that someone who was intoxicated would come to harm if released from custody. So at what point are the police responsible for confining anyone who might wander into traffic, or who might assault someone, or who might use their legal firearm to shoot up an elementary school, or who might assassinate a government official, since he might be high on something? We could even re-open the state psychiatric hospitals to confine people who might commit crimes due to mental illnesses, like being political dissidents.

  51. Jon says:

    An interesting question on a different front: Given that Mr. Juarez was in the country illegally, is the following claim from the complaint correct:

    Defendants have, under color of law, deprived the plaintiff of rights, privileges, and immunities secured to him by the United States Constitution …

    I thought various rulings have suggested that those rights aren't necessarily applicable to illegal immigrants. If nothing else, that would seem to complicate matters.

  52. Jon says:

    Aagh. I guess my timer expired. Anyhow — the Supreme Court document is very interesting, as it has a number of new angles on the case. Most notably, the reason for the Taco Bell dropoff is very different there:

    Popoca [sic] had a friend named Christy who he could call for a ride. Deputy Hughes then transported Popoca to a nearby Taco Bell restaurant to await his ride.

    Also:

    The manager was concerned about his presence and locked the lobby early to keep him outside so he would not disrupt customers. … Popoca left the Taco Bell and walked across the street to a Wendy’s restaurant. When Deputy Hughes arrived at Taco Bell, the manager told him that Popoca went to the Wendy’s across the street. She saw Hughes go to Wendy’s for approximately fifteen minutes, then he left and drove in the direction of the patrol station.

    So — contrary to earlier implications — Juarez didn't go directly from the Taco Bell into the street, and the police didn't completely ignore the situation after dropping him at the Taco Bell.

    Also of some note:

    The truck … was not registered to Popoca. … There were multiple license plates in the vehicle … The deputies transmitted information to the dispatcher that the incident was a disabled vehicle, not a DUI case.

    Which suggests there were additional crimes Juarez could have been charged with, but was not. Some of those, of course, may be inherent to his status in the country.

    Also, re: AlphaCentauri: Juarez' BAC was .23, so the appeals court found that a competent officer could have determined he was intoxicated even without a blood/breath test.

  53. AlphaCentauri says:

    Also, re: AlphaCentauri: Juarez' BAC was .23, so the appeals court found that a competent officer could have determined he was intoxicated even without a blood/breath test.

    True, it's pretty easy to tell with alcohol. But what about other drugs? A person can be mentally impaired without losing control of his motor functions with a lot of drugs. My friends and I did a pretty good imitation of being falling down drunk in college when we'd just been up all night working on a project together. And there are cultural differences in what type of public behavior is acceptable and what is a sign of mental impairment. Telling the cops they can lose their jobs because something bad happens and someone who wasn't there is going to make decisions on how impaired someone looked or acted is inviting overreach.

  54. Clownius says:

    0.23 isnt a bit drunk. Thats insanity level drunk…. At that BAC if you cant tell someones drunk its best not to go out in public at all your too stupid to do so safely lol

    @Jon

    As for the US constitution ONLY covers US citizens do you really want to encourage that type of thinking? Watch them strip your citizenship at will if you make that legal. No citizenship no rights can only go badly for everyone. Yes i know its been interpreted that way a few times but dont encourage it.

  55. En Passant says:

    Clownius wrote Jan 13, 2014 @12:08 am:

    0.23 isnt a bit drunk. Thats insanity level drunk….

    "I wasn't fallin' down slippin' slidin' drunk. I was God's Own Drunk. A fearless man. And that's when I first saw the bear. …"
    — Lord Buckley

  56. En Passant says:

    ElSuerte wrote Jan 10, 2014 @6:26 pm:

    I read a couple of appeals from the deputies and trooper involved as well as the estate's lawsuit. They don't claim he was left handcuffed after they dropped him off at the Taco Bell.

    That probably answers the question. If his estate could credibly claim that the deputies left him handcuffed, it would have been advantageous to do so.

  57. Czernobog says:

    @Jon & Clownius: I think you guys may have misunderstood the thrust of AlphaCentauri's objection. If you make it a police officer's duty to detain anyone who seems drunk, where does that duty stop? Does it include anyone who is acting erratically? Anyone who can't list the alphabet backwards, like in that Bill Hicks routine? How about anyone they feel like detaining?

  58. barry says:

    Considering that drunk-walking is much more likely (per mile) to kill you than drunk-driving is, the reason for police getting drunks out of their cars is more about protecting the public than it is about protecting the drunk.

