Tweets and Threats: Gangs Find New Home On the Net

That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 16:08 · Score: 0, Insightful

If a guy goes in and says, "I'm a good person. I've never held a gun," we can say, "Look at what he puts out about himself on social media. Here he is with a gun."

Why should it matter what he says? Shouldn't you have... evidence?

Re: That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 16:15 · Score: 0

It can affect the severity of the sentence.
Re: That's nice, but... by Opportunist · 2014-01-11 16:47 · Score: 0

Lying is a crime now?

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re: That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 16:52 · Score: 1

Lying is a crime now?
It has to do with the sentencing guidelines.
However, if stupidity was a crime you'd be guilty as hell.
Re:That's nice, but... by AuMatar · 2014-01-11 16:53 · Score: 1

Yes. And in court the defendant will present counter-evidence, including an alibi which may or may not be true. Showing that the defendant is a habitual liar and has lied about facts pertinent to the case means a jury will find his defense less credible. Its not evidence that he committed the crime, but it can counter their arguments. It may also show circumstantial evidence, such as the same make of gun.

--
I still have more fans than freaks. WTF is wrong with you people?
Re: That's nice, but... by cold+fjord · 2014-01-11 17:21 · Score: 2

It can be, depending on the circumstances. Among the possibilities are:
Perjury
Making False Statements
Giving False Information to a Police Officer
Fraud
There are no doubt others depending on the circumstances and jurisdiction.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re: That's nice, but... by DontScotty · 2014-01-11 17:24 · Score: 2

"Lying is a crime now?"
Yes, it can be.
http://http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perjury
Re: That's nice, but... by sumdumass · 2014-01-11 17:43 · Score: 3, Interesting

It can be but that wasn't the point of "affecting the severity of the sentence". Presumably, someone would have already have been convicted of a crime before being sentences. The person has an opportunity to say something to the court before the sentence is passed down. Often people will plead for leniency by downplaying their actions as un-ordinary or a special case or something and describe themselves as otherwise upstanding citizens who pose a benefit to society or having them serve time would create an extreme hardship for an innocent party. Most of the time, the lawyer will make this case but sometimes the convicted do it themselves. It goes to the character of the accused and a judge can sometimes impose less of a sentence if you persuade them you are a good person who made a mistake. This is also often the difference between a lawyer and a good lawyer- how well they can convince a judge of your good character can often get you by with a slap on the wrist compared to the maximum penalties.
What this allows is the police or the prosecution to step in afterwards and say, this is not true, see from his face book page, he is around guns all the time and talks about participating in criminal activities either he or people his associates participated in. Most of this would already be included or summarized in a pre sentencing investigation report but instead of asking your neighbors, you are telling the police directly what kind of person you are or want to be seen as.
Re:That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 18:12 · Score: 0

Character witness against oneself - don't be a dick. It might come up in court later.
Re: That's nice, but... by hairyfeet · 2014-01-11 18:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

No its called "impeaching the witness" and honestly? kinda hard to have a problem with it, really.
Imagine I'm brought in because the church down the street burns. they find me with a smell of gas and paint in my truck, people saw a truck matching mine in the area, etc. Now I go on the stand, under oath mind you, and say "Oh I never had a problem with that church, not a bit" are you gonna HONESTLY argue that nobody should be able to bring up the fact i was caught on video not a week before calling the members of that church every filthy name in the book and wishing it would burn down, really?
Because THAT is what these brain trusts are doing folks, they are broadcasting brags about their crimes in public and then are shocked! Shocked I say, that somebody actually notices they are posing with a bag of dope and an AK47? I got a friend in the state crime lab and believe me, not like the cops have to entrap these knuckle draggers, they ALL think they are fricking Tony Montana! I mean do you have ANY idea how many copies of the "scarface coke shot" he has seen? If it was less than 500 I'd be amazed. these bozos have this shit set to public, practically broadcast this shit to everyone that has ever said hi to them even because they WANT this shit to be seen, because they think they are "big pappa bad ass" that an do like some movie and just flip off the world.
So are we REALLY gonna bitch when cops bust somebody waving a pile of money in front of a mound of dope surrounded by guns and stolen shit and then tweeting that shit to the planet? Really? You might as well say the moron that gets busted at 3AM for driving 80 in a 30 with a half a pound and guns in his car should get a do over because "Well he was stoned, duh". I mean give me a break, if anything they should get an extra 5 years for being so fucking stupid, in the hopes of minimizing the risk to the gene pool!

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re:That's nice, but... by JWSmythe · 2014-01-11 18:27 · Score: 1

If your testimony is "I've never held a gun", then a photo you posted of yourself with a gun is then evidence, showing that you lied. It's very easy for a judge or jury to assume one lie means anything you've said can be a lie. And as others have said, perjury.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re: That's nice, but... by dakohli · 2014-01-11 18:31 · Score: 1

Lying is a crime now?
Just ask Martha Stewart.
Re: That's nice, but... by AK+Marc · 2014-01-11 19:07 · Score: 2

Lying to deprive someone of something is fraud. Lying to a law enforcement officer is often obstruction. Lying under oath is perjury. Proving a witness is lying discredits everything they say, and leads to convictions if that witness is a defendant.

--
Learn to love Alaska
Re: That's nice, but... by Great+Big+Bird · 2014-01-11 20:49 · Score: 2

Are you going to trust what she says?
Re:That's nice, but... by Zumbs · 2014-01-11 22:08 · Score: 1

Assuming that the gun on the image is a real gun and not a replica or believable toy.

--
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
Re: That's nice, but... by mosb1000 · 2014-01-11 22:24 · Score: 1

Lying in court has always been a crime.
Re: That's nice, but... by VortexCortex · 2014-01-11 23:58 · Score: 2, Interesting

