r/TikTokCringe • u/New_Libran • 26d ago

Discussion The easiest $30k this guy ever made

On October 26, 2022, the judge ruled that Walden's contact with Land should have ended when it became clear that Land was not sleeping in the park or in need of assistance, and that the city was not responsible for Walden's actions.

On November 22, 2022, the city settled the lawsuit for $30,000.

45.5k Upvotes

97% Upvoted

3.6k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

136

u/RGrad4104 26d ago

The karen that couldn't stand a guy sitting on a park bench should be on the hook for half of that 30k.

124

u/caffeine-junkie 26d ago

Hint, there was no Karen or call. They just decided to approach and used the "anonymous call" as an excuse.

14

u/bestywesty 26d ago

It was actually an off duty cop from the same department

3

u/passwordlostnoemail 26d ago

I don't have information to say if this is true or not.

I would like speculate that if there was ever a potential conflict of interest in such a phone call to a person working a job - a coworker that works the exact same job would be high on that conflict list.

It is also an easy back-pocket lie to have on hand if there is no expectation of a record - everyone promising to vouch as each other's anonymous caller.

1

u/jimmymcjim 26d ago

ah the off duty karen strat, classic pig move

6

u/DJTheLQ 26d ago

It was called in by the Assistant Chief of Police D.J Whitaker on a morning walk for a "welfare check". See the court case's denial of summary judgement https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.iasd.76341/gov.uscourts.iasd.76341.32.0.pdf

12

u/RGrad4104 26d ago

Is that factual or speculation?

64

u/SomethingIWontRegret 26d ago

It's a known tactic. It puts you on the defensive and gets you talking about what you might possibly have done. There may or may not have been a call - police are legally allowed to lie to you.

-25

u/5ColourFelix 26d ago

olice are legally allowed to lie to you.

No they aren't, what are you talking about.

32

u/pockpicketG 26d ago

Yes they are.

-8

u/5ColourFelix 26d ago

I'm finding a lot of nuanced information about police deception tactics with limited applications, but I am not finding anything that says that "police are allowed to lie".

14

u/pockpicketG 26d ago

Do you think it’s like, written down? If there's no punishment for lying, then de facto they can lie. Have you ever been pulled over?

26

u/gingeregg 26d ago

Frazier v. Cupp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969), was the Supreme Court case that affirmed the Police are allowed to lie to you.

2

u/Pandarandr1st 26d ago
  • under current law

I think it's important to note that the SC just upheld that police misleading during interrogation is not itself unconstitutional, ie. the constitution doesn't protect you from this. But congress could pass a law (lol) barring this practice nationwide and it would hold. There's no SC in history that would claim that such a law was unconstitutional, I don't think.

-2

u/Clean_Farmer_4135 26d ago

This is dumb. I understand there are circumstances where an LEO may need to lie (e.g. undercover work), but a uniformed officer should never be able to lie.

18

u/Tranquil_Dohrnii 26d ago

"Should" is like saying they "should" be competent at their job and try to help the public. In the USA its just power hungry racists who want to pretend theyre in an action movie.

11

u/BioshockEnthusiast 26d ago

They're not even held to the standard of knowing the law, we'd have to start with that before we can hold them to not lying about it.

8

u/DasReap 26d ago

Yeah in magical fairy land maybe. Tons of cops lie.

3

u/Pandarandr1st 26d ago edited 26d ago

Then there needs to be a law passed. This case didn't declare a law that police cannot lie is unconstitutional, it simply said that police deception itself is not unconstitutional, and then only in certain circumstances. Basically the current state of things is that so long as a confession was not coerced, then it does not violate the constitution, which is not the only law of the land.

The courts interpret the law as it exists. We also have an obligation to pass laws to make the things that should be illegal actually illegal.

1

u/LAHouJaxCarVCUUNC 26d ago

A lot of people need to watch some Law and Order.

7

u/SomethingIWontRegret 26d ago

Yes they are. Several Supreme Court cases have established this.

One article out of hundreds: https://www.rossalbers.com/blog/2024/may/can-the-police-lie-to-me-/

-4

u/5ColourFelix 26d ago

From your article:

Cases such as Frazier v. Cupp and Illinois v. Perkins illustrate the Court's stance that some level of deceit is allowable in the pursuit of truth. However, this latitude is not without limits.

So, no, they can't "just lie to you".

9

u/SomethingIWontRegret 26d ago

Did you look at what those limits are?

The law is clear that while deception is permitted, it cannot cross into the realm of coercion or violate a person's due process rights. For instance, promises of leniency or threats of harsher penalties to induce a confession are considered over the line.

Can't threaten you with harsher penalties. Can't tell you that if you confess you'll get a lighter sentence. Can't lie to you about your rights and say things like you can't remain silent or that you don't get an attorney. Other than that, they can lie about anything, including evidence they don't have, or that somebody has already implicated you.

0

u/5ColourFelix 26d ago

So they aren't "legally allowed to lie to you".

