Slashdot Mirror


Phoenix Police Seize PCs of a Blogger Critical of the Department

logicassasin sends in a story about a blogger in Phoenix, AZ, who runs a site that is critical of the local police department. The police recently raided his home and seized his computer hardware. "Jeff Pataky, who runs Bad Phoenix Cops, said the officers confiscated three computers, routers, modems, hard drives, memory cards and everything necessary to continue blogging. The 41-year-old software engineer said they also confiscated numerous personal files and documents relating to a pending lawsuit he has against the department alleging harassment — which he says makes it obvious the raid was an act of retaliation." A local publication quotes Pataky saying, "We have heard internally from our police sources that they purposefully did this to stop me... They took my cable modem and wireless router. Anyone worth their salt knows nothing is stored in the cable modem."

515 comments

  1. Cable modem... by unts · · Score: 5, Funny

    Anyone worth their salt knows nothing is stored in the cable modem.

    Which is exactly why I've stuck a flash drive in mine that I can run a USB cable to when I want to do some "backups to my modem".
     
    Wink wink.

    1. Re:Cable modem... by bigman2003 · · Score: 2, Funny

      More interestingly, is the use of the phrase; "Anyone worth their salt."

      This is a very old phrase, originally used when salt was a very, very expensive commodity. Roman soldiers were typically paid for their duties in salt. So a good soldier was 'worth their salt.' (Obligatory Wikipedia article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salary )

      So back to the topic on hand. I don't think this phrase is appropriate here, because we are taking geek assumptions (knowing that a router/modem do not store data long-term (other than configuration data, and potentially a log file)) and comparing it to a soldier who is worth his pay.

      These are cops, we should use a different phrase like:

      "Not showing up for work on the day of the idiotic raid; Chief Wiggims saved his own bacon through incompetence."

      --
      No reason to lie.
    2. Re:Cable modem... by spymagician · · Score: 1

      You mean MAGIC black smoke. That's the Genie!

    3. Re:Cable modem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mod parent OT

    4. Re:Cable modem... by bigman2003 · · Score: 1, Funny

      Hmm..not sure why off-topic. The intro had 5 sentences, I addressed one of them.

      Obviously I'm being targeted by cops.

      --
      No reason to lie.
    5. Re:Cable modem... by pete6677 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      We need a new mod choice: (-1 Overly Pedantic).

    6. Re:Cable modem... by KeX3 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm going to counter that with (-1 Fact Nazi), and rate you (-1 Overly Eloquent).

    7. Re:Cable modem... by Latinhypercube · · Score: 0

      Mmmm. What police state ?

    8. Re:Cable modem... by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 2, Funny

      (+1 Now that's just plain silly)

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    9. Re:Cable modem... by Solandri · · Score: 2, Informative

      Anyone worth their salt knows nothing is stored in the cable modem.

      Hate to post this under a joke, but wouldn't the police have to seize your cable modem in any case involving Internet activity? The only evidence they'll have prior to getting a warrant to search your property is a bunch of logs from the cable company. Those logs won't point to an address, they'll point to a MAC address (or whatever cable modems use). The cable company's records will say that MAC address belongs to a modem at such and such address, but to prove it they'll need the cable modem physically used at that address. Otherwise the resident could destroy the modem or switch his with a neighbor's and claim it wasn't his modem that was the source of that activity.

    10. Re:Cable modem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Welcome to the Police state.

    11. Re:Cable modem... by sortius_nod · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      All I saw was (-1 blah blah blah)

    12. Re:Cable modem... by Curtman · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      I'll see that and raise you a (+1 Godwins Law)

    13. Re:Cable modem... by ScrewMaster · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Face it, the guys collecting "evidence" probably don't know what a cable modem is, they just grabbed anything that looks computerish. And if they did know, they'd probably take it anyway just to make it harder for him to get back online and post about their activities. My first impression of this is that those cops are dicks, but it'll be up to the courts to make that official.

      --
      The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
    14. Re:Cable modem... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      -1 tl;dr

    15. Re:Cable modem... by AGMW · · Score: 0, Offtopic
      (-1 Mornington Crescent?)
      er?
      -4 Profit?

      Well you started it ...

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    16. Re:Cable modem... by AGMW · · Score: 1
      Face it, the guys collecting "evidence" probably don't know what a cable modem is, they just grabbed anything that looks computerish.

      Cops right? So not just anything "Computerish" but probably anything that looks vaguely electric!

      For the Prosecution: I'd like to draw the attention of the jury to the following items:
      item 3725: vacuum cleaner
      item 3726: toaster
      item 3727: kettle
      items 3728-3755: Assorted light bulbs

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
  2. Phoenix has done screwed up. by pecosdave · · Score: 5, Interesting

    This guy's obviously already been in court. ACLU time, and even up to the supreme court. The Phoenix police department is about to get a federal raping.

    --
    The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    1. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by mysidia · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Unfortunately, it seems that if you want to blog and say anything remotely negative about the Phoenix police department, you better move out of Phoenix first.

      This is tyrannical, a clear abuse of power. Everyone aware and responsible for this farce and the reason for the seizure needs to be jailed.

      Apparently the standards and scrutiny imposed to ensure "probable cause" for a search before a warrant can be issued (or before a search can be done) aren't high enough.

    2. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      god i hope so, fuckers deserve it really hard.

    3. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by pecosdave · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I moved out of Phoenix 12 years ago, but I never actually had problems with them aside from 1 traffic ticket the whole time I was there. I did have to call them to, my truck was broken into, I was actually surprised they finger printed when they were obviously dealing with a junky stealing stereo's for a fix.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    4. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by linzeal · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Um, the whole fucking county is crooked and they are bad at their jobs. I would not step foot into that county if you paid me a 1000 bucks, well also because that is where all my ex-gf live.

    5. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's surprising that the police didn't realise that this would almost certainly look very bad for them, especially if there is already a lawsuit and the took files specifically pertaining to it.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by fractoid · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Begging the question, IMO. "See, he's acting innocent. Only the most hardened of criminals act innocent when confronted with their guilt, so he MUST be guilty of something!"

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
    7. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes, this is the Streisand effect on steroids. The dirty cops and the people who would otherwise be embarrassed are obviously trying to find the leaky cops. But the more of a ruckus they stir up, the more people who are going to notice.

      This is what brought U.S. Federal attention to Dallas.

      An interesting thing though. Village Voice Media (formerly New Times before they bought VVM and took their name) is HQ'd in Phoenix... They own papers in several major markets which includes Dallas. I haven't checked yet, but I wouldn't be surprised to find a story or two surrounding any police corruption in Phoenix in the New Times publication in Phoenix.

    8. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Another hint, if you start poking a sleeping bear with a stick, the bear eventually will wake up and eat your ass for breakfast. I suspect his blogging resulted in roughly the same result.

      I have an anti-authority complex which basically makes me mad at any larger entity that sets the rules then can hurt me if I break them. I tend to always want to poke the bear for the simple reason that I don't think its fair that the bear has more power.

    9. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by NeverVotedBush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      For all you know they 'blogging' could be a front for a local child porn ring.

      Because I know when I'm doing something very illegal, I'm going to draw as much attention to myself from the authorities as possible...

      I think your scenario is kind of unlikely.

      If the Phoenix police don't have a very good reason for this raid, the blogger probably won't need a job ever again after he sues the pants off them.

    10. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by johnsonav · · Score: 1

      Begging the question, IMO. "See, he's acting innocent. Only the most hardened of criminals act innocent when confronted with their guilt, so he MUST be guilty of something!"

      No. I think the argument goes something like this: An innocent person will proclaim his innocence. Most guilty people also proclaim their innocence.

      The point is, you can't tell anything about the guilt or innocence of a person based on their statements regarding their own innocence. The statement is essentially meaningless.

      --
      ... and that's when the C.H.U.D.'s came at me.
    11. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If they paid you $1,000, they'd stop you there and seize the money for being "probable drug-related"

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    12. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Didn't they raid the New Times offices too in the 90's?

    13. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by techno-vampire · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Only on slashdot with a bunch of paranoid 12 year olds would the first reaction to be that he was completely innocent and the cops were wrong.

      Actually, no, or at least, I hope not. In case you haven't noticed, this took place in the USA, where people are by law presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    14. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Mr2cents · · Score: 2, Funny

      I'm beginning to think the world is one big Milgram experiment...

      --
      "It's too bad that stupidity isn't painful." - Anton LaVey
    15. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by eskayp · · Score: 1

      Individuals or organizations that are given authority over others tend to become more authoritarian to the point of arrogance.
      It may be law enforcement saying 'We ARE the law so do whatever we say or else'.
      Or it may be a nanny-state entitlement service saying 'We are hurting you for your own good'.
      That arrogance, if unchecked, builds to the point of atrocity and public outrage.
      Then corrective action HAS to be taken by a higher authority.
      But what if there is no higher authority?
      What if you are Josef Stalin?
      Or Kim Jong-il?
      Or God?

      --
      I didn't desert Windows; Windows deserted me: BSOD
    16. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Hognoxious · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Actually, no, or at least, I hope not. In case you haven't noticed, this took place in the USA, where people are by law presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law.

      Did you just wake up from a 20 year sleep?

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    17. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by hedge49 · · Score: 1

      I wonder if Medium saw this coming...

    18. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by redelm · · Score: 2, Informative
      Maybe, mabe not. This guy appearently was accused of spousal abuse, not prosecuted, then decided to turn the tables. Who knows?

      But there's a _very_ easy remedy: his lawyer asks for summary judgement or a directed verdict in his suit against the cops. His case has been compromised, aned those are reasonable remedies.

      Judges do not like to grant summary, so s/he might review the probable cause the warrent-granting judge signed off on. I expect some pointed questions under oath of the requesting officers. Unless they have pretty cast-iron probable cause of a serious felony, the cops are _hosed_.

      Not only will they have to pay whatever the suit claimed, but the Phoenix PD will suffer a serious loss of credibility with both judges, and probably all in the district. They'll find it harder to get warrents. Something they have to do every day. I expect some serious grovelling and a punative internal investigation to restore credibility.

      Or maybe nothing, depending on the personalities involved.

    19. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by jdbausch · · Score: 1

      in the courts. you and I can presume whatever we want.

    20. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by BitZtream · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Ahhhh right, because the politicians and cops where you live a 'different' and 'good' ...

      Do you really believe its that different here, are you that naive?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    21. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by RareButSeriousSideEf · · Score: 1

      She did, but the computers appeared as children & the police appeared as clowns in her dream, so she sent Scanlon on a wild goose chase through the carnival next to the day-care center.

    22. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by BrokenHalo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      My, you live in a nice cosy little world. Welcome to the real world, where the race is run and the good guys lost. Policemen are not nice guys, and neither are judges. Evidence, schmevidence, police departments are usually adept enough at covering their asses.

      All the blogger can really do if he needs his data is to make damn sure he has an off-site backup somewhere the authorities can't get at it.

    23. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by spartacus_prime · · Score: 0, Troll

      What you're saying is that, you can't step foot into that county due to restraining orders, violation of which would cost you in excess of 1000 bucks?

      --
      If you can read this, it means that I bothered to log in.
    24. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by similar_name · · Score: 1

      For all you know they 'blogging' could be a front for a local child porn ring.

      The search warrant lists "petty theft" and "computer tampering with the intent to harass" as probable causes.

    25. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Zero_DgZ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      People need to wake up to the realities of this shit. Modern day police departments are filled with tyrannical people who enact tyrannical policy purely for the sake of their own egos. (Not all of them, but enough bad apples to ruin the bunch in a lot of cases.) The modern day police department is a THREAT to security and liberty in this country, not a protector of it, and in all honesty people need to start fighting back against it. Unfortunately, the police are also the ones with all the guns and tear gas and media connections who will label protestors, detractors, and other enemies of tyranny as "terrorists" or "criminals." And they have their egos in a bunch over their presumed notion that everything they do is "in the right," and anything anyone says or does against them is automatically "in the wrong," largely because we've let them think that way for entirely too long.

    26. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by techno-vampire · · Score: 1
      But the court itself, as well as the prosecutor and the police, are required to act under that presumption. I might add, BTW, that if you or I were on the jury, we'd be expected to keep an open mind and not come to an un-alterable conclusion until we're in the jury room deliberating. That's part of why the standard required in a criminal case is, "beyond a reasonable doubt and to a moral certainty." The jury must start out presuming that the accused is not guilty, and not vote otherwise unless they're certain that he did it.

      If you know any cops, or people who work in your local justice system, they'll tell you that there are many people walking the streets right now that they know are guilty of major felonies, but can't be prosecuted because there's not enough evidence to prove it to a jury. Bringing this back on-topic a tad, I suspect that this search and seizure in Phoenix is a fishing expedition that went too far, and quite possibly beyond the bounds of the warrant authorizing their actions.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    27. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by the_macman · · Score: 1

      Cops don't just randomly pick people to pick on, even the most corrupt cops. They are after all, people, and for the most part they have better things to do, until you make yourself a target.

       
      I'm sorry but your belief is completely false.

    28. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by pedrop357 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The Atlanta police "picked on" Kathryn Johnston and I never read anywhere that she did anything wrong or had any prior contact with them.

      It doesn't matter what you did, what you were accused of, or how many times you've been to court in the past. The police are not allowed to harass, assault, "pick on", or take any unlawful action against you.

      Your post is very similar to the posts I would expect from people who say things like "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about" or "I don't get harassed by the police because I follow the law", etc. A lot of times, I find that they suggest or imply that it's OK for the police to violate someone's rights if they've "done something to deserve it"; this isn't true. Just because a person gets an attitude at a traffic stop, or was accused years ago of crimes and cried holy hell against the police department and city, does not mean 'the gloves come off' and the police can do what they want. That would allow them to come down on anyone, anytime as long as they can manufacture some flimsy justification.

      The police have rules to follow regardless of whether you the other person does or not and they are obligated to follow the law to the same degree they expect us to follow it. You can't really be enforcing the law if you break it.

      This guy is also doing the same thing some people do when they've been dealing with abusive government officials for so long, telling anyone who will hear.

    29. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by mysidia · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Uh, I wouldn't go so far at this point as to say they're not a protector.

      They may not always protect your personal liberty with every single action, but they do protect society, which ultimately protects your liberty in real terms.

      Your ability to blog whatever you want is no good if hackers keep breaking into your web hosts servers and deleting all your content.

      Your ability to blog whatever you want is no good if some stranger keeps breaking into your house and stealing stuff.

      The very existence of police is a deterrant for burglars, rapists, muggers, killers, and fraudsters. I.E. The "REAL" criminals who will readily conduct the most damaging activities to society, if not prevented.

      And certainly despite the cases of abuse, the police do sometimes manage to actually investigate some crimes, bring the perpetrator to justice, and (where possible, i.e. cases of theft, where the stolen item is found) help make the victim whole again.

      Police are absolutely essential in a civilized society, due to the existence of certain criminal behavior.

      As are military.

      The problem occurs when they are allowed to be too aggressive -- for example, police disrupting the lives of ordinary citizens to investigate crimes that are less destructive than that of the investigation effort itself.

      The problem is either too many things are criminal, or the police has too much search and seizure power for possible offenses that wouldn't seem to warrant it, or a combination of both.

      Problem is it's TOO easy for the police to just get a search warrant to go on a fishing expedition.

      They love to seize computer equipment, because they have a pretention that they are just seizing one item -- but in fact, they're seizing ALL their files (it's like seizing a shelf full of books and all your records of all natures)

      It is a bit absurd that they are allowed to do this without proving good reason.

      Instead they should have to name what kind of files they would be seizing, and execute their seizure by plugging equipment in, and extracting a copy of the data ON SITE.

      With an obligation to destroy their copy of any materials not related to the investigation. And hold ALL materials as confidential, until/unless trial, and the materials to be disclosed are valid evidence.

    30. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      His naivety is pretty cute, though. He's like the little kid that says babies come from storks or something. It's adorable.

    31. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Hatta · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Um, the whole fucking country is crooked

      FTFY

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    32. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by grahamd0 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Your ability to blog whatever you want is no good if some stranger keeps breaking into your house and stealing stuff.

      Like the Phoenix police dept?

    33. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by ushering05401 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      As someone who was under L.A. Rampart jurisdiction for a while let me hip you to a little something, pecosdave.

      There was one person who left prints in your car that would require almost no trouble for the police to track down and prosecute for a crime.. YOU.

      A crime scene is a crime scene, you run all the prints - and no, they are not going to be paying lab fees to get an additional minor charge tacked onto a junkie stereo thief's sentence when they finally track him/her down for some unrelated crime.

      This is a tactic pretty much specific to places that have gang/drug trafficking issues - and even 12 years ago the Phoenix street was heavy in that regard.

    34. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by linzeal · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I had a restraining order AGAINST one of my gf, she was an army brat and menaced me with a M14 once. That was enough of that.

    35. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by falconwolf · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Uhm, if he's already been to court, doesn't it stand the chance that maybe he's doing something wrong and deserves what he's getting?

      Yes, he was in court before. Because he filed a lawsuit against them.

      Cops don't just randomly pick people to pick on, even the most corrupt cops. They are after all, people, and for the most part they have better things to do, until you make yourself a target.

      Except it wasn't random and he didn't make himself a target. He went through a bad divorce and his ex filed a lot of complaints against him. According to TFA some of the complaints happened when he was out of town.

      Perhaps, just maybe, the slashdot assumption that a blogger did no wrong, is infact, wrong.

      People are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty not the other way around.

      This guy is doing exactly what any liar does, just like a politician does. Screams as loudly as possible to anyone who will listen that he has been wronged and trying to drag in a bunch of support from people who don't know what actually happened because all they've heard is his one sided bullshit story that paints him to be a saint.

      The innocent should do the same thing, scream as loud as they could when wronged.

      Falcon

    36. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by interval1066 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      @ushering05401: "Blah blah blah blah..."

      Huh? What the hell does that statement have to do with anything important???? If the facts presented here on /. are correct, this move by the Phoenix PD is CLEARLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Why aren't you in as much shock as I am?

      Clearly, the nation is slowly moving towards a state fear-based govmt. It should be the opposite. WHY ISN'T ANYONE ALARMED AT THIS CRAP?

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    37. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by BitZtream · · Score: 1, Funny

      And did you deserve it?

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    38. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by linzeal · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Does anyone deserve to be menaced by a gun?

    39. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by ushering05401 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I already explained why I am not in shock - I dealt with Rampart for years, and my parents and grandparents all dealt with their own variations on the theme.

      Abusive police departments are not only not new, they are as old as history.. which is why there are judges and all the other checks/balances in modern society.

      The truth is, though, that the type of abuse that is currently causing you to PANIC and type in all caps has been the default experience for impoverished people in this country for generations.

      Somehow we keep going... I'm gonna go listen to some Dust Bowl Ballads, excuse me.

    40. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by mikewelter · · Score: 1, Insightful

      County? Isn't that a misspelling? Shouldn't that be country? In the next few years this incident will become just one of thousands.

    41. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by spazdor · · Score: 1

      I could type LOL but I feel compelled to actually tell you that you just made me laugh out loud.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    42. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by spazdor · · Score: 2, Funny

      "computer tampering with the intent to harass" sounds pretty close to what the blogger's accusing the police of.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    43. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by techno-vampire · · Score: 3, Funny

      Never mind the county corruption, the Phoenix DA employes a psychic, and allows her dreams to influence his investigations. Not only that, he's expecting to get re-elected even though this has been made abundantly public.

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    44. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Q-Hack! · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Does anyone deserve to be menaced by a gun?

      Yes, there are plenty of reasons that would cause me to "menace" you with a gun...

      --
      Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
    45. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by ultranova · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Assuming the guy didn't deserve it. You don't know why they did it. All you know is that this guy claims they are singling him out.

      True, we don't know anything with certainty. However, it sure is mighty suspicious when authority raids the home of someone critical of said authority.

      Why the fuck do you idiots assume he is telling the truth? Innocent until proven guilt, no argument there, but no where does that statement say that you BELIEVE WHAT THEY SAY until proven guilty.

      It is incoherent to simultaneously assume someone not guilty and not believe them when they say they are, in fact, not guilty.

      I hate to tell you this but most of the time when you get attacked on this level, its because you did something wrong in the first place.

      Do you have some statistics to back that claim?

      For all you know they 'blogging' could be a front for a local child porn ring.

      Why would a child porn ring need a "front"? What could the blog possibly offer their operations? And if this hypothetical criminal organization needed a front, why choose one that was bound to attract police attention?

      If you're going to go making wild accusations with no basis whatsoever, at least make them somewhat plausible.

      Only on slashdot with a bunch of paranoid 12 year olds would the first reaction to be that he was completely innocent and the cops were wrong.

      So why read this forum? Go back to 4chan and learn to troll properly. Or did they ban you from there already? Or just laugh you out?

      Another hint, if you start poking a sleeping bear with a stick, the bear eventually will wake up and eat your ass for breakfast. I suspect his blogging resulted in roughly the same result.

      Here in Finland we shoot man-eating beasts as threats to public safety rather than give them a badge and a gun. But I guess that in Capitalist America, the beast shoots you !-)

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    46. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by EsbenMoseHansen · · Score: 4, Informative

      Uh, I wouldn't go so far at this point as to say they're not a protector.

      Your ability to blog whatever you want is no good if hackers keep breaking into your web hosts servers and deleting all your content.

      Hacking is, contrary to myth, not that hard to avoid, no matter the resources. If push comes to shove, you could run the server yourself (as I do, though I don't blog).

      To elaborate: Hacking is not like forced physical entry. It is entirely possible to perfectly lock out hacking your computer remotely. In contrast, you can only delay a determined person gaining entry, unless you are willing and able to use force directly against said person: No mere lock or wall will keep out a determined person.

      Sort of like death really. TREMBLE BRIEF MORTAL! FOR I AM DEATH WHOM NO LOCK CAN HOLD NOR FASTENED PORTAL BAR! (yeah, yeah, shamely Pratchett quote there)

      --
      Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.
    47. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Zero_DgZ · · Score: 1

      I'm going to argue this point. I was once told, point blank, by a captain of the New Castle police department that, quote "his job was not to protect me from criminals, his job was to arrest be for not toeing the line."

      I'll agree that he's not a representative example. But you have to admit that the mentality is there.

      Millions of lower class, minority, and various other put-upon people like those who already have records basically can't contact the police for help or protection from criminals who target them for fear that they themselves will be victimized by the police. Consider that the first thing that usually happens in my area when you call the police to report a theft is that they start sniffling around your affairs, running your license plates, and running your name against computers to see if they can "get you for something." I've been told repeatedly that the police can't and aren't interested in investigating the petty crimes I've been a victim of because either there's not enough time or manpower, they don't care, or it's not profitable for them (fines, tickets, and drug arrests). And I'm not making this up just to back my position.

      Here's some other news: The presence of my local police department and its recent staffing increases, crackdowns, checkpoints, and threatening policing tactics hasn't done a damn thing to curtail crime or deter criminals. Crimes are up in my city, enough for the year's murder rate to keep making front page headlines.

    48. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Somehow we keep going... I'm gonna go listen to some Dust Bowl Ballads, excuse me.

      May I suggest "The Ballad of Pretty Boy Floyd"? Awfully relevant these days: "Now as through this world I ramble / I see lots of funny men / Some will rob you with a Six gun / And some with a fountain pen."

      I get amused when I hear folks complain about how rap music glorifies crime. Songs have celebrated criminals for hundreds of years: "I Shot the Sheriff", "The Ballad of Pretty Boy Floyd", going back to "Whiskey in the Jar" from the 17th century, and of course earlier to ballads of Robin Hood. When the system is corrupt -- which it always is to some degree, but sometimes worse than others -- when every cop is a criminal, than people will glorify the outlaws, and take the sinners to be saints.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    49. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Psychics are cover for evidence you can't explain without admitting you violated the 4th amendment. Using psychics means they are corrupt, not naive.

    50. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Cops don't just randomly pick people to pick on, even the most corrupt cops. They are after all, people, and for the most part they have better things to do, until you make yourself a target.

      Randomly? No. They pick their targets on a variety of criteria: race, political affiliation, religious beliefs, sexual preference, hairstyle, and so on. So, yes, you're safe until you make yourself a target by being black, or having a Grateful Dead sticker on your car, or wearing your hair in dreadlocks, or being an anti-war activist...so long as you're a middle-class white person of mainstream religious, political, and lifestyle affiliation, you've nothing to worry about.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    51. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Moofie · · Score: 1

      Yes. Yes, some people do.

      --
      Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
    52. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by techno-vampire · · Score: 1

      I take it, then, that you couldn't be arsed to follow the link before putting your foot in your mouth?

      --
      Good, inexpensive web hosting
    53. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Buy a gun, learn to shoot it. The revolution is coming.

    54. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Jerry · · Score: 5, Informative

      I was once told, point blank, by a captain of the New Castle police department that, quote "his job was not to protect me from criminals, his job was to arrest me for not toeing the line."

      He probably told you that because he is a psychopath with a badge and a gun.

      But, according the the Supreme Court, he is correct.

      The seminal case establishing the general rule that police have no duty under federal law to protect citizens is DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services (109 S.Ct. 998, 1989; 489 U.S. 189 (1989)).

      http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1976377/posts:
      "Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your family and loved ones. That was the essence of a U.S. Supreme Court decision in the early 1980's when they ruled that the police do not have a duty to protect you as an individual, but to protect society as a whole."

