Slashdot Mirror

there may be some prior art though
http://iwatch.sourceforge.net/index.html
http://www.lapdonline.org/iwatchla
http://www.google.com/search?q=iwatch&hl=de&tbo=u&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ei=IVQYUdqtO4mctAbllYHQAw&sqi=2&ved=0CDcQsAQ&biw=1204&bih=718

Right, because without tasers, no one has ever been killed or injured while resisting arrest.

I'll ask again - would you rather be tased (unpleasant, but no lasting damage in the overwhelming majority of people) or be restrained by force (unpleasant, also commonly end up with cracked ribs, dislocated shoulders/fingers, concussions, broken limbs, other bruises and other contusions) as a result of resisting your arrest?

Stop pretending like these people are standing around doing nothing when cops walk up and taser them out of the blue for shits and grins. They're being arrested, and they're resisting the arrest. At that point, the cops have two choices: tase the person, or pepper spray them, slam them to the ground, wrestle them into handcuffs, and hope they're not severely injuring or killing the person in the process. Neither way is gentle, or 100% guaranteed safe. You don't want to be tased? Don't get arrested; if you DO get arrested, comply immediately with the officer's instructions - the time to argue "wrongful arrest" or any other bullshit is IN FRONT OF A JUDGE, not on the roadside, or in the middle of a crowd of 50 other people.

JRIC - Joint Regional Intelligence Center in Los Angeles

http://www.lapdonline.org/newsroom/news_view/32984

BJA - Bureau of Justice Assistance

http://www.ojp.gov/BJA/

Basically, the BJA appears to be a bridge organization intended to funnel intel to the feds and provide control over local agencies:

http://www.ojp.gov/BJA/about/index.html

As has been referenced many times in various comments (including mine) the LAPD website has a FAQ on red light cameras that clearly states that video is taken from multiple angles and that is what is used to assess whether a ticket should be issued.

If you moved forward into an intersection to allow an Emergency Service Vehicle to pass then it would be obvious from the video and a ticket wouldn't be issued.

Apparently not always...

From here:

What is a red light violation?

A red light violation occurs when a vehicle travels across the limit line when the traffic signal is red.

It is not a violation if the vehicle has already passed the limit line at the time the signal turned red. At no time will a citation be issued if the vehicle crosses the limit line while the traffic signal is still yellow.

From LA's Photo Red Light FAQs:

How does the red light camera enforcement work?

The system uses multiple cameras placed at the intersection to record video evidence of the red light violation. The cameras capture evidence of the vehicle, the license plate and driver"s face.

What do the video cameras photograph?

The first video monitors vehicles approaching the intersection and provides a context view of the violation. The second video, recorded simultaneously, provides primary evidence of the violation. The third video captures images of the front and rear of the vehicle, including the driver"s face and the license plate.

It would seem to me that there is plenty of context as to why you were in the intersection. And from the same faq it says that you can request a review with an actual officer.

Apologies for the assumption. The post you replied to by Locke2005 specifically stated California regarding charges of "disturbing the peace" and "obstructing a police officer". So my replies did continue to imply the case of modern USA.

My problem is with statements such as "random authority figures" and "Police are most definitely not better than the average population", which are terribly insulting and seem to me unjustifiable. This is certainly the case in the US when you consider they not only have far more training than the average pre-college worker. And regardless of training volunteer into a position where they have a significant risk of dying in the line of duty.

If you want to criticize Chinese authorities, premise your statements to specify what kind of officer you're accusing of being worse than useless.

one drives at proper speed one does not have that problem.

Does not have what problem? Mayors and/or cops setting yellow lights to turn red before it is physically possible to come to a complete stop from the posted speed limit? One cannot repeal the laws of physics, so it is clear whose regulations are in the wrong.

Sightings? Pshhhhh. Try photos!

Physical items that are illegal to possess are almost exclusively dangerous in and of themselves or have absolutely no legitimate use.

Physically dangerous.

Class A Drugs, for example, are illegal to have for any reason. Yes, even if they randomly grow as weeds in your very-large back yard.

Medals of Honor and, in some countries, Nazi memorabilia are simply illegal.

It is not illegal to possess a Medal of Honor, nor a replica of one. It is illegal to sell them. Many non-recipients own them through other avenues, such as being willed them. Nazi memorabilia is not illegal in this country, and that's what is relevant here, not the failings of other nations.

Firearms with their serial numbers filed off in the USA. Plutonium just about anywhere.

Patently dangerous and no legitimate use. Patently dangerous.