It's one of these typical hyperbole statements you read online that leads to everyone swallowing it wholesale because "it feels right" when no police officer or lawyer would agree with it.

6

u/SomethingIWontRegret 26d ago

Yes they are. Because there are some things they can't lie about, doesn't mean there is nothing they can lie about.

In this specific case, yes they can lie about getting a call about you.

3

u/panrestrial 26d ago

So if you're legally allowed to eat 90% of fruits but 10% are off limits then you would say, "I'm legally allowed to eat fruit" isn't an accurate statement? Because I'm not legally allowed to eat 100% of fruits?

I'm sorry, but that's not how the English language works. If you're legally allowed to lie in 90% of situations then it's accurate to say you're legally allowed to lie. You as an individual are legally allowed to lie in the US. Lying is not a crime. Those statements are true despite it being illegal for you to lie under oath in a court of law.

3

u/Tranquil_Dohrnii 26d ago

Yes they are. But if you lie to them its a crime. Welcome to America.

1

u/panrestrial 26d ago

But if you lie to them its a crime

Depends. You can lie to them in casual conversation and to direct questions as long as you aren't obstructing an investigation. Any time they're just fishing with no reasonable cause to hassle you, you can lie about anything (except your identity in most jurisdictions.) If they ask what you're up to or where you're going, what's going on, etc, you can say whatever you like.

2

u/SomethingIWontRegret 26d ago

It's better to not say anything to the "where are you going / coming from" questions. That's another tactic in their toolkit. They're building up a picture of your movements and looking for discrepancies or lies. Did your route go out of your way? Did it take you past bars? Do you claim to live locally but have out of state plates? Are your answers hesitant like you're thinking up a lie? Welp, now you've given him reasonable suspicion that you've had a few drinks or scored some drugs and he's gonna hold you for the K9 unit, with a dog that will indicate drugs whenever the K9 officer prompts it to.

Avoid all that. "I'm not discussing my day" or "I prefer not to answer questions" and if pressed, "I am exercising my right to remain silent."

1

u/panrestrial 25d ago

Agreed, but I was addressing the issue of whether or not it's legal to lie to police, not preferred tactics for dealing with them.

2

u/JWARRIOR1 26d ago

cmon bro takes 2 seconds to check

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=can+police+lie+to+you

0

u/5ColourFelix 26d ago edited 26d ago

Cases such as Frazier v. Cupp and Illinois v. Perkins illustrate the Court's stance that some level of deceit is allowable in the pursuit of truth. However, this latitude is not without limits.

Nowhere on Google does it say "the police are allowed to lie to you".

3

u/MechanicalSideburns 26d ago

Here's an article from the Innocence Project about it. They're an awesome organization that takes cases and tries to overturn wrongful convictions.

26

u/rambutanjuice 26d ago

In the court documents, the police claim that a police officer called it in.

Here's a link to the court document, but you'll have to register with PACER and pay to view the document (I know, I know): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/iowa/iasdce/3:2021cv00051/76341

And a news article which quotes from the above linked document: https://www.mississippivalleypublishing.com/part-of-lawsuit-will-proceed-after-court-motion/article_5bc89f8b-456f-570f-8850-d2f8cc1ca122.html

"In Walden’s case, the court document says a welfare check was called by off-duty KPD Assistant Chief (at the time) Whitaker, when he thought he saw a person sleeping on the bench."

3

u/soofs 26d ago

Pretty stupid a “welfare check” creates the cause for identifying someone. But that’s cops in a nutshell

14

u/WhyMustIMakeANewAcco 26d ago

It doesn't which is why he won the case.

1

u/soofs 26d ago

I should have phrased my comment better. I meant from the perspective of these cops it’s stupid that would even be their reasoning.

2

u/WhyMustIMakeANewAcco 26d ago

Cops are used to being able to just say shit completely divorced from reality and have people comply because it isn't worth fighting their nonsense.

5

u/shutterbug1961 26d ago

an American “welfare check” seems to harass kill and injure an awful lot of american citizens

3

u/Doza93 26d ago

Stupid that the "welfare check" doesn't end after they approach the guy, speak with him, and see that he's not sleeping or causing any sort of problem. Why not just go, "Hey man, we were called here to check on you but you seem totally fine, so we'll be on our way now"?? Why must they escalate a totally benign situation?

2

u/DrHomeStar 26d ago

Could have had an easy 10 minute break to just chat and relax with a stranger.

18

u/Event-Forsaken 26d ago

Complete reddit speculation.

6

u/JanterFixx 26d ago

so it must be true, right?

3

u/caffeine-junkie 26d ago

Speculation, but its also something police are known to do as it creates a "valid" reason for the interaction. Its more prominent in jurisdictions where carding (stop and identify) is illegal.

1

u/Continental__Drifter 26d ago

It's the way the police operate.

Standard operating procedure.

-1

u/EurOblivion 26d ago

He had an anonymous call about it.

1

u/panrestrial 26d ago

It wasn't anonymous, court records say it was the off duty assistant chief.