      "It is well-settled fact of American law that the police have no legal duty to protect any individual citizen from crime, even if the citizen has received death threats and the police have negligently failed to provide protection."

      Sources:

      7/15/05 SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES No. 04-278 TOWN OF CASTLE ROCK, COLORADO, PETITIONER v. JESSICA GONZALES, INDIVIDUALLY AND AS NEXT BEST FRIEND OF HER DECEASED MINOR CHILDREN, REBECCA GONZALES, KATHERYN GONZALES, AND LESLIE GONZALES
      On June 27, in the case of Castle Rock v. Gonzales, the Supreme Court found that Jessica Gonzales did not have a constitutional right to individual police protection even in the presence of a restraining order. Mrs. Gonzales' husband with a track record of violence, stabbing Mrs. Gonzales to death, Mrs. Gonzales' family could not get the Supreme Court to change their unanimous decision for one's individual protection. YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN FOLKS AND GOVERNMENT BODIES ARE REFUSING TO PASS THE Safety Ordinance.

      (1) Richard W. Stevens. 1999. Dial 911 and Die. Hartford, Wisconsin: Mazel Freedom Press.

      (2) Barillari v. City of Milwaukee, 533 N.W.2d 759 (Wis. 1995).

      (3) Bowers v. DeVito, 686 F.2d 616 (7th Cir. 1982).

      (4) DeShaney v. Winnebago County Department of Social Services, 489 U.S. 189 (1989).

      (5) Ford v. Town of Grafton, 693 N.E.2d 1047 (Mass. App. 1998).

      (6) Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. 1981).
      "...a government and its agencies are under no general duty to provide public services, such as police protection, to any particular individual citizen..." -Warren v. District of Columbia, 444 A.2d 1 (D.C. App. 1981)

      (7) "What makes the City's position particularly difficult to understand is that, in conformity to the dictates of the law, Linda did not carry any weapon for self-defense. Thus by a rather bitter irony she was required to rely for protection on the City of NY which now denies all responsibility to her."
      Riss"Police have no legal duty to respond and prevent crime or protect the victim. There have BEEN OVER 10 various supreme and state court cases the individual has never won. Notably, the Supreme Court STATED about the responsibility of police for the security of your family and loved ones is "You, and only you, are responsible for your security and the security of your f

      --

      Running with Linux for over 20 years!

    55. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by DinDaddy · · Score: 1

      Until. Not unless. So really, it's just a matter of time.

    56. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by dereference · · Score: 2, Informative

      I did have to call them to, my truck was broken into, I was actually surprised they finger printed when they were obviously dealing with a junky stealing stereo's for a fix.

      If I were a cynical type, I'd suggest that perhaps they were just taking that as an opportunity to collect your fingerprints.

    57. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No no, the point is that guilty people fall asleep!

    58. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by sortius_nod · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Woosh!

    59. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by sortius_nod · · Score: 0, Troll

      If only I had mod points.

      You, sir, are an artisan of trolling trolls. I tip my hat and bow before thee.

      +1 Trollslam!

    60. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by tsm_sf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Just like any other sort of job, there will be different cultures in different offices. To say that all police departments are equally corrupt is either incredibly naive or intellectually dishonest.

      Any profession that deals with controlling people will have it's problems, but seeing corruption as a boolean is simply a childish view of the world.

      --
      Literalism isn't a form of humor, it's you being irritating.
    61. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by mi · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      ACLU time, and even up to the supreme court. The Phoenix police department is about to get a federal raping.

      One would think so, but... Phoenix is governed by a Democrat since, at least, 2004. I doubt, a Democrat federal Administration would target their own. And, before you ask, yes, I believe, Blagojevich would've still been comfortably miss-governing, had the previous President been a Democrat.

      Yeah, "troll" and "flamebait", right. The people issuing glum warnings and dire predictions about America becoming a "police state" and — my favorite — being "just like" Germany of 1937, not only always vote Democrat, but are the most active and vocal part of Democrat electorate. And yet, the worst abuses of power by the governments Federal and local alike tend to happen on the Democrats' watch...

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    62. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What you're saying is that, you can't step foot

      Step foot? Is that like a foot disorder or something?

    63. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by linzeal · · Score: 1

      Menacing is a criminal charge. They give the charge to the one they think is guilty.

    64. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by shoemilk · · Score: 1

      Well, you know the saying, "The grass is greener on the other side"? If the other side is dead dying brown shit, what are you eating then?

    65. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by mysidia · · Score: 1

      That's rather disturbing, but still doesn't change the fact that police do protect you from crime.

      While you're an individual, they protect society as a whole (which you are a member of).

      You definitely benefit by having police pursue and arrest perpetrators -- it means they aren't out on the street looking to be a threat to society as a whole AND (you as an individual).

      If it's just the foremost inherent side-effect of what the law says the officers are supposed to actually do, then so be it, you still benefit from police services (albeit, indirectly, if they won't do much to protect you as an individual).

    66. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by celle · · Score: 1

      "And yet, the worst abuses of power by the governments Federal and local alike tend to happen on the Democrats' watch..."

      The democrats weren't in charge for the last eight years, actually longer. A time of some of the worst abuses of power in recent memory(since Reagan) and that technically isn't over yet, at least, not until the new president has a good reign on everything. He won't for at least six months. Right now, we're still seeing the abuses from the republicans being in charge.

    67. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Mr.+Slippery · · Score: 1

      Only the "Left" are abused of their Constitutional Rights?

      Did I say that? No, I did not.

      However, since cops tend to be conservative on social issues, bad cops who decide to abuse their authority are more likely to target liberals. More bad cops get a thrill out of harassing Rainbows than out of messing with Young Republicans.

      Of course there are cases where people are the right are unfairly harassed by law enforcement, probably the most famous being Ruby_Ridge and Waco. However these don't tend to be tangles with the local cops.

      pupils being expeled from public school for reading a Bible on a school bus on the way to school.

      Thank goodness that liberals like the ACLU are there to defend those student's rights.

      --
      Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
      You cannot wash away blood with blood
    68. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by YouWantFriesWithThat · · Score: 1

      okay "jerry" i'll bite: whose constitutional rights were violated in the link about abortion protesters in atlanta?

      they blocked the entrance to a clinic, that's illegal, they got arrested. once in jail they wouldn't give their names so they are not released. if you use civil disobedience as a tool of your political movement you will be arrested. that's the goal. the fact they stayed in jail for 40 days was their damn choice.

      why don't you read the links you post first. and as far as the GP, he was merely stating the obvious: those who stand out from the crowd get stepped on first by authoritarian cops. but you have a chip on your shoulder about abortion and had to ride in on your high horse with irrelevant links.

      (by the way, i like how your google-obfuscated link from some evangelical site tried to download a .doc file right on clicking. classy.)

    69. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Phoenix police department is about to get a federal slap on the wrist.

      Fixed that for you.

      The absolute worst that's going to happen is a handful of people get transferred to a different department. That's it.

      I read not too long ago about a ring of cops who brutally tortured well over 100 suspects. We're talking burning massive holes in them, beating them senseless, electrocuting their genitals, the whole nine yards. What happened? Millions of tax-payer dollars later, the cop heading the torture ring was "let go" with full pension.

    70. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Lots of police officers are bad. Palm Beach Florida is another example that has really bad cops (No names, mr karlecke). When they know someone's watching, they're all proper -- but when they think no one is watching, it's amazing what these guys will do when they know they can and will get away with what they do.

      Do you think anyone really investigates this stuff? Get real.
      These are the guys that seem normal are are seemingly perfect neighbors, but then turn out to be pedophiles. All it takes is one encounter with one of these bad cops to make you really question all law enforcement.

      My advice to those in or near Palm Beach: WATCH OUT -- and GET OUT.

    71. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Dragonslicer · · Score: 1

      Looks more like a CYA issue. If the police had a legal duty to "protect citizens", then they could be sued every time they failed to protect a citizen, even if there was no reasonable action they could have possibly taken to prevent the crime. If a person with no criminal record or history of violence murders their spouse, what could the police have done to prevent it?

      Of course I believe that the police's goal should be to protect the people, but a court decision that says they have the legal responsibility to do so opens up a huge door for lawsuits when they fail through no fault of their own.

    72. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by pecosdave · · Score: 1

      Bah, I work as a government contractor with an HSPD 12, my prints are filed. Guess I better stay reputable, not a problem anyway.

      --
      The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
    73. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I believe that is called Habeas Corpus. That right was suspended by The Patriot Act. Google H. Louis Sirkin, he is a civil rights lawyer. I learned this from Huster Magazine...God Bless Larry Flynt.

    74. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by AHuxley · · Score: 1

      Yes an informative vid on this for US slashdot readers is
      "Talking to the Police by Professor James Duane"
      http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8167533318153586646&hl=en

      --
      Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    75. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by witherstaff · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's marked funny but it just happened because the person, when asked why he had 4 grand in cash responded "Am I required by law to tell you?". It was caught all on tape, amusing and sad at the same time.

    76. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by sudog · · Score: 0, Redundant

      INSWPKUABIAISP.

    77. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Firehawke · · Score: 1

      Yeah, they did. I remember a long-standing feud between the local New Times crew and Maricopa county's "finest" that broke out into at least two raids on the New Times and lawsuits in response.

      The county has been caught doing some nasty stuff more than a few times in the last fifteen years, for anyone unfamiliar with Sheriff Joe Arpaio. He has cost the county millions on a year to year basis on lawsuits against the prison system over prison conditions. I don't think the county has won even a single case on that particular topic in the last ten years.

      Personally, I'd be pretty damn afraid to even point all this out if I lived in Maricopa county, in light of this article.

    78. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by remmelt · · Score: 1

      Do you have some statistics to back that claim?

      43.6%

    79. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just FYI, none of this has made the local news. Most locals don't know anything about Maricopa County (i.e. Pheonix) Sheriff Joe Arpaio except for the staged-for-TV-news raids he does on random Mexicans (some of whom are here illegally, many of whom are innocent bystanders) every election year.

      That's right. The county sheriff is an elected position here. This is why the founding fathers wanted to isolate the justice system from politics...

      We'll see if the federal investigation goes anywhere. But just so you know, it's not just Joe. He's been on the job for a long time, and there are plenty of others like him on the force from what I hear. Frankly, I prefer not to know much about them.

    80. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No - No - No - No - No..........no one is innocent. One must urinate in a cup to prove that they are!! Courts are just self perpetuating entities that help the "people in charge" make you believe that law is about right and wrong.

    81. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by moortak · · Score: 1

      Yes, the corruption is different in Cleveland. Cops stick to raiding evidence lockers http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2008/11/bratenahl_police_evidence_room.html or or posting photos of dead children online http://www.vindy.com/news/2007/oct/21/officer-admits-he-took-photo-of-dead-gunman/ Raiding a house is way too much work.

      --
      Xavier Rabourdin for president 2012
    82. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Jesus_666 · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Gesundheit.

      --
      USE HOT GRITS WITH STATUE OF NATALIE PORTMAN (NAKED AND PETRIFIED)
    83. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Jim+Hall · · Score: 1

      Did you just wake up from a 20 year sleep?

      Even 8 years would have been enough to not recognize things today.

    84. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by wxjones · · Score: 1

      Police definitely DO NOT protect you from crime. AFTER a crime has been committed, they fill out some paperwork, and then go back to giving speeding tickets. It is your responsibility to protect yourself from crime.

      --
      My SIG is a P226
    85. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Doing something wrong" doesn't necessarily mean doing something illegal. Drawing personal attention to corruption without the protection of anonimity, a cluster of lawyers, or backing of powerful political figures is "wrong" and he's payingthe price for it.

      He may not have made himself a target initially (unless the x-gf hapened to have strong ties to the police, which to begin with is dangerous for a guy...), but he made himself a target by persuing legal action against the city, and then, further, blogging about it (which is some cases, including publically revealing details in an ongoing case, or publishing slander, could very well be against the law!)

      We ARE innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately, we're not protected for the inconveniences or costs of that process, and a "suspect" or "accused" has a different set of rights than a free person. The only recourse is justice after the fact (wrongful arrest suits).

      Now, keep in mind, the cops didn't just go in thereand take this stuff. To enter his house, they had to have a DA speak to a judge and get a warent. Yes, it's possible there's enough local corruption for this to happen, but he's clearly drawning national attention, and those who are corrupt are usually not that stupid (the local judge could simply let him win his case, but with little or no consequences to the guilty...) Afterall, even if he sees it as harrassment, the cops apparently were harassing him based on submitted complaints and valid evidence. He doens't have a lot of ground to stand on unless he was beaten or something without first resisting arrest.

      Fact is, people sometimes get punished for doingthe right thing. Some of them are punished more for doing it a certain way. If you're not willing to suffer the consequences, don't pick a fight, even if you know you're going to win in the end. ...and when dealing with certain people, its a good idea to know when to fight fair and when to fight dirty. (and allways remember, especially if you fight dirty, they may have friends who will come after you later...)

    86. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by 72beetle · · Score: 1

      It's just as likely that a police station is a front for drug dealing. Better alert the DEA.

      --
      -Those who dance are considered insane by those who can't hear the music.
    87. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by kalirion · · Score: 1

      You say that now, but as soon as some vigilantes show up, you and your hippie palls take to the streets with "Badges, not Masks" signs. Fucking hypocrites....

    88. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by gilbert644 · · Score: 1

      Couldn't you just as well say that the whole fucking world is crooked? These statements don't really add to the discussion and is just mod point whoring.

    89. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by gilbert644 · · Score: 1

      Well judging from modding so far Slashdot isn't taking the high road here and assuming (or even implying the possibility) that the Phoenix Police. Practice what you preach.

    90. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      >>>Everyone aware and responsible for this farce and the reason for the seizure needs to be [shot].

      That is the only proper punishment for a government leader that abuses his power to harass the citizens. No second chances; you will pay the ultimate price and let God sort out the souls.

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    91. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by commodore64_love · · Score: 1

      We need to educate people better. "Am I required by law?" is what he kept repeating, and if the cops had said "yes" then he probably would have divulged the information. The proper response is to say, "I am exercising my Consitutional [or 5th amendment) Rights to remain silent." And just keep repeating that: "I am remaining silent."

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    92. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with most of what you said, but

      It is incoherent to simultaneously assume someone not guilty and not believe them when they say they are, in fact, not guilty.

      No it is not, that is in fact perfectly logical. Which is why there is a trial to determine as best as is possible whether the defendant is guilty or not.

    93. Re:Phoenix has done screwed up. by skam240 · · Score: 1

      The video you're referencing is pure sensationalism. The Fox news casters go out of their way to imply an anti Ron Paul conspiracy when clearly these people were concerned that said individual was transporting drug money (hence the repeated references to the DEA while the Fox news casters make no reference to it). While not in itself a crime, moving large sums of cash across state borders in this modern age is certainly suspicious.

      I am fairly certain that if he had just stated that he was carrying Ron Paul tshirt money he'd be fine.

      --
      I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
  3. No one left to speak for me by MinistryOfTruthiness · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When the Police came for the bloggers,
    I remained silent;
    I was not a blogger.

    Then they locked up the rich,
    I remained silent;
    I was not rich.

    Then they came for the gun owners,
    I did not speak out;
    I was not a gun owner.

    Then they came for the press,
    I did not speak out;
    I was not a member of the press.

    When they came for me,
    there was no one left to speak out for me.

    --
    "I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
    1. Re:No one left to speak for me by maxume · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Good thing people are talking about this, huh?

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    2. Re:No one left to speak for me by Romancer · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Who the hell modded this "off topic"?

      Seriously, can you read?

      Stand up for ALL peoples rights or they will not be there when YOU need them.

      --


      ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
      ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
    3. Re:No one left to speak for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Then they locked up the rich,

      Fail.

    4. Re:No one left to speak for me by x_MeRLiN_x · · Score: 2, Informative
    5. Re:No one left to speak for me by MinistryOfTruthiness · · Score: 1

      Thank you for proving the point.

      --
      "I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
    6. Re:No one left to speak for me by BitZtream · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Hahahah they came for the bloggers.

      Are you fucking kidding me?

      You don't even know what this guy did/didn't do, or why they took his shit, and you assume he was innocent and didn't deserve it?

      Lets make this use an evolution analogy for this, since most slashdotters perfer that religion.

      We have you, a cage at a zoo, and a sleeping bear. The bear represents the cops, you prepresent the blogger.

      Now when you get into the cage, of your own free will, and then proceed to poke the bear repeatedly with a pointy stick. He'll eventually wake up and eat you for breakfast.

      Now any normal person would say 'Duh, saw that one coming'. And I for one would have to thank the bear for working together with evolution to take your dumb ass out of the gene pool.

      I don't care how right or wrong you think you or he is, if you continually fuck with cops, you're a god damn idiot if you don't think they will eventually get tired of it and do something about it. Thats true for any one, not just cops. Fuck with the girl scouts long enough and they'll probably end up beating your ass too.

      But only in 'the free world' do we, as humans, think that there are no repercussions for our actions.

      You neither no what the guy did in the first place, what he said on his little blog, nor why the took his stuff.

      You're assuming the cops are guilty of committing a crime with absolutely no idea at all what happened. All you know is what some other bloggers wrote, GOOD source of info there, no bias or anything.

      Get a fucking grip, $10 says this guy did something illegal as shit and is just a bumbling idiot.

      $20 says the guy is a fucking moron regardless of what illegal activities he did.

      $50 says you're an idiot for jumping to conclusions with no facts what so ever. In America, people, ALL people are innocent until proven guilty, and you've already decided the cops are guilty and done so based on some story written by one of the accused.

      Let me make it better. I caught you fondling 12 year old girls last week, now you're going to jail where you will promptly be beaten and raped.

      I have just as much credibility as the people who are writing about what happened to this guy, so there for you (and the rest of slashdot) must assume you are guilty. The police will be at your door shortly.

      Twit.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    7. Re:No one left to speak for me by gorehog · · Score: 1

      Yeah, this should never have happened. Unfortunately too many people stood silent on similar issues for the past ten years. When war protesters and anti-Bush people were being arrested and held without reason all over this country there was no real outrage. When the Patriot act was passed to "protect" us there was no real outrage. now the groundwork for real fascism is in place and it is happening.

      The more I read your post the more ironic it sounds. Bloggers have been getting arrested and raided for years. Bernie Madoff and his cronies committed real crimes, what rich people are being arrested without cause? I have not heard of any new gun legislation pending, just fear of it. The free press s becoming a thing of the past because people are no longer buying independet newspapers, not because of government interference. In fact, there has been no one with influence defending individual rights for a long time. It's not like these rights are disappearing, we lost them a long time ago.

    8. Re:No one left to speak for me by MinistryOfTruthiness · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I understand your point about jumping to conclusions of innocence, but at the same time, I'll assume he's innocent until he's proven otherwise, thank you very much. Attitudes like that are exactly the reason that there's very little outrage over abuses of power. People are so cynical that they figure the guy MUST have done something bad, or that it's a foregone conclusion that the "bear" will wake up and eat people who irritate them.

      The fact is that irritating the police is not illegal -- and never should be -- and, if that's the extent of his offense, they really need to publicly own up to misconduct. The "bear" is not supposed to be able to eat people who poke them with sticks. We as a society put very strict limitations on the power of authorities -- doubly so on those who weild the power to incarcerate and kill people.

      The articles they confiscated point to it being exactly as described. Now yes, it's possible he's all loaded up with kiddie porn, is evading taxes, and possibly administering a botnet, but I haven't heard anything about any of that.

      The freedom of speech is not the freedom to say "fuck" in public places. It's to limit the government from taking retaliatory actions to your speech. It's the first line of defense against tyranny.

      --
      "I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
    9. Re:No one left to speak for me by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      This is America though, The government (Police in this case) are supposed to be afraid of the the people; not the other way around. The Police should not be poking the bear that is the general public. Obviously the police must have done something to this guy to make him feel the need to start and anti department blog.

      There is probably more to the story on both sides and more than enough stupidity and short sightedness to go around. This guy is correct though about the cable modem. In what way could the modem possibly be evidence? Its not any more then a photo copy of his cable bill would be if they needed to show he had internet access, in fact the later would be better proof.

      There actions were obviously putative! Just like the raid on that colo where almost all the equipment was seized no matter who the owner was. This should not be tolerated! I as F**K the Phoenix Police!

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    10. Re:No one left to speak for me by samriel · · Score: 1

      This is America though, The government (Police in this case) are supposed to be afraid of the the people; not the other way around. The Police should not be poking the bear that is the general public. Obviously the police must have done something to this guy to make him feel the need to start and anti department blog.

      The police can do pretty well anything they want anymore, because they get warrants for it from judges that they likely have connections with. Or bribery.

      This guy is correct though about the cable modem. In what way could the modem possibly be evidence? Its not any more then a photo copy of his cable bill would be if they needed to show he had internet access, in fact the later would be better proof.

      I have a feeling this was done in some kind of retarded attempt to stop him from ever being on the internet again. Take his modem, that'll show him.

    11. Re:No one left to speak for me by squiggleslash · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Well, he has the power. {{insert roaring noise}}

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    12. Re:No one left to speak for me by Scrameustache · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When the Police came for the bloggers,
      I remained silent;
      I was not a blogger.

      Then they locked up the rich,
      I remained silent;

      LOL!

      The police locking up the rich is a very ironic concept, considering that their purpose is to protect the rich.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    13. Re:No one left to speak for me by MinistryOfTruthiness · · Score: 1

      I put "the rich" in there because there's been a lot of public anger at them, and this populism was and is being used to confiscate their property. Witness the Congress using punitive taxation to confiscate money that they were legally owed. Witness the outrage over AIG paying people who had valid claims to money -- other companies and individuals.

      I don't want my tax money going to pay these guys either, but when you give money to an organization to pay its obligations and they do, you can't get upset about it. Better to have let them go out of business, which was my position, and avoid the situation altogether.

      That said, I don't think they need to have punitive taxation written expressly to target them once they've been given what they were contractually owed. That's an easily visible abuse of power on Congress's part, but who was outraged about that? What happens when Congress decides you shouldn't have your property?

      --
      "I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
    14. Re:No one left to speak for me by MinistryOfTruthiness · · Score: 1

      I got wrapped up in my example and forgot to come to the point:

      The point is that you need to protect everyone -- especially groups that are unpopular. Those are the hardest ones because you yourself might harbor ill feelings toward them. It's still important to realize when "equal protection under the law" isn't being applied.

      Realize that the first thing that happens when a group is targeted is that they are first vilified and made unpopular in order to not only avoid public outrage, but when done correctly, will allow you to do your work to the sound thunderous applause.

      --
      "I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
    15. Re:No one left to speak for me by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

      Oh shit! I'm a rich, gun owning, blogger that works for the press.

      --
      “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
    16. Re:No one left to speak for me by cbiltcliffe · · Score: 1

      Who the hell modded this "off topic"?

      The Phoenix Police Chief? :)

      --
      "City hall" in German is "Rathaus" Kinda explains a few things......
    17. Re:No one left to speak for me by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      I know... for the love of god, why are we PRESUMING this guy is innocent!?!?!

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    18. Re:No one left to speak for me by Gorobei · · Score: 1

      Are you aiming for a prize in

      a) stupidest analogy ever, or
      b) I have rights because others have might, or
      c) the world is a confusing place, let's bet on random things, or
      d) you're a child molester and will be raped (just saying, I think about this stuff a lot.)

      Please resubmit your essay with your competition category clearly stated.

    19. Re:No one left to speak for me by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Then they locked up the rich,
      I remained silent;
      I was not rich.

      wtf??

      Oh, I guess you mean Bernie Madoff, Martha Stuart, Leona Helmsly and O.J.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    20. Re:No one left to speak for me by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You, sir, are an idiot. Or a troll, but really, I'm leaning strongly towards idiot.

      It's just that stupid "don't fuck with people in power" attitude that has plagued this country for years. If everyone had your idiotic attitude, the ghost of Richard Nixon would still be President after everyone completely ignored Watergate, allowed him to toss out the Constitution, and declare himself leader ever after. It's idiots like you who elected George W. (as in, "What do you mean the law applies to me too?") Bush, who then—you guessed it—tossed out the Constitution and conducted a reign of scaremongering with the threat that if you spoke out against him (or just had a Muslim-sounding name, you were a terrorist who could be packed up and shipped to Egypt, Syria, or some other godforsaken part of the world and tortured or killed. Hell, with that attitude, we'd still be a fucking British colony, you moron.

      If the guy did something illegal, then let them prove it. As it is, though, all indications so far that the police are guilty as sin of gross abuse of power, and if so, every damn one of them who were involved in this should be heavily fined, jailed, and never allowed to work for law enforcement again.

      If you RTFA (reported by the Arizona Republic, you idiot, not just "some bloggers"), you'll see that a former homicide detective who is speaking out about crime lab mismanagement was also targeted. Of course, I guess that just falls under the "he should have just shut up and let the police do any damn thing they want" umbrella that is your philosophy on people who have the legal right to kill you.

      I'm not even going to try to explain how law enforcement must necessarily be held to a higher standard of not retaliating when people do things that aren't illegal no matter how much they don't like it. I'm afraid it might explode your tiny little brain that can't comprehend that things like accountability and the right to free speech is a little more complicated than poking a bear with a pointy stick. Maybe we'll get lucky and some policeman who you pissed off will throw you in a cage with a hungry bear just because he can, then maybe you'll realize how stupid and facetious your analogy really is.