So, I do a bit of computer security research. I hammer on programs and OSs and make my own. I've gone on and on about how we should disband the NSA, and how it's just pointless scaremongering to get funds to suppress freedom, not protect anyone. Say they trace a compromise of government systems to my IP address. I've clearly got the know-how, and motive. Yet I'd stand up in court and say, "I would NEVER take such action against the government." It's the truth. With great power comes great responsibility, and all that jazz. It's against my ethics to do that. So that's what this "brain trust" is doing. Broadcasting the fact that I'm not pleased with the state of things, and that I can operate a system like nobody's business.
Now, being that this data is online, and we know the NSA (who also works with the FBI) can potentially compromise any online or digital data to forge "evidence" if they want (and they've been known to manufacture stuff in the past) how the hell can we trust anything they say? How can that IP log be trusted? -- They could just want to get rid of me. My own systems could be compromised (and a firmware dump shows at least one of my routers is). So, there's absolutely no online evidence that should be admissible in court nowdays, you see. I mean a judge? Hell they'll lie to congress in the name of "national security".
Video is one thing -- a bit harder to fake that, but not impossible given today's props and special effects. Digital mods to photographs can even evade detection if you know what characteristics they'll be looking for. But posting text online? Seriously? No, nothing said online should be taken seriously. I mean, I make games and stories involving aliens and cybernetic overlords, and make posts in such character. We can't just demonstrate selection bias here -- They want to include some of my online content, let's include it all, including the bit about being the sysop of a parallel Universe, the Corn Kernel Equality Activist, the Atlantian anthropologist studying breeding habits American hairless apes, the Disappointed Alien Overmind, and the parent's basement dwelling anti-socialite, and the sentient primordial ooze who's noticed some zany carbon based reactions going on in the aftermath of that one zit that popped with a big bang, etc. There's enough bullshit in there to make just about any kind of claim you want about me through quote-mining, you damned pop-culture supporting cornsagonist.
The defence doesn't get access to the real state level evidence to present their side of the story due to "national security", so parallel construction can be done in secret anyway. Yeah, let's subpoena the NSA's Ferret Cannon logs to see if it had any exploits targeting the clients? No? Well then quote mining online shit is ridiculous.
Hard evidence is an altogether different story. Perhaps online posts can be used for probable cause, but seriously? Scarface's Coke Shot? Prove it's not Anthrax or some other white powder. The AK47 and other guns could easily be fakes. Are they? What did the evidence turn up? Cash isn't illegal to have either, though the feds would like to make it that way.
You don't think kids don't do fake shots all the time to brag? You think they don't lie their asses off to 1up each other? Think they don't lie about kicking someone's ass, or telling off some parent, teacher, the convenience store clerk, or even about having GF's or BF's that are really just strangers or acquaintances in a photo with them, etc. You think I believe you get off to hairy fucking feet because that's what your online username says?
It's one thing to be driving over the speed limit and get caught. It's quite another to have silly shit folks post online influence jail time. You better wise the fuck up, idiot. They're arresting kids for saying shit in World of fucking Warcraft. The
Re: That's nice, but... by Demonoid-Penguin · 2014-01-12 01:29 · Score: 2

In your Church example, if I was on the jury and that was the totality of the evidence, I would vote not to convict. That's because motive and means does not mean you did it. It suggests you did, but it is by no means "proof".
Brilliant logic. Unless.... what if, longshot, but, what if when the Church burns down the police come around to your house, and find you wearing smoke stained, petrol reeking clothes because your name came up in a web search of likely culprits?
Re: That's nice, but... by gallondr00nk · 2014-01-12 01:39 · Score: 3, Insightful

It's not stupidity that motivates them to show off AK's, pounds of weed and fuckloads of money. It's linked strongly to status, ego and hierarchy.
These are gangs remember. Their image is absolutely vital to their status. No-one is going to fear or respect you if you don't show off. If there's three or four big street gangs in a major city, you need to stand out and show yourself to be higher in the pack than the others.
Think of old school pimps and their massive chrome encrusted Impalas. Looking in from the outside, you might be tempted to say "you're fucking stupid, drawing attention to yourself like that". But that's the entire point. It's showing you, not someone else, is top dog around here. That you can protect your posessions, that you have enough status to drive such an outrageous car in a neighbourhood where it sticks out. Others don't touch it because they know who you are, you're that fucking important. No one is going to believe that you're shit if you drive a fifteen year old Saturn.
It's like a celebrity lifestyle in so much that it isn't enough just to be rich, you have to *show* that you are. Same with street gangs, it isn't enough to be bad ass, you have to demonstrate it. Gangs don't just work by their acts, they work by the way people percieve them.
They might be uneducated, but I wouldn't call them stupid.
Re:That's nice, but... by JWSmythe · 2014-01-12 02:26 · Score: 1

You can try to make that argument. I doubt it would help at all, unless it had some amazing circumstances behind it.

--
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
Re: That's nice, but... by cusco · 2014-01-12 06:14 · Score: 2

By and large, they don't become gangbangers because they got bored being rocket scientists.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re: That's nice, but... by callmetheraven · 2014-01-12 07:08 · Score: 1

So this is how those darn kids in the Amish gangs stay under the radar - no video cameras!

--
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Re: That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 08:12 · Score: 0

Presumably, someone would have already have been convicted of a crime before being sentences
You'd think that were the case, but many people in the United States who have done nothing but be accused of a crime, are forced to decide between a "plea bargain" of one year in prison and a multi-million dollar financially-ruinous trial with the slim possibility of an entire lifetime in a cage for a crime they never committed.
Being accused in the United States is enough to be considered guilty by the public, and have your arm twisted in to serving prison time lest the DA hit you with a larger stick for not "cooperating".
Re: That's nice, but... by Cruciform · 2014-01-12 09:22 · Score: 4, Interesting

A while back I went to a cannabis site to look at pics of grow ops. There were all kinds of photos taken with iPhones with the EXIF data still intact.
Meanwhile these guys were regularly accusing each other of 'narcing' about their grows. They didn't get that it wasn't someone jealous over how tall their plants were, but that they were bragging their GPS coordinates to the public with every photo attachment.
If it's not legal, don't take pictures of it.
Re: That's nice, but... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 06:44 · Score: 0

If it was less than 500 I'd be amazed. these bozos have this shit set to public, practically broadcast this shit to everyone that has ever said hi to them even because they WANT this shit to be seen, because they think they are "big pappa bad ass" that an do like some movie and just flip off the world.
On the other hand, if that is the image that business requires they project to suppliers, customers, coworkers and rivals, then maybe they think differently. Maybe they don't think they are "big pappa bad ass" but a failure to project that attitude will lead to an even earlier death or business failure.
I don't doubt your assessment for a large fraction of them and only intend to point out one obvious class of exceptions.
Re: That's nice, but... by captainlavender · 2014-01-13 06:48 · Score: 1

ITT: People who do things because they have different priorities than me are stupid and deserve to be punished. Also, stupidity is genetic.
P.S. Racism.
Re: That's nice, but... by hairyfeet · 2014-01-13 15:51 · Score: 1

How is it racist? Are you no longer allowed to see anything if someone is now a "protected class" because its "racist" to bust them, even when they broadcast their crimes to the fricking world for all to see?
You might want to look up " Muslim child trafficking ring busted UK" and see how they were allowed to keep selling little kids for years because "They are Muslim and it would be racist to bust them" because THAT is what your politically correct bullshit gets you dumbass.

--
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Re: That's nice, but... by captainlavender · 2014-01-14 10:27 · Score: 1

Yup, PC is running the nation. Except that a black man is still more likely to be suspected of crime or suspicious activities, much more likely to be stopped by police, more likely to be searched, less likely to be let off with a warning, more likely to have to rely on a shitty overworked public defender, less likely to receive leniency, more likely to receive a disproportionately harsh sentence, more likely to be tried underage as an adult, more likely to get prison time for a nonviolent crime, and less likely to be given parole. Each of these is a proven fact.
PC has erased racism to the extent that PSAs have erased drug use among teenagers. Thems the facts. Deal with it.

Ass. Prof. is what exactly? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 16:08 · Score: 0

Assists a real professor? Not tenured and never will be? Works-for-food?

Re:Ass. Prof. is what exactly? by Seraphim1982 · 2014-01-11 17:30 · Score: 1

An assistant professor is usually non-tenured but is on the tenure track. Generally it means you have like 5 or fewer years of experience in the job.

Online footprints nearly reach fingerprint parity by DontScotty · 2014-01-11 16:09 · Score: 4, Interesting

Online footprints nearly reach fingerprint parity

And, since the criminals won't stop at just one crime, they can even turn around and cyber-bully the officer who took them down

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/02/alleged-gang-member-cyberbullies-cop-on-facebook.html

-- just another casual observation on why gang members can sometime gather notoriety for being as dumb as regular social media users.

