Slashdot Mirror
Police Database Lists 'Future Criminals'
Rio writes: "A Local6.com article tells us about a database that contains a list of people who police believe are likely to break the law. It features names, addresses and photographs of potential suspects --many of whom have clean slates. Since the system was introduced in Wilmington in June, most of the 200 people included in the file have been minorities from poor, high-crime neighborhoods."
how long till the suspected criminals-to-be are arrested "just in case"?
Cthulhu fhtagn!
Statistics show that lower income minority population usually cause more crime then high income majority population.
Why does the author act suprized with his last sentence?
Does the name Pavlov ring a bell?
If you've ever handled a penny the gub'ment already has your DNA. That's why they keep them in circulation.
Might as well send them a cheek swab now so they can clone you...
I am not a number! I am a man! And don't you
>Soon they are going to have tabs on if we wash our hands in the bathroom...
Well, you're supposed to wash them anyway, so why are you afraid? Oh, I see...
Sure it might be legal but that doesn't make it wise. What I'd like to know is where do the people come from who implement these policies? I think Arthur Clarke was right when, in "The Songs of Distant Earth" IIRC, he suggested that anyone who wanted a political office was, by definition, emotionally unsuited to having that office.
This is part of a disturbing national trend.
In Ohio, they're keeping a DNA database of CLEARED suspects!
John
The drops of water don't know themselves to be a river; and yet the river flows.
Just get a list of current government officials. You can't get possible criminal list with better odds then that.
Karma: Marginal (mostly due to the border around the website)
Lots of other professions speculate on compilied data. The /. posting here implies that they are guessing completely, but in fact they are really just taking note of people that are hanging in shady areas, loitering, with no real reason to be there.
If the majority of those people end up commiting a crime, and they see a pattern, I see no problem with getting familiar with those faces in case anything ever does happen.
Now, it would be funny to see some CEO's pop up on a fbi list.... this ceo has aurthur anderson consulting as his auditor, a seemingly inflated stock price... hes probably laundering, lets keep an eye on him!
There's nothing Intelligent about Intelligent Design.
Most crime happens in poor, minority-dominated neighborhoods. It only makes sense to increase the police presence in those areas, through random patrols and targetted surveillance of possible hotspots and hotheads.
The people who live in those neighborhoods have a right to live in safety. If this can effectively retard the development of criminals, isn't it worth it?
This why we have affirmative action programs like "Midnight Basketball". When there is a possibility of someone going down the path of crime, it is much cheaper to stop them when they haven't done anything than it is to incarcerate them later.
I have been pwned because my
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If that's the case, then why bother having a list in the first place?
SealBeater
-- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
no, we don't have a tub of people seeing the future, nor do we have cars running up and down the walls of buildings, and we certainly don't have Tom Cruise running around being a pimp. ;-)
Taking pictures of people stopped for loitering. How low tech. These days, more and more DMV's are going with computerized drivers licenses including pictures. Now all they have to do is to use the dl database to compile information based on address (since location is obviously an important criteria for them) and then just pull the pictures. This could be done without anyone (i.e. the public) knowing. Heck, they could be doing it now.
Now true, this would be easy to defeat by providing false info, or getting phoney licenses, both easy enough, but the man would still be able to get a large db up and going quickly and quietly.
State and federal prosecutors say the tactic is legal. The photos are being taken by two Wilmington police squads created to arrest drug dealers.
Many of the people whose photos have been taken were stopped briefly for loitering and let go.
Then after the article, there is this notice:
Copyright 2002 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed. Does this mean that /. is in violation of AP's copyright?
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
We could save a whole lot of trouble by having everyone chained up and electronically monitored at birth. We could most likely achieve a zero percent crime rate. We've just got to find someone that everyone trusts to monitor the system and administer electric shocks to those suspected of contemplating bad thoughts. Someone pure of heart. We better get voting, ideally using some of those ultra secure secret electronic voting machines..
air and light and time and space
"I don't care what anyone but a court of law thinks," he said. "Until a court says otherwise, if I say it's constitutional, it's constitutional."
That's from this article.
Free Mac Mini
``Loitering'' basically means the cop thought you looked out of place. If that's all it takes to be branded as a suspect--and, don't forget, a suspect is somebody who's guilty of some terrible crime but just hasn't been caught yet--then you better not get caught staring at a cop's jackboots.
Cheers,
b&
All but God can prove this sentence true.
These police are amateurs. My money says 90% of those in the database are *actual* criminals, having managed to violate the DMCA one way or another.
Cheers
-b
IMO, if these people are being treated as criminals without actually committing a crime, they might as well commit crimes. I don't know about you, but if I were singled out as a potential criminal, my first order of business would be to remove all doubt by killing everybody dear to the person that lets this continue.
Stastics also show that people who eat breakfast are in better shape than people who skip breakfast.
That doesn't mean that an unhealthy person will lose weight by suddenly starting to eat breakfast.
There is a significant difference between a causitive relationship and a correlation.
That doesn't mean anything though. You can use stastics to prove anything. 85% of all people know that.
best web host ever
The "future criminals" list, according to the article, is being collected by an anti-drug squad.
Yet another example of how absolutely disgusting the "war on drugs" has become in this country. They're paying a group of policemen to spy on ordinary citizens because they might smoke pot some day, or try a handful of mushrooms.
When can we get these retards back on the street fighting actual crimes? (Actually, do we even need the services of these particular retards anymore?)
Does anyone actually support the war on drugs anymore? If so, what are they smoking?
- A.P.
- A.P.
"Remember when the U.S. had a drug problem, and then we declared a War On Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore?"
George Orwell's "Thought Police" seem to be a step closer. Are we going to be arresting potential hackers because someone is computer literate? How about arresting potential rapists because the person is about to hit their sexual prime?
What are the requirments for entry into this exclusive database? Income level? High incidents of arrest of your immediate family? High intelligence? Low intelligence? Neighborhood you grew up in?
Take this a step further: Just enter EVERYONE into the thing and link it with our upcoming national ID system. Now everyone is a suspicious person until they prove themselves innocent.
This is wrong on SO many levels. IMHO of course.
"Giving money and power to governments is like giving whiskey and car keys to teenage boys." - P.J. O'Rourke
Comment removed based on user account deletion
... here
I would best most of those CEO's don't live in high crime areas
[This was a joke to the moderator challenged]
Live web cams
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
They're just crusing high crime areas (where the probabability is greater that a resident will be involved in criminal activity), then they find someone who's doing anything that's even remotely in violation of the law (loitering for instance), then adding them to the probability list.
And of course, they cite numbers of "successful guesses" but fail to mention how many misses. Its not necessarily meaningful. Very VERY few people are completely 100% in compliance with the law. I wouldn't go so far to say that someone who occasionally speeds is to be considered a criminal, but if you look at the teeth many laws have, especially copyright law, many of us are in violation to the degree that we could spend many thousands of years in prison and be fined billions of dollars, should they bring those cases to court and press the maximums.
6.6 Million americans (about 3%) are currently under supervision of a correctional institution, either in prison, or on parole or probation. And that's RIGHT NOW. That's a significant percentage of the population. To drive around someplace where that percentage is signficantly higher, it wouldn't be terribly unlikely to get a 10% matchup with pure guessing by pointing out random people who will one day end up in trouble with the law. To tout statistical probabilities as indications that this system is any more useful than pursusing criminals after the crime has been commmited is nothing more than a lazy effort to create the impression that something is being done about the "problem".
What is the point of this anyway? So someone's name is on a "future criminals" list. Does that make any difference when a trial comes up? I suppose if there's a murder, and one of the suspects happens to be on the list, that might be something, but if the only critiera for being added to the list was the fact that you once jaywalked 5 years ago, there would be little grounds to take it seriously, and defense lawyers would have a field day if someone was held longer than necessary based only on such inconsequencial evidence.
-Restil
Play with my webcams and lights here
I'm not advocating what they've done, but I think I know why. By having a list of potentials, they can narrow their initial search for a suspect by checking out likely entries from the database. That's EXACTLY what the police do with people who HAVE been convicted of a crime. When a new crime takes place, they look at known criminals first. In this case, they've just extended the list to people who they think MIGHT commit a crime.
I wonder if they show the pictures to victims to get an identity....
GreyPoopon
--
Why is it I can write insightful comments but can't come up with a clever signature?
So we shouldn't try to get it back if its already gone? Why not?
- A man who does not wash his hands is obviously a dirty criminal who harbors contempt for all things good and true: cleanliness, laws, George Bush.
- A man who washes his hands is is either nervous about a crime he is about to commit or trying to wash off the evidence of a past crime.
Either way, your honor, we have sufficient cause to believe the defendant is an enemy combatant.That, and isn't this collection of data an unlawful search? Especially when the person in question has no criminal record?
Now don't get me wrong, I'm all for keeping tabs on people who have previously broken the law, as unfortunately many felons are repeat offenders. However, there's no way you can convince me that keeping a database of people who "may be inclined" to commit a crime is a fair idea.
Besides, let's be honest, we've all though about committing a crime. Who hasn't wanted to beat the snot out of that jerk that just cut you off in traffic?
Using the logic of this, then the next step is that everyone with a driver's license should be tagged in a database as a possible assault perpetrator.
Illustrating absurdity by being absurd:
Most serial killers are middle class white men in their 20's who have trouble with relationships with women. DEAR GOD! SLASHDOT IS FULL OF POSSIBLE SERIAL KILLERS!
And anyone who thinks that's a racist, bigoted comment is ignoring the sad truth of the ghetto. That doesn't mean crimes aren't commited at higher income brakets or whatnot, just that there is a higher chance of those crimes being commited in those lower income brackets including dem darr white folk, which isn't mentioned. And it's true in any country as well, where the minorities here aren't minorities there. South Africa is a prime example. The majority populace (which just happen to be black and poor) suffer from an extreemly high crime rate, therefor statistics say that the majority of citizens in the country are likely to commit a crime. It's not a surprise or even racist as the author vaguely implies, though neither does it apply to everybody, which is what worries me about this system a bit.
