NY Couple On "Wanted" Poster For Filming Police

Hugh Pickens writes "Ben Fractenberg and Jeff Mays write that the NYPD has created a 'wanted' poster for a Harlem couple who film cops conducting stop-and-frisks and post the videos on YouTube — branding them 'professional agitators' who portray cops in a bad light and listing their home address. The flyer featuring side-by-side mugshots of Matthew Swaye and Christina Gonzalez and the couple's home address was taped to a podium outside a public hearing room in the 30th Precinct house and warns officers to be on guard against them. The couple has filmed officers stopping and frisking and arresting young people of color in Harlem and around New York City, which they post on Gonzalez's YouTube account. They said their actions are legal. 'There have been times when it's gotten combative. There have been times when they [police officers] have videoed Christina,' says Swaye. 'But if we were breaking the law they would have arrested us.' Swaye was part of a group of advocates including Cornel West who were detained at the 28th Precinct in Harlem in October for protesting the stop-and-frisk policy which Mayor Bloomberg strongly defends. "

Comments

Amazing

[MightyMartian]

It's amazing what we let what amounts to State employees get away with.

Re:Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

we don't. democracy in the US is a failure. the feedback loop between government action and election of representatives is so tenuous as to not be perceptible.

during an election a candidate gnashes his teeth about some hot-button issue, which, if elected, he will completely ignore.
education and immigration are classics.

the government just continues to do things, a mindless bacterial colony

i don't see how you can ascribe any intent or meaning to any of it except the reflexive actions of a colony of self-perpetuating organisms

Re:Amazing

[Skuld-Chan]

As a state employee (I'm not a cop) its amazing what we let corporate employees get away with too.

Re:Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

It's amazing what we let what amounts to State employees get away with.

"I have in my hand 57 cases of individuals who would appear to be either card carrying members or certainly loyal to the Communist Party, but who nevertheless are still helping to shape our foreign policy...."

-Joseph McCarthy, Speech at Wheeling, West Virginia

Re:Amazing

[phantomfive]

If the representatives get away with something, it's because people don't care.

Now, go find a random person and talk to him about the importance of copyright limitations, and see how long it takes before his eyes glaze over in boredom.

Then take a topic people actually do care somewhat about, like collusion between banks and regulators, and they'll agree with you, saying, "Yeah, someone should do something about that, it's horrible!" This is a medium level of caring. They care, but not enough to stop watching American Idol or stop playing video games or whatever.

Finally take a topic people actually care enough about to vote on. If a politician raises taxes, there's a good chance he'll be voted out next election. Take money from my wallet, I'm really going to be upset! As a result, taxes have gone consistently lower, in every administration, in a bipartisan manner. Not even Obama dares to raise taxes on everybody.

Politicians respond when people actually care. When people don't pay attention, they do whatever they want.

Re:Amazing

[0123456]

If the representatives get away with something, it's because people don't care.

Uh, no. It's because all they can do is elect a replacement who will treat them just the same, or get out the burning torches, pitchforks and ropes.

Finally take a topic people actually care enough about to vote on. If a politician raises taxes, there's a good chance he'll be voted out next election.

And replaced by a clone who keeps taxes just as high as they were, because even if he does cut the specific tax that resulted in his election, he sneaks in other stealth tax increases to compensate.

Re:Amazing

[green1]

I tend to hear things like "the customer service rep at ____ was an idiot! I'm never shopping there again!" I rarely however hear "that government employee was an idiot! I'm never voting ______ again!"
So obviously we think of these things differently somehow. I'm not saying that this is the way things SHOULD be, but I think as a society we hold companies accountable for their worker's actions a lot more than we hold governments accountable for the actions of the civil servants.

Re:Amazing

[DinDaddy]

So I can choose not to provide any funds to the state if I don't like their actions like I can with a corporation?

Corporate employees can wreak havoc with my life like the police can?

While your statement is true, it does not reach the level of equivalency.

Re:Amazing

[ShanghaiBill]

democracy in the US is a failure. the feedback loop between government action and election of representatives is so tenuous as to not be perceptible.

You seem to be implying that a majority of the voters object to stop-and-frisk. Do you have any evidence to back that up? Personally, I find the practice to be appalling, and I am surprised that the courts consider it to be constitutional. But in casual conversations with my fellow citizens, my perception is that a clear majority support it, or at least tolerate it. So I don't see how this is a "failure of democracy".

Re:Amazing

[blackraven14250]

I actually wonder how Bloomberg will respond to this incident. He's reasonable enough where he may go against the cops in this case.

Re:Amazing

[Anne Thwacks]

Surely this contravenes the European Human Rights Bill

Ho ... wait...

Re:Amazing

[NFN_NLN]

Great. Now dude, fucking leave if you don't like it here!

You come across like a douche, but technically that was the approach used by Europeans to escape tyranny at home. Unfortunately, I don't think there is anymore free land we can trade glass beads and firewater for. So, now we are forced to deal with people like you.

Re:Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

Taxes high?

You are one fucking ignorant Liberatard.

Federal Taxes are the lowest they have been in the past 60 years.

.

Also The Starve the Beast theory is a failure, even the Libertarian Cato Institute's own research shows that, not just once, but twice.

You want lower taxes, or more actual money, my guess is you actually want more money, and they only way to do that is to add more taxes on the 1%, .1% and .01%; you know the fuckers who are making 100-800 times what you're making.

But no, my guess is you're going to continue to vote for the birthday cake party instead.

Re:Amazing

[PopeRatzo]

the government just continues to do things, a mindless bacterial colony

Not mindless at all. The government works at the direction of the entities that have bought it.

If you look at all of government behavior, you see a set of rules and strategies that are designed to provide the greatest benefit to a very few. Even things like social welfare programs are designed to benefit the very few who finance the elections of all legislators and officials. For example, the greatest beneficiaries of the food stamp program are companies like General Mills and ADM. The greatest beneficiaries of Medicare is the large health care conglomerates and pharmaceutical companies. The greatest beneficiaries of immigration policy are not immigrants, but corporations. The greatest beneficiaries of our energy policy is not the users of energy, but the energy companies. The greatest beneficiary of our national defense is not the safety of US citizens, but the military-industrial complex. If those programs were truly meant to help out people, they'd look quite a bit different.

People who say government is "ineffective" just happen to not be the ones who are getting the benefit. If you are a member of the "1%" (to use a construction from OWS), then you would conclude that government is very effective, even though you can always squeeze out a little more by complaining. Just to make sure everyone knows who's boss.

This is one reason why although Republicans reliably complain about "big government" and "entitlements" and "spending" and "welfare", when they get into power all of a sudden they become more interested in settling a score with some two-bit country somewhere or cutting taxes on the wealthy.

The only thing you can do to really upset everyone is to actually take some revenues and do something that makes peoples' lives better. Maybe fix some bridges or start some major infrastructure policy. That's "socialism" and "leftist" and is thus worser than the worst thing ever according to the serious pundits. Dropping a trillion dollar pile of money on bankers who will then light it on fire is "capitalism" and thus "needed to be done" to "prevent collapse".

Re:Amazing

[hairyfeet]

For that to work we would need to have actual CHOICE when it comes to candidates and we don't. The amount of corruption and greed has gotten so thick that for all intents and purposes they are the same party. Sure the dems kiss big media booty a little more and the reps kiss big business booty a little more but in the end they are BOTH for more power, they are BOTH for more money to their "friends" they are BOTH for bringing home the bacon, they are BOTH for less rights for you.

People don't vote because they don't care, they don't vote because they see the current system is pointless and a waste of time. Tell me how did we get anything different by changing the POTUS? Or the switches back and forth with congress? Occupy do anything? Nope because in the end when a 1%er walks in and writes a big fat check that is the ONLY vote that counts and since you can't write that check you don't have a vote, simple as that. think they give a crap if you kick them out? They'll just get a high paid lobbying job while enjoying their benefits, hell they won't even leave town, just move to an office down the street. Boy now THAT is a hardship!

Re:Amazing

[Hognoxious]

I tend to hear things like "the customer service rep at ____ was an idiot! I'm never shopping there again!" I rarely however hear "that government employee was an idiot! I'm never voting ______ again!"

Thing is, when there's an election it only changes the people at the top, who on a day-to-day basis don't make a difference to J.Public esq. That asshat cop who ignores the local bar opening way beyond hours and all the ensuing noise because he gets free drinks there? He doesn't get replaced. That incompetent schoolteacher who can't even spell Mississippi despite living there? She doesn't get replaced.

Maybe they should. That'd be interesting, though it might cause more problems than it solves.

Re:Amazing

[roc97007]

>> If the representatives get away with something, it's because people don't care.

> Uh, no. It's because all they can do is elect a replacement who will treat them just the same, or get out the burning torches, pitchforks and ropes.

Well, that would be caring.

Re:Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

The courts don't consider it constitutional, and have time and time again overturned stop and frisk cases, much to the chagrin of the thugs in uniform. Consider their spokeswoman, who views it as a travesty that the cops can't detain and harass an individual just because they see that individual placing an item into a backpack:
http://www.sfgate.com/business/bloomberg/article/New-York-Police-Lose-Second-Stop-and-Frisk-Case-3683212.php "The majority opinion creates new obstacles for police officers who reasonably suspect that someone is carrying an illegal gun"

Re:Amazing

[History's Coming To]

We have exactly the same problem in the UK if it's any consolation, the three main parties are essentially the same group of people organised into three "different parties". In reality, they're not different, they're one party who's job it is to get any of the three elected and ensure the wages, expenses and party donations, plus the highly lucrative "consultancy work".

There are two things required to change this:

1: A concerted campaign to replace the parties with independent candidates at the next election. Doesn't matter whether your views are left, center or right, vote independent. I think we can all happily agree that you don't need a majority party for a stable government if you have independents voting free of any partisan line.

2: A contract for MPs (Reps for those in the US) that forbids collusion on voting. If it works for game shows it'll work for democracy. MPs should do the job they're elected for, which is thinking carefully about things and voting on our behalf. I'll re-emphasise that, our behalf. Not that of their party boss, ours. All MPs will have personal recording equipment, and can report other MPs if they are approached to collude on a vote, a successful prosecution leads to a £1 million taxpayer funded donation to the charity of the MP who reported it. Totally worth it.

Re:Amazing

[interkin3tic]

Uh, no. It's because all they can do is elect a replacement who will treat them just the same, or get out the burning torches, pitchforks and ropes.

That's very optimistic. So few of them vote in the primaries. More than two people to look into and form opinions about? That's more effort than most people are willing to do. If they were just fed up about having poor candidates, you'd think they would actually support reasonable people running for office rather than waiting for big campaign contributors to decide for them.

And replaced by a clone who keeps taxes just as high as they were, because even if he does cut the specific tax that resulted in his election, he sneaks in other stealth tax increases to compensate.

Well yeah, because while we hate taxes, we also hate reducing entitlement programs, defense spending, or government benefits. And the third option of "Do both and run up the debt" is becoming an exhausted option.

That leaves 1. Doing some of both, making a reasoned, rational case for this approach to the voters, and getting thrown out of office by an angry mob, or 2. Doing either and pretending you're not.

The problems with politics in this country are mainly due to the voters themselves. It'd be really nice if there were just a small group of politicians and shadowy figures messing things up, we could pretty easily revolt and lock them up. But that's not the case, it's much worse, it's most voters that are the problem, and educating them is far harder a revolution.

Re:Amazing

[phantomfive]

Uh, no. It's because all they can do is elect a replacement who will treat them just the same, or get out the burning torches, pitchforks and ropes.

Uh, yes. You may feel like your voice personally is not being heard, because it's not. You are one of millions. You are an insignificant, meaningless nit. And your friends around you, who all agree, are a small, insignificant segment as well. Government does not represent you personally, but when the general electorate strongly wants something, it will respond. Problem is the general electorate doesn't care about the things you care about.

Re:Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

So I can choose not to provide any funds to the state if I don't like their actions?

Thoreau did. I mean the state will pretty much ruin your life in return, but you can choose.

Re:Amazing

[UnknownSoldier]

So that's your solution to every problem you don't like .. ignore it?

Ignoring a problem doesn't make it go away.

Re:Amazing

[interkin3tic]

So I can choose not to provide any funds to the state if I don't like their actions like I can with a corporation?

Yes. The next CEO or billionaire you meet, ask them how they do it.

Corporate employees can wreak havoc with my life like the police can?

They -can- brutalize you like the police can and do, but being much more clever than the police in general, they realize it's much more satisfying to leech from the public and not break any laws. No expensive legal fees or additional bribery required. They already have the laws nearly exactly how they want to. If you don't pay up, they do ruin your life for far longer than the police would if they broke your legs.

Re:Amazing

[Attila Dimedici]

I tend to hear things like "the customer service rep at ____ was an idiot! I'm never shopping there again!" I rarely however hear "that government employee was an idiot! I'm never voting ______ again!"

Even less often do you hear, "that government employee was an idiot! I'm never paying taxes to that municipality again." The reason being that I can still choose to not do business with a company that I don't like (although the Supreme Court just ruled that Congress can tax me more if I don't do business with a government favored company).

Re:Amazing

[BlueStrat]

I live in Chicago and recently we surpassed 250 murders; an increase of 38% from last year. In fact, there are more murders in Chicago then LA and NY. There needs to be armed troops patrolling the streets in S. Chicago to ensure the safety of the AVERAGE American of any ethnicity.

No, the Fascists in Chicago should allow citizens to legally own and carry a firearm for self-defense as is their Constitutional right. Obviously, by the very stats you cite, the only people that anti-gun laws are preventing from carrying a gun in Chicago are the law abiding citizens that are currently forced by the government to be defenseless sheep for the slaughter for any armed Chicago thug.

Strat

Re:Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

One of the primary goals of American democracy is to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. In this case it does not matter if 90% of the voting public were fanatically in favor of stop and frisk. Because it is a violation of the constitutional rights of a minority it is illegal and must be stopped.

Re:Amazing

[EdIII]

I don't think there is anymore free land we can trade glass beads and firewater for

Yes... sometimes White Man gave us beads and firewater for land. Not all the time. Sometimes it was blankets that made us sick, and other times, well... we wished for some beads and firewater instead.

That was many moons ago though. We have protected land and casinos now. That look on White Man's faces when we take all his money and he leaves casino can't be bought with beads and firewater. No Sir. That's priceless.

Re:Amazing

[Charliemopps]

Bullshit. We've been fooled into believing we only have 2 choices in elections. Democrats and Republicans. Those 2 parties choose issues that are irrelevant and will not affect the bribes and kickbacks they get once in office. Immigration, abortion, education, etc... The media is bought and sold just like these officials are. They only cover issues they're told to. Do you think any new outlet would ever cover copyright reform in any unbiased light?

Until people realize that this country is run by a single party, a ruling class, and simply pretends to disagree on a few issues, we're going to be stuck in this rut.

Re:Amazing

[phantomfive]

Once again, go talk to some random person about copyright issues, and see how long it takes before they are bored. If you are a major news outlet, those people will be bored too. Therefore, major news outlets will never cover that.

YOU care about copyright. You need to get through your thick skull that just because YOU care about something, that doesn't mean the people around you care, or would even care if they understood the problems.

Re:Amazing

[davydagger]

I am implying its un constitutional. a simple majority is not enough to repeal constitutuional protections.

Re:Amazing

[tburkhol]

I tend to hear things like "the customer service rep at ____ was an idiot! I'm never shopping there again!"

Interesting. I'm much more likely to hear "The customer service rep at Comcast was an idiot, but they're the only provider in my neighborhood." Or Verizon. Or ATT.

Re:Amazing

[Dan667]

what are you talking about? Anyone in authority abuses their power. Ever try taking with a bank?

Re:Amazing

[chrismcb]

I never understood this sentiment. Its like you are living in a dirty house, so you turn to your housemates and say "Man this place is dirty, lets spend an afternoon and clean it up." And your housemate says "Great. Now dude, fucking leave if you don't like it here!"

Re:Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

That line can still be heard throughout Europe when it comes about politics or a bunch of other areas where different ideas come into conflict. A lot of people mistake democracy with the tyranny of the majority. Also, a lot of people gladly invite other people to leave, now that Europe mostly allows free travel within its borders. In other words, emigration is good as long as _you_'re the one who leaves home.

Re:Amazing

[AmberBlackCat]

That's one of the problems with being an "ethnic minority". A lot of times, people don't care what's happening to you because it doesn't happen to them. Their biggest problem is you won't shut up about it. So they consider you to be the bad guy instead of the people giving you a hard time.

Re:Amazing

[ffflala]

If I had mod points I'd waste them on your already level-5 rating.

The failure here is humanity's, not the system. Elections are actually a pretty good way to keep things from getting bloody every generation or two.

Here's an illustrative example. In 2000, I was pretty broke and living with four roommates. We had a circle of about 15-20 friends who'd regularly hang out -- come over, watch SouthPark or something. I was really concerned about the upcoming Gore -v- Bush presidential election. Without being a nagging pain about it, I tried to keep the upcoming election on their radar. I reminded them of the voter registration deadlines. I located our polling station --a five minute, seven-block walk from our house. Night before election day I reminded people to vote. Election day came, about 10 people were sitting around watching Southpark, and I reminded them again -- still plenty of time to get to the polls, it was close and there was no wait. Of course they didn't end up bothering to go vote. Had the country had a mere thousandth of a percent less apatheteic --had one of those friends in 10 across the country bothered to take a few minutes to vote-- we would not have had 8 years of W. We certainly wouldn't have a war in Iraq, and... well wishful thinking about what could have been is useless. Just happened again with the failed recall of Wisconsin governor Scott Walker.

Point is, don't blame the system; blame the lazy fucking public. Most people do not vote. It's a minor thing that could literally change the world, but hey no can do -- Game of Thrones is on and/or I have to head out to da club/mall/I'm too busy on reddit. They'll be sure to bitch about how bad the system is though, ignorance and apathy notwithstanding.

Re:Amazing

[sumdumass]

Lol.. Taxes are not the lowest they have been in 60 years. Certain taxes are, but the fees and other taxes added together are not.

The problem isn't really taxes either. It's expecting too much from elected officials who traditionally have limited power. Most of what people expect from a federal government is more appropriately accomplished at a state level. This is somewhat obvious by the way many federal programs are implemented whereby they mandate states create the programs that comply with federal law and then pass money collected at the federal level to the states to be implemented within those programs. Food stamps, housing assistance, medicaid, education, the vast majority of highway funding, all operate this way with only social security and parts of medicare actually having the federal government in control of the entire programs or program parts.

I'm going to ignore your 1% rhetoric as it is meaningless dribble in comparison to reality.

Re:Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

You bring up a good point. If the majority believe in segregation, taking voting rights away from women, and disarming law abiding citizens, the practices don't magically become constitutional or right. It takes more than a majority to change the constitution, and even then such practices only become legal. But the history of this country is littered with examples where the rights of law abiding citizens have been trampled by the vote of the majority... We can only hope that eventually we wake up and correct things before it is too late. Liberty and the rule of law are even more important than democracy, though it may be a close second.

Re:Amazing

[phantomfive]

The failure here is humanity's, not the system. Elections are actually a pretty good way to keep things from getting bloody every generation or two.

Exactly. This point needs to be emphasized over and over. Democracy doesn't guarantee you a good government, it gives you the government you deserve. Not you personally, but the collective you, with the people around you.

And when the time comes that the majority decides they want a better government, they can do it without a bloody revolution. Need it be said that voting is much more convenient than killing?

Re:Amazing

[tmosley]

Yeah, I think most people are in fact concerned about the fact that they can be sued into a thousand lifetimes of debt because they downloaded some music or movies. Did you ever actually TEST your theories, or do you just walk around all day making broad generalizations based on your own interpretation of others?

Re:Amazing

[tmosley]

Uhh, if the system can't deal with humanity, then the system IS a failure.

Read about the Stanford Prison Experiment. The take away lesson should NOT be that the people chosen to participate were morally inferior (an aspersion you seem willing to cast at all humanity), but that poorly designed systems will turn good people into evil people based on the role they are assigned.

Re:Amazing

[phantomfive]

No, I was too bored. Since I'm a republican, I spend all my time worrying about the identification chip I need to have implanted as a result of Obamacare. He totally is the antichrist!

BTW did you see the infomercial for the xhose? I need that thing.

Re:Amazing

[theshowmecanuck]

Most people don't mind this because every time it is implemented the crime rate goes down. When the bad guys know they are being watched, they don't do bad things. The truth is if you want to dress like a gansta or tough guy, don't be surprised if people treat you like one. Why else does someone dress like that other than to project an image.

If the image you want to project is that of a bad guy tough guy, stop fucking whining when you are treated that way. It's like women who where low cut tops and push up bras so their tits are bulging out, and then bitching about how they are degraded when men look at their tits. People are hard wired to react to what they see. Why, because evolution (you know that thing that we bitch about the religious right ignoring) wired us like this because it helped us survive. When we see potential danger or tough guy competition, we react. When we want to intimidate to win a fight without fighting (fighting is a last resort in the economy of survival... it is too dangerous to do it as a first resort) so we try to look tough and intimidate first. So the fact that we defend or go against the people who dress like tough guys is a facet of our evolutionary past.

The fact we look at big tits is part of our evolution too. If women look healthy it is ingrained in us that they are the ones we want to schtup... errr mate with. Bottom line, what we dress and act like is how others will treat us because evolution told us that generalizing is the safe way to go and leads to a greater chance to survive and excel, and we can generalize that guys who look like criminals probably have those tendencies. So stop trying to look the part and a good chance you won't be harassed.

I know the politically correct will hate this. I think they hate the effects of evolution more than the religious right. They don't like the fact that we are in essence animals and react often instinctually, and that no amount of 'civilization' will end it. No we are not above our animal instincts. At best we can mitigate them as long as it serves to our benefit. So get over it "sensitive people." And right now, people are allowing their instinctual fear of the guys who look like they want to bad things to them rule. And since crime goes down when these policies are enacted, it shows that our instincts via evolution are once again, correct. It is hard to win against a biologically ingrained education won over scores of millennia at the school or hard knocks.

Re:Amazing

[IICV]

But in casual conversations with my fellow citizens, my perception is that a clear majority support it, or at least tolerate it.

That's because the clear majority of the people you're talking to aren't, themselves, getting stopped and frisked.

Their opinions would be different if that was the case, and in fact that's probably why the police officers are primarily stopping and frisking people who are unlikely to vote or be politically active.