    21. Re:No one left to speak for me by EonBlueTooL · · Score: 1

      Then they locked up the rich, I remained silent; I was not rich.

      To be fair a large part of our countries rich SHOULD be in prison, especially in the financial and banking centers. The things they do are pretty much criminal.

      Then they came for the press, I did not speak out; I was not a member of the press.

      I think taking a lot of our press away (fox/nbc/etc) would also be a service. Of course it would be stewart they take and not the people who are governmental mouth peices... but yeah I agree with the sentiment.

    22. Re:No one left to speak for me by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      I've never seen such a breathless defense of fascism on Slashdot as this post.

      You don't even know what this guy did/didn't do, or why they took his shit, and you assume he was innocent and didn't deserve it?

      You're assuming the cops are guilty of committing a crime with absolutely no idea at all what happened. All you know is what some other bloggers wrote, GOOD source of info there, no bias or anything.

      Get a fucking grip, $10 says this guy did something illegal as shit and is just a bumbling idiot.

      LOL.

      And then:

      Lets make this use an evolution analogy for this, since most slashdotters perfer that religion.

      Troll.

    23. Re:No one left to speak for me by BitZtream · · Score: 0, Troll

      He is innocent until proven guilty, but the cops aren't? What kind of bullshit is that? If you read the article, written mostly as an advertisment FOR HIM BY HIM you'd have a really hard time NOT thinking he was guilty.

      If you don't think the bear will wake up and eat you for irritating him, you don't deserve to live. You are an infection to our gene pool, please die so your stupidity doesn't get carried on. That is just about the dumbest statement I have ever heard and I'm amazed that your bloodline has continued this long considering your obvious complete lack of self preservation or ability to recognize danger.

      Harassment is illegal, doesn't matter if you are targeting the police or his ex-wife. If harassment is not illegal, then there is no way the cops did anything wrong here since he thinks its all about harassment, so lets just drop that bullshit idea right off the start.

      The bear is most certainly allowed to defend itself, it has no less rights than anyone else. We put very strict limitations on what they can do with their power, but we DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES take away their rights in favor of someone else, regardless of who the someone else is. Cops ARE PEOPLE, they get the EXACT SAME RIGHTS as he does, INCLUDING innocent until proven guilty.

      The articles the confiscated don't point to shit. They took a bunch of things from his home, all you know of what they took is the 3 things HE told you about. Did at any point in your thought process did it occur to you that they probably took A LOT of other crap too? Why are you assuming they are completely guilty and in the wrong and that his story is 100% truthful and honest. If you RTFA you should have at least some sort of inclination that he's not being totally truthful just based on his actions. At best, he's mentally incompetent.

      You are correct, freedom of speech is not a right to abuse speech, which is what this looks like to me. Its not a right to use speech to hurt others, which is what he was trying to do to the police. He has the right to free speech, but he can not use that speech to spread bullshit or hurt others regardless of who they are, cops or ex-wife or mayor or you or me. He just spreads unsubstantiated rumors from others who are pissed off at the cops for unknown reasons.

      Theres a reason this isn't big news, and contrary to the popular belief on slashdot, its not because of some coverup, its that this isn't a story until someone is actually showing some sort of facts. Right now to me this is nothing more than some douchebag trying to get even with cops who are about to put him in jail for something he's guilty of. Why? because he's sure as hell acting guilty.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    24. Re:No one left to speak for me by pitje · · Score: 1

      you. suck.
      please post something you thought of yourself, instead of endlessly repeating something that was redundant and stupid before it was written down the first time

      ignorant dumb idiotic americans

    25. Re:No one left to speak for me by MinistryOfTruthiness · · Score: 1

      I'm not a big fan of the national media. I don't like 90% of what they say, I don't like how they control the public conversation, I don't like the spin they put on issues so that rational discourse becomes impossible -- I like very little about them. Hell, they're the real Ministry of Truthiness that inspired my nick. They don't care about the truth as long as what they're saying sounds good and suits their purpose.

      When totalitarianism comes to America, the press will be used to drive public opinion. When it's finally outlived its usefulness and its tremendous power becomes dangerous, they'll be eliminated like the "dangers" they denounced before them.

      As for who should and should not be in jail, I suggest that you leave "the rich" label aside. Criminals are criminals. If they violated the law, they should be in jail. Leave class warfare out of it.

      --
      "I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
    26. Re:No one left to speak for me by ScentCone · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I've never seen such a breathless defense of fascism on Slashdot as this post.

      You don't actually know what word means, do you?

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    27. Re:No one left to speak for me by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 2, Informative

      "He is innocent until proven guilty, but the cops aren't? What kind of bullshit is that?"

      The only bullshit here is your interpretation of the phrase "innocent until proven guilty". The cops aren't the ones being charged under the law, and the presumption of innocence applies only to those so charged. The presumption of innocence doesn't apply at all to criticism of public officials, which is apparently all this blogger is guilty of.

      In any case, you are clearly an idiot. If I had mod points I'd have modded you a troll instead of replying.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    28. Re:No one left to speak for me by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Are you serious?

      The police aren't supposed to fear anyone, neither are the citizens. You think they police should be afraid of the public? Is this some sort of way that you can get over the fact that society isn't made of one class of citizens no matter what the government or country? Is this some sort of screwed up power trip that you think you should have over the cops? Sounds to me like you're exactly like one of the cops you say fuck the police to, you just don't have the badge. How sick does that make you?

      I hide shit all over my house when I don't want someone to find it. I can tell you for a fact that taking my computer would net you some pretty unexpected things that are completely unrelated to the PC in every way.

      Cops want to get in and get out. The longer they stay there the longer everyone bitchs and the harder it is for them to get their jobs done. They take EVERYTHING the warrent will allow them to take because its far better to have all the evidence and not know it than it is to get half the evidence and figure it out right after the criminal has destroyed the part you needed because you missed it the first time through his house.

      Its very clear that you don't respect police, which I can accept because you may have some past bad experience.

      What I do not accept however is that you have no respect for the position the police are in when these things happen. Not everything they do is out to get you, and unless you know their entire thought pattern or have any experience doing their job, perhaps you might want to consider what it might be like from their perspective.

      I don't expect you to understand though, these sort of things usually come after you get out of high school, grow up, move into the real world and out of your parents house, and stop saying childish shit like 'fuck the police'.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    29. Re:No one left to speak for me by MinistryOfTruthiness · · Score: 2, Informative

      How about another one?

      "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance?"

      I'm sorry you don't like that I reference a writing that was about abuse of power and the coming of totalitarianism and the public's silence as it happened. It's important to remind people of the price that will be paid for letting the little things slide. The "little things" add up pretty quickly, and before you know it, you're asking yourself how this could happen in your country.

      You call Americans idiotic and dumb, but the poem written was about the idiocy of Europeans as they stood by and watched the worst happen. Excuse me if I don't want to do the same. Excuse me if I don't hold out hope that Europeans will come to fight for my freedom like Americans came to fight for theirs when they passively watched the rise of madmen.

      --
      "I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
    30. Re:No one left to speak for me by Aqualung812 · · Score: 1
      The cops could have defended themselves in the same way he attacked them: on the Internet. They could post their own counter-arguments to whatever he was saying. There is nothing wrong with that, and everything right about that.

      Instead, they invaded his home and stole items from him.

      For example, if I say on Slashdot "You are an asshole", you could feel free to say, "No, YOU are an asshole". However, you are NOT allowed to come take my computer equipment away.

      --
      Grammer Nazis - I mod you "troll" unless you actually add something on-topic. Yes, I know I have mispellings in my sig.
    31. Re:No one left to speak for me by BitZtream · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Are you serious? I'm pretty sure they were adults and not 6 year olds saying 'sticks and stones my break my bones'

      You can call me an asshole on slashdot all day long, and you'd probably be right. But when I come take your computer because it was actually stolen from my dad in the first place, doesn't make me a corrupt cop or guilty of being evil, it just means the public isn't aware of the fact that not only are you a name caller, you are a thief and in general a douche bag.

      Instead your just assuming the cops are doing wrong and have no actual idea about what happened. Did you RTFA? He admits he's harassed several city officials in his OMG POLICE ARE EVIL AND RAPED ME! post.

      What would be stupid, and is pretty much whats happened here so far is that I saw you doing something that resembled eating shit, and while my mouth was full of shit I've been eating, I screamed 'OMG HES EATING SHIT THATS WRONG!' and everyone ignores the fact that I have shit dripping from my chin and spewing out while I speak. And then tomorrow we find out that you were eating pudding, not shit. And then you proceed to feel like a douche bag for listening to the stupid blogger in the first place.

      Is this whats going to happen? I have no idea, but neither do you as we have absolutely 0 idea about whats going on in this case, we just have a rant about bad cops who spends his days harassing city officials and blogging about bad cops.

      You'll have to forgive me if I put a little more faith in the police than a douche bag blogger. I've also been around long enough to know these things are very rarely what they seem, thanks to the publics ability to run with sensationalist unverified blog spewings and idiots who blindly believe it.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    32. Re:No one left to speak for me by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      Get a fucking grip, $10 says this guy did something illegal as shit and is just a bumbling idiot.

      Who's making an ass by assuming something now? And without reading TFA?

      $50 says you're an idiot for jumping to conclusions with no facts what so ever.

      Who jumping to conclusions now? Without reading TFA>

      ALL people are innocent until proven guilty, and you've already decided the cops are guilty

      Yet you persist in saying this guy is guilty. You're even willing to bet money on it.

      Falcon

    33. Re:No one left to speak for me by HAKdragon · · Score: 1

      Because he hasn't been proven guilty.

      --
      "Our opponent is an alien starship packed with atomic bombs. We have a protractor."
    34. Re:No one left to speak for me by Naturalis+Philosopho · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or you don't. I love the English language as much as the next guy, and realize that fascism used to refer to to a specific sociopolitical system. However, I also realize that "fascism" is used in the the vernacular to refer to any over-reaching authoritarian system that uses strong arm tactics to maintain it's power; more specifically one that used these tactics against anyone who disagrees with them, regardless of whether or not their target is guilty of anything other than this disagreeing. These tactics generally include intimidation, harassment, unlawful search and seizure, or even incarceration of the targeted individual or individuals. "Ain't" didn't used to be in the dictionary either, even when everybody knew what it meant. Get over it.

    35. Re:No one left to speak for me by GrumblyStuff · · Score: 1

      ...$10 says this guy did something illegal as shit...

      In America, people, ALL people are innocent until proven guilty, and you've already decided the cops are guilty and done so based on some story written by one of the accused.

      Hmm.

    36. Re:No one left to speak for me by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      If you read the article, written mostly as an advertisment FOR HIM BY HIM

      TFA was written by him for him? The writer of the first article was Carlos Miller but his name is Jeff Pataky. Is Carlos a pseudonym? The writer of the second one was Michael Ferraresi, is that also a pseudonym?

      The articles the confiscated don't point to shit.

      What?

      If you RTFA you should have at least some sort of inclination that he's not being totally truthful just based on his actions.

      Based on what?

      He just spreads unsubstantiated rumors from others who are pissed off at the cops for unknown reasons.

      And you're not spreading "unsubstantiated rumors" about him?

      ts that this isn't a story until someone is actually showing some sort of facts. Right now to me this is nothing more than some douchebag trying to get even with cops who are about to put him in jail for something he's guilty of.

      And where's your evidence he's guilty? Or is it a one way street, they're innocent until proven guilty but he's automatically guilty?

      Falcon

    37. Re:No one left to speak for me by corbettw · · Score: 1

      Wow. I actually had to remove a Friend from my list just to make room for you as a foe. Thanks a lot, jerk.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    38. Re:No one left to speak for me by machine321 · · Score: 1

      You don't even know what this guy did/didn't do, or why they took his shit, and you assume he was innocent and didn't deserve it?

      Isn't that how it's supposed to work, at least in theory?

    39. Re:No one left to speak for me by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 0, Redundant

      Exactly. I thought I could get away with it without some pretentious half-wit complaining. I guess I was wrong.

    40. Re:No one left to speak for me by cgranade · · Score: 1

      Thank you for proving the point.

      How so? Or is your point that implementing progressive taxation for the purpose of helping all members of society have opportunities available to them is even comparable to illegally seizing private property for merely speaking against corruption? If so, then yes, your point was proven to be as callous and hollow as one might initially have guessed.

      --

      #define DRM chmod 000

    41. Re:No one left to speak for me by dotgain · · Score: 1
      Ohhh, watch your step. I shut the fuck up the minute he wagered *ten*dollars*. On *Slashdot*.

      If that fucker don't know what he's talking about I don't know who does.

    42. Re:No one left to speak for me by gorehog · · Score: 1

      The rich should be taxed more because they benefit more from society. Without a society to generate the structure of industry and banking they would be homeless and uneducated. Since they benefit the most from society they should pay to support it. The way we're doing things now the rich are getting the benefits while others pay into the system.

    43. Re:No one left to speak for me by sudotron · · Score: 1

      Cops =/= Bears

      Besides which, even if this crudely formed analogy were true, the equivalent of the blogger's actions would be shouting insults at the bear from outside the cage. The bear, being at the zoo, ought to be used to that sort of thing.

      Now if the cops were pedobear....

    44. Re:No one left to speak for me by lupis42 · · Score: 1

      Unlike the Girl Scouts, the Police are, nominally, legally obligated *NOT* to what you describe. That is all.

    45. Re:No one left to speak for me by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 1

      "He admits he's harassed several city officials in his OMG POLICE ARE EVIL AND RAPED ME! post."

      Where does he admit to "harassing several city officials"?

      As far as I can tell, dear troll, the claim is that the blog itself constitutes harassment, which is simply ridiculous. Public criticism of public officials doesn't constitute harassment, no matter how offended the cops are by the blog posts.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    46. Re:No one left to speak for me by MinistryOfTruthiness · · Score: 0

      I think you "misunderestimate" (heh) the symbiosis. I also don't buy that they benefit the most from infrastructure. Additionally, I think progressive taxation can be extremely dangerous for society if not very carefully managed.

      NYC and NY State, just as an example, took HUGE budgetary hits when these execs refused their bonuses. Why? Because it turns out to be exactly as you said: they pay the bulk of the taxes. Great, but understand this: when this small segment of society bears the lion's share of the taxes, you need to make darn sure that those people's income is guaranteed. Otherwise you find yourself in the unenviable position of NYC and NY State -- either wholesale cutting of services or massive tax increases. Being government, they chose both roads. Why? Because these evil execs all of a sudden don't have the income to tax. Moral of the story: Progressive taxes set up the government for a massive fall if something happens to a relatively few people's income. It puts most of the eggs in one basket -- and then people are idiots enough to hate on that basket.

      Remember that it is not them personally who benefit from infrastructure -- it's predominantly their businesses. Think about it: Why do you say they benefit the most? Because water supplies their businesses -- for use by their employees. Because subways and roads supply transit to their businesses -- for their employees. Because police keep whom in their businesses safe? Oh! Again: their employees.

      The idea that they somehow personally benefit from roads more than the rest of us is ridiculous. They personally use them as much as anyone else. If you're talking about how it benefits their businesses then remember WHO is using those services: the employees.

      Now I ask you: Where would you and I be without those businesses? Should we all run our own stores out of our garages? How much money do you think you'll make when your next 5 neighbors all sell the same thing as you out of their garages? The fact is that THE EMPLOYEES realize a HUGE benefit from these businesses and the surrounding infrastructure.

      I think you'll find that the relationship is exactly the opposite as you suppose.

      --
      "I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
    47. Re:No one left to speak for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Should not freedom of speech allow me to type anything I want on my keyboard without fear of persecution.

    48. Re:No one left to speak for me by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Exactly. I thought I could get away with it without some pretentious half-wit complaining. I guess I was wrong.

      Spoken like a true Creationist.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    49. Re:No one left to speak for me by thejynxed · · Score: 1

      I find it odd to find certain people flagged friend of a friend and foe of a friend at the same time, such as yourself.

      Then again, I seem to fail at friend stuff on /. (namely, gaining many, but I don't actually post useless comments to everything either), c'est ma vie. /OffTopic + Posted with No Karma Bonus

      --
      @Mindless Drivel: 100% of Twitter posts ever Tweeted.
    50. Re:No one left to speak for me by psnyder · · Score: 1

      Since they benefit the most from society they should pay to support it.

      But you're forgetting what money actually is. It's credit, given to someone for having done some sort of work. Either they put something together, dug something out of the earth, grew something, or did another kind of service. If that's not the case, then it's stolen money and there are laws for that.

      It gets a hell of a lot more complicated with the fact that we can 'invest' that credit and also pass our credit to whomever we wish.

      In a perfect socialized world, each person would do the same amount of work and everyone would think it all had the same value and pay everyone the same thing. There would be no rich or poor, because you'd be paying money at the same rate that you're earning it.

      But in the real world, people have put more value on some goods and services and less on others. So the rich are rich, because other people gave them their money. Or they gave their families money, and those families passed it onto their children.

      So it's the opposite of your statement. They are rich because society has benefited the most from them. Or people were stupid and paid them too much. Either way, it's society that gave them that money because they thought the service was valuable.

      The problems arise when some company takes sole control of a valuable resource and uses that power for extortion. This is called a monopoly, and there are laws against it.

      Other problems arise when people are misled into thinking something is valuable when it's not. Again there are laws against this kind of false advertising.

      Finally, there are problems when people are just stupid with their priorities and squander their money.

      The government taking that money from the rich is essentially saying, "These people were stupid and gave you too much. We're going to give it back to them."

      The way we're doing things now the rich are getting the benefits while others pay into the system.

      What benefits are you talking about? Roads? Police? Firefighters? Public schools? Parks? The 'industry and banking' that you mentioned is private.

    51. Re:No one left to speak for me by LaskoVortex · · Score: 1

      Thank you for proving the point.

      How so? [Bunch of drivel clipped.]

      I'm going to help you out: the rich wouldn't be targeted because, my friend, they are rich.

      --
      Just callin' it like I see it.
    52. Re:No one left to speak for me by soren202 · · Score: 1

      If he's wrongfully insulting the police department (spreading lies, etc) it's libel. They can charge him on that, and do things the right way.

      In this case, the cops knew that they probably wouldn't successfully charge him with libel, acted like babies, and confiscated things that shouldn't have been confiscated, made abundantly clear by taking legal files against them.

      Freedom of speech is around exactly for shit like this. It's so that people can speak out the government without fear of retaliation. It's nice that you seem to think otherwise - you're allowed your opinion - but as you've already admitted, they took his equipment because he was practicing his freedom of speech, making them pretty much entirely at fault.

    53. Re:No one left to speak for me by soren202 · · Score: 1

      To be honest, the cops SHOULD be afraid of the public. That doesn't create more red tape for them or make it less likely for them to get their jobs done, it just makes it more likely to keep them from harassing citizens that shouldn't be harassed.

      If anything, making them focus on taking down REAL criminals makes it MORE likely for them to get their job done. I, for one, want to be protected by the police, not harassed. I don't know about you though, you may be fine with having the police wrongly seize your stuff and push false or unjust charges on you, just because they don't like you.

    54. Re:No one left to speak for me by maxume · · Score: 1

      The punitive taxation is a red herring; the House passed it for constituency points and the Senate never even considered it. That's a long way from actually 'using' it.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    55. Re:No one left to speak for me by MinistryOfTruthiness · · Score: 0

      They scared these people into giving the money back. One guy gave most of it to charity -- which I thought was a much more classy and appropriate move. Congress didn't get the satisfaction of bullying him into giving it back, and it went to places where it could probably do more good than the government would have ever done.

      Essentially, he said "Fine -- I won't keep it so you assholes will leave me alone, but it's still my money and I'm doing what I want with it -- not what you tell me." Good on ya, buddy.

      --
      "I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
    56. Re:No one left to speak for me by endymion.nz · · Score: 1

      I think you'll find the relationship between employers and employees is exactly the opposite as you imply. A happy, productive employee benefits the employer, so all of those things that make life better for the employee, flow on to make life better for the employer.

      --
      mediocrity rules, man
    57. Re:No one left to speak for me by maxume · · Score: 1

      No, that was Cuomo threatening to publish their names.

      --
      Nerd rage is the funniest rage.
    58. Re:No one left to speak for me by MinistryOfTruthiness · · Score: 0

      Why do people insist on believing this is one-sided? I work to make life better for ME. Why do you insist that I derive no benefit from my job? Why would people work anyway? Of course the employer benefits -- and he benefits more than any one employee, certainly. Then again, he runs a business, has taken the big risks, and has put in the effort required to be in that position to begin with.

      Are you really that sour that your boss makes more than you do? Seriously?

      --
      "I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
    59. Re:No one left to speak for me by sortius_nod · · Score: 1

      I think if everyone spends a minute to read other posts (http://slashdot.org/~BitZtream) in other threads you've written in they'd realise a few things:

      1) you are an idiot of the highest degree
      2) you think everyone other than yourself are 12 year olds on slashdot
      3) you seem to side with authorities

      From this I can possibly draw the following conclusion:

      You are a 12 year old who wants to be a cop, but never will due to a mental disability that prevents yourself from even getting past the application stage.

      I'd hazard a guess that you don't like geeks/nerds because you feel intimidated by intellectuals so use a geek/nerd site to vent your frustration. While you seem like a troll, I feel that you're not, more of a fool trying to intimidate intellectuals with brute force. I can't say I've ever seen this work on the internet, sure, if we were at a bar and you were physically bigger than me it'd work, but here, we can deconstruct your arguments without fear of reprisal.

      I'd suggest going back to 4chan or Fark where your gun-nut, authoritarian loving, bush fans live.

    60. Re:No one left to speak for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey look everyone. This guy is capable of regurgitating teenage internet speak!

    61. Re:No one left to speak for me by ktappe · · Score: 1

      Thank you for proving the point.

      Hardly. The entire point of the original post was to list things that COULD happen so that readers might be enlightened and gain a bit of empathy and insight. If you list something that would never happen, the entire intended point is blown. That's exactly what happened and that's why he's right, it's a fail.

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    62. Re:No one left to speak for me by JohnRoss1968 · · Score: 0

      When the Police came for the bloggers, I remained silent; I was not a blogger. Then they locked up the rich, I remained silent; I was not rich. Then they came for the gun owners, I did not speak out; I was not a gun owner. Then they came for the press, I did not speak out; I was not a member of the press. When they came for me, My ass was in Canada (but I left them some cookies and milk with a nice letter that told them to go F%#@ Themselves)

    63. Re:No one left to speak for me by mi · · Score: 1

      Or is your point that implementing progressive taxation for the purpose of helping all members of society have opportunities available to them is even comparable to illegally seizing private property for merely speaking against corruption?

      Yes, it is comparable — and increasingly so. First of all, your priorities are screwed up. "Progressive taxation" is a fact of life, because of the principle, that your taxes are based on your ability to pay. This principle existed since long before the politicians recognized, that they can get elected by promising the poor to "take care" of them. It was neither meant to "give opportunities", nor is it achieving that goal. Despite the poorer half of the Americans paying less than 3% of the total tax, the upward mobility in the country has slowed over the decades.

      And now back to the validity of comparing to the case at hand... Contrary to your accusations, the guy's property was seized neither illegally (explicit accusation) nor permanently (implicit). In fact, most of his property is still with him, thankfully. He is, by all appearances, being harassed by the government (incidentally — Democratic government) he criticized, which is very wrong.

      But the 90% punitive taxes (except, of course, on the government employees), government's takeover of firms (on the Executive's whim), and refusal to release control of the firms willing and able to pay back the government's money are much worse.

      --
      In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
    64. Re:No one left to speak for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The government taking that money from the rich is essentially saying, "These people were stupid and gave you too much. We're going to give it back to them."

      Yes, exactly. Sometimes people make mistakes. One function of government is to make sure the system continues to work in spite of people making mistakes and taking advantage.

      Other problems arise when people are misled into thinking something is valuable when it's not. Again there are laws against this kind of false advertising.

      So you agree that the rich should not be allowed to take advantage, we only seem to disagree about when they take advantage.

    65. Re:No one left to speak for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So the rich never got locked up by the Communists in China and Russia?? My my, I must have studied history incorrectly. Sorry.

    66. Re:No one left to speak for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *woosh*

    67. Re:No one left to speak for me by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      Are you on drugs? I'm a Richard Dawkins-book-toting atheist.

    68. Re:No one left to speak for me by Maxo-Texas · · Score: 1

      Isn't it whoosh?

      I don't want to presume too much.

      --
      She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
    69. Re:No one left to speak for me by banffbug · · Score: 1

      What about the rich dissidents, the ones that can actually do something about the whole mess? The ones with the most power AND some conscience. Not all the rich are equal.

    70. Re:No one left to speak for me by banffbug · · Score: 1

      Sheeple like to make snap judgments without bothering to educate themselves about the subject first, not even 5 minutes.

    71. Re:No one left to speak for me by FrkyD · · Score: 1

      well, if you got rich working for the press you must be corrupt.

    72. Re:No one left to speak for me by pitje · · Score: 1

      *yawn*

      i'd rather see that people stop 'rescuing' other people from 'madmen'. All things considered it causes more trouble that it solves.
      'freedom' is not something you can force upon others. Freedom is pillaged, raped, beaten and left for dead. Freedom has been reduced to a name for french fries.