You need a FREE iPod Nano
What, you mean there's a correllation between high-crime neighbourhoods and a likelihood of more crime being committed there. This is an outrage. I demand that zero-crime neighbourhoods get equal representation as places likely to have crime in the future.
Yes, it is very unfortunate that minorities in this, and most, countries tend to be in poorer neighbourhoods and that those neighbourhoods are consequently more likely to suffer from crime. However, as far as I'm aware, the list contains those individuals for reasons other than race. Playing the race card simply serves to add an association that wasn't being made before. Haven't we learned yet that the over-the-top-PC brigade do more harm than good?
These people are NOT having their rights infringed on. I can make a database of any group of people I want...hell, I can go through the phonebook, find out where the person lives and go take a picture of them AND IT'S PERFECTLY LEGAL. All this organization is doing is keeping track of people that have been caught in 'questionable activities' and making a list.
...and to anyone with that "Those who give up a little liberty to get safety..." line in your sig, remember NO LIBERTIES have been sacrificed here
If these peoples' civil rights are infringed upon, please, get up in arms...I'll join right along with you. But if the police are just compiling a database, not performing searches, pulling them over unnecessarily (note: I am not referring to racial profiling) or taking them into jail without cause, I see no problem with this. It could, in fact, be a good way to keep an eye on potential trouble makers. If the cops checked what these individuals were doing on a weekly, monthly, yearly basis, it would keep some innocents from getting harmed.
Remember, these are not random picks from the phone book...there's a reason why these people are in this database. Maybe they were in the wrong place at the wrong time, but doubtful...the majority were probably in the process of or about to commit crimes (drugs, vandalism, murder) when they were picked up.
--trb
After the Columbine Shooting the FBI posted a survey that would help profile a potential school shooter. We all remember that list, it was on /. after all. The list with things like:
Locking your door from the rest of the family.
Not labeling Floppy disks,
Being the Social Outcast of the school.
Hell I'd warrant that most of us would have been profiled as a potential threat based of our answers to that list. Odds are that at least some of us would fit that list as well.
What should really chap our collective asses is the blurb I heard on the Jim Gearhart show on 101.5 in New Jersey. That this law is constitutional because they say it is. If this is a true statement and not FUD from what boils down to a Rush Limbaugh-ish show, then we're really going to hell in a handbasket. If they can ignore the constitution based on whim then we're (not to put a fine point on it) fucked.
What is going to happen when this person goes for a job interview and he answers that he has no criminal record and then the employer and sees a "Future Criminal" tag? IF he going to be forced to work fast food and live off of welfare even though his record is clean?
Honestly, It's become a matter of 'when' and not 'if' for the revolution hasn't it?
Phoenix
-- Wiccan Army, 13th Airborne Division "We will not fly silently into the night"
This already happens in the UK, under the mental health act, a person can be detained for up to 28 days to "protect themselves or others" and longer if during those 28 days psychologists determine that the person requires medical help.
./ has already done this. (see poll) Dont think they dont trace post submission IP addr to ISP. Before long it will be commonplace for a business to be able to force an ISP to reveal who their customers are. They will soon be coming for you, you filthy bastard!!
Most crime happens in poor, minority-dominated neighborhoods. It only makes sense to increase the police presence in those areas, through random patrols and targetted surveillance of possible hotspots and hotheads.
The worst part of America winning the Cold War is that whenever insane shit like profiling potential criminals happens we can no longer point to the practice of show me your papers in the Iron Curtain or Soviet states to show why it is against the very principles of democracy the US is based upon. Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
I used to live in one of those poor, crime ridden, minority dominated neighborhoods a few years ago and this adverserial us vs. them mentality between the police and members of the community was a major problem which is excarberated by public opinion that encourages treating poor, non-whites as a criminal underclass as default behavior of the police.
Now that the officals in Wilmington are using the steerotypes to decide who is going to become a criminal, they need to expand the number of steerotypes beyond "Criminal Negros". Let's see There is a steerotype of "Pigs" who ready to assault defendants, so they need to add the Wilmington Police Force to thier database. There is a steerotype of "Crooked Politicans", so everyone who ever ran for office in Wilmington needs to be added.
Quemadmodum gladius neminem occidit, occidentis telum est
Or just send them your "ass pennies".
Remember, the fact that you were prevented from breaking the law doesn't alter the fact that you were going to break it....
"this violates a persons right to be free from warantless searches"
Now we need protection from warrentless SELECTs!
Many of the people whose photos have been taken were stopped briefly for loitering and let go.
Considering that African-Americans have long been been pulled over for Driving While Black, is police persecution for Standing While Black much of a surprise? If you are a young black male in America, you automatically "fit the description" for some fugitive from justice. If you want to suggest that profiling such a large group prevents crime, then I ask, where is the database of white male multimillionaires?
"FDA staff reviewers expressed concern about the number of patients who were left out of the study because they died."
with the Hells angels. It was deamed illegal, and uncostitutional. Each person was awarded 50,000.
so if you are in delaware, get your picture taken, it will pay off.
The Kruger Dunning explains most post on
Are you defending this system? Does your stated belief that the supposed liberals who posted this story would be happy if rich white people were profiled (a belief that has no basis in any fact) have any bearing on the story whatsoever?
If they created a similar database of potential corporate criminals, some people would be happy with that, but would they be any less wrong with those who create this biased system?
You've said nothing loudly. Congratulations.
In Capitalist America, bank robs you!
... we had a freakin list of the 9/11 hijackers and did nothing about it as they took flight lessons and planned an attack on the US.
... but hey, we had a list at least.
Then to top it off, even after the attack, our pitiful INS department sent them visas! I don't know what was worse; 1) They were dead 2) they were enemies of the country
Live web cams
how many corporate exec's go mugging for fun, or boost their neighbors Acura Integra.
Lord no, they just have some 'fun' with some poor girl or use some 'social' drugs, they wouldn't break any real laws!
Bleh.
The only difference between the rich and the poor is that if some poor guy fucks up he can be arrested and thrown in jail in a second, some rich shit rapes somebody everybody else is too afraid to speak up.
Need help treating your acne? Come here!
i would like to see a 2, 5 and 10 year study verifying if any of these people actually do commit a crime. if they do, would it be enough evidence to actually act on these lists? could statistics be used in law, to trump facts and evidence? interesting, but scary also.
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Consider This bill...
If passed, this will mandate a year of military training for nearly all "selective service" age males (and any females for volunteer - is it just me or is this an amusing chauvenistic anachronism for a modern law?...).
It's far from being an outright "draft", but it holds a disturbing (and on-topic) implication.
I seem to recall that when someone begins US military service, that they are subjected to a variety of examinations, including, I assume, psychiatric ones. Of course, the military keeps records of the results.
Therefore...this bill is basically a convenient way to ensure that the US Federal Government would from that day forth be able to "profile" effectively every male US citizen as they hit voting age. It'd be a trivial matter, in a technical sense, to automate the "picking out" of any results that are deemed "worrisome" and the reports shared with law enforcement agencies everywhere...
I'm not certain that's the main PURPOSE of the bill, but I don't doubt that aspect of it would appeal to current AND FUTURE executive administrations in the US....
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
The operative word is IF. there is no reason to believe that someone who is minding his own business on a public street is going to commit a crime. What you have here is RACIAL PROFILING on the highest degree. I am very disturbed that so many people think this is OK. We are not talking about the right to copy a DVD or share music with friends. This is a violation of basic human right. About "Equal protection under the Law"
I do agree with deft that we should get familiar with those faces. Not so we can include them in some photo lineup but so that we can know who they are. And they can know us. And we can help and guide them.
Preventing crime does not come from identifying possible criminals but identifying the potential in all of our youth.
As far as I can see the sad state of reality is that if you are a member of minority, and if you are poor, and if you live in a high crime area, there are very few ways for you to make a living other than through crime.
Your schools will certainly be substandard, so you can't get an education and get out of the ghetto. You can't get a job because there are no jobs near where you live and you can't go to where the jobs are because you are poor so you can't own a car and you can't use public transportaion to get to a job because it doesn't go near where you live.
When you look at TV the only people you see who look like you and have money are drug dealers, pimps, and sports stars. The odds of making a living as a sports star are pretty damn thin.
So what do you do? Hang out on the street corner and turn to crime because that at least lets you eat.
I think this situation is the main reason why so many people want gun control in the US. The idea that the next million man march might be a million people carrying two million guns marching on our all white suburbs scares them to death. The thing I don't understand is why that hasn't already happened?
Stonewolf, one sad wolf today.
Anyone know where we can find more info on this? The article was rather brief, and the
It would seem to me that asserting that I have a higher probability of committing a crime in the future might be libel. Would it be possible to get this list (based on an FOIA suit), then organize a class-action libel suit?
www.eFax.com are spammers
You are wrong on every count.
Due process grants you not being held without knowing your charges and having a quick and timely judicial process. When/If these people are arrested, they will still be given that right.
No unauthorized searches guarantees no law entity can come into your house (or any kind of domicile) without a warrant which they must show cause in order to get. Being around drug dealers/convicted felons is a reason, as is having previously broken the law (loitering is breaking the law in some places).
Equal protection under the law...you make me laugh. If this person was accused of a crime, he'd have the same rights as every other individual...the right to an attorney, presumed innocent until proven guilty (yes, the state's attorney would STILL have to make a case against him, he's not automatically jailed), the right to a speedy trial, no unlawful search and seizures, the right to free speech, even the right to run for office (assuming he's a citizen and natural born, which most of the people probably are not).
In short, you're making the case that because people are now watching them, they have lost rights. In fact, they have lost nothing, the rest of us have gained some protection.
