Slashdot Mirror

Nice collection of weapons pulled off antifa members who were looking to attack people at pro-trump/free speech rally. http://www.officer.com/news/12...

Holy shit!! I think I saw the rusty hatchet stolen from my shed in there. Any chance I can get it back?

And what the hell is that at the bottom of the image? Is that a a gate hinge bolted to a shin guard? That's gotta hurt.

This also demonstrates that no government can disarm the public, people will improvise. You can take their guns and knives but then they'll just fashion their own. Part of the reason why the speakers and attendees to these speeches get their ass kicked so often is that the venue is "weapons free" but the area to and from is not. The police disarmed one group but not the other. Would these hooligans be so bold to bring a sack full of bricks if they thought the attendees might shoot back?

I know someone is thinking, "but at least the hooligans didn't have a gun." What makes you think the hooligans could buy a gun? These students are likely often high on drugs (prescribed or not), likely with previous criminal records, or a protection order out on them. They couldn't pass a background check to buy a firearm.

Another common reply to my comment, "Do you really think it justified to use a gun against someone swinging a sack of bricks?" Yes. Wait, let me make myself clear... HELL YES!! Swinging a sack of bricks, putting a plastic bag over someone's head, hitting them with a pipe wrench, or a bike lock, is deadly force. Deadly force should be met with deadly force. That includes the use of a firearm in defense of lives.

Right now the radical right is the ones doing the screaming

Sorry that's the left in berkely. Same with the bike lock attacker Nice collection of weapons pulled off antifa members who were looking to attack people at pro-trump/free speech rally. And I can really keep going, because there's not only dozens of cases like this but hundreds in the last 2 years.

Antifa are leftists of marxist/mao kind. BAMN are of the same kind, you also need to toss in their little cult camps. And people on the right didn't start responding until the left started going "OH NO, they're not us." We don't condone anything, while letting them slip back into the crows and cover them. Professor bikelock is the most recent and famous example of this. Now what I want you to do is freeze it within the first 3 seconds. You see all those masked people happily moving within that group of unmasked leftists?

Find any video where people are filming antifa and you'll see: Antifa slip into the crowd or part of the crowd, attack someone/attack in a group/crowd of unmasked leftists cover for them and let them slip back in.

Also, as a courtesy, my sources: military suicides in 2012 and police suicides in 2015 (2012 total is provided within).

Dont be a dick: http://forums.officer.com/t110...

The only thing more annoying are those slashdot readers who want to tell everyone else how to format their posts, where to insert carriage returns, line breaks, grammar marks, bolding, italics, fonts, or anything else.

Also you're wrong about impeding traffic, so I guess the slightly less annoying thing are slashdot readers that open their mouths to be rude to others because they don't like formatting but then spew out incorrect facts as if it were true without providing any basis for it. Here you go, kid: http://forums.officer.com/t151...

"Constitutional rights? Bah! Who needs 'em!" seems to be the watchword of the new millenium.

Yep, if events in academia is any guide, the First Amendment rights — including the reporters' right to observe and record the newsworthy events — is done for.

The gun nuts get everything they want.

False. Although the Bill of Rights clearly calls weapon-possession a right, it is treated as a mere privilege even in the most Liberal locales: you must have a government's permission to keep and bear. And even where such a permission is reasonably easy to obtain, it can also be withdrawn by the Executive at a drop of a hat — without Judiciary's participation.

And not just guns — various States and cities take an even dimmer view of the Constitutionally-protected arms like knives, swords, and brass-knuckles.

This makes it sound like Sweden is highly restricted in what it can consider to be an obstruction of justice.

Keep up with the story. They've already released the type and size of the knife, and that knife is not illegal in Baltimore. The arrest was almost certainly illegal.

Not sure you've been following the story either, because the legality is still up in the air (http://www.wbaltv.com/news/officer-files-motion-contending-gray-arrest-was-legal/32824182). And "grey-zone" territory like this has come up before in Maryland, so this is nothing new:

http://www.mdshooters.com/show...
http://forums.officer.com/t513...

Try asking anyone under 30 if they know what the phrase "Papers Please!" denotes

It's just two words... It's a lot of things.

