If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS Los Angeles 2)   DEA holds man in jail for two weeks after mistaking him for someone else. This isn't a repeat from when they did this to him six years ago   (losangeles.cbslocal.com) divider line 53
    More: Scary  
•       •       •

6796 clicks; posted to Main » on 10 May 2014 at 4:32 AM (24 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



53 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-05-10 01:01:52 AM  
Hernandez said her Guzman's identity was stolen six years ago

I've read that sentence 12 times and I still can't figure out why the word "her" is in there.
 
2014-05-10 01:48:55 AM  

fusillade762: Hernandez said her Guzman's identity was stolen six years ago

I've read that sentence 12 times and I still can't figure out why the word "her" is in there.


Because editing costs money.
 
2014-05-10 04:35:54 AM  

fusillade762: Hernandez said her Guzman's identity was stolen six years ago

I've read that sentence 12 times and I still can't figure out why the word "her" is in there.


After what happened, can you blame Hernandez for wanting to make sure people distinguish her Guzman from all the other Guzmans out there?
 
2014-05-10 04:47:11 AM  
But if, in fact, this guy actually DID sell some bags of powder to another adult who requested it, then of course locking him up for years at our expense would be a TERRIFIC idea.
 
2014-05-10 04:53:05 AM  
Brown people problems.
 
2014-05-10 04:58:19 AM  

fusillade762: Hernandez said her Guzman's identity was stolen six years ago

I've read that sentence 12 times and I still can't figure out why the word "her" is in there.


You're obviously chauvinist.
 
2014-05-10 05:07:38 AM  

fusillade762: I've read that sentence 12 times and I still can't figure out why the word "her" is in there.


What's good for the guzman is good for her dandruff.
 
2014-05-10 05:09:20 AM  

fusillade762: Hernandez said her Guzman's identity was stolen six years ago

I've read that sentence 12 times and I still can't figure out why the word "her" is in there.


For the same reason they're reporting that the DEA is "currently using ever resource at our disposal": their proofreader/editor sucks.
 
2014-05-10 05:10:24 AM  
I'm not normally the sort that would resort to litigation, but two times now and each time taking more then a freakin week to figure out what went wrong?  Suin' time.
 
2014-05-10 05:16:51 AM  
pbs.twimg.com
 
2014-05-10 05:16:56 AM  
The Lionel Hutz you knew no longer exists.

pbs.twimg.com

Say hello to Miguel Sanchez!
 
2014-05-10 05:19:19 AM  
Honest mistake, right? Yea sure, but lets not punish the taxpayer - dock the pay of the dick-bag agents and retards responsible - make restitution.
 
2014-05-10 05:28:10 AM  

At least they didn't forget he was there and leave him the verge of death from dehydration:

Chong said he was at a friend's house in University City celebrating 4/20, a day many marijuana users set aside to smoke, when agents came inside and raided the residence. Chong was then taken to the DEA office in Kearny Mesa.

He said agents questioned him, and then told him he could go home. One agent even offered him a ride, Chong said. No criminal charges were filed against him.

But Chong did not go home that night. Instead, he was placed in a cell for five days without any human contact and was not given food or drink.
 
2014-05-10 05:28:20 AM  
What if he actually stole his identity to begin with?

This could just be a case of somebody stealing what he already stole.

/"Somebody ripped off the thing I ripped off!" - Cheech in Nice Dreams
 
2014-05-10 05:32:39 AM  
That article gave me a headache too. Subby, next time you come across such a poorly written article, just take it and shove it up........
 
2014-05-10 05:34:53 AM  

EdNortonsTwin: Honest mistake, right? Yea sure, but lets not punish the taxpayer - dock the pay of the dick-bag agents and retards responsible - make restitution.


That's the thing, nobody is responsible.

The cop that pulled him over?  He was just doing his job.  Expired registration, you pull over the vehicle.  He ran the guys info and he had an arrest warrant, so he arrested him.
Everyone involved, at every step, was just doing their job.  Even if I'm working at the jail house, and I believe you, 100%....I'm not allowed to just *let people go*.  And even if I *could*, I wouldn't.  Criminals lie and a lot of them lie really well.  I'd lose my job if I ever let someone out of jail without authorization.