--trb
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
By having a list of potentials, they can narrow their initial search for
a suspect by checking out likely entries from the
database. That's EXACTLY what the police do with people who HAVE been convicted
of a crime. When a new crime takes place, they look at known
criminals first.
My point is that there is a difference between conducting an investigation
based on a pattern of past behavior and conducting it based on where you live.
It's not even close to canvasing a neigborhood for witnesses after a burglery,
it's questioning a person and marking him as a potential suspect because he was
loitering in the wrong neighborhood last week. How does that (loitering and/or
living in a neigborhood) do anything to narrow down a list of suspects? Might
as well open the phone book and play pin the tail on the name and address.
SealBeater
-- Its survival of the fittest...and we got the fucking guns!!!
It is my sincere hope that everyone here on /. realizes that the USA Patriot act (horrible name if there ever was one) already mandates that certain businesses create and maintain a database of people that they FBI thinks might commit a crime. As discouraging as this one small case in Wilmington is, it's peanuts compared to what the feds are requiring. For example, a story on Yahoo News discusses the detailed data that colleges are required to collect and frequently transmit to the INS. Simliarly, business like bookstore and banks, libraries, and the phone company are now required to keep information on their customer "just in case" they commit a crime or are suspected of committing one.
read the article. it is the ACLU, not the NRA, that is challenging the law.
MORTAR COMBAT!
So there's a published list, even if it's only published to cops, saying "This person is likely to commit a crime". Leave aside the obvious civil liberties issues for the moment - this seems like simple libel to me. At least for the Usual Suspects who haven't yet been arrested for things, this doesn't sound like investigation of a crime or other legitimate police function that's protected by laws protecting government officials doing their official jobs. Of course, most of the people on the list probably don't have the resources to fight that kind of libel suit, but it'd be fun to get the ACLU or some other pro bono support for it.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Crime is a relative term. For example, here are some common business practices that can be perceived in different ways depending on how you look at them:
Stock Investments = Prospective Trading = Gambling
Insurance = Protection = Extortion = Mugging
Inaccurate Quarterly Reports = Creative Accounting = Embezzling = Mugging
Depending on where you stand, only one of the terms in each group is legitimate to you. I will use insurance as an example:
In the protection rackets, you "insure" someone that they won't get their place trashed and their legs broken. As the "protector" you feel fully justified that you are providing them with a service: keeping you or your henchmen's violent tendencies at bay. After all, these things just happen from time to time. Right? Either way, in the end it comes down to: "Your money, or your life. It's your choice."
In the insurance industry, there is a bit of legal wrangling, and the roles of the players are somewhat shifted to make it seem more legitimate, but it's a very similar situation: Health care providers (not necessarily doctors mind you... although some of them can be blamed for the unrealistically high insurance rates of today.) have the ability to do something to protect your life in one fashion or another. They are the "protectors". In this case, they don't want to go out and threaten to withhold health care from you. Instead the insurance companies go out and tell you that "without insurance, you could wind up with huge bills that will bury you in debt for life or no health care which can be fatal. It's in your best interest to pay." You wind up in essentially the same position: "Your money, or your life. It's your choice."
So... as you're walking down the street, a "common criminal" comes up to you and puts you in the same exact position by pointing a gun at you: He just comes out and says, "Your money, or your life. It's your choice."
In the end who is more honest about what they do? The "common criminal" because he states in plain view what his intentions are? The protection racketeer, who is somewhat illusory as to his reasoning but still fairly obvious about his intentions? Or... the insurance companies, who use so much obfuscation to cover up the end result? You decide and then look at the end of my reply to see where you fit in.
I would have to say that crime occurs at all levels of society at equal levels. They just call the crimes different things, and in some cases some of the crimes are legalized.
And now for the answers:
If you answered "The Insurance companies are the most honest. Besides , this is America and they have a right to make a profit". Then you are a stinky repugnican.
If you answered "The Protection Racketeer. Hey... accidents happen. Capiche?" Then you are likely a budding mobster who's been playing too much Q3A. BTW... I like your woman.
If you answered "The common criminal because he doesn't hide behind legalese and F.U.D." Then you may actually be a reasonable human being and give hope to others that have given up on the idea that humans are basically intelligent.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
Comment removed based on user account deletion
here is a better article about the practice as well as some legal explanations for and against it. It also has quotes from people in the affected neighborhoods.
the good ground has been paved over by suicidal maniacs
I think its good that pot is illegal. If pot were legal, it wouldnt be as cool to smoke and high school students would turn to something else that wasnt legal but quite possibly more dangerous. Pot seems to me an effective red harring against things that are much worse.
Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Its on the doctors whim, if they do not deem you to be a further threat after 28 days, you get released, usually with urther supervision. And yes, they can hospitalize foreigners as well, since they are under UK durestiction.
Note, you are not charged with anything during this time, and you do not have to have commited a crime. Also, if the doctors deem you to need further treatment, you can be hospitalized indefinatly, so you can spend years in a Secure Institution without actually having commited a crime.
You're giving mere examples of the application of Constitutional protections, and then rhetorically eliding them into defining the limits of those protections.
For one thing, the 4th doesn't just apply to police searches of one's home. Hundreds of appeals court rulings can be cited. Likewise down the list of your other claims.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think you're wrong. What "process" are the individuals described in the story due? The 5th Amendment guarantees that a person won't be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" These people are being treated rudely and immorally but there is no (apparent) due process issue.
The right to be secure in one's person and home against warrantless searches (that's Amendment 4 for those of you keeping score at home) has been steadilly eroded. But even before that you had no general right not to have your picture taken in public.
The equal protection clause requires equal treatment under the laws, not petty police harassments. And if the courts didn't find the systematic disenfranchisement of minority voters in Florida to be an equal protection issue, this won't even make the radar screen.
Very uinlikely. They may stop doing it but it will not be "struck down" by a court. It's easilly within current constitutional confines.
Q:How many libertarians does it take to stop a Panzer division? A:None. Obviously market forces will take care of it.
So now it's not politically correct for the police to keep databases on possible criminal activity they're investigating? That's ridiculous. It's not like they're arresting these people. They're just keeping an eye on suspected drug dealers. How the hell are police supposed to do they're job if they're not allowed to keep investigative records. It's not like the records are public.
Vote for Pedro
Tinfoil hat check, boys and girls!
!#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
This is utter hogwash. You'd better check your facts. Try looking through some of the statistics and reports at The Bureau of Justice Statistics. The opposite of your statement is demonstrated again and again.
Furthermore, many argue that not only economic minorities but, also racial minorities (so often the same) are unjustly labeled as the largest source of criminals. Again the statistics say otherwise.
The fact is that economic and racial minorities produce a disproportionately high volume of criminals. Additionally, and interestingly to me, the minorities are statistically the largest group of victims of crime. That means that most criminal activity is perpetrated by minorities against other minorities. This has been case throughout history and is still true today.
Writers imply. Readers infer.
One key thing to bear in mind which is definitely true of the UK Mental Health Act, and is almost certainly true of the Baker Act too, is that psychiatrists have to sign the final order to have someone sectioned in this way. IIRC, Britain requires that two psychiatrists, in addition to the person who recommends the sectioning (usually the patient's psychiatrist), sign off on this, and as I understand it, usually they'll interview the individual before making their recommendation.
So it's not quite as open to abuse as it might at first appear.
KMSMA (WWBD?)
And post with your full name, address and social security number.
Thank you!
weownu@whitehouse.com
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This sounds like something straight out of "Minority Report"..... freaky.
Looks like the cops misunderstood the movie "Minority" report.
Given no other information, it's possible. Statistics would also suggest, for instance, that you're less likely to be a former or current Taliban soldier than your average random Afghan, given no other information. If you're black, either you're more likely to be involved in a homicide (as either perp or victim) than a white person in the United States, or the crime statistics are /seriously/ flawed -- whereas the same does /not/ hold true for illegal drug possession, if memory serves. And so forth...
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I was mostly responding to the parent's remark: "left-wing Liberal comment". Saying all left-wing Liberals are nazi-esque socialists is not much different than saying all right-wing Conservatives are Pat Robertson-loving fascists. Neither generalisation gets us much of anywhere.
MORTAR COMBAT!
This is similar to what Guliani did in NYC
with his quality of life initiative.
For minor crimes (jumping subway turnstile etc..),
individuals were taken to the police station and finger printed. The rational given was when
individuals move onto bigger crimes, they
are easier to catch.
NYC did not publish this list as a list
of criminals for the future, but they
just increased their database.
In the US, privacy of a individual is NOT a fundamental right and the state will continue
to collect as much information as they can of their citizens.
If the vast majority of certain crimes are committed by certain groups of people, is it reasonable to focus your interest on those groups of people? You apparently claim not. Me, I think that focussing equally on the 90% group and the 10% group is massively discriminatory against the 10% group, not to mention being downright stupid.
If you get to the point where someone is actually assumed to be guilty because they are in the 90% group, that's an entirely different issue, and clearly it's wrong to do so. But to focus most of your detection and prevention efforts where most of the problems lie isn't discriminatory, or racist, or abusive, it's smart and in everyone's interest (including, incidentally, the vast majority of the 90% group who presumably aren't guilty of anything).
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
In addition, to draw a direct parallel, the NRA is fervently opposed to any registration or other database of gun owners on the grounds that it might lead to, and actually has led to, confiscation (New Zealand, Canada, Australia, the UK, NYC, California...) ... if this list included records demanded from gun shops, the NRA probably /would/ be involved.
Only the dead have seen the end of war.
I read an article in a local Canadian newspaper last year about the same thing. Can't remember if it's federal or provincial, but in Canada as well, yes, you can be detained just on the word of someone else.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
"how long till the suspected criminals-to-be are arrested "just in case"?"
THAT is just a shockingly short step from this... Liberty and security...
You know, as a moral conservative (who is a social libertarian), I WANT to like the police. I really do. They have a job I would not want. They deal with people I do not want to deal with.
