Slashdot Mirror
Library Chief Criticized for Requiring Subpoena
sudnshok writes "Hasbrouck Heights (NJ) Library Director Michele Reutty is under fire for refusing to give police library circulation records without a subpoena. Her lawyer explained, 'Reutty did the right thing... At no time did Michele Reutty say to any police officer or anybody else that she would not give the information if it was properly requested.' However, borough labor lawyer Ellen Horn, who also represented the library trustees, said Reutty was 'more interested in protecting' her library than helping the police. 'It was an absolute misjudgment of the seriousness of the matter,' Horn said."
And you forgot this gem:
:)
But Reutty dismissed that interpretation. "The main issue here is privacy of information, and all of this could have been handled by education," she said.
I like her attitude
Censorship is obscene. Patriotism is bigotry. Faith is a vice. Slashdot 2.0 sucks.
That's utter crap. Trying to bully the library into giving up records without a subpoena or warrant is a blatant disregard for due process.
And I don't know the answer to that question. It sure as hell isn't the federal government, though!
One of my friends has a "Radical Militant Librarian" icon on LJ. I think she knows what's coming.
In September, I ran the datacenter in the Houston Astrodome during the Hurricane Katrina disaster. The organization I was working for (a large international organization that provides relief in disasters, hint hint) keeps data on the people who seek help private. In fact, that's their mantra. I received visits from no less than FOUR Department of Homeland Security deputies who wanted to get their hands on the refugee data, purportedly to track sexual predators. Some of these requests were polite and some were not. I've encountered similar requests within the last year for data in my corporate job as well.
It's my observation that these people will ALWAYS appeal to our base fear when they encounter barriers to getting the data they want, knowing that no one wants to aid and abet "Sexual Predators" or "Terrorists". That's why the due process laws, calling for subpoenas are in place here in the US (but for how long?) I can only hope that we can come to our senses and end this gross abuse of power. . . . Has anyone else had similar experiences? How come we never really hear much about it?
If the police were hot on a pedophile or sex offender, they would have been able to get their warrant in no time. This is a case of the police trying to be above the law and being sore because they were put in their place.
Also it's a public library, and a public place, and I would hope that a librarian would use her power to protect the public. We have a due process for a reason. Any potential "sex offender" has rights too. Innocent until proven guilty.
hell in a handbasket I tell you...
Alleged sex offender. Allegedly scoping out your child. What's stopping them from pulling YOUR library records because they don't like you, and making up some story to throw you behind bars. This dude was 23, probably was a skateboarder or something and said "lick me where I pee" but the police wants to get rid of such a trouble maker so they just pin sexual comments on him. Maybe the girl threw something at his car, or maybe she's lying. God knows 12 year olds NEVER lie. I don't see how someone's library records could possibly stop a life or death situation. You see that stupid crap in the movies all the time but that doesn't make it real. Real police work is tedious and exhaustive. It has to be that way to protect the innocent. That is what sets America apart from the rest of the world. Now if a bunch of Redneck cops want to flex on the constitution, and then COMPLAIN that the librarian didn't LET THEM? Shit, it's every citizen's duty to make sure that the constitution is followed and to speak out if it isn't. For the protection of future generations. But I forgot, only "lefties" think about the future.
Cool! Amazing Toys.
There's buttons here : https://www.ala.org/ala/oif/basics/basicrelatedlin ks/radicalbutton.htm
The phrase "Radical Militant Librarian" was used by the FBI to describe exactly this situation where somebody actually insisted on following the law.
In this drama, the police use illegal means to trap potential criminals.
None of the police are ever criticised or punished in any meaningful way for breaking the rules. The drama shows the rights of innocent people being routinely and egreiously trampled upon.
I see it as the BBC portraying what some people in government would like. No restraint on the police, no rules of evidence, no need, in fact for actual evidence -- just lock up (or better still, shoot) the people you think are the "bad guys". How many people will watch the drama and later think it is OK for the police to take such actions becasue "they have seen it on TV"?
The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
Don't say the word pedophile. From TFA:
Police received a report May 10 that a 12-year-old borough girl was allegedly "sexually threatened" by a man
Be careful with your facts. From your comment:
Second - the Library director did the right thing. Why? Because if the information she gave was obtained without "due process", the pedophile could get free because of this. Now who would be the one to blame? The Library. Wonderful.