Laugh by koan · 2014-01-11 16:11 · Score: 2

Not the sharpest tools in the shed are they.

--
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."

Re:Laugh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 16:29 · Score: 3, Insightful

Not the sharpest tools in the shed are they.
These are gangstas. Gangstas are poor, urban, uneducated, semiliterate, illmannered young black men who were raised by bitchy, morbidly obese single mothers, who think being a street thug is cool, and have terrible marksmanship. They don't wear belts and let their pants hang off their flabby asses because their homies in prison aren't allowed to have belts and they think prison is something to celebrate. They get teardrop tattoos to mourn the homies who got shot but it doesn't occur to them that a better solution would be to stop killing each other. Oh they also think their gutter street-slang dialect that they mostly got from the media is a sign of great sophistication.

Of course these are not the sharpest tools in the shed. Hell, it's a miracle their daddy was smart enough to get Tab A into Slot B! That's what gangstas are good at of course: breeding. Every babymomma is a trophy! 'Sides that means more SNAP, WIC and EBT payments yo!

Gotta love the ivory tower, smug liberal Slashdotters that are so numerous lately. Never actually being in a real ghetto and seeing real gangbangers, they can comfortably sit on their cozy little Lazy Boy and bitch about me because they honestly don't know what the fuck they're talking about. The only young black men they know about are the doctors and lawyers on TV. But whatever you do, don't question your conditioning.
Re:Laugh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 16:44 · Score: 0

Not the sharpest tools in the shed are they.
These are gangstas. Gangstas are poor, urban, uneducated, semiliterate, illmannered young black men who were raised by bitchy, morbidly obese single mothers, who think being a street thug is cool, and have terrible marksmanship. They don't wear belts and let their pants hang off their flabby asses because their homies in prison aren't allowed to have belts and they think prison is something to celebrate. They get teardrop tattoos to mourn the homies who got shot but it doesn't occur to them that a better solution would be to stop killing each other. Oh they also think their gutter street-slang dialect that they mostly got from the media is a sign of great sophistication.
Of course these are not the sharpest tools in the shed. Hell, it's a miracle their daddy was smart enough to get Tab A into Slot B! That's what gangstas are good at of course: breeding. Every babymomma is a trophy! 'Sides that means more SNAP, WIC and EBT payments yo!
Gotta love the ivory tower, smug liberal Slashdotters that are so numerous lately. Never actually being in a real ghetto and seeing real gangbangers, they can comfortably sit on their cozy little Lazy Boy and bitch about me because they honestly don't know what the fuck they're talking about. The only young black men they know about are the doctors and lawyers on TV. But whatever you do, don't question your conditioning.
Gangs are for losers that can't do anything for themselves.
Re:Laugh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 16:53 · Score: 0

Nice troll :)
Re:Laugh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 17:01 · Score: 2, Insightful

Doesn't make it any less true
Re:Laugh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 17:23 · Score: 1

Sounds like someone is bitter he's not getting any Slot B action.
Re:Laugh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 17:38 · Score: 0

I love how they prance around, boasting about how manly they are while hiding behind guns like little punks.
Re:Laugh by Z00L00K · 2014-01-11 19:13 · Score: 1

That's what the military calls "gun fodder".

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re:Laugh by Z00L00K · 2014-01-11 19:16 · Score: 1

The problem here is that those show-offs draws the attention of the law enforcement from the ones working silently. Some of the silent ones can be even more dangerous because you don't know who they are and where they will strike.
And if you have a show-off gang in an area it's easy to put down evidence that at least circumstantially indicates that gang.

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re:Laugh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 19:46 · Score: 0

But whatever you do, don't question your conditioning.
At least you're one to take your own advice.
Re:Laugh by sfcat · 2014-01-11 23:24 · Score: 3, Informative

They get teardrop tattoos to mourn the homies who got shot

I was going to mod you down but then you had to go and make that comment about teardrop tattoos. Those mean you killed someone in prison and are not about their friends/hommies. Bangers pour out 40s and graffitti names to remember their homies.
What was that about liberals who don't know about the real world again?
PS Programs like SNAP, WIC and EBT generally reduce crime and you fools just cut it. Hope you have a good home security system...cause you might be meeting some of these fine upstanding citizens in the near future if you get your way too much longer...

--
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Re:Laugh by SuricouRaven · 2014-01-11 23:39 · Score: 2

Is there an agreed upon tattoo code? I'd imagine there is a lot of national and even regional variation.
Re:Laugh by mikael · 2014-01-12 00:49 · Score: 1

As one detective said: "Every dumb criminal is a failure of the education system"
There was something like 75% illiteracy in the prisons. These guys couldn't read or write, never mind actually figure out that CCTV cameras could record past events and replay them in the future. When the police used predictive analysis to determine future crime scenes, and staked out the joint, the caught criminals would claim they had been "set up".

--
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Re:Laugh by mikael · 2014-01-12 00:56 · Score: 1

There are some conventions over what various symbols mean. The tear drop means either they killed someone or someone they knew was killed.
http://www.ehow.com/how_2363815_identify-gang-tattoos-symbols.html
Gangs and Their Tattoos: Identifying Gangbangers on the Street and in Prison [Paperback]
Bill Valentine (Author), Robert Schober (Illustrator)

--
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
Re:Laugh by Threni · 2014-01-12 01:03 · Score: 1

> The problem here is that those show-offs draws the attention of the law enforcement
> from the ones working silently. Some of the silent ones can be even more
> dangerous because you don't know who they are and where they will strike.
So...there's no problem then. The silent ones aren't drawing any attention because no-one knows they're doing it. The police won't know about it until, typically, someone tells them about it, at which point they'll know about it. Then again, the police are largely concerned with manipulation of crime figures, making people feel safe, protecting - typically - the rich from - typically - the poor. These show-offs are just a free ride for the police; they might as well turn up at the police station and hand themselves in.
Re:Laugh by gl4ss · 2014-01-12 01:34 · Score: 1

it's like any other standard, they got 1234 one of them.
maybe just easier to not put tats on your face.

--
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
Re:Laugh by Demonoid-Penguin · 2014-01-12 01:37 · Score: 1

Gotta love the ivory tower, smug liberal Slashdotters that are so numerous lately. Never actually being in a real ghetto and seeing real gangbangers
Do you think? (rhetorical question given the nature of your statement) What about trailer parks? Or have you failed to notice (the self-evident truth) that stupid has nothing to do with skin colour?
Re:Laugh by Demonoid-Penguin · 2014-01-12 01:39 · Score: 2

Gangs are for losers that can't do anything for themselves.
Gangs are for people who believe they'll gain an advantage in a group. Some do.
Dogma, though, is for losers.
Re:Laugh by Z00L00K · 2014-01-12 02:06 · Score: 1

And even if someone tells the cops about the low profile gangs the cops will have a hard time to isolate them. People had a hard time to believe that an animal like the platypus did exist even when presented with dead ones. An egg-laying mammal with a duck bill? Or the fictional criminal Keyser Söze. (or is he really a fictional criminal?)