You can keep going up the chain of command, eventually you'll find some rich old guy behind a desk who was involved in the committee that outlined the policies pertaining identification of prisoners.  Of course, they had nothing to do with this particular incident, they just helped design (as part of a large committee, that all agreed) to how they will handle things.  As a general rule, it works for 99.999% of the cases - which is about as good as you can ever get.  Any change that would have improved this guy's experience would also create another problem.  IE - they end up letting someone else go who wasn't the wrong guy.
 
2014-05-10 05:36:02 AM  

EdNortonsTwin: Honest mistake, right? Yea sure, but lets not punish the taxpayer - dock the pay of the dick-bag agents and retards responsible - make restitution.


A-farkin-men. I've been saying this for twenty years. They fark up, the should have to fix it. Reimburse those you screw, and out of your own pocket.
 
2014-05-10 05:46:18 AM  
You would think the DEA had learned their lesson after the fist massive lawsuit.

Wassat? The guy didn't sue the first time it happened? He only has himself to blame then.

If he had sued for millions for wrongful arrest, illegal imprisonment, kidnapping, pain and suffering, defamation of character, etc. etc, etc. and anything else the lawyers could think of last time this time would not have happened.

He would have been brought in and instantly released the second they realized he's the same guy who got paid already.

/They would be paying me for a long time
//I would hang around near their office just to see if I could win the wrongful arrest lawsuit lottery a third time
 
2014-05-10 05:49:04 AM  

generallyso: At least they didn't forget he was there and leave him the verge of death from dehydration:

Chong said he was at a friend's house in University City celebrating 4/20, a day many marijuana users set aside to smoke, when agents came inside and raided the residence. Chong was then taken to the DEA office in Kearny Mesa.

He said agents questioned him, and then told him he could go home. One agent even offered him a ride, Chong said. No criminal charges were filed against him.

But Chong did not go home that night. Instead, he was placed in a cell for five days without any human contact and was not given food or drink.


Ugh. Awful.

Amusing tho, that the DEA holding cell had meth in it...
 
2014-05-10 06:05:10 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: Any change that would have improved this guy's experience would also create another problem


It might, or it might make the process better for everyone. There is no evidence that the system currently in place is as good as it could be, that it reflects our values, or even that's sane.

At the very least they could have found a way for this guy to demonstrate that he was the same person who had this same problem in the past, and the authority issuing the arrest order could be required to check for such past errors and provide appropriate guidance in their order to help avoid a recurrence.
 
2014-05-10 06:12:04 AM  

apoptotic: fusillade762: Hernandez said her Guzman's identity was stolen six years ago

I've read that sentence 12 times and I still can't figure out why the word "her" is in there.

For the same reason they're reporting that the DEA is "currently using ever resource at our disposal": their proofreader/editor sucks.


I caught that one, too. I just figured it was another DEA mistake.

How do I get a job as an editor?

AND WHY DO I ALWAYS HAVE TO TELL FARK TWICE NOT TO EAT MY LINE BREAKS?
 
2014-05-10 06:35:29 AM  

profplump: Fark_Guy_Rob: Any change that would have improved this guy's experience would also create another problem

It might, or it might make the process better for everyone. There is no evidence that the system currently in place is as good as it could be, that it reflects our values, or even that's sane.

At the very least they could have found a way for this guy to demonstrate that he was the same person who had this same problem in the past, and the authority issuing the arrest order could be required to check for such past errors and provide appropriate guidance in their order to help avoid a recurrence.


Theoretically - you are absolutely correct.  The entire system could be improved.  But in practice, it never works that way.

Any change in response to something like this, is going to focus on this one issue, disproportionately so.  The fact that we had this problem in the first place shows that we aren't able to predict the edge-case problems a system we design will have.  That means, we almost certainly can't know if the new system is better.  I mean, look at things like the TSA.  Something happens, people question 'the system' with regard to a specific problem.  A new solution is thrown together to address that problem, almost always at the expense of another.  In many cases, the new solution won't even help, but it's all political.

It's easy to come up with a policy that works 90% or even 99% of the time.  If someone wants to outline a new policy that is better in all cases, I'm all ears.  But it's *never* that.  It's always just people who don't know anything about the topic saying, 'THIS SHOULDN'T HAPPEN!  WE NEED TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM'.  And, I'm not saying they are wrong.  They aren't.  It's just that nothing *should* ever go wrong.  And any policy *should* be perfectly logical and account for every single edge-case.