But with this sort of thing, and incidents like the Houston PD stormtrooperaid on kids at a K-Mart http://66.70.240.173/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=1598 (discussed on my site, several news articles linked to there), I don't trust them...
I'm beginning to believe that there is little difference between the police AND the criminals anymore. And that is scary, when you consider how much more militarized the police become each year...
Here's some advice for the law enforcement establishement on how to deal with crime (since they seem to have forgotten how)
1. The best way to PREVENT crime is to be visible in places where crime is a possibility. This means VISIBLE patrols, not unmarked cars cowering in a blind curve on the highway that goes downhill looking for speeders.
2. Though you'd think otherwise by where you see the most cops, MOST CRIME DOES NOT HAPPEN ON HIGHWAYS! They happen down in the city.
3. Though it's preferable to deter crime (see visible patrols), when crime happens it's law enforcement's job to CATCH them. Not beforehand, but AFTER a crime has been comitted.
You also might not know it, but the crime RATES in this country have been dropping for some time. Yes, there was a slight rise recently, due to economic hard times, but violent crime today is FAR lower than it was 20 years ago, and we have more people and worse economic times.
With that said, how come there are more cops than 20 years ago? How come cities like mine, which has lost half it's population in 30 years has just as many, if not more cops? Why do cops now dress in body armor and carry weapons Rambo would have envied?
I saw this written someplace, which puts it best:
"When the cops talk about the war on crime and the war on drugs, everyone needs to understand that they view us, the civilians, as the enemy."
Clearly there needs to be limits on what information that the government (remember ALWAYS that the police are an arm of the government) can collect and keep, and for how long, on someone not convicted or charged.
Corporatism != Free Market
According to the Constitution, Congress has the power to declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water, yet White House Lawyers think otherwise, claiming that the president has the right to launch military strikes on Iraq without the approval of Congress.
141 words, counting the posting date. Can we all just be a little cautious before we all rush to judgment over this?
Doesn't sound good in 4th amendment terms, but there's so little detail here that I'm hesitant to offer any analysis.
If your bitterest enemies are people who hack the heads off civilians, then I would say you're doing something right.
I'm not as elliquint as I'd like to be, and to lazy to shit Shift-F7 (thesauras) in Word sometimes, but the above states more clearly my thoughts on the matter.
And as for your comment "a place for reflection and thought" did I not post my thought? Or is it only a place for reflection and thought that YOU agree with?
I would point out that conscription (forced military service) is still practised in many first world nations. France practised conscription up untill 2001, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland still do, among others.
Not saying I support it, just saying something like this isn't totally out of left field, it's been done for a long time and is still done in some countries.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Nothing? I expressed opinions about a topic involving race, something most people are afraid to talk about in this country unless they themselves are a minority or a purported "victim" of my supposed oppression.
And all you did was ask three questions. Not much going on in your empty head. You're lucky to be posting at +2, let along able to tie your own shoes. Yeah, a senceless flame, but I have enough karma to go round and you're just an asshole, so I really done care :)
The main reason that this is bullshit is that, clearly, once you're on this list, you're more likely to be suspected of a future crime, and, with a little thought, I think it's clear that this makes you more likely to be convicted of a crime you didn't commit. And, of course, the way you get on this list is that you "look suspicious" to an officer.
I think therein lies a big problem with this kind (drug and violent crime) of law enforcement. A big factor in whether or not you are suspected and/or arrested for a crime, in these cases, is what a given policeman's impression is of you. Now, don't get me wrong... I think there are a lot of honest and well-meaning policemen out there. But some of them are not, and, more importantly, it's easy for well-meaning guys to still have a wrong impression. This is a major reason that minorities have such a bad record with the police. Study after study has shown that race makes a suspect look more or less likely to the police.
Long story short, one of the things this does is point out to people how "suspects" get on the police's shitlist... sometimes only by their race, and usually over nothing big. In the end, this may actually do good. Look, this database is, at the very least, a very accurate map of what police in Wilmington think a criminal "should look like". At the very least we can see what's going on. Furthermore, if the cops' prejudices are explicitly written down somewhere, perhaps that's better than being secret.
Come on, give it up, that's
I've read that people are vandalizing traffic cameras in Britain -- by the hundreds -- and no one is admitting to it or turning in their fellow citizens who are destroying the cameras. So far, no arrests, no suspects.
I hope it's a revolt against the panopticon!
Napster-to-go says "Fill and refill your compatible MP3 player", which is a lie. It's not MP3. It's WMA with DRM.
Thank God I'm not the only who's noticed that President Bush has attempted to usurp an explicit power reserved to Congress. I wonder if history is going to record the 9/11 attacks as the American version of the Reichstag fire...
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Everyone who has replied to this story is now on a list of potential hackers. Please report to your local police for processing.
So how much do they charge per use?
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Moral majority? James Baker? I'm sorry, that's laughable. He's a black democrat. Look at his page here. Hardly the stuff the "moral majority" (aka, gun toting southerns) would vote for.
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
This bill is rather interesting. It basically says all men must complete 1 year of military training after they graduate high school.
First off, it says that eligible persons will go to be trained either by the Army, Navy, Marines, Airforce, or Coast Guard. It doesn't say how it is determined where the eligible persons will go. It is not clear if those who are undergoing training under this act will have a chance to see active combat duty during the training period.
As far as anyone knows, those eligble who are sons of politicians or rich campaign contributors might find themselves in the Coast Guard, while the average person will find themselves in a branch of the military where they could see active duty overseas.
Secondly, it says that those who have religious reasons to oppose combat must still be trained, minus the combat training. This would still enable the Federal Government to "profile" these people.
I'm actually surprised that they didn't include all women into this category.
Third, it makes exceptions for those who are still in High School, but not those who wish to pursue higher education. It could be possible that if this Bill were to be passed, that everyone would have to wait one year to go to college because of military training. The only exception, of course, is if you are accepted into a military academy.
On the upside, everyone who completed this training would be eligible for educational assistance.
Personally, I don't like the bill out of principle.
I think that if this is passed, it wouldn't be much of a stretch for a future bill to expand upon the training period, include required "regular" armed forces service, or so forth.
On the other hand, a lot of other countries have seemingly worse "involuntary conscription" periods for young men.
"You spoony bard!" -Tellah
I'm from northern DE. From what you say, it sounds like you were stationed at Dover airforce base. If that's true, I'm sorry -- you have my sypathy. Delaware is basically two different worlds -- the canal cuts delaware into the north (where all the normal people are) and "slower-lower" delaware. Go to the southermost part of DE, and you have, as one of my friends put it -- "Welcome to Seaford, where there are only 2 things to do. Farm and fuck"
To make laws that man cannot, and will not obey, serves to bring all law into contempt.
--E.C. Stanton
One sobering statistic is the fact that, at the end of last year, one out of every 32 adults in the United States was behind bars or on probation or parole. This is ridiculous, and a far greater incarceration rate than most any other first world country. I find it difficult to understand how so many Americans can still subscribe to the rhetoric that their country is the freest.
The fact that it is "designed" to be effective is absolutely no indicator that it is effective. The fact that it is not "designed" to be illegally discriminatory is absolutely no indicator that it is, in fact, not discriminatory. In a pluralist society, profiling quite rightly raises hackles and -- if it is to be used at all -- must be constructed very carefully and narrowly.
Personally, I find the idea repugnant and prone to abuse, so I vote for "not at all".
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
Holy shit. That only happened a week ago...why wasn't it covered on mainstream TV? That's a big story, and a legitimate news item as well. I'd have expected media outlets nationwide to cover that, if only in expectation of the police chief going to prison over it. I'm not sure what pisses me off more...that it happened in the first place, or that it wasn't covered at all.
pshaw...we probably borrowed it from someone else....sure am proud to be an American sometimes...FBI is arresting "person(s) of interest" who are here (they say) illegally and detaining them indefinitely, we have secret courts reviewing secret intelligence gathering, and now this....makes me feel like a cross between the Soviet Union, the Matrix, and Minority Report....
What is your Slash Rating?
Canada: It's like a loft apartment over a really great party, isn't it?
Not really. More like a really great party over a prison cell.
"If he thinks he can hide and run from the United States and our allies, he's sorely mistaken." Bush on bin Laden
Okay, you're still wrong. "Less process", as you put it, has nothing to do with due process. They have not been charged with anything, have not been detained, have not been held against their will.
Your personal effects, as another poster wrote, are NOT your face or description or name. You are a citizen of the United States, you pay taxes, these things are on file. It's not an invasion of privacy or a search for people to look through them. "Person and effects" means that a cop can not legally search you walking down the street without your permission. When a cop pulls you over, if he pats you down and finds a bulge in your pocket that he knows isn't a weapon, he can't remove it from your pocket or tell you to. He can ask, and you can tell him "No". You could have a bag of and it doesn't matter, you can't be searched without a warrant.
--trb
its called the Fortune 500 list.... Many of them seem to be accurate so far so I think I am going to take my list public and make millions.
I was just discussing forming the PFD "Pre-Emptive Fire Department" yesterday with some friends.
We would show up to buidings and put out fires pre-emptively by spraying the whole site down with water - to ensure that no fires were going to happen. Then demand payment from the owner for preventing disaster.
Looks better on paper I guess....
Who else is getting a deja-vu from this?
I doubt, therefore I may be.
Yes. Interview. But how frequently do they second guess? Does the second know in advance the verdict of first?
In the US it is (or used to be) quite difficult to get out of the mental hospital. I think that they cut the funding, though, so that even really crazy people can't get committed. So they end up in jail, instead. The prison industries can find a use for them. At $.12/hour. (I wonder how quickly the prisons will empty when robots get cheaper? [But could they get *that* cheap?])
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
I'll bet that Plato was merely echoing the wisdom of the stone-age cheiftan selection procedures. Lucky for him he lived in an age with writing.