George Orwell wrote a good number of books OTHER than 1984, most of which got his point across in a far better manner. Hence the lowercasing of his name in the first instance, and the substitution of a more accurate term in the second.)

Doug, you know as well as I have that "Orwellian" has become synonymous with 1984-related concepts. To claim otherwise would be disingenuous. Orwell wrote many books, but we all read 1984 and Animal Farm in high school and none of his other works ever reached nearly their level of fame or social relevance. The reason I use the term here is because outlawing something only because of how it could be used is basically thoughtcrime, and we all know where that concept came from.

To get to the meat of the discussion, no one has yet been able to demonstrate that simply owning a "fake ID" is a crime anywhere, let alone "everywhere". So far one guy tried and I pointed out that he just misread the statutes, they referred to fraudulent use, not mere possession. I give you a simple litmus test. What would Hollywood do? I have seen in plenty of TV and movies, and also at memorabilia shows, identification documents created for characters that would fool most people. Yet Hollywood continues to churn these out and hasn't been shut down for these fake ID factories.

Here's an example right now. You can buy the badge Dan Ackroyd used in the movie Dragnet. This is an exact replica of the badge of the Los Angeles Police Department to this day (as you can see here.. Yet you can freely and legally buy this badge. What you can't do is wave it at someone and make as if you're a cop.

What? No link? How about GTA 3? 2? 1? No? hmmm... So what you're saying is that you're a COMPLETE FUCKING HYPOCRITE. Right?

You have no problem when a video game shows a white man shooting people (so long as he's not shooting at black people right?) or even a fucking squirrel killing people, and you're cool with showing Some black sterotypes may be true, but as soon as there's a game that actually comes pretty damn close to the truth people start bitching... "Oh, it's racist..." "You're showing a black man killing - that's a stereotype.." No, it's the truth. Black people can kill. So can whites, and asians and puerto ricans and russians and anyone else. Please, just STFU!!!

Really? What city with similar demographics to Chicago that didn't implement this technology served as the control for this comparison?

Unfortunately, the Bureau of Justice Statistics Data Online only goes up to 2000, so I can't give you their numbers. But according to LAPDonline, Los Angeles experienced an 8% increase in violent crimes from 2000-2002 (they changed reporting in 2003, so the numbers aren't comparable). As the article says, the nation as a whole experienced a 2% increase in crime during the same period.

I spent a lot of time as an undergrad in Sociology learning that correlation is not causation. However, when you look at a major program being put into place, and you see that, during the time it's been available, there has been a MAJOR drop in crime vs. other municipalities and the nation as a whole, and you haven't experienced anything else that might explain it, chances are a large part of the drop can be attributed to the new program.

And it does make some sense. For example, they cite that their arrest rate for sexual assault is up to 69% from 43% before the CLEAR program rolled out. This (a) increases the risk of being caught if you commit this particular type of crime; and (b) removes people from the streets who might be more likely to commit crimes again.

There's a whole lot of skepticism to this report, but I'm not sure why. This isn't profiling every frickin' citizen (a la Department of Homeland Security wet dreams). It's taking information about crimes and putting it into an easily accessible format, so that multiple reports can be correlated more effectively and suspects can be more easily and quickly identified.

In Los Angeles, we have things happen where someone's arrested for something like tagging, is held for a few hours, then released because there's no point in prosecuting them for such a minor crime... and then the next day, they find out the same guy is wanted for a drive-by. When a drunk driver rear-ended me in a stolen vehicle (and then hit a parked car while fleeing the scene), it not only took 90 minutes for them to produce a couple officers to take a report (by which time the guy might have killed someone, I dunno), it also took two days to find out the car was stolen, and a week and a half to give me some mug shots to look at (by which time, my memory was getting hazy). Putting the info together faster is *crucial* in solving crimes.

As long as the information is incident-based (which from everything here it sounds like it is) and not individual-based, it's less prone to abuse (I said LESS... there's *always* risk, and should always be precautions), and sounds like it's been very useful. I hope Chief Bratton somehow manages to get LAPD using it, though it seems unlikely since we can't even afford to hire the officers we *know* we need.

In California, it's probably extortion, too. "Extortion: To unlawfully obtain money, property, or any other thing of value, either tangible or intangible, through the use or threat of force, misuse of authority, threat of criminal prosecution, threat of destruction of reputation or social standing, or through other coercive means." That's a felony. Because there was an illegal predicate act, the "unlawfully" element of extortion is satisfied.

Some legal action is definitely indicated.