It's when the Military place soldiers in a natural disaster area such as New Orleans after Katrina requiring you to show military ID or proof of government authorization, to avoid arrest, or having vehicles impounded

It's an attack onAmerican birthright citizenship

It's two words that succinctly describe America's dark future.

Personal and Professional Encounters with Surveillance

anti-state.com: May I See Your Papers Please?

It's what Mr. Hiibel of Nevada went to jail for refusing to comply with

It's what police do now to ordinary people minding their own business.

It's congress work on the REAL ID act

It's a name given to a section of an Arizona law upheld by the Supreme court.

It's the name of a complaint against changes the US is making starting this Fall 2013 to further restrict the free travel of Americans and greatly increase the difficulty of US citizens getting passports

It's the name of a dystopian video game about communist immigration control.

It's the name of an anti-TSA blog

It's a request you comply with when asked by the police; otherwise, you face immediate arrest.

• Texas 77 year old Grandmother arrested after refusing to show ID
• Police arrest for refusing to show ID while on private property
• Exhibit 1
• Exhibit 2: According to the Supreme Court, the police may arrest for failure to identify
• Arrested at Circuit City for refusing to show ID: "It all started when I refused to show my receipt to the loss prevention employee at Circuit City, and it ended when a police officer arrested me for refusing to provide my driver's license."
• I follow the blog of a guy who walked across the country (California to New York) last year. He was arrested in Greencastle, Indiana last summer, after a prison worker called the police to report him as a suspicious person after they exchanged words while he was walking past the prison complex.
• Florida Cops Tase man for refusing to show ID
• Refusal to show id in Georgia (arrest)
• Man in Arizona arrested for refusing to surrender firearm to officers who refused to show their own ID

What are you, an imbecilic cop?

Know what you are doing.

In the US there are very few large scale organizations that are not businesses, and violence is bad for business; there is not that much of it. A good example of this kidnapping, extortion, protection rackets, are usually small-scale. There are other occupations that are safer and easier to gouge people out of money so it never reaches the scales that it does like in Mexico.

If the poverty line gets low enough combined with severe cuts in local services, it would not surprise me to see this trend be reversed.

You don't consider it possible that police work might actually be interesting to some people, or that they might want to feel they're helping their community by catching criminals?

Such people are called idealists. They are enrolling into Police Academy classes thinking that their future job will be "helping their community by catching criminals." Those officers quickly become disgusted by the "catch and release" policy and quit in protest. A modern LEO is pretty helpless about crime-fighting. At best he is an annoyance to criminals (and a target.) Far more commonly he is a scarecrow that criminals have no difficulty working around.

LEOs who got used to the job have trained themselves to be emotionally detached from the "help the community" part. Instead they are focusing first on surviving the shift. They stop trusting that "community" very quickly - just as soon as they realize that everyone is lying to them, for one reason or another. Some become paranoid. Go to officer.com and read the forums there. Remember the joke "Be polite. Be professional. But, be ready to kill everyone you meet?" It's not a joke for many successful LEOs - it's now their method of operation, and it saved their lives more than once. But once you step into that groove you will not climb out; "civilians" will never be your friends, they will be only suspects.

anyone intelligent can only have the goal of working behind a desk making themselves lots of money.

I can accept that a 20 y/o starry-eyed idealist can join the ranks of police and work the beat for a while. However this is a thankless, heavily physical job with night shifts and with no prospects for a career. As you are getting older you need more money to support your mortgage, your children, and then education of their children (and your grandchildren, eventually.) You cannot do that on a fixed income of a police officer. Furthermore, as you are getting older you may have difficulty just being physically fit for the job. If you are unfit you will be reassigned to that very desk job that you are so derisively talking about. Now, with all other factors being equal, what desk job would a reasonable person prefer - of a middle manager in a good business or of a crime report writer in the 123th Precinct? Whose job has better future? Whose job pays better? Whose job doesn't get harder and harder as years go by? Whose job gives you better chances of surviving the day? It is not very pleasant to be cursed and spit upon all day long.