__
Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
this is available in the US as well...it is called a 5150 Health and Safety code. You're detained and taken to a hospital to be determined if you are a danger to yourself or others. A doctor has 48 hours to make a judgement based on his experience, but NO specific criteria have been established for the detaining officer. Welcome to the 'J' Ward :)
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Obviously they are trying to get potential dealers and users, however I think they ought to make a database of all the SUV's that drive through these neighborhoods buying drugs, to be fair--since possession itself is a crime, why not track all the people with money who drive in from the suburbs?
I think your missing the point. It's profitable to have people in jail for companies, even though we are paying the bill, we don't see the profit, we are subsidizing slavery for companies that can are enjoying a cheaper alternative to thrid world sweatshops
BULL SHIT ON A STICK. Find me some number which show that corporations are getting rich off prison labor. Last I knew, all prisoners were good for was stamping license plates and doing road work (chain gangs are illegal now, cruel and unusual punishment). And it's not like we're locking these prisoners in dank musty cells. Don't tell me you think cable TV, a wieght room/exercise program, no taxes and no bills is a cheap bill on US tax dollars.
You want my opinion on criminals, if your guilty (espesialy of high crimes like murder, arson etc) you have given up all your rights as s US citizen. You knew what the consequences were of getting involved and getting caught, yet you did it anyways, so pay up.
Yeah, it is a crime to be poor, espsialy if you try to solve that problem by robbing people and stores. If you're poor, get off your ass and start finding something to do. Hell, there are plenty of religious groups which provide jobs to the poor and there are plenty of openings at McDonalds. Or you could do what the guys in NYC do, collect cans and bottles. It's not much, but it's better than sitting on your ass collecting welfare. "but" you say, "what about Mrs. So and So with her 8 kids to support." Hey, you know what, if she was so damn poor, she shouldn't have been getting it on so often. Yes I do realize there are so circumstances where it is nessesary for someone to have government assistance, but that's to be decided on a case by case basis.
You bet it's not free, if it was then I wouldn't have pay $40K in taxes last year. The American public needs to realize that US corporations are getting what belongs to the public, FOR FREE (well OK they spent a few million paying some party's campain fund, normally paying both the lead parties evenly).
If you're paying 40k in taxes you must be making a pretty hefty pay check. And if you're so concerned about the prisoners and the poor people, why aren't you taking that money and sending it to NPOs and charities to support those people????? YOu get to write that off on your taxes you know.
And what that belongs to the public (and therefore is free) are the companies getting for free?
T Money
World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
Sure, it sucks if someone fucks up my stock fund, but it's not nearly as bad as if someone shoots me in the head. Violent crime is what the police should be focusing most of their energies on.
10 PRINT CHR$(205.5+RND(1)); : GOTO 10
I've held the view that police officers are useless for quite some time now. I've never seen a cop deter a crime, I've never heard of one actually managing to do anything useful that a group of citizens could not have done equally as well. All cops really do is harass speeders and stalk teenagers around the mall in their off hours. They clean up the mess that's made after some punk splatters your brains all over the sidewalk for 17$, but that doesn't help you. We should liquidate the police force and dump the money into education in the inner cities, revitalization of the inner cities, and REAL urban renewal, not the "bulldoze the affordable housing and put up 1500$/month apartments" urban renewal.
Maybe complete liquidation of the police force is too much.... Just remove the entire War on Drugs section, that should probably do it... Then you can legalize drugs and regulate and tax them... A ton more income right there...
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
Damned Cops! Don't they know that such is the FBI's territory and has been for decades?
Table-ized A.I.
So, if you put tens of thousands of innocent people into a database and match DNA from random crimes against it, you will fish out innocent people. That's why you should only compare DNA of people who are already suspects on other grounds against crime DNA.
> Interesting how you explicitely give a description of the law that allows this then proceed to declare it illegal.
Not quite. It's legal to arrest someone and hold them for 24 hours without charging them, at which time they must be charged or released. However, as his example illustrates, the violation of intent stems from the reason for arrest. These people were purportedly arrested for loitering, but were processed and entered into this database. It does not take a large leap of logic to arrive at the conclusion that they were arrested as an excuse to gather information. If it can be proven that they were targetted for arrest based on police desire to put them in the database (admittedly hard, but not impossible), then the police are guilty of false arrest, which is indeed both reprehensible and illegal.
Virg
Just patent the *concept* of a criminal database, and then charge too much royalty fees for it to ever be implemented.
Patent any SQL that says, "Select * from suspicious_people where....". Overture did just that kind of thing with their "rank by ad fee" algorithm patent.
Fight stupidity with stupidity
Table-ized A.I.
I like how if you express an unpopular opinion, you are a troll. All I was saying is that the police in the U.S. are there to keep the poor in line and out of the lives of the rich. This is just an obvious extension of their foreign policy, turned inwards.
Go ahead, prove me wrong. Show me how the quality of life for an average U.S. citizen has been improving for the last 30 years. Because it hasn't. And don't blame a world economy that has slavishly followed the advice of American economic "experts".
Of COURSE people who want to make a lot of money move to the U.S. What better place to unleash your mercenary fervour? That's what the American Dream *is* after all: having more than the guy next to you. (After all, if everyone had about the same amount of stuff, how would you know who the winner was? And Yanks love winners. Exclusively.)
I mean, considering their attitude, I always thought "E Pluribus Unem" meant "Looking Out For Number One".
I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.
"Now, if they could weed out the (very few) bad apples that manage to get into policing, maybe people would start trusting them again.
More trust of police -> more co-operation with police -> more bad guys caught -> less crime. Or something like that."
I do believe the majority of cops are good people. But that the bad ones are a SIGNIFICANT minority, and that the majority are JUST AS GUILTY by their silence...
Fact is, there IS no one to "police the police". And in the last quarter century, police powers in this country have increased DRASTICALLY. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Cops have near absolute power in some respects. THEY get to finger "the suspect". Or not.
Another major problem with our justice system is that juries are largely made up of a NONREPRESENTITIVE sample... There aren't nearly as many younger people, or working people, as there are older retirees. Why? Because everyone ELSE seeks to avoid jury duty. Not that it matters, as both prosecution and defenst counsel quickly seek to eliminate anyone in the pool with any cognition between the ears.
Remember, we are a country of TOO MANY LAWS... Many such laws that are actually illegal, especially on the federal level, as the feds are supposed to not have ANY POWER not SPECIFICALLY ENUMERATED in the Constitution. More laws are passed each year. EVERY new law creates a new crime. There are literally thousands and thousands of laws that apply to anyone in any given place.
AND, there are very few of us not guilty of breaking SOME arcane law, though mostly tiny.
Including the police. Police officers are typically the worst at disobeying traffic laws. It's rare to see them under the speed limit, or not driving what they would consider recklessly in a way they would pull over someone else. Everyone sees it. It's one thing that creates disrespect for them. Especially when speed limits are usually too low, sometimes DELIBERATELY too low, for revenue generation.
Same thing with crime. Most police crime is never known about. Only when it is captured on camera. Recently, in my area, city police officers beat a suspect to death, while he was IN CUFFS, and in the JAIL of all places...
Not much in the way of press on that, except locally. 6 months later I've not heard of ONE cop being dismissed, much less tried for murder.
And my town is one where there is very little crime!
Corporatism != Free Market
I'm sure that more than a few CEO's of listed corporations would qualify. Someone once said about their approach to solving crimes was to follow the money. These guys tend to be close to the feeding trough and certainly have an interest in overpromoting their companies to shareholders.
While I always obey the speed limit (to avoid being ticketed, and also because I know my reflexes are shit... ;) ), I do have to agree with you. Exceeding the speed limit in and of itself is probably the safest way to break a traffic law. However, many people who speed also do other things that do endanger others, like tailgating, weaving in and out of traffic, passing on curves and in no-passing zones, blowing red lights and stop signs, etc. Personally, I don't have a problem if I'm doing the speed limit on a highway and someone passes me going a little faster. I do have a problem if that same person spends half a mile riding three inches from my rear bumper flashing their lights at me because I'm not going fast enough for them, or almost takes my front end off while weaving in and out of heavy traffic.
Speed by itself doesn't kill most of the time, but unfortunatly, the same mentality that causes many people to speed also causes them to drive like maniacs.
DennyK
This story has a little more detail uncluding a declaration from the mayor of Wilmington that "...If I say it's constitutional then it is constitutional".
The article is too short to really explain this list, but this sounds pretty obvious. All this means is that the department has a collective memory of loiterers/potential troublemakers. No different from an officer noticing some young guys who start hanging out in front of a 7-11 and linking it up with a broken window nearby a few days later.
Of course actions that seem harmless on the small scale, like a shopkeeper remembering your name and preferences, can become threatening on a large scale. But if this makes you anxious, you should consider that policeman have been keeping an eye on suspicious characters since police departments were first created.
10 ounces of pot: $1000
1 blotter sheet of acid: $500
Planting them on your favorite brain-dead supporter of the War on Drugs and watching him try to explain his innocence to the police: priceless.
There are some things, like civil liberties, that money can't buy. For everything else, there's a good lawyer*.
*Until drug dealers are prohibited by law from enjoying the right to an attorney, that is.
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
And guess what, African Americans are not the victims of the white bigots. African Americans are victims of their own culture, and until you realize that, you will never progress in society as a culture.
How is it that Black culture put up the walls which keep so many of them in poverty?
When a Black family moves into your neighborhood does your property value decline? Yes, sadly it still does in the year 2002. Why is that? Because of racist stereotypes.
I grew up in a white subdivision, yet all the while knew life outside that subdivision. I also grew up with my surrounding neighbors telling me that they wouldn't mind if Blacks moved in as long as they were "clean" or they were "good", as if it was a given that they wouldn't be. Many times this came from people who I wouldn't trust my worst enemies with.