The core of this problem is how we handle identification.  And this is not a solvable problem.  It's a manageable problem and, no, I'm not saying our current system is the best one.  But it's way too easy to say, 'This shouldn't happen.  Things should be better than this' without providing an actual solution.
 
2014-05-10 06:53:42 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: profplump: Fark_Guy_Rob: Any change that would have improved this guy's experience would also create another problem

It might, or it might make the process better for everyone. There is no evidence that the system currently in place is as good as it could be, that it reflects our values, or even that's sane.

At the very least they could have found a way for this guy to demonstrate that he was the same person who had this same problem in the past, and the authority issuing the arrest order could be required to check for such past errors and provide appropriate guidance in their order to help avoid a recurrence.

exactly... a code word or something given to him and only him.

/another victory for the war on drugs.
//he should sue the fark out of the DEA
///These come in threes, so here ya go.


The whole thing behind stolen identities is that someone else can access information that is thought to be private.  Adding a code-word is just another piece of evidence.  If you want to get a drivers license, your state's DMV will outline what documents it accepts as evidence that you are who you say you are, and that you are a legal resident.  People who steal identities get around these checks, and I don't see how a code word is fundamentally different.

People use 'code words' to log into websites all the time, right?  But there are tons of problems with it.  First, what if he can't remember the code word?  Second, you need a system for managing code words.  That's not inherently bad, but it costs money/time/training.  Third, what if other people get the code word?

Still, you can have the exact same situation except the guy doesn't remember the code word; or there is a problem with the code-word database, or you have another person (possibly the drug dealer that already stole his identity) that manages to steal his code word.  How does the drug dealer steal it?  The same way he stole his identity in the first place.  Maybe someone overhead the cop give it to the guy the first time, or the guy telling his wife about it, or the guy writes it down and puts it in his safe in his basement that someone breaks into, or maybe, the drug deal just kidnaps him and beats him until he gives it and threatens to murder his family if he reports it to the police.

Let's say he does go back to the cops and he says, 'Look, my code word was stolen.  But I'm the real me, not the guy that previously stole my identity and my code word WAS X - can you change it?'.  Now what?  How do you know it *really* is the legit guy, and not the guy that stole his identity in the first place, then heard about the code system, then went back and beat the hell out of him until he gave up the code system?  Because, if the drug dealer is the one you are talking to, and you change it - now the innocent guy is going to end up in jail and this expensive new system you've just introduced is only going to make it WORSE.  He'll be in jail, claiming to be the wrong guy, FAILING the code check.  Then what do you do?

And it can't just be for this guy.  It has to be for anyone who has had an identity stolen (or possibly just for everyone).

If the guy doesn't remember the phrase - you have the same situation.  He sits in jail while you check it out.
If the phrase checking system is down - same deal.  He claims mistaken identity and they can't determine the code....so he sits in jail while you check it out.
If someone has compromised the phrase system - even worse.  He still sits in jail, but nobody believes him since he doesn't know his phrase.
If the CRIMINAL who stole his identity, then beat him until he got the pass code, gets arrested, now he has a get out of jail free card.  He says the phrase and you let him go.  Then, the next day on Fark you have everyone going 'OH MY GOD!  What a bunch of retards!  We let him out of jail because he said a 'pass code'?!  What is this, 3rd grade?!'.  Imagine if they let him go, and then he went out and killed five or six people he felt had wronged him and lead up to the arrest.  Now, instead of a guy sitting in jail for two weeks, you have dead people because we let a dangerous criminal walk out of jail.
 
2014-05-10 06:57:04 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: Fark_Guy_Rob: profplump: Fark_Guy_Rob: Any change that would have improved this guy's experience would also create another problem

It might, or it might make the process better for everyone. There is no evidence that the system currently in place is as good as it could be, that it reflects our values, or even that's sane.

At the very least they could have found a way for this guy to demonstrate that he was the same person who had this same problem in the past, and the authority issuing the arrest order could be required to check for such past errors and provide appropriate guidance in their order to help avoid a recurrence.

Theoretically - you are absolutely correct.  The entire system could be improved.  But in practice, it never works that way.