Re:Amazing

[hot soldering iron]

A friend of mine told me years ago, that when he was living in Florida when the concealed carry law went into affect, there was a sudden decrease in the quantity of violent crime incidents. He then noted that tourists started getting mugged and killed fairly regularly after that. Now, rental car companies don't put their stickers on the bumpers anymore, and I've heard of people getting sideswiped off the roads by gang bangers before they're even off the airport property.
Why? Tourists can't carry guns on planes, and ground travel with a loaded gun gets dicey pretty quickly. Cops don't like people to be able to defend themselves. They start to wonder why they need cops then.
There were quite a few reports of official seizure of personal firearms after hurricane Katrina, leaving many people without means of protecting themselves or their property. I know that got a couple people killed or robbed.

A person can only count on their own ability to provide themselves any safety or security. Having other people work towards that goal also is helpful, but relying on others for basic security needs is just making you their bitch. Your choices are to basically stand on your own feet, or get down on your knees. These are lessons every biker, outlaw, and combat soldier know. Police know it too. The "nice" people are usually kept in ignorance by whomever their guard dogs are, so that they willingly give it up when its time to be sheared.

I relinquish the floor to the trolls.

Re:Amazing

[Jumperalex]

Because a democracy does NOT mean mod rule.

Re:Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

Point is, don't blame the system; blame the lazy fucking public. Most people do not vote. It's a minor thing that could literally change the world, but hey no can do

But that's the thing- voting DOESN'T "change the world". It doesn't do shit.

So why bother?

Re:Amazing

[fustakrakich]

Need it be said that voting is much more convenient than killing?

Bombing and shooting are convenient ways of clearing out obsolete buildings and infrastructure. And it deals with the overpopulation problem.

Re:Amazing

[fustakrakich]

Hah! If you think the cops are bad now, just wait they become totally privatized.

And yeah, a corporate employee can disappear your bank account pretty quick.

Maybe you're right about the equivalency, at least in theory the government has to answer to the voters. Nothing so ethereal as the 'market'.

Re:Amazing

[king neckbeard]

If they were just fed up about having poor candidates, you'd think they would actually support reasonable people running for office rather than waiting for big campaign contributors to decide for them.

The problem is that they won't vote for the reasonable person because they know their vote won't count, so they vote for what they see as the lesser of two evils Basically everybody hates republicans and democrats and would rather see a literal pile of manure take their place, but they vote for one to keep out the other, and this mass of people voting against the two parties is why the two parties are the only game in town.

Re:Amazing

[ewieling]

Even less often do you hear, "that government employee was an idiot! I'm never paying taxes to that municipality again."

I got a speeding ticket in the town I live. My passive aggressive response was to not spend a penny within the town limits for a year. I hope I deprived them of at least as much money in local sales taxes as they received from the speeding ticket.

Re:Amazing

[hey!]

You're missing two important factors here: fear and anger.

Fear is a favorite tool of politicians, because once it's ignited it makes people irrational. Emotions are "refractory" (they resist going away), and fear is the most refractory of all emotions. Once somebody is afraid, you can't talk them down with reason. The other favorite tool is anger, which works very nicely with fear. Once somebody is afraid of someone, it's easy to turn the object of that fear into a hated scapegoat.

This is why people vote in politicians who do nothing for them, or worse, work against their interests. People who let themselves be scared and riled up with hatred are brain-dead in the voting booth.

Re:Amazing

[hey!]

Great. Now dude, fucking leave if you don't like it here!

At times like this, I am reminded of the words of General George S. Patton: "No bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making the other poor, dumb bastard die for his country."

In that spirit I invite you to leave while the getting is good, because I sure as hell won't leave my country so buzzards like you can pick it apart.

Re:Amazing

[phantomfive]

A lot of times people overrate the ease with which you can get fear and anger to work for you. Especially when both parties are trying the same techniques equally.

Re:Amazing

[gmhowell]

That was many moons ago though. We have protected land and casinos now. That look on White Man's faces when we take all his money and he leaves casino can't be bought with beads and firewater. No Sir. That's priceless.

So that single tear rolling down your cheek is you trying to hold back your laughter?

Re:Amazing

[gmhowell]

Cops don't like people to be able to defend themselves.

Of course not. Look at it from an economics perspective. Decreasing the amount of defense/security available to the citizenry does not change how much protection they want. The only place left to turn is the cops. Cops are dealing in a rarer good, security, and can raise their rates for it. It gets even better now that they have a Supreme Court decision saying that the police has no duty to protect people. Pretty good racket they have going.

Re:Amazing

[henni16]

the only people that anti-gun laws are preventing from carrying a gun in Chicago are the law abiding citizens that are currently forced by the government to be defenseless sheep for the slaughter for any armed Chicago thug

I've no idea about the situation in Chicago, but I wonder how many of those murders are actually law abiding defenseless sheep being slaughtered and how many are not-so-law-abiding citizens killing each other.

Re:Amazing

[green1]

My comparison was not specifically about companies with a monopoly, but any other place where you do have such a choice. This does however bring up an interesting comparison. People stay with {insert hated ISP here} because of a monopoly position where there is no choice. Do we consider government to be a monopoly position? Sure the government as a whole is the only one you're going to get, but at least in theory you have the ability to change the administration by voting. It doesn't change every employee, but it does change the ones who control how things are done, and in the end, it can change any/every individual down to the front line if they don't follow the policies put in place by the upper levels (the ones we can vote for).
So at least in theory this shouldn't be much different from choosing one fast food joint over another, or one car dealer over another (with the exception of scale) and yet people blame "the police" or "the IRS" or "insert government agency here" when they have a bad interaction with an individual in said group, but feel powerless to do anything about it, whereas in the comercial world they blame "walmart" or "mcdonalds" or "insert company name here" and often do take their business elsewhere. Would not democracy as a whole be improved if people did the same with government interactions, if it pisses you off enough that you'd take your commercial business to another store, maybe it should piss you off enough to take your government vote to a different candidate?

Re:Amazing

[green1]

You can't choose not to pay your taxes, but you can choose to vote for a different candidate with different policies. This isn't really that different a case, we call it "voting with your wallet" when you change to a different company for a service, so obviously we see some form of similarity to casting a vote as you would for a politician.
I think the bigger difference is that the actions of an idiot store clerk taint the whole chain of stores, and yet the actions of an idiot government employee only usually taint our view of that single government department, not the government as a whole. As such we don't hold the politicians responsible when a front line civil servant screws up, but we do hold the board of a company responsible when one of their front line employees screw up. Is that reasonable? and can we do better?
Would democracy not be better off if we treated it like we treat those commercial transactions? If an action by an employee is enough to make us switch companies in the commercial world, should not a similar action by a civil servant be cause for us to switch which candidate we vote for?

Re:Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm going to ignore your 1% rhetoric as it is meaningless dribble in comparison to reality.

Meaningless in the sense that closing tax loopholes and expiring some of the Bush tax cuts just for that 1% would have equal or greater impact on revenue collected than raising the effective income tax rate of the bottom 49% to 100% of their income.

Re:Amazing

[interkin3tic]

I think blaming the two party system is missing the point when, again, the primaries are open. There typically FAR more choices than just two, but no one bothers to vote until the field is already narrowed down to two.

That is not the political parties' doing, that is voter laziness. It would be easy to elect a good politician that has our interests in mind, simple three step process:

1. All of us read up on the candidates before the primaries and choose some good ones
2. Vote in the primaries for that person
3. Vote in the general election for that person.

We are a democracy, and there's no power keeping good politicians out of office aside from apathy. Blaming the two parties for the crap that gets elected is foolish, the problem lies squarely with the voters who ignore one of the two votes every single time.

Re:Amazing

[Attila Dimedici]

Well, since I believe that, in general, the correct action when voting is to vote against the incumbent, there is no reason to take your suggested action. I believe that unless there is a very compelling reason to vote for the incumbent, a voter should vote for the challenger. The characteristics of the challenger are almost always irrelevant.

Re:Amazing

[LordLimecat]

Democracy and capitalism are the worst systems out there.

Except for all the other ones that have been tried, of course.

Re:Amazing

[LordLimecat]

Scott Walker won by a healthy margin of 7%, and according to wikipedia,

Voter turnout in the election was 57.8%, the highest for a gubernatorial election not on a Presidential ballot in Wisconsin history.[9]

And from its source...

But some Democratic areas also generated unusual turnouts. The city of Milwaukee’s turnout was lower than the statewide average. But it was far higher than it has been in recent contests for governor.

I think youre going to have to accept that Wisconsins by and large wanted Scott Walker.

Point is, don't blame the system; blame the lazy fucking public. Most people do not vote.

For values of "most" that include "the minority", sure.

It's a minor thing that could literally change the world, but hey no can do

Your post reads like someone who cant accept that the voting populace sometimes disagrees with their own views. Get over it.

I do agree with your point that blaming the system is stupid, given that systems that dont involve voting tend to be nightmarish authoritarian police states. If someone really wants to try it out for a spell, there are plenty of countries out there who have advanced far enough to completely do away with it to choose from.

Re:Amazing

[LordLimecat]

Democracy doesn't guarantee you a good government,

Relative to the other guys, it absolutely does. It may not be a PERFECT government, but its a far sight better than the alternatives.

Re:Amazing

[manu0601]

Democracy doesn't guarantee you a good government, it gives you the government you deserve.

But we will not call USA a democracy, right? A democrat living in a state with a majority of republicans (and vice versa) does not have his vote taken into account for presidential and senate polls. If you are neither democrat nor republican, your vote is almost always worth nothing.

Note that this is not a USA specific problem. In last french parliamentary elections, 38% of the citizen elected 94% of the lower house.

Re:Amazing

[able1234au]

You do know that the right to bear arms is related to the forming of a militia to fight tyranny. Funny how when people talk about their constitutional rights they leave off that part.... So given there are no militias, then you don't need arms. America's fascination with guns always seems bizarre to me.

Re:Amazing

[Genda]

Actually it completely depends on what you mean by "Taxes are Lowest". Try this on. Taxes for the richest tax bracket are lower now than any time since 1932 save the period from 1988 - 1991 due to Ronald Reagan's parting gift to and George H.W. Bush's continuing gift to the wealthy. Clinton jacked the highest brackets tax rate up by 25%, without raising taxes for the lower brackets and in the process, fixed the economic disaster that Reagan and the first Bush had created, generated a booming economy with a resultant trillion dollar surplus, and prevented us from going to war. Upon leaving, the Clinton folk warned the Bush Administration to keep a close eye on Bin Ladin, he's planning something. The rest as they say, is history.

If you want to go look for yourself here, you'll see that the highest tax rate ever involved folks making over 2.4 million adjusted dollars, and occurred in 1944, that tax rate was 94%. If you recall, that was also during the biggest boom in the American economy in its history. During Reagan's last year it dropped to 28%, and rose over Daddy Bush's term to 31%. The rate jumped to 39.6% during the Clinton administration, and has been sitting at 35% since the Bush II debacle (though since there are now only 6 brackets, and the top bracket begins at just over $300,000 its impossible to show the the MASSIVE tax cuts to the wealthy institute by George W. Bush impacting primarily people making over $1,000,000 per year.)

So let's recap. Taxes are at a historical all time low with one exception due to Alzheimer's, The Cato Institute really has acknowledged that the "Starve the Beast" strategy has been "Problematic", at least twice. And, with the top 400 people in the nation possessing the same wealth as the bottom 155,000,000, I dunno, I'd say the tax system is broken beyond all means to accurately describe it. High taxes never hurt the country. That's a lie, a myth, its a pretense foisted on us by greedy people designed to trick us into giving them all our money. PLAIN AND SIMPLE. Please people, bother to check the numbers, stop listening to talking heads spout crap. Don't even listen to me... go see for yourself. Its a pile of crap, and we've been sorely misinformed by a media owned by the very people who benefit from the lies. Wake up

Re:Amazing

[Genda]

I think both of you are missing the fact that the vast mouth-breathing public votes for whoever the Wall-Street advertising machines tells the to (just like their beer, toothpaste and breakfast cereal), and that amounts now for the most part to the campaign with the deepest pockets, indenturing both candidates to the people who can pay for their campaign. Welcome to politics as whorehouse. Until we sever politics from deep pockets, we'll continue to get the best government money can buy. Of course the folks with deep pockets, like it just the way it is, so good luck getting any law passed that threatens that power system.

Re:Amazing

[Genda]

No, the problem is the Supreme Court ruled that Monsanto is a person, and therefore the billion and one Monsanto minions wandering the halls of congress each get a minute of the representatives time, and you get your minute too... who wins, I dunno, could it be the guys waving $100 bills??? We need to separate state and commerce, or the republic is doomed.

Re:Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the rest of the world is more like the Hotel Rwanda movie.

Re:Amazing

[BlueStrat]

You do know that the right to bear arms is related to the forming of a militia to fight tyranny. Funny how when people talk about their constitutional rights they leave off that part.... So given there are no militias, then you don't need arms. America's fascination with guns always seems bizarre to me.

Every man is already part of the militia by virtue of being a citizen.

But here, let me allow a few people with more authority on the subject add their thoughts.

"A well regulated militia, composed of the whole body of the people, trained in arms, is the best most natural defense of a free country." - James Madison

"The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference--they deserve a place of honor with all that is good." - George Washington

"When firearms go, all go. We need them every hour." - George Washington

"Americans have the right and advantage of being armed--unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms." - James Madison

"The great object is that every man be armed." - Patrick Henry

"The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the U.S. from keeping their own arms." - Samuel Adams

"The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed." - Alexander Hamilton

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

"Laws that forbid the carrying of arms disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants." - Thomas Jefferson

And finally, my reply just wouldn't be complete without adding these two:

"Do not separate text from historical background. If you do you will have perverted and subverted the Constitution." - James Madison

And:

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

Seems like those gentlemen disagree with your holding on the 2nd Amendment.

You'll forgive me (and most other Americans) if we defer to them instead of those like you who wish to disarm the people and render them defenseless. As you can see, we were warned long ago that those like you would come.

Sure, I'll hand over my firearms to the government. I'll deliver the ammo first, however.

Strat

Re:Amazing

[green1]

Always choosing "the challenger", regardless of the characteristics of either the challenger or the incumbent, provides no incentive for politicians to do what the population wants. The only thing that could cause politicians to follow the will of the people is if they believe that the route to staying in power is to do what the electorate wants. Your suggestion takes away that incentive, therefore making it beneficial for the politicians to ignore what their constituents want, and act solely in their own best interests.
Now it could be argued that this is already the case, and that all politicians are corrupt, but if that is the case then your voting strategy at best still provides no benefit.

Re:Amazing

[phantomfive]

I'm not sure if you realize how much like a conspiracy nut you sound.

Re:Amazing

[phantomfive]

lol I hate to break it to you, your vote is worth almost nothing. 1/60millionth, to be exact, assuming 60million people vote, with variations based on the electoral college.

Do not confuse that your vote means very little with the USA not having a democracy.

Re:Amazing

[tsa]

I thought you Americans didn't pay taxes. At least, what you pay is nothing compared to what we in Europe pay. But we have healthcare and social security, words you don't even know the meaning of. You should try it sometime: pay taxes and get benefits from that.

Re:Amazing

[RocketRabbit]

Your interpretation of the 2nd amendment is only possible if you are ignorant of the writings of the framers, don't understand the meaning of the word regulated, and are a commie.

Re:Amazing

[ffflala]

I'm familiar with the Stanford Prison Experiment. If you read it as a lesson about a system rather than a lesson about humans, you're coming to a useless conclusion. Your position is that, if only there were some perfectly designed system, humans would behave in a manner beneficial to all, without cruelty and oppression.

That is not what the Stanford Prison Experiment taught us. It is not what history has taught us either, because so far humans have managed to take every iteration of every single system designed by other humans however well-intended, and turn it into something that fosters corruption, abuse, injustice, violence, self-interest, and brutality.

Every. God. Damn. Time. We're humans, this is part of who we are. Think it through: if most anyone can turn into a brutal prison guard in under 24 hours if you just tell them a certain story, that would indicate a problem in most anyone, not in said certain story. How can you conclude otherwise?

I'm asking you sincerely: if you can describe a better system --one that will actually work better-- please, please do share. This one is far from perfect, and yes it's responsible for a whole lot of death and destruction, but at this point in out limited evolution this system seems like the best option. Compared to past ones, it remains the best one so far. Honestly, if you have a better solution please do tell me. I have no drive to stick to a system for its own sake or because I am comfortably familiar with it and frightened to change: I've looked around, and every other one I've seen has considerably worse failures --measured in blood and bodies-- than this one.

Re:Amazing

[blackraven14250]

Change all of those instances of Chicago to New York City, and it's now sarcastic.

Re:Amazing

[ExploHD]

The 1% make most of their money through capital gains. Since capital gains are taxed at a different rate than ordinary income, it makes a huge difference when tax season comes around. In the mean time, more and more middle income families are getting caught in the a Alternative Minimum Tax, which the republicans in Congress have had the better part of a decade to fix, but their focus has been on making sure tax rates on the highest end of the pay scale fall faster than those on the lower end of the pay scale.

Re:Amazing

[BlueStrat]

spoken like a true gun-nut.

No, spoken like someone who values his freedoms. Guns are simply the tool that allows people to achieve and retain it.

So when did you last turn up for militia duties? never, i am assuming as there is no militia.

Every US citizen is on militia duty every single day. Not active duty however. Hopefully we will never need to become active.

The gun ownership was put there to stop foreign invaders, not to arm the populace against each other.

Wrong.

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson

"To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them." - George Madison

This part of the constitution has been misquoted again and again...

Not according to those who wrote it. Forgive me again for deferring to their own words over that of some poster on Slashdot.

statements like "Sure, I'll hand over my firearms to the government. I'll deliver the ammo first, however" shows exactly why nutters like you should be disarmed and deloused.

As to your ad hominem personal attacks, I expect no less from cowards who are SO afraid to be responsible for their own safety that they want to remove the ability of others to be responsible for their own safety, in order that attention not be drawn to their craven and cowardly nature.

Strat

Re:Amazing

[able1234au]

So it is being a coward to not want to carry a gun.... haha sure.

"Every US citizen is on militia duty every single day"

Where did you dream that up?

and it is interesting to see that gun ownership makes you less safe, not more safe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Re:Amazing

[BlueStrat]

So it is being a coward to not want to carry a gun.... haha sure.

No, not at all. You're free to be a helpless victim all you wish.

It IS cowardly to attempt to deprive others of the right to defend oneself and the ability to not be a helpless victim, however.

"Every US citizen is on militia duty every single day"

Where did you dream that up?

Try reading the posts you're responding to. Specifically, the quotes I provided from the founders. I'd even 'bolded' the parts that refer to this.

and it is interesting to see that gun ownership makes you less safe, not more safe http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-related_death_rate

Yeah, yeah...lies, damn lies, and statistics.

I can also statistically prove you don't exist, so maybe I AM a nutcase as you suggest, responding to non-existent posts by a non-existent person.

Strat

Re:Amazing

[Genda]

First of all, don't call me an idiot, all I did was refer to simple tax information available right there on Wikipedia. I said at the very start that I was only speaking about a specific representation of information... it turns out the one I could most easily find. There are a million ways to turn this and anybody can cherry pick facts to justify anything including the sky is falling. I think there is wisdom in all the political positions, The key is looking for what is applicable in today's reality, and keep checking because the world is dynamic and the answers change frequently. As a politician, Clinton was sharp, that doesn't mean I'm a Democratic knee-jerk, I'm not the least bit happy with our current president, and if the Republicans could proffer a candidate that was neither retarded nor deranged I'd honestly consider him (I actually gave Newt a look... warts and all.)

You can't have it both ways, either Clinton cut taxes or his magical surplus was the result of raising taxes... which is it? In fact it was none of the above. The surplus was the result of enhanced revenue from the single largest economic boon in American History... not my words, read for yourself.

Perhaps you don't remember, but I do very well, the moment George took office, he systematically undid everything that Clinton had built and began switching the nations economy over to promote those that put him in office, you do recall George arriving in cities across American on an Enron jet don't you? In fact, in California, we had to endure 6 months of rolling black outs ( artificially caused by the collusion of a Texas energy provider who used the opportunity to rob California of $15,000,000,000, and then received protection from an Attorney General appointed by, you guessed it, W) ultimately jump starting the Dot Com crash. The surplus vanished because George succeeded in crashing the economy in the first 6 months of his Presidency. He punctuated crashing the economy by spending nearly 2 months that summer clearing brush on his home ranch, the longest Presidential vacation in history. George and friends completely ignored the warning from the Clinton staff regarding Bin Laden as Dick Cheney instead looked for a way to revive a 1980s satellite missile defense project so he could pump money into his company Halliburton. So for an encore after ignoring Bin Laden completely for 9 months, we arrive at 9/11... Boom! Do you recall what happened to the stock market immediately after? The surplus was very real and all it took was an imbecile to put a trillion dollar crater in the country and the economy in 2001.

Look friend, we probably agree on a lot more than might think. I just personally believe that you should look for facts, then look for frameworks that fit the facts. Not the other way around. Even at that, I'm completely open to changing my mind if a consistent body of information arises that stands on its own, whether it fits my picture or not, that's the definition of intellectual integrity. I never claimed omniscience, but I do bother to make certain that there is ample information to back my position... debate training still kicks in even all these years later. Here's another piece if interesting information. The gross receipt of taxes have changed dramatically over the last 60 years. In 1950 tax from corporation represented 30% of the total taxes that were collected in the United States. Today taxes from corporation represent less than 5% of the total taxes collected. To take their place, Payroll Tax has gone from 10% in 1950 to over 40% of the total taxes collected today. So when corporations complain about the ridiculous tax burden they suffer today, you now have a bit of useful information to refute that. You still haven't refuted the comment that the strongest periods of American economic development coincided with periods of highest taxation.

Re:Amazing

[able1234au]

The militia was formed into the National Guard. You are not a member of the National Guard or you would have mentioned it immediately.

" I AM a nutcase"

See, i can selectively quote others too.

I don't want crazies walking the streets armed to the teeth against their imaginary enemies. Add in the drug taking and you are not talking rational people. Letting them take a potshot whenever they get the DTs is not what i call sensible. School shootings and Work shootings is just one of the many examples of the craziness. If you want to have guns then store them in a gun club and leave them there when you are finished shooting your silly little paper targets. The fact you need to carry a gun makes you the coward here... and not a sensible one.