See how if someone had read your comment without reading the story, they might get the wrong idea?
If she hadn't forced them to follow the letter of the law, whoever this person was that broke the law initially could have turned around and used the illegal obtaining of his records in court to get the case thrown out.
I don't think that would have been a problem. From TFA:
The suspect, who has been identified as a 23-year-old Hackensack man, did not molest the girl, said borough Police Chief Michael Colaneri. The investigation is ongoing through the Bergen County Prosecutor's Office, Colaneri said.
Doesn't look like the guy broke the law at all, which then begs the question - why is the investigation ongoing if they've already determined the guy didn't do it?
Please stand clear of the doors, por favor mantenganse alejado de las puertas
If ANY law enforcement agency shows up and asks for anything, they had better have a warrant from a court in hand. These National Security Letters are bullshit and I wipe my ass with it after I scan and post it right here on slashdot.org, infowars.com, rense.com or whomever else would take it. Here that facist aggressor of the state. Fuck you. Yes this will drop the karma points, but I am damn tired of seeing facist police scum jackboots trying to set up a police state using secrecy and fear. I ain't scared of you people.
"I don't ask anyone to protect me."
Simply put--You live in society, and hence abide by societies rules. What you say used to be the case, when there wasn't police. It was up to citizens to catch those who committed crimes against them.
But then the police "racket" occurred, and you handed over many of your rights by simply living in the jurisdiction (I don't have a problem with police powers per se, I have a problem that I must depend near solely on the police and have given up my rights of protection to them).
In many jurisdictions, you do ask them to protect you implicit in your residence (and indirectly by paying of taxes) and in many places, such protections defaults only to the police. It's a strange setup--on the one hand, many court cases have upheld that lack of police protection is not indication of wrongdoing or neglect (iow, if the police do not respond or in a timely manner). If they squat to help you, tough. On the other hand, protect yourself reasonably, and you'll often find yourself being cited or arrested (public endangerment, disturbing the peace, assault, vigilantism) unless you are standing *inside* the property you own.
Many municipalities are setup for collecting taxes for these sort of "services." In many states, if the municipality/local government is not responsible, it defaults automatically to the state police.
Legally, this also sides with local government/police. If someone commits a crime against you, and the local prosecutor does not prosecute, it's fairly difficult to go forward with criminal charges. You can in 2 ways (I forget the terms, one starts with a q, may be 2 words), one being forcing the prosecutor to prosecute on the evidence they have (there was a Law and Order show on this), the other is to proceed by being the prosecution yourself if you have a direct vested interest aka the crime was against you...but even then, it's pretty clear courts frown upon these actions. You are largely left up to civil court and that is a crapshoot.
So, didn't ask, true. But believe that, and you'll find those unasked for police powers leveraged against you.
(Note to readers: apparently hoplophobia is the fear of weapons, a term invented derisively by people opposed to gun control.)
I'm more of a necrophobe than a hoplophobe, personally. It's not that I have anything wrong with guns on their own, but that I'm absolutely horrified by the idea that someone (criminals included) could be hurt or killed by them.
Both police and vigilantes are horribly dangerous entities, the question is which is safer. Even though examples such as this have shown that we have grown a bit lazy in keeping policemen in their place, it is much more difficult to keep "responsible citizens" in their place.
"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity." -- Hanlon's Razor
If it was so serious that they needed to suspend due process to apprehend this criminal, why were they still able to indentify the suspect after having to wait to get their proper subpoenas 2 days later? I think the police were the ones who misjudged the seriousness. If the information they wanted was in the library records, it wasn't going to go anywhere while they waited.
From the article, "But borough officials say Reutty intentionally stonewalled the police investigation by putting the library first.".
The subpeona has to be specific about what is to be seized. The librarian did what was proper.
The instrument was not license for a 'fishing expedition'. When the police returned with a more
specific instrument, she complied with the instrument.
This is how our system is supposed to work. The police were negligent OR STUPID. They ask
for subpoena's ALL the time. They should know that they need to be specific. Can you say "Keystone Cops employ Barney Fife"? Sure you can.
