Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anti-Game-Violence Legislator Arrested, Faces Gun Trafficking Charges

Posted by Soulskill on from the should-have-stayed-home-and-played-GTA dept.

Several readers sent word that California State Senator Leland Yee was arrested today. He's accused of conspiring to traffic guns and commit wire fraud, to defraud citizens of honest services, and bribery. The complant (PDF) also names 25 other defendants. Yee is known for pushing legislation that would ban the sale of violent video games to minors. "Federal prosecutors also allege Yee agreed to perform official acts in exchange for the money, including one instance in which he introduced a businessman to state legislators who had significant influence over pending medical marijuana legislation. In exchange, the businessman -- who was actually an undercover FBI agent -- agreed to donate thousands to Yee's campaign fund, according to the indictment. The indictment also describes an August 2013 exchange in which [former school board president Keith Jackson] told an undercover officer that Yee had an arms trafficking contact. Jackson allegedly said Yee could facilitate a meeting for a donation."

42 of 234 comments (clear)

  1. Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. by Noishkel · · Score: 5, Informative

    There for a while he was pushing for a ban on a bit of a work around that 'gun-nuts' in California came up with to get around it's ban on so called 'Assault Weapons' A weird little device called a bullet button that makes it so that the magazine in a firearm can't be easier removed. Pretty clever work around for a completely asinine law.

    1. Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, yeah... making stuff illegal makes it more profitable, e.g. See "drug trade".

      --
      This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
    2. Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. by Immerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Great, so you're not a drug addict. Congratulations. Neither am I. But I nonetheless have a serious problem with the ridiculous expenditures on police and prisons, not to mention the militarization of the police force and increasingly invasive anti-drug measures being taken around the country. All of which is a direct consequence of the asinine and completely ineffective "war on drugs". That money comes straight out of my taxes, and could be spent on so many more socially productive endeavors. And it's my rights that are being potentially trampled on when police in military assault gear march on peaceful protestors, or kick in the wrong door in the middle of the night and start shooting.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      All freedom should be important to everyone. I'm not a drug user either, not even alcohol, but the war on drugs is anything but. It is a war on victims and it is destroying our neighbor Mexico.

    4. Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. by fuzzyfuzzyfungus · · Score: 5, Informative

      Could we please stop with the endless pro-drug commentary? Not all of us are drug addicts, and it's tiresome when people like yourself have to bring up drug issues in nearly every thread. I know it's important to you, but normal people don't care about such matters.

      You don't have to give a damn about drugs, pro or con, to admit that they are a useful example to bring up in the context of the effect of prohibition on the available margins in a given market.

      If you prefer a classier example, from a (not actually more civilized; but definitely better dressed) age; we can talk about booze. Same effects were seen under the Volstead act.

    5. Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. by Mr.CRC · · Score: 2
      Well if the cops just happen to get the wild idea that you might have some illegal drugs on you, you may find yourself in a hospital getting fucked up the ass by all sorts of medical apparatus, with no option to decline. Like this: http://www.policestateusa.com/...

      This is the monster we have created, and now have to live with. And it's starting to eat us. And you are not exempt from having one of these "mistakes" happen to you.

    6. Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. by jcr · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It makes perfect sense that a smuggler wants to outlaw whatever he's smuggling. The cocaine cartels don't want drug legalization either.

      -jcr

      --
      The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
    7. Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      but normal people don't care about such matters.

      Normal, decent people should care about excessive and unjust incarceration as a result of irrational and corrupt drug policies.

      And if decently and compassion don't compel you to care, you should at least care because drug laws cost you a boatload of money.

    8. Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. by Kirth · · Score: 5, Insightful

      > Could we please stop with the endless pro-drug commentary?

      It's not "pro-drug". It's "anti-prohibition".

      --
      "The more prohibitions there are, The poorer the people will be" -- Lao Tse
    9. Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. by Xest · · Score: 2

      To be fair though that doesn't mean drug legalisation is the solution to the particular problem you're describing, the solution to the problem you take issue with is simply to end the war on drugs.

      That doesn't have to imply legalisation, it's perfectly possible to keep drugs illegal but not militiarise the prohibition of them, that's what most countries do - America is exceptional in the extremes is goes to to police illegality.