      Repeating age-old crap --no matter how 'righteous', 'true' or insightful it was back then-- doesn't help solve the problem and only shows that people will not learn from history, making the entire quote redundant.

    73. Re:No one left to speak for me by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      Are you on drugs? I'm a Richard Dawkins-book-toting atheist.

      You're also not very subtle. I figured that if you can use the world "fascist" to mean things that it doesn't mean, but think that by hurling it about you're scoring points somehow, then you might enjoy another, similarly incindiary word being used equally out context and in a way that also dumbs down convesation. "Fascist" is not the same as "over-reacting municipal PD" or "judge that issues warrant he maybe shouldn't have." When there really are Fascists still out there running governments, why rob the word of meaning? When it gets slung around like that, it's no different than a kid who's angry at his parents (for making him finish his math homework) calling them the same thing. It's drama-queen theatrics that betray a lack of historical awareness or perspective.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    74. Re:No one left to speak for me by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      Jesus, even the dictionary contains the definition I was using:

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/fascist

      2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

      You seem quite distressed over the whole issue. Perhaps you feel I've cheapened your ideology or something. Sorry. How about "totalitarian" instead?

    75. Re:No one left to speak for me by ScentCone · · Score: 1

      It seems you're also having trouble understanding "autocratic" and "dictatorial." The police department in question works at the pleasure of that city's mayor and city council. They are elected officials, and the city holds regular, bloodless elections that can - at the whim of th voters - completely change the landscape. There is likewise a state and federal court system in place to hear and act upon cases of unconstitutional behavior by local officials. There are civil and criminal proceedings that can be, and are routinely followed in such cases - should the PD and the judge who issued the warrant actually have crossed a line somewhere (this hasn't actually been established, obviously).

      Systems with checks, balances, and the means by which to redress lapses in them aren't autocratic or dictatorial. What's the point of saying you found a definition of a word if the definition doesn't actually apply? Does the city council in Pheonix not care? Does the state government in Arizona not care? If not, are you unable to use elections to alter who sets the policies and disciplines government employees that work under them? The mayor of Pheonix isn't Hugo Chavez, or Raul Castro.

      --
      Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
    76. Re:No one left to speak for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When the Police came for the bloggers,
      I remained silent;
      I was not a blogger.

      Then they locked up the rich,
      I remained silent;
      I was not rich.

      Then they came for the gun owners,
      I did not speak out;
      I was not a gun owner.

      Then they came for the press,
      I did not speak out;
      I was not a member of the press.

      When they came for me,
      there was no one left to speak out for me.

      When the Police came for the bloggers,
      I remained silent;
      I was not a blogger.

      Then they locked up the rich,
      I remained silent;
      I was not rich.

      Then they came for the gun owners,
      I did not speak out;
      I was not a gun owner.

      Then they came for the press,
      I did not speak out;
      I was not a member of the press.

      When they came for me,
      there was no one left to speak out for me.

      IN RESPONSE TO THIS WONDERFULL QUOTE I SAY THIS TO YOU ANOTHER FAMOUS QUOTE. URIPIDIS SAID.,"WHEN SOCIETY BEGINS TO MAKE THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN IT"S SCHOLARS AND IT"S SOLDIERS.," IT IS SOON LED BY FOOLS AND DEFENDED BY COWARDS.,"

    77. Re:No one left to speak for me by MindlessAutomata · · Score: 1

      In -theory-, anyway.

    78. Re:No one left to speak for me by Falconhell · · Score: 1

      Respect is earned not given. These police obviously deserve no respect by their own actions.

      You are an idiot of the highest order.

    79. Re:No one left to speak for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Then they came for the gun owners,
      I did not speak out;
      I was not a gun owner."

      All through my life I have met many many many gun owning people who are the most ethical (read obey the law because they are good inherently, and the law just happens to be there) will fight such acts, since they are only the precursor to enslavement by your own government. These people will not stand by and watch their neighbors taken away for political reasons, and will not roll over for "the Law". These people come from all walks of life, professional, working class, ex-military, ex-law enforcement, etc. Because they dare to think that the law and it's enforcement is not the end all be all of society, they are labeled 'dangerous' by many. I am glad I know these people.

      What is at issue is an unfortunately common viewpoint among SOME (not all) law enforcement that there are two levels of citizen ship, Cops first, 'Civilians' (non cops) second.

      this is my country, so I will fight for it.

      Make the poem end with this

      "When the bastards came for me, I Gave them HELL!"

    80. Re:No one left to speak for me by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      ...
      Then they locked up the rich, ...
      Then they came for the gun owners, ...

      Isn't it, like, "then they came for the Republicans"?

    81. Re:No one left to speak for me by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      I don't know in what universe you happen to live in, but in the real one you can't charge people with 'harassment'.

      Harassment is simply one of the possible grounds for getting a restraining order. It is not a criminal action per se.

      And also harassment requires communication with the victim. You cannot harass people simply by talking about them in public.

      That would be slander or libel, which is not a crime, although you could be sued for it.

      He was charged with the crime of 'pretty theft', based on pictures he'd made of things that looked like police nameplates but he asserts he created himself. Getting a search warrant based on publicly posted pictures and asserting 'theft' is pretty absurd...and I hope those police actually reported their nameplates stolen.

      Nameplates, in case you're confused, are those things on police officer's desks. He created some in photoshop for his website, or just had some fakes engraved (They cost like 5 dollars.), and they're asserting that he actually stole nameplates from the police department, in what would be the stupidest theft ever.

      He's also charged with 'computer tampering with the intent to harass', which is the same crime as 'computer tampering', which he almost certain did not do.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    82. Re:No one left to speak for me by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Because one of the 'crimes' he was accused of was stealing desktop faceplates (Those things on desks with a person's name.) from a police department, taking pictures of them, and putting those pictures on the internet?

      Things people don't do, #29483: Steal things worth five dollars, with people's name on them, from the police, and post pictures of that on the internet.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    83. Re:No one left to speak for me by MinistryOfTruthiness · · Score: 0

      No, but thanks for the thought. :-)

      --
      "I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
    84. Re:No one left to speak for me by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then they locked up the rich...

      Yeah, right.

    85. Re:No one left to speak for me by tygerstripes · · Score: 1

      I agree with you 100%, but still... don't feed the trolls.

      --
      Meta will eat itself
  4. Backfired! by Tryle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is what happens when panic'd decisions are made. The police force thinks they can go in and silence the whole thing with a BS warrant and put an end to it, only for the story to be picked up nation wide and now they're drawing way more attention than ever.

    Serves them right. This looks like a clear cut abuse of power by the department and now that the story is national, hopefully some heads will roll.

    1. Re:Backfired! by langelgjm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The real question is, who's the judge who signed the warrant?

      If the guy's done nothing wrong, the department either fabricated information in requesting the warrant, in which case heads should roll, or the judge is incompetent, in which case the judge should be fired.

      --
      "Anyone who [rips a CD] is probably engaging in copyright infringement." - David O. Carson
    2. Re:Backfired! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Fortunately for all involved, nobody will hear about it. Oh wait, Slashdot...

    3. Re:Backfired! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The Phoenix law apparently never heard of the "Striesand" effect... Phoenix PD epic FAIL!!

    4. Re:Backfired! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Playing devil's advocate, the blogger could have done something bad we don't know about. It's probably best to hear both sides of the story on this one.

    5. Re:Backfired! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is a unhappy situation that the local law courts and Judges in many places are just an extension of the Police and District Attorney's office. When have you heard of a warrant being denied. How often do you hear of the Police or District Attorney's office getting slapped down? The Cops and DA always get what they want and often get away with actual murder.

    6. Re:Backfired! by McGruber · · Score: 4, Informative

      The real question is, who's the judge who signed the warrant?

      FTA: "Maricopa County Judge Gary Donahoe (http://www.superiorcourt.maricopa.gov/JudicialBiographies/Judges/judicialBio.asp?jdgID=19&jdgUSID=121) signed the search warrant"

    7. Re:Backfired! by russotto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If the guy's done nothing wrong, the department either fabricated information in requesting the warrant, in which case heads should roll, or the judge is incompetent, in which case the judge should be fired.

      How do you fire a rubber stamp?

    8. Re:Backfired! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      in which case the judge should be fired...

      ...out of a cannon...

    9. Re:Backfired! by Chees0rz · · Score: 1

      It happens on Law and Order: SVU all the time.

    10. Re:Backfired! by DarkOx · · Score: 1

      When have you heard of a warrant being denied.

      Happens all the time. Usually its a non event which is why you don't hear about it. Often just because they can't get a warrant then and there does not mean the investigation is over. It just means they need to find more cause. Shouting all over town that their warrant to search X or seize Y was refused would prevent them from being able to continue observation because the potential offenders would be tipped off.

      --
      Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
    11. Re:Backfired! by samriel · · Score: 1

      Playing devil's advocate, the blogger could have done something bad we don't know about. It's probably best to hear both sides of the story on this one.

      If the police had/have a legitimate reason for what they did, NOW is the time for them to be johnny-on-the-spot with it. The outrage is already public. Even if they have some kind of retarded reason for it, that's going to sound better than some kind of stunned/malicious silence that usually follows these types of things.

      IDNRTFA

    12. Re:Backfired! by ion.simon.c · · Score: 1

      ... panic'd ...

      It seems that you have failed to type the word "panicked". Perhaps this error will be avoided in the future.

    13. Re:Backfired! by sexybomber · · Score: 1

      If the guy's done nothing wrong, the department either fabricated information in requesting the warrant, in which case heads should roll, or the judge is incompetent, in which case the judge should be fired.

      I think you mean "disbarred". Signing off on something that is clearly a gross violation of a private citizen's civil rights goes beyond mere incompetency. Not only is it profoundly unethical, it's also a Federal crime. I don't know the particular statute off the top of my head, but there's definitely a section of the U.S. Code that deals with violation of civil rights, and somebody's liable under it.

      (IANAL yet. Nothing I say is legal advice, yadda yadda yadda)

    14. Re:Backfired! by Hatta · · Score: 1

      Neither of which will happen.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    15. Re:Backfired! by clyde_cadiddlehopper · · Score: 2, Informative

      According to TFA, "Maricopa County Judge Gary Donahoe signed the search warrant." Judge Donahoe 's qualifications are described here. His contact information (including phone and email address) is here.

      --
      Obi-Wan: "I felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were sudden
    16. Re:Backfired! by NoobixCube · · Score: 1

      A judge is essentially a government employee. Name one competent government employee. I double dare you. Nobody in government gets fired for incompetence.

      --
      Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
    17. Re:Backfired! by LackThereof · · Score: 3, Informative

      The warrant the judge signed was for Petty Theft, and "Computer Fraud with the intent to Harass".

      The blogger is suing the City of Phoenix over it, which means the judge and the police will both be examined, if the case goes anywhere.

      The alleged petty theft was for several officer's nameplates, which are actually copies made at a local trophy shop. Etched black lettering on a silver 2x8" plaque, Times New Roman, 48pt for the title, 72pt bold for the name.

      --
      Legalize recreational marijuana. Seriously.
    18. Re:Backfired! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, worldwide since it got on slashdot (and I wouldn't be surprised if it showed up on digg, shareit, facebook and whatnot).
       
      Somebody please make sure the officers in charge at least get fired and hopefully jailed for violating the first amendment?

    19. Re:Backfired! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ....into the sun....

    20. Re:Backfired! by hot+soldering+iron · · Score: 5, Informative

      You forgot the other option: There wasn't any warrant issued. I happened to "see" a raid executed several years ago without a warrant (in Dallas). When we asked to see it, the cop in charge said,"Don't worry, we'll have one by the time we get to the jail." I spent 4 days in a holding cell before being released with all charges dropped against me. My friend wound up in court with a disbelieving judge catching the arresting cops in lies, and who dismissed the whole case after 15 min of police testimony. It still cost my friend several months and thousands of dollars for his lawyer to prepare a defense.

      That absolutely killed ANY trust in the legal system (there is no JUSTICE in it).

      --
      When you want something built, come see me. If you want correct grammar and spelling, get a F*ing liberal arts student.
    21. Re:Backfired! by whiledo · · Score: 1

      Obama.

      --
      Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
    22. Re:Backfired! by evann · · Score: 1

      heads will roll? that's typical. blame someone. why not start talking about real reform? \=

    23. Re:Backfired! by NoobixCube · · Score: 1

      Jury's still out on that one. I'll wait about a year or two before I decide if he's done anything good or bad. On the one hand you have the crowd expecting him to wave his magic wand and make everything as happy as a 1950s propaganda ad, and on the other you have those who criticize him for NOT waving his magic wand. I want all of that crap to die down before I judge Obama either way - I'm not American, had no obligation to vote, so I can sit back with popcorn. He's America's problem, since I can't do anything about him.

      --
      Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
    24. Re:Backfired! by whiledo · · Score: 1

      I'm not making any statements on whether he's "good" or "bad." I'm merely making one about competence. Anyone who can look at the guy's qualifications and claim he's not competent is capable of some massively willful ignorance.

      --
      Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
    25. Re:Backfired! by adolf · · Score: 1

      Good = competent, bad = incompetent. Those aren't the only meanings of any of those words, but they're pretty common ones. ("Joe's a good worker," "Tammy is bad at that job.")

      It's all about the context. And in this context, "good" is synonymous with "competent." (Isn't English fun?)

      I think you're begging the question, in the traditional sense of the word, with your strong reaction. Nobody said Obama was incompetent, or bad, or anything else negative in this thread, but you're arguing as if someone had. (The reality is that the only reply to your initial assertion was totally and unashamedly fucking neutral, though it did seem hopeful.)

      I'd guess that you make a habit of such fallacies, and that this tendancy might be part of the reason why you post at 0...

    26. Re:Backfired! by p!ngu · · Score: 1

      No, you're very bad at english. Good implies competent, but not necessarily conversely. And hence (not) competent implies (not) good (just the contrapositive. The only context in which what you've said makes sense is if you define "good" to be competent, and "bad" to be incompetent. And once you've done this, all you've revealed is your deep passion for the law of identity (that is to say, you're a simpleton).

    27. Re:Backfired! by Sebilrazen · · Score: 1

      A judge is essentially a government employee. Name one competent government employee. I double dare you. Nobody in government gets fired for incompetence.

      Only because you double dared. Military members are discharged - either honorably or otherwise - every day due to incompetence doing their job - (except for Cops, Cooks and Crew Chiefs - there doesn't seem to be a bar for how low they can go - this is an inside joke for Air Force members/vets). Technically they are government employees.

      --
      "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
    28. Re:Backfired! by whiledo · · Score: 1

      Nobody said Obama was incompetent...It's all about the context

      Name one competent government employee.
      Obama
      Jury's still out on that one.

      You fail at context.

      I'd guess that you make a habit of such fallacies, and that this tendancy might be part of the reason why you post at 0...

      I don't post at 0, I post at 1. Anonymous Cowards and people with bad karma post at 0. Your userid indicates you've been reading slashdot a while; It's a shame you haven't been paying much attention. Maybe you shouldn't guess so much.

      Also, this account is about a week old. My previous account posted at 2. You do know that new accounts don't magically start out with excellent karma, right? And feel free to embarrass yourself further by assuming you know why I created a new account. Why stop when you're on such a roll?

      --
      Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
    29. Re:Backfired! by adolf · · Score: 1

      Name one competent government employee.
      Obama
      Jury's still out on that one.

      Neutral as could be. The poster was even fairly elaborate on why he had not yet decided on Obama's competence, which is a whole world different from claiming that he's somehow incompetent.

      Your comprehension seems lacking. And your undue retaliation is more harmful than not. As a current and past Obama supporter, it shames me to see you behave in such a fashion.

      Good luck.

    30. Re:Backfired! by whiledo · · Score: 1

      Your main problem (other than your confusion on how the karma system works) is that you believe you can read the strength of emotion in a post on the internet. That's really only true if you type in all caps with several exclamations. As it was, I'm simply stating a fact that Obama's history shows that he is highly competent and that anyone claiming otherwise is either ignorant of that history (which is no excuse these days with the information at your fingertips), or biased against him.

      Saying you're not sure if the man is competent with all that information is not the same thing as being neutral. If I said the jury is still out on whether or not you're a child molester, that's not the same thing as neutral.

      As an Obama supporter, it shames me that I share company with someone so lacking in critical thinking skills.

      Good luck to you as well.

      --
      Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
  5. The real question is by peragrin · · Score: 3, Interesting

    How long before people understand the Streisand Effect??

    This just seems like bullying(who started it and why is something else). Do cops not know of internet cafe's? freedom of speech? or are people just willfully ignorant of reality around them. Like the town that tossed out google streetview. If I close my eyes the bad people can't see me cause i can't see them?

    one day I hope humanity grows up? unfortunately I will have been long since dead.

    --
    i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    1. Re:The real question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I am so glad I do not live in Phoenix anymore. My friend who has HIV was on his way to the doctors when he got pulled over and arrested for a suspicion of a DUI and had to spend 24 hours without his medicine. They laughed at him in his holding cell and said things like, "Cold enough for you faggot?" when he started shivering from lack of his meds. If you are considering raising a family there remember Phoenix is one of the #1 places in the country for shooting underage suspects, often unarmed. Almost no one ever gets prosecuted for police misconduct there. Scary fucking place.

    2. Re:The real question is by whoever57 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How long before people understand the Streisand Effect??

      Perhaps it is too soon, but a search on Google news suggests that this story is getting little attention in news media.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    3. Re:The real question is by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Humanity will grow up and idiots like this guy will stop taunting people who can make their life a living hell...

      I hope you are right. But I doubt it will happen anytime soon, as you have yet to figure it out yourself.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    4. Re:The real question is by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 1

      I think that has something to do with the media. They seem to be going down the road where they think something like this isn't news, isn't important, and nobody in America would care.

      --
      The Internet is generally stupid
    5. Re:The real question is by dmomo · · Score: 1

      The problem with the Streisand Effect is that it's only true when we hear about it. And more than likely only true with big names. I'd be willing to bet that it's more often the case the people *are* silenced. The percentages of stories that get out is probably very small. I'd be interested to see some study that gives an idea of numbers. How many "like cases" does this article of the Phoenix Police confiscating all of this computer equipment represent? Is this the one and only case, which we have heard about, or does this happen hundreds of time a day?

      I suppose the role of the stories that make it big is to set precedent and awareness. But don't let talk of the Streisand effect lead you to think that the act of attempting to silence information isn't a powerful one. And that it isn't working every day against us.

    6. Re:The real question is by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Perhaps its because no one else is making retarded assumptions.

      Not everyone just out right assumes that cops are bad and that bloggers are just perfect angles.

      The rest of the world looks at the story and says 'meh, nothing of interest here yet as there are no actual facts, its probably nothing'

      If something comes out that prove him to be correct, we'll hear all sorts of shit about it. Until there are some facts, it'll just be a bunch of retarded comments on other no name blogs that no one that matters or doesnt' wear a tin foil hat cares about.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    7. Re:The real question is by BitZtream · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      What anti-virals is your friend taking that he experiences withdrawl symptoms from? I'm not aware of any that cause that sort of side effect.

      I am aware of several narcotic pain killers that are prescribed along side those anti-virals which when taken in excess would certianly make you appear drunk, and would cause you to experience withdrawl symptoms.

      Sounds more to me like your HIV infected friend is a drug addict who got caught having to sober up unexpectedly after being on the road driving when he shouldn't have been.

      Its funny how we assume the cops are always lying corrupt mofos, but never by any chance could it be the ones that the cops are dealing with that are the liars could it? Naw, your friend must certainly be a perfect soul, he/she is, after all, your friend, its not possible there could be a side to them that you are unaware of, or that they could mislead you to protect themselves.

      Nope, that would never happen.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    8. Re:The real question is by anagama · · Score: 1

      Not everyone just out right assumes that cops are bad and that bloggers are just perfect angles.

      I don't think this blogger is angled at all -- in fact, it seems most likely it is the cops who are crooked.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    9. Re:The real question is by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      Now that you're on your ~tenth comment on this story along the same lines, it's pretty obvious that you're probably the type of cop that makes the us loathe all of you. That isn't fair to your innocent fellow officers.

      Take your power trips to a nice fast food joint as the shift manager where you belong.

    10. Re:The real question is by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      The rest of the world looks at the story and says 'meh, nothing of interest here yet as there are no actual facts, its probably nothing'

      BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH........ ....HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA!

      The rest of the world looks at the story and says 'where's the celebrity panty shot?' and loses interest.

      You sir, have far too high an opinion of what makes it onto the nightly news.

    11. Re:The real question is by dotgain · · Score: 0, Flamebait
      Presumptuous fucker, aren't you?

      Given no evidence either way, you'll side with the police given half the chance. I don't know whether you're one of them or just a straight out misanthrope - but one thing's for sure, you are not being objective. You're a horrible, dangerous person who has added nothing to this thread other than alerting others to your existence.

    12. Re:The real question is by dotgain · · Score: 1
      Humanity will grow up and idiots like this guy will stop taunting people who can make their life a living hell...

      Hmmm... I think I've just figured out who you work for. I at least don't see that phrase being used by many people otherwise.

    13. Re:The real question is by Gorobei · · Score: 1

      Perhaps its because no one else is making retarded assumptions.

      Not everyone just out right assumes that cops are bad and that bloggers are just perfect angles.

      Right, because those cops invaded a blogger's home and took his stuff. The blogger, otoh, used nasty words. Guess it's a draw.

      Luckily, the Bill of Rights (amendments 1 and 4) weighs in the argument pretty heavily on the "you are moron" question.

    14. Re:The real question is by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Well said!

      What a lot of people fail to consider is that when we see the Streisand Effect, that it is usually 'just the tip of the iceberg'. The S.E. only comes into play when the silencing/cover-up fails, not when it is successful. You are correct.

      My experiences and observation leads me to believe(like you seem to) that far more are successful than not...YMMV.

      But don't let talk of the Streisand effect lead you to think that the act of attempting to silence information isn't a powerful one. And that it isn't working every day against us.

      Hear! Hear!
      And stopping it would be like holding back the tide.
      It's been going on for many thousands of years.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    15. Re:The real question is by spazdor · · Score: 1
      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    16. Re:The real question is by dotgain · · Score: 1

      Great, now you can click on that link you sent me, and find out what it means for yourself. It's pretty obvious he's not holding his side just "for the sake of argument".

    17. Re:The real question is by spazdor · · Score: 1

      Assuming for the moment that you don't actually know BitZtream in real life, how can you possibly know that?

      What purpose could he have for posting to Slashdot and antagonizing people's preconceptions (in an admittedly confrontational way) other than the sake of argument?

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    18. Re:The real question is by Omestes · · Score: 1

      I find siding against the police by default to be just as annoying. Most police, and most police departments don't fit into some default Orwellian mold, either. I'm willing to give BOTH the benefit of the doubt until more evidence surfaces, meaning I withhold all judgement, no matter how much I want to vomit forth a ideologically motivated value judgement based on nothing more than my politics, paranoia, and agenda.

      The police could be treating people like crimials because, you know, they are criminals. Or the police could be a ruthless gestapo like organization. In this case, I have no evidence pointing either way. Inductive logic points me towards the former though. But not strongly.

      If this was the Maricopa County Sheriff, I'd be leaning towards the latter, but my experiences with the Phoenix PD has been generally positive (even if sometimes they are over worked and understaffed to a point where they cannot do their job properly)

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    19. Re:The real question is by ultranova · · Score: 1

      Until there are some facts, it'll just be a bunch of retarded comments on other no name blogs that no one that matters or doesnt' wear a tin foil hat cares about.

      So which one are you?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    20. Re:The real question is by dotgain · · Score: 1
      First of all: Your assumption is correct and I don't know BitZtream at all.

      Next: Have you read all of his posts, and the personal attacks contained therein? Someone playing Devil's Advocate wouldn't do that. You seem to be thinking that he's playing DA merely because his opinion is unpopular. Look, I can't say for sure that he isn't - but he's doing a very bad job of it if so.

    21. Re:The real question is by Adrian+Lopez · · Score: 1

      "What purpose could he have for posting to Slashdot and antagonizing people's preconceptions (in an admittedly confrontational way) other than the sake of argument?"

      It almost sounds like you're saying he's trolling. The thing is, trolls don't troll for the sake of argument. They troll for the sake of personal amusement.

      --
      "In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
    22. Re:The real question is by spazdor · · Score: 1

      His attacks are no different from those directed against the Arizona cops all over this post. Now, there's every chance that the cops are full of shit and this story is legit. But there isn't enough here to say one way or the other.

      By making slanderous assumptions about everyone else's prior dealings with the cops, I see him as lampooning those - a sort of backhanded tu quoque to those who are already jumping to conclusions.

      --
      DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
    23. Re:The real question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      They're the ones with the power. Always assume they're "lying corrupt mofos" until proved otherwise.

      When my word carries the same weight as a cop's in court, then maybe I'll change my mind on that one.

      Maybe.

      Same goes for politicians.

    24. Re:The real question is by lordSaurontheGreat · · Score: 1

      The media is on a pro-Police state trend after their Oakland PD story. It's too soon to start showing Police being bad if just two weeks ago they got turned into swiss-cheese by some crazed rapist with an assault rifle.

      --
      Consider yourself spoken to.
    25. Re:The real question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Then start firing off emails to cnn, abc, cbs until it starts getting attention. It's already on /.; no reason to stop there.