--
If builders built buildings the way programmers wrote programs, then the first woodpecker would destroy civilization.
Re:Laugh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 03:59 · Score: 0

No, these programs SHIFT crime.
Instead of somebody I don't know in the street threatening me with violence to take my money, some anonymous group of people at the behest of the government threaten me with violence/incarcaration to take my money to give to you. (Oh - and take a little bit extra from me to actually pay for the goons who are robbing me!).
That's a goddamned crime too.
Re:Laugh by chuckugly · 2014-01-12 05:13 · Score: 1

Hope you have a good home security system...cause you might be meeting some of these fine upstanding citizens in the near future if you get your way too much longer...
12 gauge should do it.
Re:Laugh by LoRdTAW · 2014-01-12 05:44 · Score: 4, Insightful

"PS Programs like SNAP, WIC and EBT generally reduce crime and you fools just cut it."
It does and it doesn't. WIC, EBT and SNAP benefits single mothers with children and other disabled people. But very often those services often help nurture the "ghetto family". Basically an irresponsible woman has multiple children from multiple men. She finally has enough kids to live comfortably without a job and eventually a man (often one of her baby daddy's) sees the perfect opportunity: free living! Since the woman will settle for any man willing to put up with her and her kids the leech will happily move in to her welfare paid apartment and eat welfare paid meals. So he gets a nice free ride. And with so much free time on his hands he can no go out and mingle with the other respectable family men in his neighborhood. Often the man needs a little money on the side and knows damn well that work is for suckers. So he turns to dealing drugs and other criminal activities to give him some pocket money. He of course is still screwing more women on the side but he doesn't care because he has his sugar momma waiting at home. What happens when his sugar momma's welfare money dries up? Well duh! He has been screwing women the whole time and has a trail of kids. One of those women is bound to have a brood of young children he can leech off of. Plus he can wave around a bit of his ill gotten cash to lure her in. So he leaves the now former sugar momma for another and the cycle repeats.
Some people will find this racist. It isn't. Its a sad truth that no one wants to hear. So they plug their ears while shouting racism! And I have witnessed it first hand through a few families I know. Its sad when you see children growing up in a household where their siblings all have different men who aren't around and no one is actively encouraging them to break the cycle. Everyone is uneducated and frustrated in life because they have nothing to show for it. The men often only have their street cred to show off which keeps the cycle of violence going.
The solution is simple: education. Though this has to start at home with at least one caring parent. And often the parents are so ignorant and uncaring that they are useless.
Re:Laugh by callmetheraven · 2014-01-12 07:15 · Score: 1

Some people will find this racist
Intelligent people call it "black culture".
Black people call it "keepin it real". (Remember the negress with the popular EBT "swiping" song?)
Libtards call it "racist" with their fists balled up and crocodile tears squirting out the corners of their eyes.

--
You can have my SIG when you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
Re:Laugh by LoRdTAW · 2014-01-12 14:35 · Score: 1

"Libtards" or as I like to call them: white middle class people riddled with white guilt who have no clue about black and Hispanic ghetto culture. They don't know any black or Hispanic people save for a few coworker acquaintances who unlike the majority of black and Hispanics, got an education because their parents gave a damn. They are always the first ones to cry racism in the most condescending and self righteous manner possible when they clearly have no business. But they do it anyway because it makes them feel better.
The only way to break the cycle of ignorance is to have more intelligent black and Hispanic celebrities or people of influence denounce and criticize it through campaigns. The only two I can think of the top of my head are Bill Cosby and Chris Rock. Cosby is balked at by the black community for telling the truth. And Chris Rock did it halfheartedly using satire in his comedy act. But I don't blame famous black celebs for trying to break the cycle because it can be an instant end to their careers.
We need people like Neil deGrasse Tyson to be looked at by young black children as a hero and role model and not brainless trash like Kanye West or Lil Wayne. And lets not mention 50 Cent who was shown on billboards reading the wall street journal in a leather chair like he is a fucking Harvard billionaire. He is a low-life nobody drug dealer who got lucky because ghetto trash cant aim guns. Then he made millions off his music and had other people invest it for him making him hundreds of millions. Those people are role models for black and even Hispanic children. Oh and lets not forget the basket ball players, because that is the other path to fame and riches besides rap for young black children. And that is why they remain fucked.
Re:Laugh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 02:33 · Score: 0

This really isn't a race thing its a class thing. Poor white people in trailer parks do this too.
Re:Laugh by captainlavender · 2014-01-13 06:53 · Score: 1

Hi! I taught high school in what is known as a "persistently dangerous school" in a very poor, rather black area of Philadelphia. So hopefully I'm qualified to tell you this: holy fuck, are you racist. I mean holy SHIT dude. If you're not going to rein that in, at least don't vomit it on the rest of us please.
Re:Laugh by captainlavender · 2014-01-13 06:59 · Score: 1

Some people will call this racist? What, just because your argument is, "don't feed them, they'll just breed"? My goodness, what could be racist about that?
Your position, essentially, is that poor, black people are morally and intellectually inferior and they deserve to have shitty lives. But definitely not racism!
Re:Laugh by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-13 08:28 · Score: 0

So he turns to dealing drugs and other criminal activities to give him some pocket money. ...
The solution is simple: education.
How is education the simple solution?
a) It takes about two decades to be effective (on a newborn).
b) It may be too late for anyone over the age 10. 20 or 30? Fuhgettaboutit!
c) Education doesn't increase the number of jobs available to post-grad English majors and requiring a post-grad English degreee.
[maybe slightly if the pool of those seeking education greatly increases]
The easy solution is to end all prohibitions. End all wage restrictions. End all impediments to hiring someone LEGALLY for any non-violent activity. End all business monopoly protections (patents, copyrights as enforced by the government - allow people to enter private agreements for that shit if they choos). That way, he can get his "pocket money" doing low-wage temp stuff. Or maybe it is not so low-wage and no so temp. If he is good at it and sticks with it.
I'm not sure what you expect education to accomplish in the ghetto especially when you describe someone who is just filling a vacuum ("any man willing to put up with her and her kids the leech will happily move in to her welfare paid apartment and eat welfare paid meals"). You don't propose eliminating the vacuum (welfare) and though I both disagree with that and would implement it differently (e.g., basic income nonsense instead of neverending regulatory state), the reality is that if you educate one, some other uneducated one will fill void left behind.
Re:Laugh by LoRdTAW · 2014-01-13 10:30 · Score: 1

"What, just because your argument is, "don't feed them, they'll just breed"?"
Where did I state that?
"Your position, essentially, is that poor, black people are and they deserve to have shitty lives."
Don't put words in my mouth. I never stated any of that and I never said only black people. You made that bit up. You also may want to re-evaluate what you think is racist because I can sit here and point out that your assumption is racist. You stated that blacks are morally and intellectually inferior. Did you stop to think I might be talking about all people who abuse the system like this? Or do you believe that only blacks are capable of forming ghetto families? Maybe you need to re-think your tendency to stereotype.
Re:Laugh by captainlavender · 2014-01-13 11:46 · Score: 1

"Where did I state that?"
It was the entirety of your argument -- feeding poor people only helps them continue in their ways and breed more poor people. This was literally what you said. I am not interpreting anything here.
"I never stated any of that and I never said only black people."
Your post falls under what is called "coded racism". I think this fact becomes pretty undeniable when you preemptively say that people will find your post racist. Saying "ghetto" instead of "poor and black" is pretty transparent. But that one, I will grant, you did not literally state.
"You stated that blacks are morally and intellectually inferior."
Hahahaha, what? Reading comprehension much? That was my rephrasing of (what I still feel to be) your position.
Here's the thing: you spend an entire post viciously attacking poor people. "Not all poor people", but I assume, a typical poor person (commenting in itself implies that you believe this is a major problem, not just fringe cases). Viciously. Then you assert that aid programs are only sometimes appropriate, because of these facts. A second-grade student could read this and conclude that you're saying poor people are inferior. And a college student, and a professor, and really, probably the majority of the people who read your comment.
Accuse me of putting words in your mouth if you want, but read over what you said. It speaks for itself. It really does.