  59. Intrism says:

    Let's review the case. Police arrested a man who was extremely intoxicated, sitting in his car in a grassy median. The man was an illegal immigrant; an arrest would very likely lead to his deportation. To avoid this, they contacted a friend of his, and dropped him off at a clean, well-lit public place (not in handcuffs) to be picked up. Unfortunately, after the man was released from custody, he wandered off, and was struck by a motorist and killed. All of the police officers involved were fined, convicted, and fired, although one was later reinstated.

    The only thing that I see wrong with this case, even with the power of 20:20 hindsight, is that a police officer did not stay with the man until he was picked up by his friend. Clark's damning details are wrong, and the allegation of racism is perhaps among the most laughably bad I've ever seen.

    What is it that you want here, Clark? Were the officers insufficiently jackbooted for you, Clark? Did the police agency that you don't think should exist fail to enforce the laws that you don't think should exist with sufficient vigor? Or are you just an unprincipled whiner?

  60. Kilroy says:

    I see Clark has yet to return to address the comments. I still eagerly await the return of the anti-government crusader to explain his demand that the government do more.

  61. Sertorius says:

    How could someone who was handcuffed have opened the door to the Taco Bell, or used a phone to call home? Was it a huge practical joke "Haha, you have to dial the phone with your nose, because you're handcuffed!" It seems extremely unlikely he was handcuffed, or the rest of the circumstances don't make sense.

    Assuming he wasn't handcuffed, it seems to me the cops just exercised some discretion and gave the guy a break. The guy happened to wander into traffic. Tragic, but I don't see the problem with the cops. I wish more cops would use their discretion and not take people to jail.

    This is the kind of prosecution that drives me crazy. Something bad happens, and the DA searches through the statutes to try and find some crime, any crime, he can charge. Here, "dereliction of duty," for the "crime" of going easy on the guy.

  62. AlphaCentauri says:

    0.23 isnt a bit drunk. Thats insanity level drunk…. At that BAC if you cant tell someones drunk its best not to go out in public at all your too stupid to do so safely lol

    It's actually pretty variable from person to person. Regular drinkers either build up a tolerance, or people with a high tolerance are more likely to be regular drinkers. An ER will see people walk in with levels over 0.30 or 0.40 on a regular basis, but a college kid with a level that high might not live to see the morning.

  63. mcinsand says:

    Off-topic, but I could not seem to add another comment to the 'Another Hammer' Prenda article. If you're hunting a Prenda fix, the following was a fun lunchtime read:

    http://madisonrecord.com/news/262192-lightspeed-defendants-ask-court-to-hold-prenda-attorneys-in-contempt-for-not-paying-261k

  64. Catty says:

    If the guy was left handcuffed they should bring the hammer down on them, otherwise the cops acted pretty reasonably. I'd prefer it if people where dropped of in the ER if they are not acting right, just in case they are diabetic or there is something else wrong with them… but dropping a drunk off at an all night diner for pickup seems reasonable.

  65. c andrew says:

    I have to say that I thought and the courthouse post said that the man in custody had been "released" while still handcuffed. At which point, I was outraged and wanted the officers to face consequences.

    Subsequent information has made me think that that detail was false and in that light, racial verbal improprieties on video aside, these officers were wrongly charged. It's too bad that the zeal in prosecuting these officers couldn't have been transferred somehow to Orange County jurors that acquitted the Kelly Thomas killers of all charges.

    Oh, and you do have to give credit to police agencies everywhere. They sure do know how to train that their employees. They can still recite it by rote 20 years on.

    A 71-year-old retired police officer accused of shooting a man dead in a Florida movie theater told authorities that "he was in fear of being attacked" during Monday's confrontation.

    I'm disappointed that he didn't add that "he was just trying to get home safe to his family," and of course, it still remains to be seen if retired police officers will be extended the same qualified immunity courtesy of their pre-retirement brethren. He's apparently not getting reinstated with full pay so that they can suspend him with it…

  66. James Pollock says:

    I'm disappointed that he didn't add that "he was just trying to get home safe to his family," and of course, it still remains to be seen if retired police officers will be extended the same qualified immunity courtesy of their pre-retirement brethren. He's apparently not getting reinstated with full pay so that they can suspend him with it…

    You should dial into current events a little bit more closely. "I was in fear of being attacked" isn't just for cops in Florida. It applies to anyone who brings a firearm to a fistfight. I'd say "It was in all the papers", but that's a bit dated. It was on all the channels, though…

  67. barry says:

    The only thing that stops a bad guy with popcorn and a cellphone is a good guy with a gun.