As stated previously, the city idiots are politicians, with NO CLUE. They were, after all, voted into office.
The inclusion of the city or Libraries lawyer, would most likely have not lead to ANY more protection to the
citizen's rights. Sadly, these same people have been around for many years, and have had the opportunity to
read newspapers that have published cases like this before. They did not read them or convienently forgot the precedents already in the law.
Pity.
Considering the direction laws are headed in the United states in this past decade, I would beg differ (sad day indeed.)
I would say given the direction of laws in the US, they are in fact designed to protect us, from everything including ourselves.
What is Utopia, absolute freedom, or absolute security? Civilizations volley back-and-forth between the two, neither ever giving people what they want.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
"The girl told police the man was carrying a library book with a certain title. The next day, borough police detectives asked Reutty to tell them who took out that book."
There is NO WAY anyone could have determined IF THAT BOOK came from THAT library. Not with the data given in the
article. Pervs would hide using books as mis-direction. The 'book' could have come from ANY library, unless there was a great BIG sign saying, "I came from THIS library". Most library books from a specific area, state, county or city, resemble each other. Why re-invent the wheel? They usually use the same software and marking system.
Do you think that the girl read a big sign saying "I got this book from XYZ library system, remember this title IF you are sexually threatened"?
I think NOT. It MAY have come from a nearby library or maybe not. Who can tell? Where did the 12 year old get the lucidity to notice a particular book? Was the title "how to harass young girls"? What was exactly the title? I smell a rat. Maybe a rat who was formerly crippled, and then received Stem Cell Therapy. When would a person being scared and threatened , look for clues or even think about such stuff? Did the 'perp' deliberately show her the book?
This smells on way too many levels. I , had I been a 12 year old girl, would have yelled at the top of my lungs. They would have heard it in Hackensack.
Spend a lot of time contemplating the hatred I've followed, and the the company I've kept that got me into this mess. Contemplate being denied the right to make a public spectacle out of myself by being an non-uniformed combatant. Wishing that my captors had just killed me outright, instead of letting me languish in anonymous obscurity.
Also knowing that my captors will feed me, clothe me, and medicate me in this state to keep me alive aginst my will for endless decades without human contact...
Begging for death but knowing it's abhorrent to Allah to commit suicide.
I'd say there's a lot to do.
Get off my lawn.
It's not "her" library,
Then it isn't her information, either, and so she isn't entitled to give it away.
Those are good points. That said, almost all those instances you mentioned required trade-off. When the slaves were freed, states lost their sovreignty. When segregation ended, the government gained the right to regulate private businesses to an insane extent. When the patriot act was scaled back, it just gave retarded neocons the right to say "See? we compromised... we gave you back some of your provisions, now let us keep some of ours!"
People can definitely regain some rights without revolution, but I think it may be impossible to regain all rights in general. The slaves, gladiators, and POWs of Rome lived more and more crappily until the Empire fell apart at the seams. The American colonies had to fight a war just to fix the tax system, which they'd fought continuously to reform for decades through the proper channels. The Berliners had to physically kick down the wall in 1991 to finally see their relatives. The people of the USSR managed to get their leaders to partially convert the Union to capitalism, which led to its fall, but their lives just got worse.
ResidntGeek
you'd be pretty damn glad when the cops showed up because your neighbour had the sense to call them to PROTECT you
I'd be far more grateful if my NEIGHBOR showed up, armed to the teeth, to give me a hand - rather than hiding in his home, hoping that the police get around to doing the job before the baddies decide to use me for target practice. But I guess I can't really expect that from the average American these days.
I'd rather the police intervene BEFORE I'm dead
Except that statistically the police arrive while a violent crime is in progress less than 2% of the time. For the other 98% they show up long after, to clean up the mess. What you hope to be true and what actually is true are two very different things here.
Unless you somehow think you're blessed enough to always fall within that 2%, there's a 98% chance that the next time you're the victim of violent crime the only person who'll be around who actually gives a shit about protecting you is going to be...you. Daddy government won't magically appear to save the day, no matter how many laws you pass or how many police you put on the streets. It's incumbent upon rational, mature adults to take responsibility for their own protection, and stop screaming for a world of 'safety' that they can't ever have.
Max
My god carries a hammer. Your god died nailed to a tree. Any questions?