    26. Re:The real question is by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      He is clearly one of the involved Sus scrofa scrofa. I had suspected as much at post number one.

    27. Re:The real question is by whoever57 · · Score: 1

      The media is on a pro-Police state trend after their Oakland PD story.

      Do you mean this story. Probably not. It did not seem to gain national attention either.

      --
      The real "Libtards" are the Libertarians!
    28. Re:The real question is by lordSaurontheGreat · · Score: 1

      No, I was thinking of the time when a crazy person shot four police officers. That got a lot of media attention in comparison to the BART Police murder.

      --
      Consider yourself spoken to.
    29. Re:The real question is by mishehu · · Score: 1

      And yet they think that stupid octomom is so newsworthy...

    30. Re:The real question is by peragrin · · Score: 1

      well said. However every time something like this gets published I would say 10% of the silent ones come out as well.

      In my home town, a small local police district Is in hot water to the point where the town is talking about firing half the officers. an off duty cop was drunk smashed his vehicle into someone else and killed that person. Some how he ended up at home and wasn't tested until 24 hours later. Deeper investigation eventually lead to about half the police force in some way connected to getting him home and hiding facts about the case. Now as all of that is being investigated the amount of corruption this group of officers is coming to light, in one giant circle. Like getting out of tickets for personal favors.

      Corruption is like a wolf pack. while a lone wolf is possible it is abnormal. So once a bit of corruption is shown further investigation usually brings out more. While some of it may get away the worst of it is gone for a while. So while we may only hear about a small part it is the worst part and that will most likely get taken out.

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    31. Re:The real question is by dmomo · · Score: 1

      >Corruption is like a wolf pack. while a lone wolf is possible it is abnormal. So once a bit of corruption is shown further investigation usually brings out more. While some of it may get away the worst of it is gone for a while. So while we may only hear about a small part it is the worst part and that will most likely get taken out.

      Good point. And to further this.. Just because the S.E. is likely rare with respect to cover-ups doesn't mean that we should not applaud each revelation. Like you say, it's likely to reveal others. Let's push the snowball down the hill and get from it as much as we can.

  6. What the police were really after, by fava · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Harassing a critic is just a bonus, what the police really wanted was the names of the internal informants so that they can be silenced.

    No informants = No credible criticism.

    1. Re:What the police were really after, by More_Cowbell · · Score: 1

      Here's hoping Jeff did not leave any evidence of who the informants are on his computer...

      --
      Experience teaches only the teachable. -AH
    2. Re:What the police were really after, by peragrin · · Score: 1

      Which is why I have a battery powered wireless NAS that looks like a block of wood holding up my desk. The fact that it is made from a block of wood helps with the disguise.

      My router logs are the only hint that it exists. but since logs don't show where physically something is hiding they won't ever find it.

      And you know who they are *wink, wink*

      --
      i thought once I was found, but it was only a dream.
    3. Re:What the police were really after, by DahGhostfacedFiddlah · · Score: 1

      Forgot to check the "Post Anonymously" box, did we?

    4. Re:What the police were really after, by GuldKalle · · Score: 2, Funny

      The problem is, when they see your collection of tinfoil hats, they'll split every molecule of your house in search of what you're hiding

      --
      What?
    5. Re:What the police were really after, by MaskedSlacker · · Score: 1

      This is why I opt for, not tin-foil, but fine copper mesh sewn into my normal hats. Think 40 gauge copper wire used as thread, woven together. Short of taking my hats apart (since the mesh is in between the outer and inner portions of the normal hat) they'll never find it.

    6. Re:What the police were really after, by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 1

      Harassing a critic is just a bonus, what the police really wanted was the names of the internal informants so that they can be silenced.

      Even if they got nothing - and if the guy was careful, they got nothing - it still puts the chill on those informents who are now much less likly to provide information.

      --
      If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
    7. Re:What the police were really after, by calidoscope · · Score: 1

      Not sure if it still around, but there was an outfit that sold EMF proof clothing, which included items such as underwear with copper mesh sewn in. A co-worker ran across the site as it was a god source for coper mesh.

      --
      A Shadeless room is a brighter room.
    8. Re:What the police were really after, by Normal+Dan · · Score: 1

      This is also why I keep my secret external hard drive buried in the back yard 3 meters to the left of the oak tree, 20 cm down. No one will ever find it, along with all of its incriminating evidence, there. There's no way anyone will ever even know that hard drive is down there, 3 meters left of the oak, and 20 cm down... in the patch without grass that looks like it's been recently dug into... never.

      --
      A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
    9. Re:What the police were really after, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Great, now if I ever get busted, the cops are gonna seize my clue-by-four, claiming it's a "covert NAS".

      Thanks for that, peragrin.

    10. Re:What the police were really after, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      or that he encrypted it

  7. We need to start passing laws... by linzeal · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...to explicitly layout stronger civil and criminal penalties for abuse of office in the US.

        Use of the office to start an unjustified war, death and 50 million dollars or 50% of your wealth whichever is greater.

        Use of the office to murder, death and 50% of assets.

        Use of the office to take bribes, death and repayment of any contracts lost by competing companies.

        Use of the office to facilitate violence or cause violence against a person, 25 years to life.

        Use of the office to intimidate, threaten or harass, 15 years.

        Use of the office to deny someone their constitutional rights, 5 years.

        Anyone want to help get this on the ballot in 50 states while we still have the populist fervor going?

        Public servants need to be held to a higher standard because of the amount of power they have been given. If we continue allowing politicians and police to be above the law than we have lost our way as a people. We need to remake the laws so that this sort of thing carries penalties that these police officers and district attorneys will be forced to reckon with when they demonstrably are routinely operating as criminals with badges and warrants.

    1. Re:We need to start passing laws... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Dude, you're using commas for two different purposes which is confusing as hell. Learn to use a colon when you mean "consequence".

    2. Re:We need to start passing laws... by BitZtream · · Score: 0, Troll

      What do we do to protect the police from rantings of ignorant bloggers who are pissed off because they got caught breaking the law in the past and can't except the results?

      It works both ways, this guy could have easily avoided whats happening to him, IF it IS a bullying session. But you don't even know why they are after him do you?

      You just assume that he did nothing wrong, just blogged about corrupt cops.

      Have you even read his blog?

      Do you always jump head first in and assume that the sensationalists are telling you the actual story?

      If we continue to allow people to get by with making up stories and presenting the story in such a one sided way that it might as well be an outright lye we'll be far worse off than what you're afraid of.

      Every fucking criminal on the planet says 'I'm innocent and this is police harrasment!!'

      And idiots like you believe it.

      Before you start talking about how we should attack politicians and cops, lets find out if they actually did anything wrong first instead of jumping to knee jerk reactions based on some emotional connection to a technological fad.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:We need to start passing laws... by anagama · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I'm already starting to forget what life in America is supposed to be like. Please help me by indicating which of the following is appropriate:

      A) Arrest the publisher, take all his property, and dump the body in the ocean.

      or

      B) File a libel suit and if it is determined that libel exists, receive compensation for damages.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    4. Re:We need to start passing laws... by michaelhood · · Score: 1

      What do we do to protect the police from rantings of ignorant bloggers who are pissed off because they got caught breaking the law in the past and can't except the results?

      Damn that pesky first amendment! If it wasn't for you meddling bill of rights!

    5. Re:We need to start passing laws... by l3ert · · Score: 1

      What do we do to protect the police from rantings of ignorant bloggers who are pissed off because they got caught breaking the law in the past and can't except the results?

      We do nothing. The police doesn't need protection from rantings.

      It works both ways, this guy could have easily avoided whats happening to him, IF it IS a bullying session.

      No bullying warrants a police raid.

      --
      per dolorem ad astra
    6. Re:We need to start passing laws... by dotgain · · Score: 1

      We do nothing. The police doesn't need protection from rantings.

      I've a nudging suspicion that the police force BitZtream works for does need (or desire) such protection. Call me crazy - it's just a conclusion I've arrived at after reading his posts in this thread which all suggest he must be guilty of something, otherwise the police wouldn't have bothered him in the first place. Oh, and that but about how people just shouldn't fuck with others that can "make their life a living hell"

    7. Re:We need to start passing laws... by Gorobei · · Score: 1

      What do we do to protect the police from rantings of ignorant bloggers?

      I know! I know! We fire or jail the corrupt, abusive, and incompetent police. Then we are left with a good police force.

      It's quite simple, really.

    8. Re:We need to start passing laws... by houstonbofh · · Score: 1

      ...to explicitly layout stronger civil and criminal penalties for abuse of office in the US.

      Use of the office to start an unjustified war, death and 50 million dollars or 50% of your wealth whichever is greater.

      Use of the office to murder, death and 50% of assets.

      Use of the office to take bribes, death and repayment of any contracts lost by competing companies.

      I think after the Death part, they won't be in a position to quibble over percentages of the estate...

    9. Re:We need to start passing laws... by Normal+Dan · · Score: 1

      The main problem I see with this is the constitution is the supreme law of the land... so to deny someone their constitutional rights should be considered an act of treason and punishable by death.

      just my $0.02

      --
      A unique way to learn a language: http://languageloom.com
    10. Re:We need to start passing laws... by linzeal · · Score: 1

      I have been following the story since it broke 48 hours ago and looking at the evidence against him that he provides online and the actions of the police make me pretty much convinced these are just a pack of dirty pigs. Police brutality in some areas of the US has decreased but in places like Phoenix it is completely out of control, I have lived there. Have you?

    11. Re:We need to start passing laws... by rts008 · · Score: 1

      You for got:

      C) I'm a subversive terrorist and, why yes, I would like to welcome my new GITMO Resort overlords! ;-)

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    12. Re:We need to start passing laws... by falconwolf · · Score: 2, Informative

      What do we do to protect the police from rantings of ignorant bloggers who are pissed off because they got caught breaking the law in the past and can't except the results?

      Two things can be done, start your own blog and sue the person in civil court.

      Every fucking criminal on the planet says 'I'm innocent and this is police harrasment!!'

      Innocents who are harassed say the same thing.

      Falcon

    13. Re:We need to start passing laws... by ultranova · · Score: 2, Interesting

      What do we do to protect the police from rantings of ignorant bloggers who are pissed off because they got caught breaking the law in the past and can't except the results?

      Well, the standard we hold schoolkids to is to either ignore the taunter or taunt him back. Do you think the police might be able to reach such level of maturity? Or are you seriously suggesting that "he called me names" is an acceptable reason to raid someone's house?

      Seriously, grow a thicker skin. You're starting to sound like the muslims during that whole Mohammed cartoon thing.

      Before you start talking about how we should attack politicians and cops, lets find out if they actually did anything wrong first instead of jumping to knee jerk reactions based on some emotional connection to a technological fad.

      Certainly. Perhaps you should consider extending this courtesy to the blogger?

      --

      Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.

    14. Re:We need to start passing laws... by svank · · Score: 1

      Use of the office to intimidate, threaten or harass, 15 years.

      Use of the office to deny someone their constitutional rights, 5 years.

      Is harassing someone really three times worse than, say, imprisoning them for years without trial?

    15. Re:We need to start passing laws... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How 'bout we just take them out back and shoot them? Then after a little while of this, we don't get bad police anymore to begin with.

    16. Re:We need to start passing laws... by Ashriel · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I'm with you on that one.

      Well, for minor infringement I'd accept a 30 year sentence followed by a "constitution offender" registration.

    17. Re:We need to start passing laws... by lordSaurontheGreat · · Score: 1

      Why don't we also sell their family into slavery? That'd be a good incentive to not fuck around as well.

      Yes I am being sarcastic... or am I?

      --
      Consider yourself spoken to.
    18. Re:We need to start passing laws... by linzeal · · Score: 1

      That's how they did it in ancient Rome and they had a Republic for 100 years longer than the US has.

    19. Re:We need to start passing laws... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is too late. The soap box was ineffective, and the ballot box was rigged. The jury box is full of idiots and not accepting applications.

      Proceed.

    20. Re:We need to start passing laws... by ktappe · · Score: 1

      Amen. (Whoever modded this offtopic needs to learn that it is never offtopic to use proper grammar and punctuation. Without them, no idea can be properly conveyed, and there is no longer a topic.)

      --
      "We can categorically state we have not released man-eating badgers into the area." - UK military spokesman, July 2007
    21. Re:We need to start passing laws... by Sebilrazen · · Score: 1

      ... followed by a "constitution offender" registration.

      I like to call it congressional pension.

      --
      "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
    22. Re:We need to start passing laws... by He+who+knows · · Score: 1

      Bush is guilty of all of them.

    23. Re:We need to start passing laws... by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

      Arrest the publisher, take all his property, and dump the body in the ocean.

      The body? Are you, um, missing a step there, perhaps?

  8. OT/posting to undo mod by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1, Informative

    Accidentally modded you wrongly, posting to undo

    1. Re:OT/posting to undo mod by corbettw · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      One of the problems with the new moderation system. In the old days, your moderation wasn't done until you hit the submit button at the end. With the on-select "feature", it's easy to mismod a post. Really wish they'd do something about that. Maybe add a button next to the moderation to actually do the job.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    2. Re:OT/posting to undo mod by thePowerOfGrayskull · · Score: 1

      True - even a simple javascript popup (You're about to mod this most XXX, continue? yes/no) would actually be helpful - as much as I usually dislike those as a UI method. Better would be a submit button that does the same asynchronous goodness that selection change does now.

  9. To quote a fellow slashdotter's sig: by ternarybit · · Score: 5, Funny

    Orwell got everything right except the year. The Thought Police are now a reality, at least in Phoenix.

    1. Re:To quote a fellow slashdotter's sig: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      To quote another slashdotter's sig:

      Please read 1984 before commenting on 1984.

    2. Re:To quote a fellow slashdotter's sig: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      > Please read 1984 before commenting on 1984.

      I read it. I can't remember a word of what's in it. May I still comment on it? :-P

    3. Re:To quote a fellow slashdotter's sig: by H0p313ss · · Score: 1

      N.B. His working title was 1948, the publisher didn't like it.

      --
      XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
    4. Re:To quote a fellow slashdotter's sig: by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      The working title has always been 1948.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    5. Re:To quote a fellow slashdotter's sig: by dotgain · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      Wow - hope you feel smart. Wouldn't want people getting the impression that a projects working title is no less permanent than what it's released with, noooo.

    6. Re:To quote a fellow slashdotter's sig: by Hognoxious · · Score: 1

      At least I've read the book.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    7. Re:To quote a fellow slashdotter's sig: by houstonbofh · · Score: 3, Funny
    8. Re:To quote a fellow slashdotter's sig: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are too right there - Fahrenheit 451 is where it's at. The level of detail is astonishing.

    9. Re:To quote a fellow slashdotter's sig: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      To quote another slashdotter's sig:

      Please read 1984 before commenting on 1984.

      They must be new here...

    10. Re:To quote a fellow slashdotter's sig: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      you are the dumbest.

    11. Re:To quote a fellow slashdotter's sig: by maciarc · · Score: 1

      To quote another slashdotter's sig:

      Please read 1984 before commenting on 1984.

      Read the book?!?! It takes 3 minutes to read the article and I didn't do that. What makes you think I would read a book?

    12. Re:To quote a fellow slashdotter's sig: by britneys+9th+husband · · Score: 1

      If people read things before commenting, then it wouldn't be Slashdot.

      --
      Hear recorded Slashdot headlines on your phone! New service beta testing. Just call (248) 434-5508
    13. Re:To quote a fellow slashdotter's sig: by Sebilrazen · · Score: 1

      Are you sure that's from a /. signature and not the movie "Hackers?"

      The Thought Police were feared not because they were known for determining that you had actually committed a crime or spoke out against the Party, but that you'd thought about it, hence thoughtcrime, and in the eyes of the Party both were equally punishable.

      The guy put it out there, so by definition, not thoughtcrime, not Thought Police.

      A brilliant example of how I think the process of the Thought Police was envisioned is Brad Pitt's character Jeffrey Goines from 12 Monkeys, when he goes off on the rant that they keep track of everything and determined from all the variables that he would create the Army of the 12 Monkeys.

      --
      "There are no facts, only interpretations." --Friedrich Nietzsche.
  10. Critical of officials? by koterica · · Score: 1

    Phoenix? Minneapolis? It looks like its really all the same.

    1. Re:Critical of officials? by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 3, Funny

      Phoenix? Minneapolis? It looks like its really all the same.

      Greek names?

    2. Re:Critical of officials? by koterica · · Score: 1

      And seizing of communications equipment when people are using it to document the action of police.

  11. We should be glad... by fjo3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ...that law enforcement agencies are still foolish enough to harass people in such a public and blatant way. Over time they will gain more technical expertise and find other, more difficult to detect, methods of harassing citizens who dare to criticize them. I fear the day when the police get a little bit smarter about disguising their abuses of power. Until then it will continue to be relatively easy to bring the enforcers of law to justice.

    1. Re:We should be glad... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Or ... they already have. And this really is simply a case of the guy getting busted for something and trying to claim police harassment.

      Until there are some actual facts available, we're both just talking out our asses.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:We should be glad... by dotgain · · Score: 1

      Until there are some actual facts available, we're both just talking out our asses.

      Right. But could you at least stop? It's just that the particular anus you're using is in need of attention.

    3. Re:We should be glad... by NoobixCube · · Score: 1

      Or maybe it's a case of calling over some wolves while you sneak a few sheep away for yourself. Now I'm not one to judge what you do your sheep...

      For the docile (or in case my metaphor is a lot less clear than I think it is... That happens to me a lot...) I mean the police might already be working smarter, and they throw us a red herring of blatant power abuse so we don't think they're working smarter.

      Of course, it is all a load of speculative crap. I don't really think your average cop is smart enough for this.

      --
      Admit it. You post strawman arguments as AC so you get modded Insightful for refuting them, rather than Troll
    4. Re:We should be glad... by Tuoqui · · Score: 1

      Yeah... and people want to hand the government the ability to censor the internet from child porn to 'protect the children'...

      Look at how Australia's attempt turned out, someone swiped the blacklist and posted it and there were plenty of sites on it that were anti-abortion, pro-drug legalization and even a dentist's web page for his practice.

      --
      09F911029D74E35BD84156C5635688C0
      +2 Troll is Slashdot's way of saying groupthink is confused
    5. Re:We should be glad... by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      There are actual facts available, moron.

      Like what sort of 'petty theft' he was charged with, the totally nonsensical claim of having stolen police faceplates from their desk. (As opposed to him simply running down to the local trophy shop and having some printed up.)

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  12. More by amclay · · Score: 4, Insightful

    It's only going to bite us once the police report what he may have been actually doing, or what was not published. Where I find it horrible that they would do it for no reason, I also find it unlikely that they would go to such efforts, when it is obvious that it was retaliatory. My guess is there's more than they reported or know.

    --
    It's all fun and games till someone divides by 0. Then it's hilarious.
    1. Re:More by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Possibly. But the chilling effect on possible informants is real. And having people with guns show up at your house and root through your possessions is always disturbing. There's also the opportunity to plant evidence, or to find evidence of an unrelated and real offense, however minor, to continue to bother our blogger with.

    2. Re:More by scientus · · Score: 1

      but the search warren must "particularly describ[e] the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

      If they took the modem this clearly wasnt thought out enough before hand. Also they took the BACKUPS! the backups are meant to disable his capabilities not attain information. They did not just copy everything, and by taking everything they seized much more information that could have been reasonably specified in the search warrant.

    3. Re:More by sjames · · Score: 1

      Depending on the search, it may be worse. I saw a house on the news that was searched (on the basis of one anonymous phone call). There were holes in the walls, the furniture was broken into pieces, carpet ripped up, front door and parts of it's frame on the floor, etc.

      They found nothing and made no apology.

  13. Fortunately... by Atari400 · · Score: 4, Funny

    I don't live in a police sta%%%CARRIER DISCONNECT%%%

    --
    IBM doesn't play chess with the Universe.
    1. Re:Fortunately... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      You would have possibly been funny if you said 'I do live in a poli!%R!Z NO CARRIER'.

      They wouldn't do anything to you for playing along with them. God you people suck at being paranoid nut jobs. Not only that, you need to actually know what a modem disconnect looks like. Try NO CARRIER instead, and there wouldn't be any text after it since you are disconnected.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    2. Re:Fortunately... by Atari400 · · Score: 1

      I don't think that's entirely fair given the mod points or my previous posts. Fair point about NO CARRIER though.

      --
      IBM doesn't play chess with the Universe.
    3. Re:Fortunately... by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 2, Funny

      I don't live in a police sta%%%CARRIER DISCONNECT%%%

      Well duh, none of us lives in a police station. Sheesh...

    4. Re:Fortunately... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you've made an ass of yourself in such a spectacular manner, I'd like to know: does it physically hurt being as stupid as you are?

      I love how you accuse everybody else of not knowing the facts, when in most cases you "law and order" types are the worst kind of sheeple.

      I'll bet you're a cop or you're related to a cop. Truth hurts, doesn't it?

    5. Re:Fortunately... by fractoid · · Score: 1

      I was shooting for 'stapler', myself.

      --
      Rampant carbon sequestration destroyed the Dinosaurs' tropical paradise. I'm here to help repair the damage.
  14. Dear Phoenix PD: by The+Master+Control+P · · Score: 1

    I don't think you have a way to silence him.

    Enjoy your Streisand Effect.

  15. grain of salt by fermion · · Score: 5, Interesting
    First, as shown the power of the government is out of control. Homeland security and the like began this trend, and people were happy with it which certain parties were in power because it was used to harass certain other parties they did not like. However, in America giving too much power to the government is dangerous because control shifts and such expansions of power can come back and bite you in the ass. Given that the second hit on google news for this story on a site that advertises the item "The Obama Deception" and has many survivalist stuff, one might assume that the slant in the story is derived from one being hoisted on one's own petard. To be fair though, it seems like the site does speak out against government excesses in general, but it did have a Nazi ad at one reload.

    Second, this appears to be a simple domestic dispute. Guy gets a divorce and wife starts accusing him of what he says are false claims. Judge, probably just seeing that this couple can't stand each other, and probably does not want to waste time sorting out the truth, just drops the charges. Who knows who is telling the truth in such cases. I know people who have been accused of cutting other peoples phones off to harass them. I know for a fact that they didn't do it how can you prove it one way or another?

    So what does this guy do. Start collecting 'tips' from persons inside the department and posting these accusations online. OK, that makes sense, you get slandered by unsubstantiated charges, so you go out and do the same? This is a good way to make friends with the police. Tell the world that one of them is a child molester, even though it may or may not be true. I telling you this is what I live for. Trying to do my job by helping two people that are too immature and uncivilized to get along with each other, I mean the police are required to investigate any reasonable charge, and then what do I get. My face plastered on the internet as a child molester. Oh yeah, that brightens my day.

    Predictably this guy goes too far and gets himself in trouble and the police uses the excuse to take out a problem. Again, overkill, but so is calling a soon-to-be cop a child molester on the internet is not the way to go, especially when all the documentation is apparently yet to be delivered.

    Arizona seems to have it's share of messed up policing, but there must be a better way to go about this than ranting on the internet with unsubstantiated claims.

    --
    "She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
    1. Re:grain of salt by guzzirider · · Score: 1

      "as shown the power of the government is out of control"..
        personally I don't believe that to be a new phenomena ..

      However I wonder just how much of a soap opera this is ...Is his ex wife dating one of the cops ??
      Ya' wonder ...

    2. Re:grain of salt by MeNeXT · · Score: 1

      The police just proved that they have exceeded their power. If the claims are unsubstantiated there is no reason for use of FORCE, legal or otherwise. If they have a beef with a citizen then there are courts which should resolve the matter. Seizing equipment as described in the article would lead me to believe that the blogger was right.

      --
      DRM? No thanks, I'll just get it somewhere else...
    3. Re:grain of salt by darjen · · Score: 1

      whether or not this claim is substantiated, the problem is that when police commit the very crimes they are intended to protect us against, there is no recourse against them. surely there is some child molester policeman out there that is being protected solely because he is in a position of power. it really speaks to a low point of our society that we allow people to have such strong police authority.

    4. Re:grain of salt by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      However, in America giving too much power to the government is dangerous because control shifts and such expansions of power can come back and bite you in the ass.

      *sigh* So many things wrong with that thought, where to begin?

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    5. Re:grain of salt by Etrias · · Score: 1

      I have to agree with a lot you have to say here (especially about the part with the unsubstantiated rumors on the website as fact), but I have to make one correction for you. Judges can't just drop charges, especially when they are filed by citizens. They can dismiss them (usually after the defense has made a motion to dismiss) or the initial litigant can decide to drop the charge. Once the wheels are set in motion though...

    6. Re:grain of salt by corbettw · · Score: 1

      OK, so this is guilty of whatever the police say because of the politics of one of the news organizations that reports on the case? How does that make a lick of sense.

      Who says his claims are "unsubstantiated"? If they are, the PD can sue him for libel. Since they chose not to, it seems they feel most (or all) of what he's had to say is 100% true.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    7. Re:grain of salt by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      Your entire demeanor is indicative of someone drunk with power.

      I'm sorry, but not everyone is a criminal, and speaking out against you and "ruining your day" is not criminal, nor does it excuse or mitigate in any way the despicable behavior exhibited by the police.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    8. Re:grain of salt by PitaBred · · Score: 1

      "Arizona seems to have it's share of messed up policing, but there must be a better way to go about this than ranting on the internet with unsubstantiated claims."