As I said, anyone who has an IQ well above average answers these questions not based on his feelings and childhood's dreams but based on rational reasoning and on facts. Police officers are janitors of the society. They are doing a necessary job, but that job, to most people, is not the most desirable one. But it does attract people who seek power over others.

This will be sold as a cost-cutting measure, since a few guys operating a UAV can see a wider area than 10 guys on the ground. Or the cost could be compared to a police helicopter.

You statement that a video showing police possibly committing criminal acts was more realistic and representative of the actions of police officers as a whole than cops.

I do state that a candid filming of unaware people is more realistic than a TV "reality show".
Anything regarding "representative" is your editorializing.

Do you have a general dislike of the police based on your limited dealings with them or not.

First tell me, have you stopped beating your wife yet?

Ignoring the issue of improperly formulated and loaded questions, let's address the issue:
Do I have a general dislike of the police? Yes, I do.
Is it based on my (limited or otherwise) dealings with them? Not really. It is mostly based on other things.

Let's start with human nature.

I do believe that Lord Acton's saying that power corrupts is true, that peer pressure and pressure by authority are powerful forces, and that dehumanizing "foes" helps deal with the cognitive dissonance of their immoral, unethical and outright criminal treatment; as demonstrated by the "third wave" experiment, the Milgram experiment, the Stanford prison experiment, etc. as well as the more recent Abu Ghraib incident.

Then, let's see how it applies to police.

Police, nowadays, have enormous power and almost no accountability. There are countless reports of people being excessively and unnecessarily tasered, maced or beaten, protesters being arrested en masse and then released without charges (after a couple of days in custody), and so on. I am not talking just about youtube videos, but major national newspapers and public TV and radio channels as well.

What bothers me most is that such abuses are almost universally buried, or, when too overt, downplayed. The perpetrators are not charged and are usually "punished" by their own system by giving them paid vacations (a.k.a "suspended with pay"). When (very rarely) such cases do reach the court of law, coworkers and superiors have no problem lying, suppressing or manufacturing evidence and otherwise subverting justice and get away with it. I often follow such cases years after the events only to find out that, once any media brouhaha has died out, they were quietly swept under the rugs.

Now, you may say that these are the exceptions rather than the rule, a few "bad apples" if you will. Fair enough, but an organization is judged by the way it treats its outliers. Instead of trying to clean up the ranks, police just closes them; they either actively protect their own or, at best, turn a blind eye -- even when the "their own" in question are better cast out. Which proves, to me, that the police is a thoroughly rotten organization.

But what about the "good cops"? I claim that there are none, because those that do no oppose evil, enable it by their inaction and are therefore no better than the "bad ones".

I was using the show Cops not to showcase the officers but the types of people and problems they have to deal with.

Nietzsche wrote: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you". Here's a small example I ran across while reading a police forum. The guy justifies planting a drop gun because "the bad guy came from a long, long line of local criminals and knew he had it coming". First you rationalize breaking the law because it puts away a crook, then it is to help a fellow officer who got a bad break, then it is for your own benefit and finally, you're so used to doing it, you no longer need a justification.

And if you insist on something from my own experience, I can volunteer the following anecdote. I drive a quite a bit on roads with speed traps. I also witness a lot of police cruiser drive o

Also google "drop gun."

I did, and found this.

This is more evidence that the only difference policemen (aka LEOs) and other gangsters is that policemen are far more dangerous because the state approves of their gang.

Voting.

Those bureaucrats are not elected, and we have a tall building full of them. They are also unfireable. Elected officials don't know them, don't care about them, and they don't care about your problems either.

I agree that if the municipality seriously impedes issuance of building permits to majority of applicants then there will be a backlash, the mayor will be forced to do something about it, and there will be something done. But it requires a lot of wrongdoing; the corruption of the police in New Orleans is one such example.

If you are just one person, and you can't wait for the next election because you need to repair your house right now, or else it will be condemned for a cause, this question moves from being a philosophical issue to being an issue of physical survival. Any man who has that much power over you must be seen as such, and dealt with as such.