I've looked up the word "fascist" several times and I've never been satisfied with a definition. I suspect it's too vague to be meaningful. Sort of a write off, like the work "hack". Perhaps its better the call the US a "totalitarian police state"?
You'd think that. But in fact some of the strongest supporters of suspect rights (like reading the Miranda rights, etc.) are law enforcement associations. Why? Because (a) they actually believe in all that crazy land-of-the-free stuff and (b) they know that having (and following!) constraints on the police power helps keep them from being seen as -- and from becoming -- the Bad Guys. The positive impacts of being respected by the community, rather than feared by it, far outweigh the occasional slip in the system. Anyone who looks knows that effective policing requires community support.
There was a case in the early 1990s when the Supreme Court appeared to weaken Miranda rights (shamefully, I can't recall the case or a cite for it). Some of the most outspoken criticism came from a national association of sheriffs.
It's not about "letting criminals go". It's about having a fair and legitimate system for ascertaining who is a criminal, and it's about constraining the police power to prevent the abuse of actually innocent citizens. Or to put it more briefly, it's about that whole "innocent until proven guilty" jazz, plus that "due process of law" business.
In other words, it's basically about the meaning of America.
The Mongrel Dogs Who Teach
On my way home from a motorcycle trip once I was stopped in Columbia, MO. The policeman had me demonstrate that all my lights worked and then told me he was going to have to search my bags. Now I had been on the road for a week, and had some funky clothes and little else in the bags. There was for sure nothing the policeman would have cared about, but I did not feel like having him dig through my dirty underwear.
I told him that he did not have my permission to search the bags, and I asked if I was being charged with anything. He told me he could have a search warrant in no time. He had been fishing with the judge just that morning.
I encouraged him to get a warrant if he wanted to search the bags.
He said it could also take a while to process the warrant, and he would have to take me to the jail to wait. I told him I was a teacher and was on summer break. A wait would just make for a better story when I got home.
I asked if I was being charged with anything.
We danced around this issue for a while. I was polite but firm. He kept telling me he was going to have to search the bags.
He never did search the bags or write me a ticket or tell me why he stopped me.
It still pisses me off.
I think the librarian should have asked for a subpoena. There are fundamental issues here, and while I don't think anyone should obstruct justice, I also don't think policemen should be able to waltz into a library and ask for circulation records. It is not that you have anything to hide, but sometimes you don't feel like having someone digging through your personal stuff.
In our new fascist(getting there as fast as we can world) FATHERland USA, if the two words, paedophile or terrorists appear, the current mainstream society says that all rights are to be ignored so that we can be protected. To obstruct/enforce the rights, we are supporting these paedophile/terrorists. :)
This should all correct itself in about 5 years, just like the Senator McCarthy red scare shit.
I wonder if a complaint could be made against Ellen Horn with her state Bar association.
"Police will be impowered to simply grab people off the streets who look like they may commit a crime in the future. With potential criminals eliminated we will all finaly be safe."
...Or we'll all be plagued by a better looking and more presentable class of criminal..
Can anyone explain why the police in this case would get a subpoena, instead of a warrant?
The way I understand it, a subpoena is a court order that a human appear in court; and a warrant is a court approval of police search or seizure. So, since in this case the police wanted to search the library records and sieze one of them, I would assume a warrant would be the proper writ. But obviously I'm confused about something.
...and there is no way in hell our library would give out ANY information about ANYONE to te police, or any justice official without a warrant first. We are not even allowed to say to a police officer if someone they are looking for is in, or has been in the library.
In saying this, I am in New Zealand, where people actually care about privacy laws.
What about YOU learn about fascism ?
American Heritage Dictionary:
fascism: A philosophy or system of government that is marked by stringent social and economic control, a strong, centralized government usually headed by a dictator, and often a policy of belligerent nationalism.
So, what were you saying exactly ?
The freedom to read what you want to read is a powerful freedom indeed. If the police can walk up to the library and get a list of books you've checked out, they might discover all kinds of dirty (but perfectly) legal facts about you--e.g. that you're gay or at the very least gay-sympathetic. They can then use this information against you, officially or unofficially, in the social or political arena. Having to think twice every time you check out a book is a very big lost of freedom indeed--it's a potential curtailment of knowledge.