      That in no way excuses the behavior of the police. Just because someone is a kook does NOT give them the right to raid him. Lawsuit? Sure. But the raid was completely wrong.

    9. Re:grain of salt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unsubstantiated character defamation is indeed a serious matter, but would any other municipal public servant receive similar protection?

  16. Harrass friends and relatives by davidwr · · Score: 1

    The smart powerful interests will use third parties to indirectly harass you.

    If you are bothering me, maybe I'll anonymously let your kid's principal know your kid is under investigation for drug smuggling. This may lead to a locker search that might not find drugs but might find something else. In any case, it will stress out your kid and that might lead to family stress.

    Even if I'm not low-life enough to drag kids into it, I may arrange for your sister or parents to be given some "extra scrutiny" or otherwise mess with them. Maybe I'll arrange for someone to steak your brother's license plate so he'll have to go to the time and trouble to replace it.

    Are you a member of a non-profit board? Start a rumor that the non-profit isn't as squeaky-clean as the public believes. The resulting investigation will cost them time, energy, money, and possibly donations.

    All of this is pretty petty, but a bunch of such things over time add up. While I'm not judging the Phoenix police, In the abstract, we are after all talking about organizations who obviously don't care about hurting people.

    --
    Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
  17. Eugene, Oregon too... by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Gr4RsI2V6Y

    Check out the video. Some college kids from the UofO are out in the "Ken Kezzie Free Speech" plaza in Eugene protesting the spraying of pesticides and get harassed by the cops and the taserd.

    I mean look at the kids out there, 18 or 19, doing one of the great things about this country and that is letting you're thoughts be voiced.

    This is crazy!

    1. Re:Eugene, Oregon too... by phantomfive · · Score: 4, Informative

      The kid in that movie threatened to spray pesticide in the face of the police officer. It's on a completely different level from what happened in TFA. Threatening police is a bad idea, even if you're just joking.

      --
      Qxe4
    2. Re:Eugene, Oregon too... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      If you don't understand why the cops did what they did in that video, you're an idiot.

      Those kids aren't doing great things, they are punks who think they can get by with being pricks in the name of 'protest'.

      Personally I think next time I cop hears some little punk ass kid tell him they are going to spray pesticide in his face that the cop just shoots him on the spot. Save a lot of tax money and clean up some of the twits in the gene pool.

      If you don't want that shit to happen to you, its best not to make threats at the cop standing in front of you.

      You're an idiot for making a threat to anyone if don't intend to back it up and dealing with the consequences, even more so if you're so much of a moron you do it to someone who is not only armed with several types of weapons, but also fully authorized to use them on you in that situation.

      And don't give me that bullshit 'they are just kids' crap, that excuse has been used far too many times. If you think they are old enough to drive a car on their own, I think they are old enough to know when they are about to get their asses kicked for being morons.

      Again, these 18 or 19 year olds aren't great kids doing great things. These are just a bunch of punks fueled by ignorant rants of other extremists who don't actually know the consequences of what they are trying to accomplish.

      If we stop using pesticides, those same kids will be even more unhappy when they starve to death because we can't produce enough food to support the life style everyone has gotten used to. Its great to be young and stupid, but theres a fucking reason we don't let the young and stupid run the country. The old and greedy are a far safer choice.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    3. Re:Eugene, Oregon too... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Personally I think next time I cop hears some little punk ass kid tell him they are going to spray pesticide in his face that the cop just shoots him on the spot. Save a lot of tax money and clean up some of the twits in the gene pool.

      Cops are not judges. It is not their job to administer punishment.

      If you don't understand why the cops did what they did in that video, you're an idiot.

      What this idiot doesn't understand is why the cops did not confiscate the "poison." Don't they want the evidence so they this punk criminal can be put behind bars where he belongs?

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    4. Re:Eugene, Oregon too... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      What this idiot doesn't understand is why the cops did not confiscate the "poison." Don't they want the evidence so they this punk criminal can be put behind bars where he belongs?

      Would you act differently if you were the policemen in question?

      --
      Qxe4
    5. Re:Eugene, Oregon too... by makisupa · · Score: 1

      It's Ken KESEY, not Kezzie.

      Pronounced "KEY-zee" ... not "KEH-zee".

      To paraphrase The Dude, "Obviously, you're not a reader."

      --
      "A matter of internal security, the age old cry of the oppressor" - Jean Luc Picard
    6. Re:Eugene, Oregon too... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Do you mean, would I collect all the evidence to make sure the criminal punk doesn't walk on a technicality?

      Yes, yes I would.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    7. Re:Eugene, Oregon too... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i wish i lived when a male 18 or 19 was considered a man.

    8. Re:Eugene, Oregon too... by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 1

      I googled it like "keziye" and Kezzie came up.

      Obviously I don't know how to spell the name man, I was trippin' on acid when I read him.

    9. Re:Eugene, Oregon too... by kinkozmasta · · Score: 1

      While I agree with you that it may be a bad idea, unless the kid was actively waving the sprayer in the cops face at the time he was detained it is hard to imagine a possible justification for him being pinned to the ground and tased. It is possible for the kid to be stupid AND the cops to be tyrannical ego maniacs that lack serious judgement.

    10. Re:Eugene, Oregon too... by theArtificial · · Score: 1

      I think you need a jump to conclusions mat.

      --
      Man blir trött av att gå och göra ingenting.
    11. Re:Eugene, Oregon too... by AmigaHeretic · · Score: 1

      >>The kid in that movie threatened to spray pesticide in the face of the police officer. It's on a completely different level from what happened in TFA. Threatening police is a bad idea, even if you're just joking.


      Yeah, being a smart ass to cops is dumb. But does a kid being a smart ass give them to right to do this to 'overreact' to this level?

      That's insane. They even lie in their reports, saying they were concerned about the prop he was using. A sprayer with water in it. The lie because they say they were concerned it was poison, but uh, they just leave the sprayer there and even let one of the other kids have it.

      Wow! That's a lot of concern. So why did they lie?

    12. Re:Eugene, Oregon too... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Actually I was asking what you would have done in that situation. Not whether you would collect certain evidence.

      --
      Qxe4
    13. Re:Eugene, Oregon too... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Yeah, being a smart ass to cops is dumb. But does a kid being a smart ass give them to right to do this to 'overreact' to this level?

      I don't know. It doesn't matter to me. Basically if you act like a smart ass to other people, they will act like smart asses back to you. Cops are people. That's how it goes.

      Going back to the old saying, if you skate close to the edge of the ice, you're likely to fall in. There's evidence they even wanted trouble with the cops. If they didn't, why was he threatening to spray people like that? Bunch of losers.

      --
      Qxe4
    14. Re:Eugene, Oregon too... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      Actually I was asking what you would have done in that situation. Not whether you would collect certain evidence.

      So, I asked a question and you responded with an unrelated question? Thanks for the help buddy.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    15. Re:Eugene, Oregon too... by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 1

      I don't know. It doesn't matter to me. Basically if you act like a smart ass to other people, they will act like smart asses back to you. Cops are people. That's how it goes.

      No, that's not "how it goes."

      Ask any real cop, like my uncle for example, and they will tell you that not responding to provocation is part of their training. Because of the responsibility they hold as part of their function in society it is their duty to hold to a higher standard of behaviour than the average citizen.

      So, while being a smart ass to a cop may be stupid, stupidity is not a crime.

      --
      When information is power, privacy is freedom.
    16. Re:Eugene, Oregon too... by phantomfive · · Score: 1

      Ask any real cop, like my uncle for example, and they will tell you that not responding to provocation is part of their training. Because of the responsibility they hold as part of their function in society it is their duty to hold to a higher standard of behaviour than the average citizen.

      Hmmmm sounds like that training isn't working?

      While I agree with you, police should be held to a higher standard, on the other hand I don't feel people should be allowed to abuse them freely, and police should be able to respond when people try. These guys wanted police attention, and acted just annoying enough to get it.

      --
      Qxe4
  18. Cable modem... by deAtog · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anyone worth their salt knows nothing is stored in the cable modem.

    Something tells me he hasn't heard of the mysterious black smoke.

  19. Mature people by no-body · · Score: 1

    those police folks - aren't they?

    One has to wonder how they react in a real emergency situation. One can feel very protected by this kind of police....

     

  20. What's Up Next For This Guy? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I predict that they "find" kiddie porn on his computer.

  21. backups by quickOnTheUptake · · Score: 3, Insightful

    âoeThey broke into my safe and took the backups of my backups,â he said in a phone interview with Photography is Not a Crime on Wednesday.

    Let us use this as an instructive moment: Always keep important backups at a seperate physical location.
    Especially if we are dealing with information that important, powerful, or underhanded people may want destroyed.

    --
    Mod points: Guaranteed to remove your sense of humor.
    Side effects may include gullibility and temporary retardation
    1. Re:backups by anagama · · Score: 1

      Also, it would make sense to not do your own in home hosting.

      --
      What changed under Obama? Nothing Good
    2. Re:backups by Civil_Disobedient · · Score: 1

      it would make sense to not do your own in home hosting

      Doesn't make much of a difference, these days.

  22. more than reported .. by rs232 · · Score: 1

    "It's only going to bite us once the police report what he may have been actually doing .. My guess is there's more than they reported or know"

    "Jeff Pataky, who runs Bad Phoenix Cops .. Inept, Dishonest and Just Plain Wrong! Internal Corruption within the 4th Floor of the Phoenix Police Department, under Wanna-Be (Chief) Jack Harris"

    The link at the top of Badphoenixcops points to a video of cops cutting the wires to video cameras before they help themselves to the owners goods and money

    "once the cameras were not functioning, police proceeded to loot almost $10,000 in cash as well as several cartons of cigarettes .. The Daily News also reported that several other shop owners went through the same experience that year from the same group of cops, only to return from jail to find their store looted"

    --
    davecb5620@gmail.com
    1. Re:more than reported .. by BlueStrat · · Score: 1

      The link at the top of Badphoenixcops [blogspot.com] points to a video of cops cutting the wires to video cameras before they help themselves to the owners goods and money

      What is the URL of this video? I was not able to find any such link.

      --
      Progressivism (aka US 'Liberalism'): Ideas so good they need a police/surveillance-state to enforce.
    2. Re:more than reported .. by Omestes · · Score: 1

      From the blog "Mike and Heather began having an affair during the Baseline Murder Investigation and met repeatedly while on duty to bump uglies.

      With hard hitting, evidence laden, journalism like that, the PPD better be scared! This is what I have against most of the anti-cop sentiment floating around in Phoenix, there is very little evidence, and a whole lot of mindless passionate finger pointing.

      Also, to the rest of the people here, "innocent until proven guilty" applies to the COURTS, not the police. Very little would ever get done if they were unable to investigate under "suspicion".

      Not taking side, I'm just taking it all with a grain of salt. The guy could very well be under suspicion of a crime, and thus this all is legal and valid.

      I'm suprised the people involved don't sue for slander, to be honest, unless you have strong proof of your allegations being true (which are not provided on the blog).

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
    3. Re:more than reported .. by rs232 · · Score: 1

      Sorry, it's here

      --
      davecb5620@gmail.com
  23. Heapin' helpin' o' salt, folks. by EWAdams · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The guy was, at best, running an ongoing campaign of character assassination against certain Phoenix police officers. No crime there, although what he said may have been libelous. But if he was accusing police officers of breaking the law, then it is his duty as a citizen to present his evidence to whatever the local equivalent of the Internal Affairs Department is. If he was withholding that evidence, he was obstructing justice.

    Bloggers aren't journalists. They don't have to live up to any standards of ethical journalism, and so they don't get protection for their sources. If that's what he's claiming, he's going to get a rude shock.

    Bottom line is, we don't have all the facts. Phoenix isn't some podunk town. It's hard for me to imagine that both the cops and a judge in a large metropolitan area would do something this egregious.

    --
    I piss off bigots.
    1. Re:Heapin' helpin' o' salt, folks. by russotto · · Score: 1

      The guy was, at best, running an ongoing campaign of character assassination against certain Phoenix police officers. No crime there, although what he said may have been libelous.

      And the smoke blowing begins.

      But if he was accusing police officers of breaking the law, then it is his duty as a citizen to present his evidence to whatever the local equivalent of the Internal Affairs Department is.

      Said the spider to the fly.

      If he was withholding that evidence, he was obstructing justice.

      You seem to have confused "withholding" and "publishing". And not presenting evidence of wrongdoing to the very organization accused of that wrongdoing isn't "obstruction of justice", it's "common sense".

    2. Re:Heapin' helpin' o' salt, folks. by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      It's hard for me to imagine that both the cops and a judge in a large metropolitan area would do something this egregious.

      Why?
      Would it be hard for you to imagine that a guy like Madoff would be running a multibillion ponzy scheme?

      Would it be hard for you to imagine that the President of the United States would have anything to do with a break-in at a hotel?

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    3. Re:Heapin' helpin' o' salt, folks. by Bigjeff5 · · Score: 1

      Er, I dunno if you know this, but journalists don't get special protections under the constitution. What they do is use, on a daily basis, constitutional rights we all have. They also tend to have large organizations helping them defend those rights (usually).

      There is no legal ethics requirement for journalists beyond things like libel and slander that I know of, at least on a national level, and any contractual obligations they may have signed. The ethics requirements they have are self-imposed by the industry, and they do this because without them journalists would run rampant with sensationalism and half-truths, as they did in the days of Yellow Journalism. Back then, a lot of journalists did go to jail for slander and libel, and on the whole it was hard to trust that the news you heard was true. With public outcry came self-imposed ethics, and today the worst you get is a story that is true but told from a certain perspective with a heavy bias toward one particular issue, ideal, or party. That's a far cry from the yellow journalism of the old days. Dan Rather came close though, and what happened to him? Outed by a blogger and lost his job, that's what. Even then, he didn't make it up, he just didn't check his sources. And he didn't go to jail, he lost his job.

      What the bruhahas (there have been several) about protecting sources was about, was the fact that the Government cannot -force- you to reveal a source. That's for anybody, not just journalists. It is a right the government does not have, because WE have the right to remain silent. That has been proven time and time again, to the point that the police are required to remind of that fact before they arrest you.

      None of that means the Government can't find out about your source by some other means, which is what we have here.

      If the Police have legal justification for siezing his equipment - and they may, though siezing the modem and router was obviously done to spite him - then this is a very good way of getting at information that may reveal who the informants are.

      It's totally slimey, but it could still be technically legit.

      And for those slamming people for assuming the guy is innocent, well that is how the system was designed!! We SHOULD assume he is innocent UNLESS evidence comes out to show he is otherwise. It is an assumption of innocence until he is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty, and it is the fairest way of looking at any similar situations. You can have suspicions, those are caused by *gasp!* evidence which suggests things may not be right, but don't assume guilt unless it has been proven, especially when it relates to the Phoenix PD from what other commenters are saying.

      It is attitudes like that which ruin a person's life long after they have been exhonerated, and it disgusts me that it happens.

      Case in point: Senator Ted Stevens, who was railroaded during the elections, has been completely exhonorated. Even people on slashdot, who didn't know him other than his famous "the internet is a series of tubes" comment. You can read the story here: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090401/ap_on_go_ot/stevens_justice

      Does the slimeball who beat him, because of the corrupt (and highly politically motivated) prosecution against him, have to give up the senate seat since he won because of a complete fabrication? Not likely, and since he wasn't directly involved (no more than a "wink, wink" here and there) he'll never be impeached. We got screwed out of one of the few honest politicians in the Senate because of this "He's got to be guilty of SOMETHING" attitude. Hell the whole thing even cost ANOTHER senator his seat, because he took money from a "corrupt" Senator Stevens. What about him?

      --
      Security is mostly a superstition... Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure. - Helen Keller
    4. Re:Heapin' helpin' o' salt, folks. by Zerth · · Score: 1

      There is no licensure for journalists. There is no educational requirement(especially not at my regional rag). You don't even need to be employed by a news agency(ie, "freelance").

      And there is definitely not a required standard of ethics. Can't say I've heard of many journalists with malpractice insurance, either.

      A journalist is one who behaves like a journalist. Nothing more. Having a degree, being employeed by a news agency, those may help you in a court to demonstrate that you behave like a journalist, but they are not required.

    5. Re:Heapin' helpin' o' salt, folks. by corbettw · · Score: 1

      The guy was, at best, running an ongoing campaign of character assassination against certain Phoenix police officers.

      No, at best he was exposing corruption in a large police force. At worst, he was doing what you alleged. But even if he were, that's not harassment, it's libel, and he could've been sued by the officers in question.

      Maybe he tried to give evidence to the DA and/or Internal Affairs, and got nowhere. So he did the other thing that's traditional in our democracy: he shed light on the abuses with the power of the written word. That's not a crime, and it's certainly obstruction of justice.

      Besides which, no one, and I mean no one, is obligated to turn over evidence of a crime unless and until they are asked by the police or subpoenaed to do so. If you can cite something that proves otherwise, I'll move out of this country within the year. I will not live in a nation that forces people to testify against their neighbor or face prison themselves. That's something the Soviets and Nazis did to their populace, we shouldn't live in fear of the same.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    6. Re:Heapin' helpin' o' salt, folks. by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      The government can indeed force someone to reveal their sources. There is no "right to silence" in the Constitution. There is only the right to not testify against yourself. You can be thrown in jail for refusing to testify when the judicial system wants to know something that you know. Journalists are protected in some states by shield laws, but there is currently no federal protection. A law is in the works, but I doubt it's ironclad. According to the Supremes, the first amendment doesn't protect reporters directly, but the government has to show a "compelling interest" in getting the information that they're trying to compel from the reporter.

      If the government shows compelling interest, the reporter can go to jail for not complying.

      You rush to the defense of Stevens because you believe his reputation suffered due to unfair accusations. Interesting how much less respect you accord Mark Begich's reputation, when his only offense was running against Stevens while he was having legal troubles.

      You also claim that the prosecution -- done by the Department of Justice, under the direction of Bush appointees -- was politically motivated. Could you elaborate on who in the Bush DoJ was motivated by the desire to remove a Republican senator? Could you explain how this partisan attack on a Republican happened, when the Bush Justice Department was seven times more likely to investigate Democrats than Republicans?

      You claim that Stevens has been exonerated. Not technically true. His conviction was thrown out as a mistrial. That's not the same thing as receiving a not guilty verdict. A not guilty verdict would mean that the same charges could never be brought against Stevens again. In this case, the government could have requested a retrial on the same charges. One of the reasons they didn't was because Stevens is now merely a very, very, very old private citizen. If there was a good chance of him recovering his Senate seat, he'd almost certainly be getting what he really deserves: a fair trial, untainted by the prosecutorial misconduct of the last trial.

      Ted Stevens, "one of the few honest politicians in the Senate?" I'll be laughing about that one for weeks.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    7. Re:Heapin' helpin' o' salt, folks. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      Bloggers aren't journalists. They don't have to live up to any standards of ethical journalism, and so they don't get protection for their sources. If that's what he's claiming, he's going to get a rude shock.

      Forgive my derisive laughter.

      You're going to tell me after watching so called "main stream media" for the past decade that there is such a thing as "standards of ethical journalism"?

      Fact checking is so 1980's.. now it's just get it to the front page and then cover up the massive calls of fraud from the those educated on the subject and the blogosphere.

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    8. Re:Heapin' helpin' o' salt, folks. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

      The ethics requirements they have are self-imposed by the industry, and they do this because without them journalists would run rampant with sensationalism and half-truths

      you seem to have used the wrong grammatical and sentence structure here, allow me to correct you:

      the ethics requirements they have are non-existent by the industry, and they do this because they are running rampant with sensationalism and half-truths

      --
      VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
    9. Re:Heapin' helpin' o' salt, folks. by LackThereof · · Score: 1

      But if he was accusing police officers of breaking the law, then it is his duty as a citizen to present his evidence to whatever the local equivalent of the Internal Affairs Department is.

      He was. Some of the officers feel that bringing such complaints to the Professional Standards Bureau (PPD's equivalent of Internal Affairs) constitutes harrassment. Hence the search warrant for Computer Fraud with the intent to Harass. How on earth Computer Fraud plays into this, I don't know, other than it gives them an excuse to take his computers.

      --
      Legalize recreational marijuana. Seriously.
    10. Re:Heapin' helpin' o' salt, folks. by b4upoo · · Score: 1

      If you don't believe it take a look at Miami. We had a number of cops involved in murdering drug dealers and keeping the dope and money. Miami has also convicted quite a few corrupt judges. At the point that we saw a dozen cops murdering people for drug proceeds almost all things become quite believable.
                Then we also have a film of about 150 NY cops raiding a wharehouse and carting off TV sets and the like after the first cop broke open the doors pretending that a burglary had taken place.

    11. Re:Heapin' helpin' o' salt, folks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unless of course members of the internal affairs department were in on it....

      Better to collect the data and forward it to the FBI or something, where the hammer can fall.

    12. Re:Heapin' helpin' o' salt, folks. by lanner · · Score: 1

      Hi

      No offense, but you are clearly not aware of what goes on in Phoenix AZ. We have swat team raids where the police burn down homes, shoot the people's pet dogs, and arrest the owners of news papers with absolutely no repercussions against the state employees committing these horrible acts.

    13. Re:Heapin' helpin' o' salt, folks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry, "journalists" are nothing special under federal law. They provide protection for their sources because outing their present sources is the quickest way to ensure they have no sources in the future. Not because they have some "standards of ethical journalism".

      Some states have shield laws granting reporters special privileges -- these vary widely from state to state, both in the privileges provided to qualified reporters, and the particular requirements for someone to qualify (though they generally don't have anything to do with ethical standards). Applicability to non-traditional reporters, such as free-lancers and bloggers, is often ambiguous under the text of the law, and few state court rulings exist to provide precedents WRT bloggers.

    14. Re:Heapin' helpin' o' salt, folks. by ErkDemon · · Score: 4, Informative
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Arpaio#Conflicts_with_local_news_media

      Arrest of Phoenix New Times executives

      In October 2007, Arpaio's deputies arrested Village Voice Media executives and Phoenix New Times editors Michael Lacey and Jim Larkin on charges of revealing grand jury secrets. In July 2004, the New Times had published Arpaio's home address in the context of a story about his real estate dealings, which the county attorney's office is investigating as a possible crime under Arizona state law. A special prosecutor served Village Voice Media with a subpoena ordering it to produce "all documents" related to the original real estate article, as well as "all Internet web site traffic information" to a number of articles that mentioned Arpaio. The prosecutor further ordered Village Voice Media to produce the IP addresses of all visitors to the Phoenix New Times website since January 1, 2004, as well as what websites those readers had been to prior to visiting. As an act of "civil disobedience,"[68] Lacey and Larkin published the contents of the subpoena on or around October 18, which resulted in their arrests the same day.[69] On the following day, the county attorney dropped the case after declining to pursue charges against the two.[70] The Attorney General's office has since been ordered to appear before Judge Ana Baca due to missing documentation - including the original grand jury subpoenas - in the case file for the investigation of the New Times publication.[71]

      In other words, the subpoena was so outrageous that the recipients published it, and the law enforcement authorities then "lost" their copy. For a document like that to go missing intentionally would be criminal on so many levels that I'm not sure where to start. It also means that the editors can try to justify their "act of civil disobedience" by saying that they knew that the justice department was crooked, and was likely to illegally destroy its own incriminating documentation (even when that documentation has been signed personally by judges), and that publication was the only way to ensure that the document used against them could be preserved for potential future legal investigation.

      It certainly sounds crooked. It's not good when reading an online newspaper article about a potentially crooked policeman leads to a subpoena demanding that the newspaper give your IP address to the police department involved, so that they can investigate you as a potential trouble-maker.

      Apparently, reading a newspaper article about police corruption can make you a legitimate target for police investigation these days. Goodbye freedom of the press, and goodbye the citizen's ability to read about the news on their PC in their own home without the police looking over their shoulder and monitoring what they're reading.

      It'd seem that the editors probably realised that the subpoena was the bigger story, and that the Justice Department did too, which is presumably why someone there illegally destroyed or "relocated" the document.

      I was also struck by the case listed where the parents of a mentally handicapped man asked for police help to remove him from a store, the police took him away and put him in a restraint chair, then the guy then mysteriously died from a massive methamphetamine overdose. It sounds like someone in that local police force is killing people and trying to make the deaths look like junkie deaths.

    15. Re:Heapin' helpin' o' salt, folks. by superwiz · · Score: 1

      But if he was accusing police officers of breaking the law, then it is his duty as a citizen

      We don't have "Good Samaritan" duties. So, no.

      Bloggers aren't journalists.

      They are. They report what they observe to whoever would read it and offer their opinions to whomever would read them. That's journalism. If you attempt to define it any more narrowly, then none of the press of the time of the writing of the Constitution will meet your standard.

      They don't have to live up to any standards of ethical journalism, and so they don't get protection for their sources.

      Possibly true, except for the "so" part. It just doesn't follow. Traditional ("orthodox" is probably a better term) media is often unscrupulous about their fact checking. It doesn't mean their informants lose protection. Both bloggers and traditional media have exactly the same reasons for providing accurate information: possibility of being sued for libel if they lie intentionally and egregiously and/or loss of readership if the quality of their content doesn't meet the demands of their readers.

      --
      Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
    16. Re:Heapin' helpin' o' salt, folks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The guy was, at best, running an ongoing campaign of character assassination against certain Phoenix police officers. No crime there, although what he said may have been libelous.