That makes sense actually. by dyingtolive · 2014-01-11 16:11 · Score: 1

We make the world such an ugly place. Makes sense it would spread to places where there's an absence.

--
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...

Re:That makes sense actually. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 16:37 · Score: 0, Funny

We make the world such an ugly place.
But when I squeeze yo mama's titties it's suddenly a much more beautiful place.
Re:That makes sense actually. by dyingtolive · 2014-01-11 16:39 · Score: 1

I saw my mom for the first time in years just a couple weeks ago. If that's the best you can do, well, I'm really sorry for you.

I suppose the lack of teeth might be considered an asset, for some.

--
Support the EFF and Creative Commons. The war is coming, and they're supporting you...

The President's Son flashed guns on the Internet by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 16:13 · Score: 0, Flamebait

The President's Son flashed guns and gang signs on the Internet. And when people brought this up, they were called "racist."

See http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/23/justice/florida-zimmerman-defense/

Is this really any surprise? by mendax · 2014-01-11 16:14 · Score: 3, Interesting

Well, is it? The Mafia used all the tools of legitimate business such double-entry accounting techniques and computers long ago to run their businesses. Just because these thugs are less classy than the Mafia doesn't make them any less willing to use modern tools.

But my concerns go beyond how the gangs are using these tools to do their dirty business. In the past, courts have outlawed gangs and ordered gang members to not associate with each other. Are these restrictions, restrictions which are constitutionally iffy, going to soon extend into cyberspace? Yes, they are criminal organizations and those who join them criminals, but does that necessarily mean that these people can never use cyberspace?

--
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.

Re:Is this really any surprise? by Concerned+Onlooker · 2014-01-11 16:52 · Score: 1

"...less classy than the Mafiaâ¦"
Wow, that's saying something. I didn't think it was even possible to be less classy than the mafia.

--
http://www.rootstrikers.org/
Re: Is this really any surprise? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 17:29 · Score: 0

Well mafia thugs have suits, gangstas have shirts and jeans that are way too big with basketball shoes that costs more than their guns.
Re:Is this really any surprise? by mendax · 2014-01-11 18:12 · Score: 2

Mafia dons wear better suits and more tasteful bling than the "gangsta" wastes of skin.

--
It's really quite a simple choice: Life, Death, or Los Angeles.
Re:Is this really any surprise? by wbr1 · 2014-01-11 20:33 · Score: 1

You are just as dead if killed by a crip for your car and shoes as you are by some low level mafia puke for not paying protection.

--
Silence is a state of mime.
Re:Is this really any surprise? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 00:58 · Score: 0

They are banned from using computers or even using cellphones. But that doesn't stop them from sneaking in smartphones and other devices into prison.
Re:Is this really any surprise? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 01:20 · Score: 0

Well, is it? The Mafia used all the tools of legitimate business such double-entry accounting techniques and computers long ago to run their businesses. Just because these thugs are less classy than the Mafia doesn't make them any less willing to use modern tools.
But my concerns go beyond how the gangs are using these tools to do their dirty business. In the past, courts have outlawed gangs and ordered gang members to not associate with each other. Are these restrictions, restrictions which are constitutionally iffy, going to soon extend into cyberspace? Yes, they are criminal organizations and those who join them criminals, but does that necessarily mean that these people can never use cyberspace?
No, it means gang members should never be allowed to talk to bankers.
Unfortunately, in our society, we only see one of those groups as criminal.
Re:Is this really any surprise? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 04:36 · Score: 1

You are just as dead if killed by a crip for your car and shoes as you are by some low level mafia puke for not paying protection.
Yeah, but at least the last thing you see isn't some clown with his pants falling down.
Re:Is this really any surprise? by cusco · 2014-01-12 07:29 · Score: 1

Mafiosos used to be known for supporting orphanages, schools, the Catholic church (which some still think denotes a certain amount of class, for some reason), protecting children (until they were old enough to take or become hookers), and eliminating the street hoods that were the face of crime to the average citizen. The settled arguments between neighbors and groups who couldn't afford to go to court and hadn't gotten satisfaction from the regular authorities. So yeah, they did have some class, at least until the late-'70s/early-'80s when their society changed.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:Is this really any surprise? by martas · 2014-01-12 07:49 · Score: 1

In the past, courts have outlawed gangs and ordered gang members to not associate with each other. Are these restrictions, restrictions which are constitutionally iffy, ...
AFAIK these only ever apply to parolees, which I don't see a constitutional problem with in principle.

--
weinersmith
Re:Is this really any surprise? by Concerned+Onlooker · 2014-01-12 10:59 · Score: 1

So in other words, they were the Taliban.

--
http://www.rootstrikers.org/

These people must be terminally stupid.... by gweihir · 2014-01-11 16:29 · Score: 1, Insightful

Post-Snowden, even the most clueless moron must know that social media are under constant surveillance and that all said there is being recorded.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re:These people must be terminally stupid.... by The_Star_Child · 2014-01-11 16:38 · Score: 4, Insightful

Street thugs don't strike me as particularly conscientious.
Re:These people must be terminally stupid.... by sumdumass · 2014-01-11 16:41 · Score: 1

I'm not sure these people even care about Snowden or even heard of him or the details of his exploits. They aren't the type of people to pick up a news paper or watch the evening news unless someone they know is in it. I'm not sure if that makes them morons, but it certainly doesn't help them not be one. But remember, many times in life it is better to be more on then off- especially when near the edge of a cliff.
Re:These people must be terminally stupid.... by Opportunist · 2014-01-11 16:55 · Score: 4, Insightful

Anyone who ever had some fingers in the organized crime, on either side of the fence, knows that there are things to avoid. Being the guy to pick up the money from a money laundering deal is not where you want to be, since it's the point where the police can actually get busy. Likewise, being the guy selling the drugs on the street ain't the best position in the drug train since that's where you're easy to grab.
And it's unlikely that being the social media guy for gangs is a very popular position unless you're planning to be a vital part to the federal prison system and job security for wardens. But someone's gotta do it, and some poor idiot will be doing it. Just like there's always some poor idiot willing to sell drugs or be the money mule.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:These people must be terminally stupid.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 17:00 · Score: 0

Do you really think half of these guys would have even heard the name Snowden?
If you're not in their neighborhood, not part of a local gang, or not a target, you're unknown to them.
They only care about guns, drugs, and money - Snowden has nothing to do with any of that, in relation to them.
Do you think most people who aren't at all related to IT or under 30 have heard of Snowden? I could go and ask half the people down at my local grocery store, and they would have no idea.
Do you realise what the real world out there is actually like? far out.
Re:These people must be terminally stupid.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 17:13 · Score: 0

score
ego 1
common sense 0
unfortunately, this is not the only battle common sense loses in today's world.
Re:These people must be terminally stupid.... by fermion · 2014-01-11 17:25 · Score: 1, Interesting