      The problem you're describing is more symptomatic of America's powerful military industrial complex being out of control than it is legality of drugs because the problems you describe have been seen in it's war on terror, anti-arms trafficking operations, and in fact in general - proliferation of SWAT units and their use for minor things that have nothing even to do with drugs for example.

      What you're talking about is merely an example of the symptoms of the problem, not the problem itself. Legalise drugs and that problem will still exist, legalisation will solve some different problems however, though it may also create others (e.g. increase in drug driving deaths). Neither the growth of the US' military industrial complex nor the legal status of drugs are a simple problem, and neither have simple solutions. Those claiming legalisation is a panacea that will end organised crime and remove all drug related health problems are as full of shit as those that claim legalisation will cause the downfall of society and turn a nation into a nation of addicts. Long story short, there are very few rational and sensible voices in that particular debate, but at least the discussion about the problem you cite - the strength of the military industrial complex is a much more clear cut problem that can be dealt with in itself.

    10. Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. by pantaril · · Score: 2

      Could we please stop with the endless pro-drug commentary? Not all of us are drug addicts, and it's tiresome when people like yourself have to bring up drug issues in nearly every thread. I know it's important to you, but normal people don't care about such matters.

      If normal people realy don't care about such matters why are the drugs banned? Stop the ban on production and consumption of drugs and i'm sure the "drug addicts" will stop bothering you about it. If you realy don't care about it it should be no problem for you.

    11. Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. by king+neckbeard · · Score: 2

      Actually, it is a pretty simple matter. Legalization is going to be better overall than the current state. Moderate regulation may also be more beneficial, and would certainly be better than the status quo. Finding the ideal laws is no simple matter, but having better laws is a piece of cake.

      And you really are downplaying the role the war on drugs has played on the militarization of police forces and the curtailing of our rights. Civil forfeiture is more or less due to prohibition (and the organized crime that it inevitably brings), and civil forfeiture funds local police departments to buy SWAT gear. Furthermore, it feeds into the prison-industrial complex, which is a concern in the same league. Fixing everything is not a simple matter, but making improvements over clearly awful problems is one.

      --
      This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
    12. Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. by Xest · · Score: 2

      "Finding the ideal laws is no simple matter, but having better laws is a piece of cake."

      If you don't get the balance of regulation right and you end up with taxes on drugs to pay for some of the likely increase in health problems meaning the cost is high enough that poorer people can't afford them and stick with maintaining a black market anyway, whilst rich kids go and get off their heads and kill themselves and others in their parents cars more frequently in drug driving incidents then you've clearly fucked up. Do you know what the ideal balance of regulation and deregulation is? I know I don't, I very much doubt you do, and I suspect anyone who says they do is full of shit. The fact is the more regulation you have, the more of a black market you have - it's not a binary either or thing, and the more deregulation you have, the higher incidences of deaths through overdose/drug driving and other health problems.

      We can't even get the balance right with alcohol and tobacco and we've been trying for a rather long time.

      "And you really are downplaying the role the war on drugs has played on the militarization of police forces and the curtailing of our rights."

      No, I'm just making the claim that you can't prove such laws wouldn't have come about anyway and that the issue can be dealt with entirely separately.

      If you deregulate drugs and dent the cartels in Mexico you'll see higher incidences of other arguably more harmful trades with just as much violence such as sex slave trafficking and kidnapping. You'll also likely see more ex-cartel members ending up as guns for hire in destabilised areas like Syria - hell, you might even see a resurgence of groups like FARC as they find a sudden influx of willing supporters, as well as engaging in higher levels of weapons trafficking. I think this sort of thing has to be factored in and it has to be considered as to how you go about solving these problems as they arise beforehand, not after it's already happened. You would need coordinated action to disarm and dismember the cartels around the same time you perform whatever degree of legalisation you intend to implement.

      For what it's worth I am actually for some degree of change, because I agree that I think we can improve on the status quo, but I do not think that it is a given that if we deregulate that it will automatically be better, I think it has to happen slowly and carefully with plenty of funding available for academia to transparently measure and assess the effects of change.