...but first, they must get a warrant, and to do that they must show that they have reasonable suspicion of wrongdoing.
Privacy in general IS a rather huge freedom, and I really wish the constitution framers had made it explicit. A little-realized fact is that they were against the Bill of Rights in the beginning--not because they were against the rights it protected, but because they did not want to give the impression that it guaranteed ONLY those rights and no others. Unfortunately, that is the impression most Americans have today. Sophisticated and all-encompassing recordkeeping and surveillence didn't exist in the 1700s; the right to privacy was really rather a given. If they had realized the comming law enforcement revolutions, I'm sure they would have made it explict. As it is, the right to privacy must be protected under the "all other rights are reserved by the people, or by the states" clause. The courts and legislatures haven't been perfect about protecting this right, but the Patriot Act notwithstanding, it's still there at least a little bit.
It is very much in the spirit of the constitution to protect privacy. The police have no business gathering ANY of my private information whatsoever until they have obtained a warrant. Sheep like you always seem to forget that part--no one's arguing that they don't have a right to the library records. By all means, if they need it they should get it!
Asshats like you are saying that they should have the power to search my private information even without reasonable suspicion. Please justify that to me. Please tell me why I should have to explain myself when a police officer comes to my door, asking why I checked out Mein Kampf or The Anarchist's Cookbook. Unless he suspects me of a crime, it's none of his fucking business what I read or why. Yet, he could very easily use such information against me if he wanted to make my life difficult. POLICE SHOULD NOT HAVE SUCH POWER OVER LAW-ABIDING CITIZENS. You want to check up on my internet surfing habits, my reading habits, my phone calls, my porn collection, etc.? Fine, be my guess! You just have to have a good REASON first. It doesn't have to be ironclad; to get a warrant you just need a bit of a motive and/or a bit of circumstancial evidence. What you're asking for is the ability for LEAs to go fishing, trolling for petty criminals with absolutely no reasonable suspicion--but realize, they'll only do this amongst people they didn't like to begin with--the niggers, the spics, the liberals, etc. And like I said, even when they don't find evidence of wrongdoing they can still often wind up with damaging information.
I'm a law-abiding citizen, but I know I've checked out several books that, if commonly known (and correlated with certain facts reguarding my public life), might give me problems if I ever chose to run for office. What if I was an opponent of the local sheriff? Well, if this kind of shit were legal it would be a pretty simple matter for him to get my library records and let it slip to the local newspaper via an "anonymous source"...
So, there's your explanation, oh Anonymous Coward who claims to not see the usefulness of anonymity. It's given you the ability to attack me without losing karma or being added to anyone's foe list, hasn't it? Freedom to gain and share information is extremely sacred indeed, and if I may say so you are extremely anti-American (I'm going to continue to use the word American like it still stands for freedom. Who knows, maybe it will again... one day) for trying to deny that freedom.
As a Norwegian, I think you are spot-on. People always complain a little about politicians, they have done that all my life. But those who actually DO something good to society, lift up the spirit of lesser fortunates, spread information and knowledge about issues, are far and between. I don't expect everyone to become politicians, but everyone can do something with their unique talents, however small in the beginning, and grow on that.
I can only conclude that most of the population just cares to read, bitch, moan and watch bad movies. Ultimately it's someone else's problem. News remains a perpetual depressing treadmill, so people can revel in some "reality", while themselves mostly being far-cut off from any real trouble. Easy sadness-fix, to be kept in a depressing and dull state.
Everyone seems to be waiting for someone else to fix the big problems, but who can do that without support? Politicians will come and go, giving a little fix here and there while fighting eachother, often making the big picture worse actually.
How much wealth can we amass, and to what use? That new car, new apartment, how much happiness will it bring. In a few years, they too go boring, and we spend much time hunting for new pieces of happiness. How much can we enjoy partying every weekend, and what do we do that is really fun. We spend so much time amassing wealth and trying to find happiness out in the world. Everyone seeks happiness and love, but true happiness and love doesn't come from drug-injection and superficial relationships, as they instead drain our energy.