      Only if he KNEW the claims were totally false and met the criteria of libel/slander.

      But if he was accusing police officers of breaking the law, then it is his duty as a citizen to present his evidence to whatever the local equivalent of the Internal Affairs Department is. If he was withholding that evidence, he was obstructing justice.

      -5 Absolutely false. He would have to be withholding or destroying evidence on case that he was a party to in some fashion. This is virtually the opposite of that - he is publishing it.

      Bloggers aren't journalists. They don't have to live up to any standards of ethical journalism, and so they don't get protection for their sources. If that's what he's claiming, he's going to get a rude shock.

      Also false. There is no constitutional distinction based on 'standards of ethical journalism' or anything remotely like it. Bloggers are less protected because many judges take an extremely literal interpretation of the meaning of 'press' in much the same way that television and radio don't get the benefits of strong first amendment protection.

      Bottom line is, we don't have all the facts. Phoenix isn't some podunk town. It's hard for me to imagine that both the cops and a judge in a large metropolitan area would do something this egregious.

      Try watching the Rodney King video a few times. And the judge is just a rubber stamp.

    17. Re:Heapin' helpin' o' salt, folks. by Ghubi · · Score: 1

      "All states require certain professionals and institutions to report suspected child abuse, including health care providers and facilities of all types, mental health care providers of all types, teachers and other school personnel, social workers, day care providers and law enforcement personnel"

      You forgot to think of the children

    18. Re:Heapin' helpin' o' salt, folks. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow, that is certainly .

    19. Re:Heapin' helpin' o' salt, folks. by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      There are a lot of delusional people here who think harassment is illegal, and that running a web site can be harassment.

      First off, it's not illegal. If someone is harassing you, the thing to do is to take out a restraining order against them, during which you can present evidence they were harassing you. No harassment before that is issued that is 'illegal' in any way. (And these cops don't have restraining orders against this guy.)

      Secondly, harassment requires interaction. Speaking to them, following them, emailing them, watching them, something. That's what restraining orders stop people from doing.

      Simply posting things publicly on your website cannot be harassment. On their website, sure. Not yours.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    20. Re:Heapin' helpin' o' salt, folks. by BoothbyTCD · · Score: 1

      Maricopa County, AZ is the place where the Constitution goes to die.

      --
      snig
  24. This all started when his wife by crackspackle · · Score: 1

    accused him of harassing her. Angry, he went on to complain to the mayor, the police and anyone else who would listen. When he ultimately was charged (even though it was later dropped), he got mad at the police and went after them, going so far as to make and photograph duplicate name plates of various police officers. What do you want to bet his wife was right about the harassement to begin with ?

    I am not saying that justifies the actions of the Phoenix PD, just that this guy apparently enjoys being an asshole. While there's no crime in that, it does make me wonder whether what he says is credible or spiteful.

    1. Re:This all started when his wife by taxman_10m · · Score: 1

      Charges dropped would indicate to me that the accusations against him were bogus.

    2. Re:This all started when his wife by fredklein · · Score: 2, Informative

      What do you want to bet his wife was right about the harassement to begin with ?

      "Many of the reports she filed accused him of doing things when he was out of town....When he went to trial in May 2008, his charges were immediately dismissed because of lack of evidence"

    3. Re:This all started when his wife by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I am not saying that justifies the actions of the Phoenix PD, just that this guy apparently enjoys being an asshole.

      What evidence do you have he was being an asshole and wasn't trying to get justice?

      Falcon

    4. Re:This all started when his wife by crackspackle · · Score: 1

      I can only read the story, but I think calling the mayor and every police official about his wife's harassment charge was probably not only useless but detrimental to his cause, mainly because it makes him look like he was capable of doing exactly what he said he wasn't doing. Some people are driven less by a need for a justice and more by a need to prove themselves right, and I'm guessing this guy is one of those because he switched targets to the police even after his harassment charge was dropped. Of the people that I know like that, the asshole label definitely sticks but I concede you're right that I have no proof about this guy. It's just my hunch. I found thing about the name plates particularly obsessive. Of course, I have to guess about police motives as well and they certainly look like they're trying to silence a critic and get at the source of his information as others here have already pointed out, but on that I have no proof either.

    5. Re:This all started when his wife by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or that his wife decided it would be better to just move on, and that litigating would cause her more pain. But, whatever.

    6. Re:This all started when his wife by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I can only read the story, but I think calling the mayor and every police official about his wife's harassment charge was probably not only useless but detrimental to his cause

      So, you wouldn't escalate a complaint if you were being harassed? If the first police officer did nothing you wouldn't want to talk to a supervisor? Not only would I want to do that but if nothing happened eventually I'd want to scream about it at the top of my lungs.

      Falcon

    7. Re:This all started when his wife by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      Which, incidentally, is a damn good reason to be pissed at the police.

      When you have an alibi for the crimes, you should not end up in front of a judge at all.

      The DA should have declined to press charges, and he has every incentive to do so, because having a case immediately dismissed for lack of evidence looks really bad.

      So either the DA is a moron(1) or, more likely, the police didn't bother to actually inform him that the guy was saying 'Hey, I have an alibi for this', much less check out this alibi to see if it was true.

      So they kept him in the criminal justice system (even if out on bail, he had various restrictions on movement and a curfew and whatnot) for months or longer on a case that any idiot could see was bogus.

      Abuse of police power isn't just confined to planting evidence and lying under oath and other things that are outright illegal. They have a lot of power simply to screw people's lives up for months until they show up in front of a judge, even if the judge immediately dismisses everything.

      1) Incidentally, the DA's the guy this person should have talked to when the police kept pursuing a case they were obviously going to lose in court, because, like I said, he's got an incentive to just drop the case if he's going to lose, but good luck for people with court appointed lawyers even talking to their own lawyer, much less the DA.

      There really should be an investigation on how his own lawyer handled this. While technically speaking they don't have to turn over information to the prosecution, they obviously should turn over information that would result in the case being dropped!

      If they did turn it over, OTOH, that's the sort of stuff that takes down district attorneys, when they, or people under them, spending time and taxpayer money on cases they know they can't win.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  25. Accept without Corroboration? by Minter92 · · Score: 1

    I am a little frightened by the willingness of most of you to accept this without any corroboration. Searching the web I find no real reporting on this just blogs already predisposed to an anti-lawenforcement bias. And these blogs are just linking to the original story. Not saying it didn't happen, things like this do sadly happen, but shouldn't we have a higher standard.. I mean this isn't digg.

    1. Re:Accept without Corroboration? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Searching the web I find no real reporting on this just blogs already predisposed to an anti-lawenforcement bias.

      Every source is biased. You don't believe it because it doesn't appear in the mainstream news? Unfortunately, the cops don't bother to put stuff like illegal seizures in the police log.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    2. Re:Accept without Corroboration? by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

      It's sad that it's gotten to the point where it's easy to believe it's true.

    3. Re:Accept without Corroboration? by Rob+the+Bold · · Score: 1

      I am a little frightened by the willingness of most of you to accept this without any corroboration. Searching the web I find no real reporting on this just blogs already predisposed to an anti-lawenforcement bias. And these blogs are just linking to the original story. Not saying it didn't happen, things like this do sadly happen, but shouldn't we have a higher standard.. I mean this isn't digg.

      It would be a little tedious to preface every post with "Assuming that what I read is true, then my opinion is . . ."

      --
      I am not a crackpot.
    4. Re:Accept without Corroboration? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      Innocent until proven guilty. Thats what they say... well at least until the Phoenix Police storms into your house, takes your computers and plant evidence.

    5. Re:Accept without Corroboration? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

      I am a little frightened by the willingness of most of you to accept this without any corroboration. Searching the web I find no real reporting on this just blogs already predisposed to an anti-lawenforcement bias.

      And what of the pro-law enforcement biased blogs? If there's any corroboration that supports the police why isn't it on those blogs?

      Falcon

  26. It did have a Nazi ad at one reload by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That is freedom.

    Real freedom is not support for popular ideas but defense of the right to think stupid things, believe abhorrent things, and spread those ideas to others.

    And the faith that in a truly free marketplace of ideas, Nazi ideas and ideals will fail.

  27. A Judge issued a warrant for this? by Roskolnikov · · Score: 1

    Wow, so let me get this right, he is in a lawsuit against the Phoenix PD for harassment, they seize the computers that contain the harassment evidence for 'unrelated' reasons; I wonder if this is more than retaliation, a quick sneak peak at his sources, evidence, etc...... talk about stacking the deck. I'll bet there will be goat.se or alter boy photos found somewhere on his system.

    --
    Unix, an obscure operating system developed by bored researchers in an attempt to get a better game playing experience.
  28. Re:Harrass friends and relatives by interstellar_donkey · · Score: 1

    I'm wondering how long it will take to use pirating as an excuse to seize equipment for harassment purposes. The police get the records from the ISP, discovers their target has had a lot of torrent activity, and gets a warrant.

    --
    The Internet is generally stupid
  29. Re:Dear Moron`: by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    Do you know why the took his stuff?

    Do you know anything about the story other than what he said?

    Do you know every single criminal on the planet says 'I'm guilty and this is police harassment'?

    Other than a blog post, do you have any evidence to support his story?

    Fortunately, I don't have to count on you to protect me from criminals.

    Fortunately, I'm not consumed by this paranoia that the government is out to get me. This allows me to just wait until someone gathers some ACTUAL FACTS about the story before drawing conclusions.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  30. Re:Dear Moron`: by BitZtream · · Score: 1

    heh, bad post, criminals say 'I'm not guilty and this is police harassment'.

    Really ruins the smugness of a post when you have to correct it yourself afterwords.

    Damnit

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  31. Lack of Knowledge by Nerdfest · · Score: 1

    It's possible that because of a lack of knowledge of where the information is actually stored, they thought they were actually removing the blogs, not just his tools, and if some 'unfortunate accident' were to happen to the equipment, the critical information would be gone.

  32. Conflict of Interest by Tablizer · · Score: 1

    If there is a possible conflict of interest, the agency should have the option of requesting an *outside* agency, such as the FBI, perform such a raid, and perhaps even review the merit of the raid. Judges are to recuse themselves if they know of a possible conflict of interest in a case. The same should apply to cops.

    1. Re:Conflict of Interest by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

      So you're saying those in power who are abusing it are expected to do whats right?

      HAHAHAHA

      Not in America, not in North Korea my friend. Not since the dawn of time.

  33. Talk all you like... by hax0r_this · · Score: 1

    Maybe it will work out better for you than it did for him.

  34. Off-topic by whiledo · · Score: 1

    FYI, the "Minne" comes from a native american word for "water." That's why there's lots of similar names: Minnesota, Minnetonka, Minnehaha, etc. So "Minneapolis" is a mishmash of the two.

    --
    Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
    1. Re:Off-topic by The+Good+Reverend · · Score: 1

      Indeed! I read that when I was unsure of the root of the word, but felt an explanation in the short-and-sweet post might ruin it =)

  35. Bit the trollbait so hard... by samriel · · Score: 1

    Humanity will grow up and idiots like this guy will stop taunting people who can make their life a living hell...

    Why are you blaming the victim? By your logic, the Blacks should've stopped trying to escape from slavery. Women should've just gotten over the whole suffrage and rape-within-marriage ordeal.

    Your logic is bad, and you should feel bad.

    1. Re:Bit the trollbait so hard... by BitZtream · · Score: 1

      Why are you blaming the victim? By your logic, the cops should stop trying to do their job. You don't actually KNOW who the victim is. Your prejudice and bias against cops has made you already conclude the cops are guilty.

      What you have done is no different than when a white cop assumes the black man committed the crime without any evidence.

      My logic is fine, your jumping to conclusions about who the actual victim is is bad. You have no clue what actually happened, just the word of some blogger who by his own work hates cops.

      When someone starts off by saying 'I hate cops because they are all corrupt, and these corrupt cops are attacking me because I'm telling other people they are corrupt' its generally a good sign they aren't exactly telling you the whole truth.

      The difference between us is, I don't presume to know who the victim is, but you do. You've already decided who's guilty and who's the victim and you have absolutely 0 evidence for either side and no evidence to cooberate either side of the argument.

      The difference is, I believe in innocent until proven guilty, and you've already assumed guilt because of your own prejudice.

      I should feel bad? Your prejudice has already decided who is the bad guy in this situation without any evidence what so ever. And to top if off you've tried, very poorly I might add, to guilt me into siding with you by using slavery and suffrage as part of your argument. You're guilty of the EXACT problem in the examples you put forth. You are assuming guilt based on your feelings and personal bias against police, JUST like slave owners thought less of blacks and women were treated as lesser class citizens based on bias and prejudice.

      Don't come talk to me as if I'm the prejudice bastard when you're so obviously full of it that you can't see straight.

      You should be ashamed of yourself for even trying to pull those two things into this argument. I seriously think you've missed the point of our country entirely. Prejudgment and bias is the problem, and you're just as guilty as a slave owner.

      --
      Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
  36. De rigueur by whiledo · · Score: 1

    Like all humans, the slashdot crowd does not learn from history. That's "history" spell R-E-I-S-E-R.

    --
    Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
    1. Re:De rigueur by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Yeah - I sort of followed that story. I didn't WANT to believe that someone smart enough to create a new file system was dumb enough to commit a sloppy murder. His explanation of events was just to damned fishy to believe. I guess geniuses tend to think everyone around them is stupid?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    2. Re:De rigueur by Trepidity · · Score: 1

      There's plenty of other history that we have learned from in developing a strong suspicion of questionable-sounding government raids.

    3. Re:De rigueur by whiledo · · Score: 1

      Yes, but you seem to be missing the distinction. Waiting a day or two for some confirmation and the full story before accusing the police would in no way harm the people they raided. In fact, it would help them more because then you'd limit the number of the times you jump the gun and support someone who might in fact be guilty.

      If you start claiming EVERY government raid is questionable, then people stop listening to you because there are plenty of times we WANT the police to raid actual criminals.

      --
      Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
  37. Not good enough. by EWAdams · · Score: 1

    No, don't try to pretend you don't understand me. If you publish the fact that you have evidence of a crime, but you don't offer that evidence to law enforcement -- and especially if you name the criminal -- you've committed a crime yourself. The guy laid himself open. I suspect he's not nearly as well-versed in the law as he thinks he is.

    Contrary to what you may think, in America you can't just set up a website and anonymously accuse people of crimes on it. It's libel at best, and may be criminal. If you don't understand that, then for your own sake, stay off the Internet.

    --
    I piss off bigots.
    1. Re:Not good enough. by russotto · · Score: 1

      No, don't try to pretend you don't understand me. If you publish the fact that you have evidence of a crime, but you don't offer that evidence to law enforcement -- and especially if you name the criminal -- you've committed a crime yourself.

      No, you haven't. Check Wikipedia on "misprision of felony", and (of course) the case law that page references.

      I do understand you. You're claiming that a person who has evidence of a crime by police officers is legally obligated to go to that police department and report it, thus sticking his head in the lion's den. That's ridiculous.

    2. Re:Not good enough. by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

      If you publish the fact that you have evidence of a crime, but you don't offer that evidence to law enforcement -- and especially if you name the criminal -- you've committed a crime yourself.

      FTFA: The search warrant lists âoepetty theftâ and âoecomputer tampering with the intent to harassâ as probable causes.

      Why are you making up reasons that could be valid for arresting him that are not the reasons the police gave?

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    3. Re:Not good enough. by whiledo · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should check Wikipedia for "libel." That's the crime the GP was referring to. You can't print that someone committed a crime that you have no evidence to prove.

      --
      Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
    4. Re:Not good enough. by russotto · · Score: 1

      Perhaps you should check Wikipedia for "libel." That's the crime the GP was referring to.

      If so, he's even further off. Libel is rarely a crime, and failure to give evidence to the police is never, as far as I know, an element of it.

    5. Re:Not good enough. by whiledo · · Score: 1

      I was meaning crime in the general definition, not the legal definitions (i.e. "criminal" versus "civil"). Failure to give evidence isn't the issue, it's accusing someone of a crime, which is one of the basics of libel. The failure to give evidence is just a way of saying that they accused someone of a crime that there was no proof of. If there was evidence they committed a crime, then it would be a lot easier to defend against accusing them of it being libel.

      Of course, there's a question of whether the targets of libel would be considered public officials.

      I have no idea why the police raided them. For all I know they ARE bad cops. But I just feel this story is far too under-reported to jump to that conclusion.

      --
      Moderators: Before moderating a comment Insightful/Informative, check to see if a child post has already refuted it.
  38. How do you like your freedom now? by Jackie_Chan_Fan · · Score: 1

    This article is dedicated to all of those who say "I have nothing to hide, let them watch me"

    This is disgusting. The Phoenix Police will hopefully soon learn that they can not bully & intimidate a civilian that is standing up for his rights against corruption and abuse.

    America is a lie.

  39. Then, they fight you. Then, you win. by nathan.fulton · · Score: 1

    "First, they ignore you. Then, they laugh at you. Then, they fight you. Then, you win." - Gahndi

    Or something like that

  40. Moral of the story by PPH · · Score: 1

    If you have dirt on the police department, you keep a copy somewhere safe and outside of their jurisdiction. Its worked well for me.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  41. Not really targeting the blogger? by memorycardfull · · Score: 1

    If his story is to be believed he has 50-100 current or retired "good" cops secretly providing him tips and information about the "bad" cops. If true I suspect that the raid is less about shutting him down than it is shutting the informants down by discovering their identities. Cops hate cops that rat on cops.

  42. Re:Then, they fight you. Then, you win. by Ash-Fox · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Didn't Gandhi get killed, thus losing in the end?

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  43. Not so obvious by Guillaume+Castel · · Score: 3, Informative

    Anyone worth their salt knows nothing is stored in the cable modem.

    I don't know about the USA, but in France, all major ISPs provide their customers with "boxes" that can not only act as a modem/router/wireless access point, but also provide phone service over IP, IPTV, and sometimes include a hard drive for PVR functionality; mine can even act as a FTP server (that's an advertised functionality), with either the included hard drive or even a USB flash drive plugged into the box.

    Anyone worth their salt knows that, right? Anyway, I don't expect the police to be fully aware of the latest advances in consumer hardware, so I don't think it's completely illegitimate for them to seize anything that looks related to computing equipement.

  44. Relevant Federal Laws by rossz · · Score: 1

    Here's a couple of laws that apply. The police conspired, under color of law, to deprive him of his rights guaranteed by the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments.

    Title 18, U.S.C., Section 241
    Conspiracy Against Rights

    This statute makes it unlawful for two or more persons to conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person of any state, territory or district in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the United States, (or because of his/her having exercised the same).

    It further makes it unlawful for two or more persons to go in disguise on the highway or on the premises of another with the intent to prevent or hinder his/her free exercise or enjoyment of any rights so secured.

    Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to ten years, or both; and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years, or for life, or may be sentenced to death.

    Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
    Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

    This statute makes it a crime for any person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom to willfully deprive or cause to be deprived from any person those rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution and laws of the U.S.

    This law further prohibits a person acting under color of law, statute, ordinance, regulation or custom to willfully subject or cause to be subjected any person to different punishments, pains, or penalties, than those prescribed for punishment of citizens on account of such person being an alien or by reason of his/her color or race.

    Acts under "color of any law" include acts not only done by federal, state, or local officials within the bounds or limits of their lawful authority, but also acts done without and beyond the bounds of their lawful authority; provided that, in order for unlawful acts of any official to be done under "color of any law," the unlawful acts must be done while such official is purporting or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties. This definition includes, in addition to law enforcement officials, individuals such as Mayors, Council persons, Judges, Nursing Home Proprietors, Security Guards, etc., persons who are bound by laws, statutes ordinances, or customs.

    Punishment varies from a fine or imprisonment of up to one year, or both, and if bodily injury results or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire shall be fined or imprisoned up to ten years or both, and if death results, or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.

    --
    -- Will program for bandwidth
  45. Blogger deserved it ... by BitZtream · · Score: 1, Informative

    So if you read the article with any sense of fairness rather than biasing yourself against the police, I find it pretty hard to believe anything this man has to say.

    Lets look at the bullet points:

    • This began 2 years ago during HIS 'nasty divorce'
    • His wife claims he's harassing her and files complaints against him, with the police department.
    • He responds by not following the proper course of action and filing a police report, he instead, in his words:
      So he began filing complaints with everybody from Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon down to Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris to no avail. He was eventually indicted for harassing his ex-wife.
    • Read that again ... he harassed SEVERAL city officials, and then expects them to side with him and understand that he's not doing the SAME THING to his wife.
    • He makes a website because he's pissed off that the police aren't in a big hurry to prevent him from getting harassed.
    • Claims after his court case was dismissed he was going to take it down, but all these 'Good Cops' started giving him information

    So lets recap ... he gets accused of harassment, and promptly responds to that by harassing city officials ... uhm ... FIRST RED FLAG.

    He proceeds to follow up with a website damning the cops for not helping him. Let me give you a hint, no one rushes to help assholes like this.

    Next he says he's getting tips from 'good cops'. I call complete bullshit here. The cops of all people would know who to talk to up the chain of command at the state or federal level to get something done about this if they had any real information. They don't. Any tips he's getting are likely just the start of witch hunts on people they are trying to get even with.

    I have no doubt that there are corrupt cops in Phoenix.

    I also have no doubt that this guy is a douche bag who probably deserves more than he's going to get for starting a bunch of shit based on unsubstantiated 'tips' from what are most likely the corrupt cops themselves. Those that scream the loudest are typically the ones breaking the rules the most.

    This is a prime example of why anybody who trusts 'blogs' as a source of news is, to put it nicely, completely ignorant and should be terminated as soon as possible.

    --
    Persistent Volume manager for Kubernetes - https://github.com/dwimsey/openshift-pvmanager
    1. Re:Blogger deserved it ... by Hatta · · Score: 2, Interesting

      So if you read the article with any sense of fairness rather than biasing yourself against the police

      You mean, if you read the article biasing yourself in favor of the police...

      #
      # He responds by not following the proper course of action and filing a police report, he instead, in his words:
      So he began filing complaints with everybody from Phoenix Mayor Phil Gordon down to Phoenix Police Chief Jack Harris to no avail. He was eventually indicted for harassing his ex-wife.
      # Read that again ... he harassed SEVERAL city officials, and then expects them to side with him and understand that he's not doing the SAME THING to his wife.

      In what way is "filing complaints" harassment? If you're getting ignored through one venue, why not try bringing your plight to someone else with power? What exactly would you suggest someone do who is actually being ignored by the police?

      I also have no doubt that this guy is a douche bag who probably deserves more than he's going to get

      You know what? You're a douche bag. That doesn't mean you deserve to have your possessions confiscated by the police. Advocating the abuse of police power because someone is a "douche bag" is way, way out of line.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    2. Re:Blogger deserved it ... by taxman_10m · · Score: 1

      # His wife claims he's harassing her and files complaints against him, with the police department.
      # He responds by not following the proper course of action and filing a police report, he instead, in his words:

      What would he be filing a police report about?

    3. Re:Blogger deserved it ... by Legion303 · · Score: 1

      So your argument is that filing complaints with city officials, which is not a crime, justifies a raid and confiscation of equipment? Because that's what you just wrote.

      There was a time when I couldn't believe the amount of sheer stupidity on Slashdot. I guess I'm just jaded now.

    4. Re:Blogger deserved it ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is a prime example of why anybody who trusts 'blogs' as a source of news is, to put it nicely, completely ignorant and should be terminated as soon as possible.

      You're more than welcomed to try. Be sure to wear Type 4 body armor.

      On a more serious note, do you even realize how asinine your post sounds? Anybody who disagrees with you should be terminated? What the fuck is wrong with you? You've replied to this thread at least five times.. why not once and let it go? It's obvious that you've got issues.

      Get help... seriously. I'm reading about too many recent incidents of you brain-damaged bastards going off the deep end and taking good folks out. Yeesh.

  46. Uhhhh. Not sure by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

    This guy's first contact with the police department stems from a messy divorce, and charges of harassment and stalking. While this story is interesting, I'm afraid to just take his word for anything. This will take some digging, to determine who the bad guys really are. Yeah, on the face of it, the Phoenix police overstepped their authority. Whether that be true or not, they look to be pretty heavyhanded. BUT, what do we NOT know concerning the case? I reserve judgement, personally. If the "hero" of the story is 100% credible, then I sure hope he has good lawyers. One doesn't go up against a police force with a half-assed plan.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    1. Re:Uhhhh. Not sure by An+Onerous+Coward · · Score: 1

      You're right. We need to get both sides of the story, not rush to judgment about who is at fault.

      If only there were some way for this guy to publish his side of the story. Maybe he should start a blog or something.

      --

      You want the truthiness? You can't handle the truthiness!

    2. Re:Uhhhh. Not sure by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      This guy's first contact with the police department stems from a messy divorce, and charges of harassment and stalking.

      No. This guy's first contact with the police was when his wife filed bogus charges against him, and the police refused to look at the fact he was out of the state at various times he was supposedly bothering her.

      They, instead, managed to ignore his alibi all the way to court, where the judge immediately threw the entire case out because, duh, he had an alibi.

      Cases where the defendant has an alibi, at least one that is fairly solid, should not make it to court in the first place. No criminal case that immediately gets thrown out due to lack of evidence should make it to court in the first place.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    3. Re:Uhhhh. Not sure by Runaway1956 · · Score: 1

      Obviously, you accept the story, as written, as established fact. Some other people may see the possibility that the facts have been manipulated, so as to present this guy in a good light.