Again, this year a man I know was denied a job he was qualified for because he wouldn't "fit-in". This was at a major Catholic college which you would suspect wouldn't judge one by their race only. Now, you could also think that it wasn't him who would have a problem, but his co-workers. But if this was the case, why should their hateful views be put ahead of a job well done? Because racism still exists. Will it always? Yes, but to ignore it almost puts you in the boat with those racists.
It is the job of everyone to elevate the conditions of your fellow man. If you believe life is lived on an island, you don't belong. No living thing doesn't live within a group, flock, herd, or etc.
The catalyst which started what you call "African-American Culture" is racism. In fact, the term "African-American Culture" starts with slavery. But later on, even after the struggle for freedom and then the fight for civil rights Blacks in this country never got that equal treatment - they were herded into unwanted areas, only allowed the bad jobs, and making it to the top was made impossible.
Since then many have "made it out". Many can get out of areas which have been abandoned by the people who got elected on the hopes they would help. But there is a lowered feeling of worth when you are born into an area and system which is cold and doesn't care. Some may think it's a harsh world, some say "it's a cold world everywhere", but when nothing you seem to do helps, at one point you give up.
Look at areas which you claim are bad because of the people who live there. Then look at the fact that they are the first to turn to drugs, alcohol, prostitution, and violent crime. Why? Because they don't expect to "make it", or even live.
I know this because I'm someone who has a mental illness. When it started to take over and my *planned* life was taken from me I turned to drugs and drinking. It's because at one point you realize there isn't anything you can do.
Can that attitude change? It's changed in me. But going around and blaming Blacks' problems which started with their oppression on their "culture" isn't going to help.
Your use of the word culture isn't correct. What Blacks do in spite of their oppression is culture, but using the term correctly would force me to say that you should use "cultured" as in a Petri dish.
Since you brought up Tupac:
"How about a war on poverty, instead of a war on drugs so the police can bother me"
Simply: Don't waste money fighting consensual crimes when you could fight death, disease and illiteracy.
Get your Unix fortune now!
Firstly, these places are NOT prisons - they are secure hospitals - while this does mean that you are not free to go, equally if you are deemed medically fit you may be let out even though in a conventional prison you might have barely served any sentence at all.
Secondly, the 'whim' of a doctor is a bit of a pointed term. Remember that these are professionals who have been practising for usually many years before they can commit someone for the longer stays - and this is constantly reviewed by consultants working with the patients every day. There are many different orders ('Sections' of our mental health act) which range from 6 hour detention (can be ordered by a qualified nurse) to 24h ( which I could do on my own, as I am fully registered (i.e. out of med school for over 1 year), to 48h, a week or two, a month or two, six months, a year, and indefinitely (I cannot remember all the exact times). For anything longer than 24h two docs must agree, or e.g. a court official. These people are very answerable for this decision; I would try to avoid sectioning a patient as I am no expert unless I thought I really had to - they would have to be pretty barking for this to happen. Of course, as a hospital doc, I could usually get them assessed by the on-call psychiatrist and pass the buck.
Both docs will have access to medical records, but each has to interview the patient and assess them. Patients can appeal against these decisions in which case a third 'impartial' doc is brought in -any number of times. Obviously they'll be an inpatient at the time though.
All in all it's a pretty good system - not infallible, but the benefit of doubt is always with the patient. No doc I know would risk their career with a blatantly wrong assessment, but not all are competent. The vast majority are though.
In practice you have to be pretty doo-lally to get commited. And you get out soon when better. OTOH, if you are a real head-casem you might be there for a while.
This idea was invented by Shampoo.
It seems to me from observation that the USA is mixed in its foreign policy. On the one hand, it tries to play the part of the reluctant superpower that would rather not be involved but is because no-one else can be trusted (and I think it tries to honestly) and on the other hand it very much looks after its own interests when it feels those supercede the global interest.
I love my country, make no mistake, but I also recognize its imperfections. I think our policy on Israel, for example, is horribly wrong. I think our government agencies are trying really hard to ignore the protections our founding fathers set up over 200 years ago. I think its protectionist trade policies are utterly foolish.
Basically I think we generally try to act like good global citizens even as we walk around, noses held high. It's kind of hipocritical, but that's the way it is...
What is your Slash Rating?
...We're talking about profiling likely criminals in general, not just on race grounds. And if the biggest factor is poverty, then it's not hard to work out who the poor people most likely to commit crime are, and direct efforts to help them, stop them committing crime, or catch them afterwards. Furthermore, such work is not discriminatory, in the usual sense of the word; discrimination normally implies an unfair identification, where in this case there is a legitimate difference.
If you disagree, post your argument. (-1, Overrated) isn't your personal censorship tool for views you don't like.
Nice reply. You actually argued! And you disregarded my smart-assed tone! Wow!
Maybe there is hope for America after all. Well, no, I really don't believe that. Just wishful thinking. The second that Noam Chomsky gets major air time on a U.S. network, I will reconsider.
BTW: I'm Canadian. Born to hate America the way the twisted twin brother locked in the attic hates his All-star double. Kinda. But at least the view from up here extends beyond my navel.
I've got a bad attitude and karma to burn. Go ahead. Mod me down.
I can't credit for this, but the war on drugs is seeming more and more like the 100 years war.
That was actually a real war though. Those are actually possible to win. A "War on Drugs" or a "War on Terrorism" are fundermentally impossible to win. The former is basically a rehash of alcohol prohibition, with about the same level of "sucess". As for the latter fighting a war against a tactic for waging war is just completly nonsensical. It's more "War on people the US dosn't like, but excluding those we think might be capable of much in the way of retaliation". i.e. the US would not be going after Iraq if it was at all likely that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I've never seen a cop deter a crime
That's because you don't hear about events that didn't happen.
Higher Logics: where programming meets science.
1. The best way to PREVENT crime is to be visible in places where crime is a possibility. This means VISIBLE patrols, not unmarked cars cowering in a blind curve on the highway that goes downhill looking for speeders.
A problem is that "sucess" for policing appears to have become judged in terms of arresting people, issuing tickets. As opposed to detering and preventing crime. It is also important to ensure that police officers are themselves never considered above the law. Otherwise it's too easy for a crook hide their crimes by becoming a police officer.
This is nothing new. Where I grew up, and this was during the mid 80's, police routinely took pictures and names of potential criminals, and kept a file on them. Whenever they stopped a group of young people (potential gang members) they would take pictures of all of us (speaking from personal experience) and take our names. After that, each time we were harassed, another tick was made in the file and you slowly became a very well known person to all the police, without ever having committed a crime. I've seen the cops break out a huge binder with all kinds of info on people who were never criminals, they just hung out in "bad" neighborhoods and with "possible" gang members. I was on that list for years and probably still am. The cops knew my name, my parents names, tattoos I had, my nickname, had my photo, knew my friends names, where I hung out, and on and on...
Freedom is great, isn't it?
Fact is, there IS no one to "police the police".
How can this be done effectivly
And in the last quarter century, police powers in this country have increased DRASTICALLY. Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Cops have near absolute power in some respects.
Not only that power attracts the corrupt and easily corruptable
More laws are passed each year. EVERY new law creates a new crime.
Including in cases where the new law is redundant
Just as policing appears to be measured by numbers of arrests and tickets issued. Passing laws appears to be seen as some kind of metric of legislature performance. With crime prevention and review of existing legislation taking more of a back seat.
Same thing with crime. Most police crime is never known about. Only when it is captured on camera. Recently, in my area, city police officers beat a suspect to death, while he was IN CUFFS, and in the JAIL of all places...
Not much in the way of press on that, except locally. 6 months later I've not heard of ONE cop being dismissed, much less tried for murder.
You can have not only the situation where a police officer commiting a crime is treated less seriously (which IMHO should be considered a "high crime" attract a higher sentence and not be subject to any statute of limitations) but a crime is treated more seriously if a police officer is a victim. e.g. if someone being killed through being knocked down by a car is described as "murder" then odds on the dead person is a cop.
You have missed my point. In the US, the mental hospitals are now so short of funding, that you don't get admitted just because you need to be admitted. You need to be an active danger to other people. And probably to have health insurance that covers it, too. They gutted the funding. The jails that the people end up in are called prisons, not mental hospitals. It's quite possible that Britain has a more humane system. I wouldn't know, as I haven't talked to anyone with direct experience. (It's hard to imagine that it could be worse.)
That said, some of the mental hospitals were no great shakes when they had funding, either. Some doctors really *believed* in electro-shock therapy. Maybe that's sometimes necessary, but not in those numbers! That's probably worse than Bedlam was. I don't know about insulin shock. I never knew anyone who was coerced into it. But I also haven't heard anything good about it.
I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Your "email joke" argument fails because, in its own words, those crimes were committed by "muslim male extremists aged 17-40."
How do you actually tell someone's religion by looking at them? Just as not all people of semitic appearance are muslim not all muslims are of semitic appearance.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
"You can have not only the situation where a police officer commiting a crime is treated less seriously (which IMHO should be considered a "high crime" attract a higher sentence and not be subject to any statute of limitations) but a crime is treated more seriously if a police officer is a victim. e.g. if someone being killed through being knocked down by a car is described as "murder" then odds on the dead person is a cop."
It's even worse than that... If you kill a police *DOG* it's tried as a homicide most places! They are considered police "officers".
You are likely to get more time for killing the police dog that is ripping apart your wife than you would if you killed your wife because you found her in bed with another man...
Or more time than someone who abandons and kills a baby... I could go on and on...
I totally agree. YES, someone who kills a peace officer, fireman, etc who are LAWFULLY doing their jobs *SHOULD* be more greatly punished. Those people in LAWFUL execution of duty should be sacrosanct.
But so too, their crimes should be considered GREATER crimes, because they aren't common citizens. Cops have it both ways, their OWN crimes are LESS LIKELY to be punished, yet slugging an off duty cop who said something rude to you in a bar is a major felony.