Any change in response to something like this, is going to focus on this one issue, disproportionately so.  The fact that we had this problem in the first place shows that we aren't able to predict the edge-case problems a system we design will have.  That means, we almost certainly can't know if the new system is better.  I mean, look at things like the TSA.  Something happens, people question 'the system' with regard to a specific problem.  A new solution is thrown together to address that problem, almost always at the expense of another.  In many cases, the new solution won't even help, but it's all political.

It's easy to come up with a policy that works 90% or even 99% of the time.  If someone wants to outline a new policy that is better in all cases, I'm all ears.  But it's *never* that.  It's always just people who don't know anything about the topic saying, 'THIS SHOULDN'T HAPPEN!  WE NEED TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM'.  And, I'm not saying they are wrong.  They aren't.  It's just that nothing *should* ever go wrong.  And any policy *should* be perfectly logical and account for every single edge-case.

The core of this problem is how we handle identification.  And this is not a solvable problem.  It's a manageable prob ...


I'm using the TSA as an example of a 'system' that was put in place *in reaction* to some event that people felt 'shouldn't happen' and not as part of a well thought-out quest for a better system that would consider all the pros and cons.  But yeah - certainly, there are lots of ways to address the problem of flying planes into skyscrapers that would have been different/more effective.

I'd argue that doing *nothing* would have been more effective than the TSA, but it probably depends on how you define effective.
 
2014-05-10 07:07:27 AM  

Khakimonkey: That article gave me a headache too. Subby, next time you come across such a poorly written article, just take it and shove it up........


Did you want the information or not? Sometimes you have to drive your car down a dirt road to get where you want to go. You're going to need to learn to deal with bad writing on the internet, because you're going to be seeing a lot more of it.

/not subby
 
2014-05-10 07:38:34 AM  
HindiDiscoMonster: Wanna know how I would have fixed that problem after 9/11?
Simple: Make locking the cockpit mandatory or the plane would not start. Make it automatically lock after you leave it (bathroom, food, blowjob, whatever), so someone has to let you in. Also, make the door a blast resistant door. This solution would be far easier, cheaper and effective to stop anyone who actually got through...


Until you get a situation where the pilot is incapacitated and the crew can't get to the cockpit to assist or call for help.
 
2014-05-10 07:43:29 AM  
Forget the code words just cancel the warrant. They are looking for the totally wrong guy and don't know who the right guy is so they will be making the same mistake until they randomly pick up the correct person (if he is still using the stolen identity) and he confesses to an outstanding warrant and identity theft which is highly unlikely.
 
2014-05-10 07:43:45 AM  
If only there were some way to physically ID someone and store that information in an easy accessible database. I just can't put my finger on it...
 
2014-05-10 07:47:37 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: EdNortonsTwin: Honest mistake, right? Yea sure, but lets not punish the taxpayer - dock the pay of the dick-bag agents and retards responsible - make restitution.

That's the thing, nobody is responsible.

The cop that pulled him over?  He was just doing his job.  Expired registration, you pull over the vehicle.  He ran the guys info and he had an arrest warrant, so he arrested him.
Everyone involved, at every step, was just doing their job.  Even if I'm working at the jail house, and I believe you, 100%....I'm not allowed to just *let people go*.  And even if I *could*, I wouldn't.  Criminals lie and a lot of them lie really well.  I'd lose my job if I ever let someone out of jail without authorization.

You can keep going up the chain of command, eventually you'll find some rich old guy behind a desk who was involved in the committee that outlined the policies pertaining identification of prisoners.  Of course, they had nothing to do with this particular incident, they just helped design (as part of a large committee, that all agreed) to how they will handle things.  As a general rule, it works for 99.999% of the cases - which is about as good as you can ever get.  Any change that would have improved this guy's experience would also create another problem.  IE - they end up letting someone else go who wasn't the wrong guy.


The first time I will give you that it was nobodys fault. After the first time somebody should of been in charge of flagging this guys record to dbl check it actually wasnt the drug dealer they were looking for.  I am not saying its the aresting officers fault, but somewhere in the chain of command it was broken. Find the people who were responsible and fire them.  This guy has a a good case to hold the whole dept accountable.
 