      So I repeat my earlier point - anyone who thinks it's simple does not grasp the full scale of the problem and the multitude of factors involved. The global drug trade is worth over $300bn, that's not the sort of industry you can just make drastic and far reaching changes to overnight without there being massive consequences and effects. I agree that cannot be allowed to be an excuse for inaction on the issue, but it's also a warning that the problem needs to be better understood and argued by all sides so that a sensible plan for change can be implemented, not a "OMG JUST LEGALISE IT'LL ALL BE OKAY" plan.

      I think the status quo of slow legalisation of Cannabis state by state, nation by nation over a period of years is probably not actually a bad start. At least it's not going to send shockwaves through the industry and disrupt it too rapidly and uncontrollably.

    13. Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. by Apothem · · Score: 2

      > Could we please stop with the endless pro-drug commentary?

      It's not "pro-drug". It's "anti-prohibition".

      This is by far the best expression of the issue I have ever seen. The current laws totally mimic prohibition laws from the early 1900's. Seems more like history just keeps on repeating itself.

  2. What party was that again... by SuperKendall · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Rule of thumb:

    If it don't have a letter,
    It's a Democrat matter

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
    1. Re:What party was that again... by shizzle · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Let's see... the summary above doesn't mention party affiliation, and neither does the LA Times article it links to. How many other newspapers did you have to look at to find one where the affiliation is mentioned near the top? How many articles did you find where a Republican was accused of something negative but the affiliation wasn't mentioned?

      Just because someone points out evidence for their case doesn't automatically mean they're engaging in confirmation bias. Finding one contrary piece of evidence to bolster your side doesn't mean you're not.

      I'd say "lying" is a pretty over-the-top accusation.

    2. Re:What party was that again... by artor3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      How many other newspapers did you have to look at to find one where the affiliation is mentioned near the top?

      It was the very first one. NY Times is my go-to news source. But I can do some more.

      Next up is the Washington Post. I can't find this subject there, but here's their top article on corruption. Again it's a Democrat, and again that fact is in the second sentence.

      Now let's check the first corruption-related article in the Seattle Times. Another story on the mayor from the WaPo article. This time you have to read all the way to the fourth sentence to find his party affiliation.

      Get the point yet?

      This is a regular lie that Republicans trot out. They just love to play the victim. See also: "white Christian men are the most oppressed group in America".

    3. Re:What party was that again... by shizzle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Try again. The summary says nothing about party affiliation. The linked article in the LA Times says nothing about party affiliation. I looked at the top seven articles from a google search on "senator yee", and none mention his affiliation in the headline, while only three mention it within the first two paragraphs. Three others mention it near the bottom of the article (interestingly, all in the form of a transition sentence like "Yee's arrest would make him the third Democratic state senator fighting charges this year", leading into a discussion of other Democrats in trouble), and one (from CBS, not the LA Times one again) doesn't mention it at all.

      Show me a similar sampling of articles on a Republican corruption case where the party affiliation is not mentioned at or near the top of the article in anything approaching half the examples, and then we can talk.

      Again, you throw around the term "lie" pretty loosely. Ahem indeed.

    4. Re:What party was that again... by Anubis+IV · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Most people's first thought when a politician does something they disagree with: "Isn't this just typical of $political_party? Always doing $stereotypical_action."

      Between confirmation bias, the No True Scotsman fallacy, and the polarizing messages coming from the American political camps that are reshaping nearly every American's world views, the everyday Joe has an inordinate number of tools at his disposal to think exactly what I said above. They'll forget the good while making a point of remembering every wrong done by the other side, dismiss every wrong done by their own as someone who never really belonged, have those ideas reinforced by their preferred "news" sources, and get sucked into unproductive back-and-forth "debates" with the other side that only serve to divert attention and keep us from working together.

      I'm a Republican (or at least that's what the card says), and I have no idea what party this politician happens to be, nor do I care. I'd encourage you to stop making it a source of division. Because even if the media favors one side or the other, what I care about is that he's doing something reprehensible and sounds like he deserves some serious jail time. Anyone on either side of the aisle engaged in the same is also a scumbag that deserves jail time. Neither side supports the sort of thing he's doing, so blaming it on either party makes no sense, and focusing on his party does nothing to address the issue.