Re:Amazing

[Genda]

There are 535 member of Congress. There over 10,000 registered lobbyists and the real working number exceeds that by between 3x and 4x. That means that there are nearly a 100 lobbyists for every single person in Congress. Considering these people go after the largest number of representatives possible, that means every person in Congress is beset by a virtual HOARD of lobbyist, hundreds even thousands of people representing mostly corporate interests (though everyone from AARP to the Sierra Club has folks wandering the halls of the Capitol.)

Now consider that huge PACs can openly influence political campaigns and billions of dollars will be thrown at candidates for this fall's elections thanks to the Supreme Court's decision, and what part of what I say to you sounds like nutty conspiracy. Have you not been watching your government at work over the last 12 years? Have you been avoiding the news? Are you not clear about what's at stake and the erosion of your Constitutional rights? This is no conspiracy, these thieves are working in broad daylight, and self absorbed, apathetic, weenies are too involved in their GameBoys and iPads to bother with the fact that our collective Freedom is going down the toilet.

Re:Amazing

[BlueStrat]

The militia was formed into the National Guard.

[citation needed]

I don't want crazies walking the streets armed to the teeth against their imaginary enemies.

You've got that already despite the laws against it. They're already out there. No matter how many laws or how severe you make the penalties, criminals and crazies do and will have guns in the US. The choice now is to either allow people to defend themselves or force them to become and remain helpless victims.

You seem to prefer the criminals and crazies have defenseless people to victimize.

I do not.

You are free to make yourself a helpless victim. You are NOT free to force others to become helpless victims simply to placate your own irrational fears, your own perceived inadequacies, and/or lack of courage and character.

I think T.J. had people like you in mind when he said:

"Timid men prefer the calm of despotism to the tempestuous sea of liberty." - Thomas Jefferson

Strat

Re:Amazing

[Genda]

Actually you have precisely half the story. Indeed we are not far descended from our primate brethren. But we have the power to aspire. We have the intelligence to evolve. We have the capacity of choice and it distinguishes us from animals who fuck and club each other insensible in the jungle. Its why we create laws, to inspire the best and punish the worst. Not that those who would lead these days have demonstrated much in their higher selves. I can appreciate the cynicism and resignation. Those that enforce the law should uphold the law, be above reproach. Demonstrate what it means to respect human dignity, even when the only dignity they can find is the dignity they themselves bring to the situation.

It is all the more disappointing when the people we choose to serve and protect abuse and despoil. They're human, and they have their faults, but this is a noble calling and to use the position to attack others make one despicable. The L.A. County Jail is under investigation for a persistent climate of abuse and brutality. A leak from inside the department reported the head of jail security telling his men every day, "Not in the face, it leaves marks..." That's the kind of thing you expect to hear from a thug who kneecaps people for bad gambling debts. If our police are no better than the people they arrest, then who are we to turn to in the face of growing civil unrest. Worse, if we protest against those that have robbed and cheated us, should we be met with such violence and abuse that our right to speak has been robbed from us? What of a person of color or the "Race du jour"? I had a boss in the 80s, a black man named Roy. He was a successful software engineer, but his Mother still lived in a part of town that had become run down over the years and she refused to move from the place she called home. So he visited often in his beautiful Mercedes sports coupe. One day he and his wife stopped over at his Mother's for breakfast before dropping his wife off to work and coming in himself. Right after he left, he was stopped by a police car. A black man, in a bad part of town driving an expensive car. The officer said he was speeding. He said he'd been watching his speedometer closely and was not. The officer asked him if the car was stolen. He showed him his registration. The officer made him and his wife get out. Patted them both down. Called in another car. Spent an hour tearing his car apart looking for anything they could arrest them for. Then left him and his wife with the car torn apart. Needless to say he came to work rumpled and fit to be tide.

My Brother was 18. He was driving by a rock concert that has been overbooked, and the angry concert goers that had bought tickets that had been turned away started becoming an angry mob. So they called in the Long Beach Police. The local department had a bad reputation with a couple very questionable then recent deaths in the jail and a couple high profile brutality cases going on. My Brother saw the black and whites approaching and decided to get out of harms way, so he drove his van down a nearby ally. On the way out of the ally, he passed a parked police car, and saw a can on the sidewalk, it looked like it was leaking and stupidly he stopped the van, leaned out and grabbed the can. It turned out the can was mace. He was immediately stopped, pulled out of his van, and beaten insensible by a half dozen of Long Beach's finest. When I say beaten insensible, I mean the only part of him that wasn't a swollen bloody bruise was his palms and the soles of his feet, he must have receive dozens upon dozens of baton strikes to look like a busted pinata. He was charges with a half dozen felonies. When I saw the police report it read like science fiction. It claimed that he's perform some kind of ninja acrobatics attacking the officer and snatching the mace from his belt, while simultaneously attack five other officers. We called my Brother "The Ninja" for month after the incident in honor of the police report. Later they agreed to drop all charges if we agreed not to sue

Re:Amazing

[able1234au]

Militia Act of 1903 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903

Re:Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

I find it amazing the people in the Good old USA find it so hard to live peacefully with each other without the threat of armed violence.

Most of the rest of the (Western) world has grown out of that wild west attitude and can generally get on with a lower level of violent crime than the US seems to achieve. We are not perfect of course, but most of us don't seem to feel the need to be armed to the teeth.

You could say "what would you do if an armed intruder came to your front door?", well most of us are smart enough to make a rapid exit out the back door.

Dirty Harry belongs to a best forgotten generation.

Re:Amazing

[BlueStrat]

Militia Act of 1903 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Militia_Act_of_1903 [wikipedia.org]

That Act created the National Guard by taking the individual *official* State Militias (NOT volunteer civilian militias) under Federal control as dual reservists under the authority of the Army Reserve. It says nothing about abolishing volunteer civilian citizens' militias. Units under the control of the regular US military and reserves are not civilian militias by definition.

You keep throwing different stuff out there hoping something will stick, yet you're unable or unwilling to refute any of my points with anything of substance.

Face it. There are no other reasons to disarm US citizens other than to enslave them and make them dependent on government and helpless against government tyranny.

My father risked his life and was wounded in WW2 to secure my rights and my liberties including the right to keep and bear firearms. I will not see them destroyed without putting my life on the line to defend them as my father did. Those are some real "Dreams From My Father" that were paid for in blood and human lives.

Strat

Re:Amazing

[Rainbowdash]

I have a 32% tax and I'm not complaining.

I get lots of shit for it.

Re:Amazing

[Anonymous Coward]

A small minority want to vote for the reasonable person. The rest are sheep who believe the tripe being shoved out by pundits and honestly believe that it's simply wasteful spending, overpaid government workers, and grants to organizations like NPR that are the cause of all of our debt.
 
a smart politican doesn't want an educated populace. These politicians are just where they want to be.

Re:Amazing

[Hognoxious]

Uhh, if the system can't deal with humanity, then the system IS a failure.

Do you think there's a possible system that *isn't* a failure?

Re:Amazing

[gorzek]

Really?

Well, it's funny how the Tea Party--which came pretty much out of nowhere--managed to seriously disrupt things in Washington, to the point that their own party can't control them. They held the economy hostage, deliberately hurt the US' credit rating, and have successfully kept Obama from accomplishing much of anything since taking office. Their fiscal hero, Paul Ryan, may even get his budget passed. They've also successfully dislodged numerous long-term incumbents, replacing them with more right-wing conservatives.

You can say what you want about them, but they've certainly made a big impact. (I don't like them at all, mind you.)

Of course, you could say that they were only successful because they were bankrolled by wealthy donors like the Koch brothers, and I really couldn't argue with that. But then that would point to the real problem in politics: change only happens when someone throws enough money at it. How much people "care" is totally irrelevant.

Re:Amazing

[CrimsonAvenger]

that means every person in Congress is beset by a virtual HOARD of lobbyist

HORDE of lobbyists.

Though each of them will probaby have a HOARD of money to bribe the congresscritters with...

Re:Amazing

[sn0wcrash]

HORDE of lobbyists.

There's your problem! We need some Alliance lobbyists!!!

Re:Amazing

[Pope]

But that's the thing- voting DOESN'T "change the world". It doesn't do shit.

So why bother?

Say what? Of course it does. You're just too stupid and/or apathetic to realize it.

Re:Amazing

[Pope]

All that grey matter sitting on top of the lower parts of the brain is just a radiator then?

Re:Amazing

[ganjadude]

the problem when talking about taxes is we ignore ALL the other taxes when we talk about "taxes" If we are being truthful, a new yorker pays well over 60% of his money in taxes when you count state/fed/SS/medicare sales and other taxes. Add in the new 2% tax on total income if you dont buy health insurance, and yes, taxes are pretty damn high.

Re:Amazing

[donny77]

There is a "better" system. The one created by the United States of America in 1776. The one we have been moving away from in favor of "progression." Simply our original idea has gotten turned on it's head. Originally the Federal Government was to be limited in size and power, this allowed the control to be closer to the people, which in turn allows for much more rapid change. I cannot vote out my senators, as I am in the minority viewpoint of my state. I like my representative, but my representative's vote is drowned out by the 40 other representatives of my State that do not share his views. Local government I can be more active in and actually inact change, and fight corruption. The higher up the chain, the harder that is to achieve. Even getting a governor out can be a challenge.

Re:Amazing

[ganjadude]

It is even worse than you realize, Due to W getting elected, When people got fed up with him as I did, we ended up with obama, Which is way worse than what we had 10 years ago.

Re:Amazing

[jittles]

A friend of mine told me years ago, that when he was living in Florida when the concealed carry law went into affect, there was a sudden decrease in the quantity of violent crime incidents. He then noted that tourists started getting mugged and killed fairly regularly after that. Now, rental car companies don't put their stickers on the bumpers anymore, and I've heard of people getting sideswiped off the roads by gang bangers before they're even off the airport property. Why? Tourists can't carry guns on planes, and ground travel with a loaded gun gets dicey pretty quickly. Cops don't like people to be able to defend themselves. They start to wonder why they need cops then.

It's quite easy to travel with a firearm. I've done it before. You just can't have it loaded while you are on the plane. You check it in a bag, with a lock only you can open. You keep the ammunition in a box that is separate from the locked box the weapon is in. You declare the firearm at the time you check in to your flight. That's it. You're good to go. In fact, you NEVER lose your bag with a firearm checked. They have extra security, and have to know where that bag is at all times, due to federal laws. You don't have to worry about having things stolen, either, because no one is legally allowed to open that bag, except the owner. Florida's concealed weapons permit is valid in about 36 states, so you can travel by car most places with it.

I live in Florida now, and some 40% of the population has concealed weapons permits. If I recall correctly, less than 2% of all gun-crimes have been committed by concealed weapon permit holders since 1996. That's pretty dang good. Florida requires gun safety courses for all people who get concealed weapons permits. They also have very sane laws about when you have to flea, or can stand and defend yourself. I know everyone is up in arms about the Treyvon Martin thing, but the jackass did (not Treyvon) violate the law. You cannot start an altercation and then use the "Stand Your Ground" defense. If you are doing anything illegal, or you start the confrontation, it is not legal. You have to retreat. That is why Zimmerman claims that he left and that the kid attacked him afterwards. Its the only way the "Stand Your Ground" law could apply.

Re:Amazing

[phantomfive]

A) Money can't buy elections for unpopular people. We've seen this over and over, where one candidate pours in tons of money, and still loses.

B) Agreed, cronyism is one of the biggest problems in government right now. The problem with that is the electorate doesn't care.

C) You seem to be afraid that PACs are going to ruin freedom for ever American, make it go down the toilet. Yes, that makes you sound like a conspiracy nut.

Re:Amazing

[gorzek]

What are you, some kind of cradle-to-grave nanny-state Commie socialist? :-p

Re:Amazing

[kilfarsnar]

If the image you want to project is that of a bad guy tough guy, stop fucking whining when you are treated that way.

Who are you, George Zimmerman? The fact is, you don't lose your right against unreasonable search and seizure just for wearing baggy jeans. The tone of your post makes me think you do not often get searched by police just for walking down the street.

Tell you what: You tell me what you're wearing and I'll declare it suspicious and send the cops to search your house. When you complain you did nothing wrong, I'll tell you you had it coming.

Re:Amazing

[theshowmecanuck]

You are obviously a whiny politically correct moron. Stop talking and you'll sound a lot smarter. That is a flame. Mark it accordingly. I don't have time for idiots like you.

Re:Amazing

[painandgreed]

HORDE of lobbyists.

Lok-tar!

Re:Amazing

[tsa]

...and proud of it! :)

Re:Amazing

[theshowmecanuck]

For a lot of people, I would be at least 50%, yes, at least to a significant degree. And 100% for those who choose their paths using their emotions and not reason.

Re:Amazing

[ganjadude]

exactly, I pay in total over 50% of my salary in taxes to various locations and another 8% on purchases, Than property/school taxes on top of that. And I make less than 50 grand a year.

Re:Amazing

[RenderSeven]

Citation please? And thats not a challenge, I'd really like to know. The last thing I heard in this regard was the Grace Commission that concluded that raising taxes on earnings over $200k to 100% of income raises very little revenue, while a slight tax increase on the bottom 99% raises a lot. That report is pretty old though, so I'd like to see some more recent numbers. Without them I have to assume your numbers are totally bogus though... there just arent that many people in that bracket, they tend to be pretty good at avoiding taxation, and actual revenue never meets projections (well, projections made by politicians anyway, the CBO gets it right more often than not but the politicians ignore those projections).

Re:Amazing

[cayenne8]

I thought you Americans didn't pay taxes. At least, what you pay is nothing compared to what we in Europe pay. But we have healthcare and social security, words you don't even know the meaning of. You should try it sometime: pay taxes and get benefits from that.

If you like that, more power to you.

I'd MUCH rather keep more of my own money, and save and make my own decisions about my own health care...who I go to see, where..what insurance I want.

I've seen how *ahem* efficient the govt. is at things like say, the DMV....I pretty much plan the whole day there if I need to get new plates for the car or something (although they are slowly getting better)....so, I'd rather trust my health care spending decisions to myself, and not put a govt. entity between me and the doctors I choose and the health decisions we make.

Re:Amazing

[theshowmecanuck]

Sorry about your brother. But that really was a Darwin moment getting out of his car instead of just getting the fuck out of the area when the shit hits the fan. It is kind of a suspect story that he got out of his car to do the right thing and throw out a leaking can. How many cans and crap do you, he, and the rest of us drive by without picking it up to throw out. And then in the midst of a neighbourhood in riot mode, he decides to stop and be neat freak citizen? OK, benefit of the doubt he was being a good guy.

But the way the cops acted, I agree was probably to a high degree over the top (depending on the true story... we only have his side second hand through you). I don't really have a problem with cops kicking the shit out of a guy who deserves it and think camera phones and the politically correct ruined a good thing. Instant remedial action usually results in punks thinking twice before pulling shit and usually results in quieter and safer neighbourhoods (look what just frisking people does to reduce crime in New York).

And for the record, I'm white, and I can relate one of several instances where one of my white buddies lipped off to the cops one time too many while he was drunk and after causing a disturbance. The cops kicked the shit out of him. From then on when we had been drinking and were thinking of doing something stupid that would likely inconvenience others (euphemism for illegal), he would stop us with a "don't want to piss off the cops" and prevented us from causing shit. I've seen other white guys get shit kicked by the cops. They deserved it and it was better than getting a record. I may be white, but it doesn't mean I grew up with privilege. Some of us know what the real school of hard knocks is. Surrounded by gangs and murderers, etc. So I come by these opinions rationally and honestly, and from experience. I didn't grow up in a nice middle class home and go to college right away, or after a European vacation. Before I went back to school (learning that working for a living sucked) I drove taxi, worked in factories, bounced in a pool hall for a few years (a tough one too). Working in that pool hall is how I paid for college. I had acquaintances and drinking buddies from there killed in fights, knew guys who ended up killing people (and all I knew were arrested and served time or died... one guy killed himself in jail... one guy killed a guy about an hour after I kicked him out of the pool hall, the cops followed him into the place the next day and before I could throw him out again they arrested him for that murder and hauled him away). That was all a long time ago, but no-one can tell me I don't know shit about this subject. I know better than most of these armchair quarterbacks who trip out on their politically correct bullshit. And that's all I'll say on that matter.

But in any case, they way they acted here just goes to prove my point. They acted instinctually. That is what pack mentality is. When we revert there, it is all instinct taking over. And that is what I think happens to cops. Group think, pack like mentality. But it is not hard to sympathize with them somewhat, given that people often treat them as persona non-grata. Especially in certain neighbourhoods were the fucking stupid meme of "don't be a snitch" exists. Cops are human beings, and we can't say out of one side of our mouths, to err is human, and out of the other side, cops can never err or be less than perfect. The reality is that when anyone, especially people easily identifiable (in this case cops with their uniforms) and in a recognizable tribe (the police) are put under stress, like all of us, we tend to regress.

Yeah, I think we can aspire. I think we can try to achieve above all that. But to err is human. We don't always do it. And some people (emotional types with less intelligence especially) when put under stress, all the higher level stuff will disappear. Anyone of us who has walked in a shifty neighbourhood in the middle of the night will understand. Even the best of us won't rea

Re:Amazing

[Reziac]

Before the rise of socialized medicine (and HMOs are just that, under a private label) and before health insurance became more or less mandated (via employer programs etc.) .. I spent a day in hospital for $90. I went to a specialist for $10 (no waiting, I just called and came in). I had a procedure by a specialist for $60 (same day as I consulted him, no waiting). I got a whole bottle of meds for $3. Tell me how that was so much worse than $900/month for health insurance (remember, what doesn't come out of your wallet comes out of your paycheck, one way or another) and an uncertain wait to see a specialist?

Re:Amazing

[mlrtime]

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2012-06-29/news/ct-met-seven-year-old-shot-20120629a_1_homicide-victims-gang-violence-stray-bullet

Re:Amazing

[P-niiice]

"You are free to make yourself a helpless victim. You are NOT free to force others to become helpless victims simply to placate your own irrational fears, your own perceived inadequacies, and/or lack of courage and character." This kind of rhetoric makes me sick.
It's not cowardly or unamerican for someone to pursue legal means to ban guns, from laws at every level up to and including a constitutional amendment if they don't agree with it. If its done through legal means, it's as american as following the current constitution, and as american as owning guns.

I personally don't mind gun ownership, but laws like "Stand Your Ground" give people like Zimmerman too much leeway to kill 'suspicious' people based on those very irrational fears and inadequacies you speak of.

Re:Amazing

[freedom_india]

It's amazing what we let what amounts to State employees get away with.

Not any state employee. Just cops.

Re:Amazing

[BlueStrat]

It's not cowardly or unamerican for someone to pursue legal means to ban guns, from laws at every level up to and including a constitutional amendment if they don't agree with it. If its done through legal means, it's as american as following the current constitution, and as american as owning guns.

Well, I disagree about it not being un-American or unpatriotic, unless of course one starts from the premise that those who wrote the Constitution were fundamentally wrong about the value of individual liberty and what it takes to achieve and keep it.

As far as attempting to ban guns, as foolish and ignorant of reality as that whole concept is, if an Amendment to the Constitution can be passed to overturn the 2nd Amendment, fine. That's not what's happening however, as those in favor of banning guns know the vast majority of Americans favor the 2nd Amendment. What's happening instead are attempts to "get around", "get past", or just plain outright ignore the Constitution, further weakening ALL the Rights it protects.

If one can ban guns without an Amendment, what about the 1st Amendment and free speech/press, or any of the other rights and freedoms? If you allow one Amendment to be ignored, then any Amendment can be ignored. They'll eventually get to one that you like.

I personally don't mind gun ownership, but laws like "Stand Your Ground" give people like Zimmerman too much leeway to kill 'suspicious' people based on those very irrational fears and inadequacies you speak of.

Oh crap, you're not one of those crazy-ass "poor innocent Trayvon was murdered" types that are ready to lynch Zimmerman and throw out a perfectly reasonable law that allows people to not be (dead) victims, all when there has been no trial and nobody besides Zimmerman knows what actually happened between Zimmerman and this young adult, are you? So, are you in favor of putting senior citizens on death row that protect themselves from attackers under the situations and circumstances spelled out under "Stand Your Ground"?

Strat

Re:Amazing

[P-niiice]

1. If a law limits or bans guns and isn't found to be constitutional, then it's constitutional. No need to get into specifics, we're talking about people's right to pursue legislation, not specifics about what could or couldn't be constitutional. People have a right to find that the framers were wrong, as we have a process to address that possibility and change the constitution. It's American, and the way it's supposed to be done.
2. I don't know where in my post is said anything about lynching Zimmerman. My statement about my feelings on the law stands. I'd be happy to answer a relevant question to what I posted. Based on that law, he wasn't even arrrested. He had too much leeway to kill and too much. Luckily, he was arrested and a proper presentation of evidence can take place.

Re:Amazing

[shutdown -p now]

It really depends. On one hand, we have the election that brought NSDAP to power. On the other, there was a fair share of decent authoritarian regimes in the history of mankind.

Re:Amazing

[kilfarsnar]

That's fine. I don't associate with people who dress like criminals anyway.

Re:Amazing

[BlueStrat]

1. If a law limits or bans guns and isn't found to be constitutional, then it's constitutional. No need to get into specifics, we're talking about people's right to pursue legislation, not specifics about what could or couldn't be constitutional. People have a right to find that the framers were wrong, as we have a process to address that possibility and change the constitution. It's American, and the way it's supposed to be done.

That's not what is happening. Laws and regulations are being passed that are on their face unconstitutional and full-well known to be unconstitutional when passed, like the DC gun ban. The courts/SCOTUS are NOT the final arbitrators of what is Constitutional. The SCOTUS is not perfect and it's decisions are not final. The SCOTUS also upheld the Dredd Scott decision. We the people are the ones that make the ultimate determination as to what is Constitutional, as it is our right and duty to abolish a government that does not serve our interests or protect our rights and freedoms, preferrably through peaceful due process, but failing that, by armed resistance if necessary as a last resort. That's one of the primary reasons the framers included the 2nd Amendment. As a means to remove the government by force when, not if, it becomes a tyrant. All governments eventually grow and become more tyrannical over time.