2014-05-10 07:56:53 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: The pen is mightier than the sword?



i19.photobucket.com

I'll take jap anus relations for $200
 
2014-05-10 07:58:30 AM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-05-10 08:09:17 AM  

HindiDiscoMonster: darth_shatner: HindiDiscoMonster: Wanna know how I would have fixed that problem after 9/11?
Simple: Make locking the cockpit mandatory or the plane would not start. Make it automatically lock after you leave it (bathroom, food, blowjob, whatever), so someone has to let you in. Also, make the door a blast resistant door. This solution would be far easier, cheaper and effective to stop anyone who actually got through...

Until you get a situation where the pilot is incapacitated and the crew can't get to the cockpit to assist or call for help.

in commercial airliners there are 3 people in the cockpit.... pilot, copilot and navigator... if all 3 are incapacitated, you are farked anyway.


Not all passenger airliners have a three person flight crew.  In fact, the vast majority of them do not.
 
2014-05-10 08:19:41 AM  

jso2897: But if, in fact, this guy actually DID sell some bags of powder to another adult who requested it, then of course locking him up for years at our expense would be a TERRIFIC idea.


Well, it certainly terrifies...
 
2014-05-10 08:37:19 AM  

FilmBELOH20: HindiDiscoMonster: darth_shatner: HindiDiscoMonster: Wanna know how I would have fixed that problem after 9/11?
Simple: Make locking the cockpit mandatory or the plane would not start. Make it automatically lock after you leave it (bathroom, food, blowjob, whatever), so someone has to let you in. Also, make the door a blast resistant door. This solution would be far easier, cheaper and effective to stop anyone who actually got through...

Until you get a situation where the pilot is incapacitated and the crew can't get to the cockpit to assist or call for help.

in commercial airliners there are 3 people in the cockpit.... pilot, copilot and navigator... if all 3 are incapacitated, you are farked anyway.

Not all passenger airliners have a three person flight crew.  In fact, the vast majority of them do not.


I don't think there are any (at least in the US) three-person flight crews anymore. Long haul trips may have redundant crews (one flying, one napping) but the glass cockpit has eliminated the flight engineer position.
 
2014-05-10 08:44:00 AM  
He should have sued their asses off the first time it happened.  It's not like he would have had trouble finding an attorney who'd take the case.

Perhaps he'll find it within himself to find an attorney this time?  Or, hell, maybe he actually looks forward to these jail stints as a kind of mini-vacation from his wife...

Oh, and I loved this bit:

The DEA confirmed Wednesday that they issued the warrant and said in a statement: "DEA is aware of claims that the man in custody is not the same person for whom the arrest warrant was issued. DEA takes all allegations of this nature seriously and is currently using ever resource at our disposal to address the matter."

Authorities told Hernandez her husband would be released Thursday night.


So even after confirming that they had the wrong person, they refused to release him for at least 24 additional hours.  Seems like that alone is worthy of a six-figure lawsuit.
 
2014-05-10 09:24:52 AM  

texastag: You would think the DEA had learned their lesson after the fist massive lawsuit.

Wassat? The guy didn't sue the first time it happened? He only has himself to blame then.

If he had sued for millions for wrongful arrest, illegal imprisonment, kidnapping, pain and suffering, defamation of character, etc. etc, etc. and anything else the lawyers could think of last time this time would not have happened.

He would have been brought in and instantly released the second they realized he's the same guy who got paid already.

/They would be paying me for a long time
//I would hang around near their office just to see if I could win the wrongful arrest lawsuit lottery a third time


Either that or he would have been shot resisting arrest because he was being such a harda$$ the last time.
 
2014-05-10 09:29:51 AM  
I have a low cost and simple solution.

EVERYONE WHO TOUCHED THIS CASE...reports to work at usual time, they are all handcuffed to an overhead rail, andmthisnupstandinc citizen, wearing loggers boots with steel toes, takes a walk down the line and kicks every one of them in the balls a couple of times.

Repeat every day for the same number of days as he as falsely arrested.  Then, all their pension/retirement goes to this victim and they are then fired and blackballed.

Mistakes happen but to takes weeks to correct something like this?
 
2014-05-10 09:45:18 AM  

notoriousbum: If only there were some way to physically ID someone and store that information in an easy accessible database. I just can't put my finger on it...