Stretch _your_ hand out first. Happiness comes from within, but can be cultivated by doing the 'right' thing. Our inner voice always tells what to do, but it is up to us to cultivate hearing it. It's an adventure, and totally fulfilling and unique to every person. This is the steps to come forward in the world and out of self-indulged misery.
It also helps to do breathing-excercises, or similar practices, to lift the energy. It will actually feel uncomfortable in the beginning, because we're so used to deplete our energy all the time. However, isn't it time to turn around now?
http://www.debunkingskeptics.com/
Here in the UK, my sister, who is a librarian, is often asked for customers' data by the police. Usually for sensible reasons, e.g. they found a handbag with a library book in it and want to find the owner. However, she has had it made clear to her by her bosses that it is completely illegal to give such information out without a warrent - the data protection act simply doesn't allow it. She always finds it amusing to be having to explain to the police what the law is!
Pining for the fjords
Nah. I'm a citizen of the USA who is an expat in a bonafide fascist state, and it's nothing like back home. You people are fricking morons. If I stood outside with a sign against the government, I'd be in jail in an hour. If I led a demonstration down the street, we'd have the riot police on us. If I published a newspaper article critical of the government, I'd be in jail. All of these things occur regularly without incident in the USA.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
And one way you keep seeing it cutting the other way is providing an endless stream of ammo for those in power to use as justification for their getting more power. Any crime or problem can be presented as a nation-sweeping epidemic, that demands immediate action, if the public is just bombarded with just enough examples of it happening.
The problem, as I've been saying before is that human brains functions sorta like that of Terry Prattchett's trolls, whose counting went something like "one, two, many, lots". People simply lose sense of proportion beyond a certain scale. A week, a month, or a year, or even ten years, you can put into an intuitive proportion. A billion years, you can't. Or 10, 100 or 1000 people you can see every day. A billion people becomes just a very large number. "Lots." You may be able to work maths with 1,000,000,000 or 10^9, but your intuition won't help you.
Hence bombarding people with stuff that happened over such huge, unintuitive areas and numbers of people can be a very dangerous thing. The fact that it was a one in a million or one in a billion case just gets lost, and all those cases are treated as if they all happened in a world barely larger than their home town.
E.g., if you heard that one gamer in your home town preferred to play EQ until he lost his job, his house and everything, you think "heh. What a loser." But when you get bombarded with thousands of examples of that happening, it suddenly becomes "whoa! It's a dangerous addiction! It's a wave sweeping the nation!" Why? Because your brain doesn't have the intuitive framework to put it in the right proportion: that it's one in a million cases. But your intuition acts as if they all happened within a mile of your home.
E.g., if you heard that someone raped a child in your home town, you're disgusted, shocked, etc, but in the end, eh, it's one insane person. But get bombarded with cases from all over the world, and evidence that it happens every day, and suddenly it starts seeming like every other adult male is getting a hard-on at pre-teens. Why? Again, because it's not put in the right proportion. It's compared to a vague "Lots" number that's just marginally larger than the male population you see in a day.
And so on.
And while, yes, on one hand it does serve to also amplify the perceived extent of the abuses of power, it also works the other way, giving those in power ammo to keep people scared and justify getting more power. Yes, some citizens might be genuinely mistaken and concerned about the extent of police abuses. But on the other hand, there'll also be a bunch of ruthless politicians understanding this phenomenon and milking it for everything its got.
And frankly, the latter worries me more.
A polar bear is a cartesian bear after a coordinate transform.
I hear you there, and in all honesty I have a hard time answering that one. I know this makes me a tool of the man and all that, but I want criminals brought to justice, and I'm not without sympathy for law enforcement. In an ideal world, there would be no tension between our fourth amendment rights and law enforcement's capacity to convict criminals, but there'd be no intentional fouls in basketball either.
I guess I expect the police to be interested in gathering evidence that criminals would like to keep from them, and I assume that motive will inspire a certain amount of infringement. I feel secure enough in my rights without the police making a priority of them, though; in domestic criminal cases, our privacy rights are secured at the prosecution stage more than at the evidence gathering stage - the penalty for violations by law enforcement being the exclusion of the evidence in question.
Now I have a hard time seeing the value of a suspect's library records in the prosecution of a crime, but hey, if the police want to chase that line, fine with me. I don't expect them to get subpoenas and warrants in advance for every bit of evidence they want to gather; I expect them to do this only when they encounter obstacles or are on territory where the evidence would spoil without a warrant.