I don't know where in my post is said anything about lynching Zimmerman. My statement about my feelings on the law stands. I'd be happy to answer a relevant question to what I posted. Based on that law, he wasn't even arrrested. He had too much leeway to kill and too much. Luckily, he was arrested and a proper presentation of evidence can take place

If you truly believe that Zimmerman is innocent until proven guilty and that there are not sufficient facts at this time to be possible to determine innocence or guilt, then you're poisoning the well for making a fair determination by stating Zimmerman was wrong to shoot. A police officer has no more rights than any other citizen. If a police officer may legally shoot someone for the officer's own protection that keeps moving towards an officer in a threatening manner despite the officer having a clear means to escape the situation, why can't anyone else?

Strat

Re:Amazing

[P-niiice]

You contradict yourself in saying that it's unamerican and unpatriotic to contradict the framers, and then follow that up by saying the people are the final word on constitutionality of a law. Which is it?
The correct answer is that SCOTUS is the final word on constitutionality until we change it. And that's an American process, and a Patriotic one.
On Zimmerman, you put words into my mouth. I never said he was wrong to shoot even though I believe he was. It's simple to seperate legal stuff vs. opinion on the Zimmerman case. If the law were applied to the case, he wouldn't even be in a position to be innocent until proven guilty, he'd just be a guy who killed an unarmed teen and is not even tried because of what he told police. Fortunately, his actions prevented application of that law, and he's now going to be tried as it should be, in COURT with EVIDENCE.

Re:Amazing

[tmosley]

There have been in the past. Look to periods of sustained and sustainable growth and advancement and find the models that were used there. I would suggest looking first to the model employed in the United States post-Reconstruction, as that model took us from burned out cinder to world power rather quickly without any external help.

Re:Amazing

[tmosley]

Every single system? So you are saying that the system where those kids were university students fostered corruption, abuse, etc?

You need some lessons in empiricism.

Re:Amazing

[CtownNighrider]

Do you really want them voting though? I'm serious. You should care about them learning about the options more than whether or not they vote. An uniformed vote is far worse than a vote not cast.

We should be encouraging people to vote smarter, which also means not voting if you were too busy or apathetic to cast an informed vote.

Re:Amazing

[cayenne8]

And speaking of... Have you EVER talked to a private health care insurance company? Have you ever even used health care since you were a kid? Efficient it is... For the profits of the people who run them. And why in the hell should the life of a person depend on the profit of someone who is not a doctor or scientist?

As a matter of fact I have...I've incorporated and have worked indie contracting. I set up a HSA to sock back money pre-tax for my routine care, and I got high deductible EMERGENCY insurance...which was not very expensive monthly payments. That is to be used only for catastrophic needs.

Yes, I have pre-existing conditions...high triglycerides, I smoke....but I got insurance. BCBS I think is what I ended up with.

I saved, and even with one year having a MRI....which I paid for myself, I didn't use nearly all of my HSA funds for that year alone....I was socking about $3K annually....and when I went to Drs and told them I was paying myself, they gave me a cut rate. Even the MRI was given a 15% discount for me.

I'd much rather have my money for my decisions...I went to whatever Dr. I researched or had recommended to me...both based on price and quality.

Yes, I know the DMV is state run, but is a perfectly good example of ANY govt. run service. I've dealt with the Feds too...and it isn't any more efficient.

Why should a person/family not save their money budgeted out for health expenditures just as they do for utilities, gas and car note?

Healthcare shouldn't be attached to employment...HSA's and emergency insurance (it used to be called Major Medical for a reason you know), is a perfect set up.

If you're too poor to afford that...well, we DO have medicaid for those folks.

With the scenario I described, there is no 'pre approval'...you're talking about the failed HMO bullshit system we're currently stuck with.

There was no such problem before HMO's were around....maybe you're too young to remember that?

Re:Amazing

[F34nor]

But that is only on the working class. Social Security should be divorced from the general budget. Real taxation on the top percent IS the lowest it has been.

Re:Amazing

[F34nor]

Sometimes the supreme court even says "hey there douche bag, live up to your treaties!" To which the executive says "suck my balls, you've got no army." This results in chain guns being used on women and children. This results in a state that extracts gold and now oil from other peoples property with the unbridled glee that only the most self deluded assholes can muster. Oh yeah and the most bullshit "right to life" laws in the country.

Re:Amazing

[F34nor]

"Sell not virtue to purchase wealth, nor Liberty to purchase power."

        They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
        They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.
        Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither.
        He who would trade liberty for some temporary security, deserves neither liberty nor security.
        He who sacrifices freedom for security deserves neither.
        People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both.
        If we restrict liberty to attain security we will lose them both.
        Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.
        He who gives up freedom for safety deserves neither.
        Those who would trade in their freedom for their protection deserve neither.
        Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.

Re:Amazing

[manu0601]

lol I hate to break it to you, your vote is worth almost nothing. 1/60millionth, to be exact,

This is not just about my vote. The Front de Gauche scored 6,91% nation-wide and got 1.38% of the seats. The Front National scored 13.60% nation-wide and got 0.34% of the seats.

On the contrary, Europe Ecologie les Verts sold their soul to the Parti Socialiste, and that trick got them 2.25% of the seats for just 5.46% of the votes.

Re:Amazing

[phantomfive]

Hmmm, sorry, I am not able to comment on French elections, because I don't understand French elections very well.

However, it is a mistake to confuse bucket voting, which is what the US has, with having your vote not count. Your vote definitely counts.

Re:Amazing

[sumdumass]

First of all, don't call me an idiot, all I did was refer to simple tax information available right there on Wikipedia.

If you do not want to be called an idiot, then please do not act like one. You did so when you started calling Elected Officials by slur names in an attempt to curry favor with delusional partisans.

I said at the very start that I was only speaking about a specific representation of information... it turns out the one I could most easily find. There are a million ways to turn this and anybody can cherry pick facts to justify anything including the sky is falling. I think there is wisdom in all the political positions, The key is looking for what is applicable in today's reality, and keep checking because the world is dynamic and the answers change frequently. As a politician, Clinton was sharp, that doesn't mean I'm a Democratic knee-jerk, I'm not the least bit happy with our current president, and if the Republicans could proffer a candidate that was neither retarded nor deranged I'd honestly consider him (I actually gave Newt a look... warts and all.)

Well, how about we just keep the facts based on reality and not finagled in some way to support a barely legible premise. I was also clear from the start that some taxes are lower but when you look at all of the tax liability including fees, this is not the case.

The problem with your concept of Clinton over republicans is that you are either lacking information, ignoring information, or have preconceived notions and information means little to you. You are right though, Clinton was a smart politician, he was able to take credit for anything that he saw as beneficial and was able to spin anything negative to his advantage. On the down side though, you can say that Clinton's mastery of the situation where he would say or do anything to keep himself looking good, is one of the reasons why politics are in the abysmal partisan state they are in today.

You can't have it both ways, either Clinton cut taxes or his magical surplus was the result of raising taxes... which is it? In fact it was none of the above. The surplus was the result of enhanced revenue from the single largest economic boon in American History... not my words, read for yourself.

I do not need to fit reality into your little false dilemma. The reality is that Clinton raised taxes in 1993 then lowered them for the ultra rich in 1996 when he separate capitol gains from the income tax and set a fixed capital gains rate for holdings help over a year. The only people who were stuck paying Clinton's increased tax rates where the middle class and rich who had no investment income not considered solely capitol gains.

Here is a fact you can bank on too. Taxes do not create or destroy economic booms. They encourage and discourage but so many outside factors are involved that is is pathetic to even hint that tax rates are that powerful. Now, when the economy is struggling, lowering taxes to a point can spur economic activity as it removes or lowers barriers to entry where as raising or increasing taxes at that time can harm economic activity as it increases barriers to entry and removed monetary value from existing investments that would likely be either spent within the economy or invested in a way to spur economic development. When the economy is booming, raising taxes generally doesn't have too much of an impact as the money being made is greater then the fraction being removed. Once the value being harvested from the economy is outweighed by the tax liability, it tends to dampen the economy.

According to your link, the boom of the 1990's actually began March 1991, a year before Clinton took office. That tells a different story then you are.

Now, if you insist on tying the economy onto something, you can tie it to energy costs. Nothing will impact the economy more then energy costs and during Clinton's term as president, energy costs were r

Re:Amazing

[thoromyr]

It seems you understand the dark side of the force.

Re:Amazing

[Bob the Super Hamste]

Given what I have seen in the news I would bet a fair amount are innocents. The pray and spray method seems to be preferred by gangs and criminals. A recent and tragic example from here in Minnesota where a 5 year old was killed while sleeping in a house by stray bullets fired from outside. It was reported that around 13 shots were fired at the house (not a specific individual that the shooter actually could see) and the shooter/s were trying to hit someone who may have been at the house the previous day. Then there is this story from about 6 months ago where a 3 year old was hit by a stray bullet that was fired from an alley about 120 yards away from a semiautomatic handgun. And about a decade ago there was the case where Tyesha Edwards who was shot during a drive by shooting against the house next door, she was at the dinner table doing her homework. These are just the stories from Minneapolis that involved children being accidentally shot, there are probably more stores that involve adults, but those don't make the news like ones with kids do. If gangbangers want to kill other gangbangers I could care less. I say we build a reinforced concrete structure where they can go and shoot at and kill each other over turf battles, rivalries, or what ever the fuck else they shoot at each other for. I would even let them get away with murder in there so long as the only killing happens in there.

Re:Amazing

[manu0601]

Here is how french upper house is elected

The country is divided in 577 circonscriptions, each one of them having about the same amount of voters (with some spread, but no circonscription can have more than twice the voters of another one). This division has nothing to do this other administrative divisions: circonscription boundaries can spread among cities, or cut cities in half. There are even circonscriptions for french voters abroad.

In each circonscription occurs a local struggle between candidates to a national role, which is a bit odd. There are two polls. On first poll, anyone that scores less than 12.5% of voters is eliminated. On second poll, the biggest score wins. Usually there are two opponents on the second poll, but there can be 3, 4, or even only one, if one candidate was alone above 12,5%

The house is there for 5 years, except if the president decides to dissolve it (another oddity).

The big problem with this system is that a party may have a high score nation wide, but have no seats at all because it was locally beaten everywhere

Re:Amazing

[phantomfive]

The big problem with this system is that a party may have a high score nation wide, but have no seats at all because it was locally beaten everywhere

Ah, I understand what you are saying, and it is indeed a problem.

I will tell you, there is no perfect democracy system, there will always be some people who have more power than others. The way I deal with this particular problem, is by not voting for a party, but rather the person I think will be best for the job. Sometimes I vote democrat, sometimes I vote Republican.

Now, this may not be an effective strategy in some countries (because in some countries, candidates are forced to vote with their party). In that case, it is less perfect, but it is still democratic. Remember there are two important things for a democracy: freedom of speech, and the capability to remove an unpopular government without bloodshed.

IF you have those two things, then your goal should be to convince everyone to agree with you, rather than trying to adjust the system. If you adjust the system, you might get 5% extra, but if you convince everyone to agree with you, then you win.

Re:Amazing

[manu0601]

there is no perfect democracy system (...) The way I deal with this particular problem, is by not voting for a party, but rather the person I think will be best for the job.

This is not very applicable in France, where most members or parliament just follow their party directives. I suspect a majority of them do not even read the laws they vote for. This situation is a consequence of how they are elected. As I explained, it is very difficult for smaller parties to have seats, therefore member of parliament from bigger parties (PS and UMP) are not really challenged.

Remember there are two important things for a democracy: freedom of speech, and the capability to remove an unpopular government without bloodshed.

The problem is that we have to wait five years to remove a government, and we can only hope to choose between two parties. What we miss here the referendum d'initiative populaire, like in Switzerland or Venezuela. The Venezuela flavor is quite nice, since it allows revoking any elected politician by referendum. Chavez already faced two such referendums. That looks like real politicians oversight by the people, IMO.

Re:Amazing

[phantomfive]

No, Venezuela fails democratically because they don't have freedom of speech. If your opponents can't tell why you should be removed from office, then of course no one will know why they should vote against you. Chavez has been nationalizing one TV station after another.

Being able to recall politicians sounds nice (we have it in many parts of the US), but in practice it's generally a waste of time, since when a politician wins the first time, he'll usually win again the second time. The main exception is when he does something in office that is really bad, or against what he said he would do when he got elected.

Once again, you can usually find ways to improve the details of your electoral system, but those are small details......convincing other people to agree with you is the source of ultimate power in politics.

Re:Amazing

[manu0601]

No, Venezuela fails democratically because they don't have freedom of speech.(...) Chavez has been nationalizing one TV station after another.

Are you sure this is not propaganda? What TV stations Chavez has nationalized?

I think you are referring to RCTV, who supported the coup against Chavez in 2002, and who was denied airwave license renewal in 2007 for that reason. They have not been nationalized and still broadcast on the satellite. Venezuela governement was incredibly nice here. I guest the treatment for a US TV station supporting a coup in the US would be much more harsh.

Re:Amazing

[phantomfive]

Reporters without borders has a good summary in English. You can find all the same information in Spanish too, though. My brother lived in Venezuela, so I pay attention to what goes on there.

I guest the treatment for a US TV station supporting a coup in the US would be much more harsh.

Why would you think that?

Re:Amazing

[hot soldering iron]

Sorry for the confusion. It's been quite a while ago, about 1992 (?), and it was the original passing of the concealed carry law letting people carry weapons for self defense. I am very much opposed to "gun control". There have been numerous times that just having a weapon, and indicating willingness to use it has saved my family and friends from much danger. This includes car jacking, robbery, and outlaw biker gangs. Really.

Re:Amazing

[manu0601]

Reporters without borders has a good summary in English.

And where does it tells about nationalizing TV stations one after another?

I guest the treatment for a US TV station supporting a coup in the US would be much more harsh.

Why would you think that?

I am not sure freedom of speech can really trump national security in the US nowadays. But I agree this is just my own feeling

Re:Amazing

[phantomfive]

And where does it tells about nationalizing TV stations one after another?

The point was about freedom of speech. If you can see how the actions of the government in Venezuela are limiting freedom of speech, then I'm sorry, you are blinded by your preconceptions.

Re:Amazing

[manu0601]

The point was about freedom of speech. If you can see how the actions of the government in Venezuela are limiting freedom of speech, then I'm sorry, you are blinded by your preconceptions.

Many states restrict freedom of speech for various reasons. For instance, the US can restrict your freedom of speech when it serves you a national security letter. Some other countries will restrict one ability to spread lies or hateful speech. And some others will suppress political opposition.

I am not sure where Venezuela fits. It does not seems to be a freedom of speech heaven, but I am not sure either this is a place where political opposition is suppressed. And I am convinced that there is a lot of propaganda to push this later idea. For instance, you just repeated (probably with good faiith) a lie about TV nationalization. Please don't call be blinded because I noted your made a false statement.

Re:Amazing

[phantomfive]

For instance, the US can restrict your freedom of speech when it serves you a national security letter.

That was ruled unconstitutional. You gotta keep up with the times, our courts don't let the government do that kind of crap.

And I am convinced that there is a lot of propaganda to push this later idea. For instance, you just repeated (probably with good faiith) a lie about TV nationalization. Please don't call be blinded because I noted your made a false statement.

Go find out how many TV stations the Venezuelan government either owns directly, or gives funding to. Then look how owners and reporters of the other stations are harassed, if they don't lose their broadcasting license altogether.

Come on, this is not something France would put up with in any way. Did not the Frenchman, Voltaire, defend so eloquently freedom of speech?

Re:Amazing

[manu0601]

You gotta keep up with the times, our courts don't let the government do that kind of crap.

You get a point. For now this is a draw game :-)

Go find out how many TV stations the Venezuelan government either owns directly, or gives funding to. Then look how owners and reporters of the other stations are harassed, if they don't lose their broadcasting license altogether.

Why don't you go find facts? I am convinced there is propaganda about lack of freedom of speech in Venezuela. If I listen to the rumor, I should think that Chavez suppressed opposition. But the truth is that political opposition is quite vocal in Venezuela.

Come on, this is not something France would put up with in any way. Did not the Frenchman, Voltaire, defend so eloquently freedom of speech?

Sure, freedom of speech is important. But I think the right to a fair information trumps it. IMO, freedom of speech should be restricted for lies and hate speech. Nobody should be allowed to write in a newspaper that his someone is a pedophile while it is not true, for instance.

Re:Amazing

[phantomfive]

Why do you think Reporters Without Borders is wrong? Do you have a reason? They seem like a fine organization to me.

It is fine to restrict hate speech. The primary requirement of free speech in a democracy is the ability to criticize the government freely. If you have that, then you are free to convince people to change other restrictions on free speech, if you can convince them to agree. But if you don't have the ability to criticize government, then you can't spread your idea about why things should change.

Re:Amazing

[manu0601]

Why do you think Reporters Without Borders is wrong? Do you have a reason? They seem like a fine organization to me.

There have been a few of papers and books explaining how Reporters Without Border was founded by the USAID, and how it was always zealous at reporting problems in countries the USA has issues with, while being silent for USA allies and USA itself. Some authors even have argued that Reporters Without Border even spread plain lies about Venezuela. You can google +RSF +USAID +Venezuela to get a few references.

That does not make Reporter Without Borders an irrelevant source, but it makes it a suspicious one. We need more

The primary requirement of free speech in a democracy is the ability to criticize the government freely.

I agree that function is essential. But how do you address the case of propaganda? One point of view may bust all the other ones because the group that express it can saturate people's brains with it through their control of key medias.

Re:Amazing

[WorBlux]

Because it creates a very high incentive to evade taxes.

Re:Amazing

[phantomfive]

How do you personally avoid being brainwashed by propaganda? People need to do the same things you do.

Re:Amazing

[manu0601]

I have a few unusual news sources that tend to complete or contradict the stories given by main stream medias: the two most important are le Monde Diplomatique, which now even have an english edition. arretsurimages.net, which is only in french.

It is worth pointing that I pay for that information. None of these two sources are free for the reader and paid by advertising. I am convinced this is a key point for an independent point of view.

Re:Amazing

[phantomfive]

Be careful that your source of information may also be biased.

'Paid' definitely doesn't guarantee neutral point of view, often the opposite. But it can be good reading.

Re:Amazing

[manu0601]

Be careful that your source of information may also be biased.

Of course they are. In my opinion, no source is 100% objective, you always get the facts narrated with the subjectivity of the writer. Even if one tries hard to be unbiased, the choice of words can change your point of view on a story.

Good source are aware they are biaised, and do not try to hide it to the reader. Le Monde Diplomatique claims to be left-wing. Once you know that, you can balance the information you get from them with other sources (which are usually infiltrated by neoliberal ideology without telling it)

Re:Amazing

[manu0601]

[US can restrict your freedom of speech when it serves you a national security letter] was ruled unconstitutional. You gotta keep up with the times, our courts don't let the government do that kind of crap.

It seems you are not completely done with that kind of crap.

Re:Amazing

[phantomfive]

yeap lol. Obama hasn't exactly been a bastion of liberty and openness like he promised.

Re:So they made flyer?

[cultiv8]

It (the flyer) was spotted by multiple people, including the couple, when it was taped to a podium outside a public hearing room in the 30th Precinct house last Thursday, where residents met for precinct council meeting.

It could have been anyone to post the flyer, including the couple themselves.

Re:So they made flyer?

[spire3661]

It is not the police's duty to make jokes. It takes away from the seriousness we task them with. Perform your jobs like professional or we will replace you.

Re:So they made flyer?

[morcego]

The only reason they would consider legal options would be because it would bring awareness to their (admittedly excellent) campaign.

If they want to record the cops doing what they believe is wrong, I honestly don't see why the police cannot publicly post a warning to other officers in what seems to be a mostly harmless joking way.

Listen, public embarrassment and notice is a two way street. If you want to publicly post the actions of the police, I don't see why you should feel others couldn't do the same to you.

Pretty sure posting their home address on the flyer can have some legal implications.

Re:So they made flyer?

[Rockoon]

Are mugshots public record?

Walking while black

[flyingfsck]

Well obviously the Harlem residents must be guilty of something, otherwise the police won't stop and frisk them...

Re:Walking while black

[sociocapitalist]

Well obviously the Harlem residents must be guilty of something, otherwise the police won't stop and frisk them...

Yes they're guilty of being Harlem residents.

Re:Walking while black

[Anonymous Coward]

Well obviously the Harlem residents must be guilty of something, otherwise the police won't stop and frisk them...

That's absolutely correct! And we all know that most violent is committed by non-white people - especially violent crime. The whole jazz about all the serial killers being white is just pseudo-science. And we all know that those brown skinned people may very well be Muslims terrorists - my bad, that was redundant.

Anyway, what I really think we ought to do is give the police even more powers in order for us to stay free - a police state is the only way to have a safe and secure free country.

These damn Liberals with their "Civil Liberties" are just anti-American! Why I saw on Fox News people who actually think that the police can make mistakes and even some cops will lie! Can you believe such stupidity!

Until we get Barack Hussein Obama out of office, we are going to become a Socialist Country buried in violent crime just like Europe!

Re:Walking while black

[Anonymous Coward]

British and from quite a while ago but I think this pretty much covers it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BO8EpfyCG2Y

Re:So they made flyer?

[amiga3D]

mugshots.com

"Professional Agitators"?

[Patman64]

Sounds like libel, especially since they are not making any money off it. They should get in contact with the ACLU.

Also, very classy of the NYPD to do a public smearing of people who show their abuses to the public. They'll happily invade your privacy at random, but don't you dare film them while they abuse people on your dollar!

Re:"Professional Agitators"?

[Phoobarnvaz]

Also, very classy of the NYPD to do a public smearing of people who show their abuses to the public. They'll happily invade your privacy at random, but don't you dare film them while they abuse people on your dollar!

You have to remember...these posters have been up for quite a while. "The Alyona Show" on RT has interviewed these two on her show and brings this up several times a week. You also have to remember that along with these two "agitators"...this is the police department which has traveled all over the Eastern half of the US looking for the big/bad Islamic terrorists. Then you have a columnist I believe from the Post who believes the NYPD is doing the best job in the world and stands up for their gestapo tactics at the behest of Darth Bloomberg.

The problem is you have way too many people who are more than willing to support the authorities hurting/killing those willing to take these bigots/morons on and calling what they are doing is wrong. Damn your civil rights and your opinions. As long as those in power have theirs and can keep their money/make more...frack you and the protest horse you're riding.