Frankly, I wonder WHAT system could be designed that would be better though... We give law enforcement so much power today, and too little oversight, that the job (which sucks, BTW, other THAN their little power trips, which is why I think so many eventually are corrupted) almost requires a SAINT...
They have too much power and too little restraint.
The best solution, IMO, is to strike laws. If we ended the already lost "Drug War" right there would be half or more of the need for cops and prisons. Which would mean PLENTY of manpower to crack down on violent crime.
Dirty little secret: Despite how it's most often portrayed, drug "crimes" are NOT violent. MOST people arrested are low level street "pushers" and users. The "big guys" (ie, the ones who produce and distribute in bulk) seldom are touched. Why, someone might get hurt (or not get paid) that way!
Decriminalizing drugs will get rid of what crime problem DOES exist with drug distrobution as magically as the bootleg alchohol profit fueled Capone gangs were vanquished by the striking of Prohibition...
Indeed, the GREATEST , most illustrative example of how lawmakers and law enforcement's respect for the law (Constitution) is the difference between how Prohibition and the "Drug War" were enacted...
Prohibition became Federal Law by CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT... Drugs were made illegal post-World War II by what amounted to Federal "fiat".
Corporatism != Free Market
And about prisons:
I can't say that I don't give a fuck. I've just run out of fuck to give.
I'm presuming you live in the USA; it's not entirely clear from your user profile.
If you want draconian no-nonsense drug laws, I would suggest you move to Singapore. They shoot drug dealers on the spot there. Course, they don't have these pesky things called constitutional rights over there, but it's quite clear from your tone and attitude that you don't care about such things.
Since you in typical fashion ignored the entire point of my post, let me put it to you more directly: suppose someone framed you for drug possession. How would you like to be treated by the US police and criminal justice system?
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
I think we should help out by setting up our own website with information on police officers and politicians who we believe are likely to become corrupt. It could feature names, addresses and photographs of potential corruptees --many of whom have clean slates.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Comment removed based on user account deletion
With that said, how come there are more cops than 20 years ago?
Perhaps it is partly due to the greater number of officers that the crime rate has decreased?
My mother was in the legal profession, the father of one of my best friends growing up was a Lieutenant in the police force. I've been around lawyers, judges and cops a lot. And I never EVER heard any of them say anything about preventing or deterring crime. It was never their motivation or their intent. They always talked about punishing the offenders... Which doesn't really help the victims any does it?
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
You missed the point that we (humanity) are not animals. Poodles and German Shepard have more genetic variance than an Irishman and a Kenyan. Skin color is really only a cosmetic difference.
As far as the SATs go the argument is the reading section of the general SAT focuses more on the experience of white students then of other minority groups. Not that it was racist. I don't agree with the ETS, and I think the problem is deeper than that.
No No Nooooooooooooo! Every time a slashdot thread degrades to Nazi name calling people make the same mistake.
The Nazis were not socialist (history newbie mistake). I bet your logic was they were called the National Socialist Party so they must be socialists! They were actual ultra right wing extremists. See the Communists, Socialists, Democrates are to the left. The Nazis and Republicans are to the right. The Nazis actually hated communists and fought a good part of the war (WW2) against the communists. If the Nazis were socialists why whould they hate communists?
Please take a deep breath and think before you post.
Alfed Bester's 1953 novel The Demolished Man was not about potential criminals being arrested, it was about an actual criminal trying to get away from a police force which includes telepaths.
Also note that while Dick's story is set in a pretty thoroughly authoritarian society, in Bester's novel the police have to prove that the criminal committed the crime using actual evidence - they are not permitted to arrest anyone just because a telepath knows him to be guilty.
Anyway, the idea, and even the reality, of pre-emptive arrest is probably nearly as old as government itself. It was pretty popular among European royalty back in the day, for example; the first thing you do when you come into power is lock up anyone you think might rebel. The fact that the idea's been around a while doesn't make me feel any better about today's government putting it into effect in real life.
Since when did white Slashdot users become experts in being black in the inner-city. Many of you can spout all of the uniformed rhetoric you want but unless you are black you will never understand what it means to be black.
I've heard everything from "If I see two guys of African descent on the street, I will [to paraphrase] run and hide like a little baby." or "Different breeds are better suited to do different things (as if humans were dogs)."
Everytime a Slashdot reader posts an article about Microsoft doing something that discriminates against Linux. I see the slashdot rapid freedom response team. When I see an article about social ills such as police misconduct against minorities, many in the slashdot community say blacks deserve what they get, or there no such thing as racism.
The biggest problem I see with most of the posts on this thread is that whenever people talk about blacks they slap them all together like a herd of cows. It becomes a them versus me argument instead of a we argument.
Primer:
Africa is not a country it is a continent with over 50 countries of people speaking over 400 languages with > 4000 years of history.
African are genetically deversity from skin tone to facial features.
Sure african-americans (whatever that title means) may perform lower on average on academics, but that does not mean there are no african-americans that score above average on tests. Whites and Asians like to comfort themselves by saying their races as a whole do better in academics, but then when I ask many of them how they did in college they usually change the issue.
Not all blacks listen to rap music, and not all whites listen to rock music. There are blacks who listen to rock music as well as play in bands.
Not all blacks dress up as thugs, do drugs, carry guns, etc.
Not all blacks are good at sports.
Not all black neighborhoods are run down. Not all houses in black communities have low realistate value. This is why the term gentrification exists.
Not all blacks are southern christian, 1/2 Africans in Africa are muslim. Ethiopia has a significant Jewish population.
I could go on and on, but I hope you get the point. Just remember, you like to look at yourself as an individual not as a class of people, treat others with the same respect.
Though last I heard, it's still cheaper to send 'em to a reasonable college for a year, including food, books, and dorm, than a year in prison. Obviously by the time they get to prison, it's too late, but getting teenagers into college would be a better investment for the country.
But people like expensive and inefficient, i.e. corrective action, rather than inexpensive and efficient, i.e. proactive. Look at the "Anti-virus" industry as an example of the former and OpenBSD or SELinux as and example of the latter. Guess which method gets more press.
Beta is broken and the link to classic doesn't work. Stop wasting our time or there won't be anybody left here.
Leftist, huh? Well, lets look at our poly wanna dollar polititions on _both_ sides of the aisle. I don't have a link to the stats handy at the moment, but last I checked, not many where hurting for money. Oh, but it's legal for them to take bri...err...donations.
Just because I point out something you find unpleasent does not make me a troll.
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
I've yet to read it, but it looks to be very good. The one question I have for you is, where is this guy teaching children? If you mean 18-22 year old college students then I really must object to them being called children. One of the biggest problems I see in this country is how the age at which people are expected, no DEMANDED, to be mature has been creeping ever higher for who knows how long. It makes me sick how college students and 20-somethings are still living in a kind of prolonged adolescence. What kind of culture are we living in that childish behavior and dependency is still accepted from someone who is halfway to 40?
I work at a university and I can count several occassions in the past year when a writer for the school newspaper referred to themself as a "kid" or to his/her peers as "kids." This is wrong. Sadly it is also encouraged. So many parents don't raise children to be adults, they raise them to be children. The fact that most of them actually do manage to grow up anyway is a tribute to just how much the process of maturity is self directed.
Anyway I didn't mean to jump all over you, its just that the idea of college students as children is a sore spot for me. Where I come from childhood ends when you start growing hair in new places, not when you're 25.
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
How come so few of them are getting shot or otherwise removed from the gene pool? Where I come from if someone was acting like that he'd be killed by the very community he was mistreating.
But then again I don't come from a ghetto where any sense of community died a long time ago. I can see how it would be easy for the police to behave that way when there was no solidarity on the part of their victims. Divide and conquer is the name of the game, although in this case the division is a pre-existing condition.
If the police are a problem in some communities then I suggest the people of those communities band together, arm themselves, and when push comes to shove give the police a reason to think twice about terrorizing people. An armed society is a polite society, and I can think of no place more in need of an etiquette lesson than the ghetto. Just imagine how quickly the violent crime rate would fall... How much crime would there be if all of the non-criminals were packing heat? I dare say that the streets of such a community would be some of the safest in the country. Not only would the police mind their manners but the thugs would either be dead or scared shitless of their would-be victims. The only purpose the police would serve would be their usual role as armed historians, writing reports about stuff that happend before they ever got there. The difference is that with the public being armed most of those reports would end with the thugs being arrested or shot dead rather than their victims being killed, raped, robbed, etc.
The only problem with this plan of course is that criminals are opportunists. These thugs would not just sit around in the ghetto. Instead they would move their activities to other places where people were less likely to be armed. Then of course we'd start hearing news stories about thugs attacking middle class (mostly white) neighborhoods. Then of couse the gun control morons would start in blaming the guns the thugs were using. This in turn would fool the weak minded into wanting to take guns away from everyone living in the ghetto. So in the end honest citizens living in the ghetto would be stripped of their ability to protect themselves, leading to a "homecoming" for the thugs, including those carrying badges.
America, don't you just love it?
Lee
Muslim community leaders warn of backlash from tomorrow morning's terrorist attack.
You know, I'd like to believe that our esteemed medical professionals are so skilled that they don't need any safeguards like habeus corpus or the right to a fair trial.
But the fact of the matter is that there are doctors out there who will make bad calls, who are zealots about particular issues, or who want to comply with authority. And those are the ones who are going to get called.
Perhaps you've never seen a friend pulled off into legal indefinite detention becuaue his political views strike a shrink as diseased. When it happens to you, you may change your mind.
Try saying, "The right to commit suicide is a basic human right," in front of a medical professional. Then, from inside the nuthouse gates, try to believe that the first amendment still exists.
We have a legal system, courts, constitutional guarantees about "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law," all because we don't want to have to trust those in authority with unlimited power. That includes nice people like doctors, too.