Why do you say forums.officer.com needs trolled? As far as I can see, most posters there agree with the decision, and also say that the cop was an idiot for pulling his gun.

There are idiots in any group. Most cops are reasonable folks. The problem is only: you never know which kind you have...

Instead of harassing the customers, they could pay a couple armed guards to sit on every flight and things would go smoother all around. And actually have a chance at stopping the terrorists that get by.

You mean like air marshals?

"Police reports, court records, internal memos and e-mails indicate that air marshals have been convicted of bribery, bank fraud and abducting a hired escort while on layover. They've slept on planes and lost diplomatic documents on a whiskey-tasting trip in Scotland."

• "A prosecutor plans to charge a former Dillon police officer with assault after he was captured on videotape beating a suspect in a traffic stop."
• "A state trooper who hit a fleeing suspect with his car has been indicted by a federal grand jury on a civil rights violation charge. . . . The 2007 incident, caught on [the officer's] dashboard video in what may be the first of several cases against highway patrolmen."

These are just two incidents from S.C., where I have roots and take notice of such things. In both cases, the most damning evidence against the police is from their own in-car cameras. I'm sure S.C. hasn't cornered the market on thuggish cops.

I think that as a general rule of thumb, if you are filming a police or other law enforcement action and you think the people doing the enforcing may be breaking the law, you don't want to advertise the fact, lest their attention be diverted to you, with potential consequences including loss of the evidence you are collecting. When I was just starting off on my own, my dad (a newspaper man) dispensed this piece of advice: "If you are stopped by a policeman for any reason, say 'yes, sir' and 'no, sir'. Let him be the big man, because he has the badge and the gun, and it will be his word against yours." Basically, if you think there is something that needs to be redressed, write the facts down (badge number, name, etc.) and take it up with the supervisors later, in plain light of day. Being a smart aleck isn't the way to go.

Hounds in modern law force are trained as trackers, Shepard dogs like German Shepards are trained as partners for there cops with the sole training goal to be to take down the target their trainer sends them at.

For more info, look at what the members of law enforcement have to say:

http://forums.officer.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=203
http://www.pupforum.com/newsletter/vol1/iss2/index.cfm
http://www.sitmeanssit.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=13

Now, spend a few months lurking on these (and many other forums, as I was often instructed too) forums and you'll find out enough about police dogs to make you want to shit yourself everytime you see a K9 unit. It's like Pavlov, but fatal.

The blurb about terrorism concerns and remote detonating bombs sounds like more pointless scare-mongering with no increase in security.

Can you even back up your claim that you are more likely to get shot with your own gun?

And then you claim that police are highly trained!

HAhahahaha!


Just google "how often do police have to qualify" and you will get this as the first link: http://forums.officer.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-9835.html

Reading it you will find out that some police have to qualify ONCE a year, if that. And the qualification is to hit a man sized target at 10 feet. Some departments don't even provide funds for the officers to train and qualify and they must do it on their own time and money

Certainly there are police departments where the standards are much higher. But your erroneous statement of "getting shot with your own gun" is a complete fabrication.

"Less-lethal" is a newer buzz term, but non-lethal is just as ubiquitous. Here's a police officer's forum including a thread where they talk about the proper terminology. But, you'll notice that non-lethal is used throughout the threads.

As an aside, you know there's a problem in a society when someone would even think of suing an organization that is trying to save their life. It reminds me that every time I take a first aid course (lifeguard, ski patrol, etc.) that they caution you to never help anyone in the U.S. Better to watch someone die than try to help them and end up losing everything to a lawsuit because you didn't do everything exactly right. Very sad state of affairs there...

More information can be found here. Of course, if they had some idea of when the event was going to happen, they could also schedule an alarm for the latest time they want the device to detonate. So they detonate manually if possible, and it falls back on the alarm if the signal is blocked. The article I referenced discusses many factors, such as timers, jamming, the lithium ion battery itself being part of the ignition source, and why law enforcement doesn't have access to jamming equipment (including the FCC sections prohibiting jamming).

Dan East

This one has 600 HP, but I've seen some with as little as 350: http://www.officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSec tion=1&id=31576

This would be possible if more resources were diverted to fighting organized crime (and spam). Some countries do it, some don't.