Re:"Professional Agitators"?

[kilfarsnar]

Did you read the article? It was not a wanted poster. It was an internal police memorandum accurately calling these two people professional agitators, and instructing the police NOT TO BOTHER THEM. That's right. The evil wanted poster was a warning to police officers that these two people were not meant to be messed with.

Check it out. They're finally smartening up!

Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[strikethree]

Seriously, why would the police care if the police are doing nothing wrong? Are the videos revealing operational secrets that will make these "stop and frisk" actions less useful? Whatever their reason is, I would like to use that reason against them when they are requiring the same of me.

Which brings me to a question: How is "stop and frisk" not a violation of rights? It seems to be CLEARLY a violation of the 4th and perhaps even the 5th.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Which brings me to a question: How is "stop and frisk" not a violation of rights? It seems to be CLEARLY a violation of the 4th and perhaps even the 5th.

Unfortunately, the US Supreme court disagrees. It's called a Terry stop:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[Telephone Sanitizer]

> Seriously, why would the police care if the police are
> doing nothing wrong?

Guilty conscience.

> Which brings me to a question: How is "stop and
> frisk" not a violation of rights? It seems to be
> CLEARLY a violation of the 4th and perhaps even
> the 5th.

I don't get it, either. It's so obvious a violation of due process and flagrant bigotry that it should never have been proposed. Yet, they're doing it; they've been doing it since at least 2004; they're amassing a database containing information on those people who have been subject to stop-and-frisk; they're using the database for racial profiling and harassment (some people have been stalked by the police, stopped and frisked dozens of times); and nobody is stopping them.

The NY ACLU is only suing them over the database. Not the practice.

The law spells out very specific circumstances for a stop and pat-down.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terry_stop

The police are ignoring the law.

This is the sort of thing that East coasters ridicule Arizona for, but it's going on right here.

A true WTF.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[strikethree]

Fair enough. From the link you provided, "The name derives from Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1 (1968),[2] in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that police may briefly detain a person who they reasonably suspect is involved in criminal activity".

To me, it sounds like there is no REASONABLE suspicion of criminal activity though. It sounds like they are grabbing random people who are not dressed like a businessman or who do not have the proper skin color... Which disqualifies them as true Terry stops. :/

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[deanklear]

The police care because recording them violates their deeply held opinion that they have the right to do whatever they want without any threat of punishment. That attitude permeates government from the top all the way down, and unfortunately has the predictable effect of corrupting nearly every person who gets the slightest bit of state-backed power.

Now that budgets are being slashed, the fascist tendency towards punishment and extortion through fines for small offenses has only become more engrained in our culture. How are they going to pay for their tanks and UAVs without making every deviation from total conformity illegal and expensive?

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[strikethree]

Are there not enough terrorists in this world? Why do they feel the need to create more?

and why is everyone replying as an Anonymous Coward? Are you all seriously THAT afraid of the powers that be? Let them kill you. It sucks, but life has to end sometime. You may as well make it is inconvenient as possible to enjoy "their abuse of power" with your death.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[Telephone Sanitizer]

> To me, it sounds like there is no REASONABLE
> suspicion of criminal activity

A "reasonable and articulable suspicion" that the suspect is armed.

These stop-and-frisks are not Terry stops.

There is no basis for them under the law.

There are some law enforcement personnel who are allowed to do stops like this in the post-9/11 era... The Customs and Border Protection arm of the DHS.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

The cops who posted this need to be identified and fired, IMMEDIATELY.

And if there are any of you in the US who still think the majority of the cops are on the side of the good guys, you should think again. If this doesn't clearly show who's side they are on (their own and their political owners), then nothing does.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[strikethree]

As my reply to an Anonymous Coward points out: They are breeding terrorists with these actions. I do not live in NYC and *I* feel violated. I can only imagine how the people being subjected to this shit feel.

Violating a person's "right" to not be molested for no reason by "authorities" WILL create a violent response. I guess random bombings and murders are better than random thefts and murders. One is terrorism, the other is crime. Not much of a difference from my point of view except that one has at least some sort of justification. :(

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[strikethree]

Nobody is going to respect an Anonymous Coward saying what you are saying. Create an account and log in. Put _something_ behind your words. Nobody is going to execute you for it... yet. ;)

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Exactly, it it comes down to word v word the judge will always take the police side.

the police dont want to be filmed as it can prove them to be liars when they beat innocent people and then say it was in self defence.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[Anne Thwacks]

with a functioning memory

A blow on the head from a night-stick will soon fix that!

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[trout007]

I don't see why the police should have any additional rights above that of a citizen. They should be subject to the same laws. They should be allowed to detain someone but in order to search need a warrant. The person being detained should be allowed to sue for kidnapping if the officer can't prove there was a reason for the stop in front of a jury.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[strikethree]

Look Mr. Anonymous Coward, I am NOT looking for causes to fight for/against. I honestly do not believe that this stop and frisk bullshit is racially motivated anyways.

When I see something wrong, I call it out as being wrong. This "policy" of stop and frisk is wrong regardless of whether or not blacks are mostly being targeted (got any data to back up that blacks are being targeted, rather than just poor people or people who are dressed wrong?). If I were to witness such an event, I would make a citizens arrest on the police officer even though it would mean spending the rest of my life in jail. It is even possible that the situation might require me to shoot the officer because he would not submit to an arrest and try to shoot me.

Again, nothing to do with race but with law and order. How do they expect us to respect law and order if they do not?

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[kamapuaa]

Are you seriously suggestion the NYPD will search down Slashdot posters for their controversial "this sucks US is Nazi George Bush=Hitler" posts? Or alternately, that any sane person would be afraid of this? It's time to take off you tinfoil hat my good sir.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[Known Nutter]

You don't live in NYC, but don't feel left out! Copy-cat policies are on their way to a city near you!

http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/SF-mayor-considering-police-stop-and-frisk-policy-3669799.php

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[v1]

To me, it sounds like there is no REASONABLE suspicion of criminal activity though

In among OWI and OMVI we have another one you need to be familiar with, DWB. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Driving_While_Black )

You're just talking about the on-foot version.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[strikethree]

LOL, no. I was wondering why there were so many Anonymous Coward replies. I was just tossing around possible ideas no matter how outrageous.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[Gr8Apes]

Are you seriously suggestion the NYPD will search down Slashdot posters for their controversial "this sucks US is Nazi George Bush=Hitler" posts? Or alternately, that any sane person would be afraid of this? It's time to take off you tinfoil hat my good sir.

I'm sure you've already been added to the no-fly list. Enjoy.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[strikethree]

Nasty :(

None of this makes me feel any safer. Is there any reason to believe these types of things reduce crime? Has anyone done a honest evaluation to see if things are changing positively in NYC because of this? I am honestly getting very bad feelings from this. It is like pouring gasoline on to a pile of kindling. What will be the match that lights it? Someone dying in one of these stops?

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[roc97007]

Right, but what is the "reasonable and articulable" suspicion that the person is armed and dangerous? Are we buying the theory that people of a certain race can naturally be supposed to be on their way to a crime?

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[Gr8Apes]

If I were to witness such an event, I would make a citizens arrest on the police officer even though it would mean spending the rest of my life in jail. It is even possible that the situation might require me to shoot the officer because he would not submit to an arrest and try to shoot me.

Unfortunately for you, interfering with a police officer doing his duty is a crime. You have no way of knowing whether he's doing a stop and frisk or not unless you have all the facts. The only way to really manage it is to video tape it (video is difficult to argue against in court) and hand it to the alleged victims along with your contact information to be a witness in court, provided they file charges or sue. Otherwise, it will continue being what it is.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[strikethree]

I do not think the policy came about to pick on black people. To give the benefit of the doubt, I would say that some people are very scared and choose to harass anyone who looks scary. Due to history, a lot of it probably centers around black people but I would bet puerto ricans, mexicans, iranians, etc are all being targeted too. As a matter of fact, if I were to say it were profiling, it would be profiling YOUNG people. People under 30.

I am sure there are some police officers in New York who are prejudiced against a particular race and this law is a godsend for them and a nightmare for the people of the race that the officer hates. I think we should be VERY careful about dragging race into this as I suspect it is much much bigger than race.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[Dachannien]

Seriously, why would the police care if the police are doing nothing wrong?

If only it really worked that way. Edits made to a video can make it seem like the cops are out-of-line when they were actually acting in accordance with the law, and even an unedited video can sometimes be spun by those with an anti-police agenda.

That said, the police in this case are at least responding properly to the videojournalists' actions, by letting each other know that they need to be especially on their guard to avoid even the appearance of impropriety, and by allowing the videotaping to continue. The only thing that makes this case particularly special is that there aren't more people out there videotaping the cops. If lots of people did it, then it wouldn't be anything special, and the cops would ultimately make fundamental changes in their own policies and behavior.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

This is in no way a Terry stop, which requires reasonable suspicion, these are pseudo-random (read: Profiled) searches. Random stops are not allowed under the constitution. I do not care if they worked so well they effectively eradicated all violent crime they are illegal, immoral and utterly contrary to liberty. One of the great things about this constitution is that without amendment it does not allow us to surrender our liberty even if a majority wanted to. This is by far it's most important function.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[strikethree]

Thank you for being sensible. I agree that many innocuous things can be, and are, blown way out of proportion or misrepresented.

I still disagree with needing to be more on their guard merely because of video recording being present. They should always act professional and the police that I have interacted with in the past, even when they clearly did not have my best interests at heart, always (except once) acted professionally. Thankfully, I do not live in NYC. Just wow.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Nobody is going to respect an Anonymous Coward saying what you are saying. Create an account and log in. Put _something_ behind your words. Nobody is going to execute you for it... yet. ;)

I'm not the parent but I can no longer be bothered using my login here. My Id is lower than yours by a longshot by the way. There's no advantage to it anymore and the stories tend to be asinine. Whenever you do write something of worth it's modded down to oblivion. When you write a joke it gets modded insightful. It wasn't always this way. Slashdot has gone to hell.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[dgatwood]

No, but if a supermajority wanted it, we could surrender our liberty by means of the amendment process. See also: prohibition/eighteenth amendment.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[dgatwood]

I think the flood of angry responses to his comments pretty much ensured that this will not be happening in San Francisco.

More to the point, if it did, I suspect you'd see protests that would make the most violent moments of Occupy Oakland look downright peaceful. Look back at the LA riots to see what happens when a large enough minority of Californians feel that they are being systematically oppressed by the police.

As Jefferson put it, "A government afraid of its citizens is a democracy. Citizens afraid of government is tyranny."

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[v1]

Depends on where you live. In this city anyway, DWB is a very popular reason to get pulled over, particularly if it's a carload of teens driving around late at night on the wrong side of town. Almost guaranteed.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[celle]

"Nobody is going to execute you for it... yet."

    I'm not the "AC" but they can do worse than execute you by hunting you down and harassing you to the point of dysfunction. A living death which shows we've become more barbaric since the cavemen not less. Fact is we're reaching police state levels that can only be dealt with via a general uprising since the political system as far as the public is concerned is completely broken.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[fermion]

As James O'keefe, a video can be edited to show whatever one wishes. While a video can be important evidence, just like a photograph, it has to be within a context and unedited. Even an unedited video has to be taken as a single point of view, and guilt determined, again, in context.

Stop and Frisk can be stopped without video, which is simply going to serve as bad publicity, which is why the police don't want it. According to police statistics, stop and frisk has a hit rate of 1 in 10, 17 out of 20 people stopped are of color, while they make up only 10 out of 20 in the population. This policy is clearly not targeting the real criminals. It is a waste of money, It is clearly designed to give the police something to do so that the real criminals, those on wall street, are free to plunder the american family.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[hot soldering iron]

More like several people dying. One of these people is going to get stopped for a pat down, but he'll have a freaking bomb strapped on. News at 11. Maybe...

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[Gr8Apes]

Unfortunately, your analogy is not that big a stretch.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[Kielistic]

How is creating a one time use account anything more than AC? And unless your real name is Strike Three and your SSN 811449 how are you any better than an AC?

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[hot soldering iron]

You think people are afraid of repercussions for their speech for no reason? So you mock them? You, sir, are obviously living a nice secure life, but most of us don't.

I've had family members "hunted" by small town deputies before, for standing on their rights. They had to let that particular officer know that his badge wasn't kevlar, and wouldn't appreciably slow down a bullet. I personally know people in other towns that have official documentation that would almost put police officers away for murder, and was supposed to be destroyed, but would definitely get them killed for having it. So they hold it as "insurance" against mysteriously disappearing in the night, and being tagged a "runaway".

You people in the big cities seem to think that crap like that only happens in B-grade action flicks. I've seen it my whole life, living in the American mid-west.

Most people know that drugs move up from Mexico, and are distributed to the users in the larger cities. But they are routed from small town to small town around the major cities, where the police are easier and cheaper to buy. Lots of these drugs are being moved in the trunks of cars on car carriers. "No one would jeopardize a legitimate car business to move drugs!" Really? Delorean used drugs to try and finance his company, remember. Businesses exist to make money. If you can reduce your risk by paying the judge and sheriff a cool 100,000 dollars each, you can clear over 2 million a month. Untaxed. Which is nice to hear when the economy is down and no one is coming around to buy your cars.

So rest assured, there is more corruption in the small towns than you would believe. Mostly because it's easier to lean on people, and oppress them, than in the larger cities with all those people looking.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[Chewbacon]

It's not if they give consent, which is often the case. It's a police tactic. Cop says: "I need you to put your hands on the wall so I can search you," and someone does as it sounds like they don't have a choice. If the cop said, "Would you put your hands on the wall so I can search you? You can tell me no, but by doing that you imply your consent to be search," then it wouldn't be as effective. My dad was a cop, did a lot of cyber crime investigation, and he would often ask a suspect he was simply interviewing to turn over potential evidence, say a computer, and they'd gladly give it to him. They could've easily said no. So it's not really a violation of rights, but ignorance of rights.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[gmhowell]

More like several people dying. One of these people is going to get stopped for a pat down, but he'll have a freaking bomb strapped on. News at 11. Maybe...

After 10 years of trying in NYC without a hit, you'll forgive me if I don't bet on the chances of it happening any time soon.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[Lost Race]

The NY ACLU is only suing them over the database. Not the practice.

And all the public angst and hand-wringing seems to be about the "racial profiling" aspect, as if this crap would be A-OK if only they did it to white people too.

A true WTF.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[rastoboy29]

Cameras are getting smaller, better, and more ubiquitous every day.  It won't be long before everyone around you, and them, could have a hidden HD camera rolling all the time.

When that happens, they'll have no choice but to tolerate it.

Course, it could suck in general for everyone, too.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[dkleinsc]

got any data to back up that blacks are being targeted, rather than just poor people or people who are dressed wrong?

Center for Constitutional Rights report, coming out of their case Floyd et al v. City of New York. The basic summary: roughly 10% of those stopped and frisked are white, 45% of New York residents are white. For blacks and Hispanics, it's 80% of stops compared to 50% of New Yorkers.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[Kielistic]

And what does that have to do with anything? It was asserted by StrikeThree that a statement made by an AC will not be respected simply because they are AC. What does a statement have to do with knowing you are still talking to the same person later on?

This is a perfect example. I do not care if you are StrikeThree or not; the sentiment remains the same. Disregarding ACs simply for being AC on a website where people are identified with pseudonyms and numbers is irony at its finest.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[pete6677]

Chicago is too politically correct to have anything like stop-and-frisk, and we now lead the nation in murders. Not to mention, thugs run lose in tourist areas beating up people for fun. You can google for this if you want proof - there are numerous articles. So by all means, oppose a proven crime reduction strategy. And don't be surprised when the young gangbangers come after you. What do they have to be afraid of?

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[pete6677]

If I were to witness such an event, I would make a citizens arrest on the police officer even though it would mean spending the rest of my life in jail. It is even possible that the situation might require me to shoot the officer because he would not submit to an arrest and try to shoot me.

Sure you would, Internet Toughguy.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[mvdwege]

Actually, Chicago is way down the list in murder and homicide numbers, and posting only a third of the number 1.

But then again, I don't expect facts to make any difference to your closed, bigoted little mind.

(Or have I fallen for Poe's Law?)

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[LVSlushdat]

I normally don't reply to AC's, but on rare occasions, they have flashes of lucidity.. Like now..

The rule of law is dead in the United States. I say this as a 30-year citizen with a functioning memory

I'd mod this to as follows:
The rule of law is dead in the United States. I say this as a 62-year citizen with a functioning memory

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[LVSlushdat]

I used to think people who talked about "conspiracy theories" needed an adjustment on their tinfoil hat.. Now, not so much.. I'm gonna connect the dots on this.. Though I've seen very little anywhere about it, there was a recent DHS "whistleblower" who reported that there was a concocted plan by the administration to "crank up the heat" as it were, to incite rioting, thus making it easier for Mr Soetero to declare martial law. Think about this.. DHS "asks" NYPD to "turn up the heat" with the black community in NYC, such that some kind of "Rodney King" like incident happens, lighting the match.. With careful tending by the media, with its lies and DHS, they cause it to spread to other cities.. Enter Mr Soetero, who says "oooh to protect the american public, I'm reluctantly gonna declare martial law"... of course, that means ANYbody who disagrees with Mr Soetero in a public way (ie: talk radio) will be "disappeared" under the EO's/laws that have convieniently appeared recently... And of course, Mr Soetero and other members of his party no longer have to worry about a repeat of the 2010 elections, as the 2012 elections have been "postponed" (read: cancelled) ... Then America is well and truly FUCKED...

Yeah I know.. Those who think *my* tinfoil hat is too tight, well, gimme a better explanation.. otherwise STFU...

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[hazah]

Projecting a little?

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[isorox]

Are there not enough terrorists in this world? Why do they feel the need to create more?

The problem is, people are beginning to realise that there isn't the terrorist/communist/boogieman around every corner, and that more people in the U.S. died in traffic accidents in 2001 than through terrorism, and the biggest killer in September 2001 was heart disease.

How are the people in charge going to siphon to take taxpayers money on pointless things like wars and the tsa without a real threat?

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[isorox]

If I were to witness such an event, I would make a citizens arrest on the police officer even though it would mean spending the rest of my life in jail.

Bullshit.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[Pfhorrest]

I don't see why the police should have any additional rights above that of a citizen. They should be subject to the same laws. They should be allowed to detain someone but in order to search need a warrant. The person being detained should be allowed to sue for kidnapping if the officer can't prove there was a reason for the stop in front of a jury.

I've been advocating this for years. Don't allow the police any powers you wouldn't allow any ordinary joe, because the police are just ordinary joes. And then if police powers are limited to what you'd allow any ordinary joe, obviously you can allow those same powers to any ordinary joe too. The question to sort out is: when is it appropriate to use what kind of force for what purpose? Who exercises that force should be irrelevant, if they're exercising it properly for the proper reasons in the proper circumstances; and if they're using it improperly, for improper reasons, or in improper circumstances, then it shouldn't matter who they are or what kind of uniform or badge they wear, they should be considered guilty of a violent crime.

The only difference between police and ordinary citizens should be that police are paid to go around protecting people, whereas ordinary citizens are just free to volunteer if they like.

Re:Obviously, the police are doing something wrong

[trout007]

In Florida where I live the law says that a police officer can arrest someone out of their jurisdiction because it's the same as a citizens arrest. They way it is supposed to work is you detain the suspect and call the local sheriff with jurisdiction. Then they or a subordinate decide whether to
take that person into custody. If it goes to trial whoever made the arrest has to show up.

Like you said police would just be paid to become experts on the law and learn tecniques to arrest people safely but still have the same rights as any person.

Re:So they made flyer?

[kmahan]

The cops definitely get upset if you post THEIR pics and home addresses.

Re:So they made flyer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Listen, public embarrassment and notice is a two way street. If you want to publicly post the actions of the police, I don't see why you should feel others couldn't do the same to you.

Maybe because police are public servants and private citizens are not.
IMHO public servants should be publically scrutinized.

Re:So they made flyer?

[Anonymous Coward]

If they want to record the cops doing what they believe is wrong, I honestly don't see why the police cannot publicly post a warning to other officers

Unfortunately, for your simplistic, naive 'fair and balanced' BS, the relationship between police and non-police isn't symmetrical - the police have governmental backed power and effectively unlimited financial resources (taxpayer dollars).

Re:So they made flyer?

[amiga3D]

The way I look at it, the police have video cameras in cars and you routinely see traffic stop and arrest footage from these cameras on tv shows such as Cops. Turnabout is fair play.

Re:So they made flyer?

[amiga3D]

Really now. I actually prefer cops to have a sense of humor. Without it they burn out quickly.

Re:So they made flyer?

[Anonymous Coward]

WTF, no! It is not a "two way street". Police officers are equipped with privileges that allow them to use force and detain people. That's why public scrutiny of their actions is not just acceptable but necessary. This does not apply to other people, who do not have these privileges. Putting them on a "wanted poster" implies wrongdoing, so this is particularly unacceptable.

Re:So they made flyer?

[amiga3D]

That's the one thing I saw that didn't look like a good idea. If something were to happen there might be some severe repercussions from that.

Re:So they made flyer?

[JustOK]

Are they allowed to have a sense of rhythm?

Like in this video of a police beating? http://youtu.be/7KTnLVzI2q4

Re:So they made flyer?

[Apuleius]

It's not so harmless and jokey when it includes their home addresses.

So how are they wanted?

[Hentes]

Dead or alive?

Re:So they made flyer?

[tmosley]

Are you seriously arguing that posting a wanted poster that includes the home address of two dissidents is funny?

Re:So they made flyer?

[Anonymous Coward]

" If you want to publicly post the actions of the police, I don't see why you should feel others couldn't do the same to you."

Because police are public employees and acting with public authority.

Re:WE NEED COMMUNISM NOW

[tmosley]

It's already long dead. If you want Communism, I'm afraid it is Fascism you are going to have to kill or co-opt first.

Re:WE NEED COMMUNISM NOW

[0123456]

In the real world, the difference between Fascism and Communism is about as significant as the difference between Coke and Pepsi.

Until we start arresting cops and their masters

[Anonymous Coward]

Until we start arresting cops and the rich and powerful for their crimes, they are going to continue to trample on the rights and liberties of everyone else.

We need to become a nation of laws, not men-- which we most certainly are not now.

Re:So they made flyer?