I firmly believe that when the first amendment is finally destroyed in this country, it will be unaccountable doctors and indefinite detention laws that do it. Nobody will call dissidents "criminals." They will call them "mentally ill", "confused," "a danger to themselves and others," or as you put it, "pretty doo-lally." After all, criminals have rights.
--G
I invite them to do so... It just means I'll not hesitate to shoot the fucker that tries to mug me, since I won't have to worry about being arrested for self defense.
Kintanon
Check out JoshJitsu.info for Brazilian Ji
It's political correctness that has led to the a very, very foolish mentality amongst airport security screeners. They don't want to be accused of singling out Arabs for extra scrutiny for 'racial' reasons. For this reason, they will single out anyone -but- Arabs. Grandmothers in wheelchairs. Mothers with bottled breast milk. Even the pilots themselves.
I read about the bottled breast milk incident, and that was truly stupid.
However, the suggestion that Middle-Eastern people can freely stroll through the airports while everyone else is repeatedly stopped at spot-checks tells me that you don't have a clue what you are talking about. I'm guessing that you don't have many friends of Middle-Eastern ancestry who travel much. I recently went on a business trip with a colleague who must look like an "Arab". I was asked a few questions but passed through the checkpoints without much delay. He was stopped at each and every one, and once was escorted to a private room and was asked to remove his suit and trousers as part of a "routine security check".
People of Mid-Eastern descent are the first to be singled out at the airports.
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
I'm not proposing lighter treatment on anyone. I'm proposing that this country actually take the Bill of Rights and civil liberties seriously. You're the one that wants to take away constitutional rights of drug dealers to help the War on Drugs, and I say that that's too high of a price to pay. When anyone's rights are taken away, all of us lose, because those that want power and control will try to take it away from the lowest first (i.e. drug dealers), and they can count on people like you mindlessly cheering them on, while they make plans to expand their rights-grabbing.
Do you think that drug dealers would break into your home if drugs were legal? How many liquor store owners get caught breaking into homes? How many people each year are killed over cigarette turf wars? Your home being broken into is a direct consequence of the War on Drugs, the very thing you support!
I don't see the users as victims at all. Certainly some get addicted to the various addictive drugs, and get locked into a vicious cycle, but the War on Drugs isn't helping them; in fact a lot of work that could be done to help them is actually made illegal by the War on Drugs.
The cost of dealing drugs has been made high already-- the result is that drug prices went up, and the rewards for dealing went up as well. This is simple supply and demand. As the financial rewards for drug dealing go up, the drug dealers have more money to play the legal system with. Thus they can afford better lawyers and are more likely to escape legal consequences. It's the people around them that get screwed-- they get sucked into the legal system as well, except they don't have the drug profits to defend themselves with, so they get packed off to jail, since they can't even turn someone else in for a lighter sentence.
So the short version is: drug laws are already as tough as they can be w/o taking away constitutional rights-- and in fact rights are being infringed already. Drugs are as prevalent as they ever have been. 60 percent of the prison inmates are there because of drug-related crimes, as opposed to 2.5 percent violent crimes. The War on Drugs has been fought and lost; it's time to admit that and choose another path.
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
In Ohio, they're keeping a DNA database [enquirer.com] of CLEARED suspects!
Do you really think those fingerprints taken from you as a kid suddenly vanish when you become an adult?
You've already been filed.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
Comment removed based on user account deletion
The computer is your only friend
Trust the computer
Trust the computer in all things
and remember -- in all liklihood, the computer wants you dead
(for this, my signature is especially appropriate).
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Listen, if I could be sure that I wouldn't get punished in any way, shape or form, I would happily run a public http server with ripped Hollywood movies on it. Deterrence works on me (although I don't agree with the law, but that's irrelevant) - I don't know about you.
(Off to the gulag with greenrd for comitting a thoughtcrime! *ahem*)
I agree with you to an extent about lack of prevention. But one of the most important steps that can be taken to reduce crime is reduce poverty and social exclusion and hopelessness, and that goes beyond a police officer's mandate just slightly...
Female Prison Rape in NY
And if you really want to incarcerate someone, how hard would it be to get two doctors to sign off on him? Say: Two doctors who are known for prescribing extra narcotics to their patients turning a blind eye to multiple other prescriptions -- or a pediophile child psychologist?
-----
A number of years ago, there was a Lawyer in Vancouver by the name of Jack Cram. He was most famous for taking on the government for conspiracies (and winning in court).
One day he took on a case that was to undo him: It was a young lawyer (Renata Andreas-Auger) who claimed that she was being harrassed by the Law Society of BC (who control the lawyers).
It seemed like a reasonably straight-forward case to Cram, but after taking on her case, it seemed that the Law Society -- and even some of the judges of the Supreme court of BC (The SCBC handles primary trials for civil cases and serious criminal offences with appeals going to the court of appeal).
After suffering for a while at the hands of the Law Society and the Courts, Cram finally ended up in a legal fight with the court system itself (oops). In the middle of the trial (and a whole boatload of other shenanigans), He was suddenly declared, by two doctors, to be a mental health threat. They whisked him off to a mental hostpital where he was held for evaluation and 'treatment' for a week.
The doctors at the mental facility where he was held eventually gave him a clean bill of health, but he spent a good period of time heavily drugged, etc.
Even though he was declared mentally fit, he came out of the hospital essentially a broken man. He handed his case over to another lawyer, meekly accepted a suspension of his bar priveledges, and has since (from what I've heard) refused to talk about the cases.
I interviewed him on video, in the middle of the trial (just before he was comitted). He explained to me his case, the case of Renata Andreas-Auger and the case/comspiracy that was beneath the whole mess.
The case -- Delgamuukw was famous in it's own right. It was a landmark Native rights case. The trial Judge incensed the Canadien people by declaring that the native people of BC were, among other things "Savages whose lives were brutish and short". It eventually made it's way to the Supreme Court of Canada, where rights of the natives to unceeded lands were given at least some acknowledgement before ordering the case back to be retried under a new judge.
Renata had been an articling student doing research for the Delgamuukq legal team, and had found a basic block of constitutional law that would (should) have cemented the case for the natives. She felt that the lawyers had ignored her research, and effectively thrown the case.
When she finally convinced Jack to look at the Delgamuukw case (some time after he'd started to take flack for her persecution case), Jack concluded that -- yes the lawyers had sabotaged their case at law, and had proceded instead with a very weak argument -- But that shouldn't have been a big shock, because their biggest clients were essentially the people who would have been most hurt by a successful prosecution.
The affected parties? The Government and the resource industries. The conspiracy, according to Cram, was a consipircy of silence over native rights. Constitutional documents acknowledge native claim to the lands of North America until, and unless they sign those lands over in a public treaty. For over 95% of BC that's never been done and, for decades, it was actually illegal for natives to hire a lawyer over land claims.
According to Cram, the native claims are real, and laws on Fiduciary duty would call for penalties against the Canadien & BC governments in the range of 3 times the current value of any resources taken out of BC in the last century. Read: bankrupt the country.
Besides Cram and Auger, I've seen Two other lawyers willing to take on native claims using those constitutional laws. One had his license to practice revoked. The other was 'warned off' with a veiled threat that he took quite seriously.
No black copters, No trenchcoats. Just a bunch of paper and people in $1,200 suits. And it scares me to the bone.
(damn. I thought I had some stuff about the Cram case on my website.... Oh well.)
Free Software: Like love, it grows best when given away.
Written like a true foaming-at-the-mouth right-winger.
The reaons that Law Enforcement Officers now wear body-armor is because the criminal now has accesss to high-powered weaponry that is the equal to or better than what the Law Enforcement Officers are using.
Strangely enough, here in the UK we don't have this escalation problem, for the most part. I wonder why? Could it be due to our lack of a gun culture?
why else would the Houston Police Department arrest people if there wasn't a complaint made and evidence found to support the complaint??
Because the office in charge is a nut. Even other police officers say he is a nut.
Yes, this story isn't particularly interesting, because it's just evidence of one over-promoted nut, not evidence of anything institution-wide.
Female Prison Rape in NY
The Cato Institute did an analysis of drug legalization back in 1989. Their conclusion was, among other things, that if currently-illegal drugs were legalized, fewer people would die from drugs each year-- counting tobacco and alcohol as drugs-- because heroin and cocaine have lower death rates than alcohol and tobacco, and if they were legalized, people would likely give up alcohol and tobacco in favor of them. Oh, and the death rate from marijuana is so low as to be statistically zero.
Don't take my word for it-- read it for yourself.
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
Bottom line is most people aren't smart enough to...
I guess that's where we differ. I'd rather trust individuals to make decisions about their own lives, you'd rather trust the government to make laws to tell us what we can do.
At least mafia-owned pizzarias make excellent pizza. Compare to Bill Gates.
My "take" on this bill is similar to yours - the "up front" implications aren't really all that bad (It just requires one year of "military training", basically ensures the equivalent of a GED and so on). Also, if I remember from the text, the inductee actually gets to choose which branch they go to, if they qualify (this is from memory, though - I haven't gone back to re-read the bill).
This would hardly have even registered in my mind at all, if it weren't for the current US hysteria over the "need" to "profile" and "monitor" people who may be "suspicious", and certainly, a year of tightly-controlled government service enables the building of such records. (Thanks, though, to the person who mentioned the lack of psychological evaluation in the Air Force [and presumably other branches] at the moment - I had assumed such a thing was normal practice in evaluating a new recruit. Guess I was wrong...
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
Would save alot of aggrevation on the soldiers parts when pop culture feels a war is not politically correct
Yes of course, because having a population that thinks for itself is a really stupid idea. Things would be so much more straightforward if everyone just belived what they were supposed to.
I doubt that any single organization would have the manpower to sort through every single file profiling individuals
I hear the military may have access to top secret amazing calculating machines they call "computers". Of course, that may be just a conspiracy theory...
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"