People are not clueless, they just sometimes don't get that the laws and regulations are context sensitive. For example, when some people play with a gun in the street it is assumed that they are responsible gun owners and will only use it to shoot vermin and people they think are criminals or people they think they can shoot and claim self defense.
Other if they have a gun are assumed to be criminals and be shot on sight, or brought up on charges for nothing more than having a gun. And this is silly because the NRA has clearly indicated that the problem with our society is there are too few gun owners, that gun owners should not have to register, that private sales, such as those that happen on instagram, should be legal and unregulated, and that only in certain extreme cases should gun ownership be regulated at all.
Such cases are very confusing to kids. Here is another one that is a pet of Rand Paul. A convicted drug dealer is serving a life sentence because he was caught several times over six years of so selling drugs. Now, I know that this kid had divorced parents, was abused, and is depressed, but I wondered how many people in jail do not have a similar set of circumstances. I don't agree with the drug laws, and think they need to be changed, but I do think that sometimes if someone is convicted of a crime several times something needs to be done. If nothing else they are a very stupid criminal and someone is going to get hurt. But Paul just says in this case we should forgive and forget.
Again, it is very confusing to kids. This guy rapes a girl, posts the rape on the internet and gets a year of probation, and you tell me that there are consequences. Adolescents, and developmentally challenged adults, which includes a large part of the population, think they are invincible and will tend to over estimate the odds that they will get away with stuff. If we are not sending every kid to jail for a few days who tries to buy alcohol with a fake ID, then what gets out on Twitrer is not that fake IDs are dangerous, but that you probably won't have any consequences so the risk is worth it.
It is the same thing with guns and dangerous products carried onto airplanes. In most cases, the TSA will just confiscate or destroy. There are no real consequences. Therefore if a terrorist organization wanted to destroy a plane, all they would have to do is setup multiple agents to go to multiple airports until one eventually got through. There is nothing the TSA does to keep this from happening. If you are a licensed gun owner, just say you forgot it was there. The harmless compenents to make a strong acid that can eat away the skin of the plane stored in your shampoo, will just be thrown away.

--
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Re:These people must be terminally stupid.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 17:34 · Score: 0

Violent criminals are basically by definition terminally stupid, this includes many many cops. That's why police forces are so pissy about being filmed, leaking emails, etc. They know their actions are basically criminal
Re:These people must be terminally stupid.... by cold+fjord · 2014-01-11 19:07 · Score: 0

These people must be terminally stupid.... Post-Snowden, even the most clueless moron must know that social media are under constant surveillance and that all said there is being recorded.
Let us now compare two bodies of knowledge G and T, for which G = gweihir, T = local thug, in which we define
Knowledge of Snowden as S where high S = 100
Knowledge of Rap, crime, and the 'hood' as RCH where high RCH = 100
Making some broad assumptions, we now have:
G = S/1 + 15/RCH
T = RCH/1 + 1/S
By incorporating knowledge of the Koran K, where high K = 100, for extremists E into the scheme we can extend this to terrorism.
G = S/1 + 5/K
E = S/15 + K/1
From this we can conclude that local thugs will still go to jail since they pay no attention to Snowden, fewer terrorists will be caught since they do pay attention to Snowden, and Gweihir's music tastes will be criticized by T and knowledge of the Koran by E, but he will remain out of prison and free to mock E & T for ignoring Snowden.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:These people must be terminally stupid.... by SuricouRaven · 2014-01-11 23:43 · Score: 1

The NSA isn't concerned with street crime. Or crime in general. They can't use their vast powers for law enforcement, as that would mean revealing sources in court. Classified sources. At most they may take part in some 'parallel construction' techniques - sending a bit of off-the-record information to police that can't be used in court, but can be used to more easily obtain evidence that can, like telling them which car to stop for a 'random' drug search.
Re:These people must be terminally stupid.... by oscrivellodds · 2014-01-12 03:01 · Score: 1

Post-Snowden, even the most clueless moron must know that social media are under constant surveillance and that all said there is being recorded.
Posting something to the internet IS recording, whether or not the NSA or anyone else is looking at it in real-time.
Re:These people must be terminally stupid.... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 03:46 · Score: 0

This is great now vigilantes can make a kill list off of Facebook.
Re:These people must be terminally stupid.... by riondluz · 2014-01-12 07:17 · Score: 1

"Guns, Drugs and Money"...
Sounds like the American Way!
It's what we, as a nation, do best:)

--
resist propaganda
Re:These people must be terminally stupid.... by cusco · 2014-01-12 07:39 · Score: 1

I haven't heard of the NSA informing law enforcement organizations of anything in years, probably since Ronnie Raygun's time. The CIA and DEA on the other hand make sure to point out which cars NOT to stop so that their "confidential informant" (i.e. buddy who is giving them kickbacks) is left alone.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin
Re:These people must be terminally stupid.... by SuricouRaven · 2014-01-12 19:05 · Score: 1

Of course you havn't heard of it. That's the point. The NSA may or may not lend some support to law enforcement operations, but if they do then they'll be careful not to let the general public find out.
Re:These people must be terminally stupid.... by gweihir · 2014-01-13 18:30 · Score: 1

In fact, they are known to inform the DEA, FBI routinely, but have the DEA, FBI, etc. commit perjury by "parallel construction". How this works is simple: The DEA, FBI, etc. make up a credible fairy-tale about how they could have gotten the evidence directly. Then they claim in court and under oath that the fairy-tale is the truth. As they are part of the police-state establishment, nothing happens to them for this highly criminal act.
As to how dangerous this is, just consider that the next step is to make the evidence up completely. As it is digital, the accused does not stand a chance, unless there is rare conflicting evidence (for example, the defendant was in a coma at the alleged time of the crime), which only ever happens if the liars screwed up and did not do their research.

--
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.

Re:The President's Son flashed guns on the Interne by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 16:30 · Score: 0

The President has 2 daughters. What the hell are you jabbering on about?

Re:The President's Son flashed guns on the Interne by sumdumass · 2014-01-11 16:34 · Score: 1

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/obama-if-i-had-a-son-hed-look-like-trayvon/

He is referencing a comment Obama made and taking it to an extreme.

Re:The President's Son flashed guns on the Interne by Mashiki · 2014-01-11 16:36 · Score: 2

He is referencing a comment Obama made and taking it to an extreme.

Nah, he's referencing a comment that Obama made, which the race baiters took to extremes, and those who are tired of it have flipped back on them.

--
Om, nomnomnom...

More Reasons by The_Star_Child · 2014-01-11 16:37 · Score: 1

We'll be giving up our liberties. You don't want these murderous thugs getting away now, do you?

Re:More Reasons by cold+fjord · 2014-01-11 17:13 · Score: 1

Could you expand on that claim a bit? The only people I can see "losing their liberties" over this are the thugs providing evidence by advertising their crimes on Youtube. You'll losing their liberties by conviction for their crimes and going to jail. You seem to think there is more to it than that. Could you provide some details?