This story interested me because I'm more worried about trustees of our private data being loose with it. Police have always sought to uncover data with exceptional eagerness. The library director's actions show exactly the respect for privacy that I want to see, so I'm happy.
Now wanna know what *really* scares me? How about the *first amendment* rights we're losing for the sake of something as frivolous as the entertainment industry's right not to innovate?
Pi Ran Out
Do you honestly think that any cop would rather go knocking on every door in the city looking for this book than go sit in an air conditioned courthouse for an hour & get a suppena for the record? They were lazy, they got rejected, they did it right, they got the information they wanted.
You should probably run for congress, your hyperbole is certainly world class.
Let's look at it more closely had she done as the police had asked:
- Officer: Give me the records on this book [book of the day].
- Librarian: Here you go.
- Officer: Bob Buddy, you are under arrest.
- Prossecutor: Judge we have here the book identified by the victim, as you can see it was checked out by Bob Buddy on June 10th at 5PM.
- Defence: Your honor I object, the prossecution has no chain of custody for the records.
- Prossecutor: Of course we do, Librarian->Officer->Me.
- Defence: Where's the suppena to obtain the records?
- Prossecutor: We don't have one.
- Defence: Judge, that constitutes illegal search and seasure of the records. I request the book and the records be ruled as inadmissable.
- Judge: Sorry, but he's right. The loan records are the property of the patron not the librarian, she had no right to release them to you without a suppena. The book & the records are ruled inadmisable.
[2 weeks later][Newspaper Headlines]
Accused Child Molester, freed on technicality, sues Police and Library for $30M for violating his civil rights.
In a country where police are routinely sued for 'abuse' when they do their job by the book, you don't think that suit would happen?
Today -- Librarian 1 : Cops 0 : Nutjob 0 : Board of Directors 0
If this is happening in a city this size, I can only imagine the greed and underhandedness that happens in larger cities. This country needs to wake up, and the general population needs a few more IQ points to boot.
As the other person mentioned, Castle Rock v. Gonzales is the most recent manefestation of this ruling. An earlier one is South v. Maryland
The Gonzales case is pretty far reaching in that the police don't have to provide protection even if:
A: Specific threats had been uttered, including death
B: A restraining order had been issued*
C: The person making the threat has attacked/fulfilled those threats before
D: The threat was towards children
I suppose it depends on the definition of protection... I mean, the police aren't legally obligated to basically be a bodyguarding service.
I agree, but feel that if they aren't, that we shouldn't prevent people from defending themselves as best as they can. Not everybody can afford to hire a bodyguard. Most can, however, stretch for a cheap shotgun. Hell, if they know the right people they can get a gun & training for a song if there is a real threat against them. Still, most victims have been abused to the point that their fear of their attacker is such that they can't imagine resisting themselves.
Similarly, an attempt at serious harm (even if it fails) is a criminal offense as well. I would think that a police officer standing by while this kind of thing happens would be a dereliction of duty (which I realize is a military term, but there's also civilian dereliction).
It wouldn't be much of a stretch to make the case cover this one as well. Matter of fact, South vs. Maryland is a closer match where a deputy left hostages and the police essentially did nothing for four days.
*Why I've always felt that restraining orders are worth less than the paper they're printed on.
I don't read AC A human right
Except that people not wearing seatbelts endanger others. Not merely because of the obvious 'Flying around hitting other people', but because people without seatbelts are more likely to lose control of their car when sideswiped, falling sideways or downward in their seat. In addition, they are more likely to get killed, or at least knocked unconcious, by banging their head, while still operating the vehicle, which makes things really awkward for others in vehicles around them.
It's not just the 'right to get yourself killed'. You have no right to die or be flung around while operating a ton of metal near other people. You have a human responsiblity to negotiate that metal to a stop with as little injuries on other people as possible, it's not even a legal responsiblity, it's moral one for being human. You still want to die, you can go shoot yourself in the head later. And I'm sure that you can find some sort of industrial dryer to climb inside if you want bang yourself against metal repeatedly, or you can jump down the inside of the Statue of Liberty.