But everyone is scared shiatless of the government having your info, even though we could avoid quite a lot of identity theft issues with more biometric scanning.

The UN is coming for you!
 
2014-05-10 09:51:33 AM  

generallyso: At least they didn't forget he was there and leave him the verge of death from dehydration:

Chong said he was at a friend's house in University City celebrating 4/20, a day many marijuana users set aside to smoke, when agents came inside and raided the residence. Chong was then taken to the DEA office in Kearny Mesa.

He said agents questioned him, and then told him he could go home. One agent even offered him a ride, Chong said. No criminal charges were filed against him.

But Chong did not go home that night. Instead, he was placed in a cell for five days without any human contact and was not given food or drink.


Without reading the actual article (because what kind of pleb does that?) the blurb you posts is suspicious at best. No one ENTERED the area he was jailed in for 5 days? That's hard to believe. No one could hear him shouting? He couldn't drink water from the integrated toilet-sink many holding facilities have? There's a lot of questionable content right there.
 
2014-05-10 09:54:28 AM  

notoriousbum: If only there were some way to physically ID someone and store that information in an easy accessible database. I just can't put my finger on it...


But if they don't have the identity thief's finger prints on file, but the real guy's finger prints, how would that possibly help in this case?  The ID thief has to be caught and booked before they know who he/she is.  Not everyone has been arrested in their life times, and even if they had been, they haven't been tied to that ID yet.

/I've only had handcuffs on for play, not for realsies.
//My print is only on file at work, we use our finger for the time clock.
 
2014-05-10 09:56:38 AM  

kroonermanblack: generallyso: At least they didn't forget he was there and leave him the verge of death from dehydration:

Chong said he was at a friend's house in University City celebrating 4/20, a day many marijuana users set aside to smoke, when agents came inside and raided the residence. Chong was then taken to the DEA office in Kearny Mesa.

He said agents questioned him, and then told him he could go home. One agent even offered him a ride, Chong said. No criminal charges were filed against him.

But Chong did not go home that night. Instead, he was placed in a cell for five days without any human contact and was not given food or drink.

Without reading the actual article (because what kind of pleb does that?) the blurb you posts is suspicious at best. No one ENTERED the area he was jailed in for 5 days? That's hard to believe. No one could hear him shouting? He couldn't drink water from the integrated toilet-sink many holding facilities have? There's a lot of questionable content right there.


RTFA, it's deeply disturbing.
 
2014-05-10 10:10:04 AM  

lack of warmth: notoriousbum: If only there were some way to physically ID someone and store that information in an easy accessible database. I just can't put my finger on it...

But if they don't have the identity thief's finger prints on file, but the real guy's finger prints, how would that possibly help in this case?  The ID thief has to be caught and booked before they know who he/she is.  Not everyone has been arrested in their life times, and even if they had been, they haven't been tied to that ID yet.

/I've only had handcuffs on for play, not for realsies.
//My print is only on file at work, we use our finger for the time clock.


Yeah, but they would of had his prints on file from the false arrest six years ago, no? How come they couldn't pull up past records and see that this same thing happened before and he was cleared of the charges then?

Not saying we should have chips implanted in us, I'm just saying that the procedures already in place should have caught this...
 
2014-05-10 10:34:21 AM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: That's the thing, nobody is responsible.

The cop that pulled him over? He was just doing his job. Expired registration, you pull over the vehicle. He ran the guys info and he had an arrest warrant, so he arrested him.
Everyone involved, at every step, was just doing their job. Even if I'm working at the jail house, and I believe you, 100%....I'm not allowed to just *let people go*. And even if I *could*, I wouldn't. Criminals lie and a lot of them lie really well. I'd lose my job if I ever let someone out of jail without authorization.

You can keep going up the chain of command, eventually you'll find some rich old guy behind a desk who was involved in the committee that outlined the policies pertaining identification of prisoners. Of course, they had nothing to do with this particular incident, they just helped design (as part of a large committee, that all agreed) to how they will handle things. As a general rule, it works for 99.999% of the cases - which is about as good as you can ever get. Any change that would have improved this guy's experience would also create another problem. IE - they end up letting someone else go who wasn't the wrong guy.


No.  Whoever failed to remove the bad warrant from the system is responsible.