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:More Reasons by sumdumass · 2014-01-11 17:14 · Score: 1

You won't need to give up any liberties. In order for these new found thug tactics to be effective, they have to be in the open which is about like taking an ad out in the news paper, placing a sign in your front yard or someone else's yard or something. There is nothing wrong with the cops reading the news paper or looking at billboards or even looking at your public postings on social media.

Re:The President's Son flashed guns on the Interne by sumdumass · 2014-01-11 17:07 · Score: 1

So are you trying to say there was a point to his idiocy other then making an ass of himself?

I mean otherwise, we are saying the same things, you just attempted to sugar coat it with some sort of admiration or something mixed with a bit of racism. Please explain your point a little more.

And the typical UK response will be... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 17:14 · Score: 0

Think of the children!

Oh won't someone please think of the children!

Legal question by Okian+Warrior · 2014-01-11 17:19 · Score: 3, Interesting

One thing I've wondered about of late is the reliability of evidence collected on the internet.

We've heard cases where someone was arrested because they admitted to something on Twitter, or had a picture of themselves doing something wrong on Facebook, and so on.

Absent any other evidence, is admission of guilt on the internet sufficient to convict someone in ideal circumstances?

Does anyone here with legal knowledge know the answer?

(I understand that you can get convicted of anything for any reason, and even for no reason, but I'm wondering about theory here. What's the situation, given an honest judge and correct representation?)

(And no, I'm not seeking legal advice on the internet since I'm not accused of a crime.)

Some examples of late: picture of teenager holding a beer (or holding a joint) leads to alcohol/drug charges, tweeting that you were driving drunk, and so on.

Re:Legal question by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 17:49 · Score: 1

Being a resident of Toronto, and having a mayor that has admitted in real life to smoking crack with known gangsters, no I would say admission of guilt alone is not enough. There has to be more specific evidence. Heck the police have a video of him smoking crack taken from a gang raid, and he's still running our city.
*I would point out that I have no issue with his crack use, just the lying about it, and his "zero tolerance" regarding gangs.
Re:Legal question by Guest316 · 2014-01-11 18:49 · Score: 1

Probably depends on how expensive a legal team you can hire.
Re:Legal question by cold+fjord · 2014-01-11 18:51 · Score: 1

INAL, but I do have some knowledge. As always you should seek the advice of a lawyer for sound legal advice.
The answer is, it depends. Having a video tape of yourself committing a crime, or that contains photographic proof that you are involved in some way (e.g. possessing stolen goods) will almost certainly be enough to provide probable cause for an arrest and investigation, and even an indictment. It may or may not be enough evidence to get you convicted depending on the circumstances and body of law. In some cases it may make the trial a slam dunk for the prosecution. In others the evidence may not be enough to get to the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt," if it applies in that case. You should generally assume that making such a video or statement won't be much different than finding yourself on a security camera performing those actions, except you provided the camera. It will be a hard sell to explain that away to a jury, especially if there is other evidence of your participation. If you've pulled off a hoax, you better hope you can prove it, and that the hoax doesn't match a real crime. If you've falsely stated in some way (twitter, blog, etc.) that you committed a crime, you better find an alibi or some kind of proof that your statement was false, otherwise you could be stuck. Also, keep in mind that the standards of proof and available punishments vary depending upon the authority you may be subject to. Schools versus the city versus the state versus the Federal government could potentially all have an interest in a particular set of actions, but have very different reactions to it. Colleges have become notorious for disciplinary codes that are almost as fair as kangaroo courts, for example.
The Politics of Campus Sexual Assault
The old advice of, "Don't do the crime if you can't do the time." applies. I would also recommend caution about hoaxes and exaggerations to make yourself look like a "bad ass." Always save the receipt, have an alibi, and proof your hoax was a hoax. I won't recommend that criminals stop filming their highly entertaining and informative videos of their exploits. ;)
We'll save discussions of the affect of videos and social media on insurance claims or employment prospects for another time.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Legal question by cold+fjord · 2014-01-11 19:04 · Score: 1

To expand on my previous comment....
I don't think you would want to have to explain away a video like these. They are well into slam dunk prosecution territory.
2nd Video of Baltimore Tourist being Stripped and Beaten
Crazy Vandals destroy house but get their comeuppance!

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
Re:Legal question by KingOfBLASH · 2014-01-12 00:39 · Score: 1

More importantly, can the pictures be trusted in a world of Photoshop.
If it's one picture, it should be taken with a grain of salt.
My sister affectionately refers to my niece as "the little monkey." So I photoshopped giant monkey ears and some hair on her and sent it to my sister. Everyone laughed. But if you found it on my facebook, believe me, it wouldn't be evidence my niece is the missing link.
I could see it being "cool" to photoshop the equivalent of a scar face photo.
And maybe if someone was out to get you, it would make sense to do all the photoshopping necessary to create this evidence.
Re:Legal question by mikael · 2014-01-12 01:03 · Score: 1

There has to be physical evidence. Having a video someone snort white powder up their snozzle, isn't going to be enough. You'd need a sample of that white powder to put in an evidence bag Then you have to prove that the evidence bag hasn't been tampered with. The only way to achieve that chain of events is to stake out a place with concealed cameras, have officers ready to make arrests and forensic technicians to gather all the evidence. Even then, all that work can be undone when the crime lab goofs up the testing or the files "go missing".

--
Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads

Fuck you by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 17:33 · Score: 0

Im so badass I show my gunz and bitchez on utube. And if u insult be in the comments u is a dead nigga. West side fo lyfe homiez

Sequel to the movie 'Gangs of New York'... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 17:59 · Score: 1

is 'Gangs of Facebook'.

Just doesn't have quite the same impact.

This just in... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 18:18 · Score: 1

criminals are still stupid, and its spreading.

Film at 11.

time to ban groups with mob or gang in there name by Joe_Dragon · 2014-01-11 18:32 · Score: 1

time to ban groups with mob or gang in there name from the web and if so groups useing names with them in part will get banned even if they are not even a law breaking group.

Re:Online footprints nearly reach fingerprint pari by Paradise+Pete · 2014-01-11 18:42 · Score: 2

the criminals won't stop at just one crime, they can even turn around and cyber-bully the officer who took them down

I know "bullying" is the new magic pass-phrase, but is that really bullying? He threatened the cop and got arrested for his trouble. Nobody seemed "bullied" to me.

Canadian version by ArcadeMan · 2014-01-11 19:04 · Score: 1

Look at what he puts out about himself on social media. Here he is with a spork.

--
Get free satoshi (Bitcoin) and Dogecoins

No, not all criminals are stupid by knorthern+knight · 2014-01-11 19:11 · Score: 2

We only catch the dumb ones, the low-hanging fruit. The smart criminals, by definition are smart enough not to get caught.

--

I'm not repeating myself
I'm an X window user; I'm an ex-Windows user

Re:No, not all criminals are stupid by cusco · 2014-01-12 07:55 · Score: 1

Or become bankers or lawyers.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin

Old and not news by edibobb · 2014-01-11 19:14 · Score: 3, Informative

This has been used on slow news days for years. 2012, 2011, and 2006, for example.

Re:Old and not news by lxs · 2014-01-11 21:03 · Score: 2

It does have poor people with guns and that newfangled internet thingy in it. Perfect for preying on suburban fears and getting pageviews.