I don't see how anyone who complains about seatbelts can get away without complaining about requiring windshield wipers or rearview mirrors, both of which 'only' help the driver, and thus logically the driver should be able to operate the car without them. That's not how it works. Cars are dangerous things, and we have invented things to make them less dangerous, and you have to use them to operate the car near other people. This isn't to say all the rules make sense...I don't use running lights, and yet I can get a ticket if they're out. And not all the rules can be enforced...we can't make people check their mirrors. Neither does it make sense to make people stop a stop sign when they can see a mile in all directions and nothing's there. But it's much better to have well-defined laws than then to just enforce whatever rule someone feels like enforcing at the time.
However, a big problem with the seatbelt laws is they're being used for pretext stops. I don't agree with pretext stops under any circumstances, and I understand when people get upset at seatbelt laws because of that, but if there were no seatbelt laws, they'd just say you looked like you were weaving or something. The solution is to get rid of pretext stops, not seatbelt laws. I think a good start would be to required police offices to justify all stops in court. Not to the level of reasonable doubt, and the person pulled over won't even be there if they didn't give a citation, but produce some sort of evidence that says 'And this video clearly shows X, which is why I pulled him over.'.
And I'm all for letting people not wear motorcycle helmets, because that doesn't cause any sort of endangering of other people at all...by the time a helmet matters, you're sliding around on the pavement and can't do anything anyway. But only if they're required to wear a pin on their shirt that says 'I don't wear a motorcycle helmet, so don't assume I'll live out the week' so we can refrain from conducting any sort of contractual business with them. I only want to do business with people who don't regularly endanger their life, because dealing with someone's estate is just really annoying. And if they end up a vegatable in the hospital, man, that's a huge hassle.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
The other posts here about the fairness doctrine should put your doubts to rest.
Although I find the level religiosity it the US shocking I wouldn't have referred to the US as a theocracy until I read "American Theocracy" by Kevin Phillips. Here is a NYTimes article on it. http://tinyurl.com/fkwc2
Kevin Phillips is a respected Republican historian and this book is NOT a rambling rant from the left despite its title.
Without getting into a full review of the book he follows the life cycle of several empires; Spanish, Dutch, British, and USA. He finds many similarities linking their rise to innovation based on new energy sources (wind, coal then oil). (Spain being the exception being based on new world gold). Also a trend in financialization (Finance is now the single largest industry in the US as a percentage of GDP). In addition to his central thesis it is an excellent history of energy, US oil culture, US church history, and more, a very good read.
He also shows a trend in the rise of religion near the end of an empires life. Specifically a belief in the "end of days". Its an excellent book with nearly a hundred citations per chapter, It is very well researched from a guy who has written a dozen books on American and Republican history. Don't let the title fool you its about a lot more then simply the rise in the Christian right.
When I first heard about Bush's faith based initiatives I thought they were limited to charity and other social care type programs. I have learned however that it means appointing people who actively work to end separation of church and state. People who put faith before fact, people who believe not only in the coming of Armageddon, but some who believe that christ has returned and we are already in the end of days. It is truly shocking to learn that something around 25% of the US believes in Armageddon (literal), more shocking to learn that they are running your country!
As the most religous country in the world, and with the growing influence of Christians in your government, America has no credibility labeling others as religious radicals or fundamentalists.
Many scientists post on Slashdot, perhaps they can comment on the current state of affairs where faith has replaced fact and exploration in government policy.
There is a social norm about not talking about religion but perhaps that should change considering that you have chosen to elect a "doomsday cult".
"I'd say the police have as much right as anyone else to question him (assuming no crime was committed). "WTF did you think you were doing?" sort of thing. Social pressure is an important part of the social glue that keeps society together."
You are SOOO right, this is why I am glad that the police stopped my vehicle, put me in handcuffs in the back of a police car and then searched my car thoroughly for 30 minutes while repeatedly asking me where "the dope was hidden".
Apparently (the cop told me) I was not supposed to be on that side of town and asked me what I was doing there (the answer, visiting a friend who lived in the neighborhood).
Luckily he let me off with a warning and made sure to let me know that "I owed him one for letting me go".
I'm glad we have police who are willing to go the extra mile and question people who don't behave the way the police believe they should behave, or visit places deemed "appropriate".
(true story).