[joocemann]

Are you seriously arguing that posting a wanted poster that includes the home address of two dissidents is funny?

it also amounts to a form of blacklisting, which is illegal.

If the police were honest, they would have nothing to hide! (Turning tables with tongue firmly in cheek)

Re:So they made flyer?

[TooMuchToDo]

Listen, public embarrassment and notice is a two way street. If you want to publicly post the actions of the police, I don't see why you should feel others couldn't do the same to you.

False.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_privacy

Re:So they made flyer?

[MightyMartian]

In other words, it's the kind of joke a sociopath might enjoy. And why is it that any jurisdiction would want such individuals in their police force, or even being allowed to carry a gun?

What is the point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Since the courts have been throwing out any evidence gathered from "stop-and-frisk" as being illegally acquired, just what is the point of this heavily defended policy anyway? Other than pure harassment. Shouldn't the police be trying to build relationships with local communities rather than alienating them? Oh sorry, that is so 70's thinking.

Re:What is the point?

[citizenr]

Since the courts have been throwing out any evidence gathered from "stop-and-frisk" as being illegally acquired, just what is the point of this heavily defended policy anyway?

It fills up the quota.

Re:So they made flyer?

[Anonymous Coward]

It could have been anyone to post the flyer, including the couple themselves.

That's it! The couple posted their pictures and home address for all to see, just to get some cops in trouble!

Seriously, am I the only one on Slashdot who think that conspiracy theorists like this guy are completely fucked up?

Re:So they made flyer?

[zill]

Apparently, it's illegal to put up fake wanted posters. Impersonating police officers and whatnot.

It cost me a misdemeanor charge and banishment from every walmart in the city to find this out.

police are subject to stricter rules

[khipu]

Listen, public embarrassment and notice is a two way street. If you want to publicly post the actions of the police, I don't see why you should feel others couldn't do the same to you.

There's a big difference between what people do in their capacity as private citizens and as government employees. Police are acting as government employees; that gives them both specific powers, and it imposes additional responsibilities on them.

For example, I have a constitutional right to discriminate against you based on your race or religion in my private life; police violate the law if they do the same in their work.

Re:police are subject to stricter rules

[Anonymous Coward]

Unfortunately while they get the extra powers they are rarely held to their higher responsibilities nor held accountable for their actions (look up Robert Leone and the PA State Police, he's in jail and they still have their jobs). Actually they should waive certain rights for the increase in powers. On duty they should have zero expectation of privacy.

Re:So they made flyer?

[houghi]

I don't see why you should feel others couldn't do the same to you.

Because the police is not people. It is there to enforce law. If the police do not like something that is done against them, then they must take it up with a judge.
They are not the public, so they do not answer to the same laws and reasoning.
They are there to uphold the law. If they see something that is illegal, they must go to court and let a judge decide for them, unless it is something like a ticket.
In now way or form should they be allowed to take the law in their own hands. In no way should they be able to do this. If they are allowed to do so, then your laws are in worse shape then you thought.

The KGB will be with you .... always

[gestalt_n_pepper]

Except now they're called "NYPD." This is how my grandfather ended up in a Siberian gulag.

Re:So they made flyer?

[Xtifr]

Pics are on thing, home addresses are another, and you are at least bordering on asshole territory by implying that the two can be treated as equivalent. But maybe you're merely confused about the situtation or haven't thought it through properly, so I'll hold off on assigning you any motives. :)

Posting pics is perfectly reasonable for both sides, as long as they're taken in public, and aren't being exploited commercially. A little more reasonable for the couple, since the cops are public servants, but no big deal on either side, really.

Posting home addresses by either side is way beyond the boundaries of acceptable behavior. Even in retaliation for a similar offense, it would have been morally questionable. As a retaliation for the perfectly reasonable behavior of posting pics? Utterly contemptible! The cops were way out of line here!

Re:So they made flyer?

[gman003]

For one, the right to perform an actual arrest.

Just an FYI, a "citizen's arrest" is limited to essentially yelling "hey, stop!". No use of force, not even grabbing by the arm. No handcuffs, no restraints, nothing. So no, it is not at all the same thing.

Re:So they made flyer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. Police officers are citizens too. Please describe for me one 'privilege' that a police officer has that a citizen who is not a police officer does not have.

The GP already gave you two: using force and detaining people.

Re:So they made flyer?

[DarkOx]

I agree what there doing is a huge public service and that they seem to understand that if your try to embarrass the police they are likely to do the same to you. I would expect nothing else. I am actually pleasantly surprised they have not been picked up repeatedly on trumped up charges. The police could be acting much worse.

The police really did escalate things by publishing the pairs home address however. I suppose the next move is really to follow the police home from the station and publish their address. Perhaps when they and their families are placed in added danger they will realize this is getting out of hand and everyone will start to de-escalate. Police need to just learn to deal with the fact that in a free society they can and should be watched.

What's the saying?

[Anonymous Coward]

Isn't the saying that law enforcement likes to use, when spying on citizens... something like "If you've got nothing to hide, then you have nothing to worry about?"

Looks like the police are hiding something to me. Perhaps the police should start leading by example instead of being corrupt fuckers?

Re:So they made flyer?

[gl4ss]

Are mugshots public record?

only in America.

that's where those classic celeb mugshots come from.

More proof....

[Lumpy]

That police are simply thugs. If they are doing no wrong, then they should welcome public oversight like this.

Any cop that is against being recorded is a dirty cop that needs to be removed and put in jail.

Re:More proof....

[nahdude812]

This is certainly thuggish behavior, and it's not my intention to excuse it - it's really not excusable. I also believe police should be subject to publicly created record while performing their duties when other conditions do not prohibit the creation of that record (i.e. if they are in a restricted area, the public should not be expected to be granted special access for this purpose).

However, there is a mass education issue at stake here. A number of these police video recordings are misrepresented when released on YouTube / whatever. They show partial truths. We should always demand to see the video before and after the incendiary incident, and we should reserve judgment until we can see all the evidence, not just the cherry-picked clips that look worst.

For example, the UC Davis occupy students who were pepper sprayed by a cop while sitting peacefully. It turns out, those students were no longer protesting Wall Street, they were protesting the arrests those same police officers had previously made of some of their friends - who were arrested not for protesting, but for interfering with police action (removing tents on the quad). On a larger scale, they were blocking police progress, they were encircling the police officers, and were telling the police officers they would not let the police go until their friends were released. A small group of the officers had been separated from the rest of the force and were being detained by the crowd of students. The police were being antagonized and borderline threatened. The police issued multiple warnings that they would soon start using non-lethal force, including directly to that group of students. The officers who did the spraying walked up and down the line which blocked their progress and informed the students that they were going to be subject to increased force, and gave them an opportunity to allow the officers to pass. The students were only sprayed after they continued to refuse to release the officers.

Whether or not you agree that pepper spray was the appropriate response given the fact that the students were creating a very hostile situation by encircling, separating, and detaining police officers for reasons not related to their protest, the fact is that these fairly important facts were not represented in the videos which shot around the Internet in the aftermath. Personally, I think that if you're going to separate, surround, and detain police officers, you're lucky that pepper spray was the only result. That kind of situation could escalate in a dangerous manner very quickly (both for the officers and for the students) if they didn't get control over the situation fairly quickly. It would take only one student to throw a rock at the officers, and mob mentality could take over. The worst of the outcome being some pepper burns is much better than other outcomes that could have precipitated from that scenario.

Re:More proof....

[Lumpy]

Then the cops need to have helmet cameras on all the time and all their footage available for public review all the time.

Police need to be held to a HIGHER standard than the public. They are sworn to serve and protect. I'm of the belief that an off duty cop should lose his job forever if he speeds.

Re:More proof....

[nahdude812]

Yeah, I agree that their actions should be subject to review for any action performed in the course of duty. Automatic public review is probably not a wonderful idea though. Just because the police officer should have no expectation of privacy during their duties doesn't mean that the recipient of those actions have no expectation of privacy. Police officers assist in many confidential matters, not all of which are law enforcement in nature - such as during medical and other crises. If I have a heart attack while taking a shower, and a police officer is first on the scene, my pasty naked body should not be available for all to ogle.

It would be great if helmet cam footage was mandatory, but its release should be conditional on the nature of the footage, and of course there needs to be some observation of the officer's personal non-duty privacy (using the restroom for example).

Unfortunately creating all the rules surrounding how and when an officer does and does not have his camera engaged, and when footage is and is not available for public review would create a legal warren inside of which abuses could continue to be hidden.

Re:So they made flyer?

[Monkey-Man2000]

If you look closely at the bottom of the pic it seems that it is signed by Sgt. Nicholson(?) in PCT 30 and lists a cell phone #.

Taxing the other party

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Actually, each party is happy to raise taxes on the other party, they just don't call it raising taxes.

Democrats are happy to raise taxes on rich people who are unlikely to vote democrat. The individual mandate is an example, as well as the fight over raising taxes during the budget struggles last year.

Republicans are happy to raise taxes on poor people. This is what ending welfare and reducing EITC do. They call it ending subsidies or socialism or welfare instead of raising taxes, but they're happy to do it.

Re:Taxing the other party

[kamapuaa]

Compared to other 1st world countries (which are also anti-tax and democratic, of course), the US has lower individual tax rates, and higher corporate tax rates..

Re:Taxing the other party

[Asmor]

Actually, each party is happy to raise taxes on the other party, they just don't call it raising taxes.

Democrats are happy to raise taxes on rich people who are unlikely to vote democrat. The individual mandate is an example, as well as the fight over raising taxes during the budget struggles last year.

Uhh... How is the individual mandate affecting "rich people," exactly? The individual mandate requires everyone to purchase health insurance (or pay a penalty). It only affects people without health insurance. Presumably, rich people have health insurance. Therefore, rich people are unaffected by the individual mandate.

There are probably other parts of the bill that do disproportionately affect rich people (the "Cadillac plan" stuff, for example), but the individual mandate does not.

Re:Taxing the other party

[phantomfive]

I'm not sure where you're getting your stereotypes about Republicans and Democrats. In fact, Bush expanded the EITC. Check it out. He cut taxes for poor people.

You need to find a way to get out of your stereotypes friend, because taxes have been cut consistently by both parties for years. Don't be deceived by the rhetoric.

Re:Taxing the other party

[Anonymous Coward]

and corporate tax rates are nominal tax rates.

they are the percentages that the official tax codes SAY is the official tax rate.

what the paper says, and what corporations actually pay are entirely two different things.

France could have the lowest tax rate in the world for corporations, but if the corporations are honest and use strict accounting principles in good faith to the intent of the law, France could easily collect more taxes, than say a country that has a higher official corporate tax rate, but with corporations that show virtually no profit through clever book keeping.

Those are just made up examples, but here's the main point. Governments are self preserving entities, and so are corporations. And they are always in bed with each other.

Comparing the corporate tax rates from country to country is meaningless, because at a broad level, the differences in what is collected isn't that vast, and the few outliers don't last for long. And if a country is able to collect a bit more in corporate tax, it just disappears into the government bureaucracy with no effect on the people.

Governments, Central Banks, their member banks, and corporations are all tied together.

The only chance you have against them, is not to ask one arm to chastise the other arm.

It's strength comes from your time and labor, especially your future time and labors. (the gov/bank/corporate entity borrows against your future and your childrens future on 50:1 gambles, waging traditional war, waging economic war, etc, etc,etc), and it steals your past efforts and time, because it devalues what you saved, your efforts in the past to be responsible and build your own buffer against uncertainty, and the inevitability of lower productivity (you middle aged folks), and no productivity (the old).

As the government/banking/corporate entity gets larger and larger, what it takes to feed it, grows, out of proportion with the benefits it returns to the people, and the people who slowly forget that it takes hard work and sacrifice to get what you want, and to build for one's own future, merely borrow for it, or let the government provide for all.

more and more people lean hard against the safety nets

and fewer and fewer people to build and maintain those nets

and the government/banking/corporate entity gets ever larger.

you're fucked. but it's a self solving problem.

collapse will tear apart the machine, but leave the people behind to start over.

oh, there might be a war or two, but that's a self solving problem as well.

good luck.

Re:Taxing the other party

[meerling]

A good friend of mine is what I consider rich. He doesn't have health insurance. For his family, it's cheaper to do this out of pocket than it is to pay for an insurance plan. He doesn't like the idea of being forced to buy something he feels he doesn't need.
I don't know how he falls into that whole percentage thing, but I know this, what he pays for taxes each year is over 10 times what my yearly pre tax gross is. So in my opinion, he's rich. He's also one of the most down to earth and charitable people you could ever know. His main problem is that he's too damn busy. (And a lot of that is with various charitable foundations.)

As to my opinion on the individual mandate. Honestly I haven't decided. I see issues with both sides and want more information, but not in legalese since I am not a lawyer, nor do I have one available to translate that b.s. to something comprehensible.

Re:Taxing the other party

[Mitreya]

US has lower individual tax rates, and higher corporate tax rates.

That is gross misinformation, even if technically true.
US may have high corporate tax rates on the books, but the effective tax rate is about 13.4% which is much closer to the bottom on the world scale.

Re:Taxing the other party

[climb_no_fear]

Tax rates are misleading since what is considered income varies between the countries (I know what I'm talking about, as an American in the EU, I regularly file both kinds of taxes).

For example, health insurance in Germany is mandatory and 1/2 of the costs are deducted from your salary (employer pays the other half). Since it is mandatory, it would be counted as a tax in the table you link to. In the US, your health insurance is often (not always, I know) a fringe benefit, meaning it is hidden income. Your reported income looks lower, as do the tax rates. Also state and city taxes may not be properly reflected in the averages.

Re:Taxing the other party

[interkin3tic]

The individual mandate isn't a good example. It is a conservative invention through and through. The only reason many republicans don't like it now is because they weren't the ones who passed it, which is why you didn't have Republicans screaming for Romney's impeachment when he did it. Most democrats weren't "happy" about it either, we would have much preferred government-provided health care similar to the UK.

Re:Taxing the other party

[Attila Dimedici]

Democrats are happy to raise taxes on rich people who are unlikely to vote democrat.

Which of course explains why every time they raise the top marginal rate there are so many new deductions that almost nobody pays the new rate. That explanation being that most of the rich do actually vote for Democrats, so the Democrats make sure to give those individuals special deductions to let them get out of paying the new, higher tax rate.
Reducing EITC does not "raise taxes" on poor people, since many people who receive EITC receive a tax "refund" that is greater than what they paid in taxes to begin with.

Re:Taxing the other party

[Asmor]

I'm sure there are rich people who choose not to have health insurance, but there are exceptions in every large group of data. Of course, to be fair, I haven't exactly done any studies either, so for all I know your friend could actually be very representative of his tax bracket.

On the topic of educating yourself, in 2009 NPR's Planet Money podcast did some fantastic pieces on the economics of health insurance. Here are the ones I was able to find with a bit of searching... There might be more that I missed; they were chronologically close together, but not done all in a row. Each podcast is about 15 minutes long.

http://castroller.com/Podcasts/TheEconomyExplained/1195248
http://castroller.com/Podcasts/TheEconomyExplained/1205007
http://castroller.com/Podcasts/TheEconomyExplained/1224698

Re:Taxing the other party

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

The problem with your friend's analysis of the cost of healthcare is that while he may be able to absorb the true cost of *any* health problem his family might encounter (I'm assuming based on what little info you have and what little of that you've stated, that he could, for example cover an extended cancer treatment or a series of major operations as the result of an auto accident or something) many people who vote republican and consider themselves in the same boat simply aren't. I wouldn't consider myself rich, but neither do i depend on my health coverage to be the difference between receiving routine care and not. I certainly did, a year ago, when i had emergency surgery that ended up running in the $100k range. Now, it sounds like your friend would have been able to absorb that type of cost without disrupting his finances. I couldnt have, and i highly doubt that the majority of people complaining about the individual mandate could either. the individual mandate is about preventing situations where people are unable to pay for emergency care. or unable to pay for it without defaulting on other debts or obligations. And to the person who can absorb such costs without problems, why is the penalty for not having coverage an issue? pragmatically speaking, i understand that 'being penalized for managing my own business properly' must be a terrible scourge. I just think that it is kindof silly when people who would cry communism at the idea of socialized medicine *also* cry communism at a very straight-forward market-incentive social policy.

Re:Taxing the other party

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

IIRC, Bush expanded the EITC because of the economic collapse; but the rhetoric and weight of his party is against welfare programs including the EITC. How "little" people with virtually no money pay in taxes is a talking point on the right, because people with more feel that it's unfair that they pay so much more.

Re:Taxing the other party

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

You're right; It came to mind as an example of something that will be demonized as a tax increase, and it is a tax increase, but it isn't as thoroughly on party lines as to be a good example.

Basically, it's the only way they could come closer to federal healthcare without the insurance companies deciding they didn't want the bill, and therefore vetoing it.

Re:Taxing the other party

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

The distinction between taking more money from someone and giving them less money is not a meaningful one, once the authority to take and give money has been determined.

Its primary utility is to reduce the political cost of expenditures by calling them tax cuts. In effect, to lie.

Re:Taxing the other party

[Snaller]

Raising taxes on the rich make sense - raising taxes on the poor makes no sense.

Re:Taxing the other party

[phantomfive]

OK, here's another problem you have. Falling for talking points instead of paying attention to actions. Get with it!

Re:Taxing the other party

[ThatsMyNick]

US govt is also less welfare state than the rest. Considering healthcare is often 10% of GDP, I would say we have higher individual tax rate, adjusted for healthcare.

Re:Taxing the other party

[tmosley]

Then why was there ever a time when the poor paid taxes?

Remember, 100 years ago, there was no income tax in peacetime.

Re:Taxing the other party

[fustakrakich]

Every time they spend what they have they pay taxes. Everybody pays taxes, except those who just trade with their neighbors maybe. Easier to say the government just skims where it can.

Re:Taxing the other party

[mbkennel]

Healthcare in USA is 18% of GDP, the next highest developed country is France, with 12%.

Re:Taxing the other party

[ThatsMyNick]

Er, what I meant was taxes in the US are less due to lack of govt funded health care (which cost a lot ~ 10% of the GDP in most countries with govt funded health care)

Re:Taxing the other party

[king neckbeard]

It would seem pretty stupid to get insurance if you were rich. Insurance companies make money, but they don't actually provide medical service, so they are just additional overhead. The utility of that overhead to ordinary people is that it softens the blows on the off chance of having high medical bills they can't pay (basically like winning a lottery, except in reverse). However, if you are rich, that is not a real possibility for you, and you could do it directly.

Re:Taxing the other party

[Genda]

The difference is when I raise the taxes on the wealthy, they can't afford their twelfth McMansion. When I cut subsidies to the poor, babies die and children go to bed hungry at night. I don't know, I say let those pay who can by all means best afford it. To tax the impoverished is ghoulish.

Re:Taxing the other party

[Genda]

Please get straight up honest... what the corporations are supposed to pay and what they actually pay is two COMPLETELY DIFFERENT things. Combine subsidies, loopholes, tax incentives, and the rates paid by American Corporations is very comparable to those third world nations. Now American small business, they get reamed, and if you want to talk about cutting their burden, I'm all ears. Bill Clinton suggested we drop the corporate tax rate to a flat 15%, no loop holes, no smoke and mirrors, and corporation can't claim we're beating them up. That would also take the burden off of small business.

By the same token, I have a boss from the Philippines, and he says "I come from a country where you don't pay taxes. Its great, all its costs you is no roads, no schools, no nothing." You want an infrastructure, you want it free for everyone to use freely and equally, then you better pony up, because nothing is free, even paying no taxes.

Re:Taxing the other party

[zippthorne]

This will change by 2014 based on the latest ruling form the Supremes.

Re:Taxing the other party

[EuclideanSilence]

For example, health insurance in Germany is mandatory and 1/2 of the costs are deducted from your salary (employer pays the other half).

I always cringe when I hear people pretend that employers paying taxes on their behalf is somehow different than them directly paying the tax. You are paying the tax, not your employer, even if the government is forcing your employer to report to you that you are paying less in taxes.

Suppose you make $10 and hour, pay $2 an hour in taxes, and your employer matches that $2 an hour in taxes. How much are you paying in taxes? Anyone who says 20% is a FUCKING IDIOT. The correct answer $4/$12 or 33% for just this tax. Most statistics reporting tax rates are wrong for no less than this mistake alone.

Re:Taxing the other party

[ganjadude]

What a lot of people miss is that the people right on the cutoff line, those who make JUST enough to get by, but not enough to get a 2.2% tax on their total income for not having insurance. The problem is these are the people who would LOVE to have insurance, but to them its between food on the table a roof over their heads or insurance, which one would you buy?

now you got the government telling you you have to buy insurance, and if you dont they will take 2.2% of your money from you! This 2.2% might be the difference between making the rent payment and sleeping on the street for a lot of people. I dont understand how anybody can look at this and say its a good thing.

Re:Taxing the other party

[Ogi_UnixNut]

I don't know about this. I mean, like the parent poster I pay a chunk of my health insurance, and the company pays the other half.

I would however still see as myself being taxed as 20%, because the rest of it is not taken from my income. The company has it taken it out of their income.

The argument I've heard for your point of view is that if the company did not have to match your tax, then they would pass on the extra money to you. In my experience it doesn't work that way. I am paid the "going market rate" for my skills, and if they stopped paying a their share of my health tax, the money would not go to me. I would get less benefit, they would make more profit, but more profit for them would not automatically result in my own betterment.

Re:Taxing the other party

[ganjadude]

and the reason they use that talking point is only because those on the left like to talk about how the rich dont pay their fair share. Its a cylindrical argument but If the people who pay the majority of the taxes, were not accused of not paying their fair share, I am sure that the talking point you refer to would not be in play.

Re:Taxing the other party

[Jiro]

the individual mandate is about preventing situations where people are unable to pay for emergency care. or unable to pay for it without defaulting on other debts or obligations.

This is untrue. http://www.volokh.com/2012/03/29/justice-kennedy-actuarial-risk-and-the-individual-mandates-unconstitutionality/

The requirement is not limited to catastrophic coverage that covers emergency care and expensive care.

Re:Taxing the other party

[GameboyRMH]

Yep same reason I don't get comprehensive insurance for my cars. I have cheap cars, I have enough cash on hand to repair or even replace the cars myself so that's what I plan to do. No reason to pay the insurance company to act as a parasitic middleman.