I do agree it's mostly the system, though, which is why the system should pay.  Nothing else makes bureaucracies spend the money to fix the systemic problems.

Fark_Guy_Rob: It's easy to come up with a policy that works 90% or even 99% of the time. If someone wants to outline a new policy that is better in all cases, I'm all ears. But it's *never* that. It's always just people who don't know anything about the topic saying, 'THIS SHOULDN'T HAPPEN! WE NEED TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM'. And, I'm not saying they are wrong. They aren't. It's just that nothing *should* ever go wrong. And any policy *should* be perfectly logical and account for every single edge-case.

The core of this problem is how we handle identification. And this is not a solvable problem. It's a manageable problem and, no, I'm not saying our current system is the best one. But it's way too easy to say, 'This shouldn't happen. Things should be better than this' without providing an actual solution.


While no complete solution is possible a considerable improvement could be made.  The current system is focused on getting data into the system, it's very weak at getting bad data out of the system.  That could be fixed.

Furthermore, his prints should be in the system and specifically marked as these are *NOT* bad guy so-and-so.  Run the prints and they come back saying they're not the prints to the guy you think you arrested and he should be immediately released.

kroonermanblack: Without reading the actual article (because what kind of pleb does that?) the blurb you posts is suspicious at best. No one ENTERED the area he was jailed in for 5 days? That's hard to believe. No one could hear him shouting? He couldn't drink water from the integrated toilet-sink many holding facilities have? There's a lot of questionable content right there.


The case was real.  The problem is he was put in a wing of the jail that wasn't being used.
 
2014-05-10 10:37:01 AM  
You'd think he'd change his name.
 
2014-05-10 10:38:43 AM  
notoriousbum:

Yeah, but they would of had his prints on file from the false arrest six years ago, no? How come they couldn't pull up past records and see that this same thing happened before and he was cleared of the charges then?

Not saying we should have chips implanted in us, I'm just saying that the procedures already in place should have caught this...


They may have on his online file that he was picked up and released, but the latest officers to go after him may would've had to go hunt down the paper file to see why he was released.  If the ID thief is still using the alias, then they just looked up the name, got a pic and info, and the record of being picked up once before.  Most of the time they just have a name and go make a bust based on that info alone, and it is probably rare to arrest someone for drug dealing without a history of arrest.  They don't take time to look at each arrest report file before getting the warrant, since it is about getting the arrest made before they lose contact with the suspect.  Since the error rate for this type of mistake is less than 1%, it usually works.  Again, the finger prints really don't make a difference in this in any way.  They knew who they were picking up, they just didn't know the guy's ID was stolen.  It isn't like the case in Detroit where two men are connected by having the same name and birthdate.  One is constantly in trouble with the law, and the other keeps getting picked up, and released after he proves who he is.  They have the identity of the real crook and the patrol officers are picking up the wrong man based on name and birthdate alone.  That case does involve fingerprints, or the wrong guy would have to stay in jail and face trial if he couldn't prove his innocence faster.

Now when my friend named "Jim" was stopped by border patrol because a black woman used his name as an alias, that was some special level of stupid.  They even knew her real identity, which why a woman could go around using a name like Jim didn't get stopped, is beyond me.
 
2014-05-10 10:40:11 AM  

Alphakronik: You'd think he'd change his name.


I'd think he would sue for $millions, take his profits, and dare them to do it again.
 
2014-05-10 11:00:41 AM  

kroonermanblack: generallyso: At least they didn't forget he was there and leave him the verge of death from dehydration:

Chong said he was at a friend's house in University City celebrating 4/20, a day many marijuana users set aside to smoke, when agents came inside and raided the residence. Chong was then taken to the DEA office in Kearny Mesa.

He said agents questioned him, and then told him he could go home. One agent even offered him a ride, Chong said. No criminal charges were filed against him.

But Chong did not go home that night. Instead, he was placed in a cell for five days without any human contact and was not given food or drink.

Without reading the actual article (because what kind of pleb does that?) the blurb you posts is suspicious at best. No one ENTERED the area he was jailed in for 5 days? That's hard to believe. No one could hear him shouting? He couldn't drink water from the integrated toilet-sink many holding facilities have? There's a lot of questionable content right there.