      The facts seem to be: 1.there was a messy divorce. 2.the wife accused him of stalking 3.the wife failed to present meaningful evidence 4.the guy says he was out of state anyway during this stalking business

      It is POSSIBLE that the wife had her facts straight, and that he WAS stalking her, and that his "out of state" defense was fabricated. And, it is POSSIBLE that his current involvement with blogging and exposing the police department is nothing more than a matter of seeking revenge.

      Mind you, I'm not saying that any of those possibilities are fact, I'm just pointing out that a reasonable person would keep those possibilities in mind.

      Hey, Reiser (of reiser file system fame) had some damned good excuses and explanations for his conduct too, remember?

      --
      "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
    4. Re:Uhhhh. Not sure by DavidTC · · Score: 1

      A reasonable person might wanted to have kept those facts in mind...until the judge threw out the case for exactly that stated reason, that he had an alibi that placed him out of state for many of the supposed incidents. Which the police did not even slightly bother to investigate.

      Um, duh. I don't know why you're acting like this is a 'he said she said' situation where we should wait for the court to decide, because the court already decided the complaint his wife filed against him...in his favor. The judge totally and immediately dismissed the case.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  47. Jury nullification by edward2020 · · Score: 1

    Look it up.

    --
    Don't worry about the mule, just load the wagon.
  48. Re:Then, they fight you. Then, you win. by Runaway1956 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Gahndi won. India is free today. Some people have greater goals than their own self-preservation. That is the concept behind medals, and other forms of recognition. In fact, that is the concept behind serving one's country - in the military, or otherwise.

    --
    "Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
  49. Re:Dear Moron`: by dotgain · · Score: 1

    Really ruins the smugness of a post when you have to correct it yourself afterwords.

    Especially when you went to the trouble of using "Dear Moron" for a subject line. Sure puts your priorities in perspective. Officer.

  50. It's called Fascism by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 1
    And it must be stopped. Those in authority must use their power judiciously and fairly and with cause. He could be a total dickweed, but blogging about the police department is not a crime.

    This is fascism. And it must be stopped at Every Instance.

    RS

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  51. No mention of encryption? by Statecraftsman · · Score: 1

    It's a shame that with 190+ posts not a single mention of encryption is to be found. Are we geeks or are we a barbershop? There should be an open invitation from those of us who know about encryption to help bloggers like this guy setup pgp for email and a truecrypt file if not full-drive encryption so raids like this, while succeeding in making the raiders look foolish, have the added feature that no data will be compromised.

    1. Re:No mention of encryption? by dotgain · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Most people still have more to fear from rubber-hose cryptanalysis techniques than they do from divulging their data. Deniable cryptography either equals or will be equal to guilt in $YOUR_COUNTRY.

  52. Welcome to America.. by Paracelcus · · Score: 1

    And where were you coming from?

    And what makes you presume that you have rights here?

    The only right you really have here is the right to remain silent!

    I'm in a bad mood

    --
    I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
  53. No you don't by ArchieBunker · · Score: 1

    How do you turn it on? How do you charge the batteries? The best way of storing info like this is encrypt everything and send it to a gmail account. Call it birthday photos or something...

    --
    Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
    1. Re:No you don't by Ashriel · · Score: 1

      The problem with sending out information to a third party is that you automatically lose the right to withhold said information on the grounds that it's self-incriminating, and search & seizure laws no longer apply (no one needs a warrant to take it).

      If you're going to have backups off-site, better to send it to a server you own and operate, or an offshore server you only access through anonymous proxy.

      If you're good at hiding things, then you're probably better off with a copy hidden at home. An SD card will fit into a remote in lieu of batteries, or a zippo with the stuffing taken out (search warrants don't apply to your person). A USB drive can fit easily into a cigarette pack, or - if you're really paranoid - inside a light switch socket.

  54. Actually... by spazdor · · Score: 1
    --
    DRM: Terminator crops for your mind!
  55. File federal suit immediately. by DragonTHC · · Score: 1

    The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

    Probable cause of what exactly?

    --
    They're using their grammar skills there.
  56. guilt by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    when I come take your computer because it was actually stolen from my dad in the first place, doesn't make me a corrupt cop or guilty of being evil

    Exactly where does it say the computer was stolen? Or is this misdirection and FUD?

    Falcon

  57. bailout by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I don't want my tax money going to pay these guys either, but when you give money to an organization to pay its obligations and they do, you can't get upset about it. Better to have let them go out of business, which was my position, and avoid the situation altogether.

    I'm with you on tax money going to these people but I find it hypocritical when the admin says the AIG execs had contracts and had to be paid but the UAW workers should take pay cuts, when they also have contracts. They all, AIG, Detroit, and other financial businesses, should have been made to declare bankruptcy. Those that made bad decisions would then be out of business while those who chose not to make bad decisions would still be around. Those still around may even have been able to buy those bankrupt and turned them around.

    Falcon

    1. Re:bailout by MinistryOfTruthiness · · Score: 1

      Well said. No argument from me. I even work for one of these companies and I was pissed when they got the money. Yeah, it probably would have meant I'd lose my job, but I'm not the type to declare defeat so quickly -- especially since I think that much of this "crisis" was manufactured early on and exacerbated until it became what it was. There was *tons* of money to be made by doing so.

      One thing that upset me was that many of these smaller banks would have had a chance to step into the vacuum and really clean up. Yeah, some were badly run and they went under as they should have, but many, many more are well run without excessive risk. They deserved their shot, and the opportunity of a lifetime was taken away from them. Now the corrupt players are back in the game, ready to create more trouble -- so much the worse.

      Have you seen they're starting to buy back the troubled assets? WTF?

      http://uk.reuters.com/article/burningIssues/idUKTRE53258J20090403

      Talk about a cycle of stupidity.

      I do not speak for my employer, yadda yadda.

      --
      "I know that every word that man just said is true, because it's EXACTLY what I wanted to hear." -- Space Ghost
  58. Re:Then, they fight you. Then, you win. by rts008 · · Score: 1

    That is one of the most insightful posts I've seen here, and it's sad that it has not been modded accordingly.

    I can only give you a hearty Well Said!

    --
    Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
  59. You missed one by Shivetya · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Using the office to put future generations into debt beyond reckoning should result in jail. Using the office to write laws to deprive them of their property (to include cash) for merely punitive matters should result in jail time.

    I don't know why so many don't see their money being taken as a violation of their rights. It is the profit of your labor yet so many turn a blind eye to its taking and outright abusive spending.

    Why should locals care? We let Congress run amok all the time so its not like the locals won't get their air of aristocracy about themselves as well. Don't worry, you will get to pay for their golden retirements too. Too many locals when booted for any reason from office hold on to their cherry pensions.

    --
    * Winners compare their achievements to their goals, losers compare theirs to that of others.
    1. Re:You missed one by Omestes · · Score: 1

      Stop driving on my roads then.

      Thank you.

      --
      A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
  60. What national media?! by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    This is what happens when panic'd decisions are made. The police force thinks they can go in and silence the whole thing with a BS warrant and put an end to it, only for the story to be picked up nation wide and now they're drawing way more attention than ever.

    Serves them right. This looks like a clear cut abuse of power by the department and now that the story is national, hopefully some heads will roll.

    What national media?

    A quick search of google news for "arizona blogger raid" produces one result from "prison planet".

    whooo.. national media attention!

    I think the "national media" has been throughly co-opted by multinational conglomerates for decades now, and is conspicuously silent.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  61. I hope you're right by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    Humanity will grow up and idiots like this guy will stop taunting people who can make their life a living hell...

    For your sake I hope you're right but there isn't enough info, evidence, to support your claim he's an idiot, or a criminal.

    Falcon

  62. Mod parent up. by plasmacutter · · Score: 1

    I predict that they "find" kiddie porn on his computer.

    This guy has predicted the future.

    I can't wait to see it on the news.

    --
    VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
  63. who's guilty? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    My logic is fine, your jumping to conclusions about who the actual victim is is bad. You have no clue what actually happened, just the word of some blogger who by his own work hates cops.

    And how does your logic conclude he's guilty? Or that he hates cops? What I get from both articles is that he hates bad cops, not all. He even uses cops as sources of information.

    When someone starts off by saying 'I hate cops because they are all corrupt, and these corrupt cops are attacking me because I'm telling other people they are corrupt' its generally a good sign they aren't exactly telling you the whole truth.

    I read then searched both articles for "hate". One did not contain it at all and the other only hard the word in comments made by others. Can you show me where either article says he said "I hate cops because they are all corrupt"? Do you have another source for this, or are you putting words in his mouth?

    You've already decided who's guilty

    By making him out to say "I hate cops because they are all corrupt" you're not doing the exact same thing but you're making things up too.

    Falcon

  64. The blog in question by wolf12886 · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://badphoenixcops.blogspot.com/

    Obviously the AZ police didn't like what this guy was publishing. I figure the more exposure it gets, the better.

  65. He's lucky... by WoollyMittens · · Score: 3, Insightful

    He's fortunate to not have been beaten half to death while they were at it. It's very easy for the police to claim he "assaulted" them.

  66. Ohhh, watch your step by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    I shut the fuck up the minute he wagered *ten*dollars*. On *Slashdot*.

    If that fucker don't know what he's talking about I don't know who does.

    I've known a lot of people who said stuff like "I bet X money" who didn't know squat about something. I've said it myself.

    Falcon

    1. Re:Ohhh, watch your step by dotgain · · Score: 1

      Yeah, fair enough as a figure of speech. But he advances it as if it lends weight to his argument. Anyway, I've got no argument with you, good day.

  67. they're old enough by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    And don't give me that bullshit 'they are just kids' crap, that excuse has been used far too many times. If you think they are old enough to drive a car on their own, I think they are old enough to know when they are about to get their asses kicked for being morons.

    They're old enough to be stopped from protesting but they're not old enough to drink?

    If we stop using pesticides, those same kids will be even more unhappy when they starve to death because we can't produce enough food

    Organic farmers, who are barred from using most pesticides, do it all the tyme.

    Falcon

  68. Senator Ted Stevens by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    who was railroaded during the elections, has been completely exhonorated.

    "Exhonorated"? If you mean he was relieved of a burden, yes he was but if you mean he was cleared of wrong doing you're wrong. Stevens may well have been innocent but the charges were dropped because he was wrongly convicted, the prosecutors withheld evidence and such from defense.

    We got screwed out of one of the few honest politicians in the Senate

    You can't possibly talking about the same Senator Ted Stevens who earmarked millions of taxpayer dollars for a Bridge to Nowhere. But what other Senator Ted Stevens is there?

    Falcon

  69. Quote - Thought Police 1984 (your fav quote ?) by EEPROMS · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "There was of course no way of knowing whether you were being watched at any given moment. How often, or on what system, the Thought Police plugged in on any individual wire was guesswork. It was even conceivable that they watched everybody all the time. But at any rate they could plug in your wire whenever they wanted to. You had to live--did live, from habit that became instinct--in the assumption that every sound you made was overheard, and, except in darkness, every movement scrutinized."

  70. Arizona's legal system is a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I just got a $1200 ticket for driving an off road vehicle about 100 yards on the dirt shoulder.

    that's $950 for no insurance and $250 for registration. FYI, the fines for speeding or other "dangerous" activities are far less.

    Oh, and here's an interesting story from the Parker 425 race a few years ago. At the start of the race, the vehicles haul ass down the road and make a hard left. On the outside of that turn, there was a cop car and a bunch of spectators were standing behind it (because they wouldn't want to get hit by a race truck if it missed the turn). Just before the race started, the cop got in his car and moved it directly behind the crowd of spectators, leaving nothing between the crowd of people and race trucks driving straight at them. Clearly the public safety was of no concern to this particular law enforcement officer.

  71. Let the Phoenix police know what you think. by Lunarsight · · Score: 1

    Here's a link to the feedback form on their website:

    http://phoenix.gov/EMAIL/svfdback.html/

    Perhaps if a ton of Slashdotters leave them critical feedback of what they did, it might knock some sense into them. (I would maintain a level of courtesy in the message, if you choose to do this. It's harder to disregard when it's kept civil.)

  72. What Excuse? by b4upoo · · Score: 1

    What excuse did the cops offer for the raid and seizures? If this story is half true these cops need a lot of years in prison. If it is all true then throw the key away!

  73. Didn't Gandhi get killed, thus losing in the end? by falconwolf · · Score: 1

    No, he wanted an independent India, which is what India is, so he won.

    Falcon

  74. Re:Then, they fight you. Then, you win. by Ash-Fox · · Score: 1

    Gahndi won. India is free today. Some people have greater goals than their own self-preservation.

    In my opinion, it's not really a great way to "win". I really don't consider it "winning", if the game to win is to die.

    --
    Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
  75. Restraining order eh? by Chas · · Score: 1

    Yeah, the fines for violating it would probably exceed the $1000. ;-)

    --


    Chas - The one, the only.
    THANK GOD!!!
  76. New Times arrests by lanner · · Score: 1

    This is the same state where the owners and operators of the New Times were arrested for exposing extreme judicial misconduct by prosecutors;

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_New_Times

    http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/19/business/media/19cnd-arrest.html?_r=2&hp&oref=slogin&oref=login

    http://www.eastvalleytribune.com/story/99912

    http://news.cnet.com/8301-13508_3-9800829-19.html

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21376598/

    Between "speed tax" photo radar on freeways and "Nickel Bag" Joe Arpaio in Arizona, I would definitely call the state highly prosecutorial against it's citizens.

  77. Article update by esocid · · Score: 1

    Update: Beneath the article is the leaked memo from Phoenix City Attorney Gary Verburg advising Phoenix police that a litigation hold has been placed on the Pataky case, meaning all documents relating to the case must be preserved under legal obligation. The memo also recommends officers to "exercise caution and discretion" when discussing the case electronically.

    So this either means they're going to have internal documents requested under discovery, but for a trial against them, or for this whole "internal leaks" thing?

    --
    Absolute power corrupts absolutely. indymedia
  78. Re:Look on the bright side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    See? Never criticize Barry here, or you go to Slashdot prison.

  79. It ought to be modded off-topic. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You'ld be an idiot to speak as a "member" of the press.
    I operate a press from time to time; either pressing my words to paper or deriving an illustration of note to seal an instrument of value pertaining to property warehoused for wait of draw to its apprised value on a certain time (a cheque).

    In other words, the freedom of the press tends to banking, communion, travel, as well as speaking one's own mind. It's three-fold, and any alleged Constitution that breaks it down to a form of maintenance in itself as to be a "member" that would deny any non-member to the same secured right of one's interest would be a pervertion to the laws of nature in and by itself.

    A news company or news corporation is a silly manner of veiling one's movement. Diversity of citizenship evinced in the First Judiciary Act should be discerned. United States by any alleged "matter" of suit would prove it a corporation (US Code Title 27, Sec 3002 15b), not the style to a conjoined or unioned body-politic

  80. PHOENIX Arizona is also #2 kidnap in continent by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There is so much contraband drugs going through that place that the druggy "lords" send their runners through there with specific instructions to not return until the full value of the drugs has been collected. Often when the alleged "authorities" of policin seize a shipment of drugs, the runners have been recently looking towards seizing any of the nearby disarmed populous to hold them ransom for the value of drugs they need to restate their favor to their deployer.

    This is why war is a crime; drug dealers never forced me to buy their wares, and when a bunch of jack-booted thugs seize the non-HMO's drugs then the non-violent will always suffer. Should kick-out anyone that deprives you of your ability to conduct business peacefully independent. "COPS" don't pay the bills, and aren't even on a service roll but to a corporation having contract to the municiple corporation that incorporated the township into a federal city. COPS are worse than drug-dealers theirselves; thinking they can remove the disease of addiction, but all they do is attract all the people of unfit character to fill the ranks of personell. Don't want either of their services. Same goes for Social Services. I'll hang myself by my nuts before I'll volunteer into Social Services. None of them are civil. Just a bunch of felons that ignorant people grant implicitly to work for them just because of a desparate or fleating transient cause.

  81. Yea, because we know All-American PD is golden. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, if anything then the PD is staffed by the same beautiful hell-spawn that created this guy. We know they are so much better people, and that kind of privileged sallary higher than productive labor only attracts the most positive-attitude kind of kin that love their neighbors as any slaughterhouse filling the bench of Judge Colonol Sanders McDonalds

    Was I supposed to use this (\sarcasm) tag?

  82. Libelous? Character Assassination? That's your job by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    An officer disgrages his office when he correlates those of his private disabilities and immoral character to become the urge to mis-promote his office. He would never be ashamed of disinformation because it fit the charter's character. Do you accuse a clown of being a clown, and make fun of his floppy shoes?

    Stop trying to say "bloggers" are anything but a trademark of a websites services. There are many journalists pretending to be "bloggers" at the illegal construment or misrepresentation of a commerc clause.

  83. Standard cop tactic apparently by Cruciform · · Score: 1

    I remember when one of the #oldwarez channel members got raided in the 90s. The cops took music cds, and anything else unrelated that they could carry out in boxes.
    All part of the intimidation factor I would imagine.
    "Get our attention and we're going to come fuck up your life, guilty or not."

  84. Re:Dear Moron`: by Phantom+of+the+Opera · · Score: 1

    Do you know why the took his stuff?

    Do you know anything about the story other than what he said?

    Do you know every single criminal on the planet says 'I'm guilty and this is police harassment'?

    Other than a blog post, do you have any evidence to support his story?

    Fortunately, I don't have to count on you to protect me from criminals.

    Fortunately, I'm not consumed by this paranoia that the government is out to get me. This allows me to just wait until someone gathers some ACTUAL FACTS about the story before drawing conclusions.

    Translation :
        I'm white. Police tend to like me and give me the benefit of the doubt and my neighborhood is safe. I will give them the benefit of the doubt since I probably wouldn't like the moron blathering in his blog anyway.

  85. Re:Look on the bright side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    After reading all the Obama paranoia on slashdot for the past few months now, I've come to the conclusion that conservatives are the biggest bunch of pantywaist sissies, scared of their own shadow. It's pathetic. Crawl back into mommy's crack and let the grown ups have a talk without throwing a hissy every 5 minutes, would you please?

  86. Do not equate gun-nuts with authoritarianism by RobNich · · Score: 1

    I agree with everything up until the last line. "Gun-nuts" as you call them are not authoritarian as a rule. In fact, it's quite the opposite. While some gun-rights people want their guns for hunting, many want them to be able to defend themselves from the government, and would be against authority and certainly against the federal government's authoritarianism.

    On the other hand, I hope you're not under the illusion that Bush and authoritarianism are tied together either. The Democrats want to control each individual as much as the Republicans. In the Democrats' case, they want to help the disadvantaged. The only way they will get that is to enact more social programs that control more and more of the population's activities.

    Bush's administration was removing rights with the supposed intention of making everyone safer, and the Democrats will continue it with the supposed intention of helping those who can't take care of themselves. Both are authoritarian, both are contrary to the Constitution.

    --
    Hello little man. I will destroy you!
  87. THIS IS AN OUTRAGE by Moe1975 · · Score: 1

    My goodness gracious, I about went through the roof upon reading this. My God, what has America come to? I am glad I no longer live there, even though I miss my City of Angels and my family and many things, my God.

    I can't believe this. I hope to God the Feds go fucking psycho on them hick shithole cops, the Feds can cause some major, major damage when they feel like it.

    I wish I could do something . . . I wish someone would email me and tell me how I can help.

    This crime may very well go unpunished, however, I have hopes that the Obama administration will make an example out of those fucks. This is why, this is why, EVERY TIME I hear/read about a cop getting blown away, anywhere in the world, I LITERALLY hoot and holler and cheer and say GOOD, GOOD RIDDANCE, I AM SO GLAD THOSE PIGS GOT BLOWN AWAY

    It makes my motherfucking day every time!

    GGGRRRRRRRRRRR

    --
    SARAVA!
  88. Just shooot em' by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Here in Portland Oregon we don't have this problem with bloggers suing police. The police shoot them before anything could get that far. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portland_Police_Bureau " Members of local law enforcement have killed about 47 citizens from 1992 to 2008. A large majority were shot by the Portland Police Bureau members , with several having died in while in custody at the Multnomah County Detention Center.[19] In several high-profile cases, including the James Chasse, Jr. and Kendra James incidents, the Portland Police Bureau has been accused of habitually engaging in the abuse of force and then covering up the investigation.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27]"

    1. Re:Just shooot em' by OldFish · · Score: 1

      Time for the citizenry to turn the tables then, isn't it?

  89. Not a COP until they're in service. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ask David Myrland on how to prosecute all these wicked men.

    How many times do you see a man in uniform with nothing to do? Do you call him a mechanic on break? A Fireman without a brushfire to piss-off? A doctor? Never a lawyer, yet we see them every day giving legal advice that is not qualified in their position, and for their purpose specially as a process server if not a rare kind of investigator we instead see them as a mere accuser without any interest in the matter allegedly in dispute.

    Have you ever seen them fight amongst one another? How about this on a non-duty COP upholding his 2nd amendment right.

    Think they are limited to tasing when they have no lawful or moral high-ground? They yell at you as would a boot-camp instructor, giving such suggestible "content" of their delapidated character or neck-wrestling whoever with a disagreeable dialect. Theses people called "COPS" are like you and me, but only one difference; they're US'ians, not nationals; always offended of there being any equality between you and them, posing their many achievments as would any unstewardly parson, and payed by a municipal corporation in bias to conduct any function on your dime. You can't be payed by another to perform a function that predominantly funds your living rather than lawful work. A more studied and lawful function to abate the opposition pre-tendered by a COP would perhaps be a security consultant, a notary, and then a clerk. COPS have no sole but what is given them, and with a pension supported by their pyrosecution.

  90. Simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Simple: Jeff, go to a public library and access your blog from Internet connected computers there.

  91. AZ police by Douglas+F. · · Score: 1

    I feel for this guy. Hopefully he was just publishing and/or exposing the truth. Police like that should be in jail! I have had great police here, actually worth my taxes imho but been lucky with that that I suppose. ITT, very interesting. 3slashdot

  92. Nope - the aim is something designed much earlier by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I must admit I was thinking too that both UK and US were using 1984 as a manual to reduce their nations to Zimbabwean levels of undemocratic behaviour. But the aim is a little bit more dictatorial.

    However, I confused the method with the target. That actual aim is to turn the nations into a Panopticon, which was invented in 1785. The stated design aim was to influence the way prisoners thought by making them think they were permanently being watched.

    It's amazing that the governments of two allegedly "democratic" countries engage in this. Stalin would have been proud.

  93. Re:Then, they fight you. Then, you win. by sjames · · Score: 1

    Didn't Gandhi get killed, thus losing in the end?

    He was killed, but not by the British Empire that he drove out of India. If dying any time after a great victory means you lost after all, then there are no winners. No one here gets out alive.

  94. this is why they CAN have nice things by Scrameustache · · Score: 1

    What about the rich dissidents, the ones that can actually do something about the whole mess? The ones with the most power AND some conscience. Not all the rich are equal.

    Then it becomes of question of who has the most money, the dissenters or the others.
    The purpose is not to have a police force that is open to the highest bidder of course, but to maintain the status of those who are affluent.

    --

    You can't take the sky from me...

  95. The EFF is going to have a field day w/ this case! by Bushido+Hacks · · Score: 1

    In what is going to be a landmark, open-and-shut case, the Phoenix Police Department is going to have to put their Kevlar kneepads on when the Electronic Frontier Foundation convinces the judge to throw the book at the cops.

    By the way, with kidnappings, and murders on the rise in Arizona relating to the Mexican Drug Lords (MDLs) south of the border, when was the last time anyone in the local news media actually made it a cover story that the MDLs are already in the United States and planning to go to war with ill prepared American police departments?

    It became quite clear the MDLs were interested in going north when one of the local police departments in the St. Louis, Missouri area had a sting at a local gas station that was selling AK-47s and Claymore mines to local gangbangers. The only other possible group of people interested in that market would be domestic terrorists.

    When the cops aren't doing their job, someone has to speak out.

    --
    The Rapture is NOT an exit strategy.
  96. Re:Then, they fight you. Then, you win. by shutdown+-p+now · · Score: 1

    India became free in large part by fighting at the side of Britain in WW2. All while Gandhi preached for British and French to lay down arms and welcome German soldiers to their homes, and for Jews to "throw themselves at the butcher's knife", all in the name of non-violence. Do you seriously think that India would be better off, or even "free", if they all followed his advice?

  97. New Invention Needed by bratwiz · · Score: 1

    And if you invent it and charge for it, you owe me a bunch o bucks...

    Create a security camera system that uploads camera data to a public internet site at all times. Then if someone breaks into your house and steals your equipment, the photos are already uploaded. Further have the site spread the photos around to other sites so its harder to take them down. Watch the watchers. Make it HARD for them to act in secrecy.

  98. Welcome to Amerika! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Boy!

    They were obviously trolling, hoping to find something like kiddie porn they could use to put him away for a long time. I'm surprised that nothing like that "just showed up" on one of his drives or disks.

  99. Re:Look on the bright side... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Taking over major companies an then firing the CEO,....

    You're a cunt. A stupid, disingenuous one at that.

    That's not what happened, and you know it.

    Stop being a cocksucker. Or at least, if you insist on sucking cocks, suck mine.