Some thoughts on your thoughts

As another responder pointed out, most of the security rules are regarding the airport, not the airline. you *can* run an airline where people are allowed to carry guns, you just can't use the normal federally regulated airport, because guns are illegal there.

Of course the thought of voluntarily getting into a pressurized metal tube at high altitudes with a bunch of knowingly armed and self-righteous people tends to make people think of other airlines. and therefore a commercially bad move. same with stripped naked. ugly would go looking for pretty, who would know better than to show up there.

federal mandates on planes allow the airlines to discriminate (against people carrying guns, people on the do-not-fly list. for example) federal mandates allow the locking of the cockpit door, it was the pilots union that demanded it. If you congregate in the front of a plane, you are not breaking a federal law, you are breaking an airline rule.

BUT, that said, let's have a little word about federal regulations/mandates/laws and how they differ.

federal laws, mandates and regulations are slightly different things. worth checking on. remember the "real-id" act is a *mandate*, there is no requirement for the states to follow this *mandate* simply that the federal government will not recognize that state's ID as legit. they're not "forcing" the states to comply, (those of you who have had credit trouble might recognize this argument.)

federal safety *regulations*, (OSHA for example) are not there to protect you from something. they are there to make sure there is a well defined line between "my fault" and "your fault" that's all. If I did not wear a hard hat on a constructions site, I would be in violation of OSHA regulations, would I be arrested for it? no. the company I worked for would insist I wore one, because if I wore one they would not be liable in the case of my injury. Federal regulations about airports and airlines are the same. do this and you won't be liable for this kind of problem. If you don't follow these rules, so be it. on your own head be it. It is not against the law just to carry a gun on a plane. But, if the airline allows it, and something goes wrong, (anything, it not even be directly tied to the fact that you have a gun) the airline would be liable for everything. they did not conform to the rules. If the airline follows every rule, and something still goes wrong, they can say "not our fault!" and walk away.

----I have conferred with someone here, and I may be mistaken about the status of guns on planes being actual law, but I suspect there are conditions. also, the illegality of guns on planes has to do with interstate commerce laws, oddly enough... so if someone could substantiate this, I will happily retract the bits of the above diatribe that apply to guns.)----

rules about guns, knive, nailclippers, mean that already the popular misreading of the 2nd amendment doesn't apply, (and a bit of the 4th) and rules about making silly jokes mean that the 1st doesn't apply either. "no gathering at the front of the cabin" rule, that's the 1st again, so, does the constitution apply?

here are a few links that come up if you google (FAA regulations guns)
http://www.fletc.gov/artesia/travel.htm
http://www.akdart.com/gun1.html
http://www.packing.org/airlines
http://www.nationalreview.com/kopel/kopel092601.sh tml
http://forums.officer.com/forums/archive/index.php /t-12995.html
and of course,
http://www.nationallampoon.com/nlbs/santa/xmas/faa .asp

...they use it to convict you AFTER they find you. Of course, the interesting thing is that it would be trivial to hook up your confiscated printer and print out some incriminating evidence after the search itself. Then backdate the evidence tag, and voila. Of course, not that police ever tamper with forensic evidence.

This can't be good for us "civilians" if the tools of the state are thrilled with this ruling

Officer.com

"but you're closer to legitimacy to demand that I don't actively follow you around observing you."
Only if I can show that you represent a threat to me or in some other way harrassing me.

"This system makes it much easier to do more than observing, and it makes the "follow this person around until he does something we can prosecute for" much easier, and much less provable."
Again, no it doesn't. There will be records of who accessed which tape when. There are often no records of where you drove last night.

"Following someone for miles on the road, waiting until they make a mistake so you can pull them over, is illegal in most states on the basis of tracking being illegal for non-offenders."
Sure, because you are singling out people who have not broken the law. Not the case with cameras that cover public areas.

"And how do you go about proving that's what happened when the police give you your tenth ticket for "crossing the median line" because you happened to spill your beer on a cop at a nearby bar?"
Thats why we have these things called judges. A cop writing you a ticket does not automatically mean you are guilty in our system.
Anyways, how are you going to prove it in the traditional system?