Re:Online footprints nearly reach fingerprint pari by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 19:21 · Score: 0

Unless they've committed a crime other then bragging about what gang there in, or brandishing a weapon. I do not see this as "evidence" this is why they use social media, and if they get busted it only becomes a badge of honor among gangs. Even more so when they keep there mouths shut and do there time. Between the cops and media/press which has done wonders for free advertising of gangs, this is only going to help continue the appeal of joining or wanting to be in a gang.

This will become a SCOTUS issue at some point, unless there committing a crime that can be proven with witnesses, videos and social chat, shouldn't be evidence nor should it be used to build a "profile" by the already out of control police state, this is a blatant violation of rights.

More to the point someone can talk about killing and if that person ends up dead they're targeted as a suspect, that person had nothing to do with killing or hiring someone to kill them, his words were taken out of context and literally used as evidence. AKA he talked shit!!

This will apply to regular folks that do things they feel and aren't considered crimes. The "White Power" movement used the internet long before social media, and all you had to do was use a search engine to find the sites, posting all kinds videos, forums, not that far off from what is going on social sites, blatant talk of killings, beating and other crimes. And the police or government agencies cannot use this as evidence nor can they bust the groups or shut down the sites, under the Constitution they have rights [whether you or I find it right or wrong]

And using social sites you would still have to do some type of search to even notice the existence of these gangs. It is much better to just cause havoc get busted and wait for the media/press to boast about your gang.

Stupid is as Stupid does by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 19:40 · Score: 0

Post-Snowden, even the most clueless moron must know that social media are under constant surveillance and that all said there is being recorded.

Like that one famous philosopher said:

Stupid is as Stupid does

As Dr Johnson would have said: by gidds · 2014-01-11 20:19 · Score: 1

"When a man is tired of the Internet, he is tired of life; for there is on the Internet all that life can afford."

--

Ceterum censeo subscriptionem esse delendam.

'on the internet' by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 21:44 · Score: 0

more non-news FUD filler from the AP. Could even be a feeble attempt to drum up support for war-on-the-internet aka 'cyberwar'.

"Criminals commit crime - on the internet! {cue gasps} News at 11."

Give it a rest, slashdot.

Good by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-11 22:23 · Score: 0

Let them scream at people on the net instead of lambasting, stabbing, mugging and beating people on the streets. Wait, it does not work that way?

Great News !! - dumb criminals = easy catch by burni2 · 2014-01-11 23:19 · Score: 1

Have no criminals learned from D(r)ead Pirate Roberts ?

The more you conspire in the open and don't cover your tracks(which is extremly hard) ONE link between you and your secret identity is busted.

Re:Great News !! - dumb criminals = easy catch by SuricouRaven · 2014-01-11 23:46 · Score: 2

He had a good run though. Ran the internet's premier public drugs trading website for years before the law finally caught up with him. I think that's quite impressive. He should have quit once he was wealthy enough to never have to work again - taken his millions, destroyed the site and all evidence, emigrated and disappeared. He didn't know when to quit.

Re:Online footprints nearly reach fingerprint pari by SuricouRaven · 2014-01-11 23:37 · Score: 1

As a general rule, anything in which the word 'cyber' appears can be dismissed. This has been the case ever since popular misuse of the term 'cybernetics' caused its meaning to shift.

Easy solution by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 00:04 · Score: 0

Everybody post pictures of themselves, lightly photoshopped, with a baggie of something and something that looks like a firearm.

Post pictures of all your friends, and tag them. Post pictures of all the prosecutors, all the judges, and all the senators, representatives, governors, and presidents, all with a gun and a baggie. Tag them all.

AC for obvious reasons...

Jury Selection by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 00:20 · Score: 0

Another thing - If they can use it in court, they can use it in jury selection.

Or dismissal.

AC

Re:Are WHITE people doing this? by cold+fjord · 2014-01-12 01:03 · Score: 1

I don't think you have the whole picture.

Crazy Vandals destroy house but get their comeuppance!

Besides that, people of all races belong to gangs.

--
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell

good person with gun by fche · 2014-01-12 01:06 · Score: 1

"I'm a good person. I've never held a gun,"

That juxtaposition suggests the speaker cannot imagine that good people can hold guns.

Re:good person with gun by chuckugly · 2014-01-12 05:23 · Score: 1

Yes, that was the first thing I noticed too. The thing about proving someone is lying I get, the initial supposition that, as you say, good people wouldn't hold guns speaks volumes about how screwed up our world has become.

All well and good.... by TheCarp · 2014-01-12 01:10 · Score: 2

but... it seems to me a more effective strategy would involve...I dunno...maybe they should stop funding the gangs by providing them with the profitable drug market to draw from and buy their guns in the first place?

The police and their politician masters created the gangs....again. Just like they did back in the 20s.

--
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"

Re:Online footprints nearly reach fingerprint pari by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 01:18 · Score: 0

Online footprints nearly reach fingerprint parity

And, since the criminals won't stop at just one crime, they can even turn around and cyber-bully the officer who took them down

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2013/02/alleged-gang-member-cyberbullies-cop-on-facebook.html

-- just another casual observation on why gang members can sometime gather notoriety for being as dumb as regular social media users.

Just a casual observation about social media. The biggest crime going on there is 99% of the content, which is usually so idiotic it should be illegal. Don't expect actual criminals to act any more intelligent because of that moronic tool.

"Here he is with a gun." by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 01:32 · Score: 0

Is the accused allowed to see the evidence that will be presented in court beforehand, or is that a rule that only applies when the accused is rich and has a good lawyer?

If people are claiming in court that they have never held a gun and then having pictures of them holding a gun shown to the jury then it sounds to me that those people are not being properly advised and are therefore not receiving a fair trial.

Re:"Here he is with a gun." by cusco · 2014-01-12 08:03 · Score: 1

Two really obvious possibilities occur to me. First, the photo could be entered as evidence after the statement, to rebut the defendant's testimony. The other is that public defenders (which is all most of these morons can afford) are far too busy to look through all the evidence for every one of the mountains of cases that are piled on their desk. (Overwhelming the defense with a mountain of last-minute evidence is a very old prosecutors trick.) Of course there's also at least one more possibility, that the defense attorney really believes society would be better off if this dirtbag were off the streets so throws the case, but that's fairly rare.

--
"Think about how stupid the average person is. Now, realise that half of them are dumber than that." - George Carlin

Police in 2050 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 01:38 · Score: 0

99% of them will be hanging on facebook, twitter, and porn / warez forums all day.

The newest way to testify against yourself by hessian · 2014-01-12 03:19 · Score: 1

Your social media information is public, even if you've specified "friends only." This makes it a treasure trove for any investigator.

While we're all in high gear about NSA surveillance, what about the greater likelihood of giving ourselves away by reckless use of our own personal information?

--
Futurist Traditionalism

I think I got away with it by gnasher719 · 2014-01-12 08:39 · Score: 1

.. was what some defendent in the UK posted on Facebook when it looked like there wasn't quite enough evidence to convict him. Which was reported to the judge. Who took it as an admission of guilt, and the guy got convicted.

Why is there not a law. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-01-12 12:45 · Score: 0

Like conspiracy to create a criminal organisation and give all these gang members life.

Slashdot Mirror

Tweets and Threats: Gangs Find New Home On the Net

144 comments