He wasn't in a holding cell, but an 'interview room' with a desk. There was a holiday, so they'd left early and forgot to let him out.

They didn't find him until people started coming back to work on Monday, if I remember correctly.
 
2014-05-10 12:05:03 PM  
There is no excuse for the DEA and the local LEO's inability to run a fingerprint check for more than 24 hours.  Everybody arrested is routinely fingerprinted and those prints are entered into an FBI database.  If they ran this guy's prints through the database it would have led them to the previous arrest record and the disposition of that case where they learned that arrest was a case of mistaken identity they could have easily determined that the warrant was issued from the original case and not from this guy being the target of a new warrant from a case where there was evidence that this guy had been dealing.  Both the DEA case agent (or whoever was covering his cases if s/he was on leave) and the local jailers have access to the fingerprint database and nothing more than a couple of phone calls could have cleared the confusion up in no more than 24 hours.
 
2014-05-10 12:06:17 PM  

Sim Tree: kroonermanblack: generallyso: At least they didn't forget he was there and leave him the verge of death from dehydration:

Chong said he was at a friend's house in University City celebrating 4/20, a day many marijuana users set aside to smoke, when agents came inside and raided the residence. Chong was then taken to the DEA office in Kearny Mesa.

He said agents questioned him, and then told him he could go home. One agent even offered him a ride, Chong said. No criminal charges were filed against him.

But Chong did not go home that night. Instead, he was placed in a cell for five days without any human contact and was not given food or drink.

Without reading the actual article (because what kind of pleb does that?) the blurb you posts is suspicious at best. No one ENTERED the area he was jailed in for 5 days? That's hard to believe. No one could hear him shouting? He couldn't drink water from the integrated toilet-sink many holding facilities have? There's a lot of questionable content right there.

He wasn't in a holding cell, but an 'interview room' with a desk. There was a holiday, so they'd left early and forgot to let him out.

They didn't find him until people started coming back to work on Monday, if I remember correctly.


And the DEA settled for 4.1 million $ a year later, i doubt anyone would go into such a situation even for a million dollars...
 
2014-05-10 03:22:09 PM  

Fark_Guy_Rob: profplump: Fark_Guy_Rob: Any change that would have improved this guy's experience would also create another problem

It might, or it might make the process better for everyone. There is no evidence that the system currently in place is as good as it could be, that it reflects our values, or even that's sane.

At the very least they could have found a way for this guy to demonstrate that he was the same person who had this same problem in the past, and the authority issuing the arrest order could be required to check for such past errors and provide appropriate guidance in their order to help avoid a recurrence.

Theoretically - you are absolutely correct.  The entire system could be improved.  But in practice, it never works that way.

Any change in response to something like this, is going to focus on this one issue, disproportionately so.  The fact that we had this problem in the first place shows that we aren't able to predict the edge-case problems a system we design will have.  That means, we almost certainly can't know if the new system is better.  I mean, look at things like the TSA.  Something happens, people question 'the system' with regard to a specific problem.  A new solution is thrown together to address that problem, almost always at the expense of another.  In many cases, the new solution won't even help, but it's all political.

It's easy to come up with a policy that works 90% or even 99% of the time.  If someone wants to outline a new policy that is better in all cases, I'm all ears.  But it's *never* that.  It's always just people who don't know anything about the topic saying, 'THIS SHOULDN'T HAPPEN!  WE NEED TO CHANGE THE SYSTEM'.  And, I'm not saying they are wrong.  They aren't.  It's just that nothing *should* ever go wrong.  And any policy *should* be perfectly logical and account for every single edge-case.

The core of this problem is how we handle identification.  And this is not a solvable problem.  It's a manageable problem and, no, I ...


Of course it's a solvable problem.  Under the age old principle of "better a hundred guilty go free than one innocent suffer" you make the policy that if you can't positively be 100% certain that you have the right person, YOU LET THEM GO IMMEDIATELY.

And if you get a re-occurrence after that, you fire everyone involved with not releasing the innocent guy immediately and charge them with false imprisonment.

And that's actually why the system isn't working now.  Holding the wrong guy is ALREADY a crime, but no one is ever charged with it.  If the people involved in this system knew that they would end up in jail if they screw up, they'll be a lot more careful about it.
 
Displayed 50 of 53 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report