"In the case where an operator used the cameras in an Alabama town to zoom in on coeds' breasts and buttocks, and in which the camera feeds were running on a local cable channel so lots of folks saw it, the PD didn't even release the name of the offending officer."
Do you always try to prove your points by posting grossly outdated articles? Trooper Jonathan Minor was disciplined by Internal Affairs some time ago.
Anyways, as I said before (and you ignored) thats an abuse of observation, not tracking. In order to stop people from staring at girl's butts, you will have to do a lot more than remove security cameras. You will have to require everyone wear blindfolds whenever in public. Had trooper Minor been an officer on the street he still would have spent his time staring at girls and would never have gotten caught.

What is your point anyways? That cameras in public places should be abolished because some people could abuse them in ways similar to abuses done without cameras? Fine then, put cameras in the viewing room. Are you suggesting we also remove cameras from banks, police stations, government buildings, etc. because some could abuse them as well?
Your entire reasoning is inconsistent and illogical.

Article Text here

New York and Wisconsin Opt Out of Anti-Crime Database
............
MARK JOHNSON
Associated Press

ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) -- New York and Wisconsin have joined the list of states that have pulled out of an anti-crime database program that civil libertarians say endangers citizens' privacy rights.

Just five states now remain involved in Matrix out of more than a dozen that had signed up to share criminal, prison and vehicle information with one another and cross-reference the data with privately held databases.

Questions over federal funding and the waning potential for benefit to law enforcement ultimately prompted New York's withdrawal, said Lynn Rasic, a spokeswoman for the New York State Office of Public Security.

In a letter earlier this week, New York State Police Lt. Col. Steven Cumoletti noted that as more states withdraw, Matrix's usefulness diminishes.

The administrator of the Wisconsin Division of Criminal Investigation, meanwhile, cited cost, privacy and potential abuses of such a large database.

"When you added it all up, there were more negatives than positives,'' said the administrator, Jim Warren. He said the state signed up for Matrix about a month ago, but withdrew this week without having put any money into it or trained anyone.

Known formally as Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange, Matrix links government records with up to 20 billion records in databases held by Seisint Inc., a private company based in Boca Raton, Fla.

The Seisint records include details on property, boats and Internet domain names that people own, their address history, utility connections, bankruptcies, liens and business filings, according to an August report by the Georgia state Office of Homeland Security.

Officials with Seisint and the U.S. Department of Justice did not immediately return calls seeking comment.

The American Civil Liberties Union has complained that Matrix could be used by state and federal investigators to compile dossiers on people who have never been suspected of a crime. Seisint officials have said safeguards are built into the system to prevent such abuses.

"We're pleased New York has finally seen the light and opted out of this data-mining program that would allow the government to troll billions of private, personal records for information they have no business getting,'' said Donna Lieberman, director of the New York Civil Liberties Union.

New York started questioning Matrix when several other states dropped out because of privacy or cost concerns, Rasic said. Alabama, California, Colorado, Georgia, Louisiana, Kentucky, Oregon, South Carolina, Texas, Utah and West Virginia have all left or declined to join after actively considering it.

"It was going to end up costing a lot for something we already had,'' Tela Mange, Texas Department of Public Safety spokeswoman, said Thursday.

Matrix, short for the Multistate Anti-Terrorism Information Exchange, began in 2002 in Florida. Connecticut, Michigan, Ohio and Pennsylvania also remain participants in the program, which was helped by $12 million in initial funding from the federal government.

Julie Norris, spokeswoman for Ohio Attorney General Jim Petro, said the state plans to stick with Matrix, considering it "a powerful investigation tool'' that uses information already available through public records.

"It allows for an intelligent search that is quick, fast and efficient,'' she said.

The Michigan State Police use Matrix on a limited basis and continue to support it, said spokeswoman Shanon Akans.

------------------

I swear, whenever I read about posts that infringe on privacy in this forum, all the dangerous 1984 references sound like more whining and justification based on more fear, uncertainty, and doubt. I've ceased to take any of it seriously.