Re:Taxing the other party

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

I think this is largely a result of trying to view medicine through a narrow legal lens. From strictly legal standpoint with no awareness of medical realities, of course, you're right. Not limiting the mandate to catastrophic coverage extends the government interference beyond that stated goals of it express intentions, and in the light of a more limited option (only requiring catastrophic coverage) the mandate is over inclusive, as regulating action it doesn't 'need' to in order to accomplish its goals.

I think this misses the point medically, however. Basically should the point of government regulation in this area be to ensure that when people do have expensive medical conditions that treatment is paid for, or should the point be that as many as possible of these expensive medical conditions are prevented from occurring in the first place *and* ensuring that those that do are paid for? Obviously things like car accidents are not responsive to preventative care, but it does seem silly that we should simply ensure that the person who cannot afford a routine physical or mole-check/removal is covered for a later massive cancer fight when an undetected at home skin cancer develops, rather than ensuring that he had access to the preventative medicine which would have spotted the problem before it became life-threatening and necessitating expensive and lengthy treatments.

In this case, a more narrowly-tailored mandate, one opting for catastrophic coverage only would accomplish the same economic goal, but only at a significantly larger human cost. allowing for consideration of those human costs, i am left unmoved by arguments of over-inclusiveness.

Re:Taxing the other party

[Jiro]

But now that you've admitted this, it negates your original argument. The argument was that while someone may claim to be able to pay for his own medical care, he can't pay for emergencies and expensive illnesses.

Well, you conceded that he can. He can do it by buying catastrophic insurance that is still cheaper than Obamacare, and paying for non-catastrophic expenses out of pocket.

Pointing out that it's okay because Obamacare is meant to prevent catastrophes as well as pay for them is irrelevant--the guy can afford to pay for prevention himself. He can legitimately say "I can pay my way and will be no burden on other people", removing the justification for Obamacare.

Re:Taxing the other party

[king neckbeard]

There is no significant risk to the wealthy. If they have to pay a steep medical bill, it's not that big of a deal for them, while it could destroy someone poor. On average, insurance is stupid, and the only reason that it has utility to poor people is because the bill can ruin them, while the pain of having insurance is bearable. A wealthy person would take the mathematically advantageous route, which is not having insurance. If wealthy people want to actually reduce risks, they wouldn't do so by having insurance, but by buying houses to cheat donor lists.

Re:Taxing the other party

[AdmiralWeirdbeard]

I'm honestly not entirely clear what you think i'm "admitting" or how my second comment in any way "negate" my original comment. If i'm "admitting" that requiring emergency-only coverage would accomplish the same thing as the mandate as it stands, then you didn't really understand my argument. It would accomplish the same thing only insofar as when the emergency medical cost occurred it would be paid. But pointing out that the PPACA is meant to accomplish that same goal by also eliminating preventable emergencies through increased access to preventative care is, in fact, not irrelevant. More pervasive preventative care decreases later incidence of emergency costs, which decreases the overall cost of healthcare. I would also argue that those who could afford to absorb routine medical costs will actually receive more effective preventative care when paying for coverage rather than piecemeal. It is a simple question of human nature. Get an annual physical, which could catch any number of more serious conditions but would cost several hundred dollars without insurance, or spend that money on fun and go to the doctor when you're sick? I know people who dont do this simply because scheduling the appointment is a hassle, add a few hundred dollars on to that, and they'd never even consider it, despite the fact that they can objectively afford it. The existence of *some* people who could get by just fine paying their own way, or paying their own way with regard to routine care does not in any way remove the justification for the PPACA. Even if it is a sizable group. The individual mandate as it stands will do a more thorough job of accomplishing its goals, with a net positive effect on general health. If the greatest injustice here is that a bunch of people who can afford it anyways are given a tax-incentive to start carrying health coverage, i really couldnt care less about the 'but its MY money' complaints.

Re:Taxing the other party

[EuclideanSilence]

I don't know about this. I mean, like the parent poster I pay a chunk of my health insurance, and the company pays the other half.

I would however still see as myself being taxed as 20%, because the rest of it is not taken from my income. The company has it taken it out of their income.

Your income is taken out of the company income. It doesn't come from nothing. People buy company products, the company gets an income, it pays workers. It uses it's income to decide hiring, firing, starting wages, raises, expansions, all of which determine your income. "The law of supply and demand is not to be conned."

Suppose you agree to sell me a bottle of wine for $10. I'm not willing to pay any more, that's all it's worth to me. The government says "hold on, there's now going to be a $2 tax on that wine." Do you really think I'm going to pay $12 for that wine? No way. I'll pay you $8, the government $2, or it's no deal. It's the exact same for income. Sure you could say that I'm paying the $2 tax on the wine, not you. I won't try to argue terms, I try to use terms that other people prefer (if used consistently). But what's the point of saying the I'm paying the tax instead of you? You are now $2 poorer. Or maybe $10 poorer with only a bottle of wine to show for it.

Your income is whatever it costs the company to employ you. Defining it any other way requires going back to this definition in a roundabout way every time an employer tries to decide hiring, firing, raises, etc, anyway.

Taxes are at least whatever is taken out of your income that goes to the government. It is the measure of how much of your time is taken and given to whoever your government is choosing to pay out of that treasury. Even if you desire the service returned to you by this transaction, it is still a tax.

The argument I've heard for your point of view is that if the company did not have to match your tax, then they would pass on the extra money to you. In my experience it doesn't work that way. I am paid the "going market rate" for my skills, and if they stopped paying a their share of my health tax, the money would not go to me. I would get less benefit, they would make more profit, but more profit for them would not automatically result in my own betterment.

This argument "if my company does better it won't help me" is something I can hardly even respond to. It's not even really an argument, but moreso a manifestation of everyone's frustration of having to work and not getting paid as much as they think they deserve. It's so easy to say. It plays on the emotional resentment employees feel towards employers.

Well one part of that is true. If you are working a regular honest job, one that isn't a government job or isn't for a company that gets most of it's income from taxes (like military suppliers) or from special privileges (like ISPs or airports), then you are getting seriously shafted. But it isn't by your employer. When you include all the taxes:
    your company has to pay for existing,
    your employer pays for having you around,
    you pay for working,
    you pay for buying anything,
    and you effectively pay for existing due to deliberate inflation, ...then it's a much larger percentage than what is reported on your paycheck. And a great deal of that money goes to overpaid CEOs at ISPs, and to "soldiers" sitting in air conditioned rooms accomplishing nothing in on of our hundreds and hundreds of military bases, to many companies that exist at the mercy of the income they get from government contracts (well they do return the favor with their votes), and to many personal interests instead of public interests (such as courts, police, etc).

Overspending is a problem that can't be fixed in any short amount of time. But a huge step in curbing the carefree favors is to get people to see how much of their time and work is lost due to taxes by honestly reporting it. It doesn't raise your income to pretend that a tax is being paid by your employer, it merely hides the truth.

Re:Taxing the other party

[Genda]

And what of fraud, and collusion, and dishonest men who bleed the middle class dry by making unholy deals with people in political power. What about banks who have pulled trillions of made up dollars out of their ass, and mixed them with your and my dollars then sucked it all back to the bank so when the fantasy dollars disappear in the puff of mathematical reality, the middle class finds itself with a pocket full of the bank's smoke.

You talk of property, but I see millions of people who've had their property stolen by evil men in positions of power and authority. What about that? I don't claim anyone's property is mine. I do claim that we have a responsibility as human beings to help those less fortunate find their way. Sometimes that looks like feeding someone, other times that looks like breaking a boot off in someone's ass (nothing gets a man up faster.) I'm not above or below a little brutal compassion. The ideal of eliminating the poor however sounds a wee bit too much like the final solution to me. You best be careful who you go around sawing the limb off behind, because there are a wealthy bunch of folks summering in the Hamptons who wouldn't even give chainsawing your ass off the tree a second thought. And, they actually have the resources to accomplish that act.

Where are all these libertarian whack jobs coming from... do you guys reproduce asexually? Silly me, its Slashdot, forget the question. Let me enlighten you. The guys in the tanks and Apache helicopters... THEY ARE THE ONES WITH THE GUNS. Just how do you plan on fighting drones you can't even see let alone shoot at. Are you mental? This isn't 1776. You hunting rifles isn't going to amount to a popcorn fart in a hurricane when the tanks and armored flying gun platforms arrive. Are you reading me. You are out gunned a million to one. Precisely how many tactical nukes do you have in the garage? Jeez. Get a clue, hell take two, they're small. You have a fair shot at rowdy neighbors if the whole thing goes in the toilet. Fighting the Federal Government, not so much.

Where do you guys get this us vs. the Government mentality? Don't get me wrong, our government is currently manned with self serving greedy, ambitious, charlatans... guess what, they didn't fall out of some rift in the space time continuum. They are us and we are them. We've been lead and bred by 60 years of Palovian stimulus response to the greed signals pushed into out brains by our corporate masters through the little box in our living room. The only difference between us and the guys in D.C, are our zipcodes. Anyway, what about the commons. The national infrastructure. I have a good friend from the Philippines and he talks about the fact they have no taxes and microscopic government. They also have no roads, no schools and roving bands of outlaws. That's what I want, to have to defend my family against roving bands of outlaws. You my friend have got to stop reading that swill, it is clearly rotting your mind.

Finally, don't take this wrong but you my friend are complete knucklehead. Its one thing to talk about deadly force. Its another thing to be picking up the pieces of your dead loved ones. Anybody looking forward to the revolution is either suffering from a psychotic break, or has such a ridiculously romanticized idea of what war is, they've lost all touch with physical reality. Go spend a little time with the guys coming back from the Middle East. Volunteer at the veteran's recovery clinics. Spend a day with the honest to god hero who's had both legs,, an arm and an eye blown off by an IED. Listen to the their stories and look at the haunted look in their eyes when they talk about turning to talk to a good friend only to discover half his head is gone. Welcome the coming revolution. Your false bravado makes a throw up just a little bit.

Re:Taxing the other party

[Jiro]

But pointing out that the PPACA is meant to accomplish that same goal by also eliminating preventable emergencies through increased access to preventative care is, in fact, not irrelevant.

It's irrelevant because he can afford to pay for it himself. The whole argument is that while he claims that he can pay his own way, he really can't so we need Obamacare to keep him from being a burden on others. But he can pay his own way--he can buy catastrophic insurance only and buy his own preventative care directly. Paying for the preventative care directly must cost less than the preventative care portion of Obamacare (because that's how insurance works--insurance for routine expenses is never a good bargain).

So the effect is that Obamacare just screws him out of some money.

If I ran the country

[gman003]

If it were up to me, police would *always* be recorded while on-duty. Cameras, or at least microphones, in the car and on the person, both recording to a tamper-resistant medium and broadcasting online (with a time delay).

Why? Because the police are supposed to work for the government, and the government is supposed to work for the people. The people have a *right* to know what they are doing, to ensure that they are actually working properly.

And if the police are doing their jobs properly, it will actually help them. They'll have video evidence of any crime they witness. That would be more than a little helpful.

Of course, if it were up to me, we'd have nuked North Korea flat decades ago, so maybe it's good that I'm not actually running the country. But I still think my "record the police" idea is a good one.

Re:If I ran the country

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem with that is that the police have access to private areas of people's lives. Someone slips in the shower, bashes their head or breaks a bone, yet still manages to call 911. If the police use always on video recording, there will be a naked video of the person online after the time delay. The video would be easy to use to harass the person.

If you allow police to filter out such videos, then it would be just as easy to filter out police corruption and the whole recording system becomes useless.

It's a nice idea, but the world isn't so simple.

Re:If I ran the country

[i286NiNJA]

Maybe if the time delay was like the next day with obvious exceptions. If having cameras on cops would increase conviction rates they'd already all have them, it doesn't which is why all the car cameras can be turned off now. As far as nuking north korea? You do know that's a whole country full of people right?

Re:If I ran the country

[downhole]

They already do have cameras and microphones that record all the time in many police cars, and many are reportedly tamper-resistant, at least to the officer using it. Yet the videos still seem to suffer from "technical difficulties" anytime they would show police doing something wrong.

Re:If I ran the country

[gman003]

Yes - which is why I included the "broadcast" element. Anyone who wants to could record the entire stream. And it is much harder to create "technical difficulties" when you have four hours until it goes out, not four months before it enters a courtroom.

Re:If I ran the country

[gman003]

Wouldn't the "slips in the shower" case be handled by EMTs, or perhaps the fire/rescue department, rather than the police? I'm not saying there won't be cases of "non-criminal does something embarrassing on police footage, gets harassed", but that's probably not the best example.

And besides, I think culture is changing enough that that will shortly not be a huge issue. We're recorded in our "private moments" so often that we don't even think about it, and people really don't find them that interesting. The pervs looking for nude pics? There's this little thing called the "Inter-net", perhaps you've heard of it.

But, perhaps you do have a point. Easily remedied - add a button that, when pressed, cuts the live video feed (but keeps the audio), and flags the video for review (blur out victims' faces, etc.), while still requiring that it eventually be broadcast.

Re:If I ran the country

[Gr8Apes]

Those redacted moments would still need to be available in a court of law. If they're not available, then the officer is automatically considered guilty. (Citizens are innocent until proven guilty, officials working under the power of the government should be the other way)

Re:If I ran the country

[gman003]

My intent was not to increase conviction rates. It was to increase conviction accuracy. Currently, an officer can just say "I saw it", and unless there's evidence otherwise, there's not much you can do. With recording, you can protect against both intentional and unintentional "misrememberings".

Re:If I ran the country

[i286NiNJA]

Of course, but it turns out that cops are too incompetent to perform their jobs with that amount of scrutiny either they make mistakes and people get let off or they can't fabricate charges. I think they should have a little 360 degree camera mounted right to their shoulder.

Re:If I ran the country

[cjsm]

Of course, if it were up to me, we'd have nuked North Korea flat decades ago, so maybe it's good that I'm not actually running the country.

So you'd kill millions of innocent people who have done nothing to you because they are ruled by an egomaniacal dictator?

Re:If I ran the country

[alexo]

If you ran the country, you'd be as corrupt as the rest of them.

Re:So they made flyer?

[Anonymous Coward]

Easy. Just try to do a "stop and frisk" on another private citizen and see how well the police respond to that. Oh or try to issue traffic tickets. Or pull people over and perform searches of their body or their car. Or go into people's houses searching and seizing their property. I could go on with the powers and privileges afforded to police officers by their position that an ordinary private citizen doesn't have. One can only hope you're retarded and not actually that dumb by choice.

Re:So they made flyer?

[drinkypoo]

Pics are on thing, home addresses are another, and you are at least bordering on asshole territory by implying that the two can be treated as equivalent.

Nobody implied that they were equivalent, you inferred that all on your own. The statement as it is written is a bit vague, though; it would better say "or". The statement as written is completely true, and further, it's what the cops have done; post pics and home address, which amounts to where to go and who to harass. Further, the flyer implies that they are criminals and makes unsupported statements about them and thus definitely amounts to deliberate libel, not that this is surprising.

Re:So they made flyer?

[HarrySquatter]

Exactly. Citizen's arrest provides pretty much none of legal protections afforded to police officers when they arrest people. You can be liable for both criminal and civil charges if you abuse the limited power granted by the state in performing a citizen's arrest.

But that is a fact.

[Oh Gawwd Peak Oil]

But, you see, that is a fact. That won't play well on Slashdot, where coming up with a conspiracy theory that attacks anyone who dares question the police will, it appears, get you so many more mod points.

Re:But that is a fact.

[fredrated]

If slashdot is so fact-free, why do you read and post here? Just curious.

Re:What's Their Motive?

[drinkypoo]

The cynic in me wonders if this couple is just trolling for an arrest for a big payout in a civil rights lawsuit.

As long as that is a valid tactic, that's a valid action. If you are so likely to get arrested for doing something that is not illegal that you stand a good chance of being able to do it, and it is so illegal that you stand a good chance of getting paid, then actually doing it is an act highly useful to society.

These people are the worst kind of troublemakers.

[trout007]

They are guilty of VVS in the worst way.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bt9zSfinwFA

What's good for the goose...

[OldSport]

...is good for the gander. Law enforcement is always telling the citizenry that they have nothing to fear if they have nothing to hide.

Re:So they made flyer?

[kmahan]

Did you read the post?

        "The flyer featuring side-by-side mugshots of Matthew Swaye and Christina Gonzalez and the couple's home address was taped to a podium outside a public hearing room..."

So the cops publicly posted the photos and HOME ADDRESS of these people.

Re:So they made flyer?

[HarrySquatter]

Of course, you are only allowed to make the arrest if you catch someone red-handed and you know that the punishment of the crime includes jail-time. And if the suspect is innocent (you did not really catch him in the act), he can defend himself, argue self-defence, and you might face assault charges. As such a citizen's is mostly used on shoplifters by shop owners, controllers, or guards.

And thus you point out that the police have a privilege you don't. They get legal protections afforded to them when they arrest and detain people that a person acting as a private citizen doesn't have.

Re:So they made flyer?

[Anonymous Coward]

The police work for the people. The people don't work for the police.
The police needs to accept being filmed in public, because they are in fact working for the public and this prevents police abuse.

The cops have no right to retaliate in ANY WAY against this couple for filming them in public. This is harassment.

Re:What's Their Motive?

[NFN_NLN]

The cynic in me wonders if this couple is just trolling for an arrest for a big payout in a civil rights lawsuit. Film cops stopping and frisking, get arrested, sue, profit! That would not really be a sure thing, though, so maybe that's not it.

Good for them if they get paid.

The police continually use financial sanctions to control our behavior with fines. As long as these pay outs cut into their operating budgets I'm all for it. As more and more of them are converted over to bicycle cops due to budget cuts, maybe that will correct some of the hubris.

Re:So they made flyer?

[i286NiNJA]

That is awesome, I remember back when most of my police encounters went this way.

Re:Listen i distrust cops i got my reasons

[Known Nutter]

They should go to jail for publishing the cops home addresses.

Excuse me, but it was the police who published the home address of the photographers. So, yeah, ummm.. yeah.

Watch their videos.

[Anonymous Coward]

I just watched several of the videos on the linked youtube account. These people are obnoxious ignorant assholes.. I do agree with what they are trying to accomplish, but the way they go about it is completely stupid. Anyone should be free to film the police as they please, but I think the couple featured here are an embarrassment and waste of space.

Every video of "brutal violence" that they posted showed the cops making repeated effort to solve the problem without force but the idiots behind the camera and the other protesters were being unreasonably difficult and abusive. When the cops finally resorted to force I did not see it as excessive or at all out of line with what I see as acceptable behavior.

They are directing hate at the people who protect us and its just stupid. I realize that police brutality gets out of hand far too often, but their are also plenty of good cops who are just trying to do their job. Most of the videos on that youtube channel are of this woman shouting unwarranted abuse at cops that did nothing to provoke it. I understand hate at cops that are out of line but the blind hate in most of the videos is just obnoxious.

Re:WE NEED COMMUNISM NOW

[roc97007]

In fact, one could make the argument that one implies the other. Communism doesn't work in numbers above, oh, twenty or so without fascist control of the population. And a fascist government invariably finds themselves collectively managing and distributing resources.

Re:So they made flyer?

[NormalVisual]

Please describe for me one 'privilege' that a police officer has that a citizen who is not a police officer does not have.

- Various degrees of immunity for their actions under the law
- Practically unlimited legal representation at no cost to themselves
- Other police officers who will close ranks to protect one of "their brothers" when they do something questionable
- Powerful unions that can exert substantial political pressure
- Legislation that makes it a crime to post *their* addresses

I can keep going - is this enough to start?

Who will watch the watchers?

[manaway]

In the US, there is a separate division of the police department called "Internal Affairs," whose job is to monitor police actions. The IA is small, subject to bias, and monitors few events. The public is large, independent (subject to innumerable biases), and monitors many events. Police are already recording events and making selected recordings available. How those recordings are selected is an issue with substantial insider bias. Unless the right is taken away by law, the public already has a legal and even moral right to record those same events.

Nobody wants to be watched, the chilling effect is well known. When the police make the recordings, their superior or IA is in charge of releasing the video. When the public is making the recording, the availability is more independent. Usually, the "nothing to hide" privacy argument falls apart easily; when monitoring police action, as demonstrated in the Stanford Prison Experiment, independently watching the watchers is a necessary hardship. Thus citizen review boards and citizen videos. There are, of course, endless special cases; so like most everything in society, laws and policies can at best be general guidelines requiring community oversight.

With cheap recorders comes the ability to watch the watchers with fewer "he said, she said" problems. Fewer but not none, as with the selective editing of the Rodney King video. The above applies to police actions, not to the general public going about their daily activities (the recording of which is a different topic).

Re:These people are the worst kind of troublemaker

[roc97007]

That is really funny.

Re:So they made flyer?

[NormalVisual]

I suppose the next move is really to follow the police home from the station and publish their address.

Probably not a good idea. Plenty of states have made it a crime to publicize the home addresses and phone numbers of police officers and other government officials.

Re:So they made flyer?

[UnknownSoldier]

Agreed.

You can not have authority without accountability.

I wouldn't do that as a cop...

[F69631]

I think that what the cop in your video did is just great - it didn't cost anything but reminded a couple of people on the scene (and 600k more on Youtube) that gods are just people like us and lowered the threshold to be in contact with them. However, if I were a cop, I wouldn't want to do that in front of a camera: I'd be scared shitless that it might cause a storm of "What?! A cop playing around? While in duty? On taxpayer money?!"

Re:So they made flyer?

[Xtifr]

Yes. That's why my last sentence was "the cops were way out of line here."

Re:Listen i distrust cops i got my reasons

[Xuranova]

I stand corrected

Wait, no call for putting the cops in jail for posting this couple's home address? No complaints about the harassment they could get or potential innocent family members that might reside there? Just a "I stand corrected"?

Are you a retired/active LEO?

Bloomberg's NY is the future

[D66]

Let it continue to slide and Bloombergian New York will be the future American Police State.
Stop n Frisk
Police intimidation
Soda Bans
Smoking Bans
TransFat Bans

What is the old cliche... if you are not free to make a bad decision, you are not free at all. We need to stop looking to our elected leaders for solutions and start pushing them to set only minimum standards and allow us to find solutions for ourselves. Otherwise we will be laying down and inviting the boot to step on us

Re:So they made flyer?

[tmosley]

You do realize that you are talking about New York, right?

Democrats are the same as the Republicans in every way that counts. Support for one is support for both.