3

u/KevanSting 26d ago

Or this guy is a genius. If I was American I'd consider travelling around calling cops on myself and then exerting my rights.

Seems like a good living.

6

u/Equivalent-Team-8186 26d ago

Until one of them shoots you.

3

u/KevanSting 26d ago

You know... Honestly I hadn't even considered that. I suppose that's the privilege of living in a country with 4 fatal police shootings last year, which was double the year before.

I guess that 30k isn't so appealing after all.

3

u/Equivalent-Team-8186 26d ago

So many of these start with "wellness checks" too. You'd think they'd send the cops with better ppl skills to those but apparently not.

2

u/MinistryOfCoup-th 26d ago

Always ask for the 911 call number and then foia the call. Make sure their body cameras are running and foia those too.

1

u/Spicymoon9 26d ago

Considering Karen’s call the cops on homeless for just existing it’s 50/50

1

u/royal_city_centre 26d ago

The anonymous call makes probable cause!

I know more about the US justice system than my own.

Is the same as a drug dog sitting on your car. Boom! Probable cause.

1

u/AdministrativeDate72 23d ago

I’m almost positive someone called. You would not believe the reasons people call the police for shit like this.

39

u/Thatsockmonkey 26d ago

Yeah, and the policeman union should be on the hook for the rest not the citizens of the local city or tax district

35

u/Fast-Eddie-73 26d ago

This is what needs to happen. Everytime they pull some bullshit like this, the union needs to pay out half of the settlement. You want to protect shit you pay. Make them responsible and they will hold them accountable.

2

u/TrioOfTerrors 26d ago

Cities carry liability insurance for all employees and this includes the police.

If you want the union or individual officers to carry that insurance, the premium is just going to get baked into the next contract and it will likely be a net-zero move for the taxpayers.

8

u/Opening_Archer_4940 26d ago

eventually the premium for specific officers would get too high to pay

2

u/angelbelle 26d ago

Maybe, but it's better for the union to fight for that and then have to justify it. Taxpayers are going to see "Police Union bargaining for 30% pay raise over next 3 years" or something.

1

u/soulsnoober 26d ago

and they will hold them accountable

will they? The governments employing them don't seem to follow that line of reasoning. They just pay. And pay, and pay.

2

u/Alarming_Matter 26d ago

Take it out of their pension fund.

3

u/Ok_Star_4136 26d ago

Or the police officer making the arrest needs to immediately be reassigned to desk duty. They need to train these police officers better.

1

u/Dropbeatdad 26d ago

They need to stop having police, not train the thugs to be better thugs.

1

u/Franks2000inchTV 26d ago

Nah people aren’t expected to know the law.

1

u/619backin716 26d ago

The PBA should be on the hook for the other half

0

u/gimpssexual 26d ago

I know you have a raging justice boner but once you’ve rubbed one out maybe think about why it might not be a good idea for people to be financially liable for what the police do after they call them.

2

u/PlayfulSurprise5237 26d ago

That's halfway what they're saying

The public shouldn't be paying tax dollars for this, the police officer should for refusing to do his job correctly. Officers are given a tremendous amount of discretion in their work.

Nobody is going to fire him, sue him or get onto him for not arresting the guy on the bench for watching the sunset.

If he didn't know, he should have just walked away when the guy said he was watching the sunset. Alternatively he could have been even nicer and tried to have a little conversation with the guy about if he has been or has seen anyone sleeping around the area. If that's against the law there alright, but if the officer doesn't see anything, let it go.

It's not hard to be an officer. There's some procedure you got to learn, other than that, do the right thing and odds are you're going to get by just fine. Does it seem like the right thing to do what he did here? Absolutely not, that's not protecting the peace

-1

u/gimpssexual 25d ago

That isn't at all what they said, you are just projecting meaning that you want to be there. It's a very straight forward statement.

I don't know why you then went on a tangent about what should have happened, that has nothing to do with what either of us said.

1

u/PlayfulSurprise5237 25d ago

They literally said half lmfao. Whether you're for or against police or tax payers paying that 30k, that's halfway what they said xD

Don't quit your day job

1

u/panrestrial 26d ago

The person who called it in was an off duty police officer so in this case holding the department liable covers it.

0

u/gimpssexual 25d ago edited 25d ago

And what does that have to do with me responding to someone who said "the karen" should pay too? Neither of us said anything about holding anyone liable except them saying "the karen" should pay half and I disagreed. The fact that "the karen" is a hypothetical doesn't change what they said should happen and it doesn't change what I am disagreeing with.

ETA: Dude responding and then blocking is so weak. Like just don’t respond. Anyway since people who block always check the comment they blocked, hi and learn to read :) Neither of us said anything about holding anyone liable EXCEPT. See that word, “except”? It’s important. It means “with the exception of”. So I was asking you what your response had to do with holding the “Karen” liable and you realised how stupid you were and crashed out. :)

1

u/panrestrial 25d ago

Neither of us said anything about holding anyone liable

This you?

think about why it might not be a good idea for people to be financially liable for what the police do

Gtfo with that disingenuous bullshit