Re:So they made flyer?

[Xtifr]

Nobody implied that they were equivalent, you inferred that all on your own.

Right. He just happened to mention them both, side-by-side, as if for easy comparison. Just a pure coincidence; no connection intended. If I were to write, "I don't like drinkypoo; pedophiles are bad people", you'd argue that there's no implications there as well? Yes, separating the ideas like that might allow me a technical defense in a slander case, but anyone who tries to argue that the implications are imaginary is crazy. (And for the record, I neither like or dislike you--I just disagree with you here.)

The statement as it is written is a bit vague

More than vague. It's either a stupid non-sequitor or it was intended to present implications bordering on trollish. And I don't like calling people stupid, so I went with the latter option. :)

If it was suggesting that the cops were justified, then mentioning home addresses was ridiculous, since nobody posted the cops' home addresses. If it was suggesting that the cops were not justified, because their home addresses weren't posted, then mentioning the pics was silly, because those were posted. And if it was just intended as a flat statement, it was irrelevent to the discussion, since only one of those actually things happened. It might as well have said, "cops don't like having their photos taken or being attacked by giant space walruses."

Re:WE NEED COMMUNISM NOW

[tmosley]

Turn the enemy against himself.

First Amendment

[chrismcb]

So the are branded "professional agitators." So now it is illegal to practice your first amendment rights?

People are debating the wrong issues.

[swampfriend]

I live in Brooklyn. I didn't live here in 2001, but one of the things I hear frequently from New Yorkers about 9/11 is it was a tragedy of profound local significance that was taken over by the rest of the country. I guess it seems a little blasphemous that guys out in Montana (for instance) are so patriotic over something that they can't really understand and that doesn't belong to them anyway.

I am coming to understand that feeling of the ownership of tragedy by watching our current local issues assume national significance. In this comment section, the majority of the discussion is about nebulous concepts like the role of a police force in a democracy, a public figure's right to privacy, what the law says and is intended to say, and so on. It is good that we can discuss abstracts like what does "unreasonable" in "unreasonable search and seizure" mean. But for us in Brooklyn, the issue is Michael Bloomberg and Ray Kelly and their pet policy. The policy is unpopular and ineffective and could be done away with by the current administration in a single day.

"What will happen if we allow this policy to continue?" is rhetorical - the policy will not lead to the erosion of rights because it already is the erosion of rights. We need to ask, "What can we do to end this policy?" I suppose the first little thing we each could do, if we're actually opposed to Stop & Frisk, is contact the offices of Ray Kelly and Michael Bloomberg on a daily basis to remind them of the racist crime they are committing against the people of this city. That is definitely not something you need to live in New York City to do :)

Re:People are debating the wrong issues.

[gmhowell]

How many terms has Bloomberg had as mayor? IIRC, you had to change your city charter (or some equivalent) to let him run for his current term.

Seems to me that while this particular policy may, may be unpopular, he is not. I pretty much stated in another comment that some people just aren't comfortable without the jackboot of authority resting lovingly on their backs.

To many in America, New York City seems to have increasingly accepted that way of thinking since Dinkins, at least.

Re:People are debating the wrong issues.

[swampfriend]

In fact, "we" didn't change the city charter - the city council did in a 29-22 vote, and Bloomberg himself signed it into law. He had previously failed to get term limits extended through popular referendum (as well as other means) and swayed the council by using the financial crisis as a bogeyman. He's made good on his economic promises by turning the city over to realtors, which you can see in the state of the Williamsburg waterfront, or the stadium out by Atlantic Yards. He's enormously unpopular in Brooklyn, but that is beside the point. Even if he were popular, his Stop & Frisk policy isn't. Those who do support it aren't targeted by it - I'm sure it has a lot of advocates in Tudor City, but that's worlds away from Brownsville. Your belief about the "jackboot of authority" isn't just patronizing, it's an oversimplification.

Re:People are debating the wrong issues.

[gmhowell]

In fact, "we" didn't change the city charter - the city council did in a 29-22 vote, and Bloomberg himself signed it into law.

That's how things work in a republic. If Europeans get to blame me for eight years of Bush, I can blame New Yorkers for Bloomberg.

Your belief about the "jackboot of authority" isn't just patronizing, it's an oversimplification.

What the heck, NYC has been looking down on the rest of the US for 300 years, a little criticism the other way is occasionally warranted.

Re:So they made flyer?

[lennier]

since only one of those actually things happened. It might as well have said, "cops don't like having their photos taken or being attacked by giant space walruses."

Technically speaking, from the formal logic definition of "or", that would be correct. You could take it further and deduce with rigorous precision from the historical data any number of true statements: for instance, for every cop in the world, if xtifr and drinkypoo simultaneously agree to post that cop's home address on Slashdot on Wednesday afternoon, then that cop will be attacked by a giant space walrus on the nearest possible Frida, and then meet the love of his/her life (which may or may not also be a giant space walrus). It's a non-refutable fact!

Formal logic is so deliciously screwed up.

Re:So they made flyer?

[lennier]

Friday, not Frida. But Frida being involved in the menage-a-walrus is also rigorously provable via the above method.

Re:So they made flyer?

[garcia]

If they were actual mugshots, then both the photos and their address at the time of arrest are public information.

I don't see a problem with it.

Re:WE NEED COMMUNISM NOW

[lennier]

Communism doesn't work in numbers above, oh, twenty or so without fascist control of the population.

That would have been quite a shock to Stalin, who spent the 1930s and 40s fighting a bitter - and very successful - war to the death with fascism.

(Oh, you meant "vaguely scary sounding authoritarian totalitarianism", not "an economic third way ideology between communism and capitalism which rose to power in the losing states of post-World-War-I Europe characterised by a cult of national honour, military fetishism, a nostalgic longing for past imperial glory and sentimental images such as "the people" and "the homeland", mass mobilisation of the disenfranchised middle class, rabid hatred of communism, and a limited form of socialism based on national and racial unity with common cause made between government, unions and corporations in direct opposition to the class warfare ideology of Marxist Bolshevism?" Then why didn't you just say so?)

Re:So they made flyer?

[tmosley]

Please tell me more about how much better D is than R. Please include commentary on the new executive assassination power that your boy in the White House has granted himself (and his successors).

Not even close to accurate...

[cawpin]

This is no way a wanted poster. It is simply a notice of these people are because they try to get attention. Please stop giving them attention.

Re:Not even close to accurate...

[Skapare]

IN what way are these people agitators? Doing photography and filming is not.

Re:WE NEED COMMUNISM NOW

[roc97007]

> That would have been quite a shock to Stalin, who spent the 1930s and 40s fighting a bitter - and very successful - war to the death with fascism.

...with an invading country called Germany. I hardly think Stalin said "...what? They're fascist? It's war then!" (In Russian, of course.)

Officer's Perspective

[Anonymous Coward]

As a police officer in Los Angeles, I'm bothered by all the anti-police sentiment and posts portraying cops as fascist brutes just waiting to violate people's rights.

Are there bad/corrupt cops? Yes. However, I can say the vast vast majority are out there trying to do a good job and follow the law. There is no ulterior motive where we go around looking to piss off people or violate their rights. As far as people videotaping us, it happens ALL the time (at least in LA) and I've never worked with anyone who did anything about it or even cared that much. Sometimes it's annoying as the people videotaping assume we're assholes looking to beat people but we don't worry about it because we know our law and policy and do what we're supposed to do.

Most police vehicles have cameras with microphones attached to each officer. We don't mind as it overwhelmingly helps us against bogus complaints or allegations. It gives us documented evidence that we didn't have before.

And yes, I believe in privacy and our 4th amendment rights. I don't want police powers expanded at the expense of an individual's privacy and I do not believe that people have nothing to hide if they're innocent. Many cops feel this way, we're normal, thinking, people too. I went to college and majored in computer science, grew up reading slashdot etc etc. I'm a lot like everyone else here except when I go to work I wear a uniform with a badge and gun. Do I use force when necessary? Yes, but I'm not interested in hurting someone and I'll do everything i can to avoid a use of force, as a lot of us would.

I can't comment on the NYPD's practice of conducting their stops, I'm not familiar with it. In LA of course we do Terry stops routinely and again, we don't do it to unnecessarily harass people. We have to have reasonable suspicion...this usually takes the form of seeing someone in dark clothing, with a backpack (commonly carried by burglars), walking around a residential neighborhood (which has a burglary or car burglary problem) at 3am, who crouches behind a car as I pass by. Will I stop him , identify him, and see what's going on? Yes. I don't think that's so ridiculous and if I lived in that neighborhood I would expect the cops to do their job and talk to that individual.

Anyway, I just wanted to give a different perspective.

Re:Officer's Perspective

[Skapare]

Can you tell, from just watching an office make an arrest, whether he/she is one that is one of the few bad apples? But I know they are there because I've had the opportunity to deal with a couple of them on a longer term basis that clearly to me were among the bad apples. But they didn't do that all the time.

I suspect you can't figure out on first meeting, either. Don't expect the public can. So many in the public will have latent suspicion all the time. "Is he, or isn't he".

The dark clothing should not cause suspicion. A backpack should not cause suspicion. Walking around a residential neighborhood at 3 AM, maybe. Crouch behind a car when you pass by, for sure.

As to the issuing videoing cops doing their job, it should be taken by the vast majority of cops that are good as an opportunity to show how they are making the neighborhood safer. I see no issuing with someone videoing everything cops do, unless they are getting in the way or shouting remarks, or something. Then it should be a matter just the same even if they had no camera.

Re:Officer's Perspective

[SuiteSisterMary]

A lot of the problem stems from the 'good majority' silently abetting the bad few. If police were more willing to, dare I say, police their own, rather than holding the thin blue line, I think a lot of the animosity would go away.

Also, there's a fair amount of basic human psychology at play. 'Us and Them' always becomes 'Us Versus Them.' See the Stanford Prision Experiment. Abu Girab for a more recent example.

Re:Officer's Perspective

[russotto]

As a police officer in Los Angeles, I'm bothered by all the anti-police sentiment and posts portraying cops as fascist brutes just waiting to violate people's rights.

As a police officer in Los Angeles, you're either a fascist brute or covering for any number of them. Because when a cop does something wrong in front of any number of other cops, none of those cops sees anything. So either a department is 100% squeaky clean (demonstrably false, as cops get caught on occasion), or every cop is at least covering up misconduct if not participating directly.

Most police vehicles have cameras with microphones attached to each officer. We don't mind as it overwhelmingly helps us against bogus complaints or allegations. It gives us documented evidence that we didn't have before.

Of course, if the allegation is legitimate, the tape comes up missing or blank. Odd, that.

Re:Officer's Perspective

[DeadCatX2]

Exactly.

If my friend commits a crime and I know about it and I don't turn them in, I can be considered an accessory.

When a police officer commits a crime, and the fellow officers don't turn them in, they too should be accessories. When the police cover up the crime, it should be considered a conspiracy.

Instead, do you know what we have? Whenever the DA does manage to prosecute cops for being bad - like the NYPD Ticket Fixing Scandal (1,600 criminal counts) - you have all those boys in blue coming to back up their buddies, saying it's their God-given right to fix tickets for their wife's uncle's cousin, that they were "Just Following Orders".

A cop who doesn't arrest other cops when they commit crimes is just as rotten as the criminal cop himself.

Re:Officer's Perspective

[randyleepublic]

You are blissfully ignorant of the realities. In New York they stop AND SEARCH, not "talk to", anyone for nothing. In Los Angeles they enforce laws that are unjust. You are also part of that problem. When did you last get together with your fellow officers and hold a press conference about the insanity of the drug war? I thought so.

Re:Officer's Perspective

[hellop2]

Every time the police violate the civil rights of (a friend who isn't me) the police video recording equipment was coincidentally broken that day.

Re:Officer's Perspective

[alexo]

As a police officer in Los Angeles, I'm bothered by all the anti-police sentiment and posts portraying cops as fascist brutes just waiting to violate people's rights.

I'll explain.

Are there bad/corrupt cops? Yes. However, I can say the vast vast majority are out there trying to do a good job and follow the law.

Are those "vast vast majority" doing all in their power to rid the force of the bad/corrupt cops? Or do they prefer to turn the blind eye?
Are you holding your peers, underlings *and* superiors to a higher standard than the general population?
Would you arrest a fellow cop if they "stretched" the law? Would you write a ticket to a fellow cop if they speeded or did a "rolling stop"? Have you?

I went to college and majored in computer science, grew up reading slashdot etc etc. I'm a lot like everyone else here except when I go to work I wear a uniform with a badge and gun.

And that is exactly the difference.
You have power to inflict violence, but no accountability to speak of.
If you abuse your power, it will be swept under the rug.
If it cannot be immediately swept under the rug, you will get a long paid vacation while the issue is "investigated", for long enough time for people to forget about it.
If, in the rare case that something has to be done, it will be dealt with "administratively".

A false arrest is no different from kidnapping. Actually, it's worse, because the state issued you those uniform, badge and gun.
How many times cops that falsely arrest someone are brought on kidnapping charges?

Anyway, I just wanted to give a different perspective.

And now, I will give you mine.

When (not if) you will abuse your powers, the system will rally behind you.
Your fellow cops will give false testimony on your behalf
The DA will not press charges "for lack of public interest"
Etc., etc., etc.

And you will realize that you can do that, and you will do it again.
With the best of intentions, of course, and only to people who are really despicable and totally deserve it.
And then to people who are not that despicable...

That's why I do not trust you.

Re:WE NEED COMMUNISM NOW

[mbkennel]

are you kidding? Communists and fascists were bitter enemies since 1920's.

Re:So they made flyer?

[countach74]

They are *supposed* to have a warrant or probable cause for such things. Unfortunately, in the US, we like to surrender our rights when faced with an authority figure and say, "Yes, it's all right if you search my car." I am not so ignorant as to think that these things don't happen outside of what is allowed, though, and I think it's fairly self evident these days that some officers will break/bend the rules and likely receive a very minor discipline for it, if any.

Re:So they made flyer?

[countach74]

Not to mention in most regions of the United States, it is illegal to lie to a police officer and perfectly legal for them to lie to you. I realize this doesn't fit perfectly into a list of 'privileges', but it certainly puts one at a disadvantage when interacting with officers. Never talk to cops without a lawyer.

Re:So they made flyer?

[HiThere]

His point was, or appeared to be, that anyone could have posted that flyer. He did say, as what I interpreted as an exaggeration for effect, that they could have even done it themselves. He didn't say that was what happened.

You need to practice reading.

Re:WE NEED COMMUNISM NOW

[roc97007]

As is coke and pepsi even today.

Re:So they made flyer?

[gmhowell]

The police are authorized to use violence on my behalf. To kill if necessary. If they're killing or causing harm to another person for me or in my name, I expect them to meet certain standards of behaviour. Creating and continuing the 'us vs. them' mentality is not conducive to that.

Re:So they made flyer?

[gmhowell]

I think the parent to your post was saying that while there is a right to post video of the cops, the cops have no right to post pictures and whatnot of you. I'll admit it's more than a little vague, since the parent to THAT post mentioned a few things, any one of which could have been what 'False' was in response to.

Re:So they made flyer?

[Areyoukiddingme]

And don't forget the ability to apply very nearly unlimited physical coercion as well. I know I don't get to carry a shotgun and assault rifle in my trunk. Very very asymmetrical relationship.

Re:So they made flyer?

[TooMuchToDo]

Parent poster; what you said.

Re:So they made flyer?

[NormalVisual]

And probably the most insidious - the presumption that they're more believable in court. There's no practical reason to expect a police officer to be any more honest than the average citizen (and plenty of reason to often assume the opposite), yet juries and certainly judges give far more weight to their testimony than that of most other people.

Re:Listen i distrust cops i got my reasons

[ThatsMyNick]

It is more likely that GP lived/lives with a cop.

Re:So they made flyer?

[russotto]

If they want to record the cops doing what they believe is wrong, I honestly don't see why the police cannot publicly post a warning to other officers in what seems to be a mostly harmless joking way.

Then by the same token, perhaps the people recording the cops should post pictures of the cops engaged in stop-and-frisk, with their heads framed by a reticule, along with the home addresses of said cops. Just a warning in a harmless, joking way.

Re:So they made flyer?

[TubeSteak]

Just an FYI, a "citizen's arrest" is limited to essentially yelling "hey, stop!". No use of force, not even grabbing by the arm. No handcuffs, no restraints, nothing. So no, it is not at all the same thing.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

The concept of Citizen's Arrest (as we know it) was first written down ~800 years ago in the Magna Carta.
The laws on Citizen's Arrests are far from homogenous, but the one consistent rule is that if you witness a felony, you can stop it with reasonable force.
That includes stating "you are under arrest", grabbing by the arm, punching in the head, restraints, or pursuing as needed.
The rules regarding CAs for misdemeanors and breaches of the peace depend on your local or state laws.

The downside to citizen's arrests is that, if you're wrong, you are held to a strict liability for your actions.
Grabbing an arm can become assault, battery, false imprisonment, wrongful arrest, &/or kidnapping.

But just to be clear: you can use force during Citizen's Arrests if it's necessary.

Re:Listen i distrust cops i got my reasons

[cheekyjohnson]

"They started it!" is a good excuse now? Interesting.

that showed them in a light that wasnt the reality of it

How did you come to that conclusion?

What the police do is those peoples own fault.

Really now? That first part contradicts the second.

Re:So they made flyer?

[tsa]

Exactly. I think they deserve what they get. Filming the police is one thing, but not coming up with anything better to do than that is quite another.

Re:Listen i distrust cops i got my reasons

[Hognoxious]

They should go to jail for publishing the cops home addresses.

I think you have it the wrong way round. from TFA:

portray cops in a bad light and listing their home address

See? Cops plural, address singular. So unless the cops all live together, presumably the address in question is that of the film-makers.

The word order, however implies the opposite. Is it bad writing? Or is it an intentional attempt to fool people with poor comprehension and critical thinking skills, but without actually lying?

Re:So they made flyer?

[deimtee]

The police will NEVER de-escalate a situation. Their unalterable mindset is that they are the authority, and they MUST be in control.
If you were to follow through with posting their names and addresses, the most likely response is a no-knock raid, probably for "drugs", in which your pets will be shot, your home trashed, and you will be beaten and possibly killed if you resist.

The system is plutocratic

[Burz]

and most of the time it offers a only choice in false dualism. You may not remember the Clinton-era Democrats branded themselves "New Democrats" for a time, signifying their new pro-capital focus; on economics, they were determined to be Republican Lite (conservatives without the siege mentality or tactics employed by Newt Gingrich and those who came after him). The result is that the "New Democrats" drifted in the Republicans' wake as the latter engaged in a war with the non-wealthy.

Despite having ~50% support in the polls, Walker was able to outspend his opposition by more than 7-to-1. Wisconsin was flooded with pro-Walker propaganda and other means of support by wealthy corporatists (and to add insult to injury, his out-of-state funding was 62% compared to Barret's 26%). That election had record turnout and the overall result is that it produced political gridlock. Should the public be impressed? Are we apathetic, or disillusioned?

Going back to the 2000 presidential race we had a news media with a reconfigured ownership profile, essentially representing Wall St. banks. Their coverage of Gore was so laden with disdain, ridicule and misinformation that any appearance of impartiality was out the window.

We have a system that is designed to manufacture consent -- to give plutocracy a veneer of democratic respectability. It keeps the public awash in myths, fear and insecurity, with just enough misinformation to hold onto power and some sense of credibility at the same time. The public can only have a chance at representation in the wake of a massive failure of the establishment (as in 2008) which pierces their credibility, and having that kind of occasional, punctuated surfacing of public interest is no way to run a society because it is largely not representative.

Fundamental attribution errors

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're going that route, then explain why in most situations humans do NOT act the way people did in that experiment? Because the fact that it's so far outside our experience shows that circumstances can change people.

But you go on about a "perfect system." It's not that any system can be perfect, which is of course a red herring, but rather that perverse incentives in a system can be identified and corrected, or at least mitigated. That's something very different.

USA

[s1mon75]

Land of the not-so-Free and especially brave. They should start a lawyer defense fund and sue.

Re:Not Insightful

[moeinvt]

It's not semantics. There are critical differences between 'democracy' which amounts to mob rule and 'republic' where the individual has basic rights. The latter is not a 'variation' of the former.
The power of the state can be just as oppressive under the tyranny of the majority as it can under an individual tyrant.

Hey you

[GameboyRMH]

Pick up that can.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:So they made flyer?

[kilfarsnar]

Apparently, it's illegal to put up fake wanted posters. Impersonating police officers and whatnot. It cost me a misdemeanor charge and banishment from every Walmart in the city to find this out.

So, it was a win?

Re:So they made flyer?

[kilfarsnar]

Bullshit. Police officers are citizens too. Please describe for me one 'privilege' that a police officer has that a citizen who is not a police officer does not have.

This can't be serious.

it should be no surprise

[OrangeTide]

That we got the kind of government that we deserve.

Re:Listen i distrust cops i got my reasons

[Stan92057]

If you would have read my reply will read my reply you wasted your time replying to me.

Re:"boy"? You racist fuck

[tmosley]

I'm not a Republican.

Try again.

Re:Listen i distrust cops i got my reasons

[Hognoxious]

Thick cunt, die in a fire.

Re:So they made flyer?

[Bob the Super Hamste]

You need to move to a better state. There have been a number of times when I have had my shotgun and my rifle (SKS) in my trunk at the same time. Mostly when going up north for hunting or camping (target shooting is great fun).

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:So they made flyer?

[randyleepublic]

Garcia would knock your teeth in, jackass!

Re:Listen i distrust cops i got my reasons

[Stan92057]

yawn

A few modest proposals

[Anonymous Coward]

1: Toss current tax system. Do a either a fair income tax, everyone pays the same % of their income or a flat rate tax on every transaction. No loopholes, they just proliferate and lead to corporations...Corruption.

2: Make government and corporate leadership criminally and civilly accountable for the actions of their employees and agents. In this case the leadership of the NYPD would be facing charges for allowing officers to harass this couple.

3: Change term limits to two terms, after which the elected official must return to their home state and work in a non-government career for a time equal to the time they held office.

4. Move 3 the Senate to Washington State, the House to Texas or California, and The Supreme Court to Colorado. Alternately, move the different bodies to different states every 4 years. This will help break up the ivory tower that The Capitol has become and keep the branches of the government divided.