    5. Re:What party was that again... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 4, Informative

      If it was an (R), his party affiliation would be mentioned in the headline, not the body of the story.

      And honestly, there is a lot of hatred towards white Christian men. You really don't see it? It's like the entire left wing decided that the problem wasn't bigotry, it was that bigotry was being directed at the wrong group. I know you don't believe me, so here's some science:

      A lack of political diversity in psychology is said to lead to a number of pernicious outcomes, including biased research and active discrimination against conservatives. The authors of this study surveyed a large number (combined N = 800) of social and personality psychologists and discovered several interesting facts. First, although only 6% described themselves as conservative âoeoverall,â there was more diversity of political opinion on economic issues and foreign policy. Second, respondents significantly underestimated the proportion of conservatives among their colleagues. Third, conservatives fear negative consequences of revealing their political beliefs to their colleagues. Finally, they are right to do so: In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate.

      Composite scores of perceived hostile climate for conservatives (! = .85) were significantly correlated with political orientation, r(263) = .28, p At the end of our surveys, we gave room for comments. Many respondents wrote that they could not believe that anyone in the field would ever deliberately discriminate against conservatives. Yet at the same time we found clear examples of discrimination. One participant described how a colleague was denied tenure because of his political beliefs. Another wrote that if the department "could figure out who was a conservative they would be sure not to hire them."

      -- Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers, "Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology" http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf

      --
      Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
    6. Re:What party was that again... by Rockoon · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Again, you throw around the term "lie" pretty loosely. [Psychological projection link]

      Indeed. The Democrats do fall into psychological projection quite easily, and in fact this Yee guy is a case study. He pushed for heavy gun regulations precisely because he was right in the middle of easy gun trafficking. After all, if he is right in the middle of it, so must everyone else.. and something must be done if everyone has such easy access to gun traffickers.

      Republicans arent saints, but this projection syndrome isnt one of their flaws. Its all Democrats, When a Democrat politician calls their opponent something negative, its fairly likely that the Democrat making the claim is a closer fit to that negative than anybody opposed to him.

      "Racist!" Said by someone who pander to people based on the color of their skin. Isnt that pretty racist? So why they calling other folks racist? Projection.
      "Greedy!" Said by someone that demands that certain folk give more money to bloated government budgets. Isnt that pretty greedy? So why they calling other folk greedy? Projection.
      ....

      --
      "His name was James Damore."
    7. Re:What party was that again... by cpm99352 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Imagine how NPR would cover the ongoing (Executive branch) changes to the ACA if Bush were President.

    8. Re:What party was that again... by artor3 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I looked at the top seven articles from a google search on "senator yee"

      Let's go into detail on that then. Ignoring the Wikipedia page, we have:

      #1: Fox News - Waits all the way till sentence 18 to identify him as a Democrat. Are you prepared to argue that Fox is biased in favor of Democrats?
      #2: CBS - No mention. That's one.
      #3: ABC - Mentioned in the first sentence.
      #4: NBC - Mentioned, but several paragraphs down.
      #5: Mercury News: Mentioned in the first sentence.
      #6: Mentioned in the second sentence.
      #7: Mentioned in the 13th sentence.

      So it's only omitted once, and only really buried one other time. In every other case, you need to read 20 or fewer sentences. And the third "worst" is Fox News, who you can't possibly claim to be biased against Republicans. Do you really believe there's malice there? And not just reporters figuring that his affiliation doesn't have anything to do with his crime?

      I can't pull up a Republican, because I don't know of any who have recently been arrested. And if I Google "Republican arrested", I'm obviously going to get articles mentioning party affiliation. That's the brilliant thing about this lie that right-wing media outlets have been pushing. It won't be on your mind next time a Republican gets arrested, so you won't look for it. But whenever a Democrat gets arrested, you'll have some more fuel for your hatred.

    9. Re:What party was that again... by artor3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Republicans arent saints, but this projection syndrome isnt one of their flaws.

      Hahaha, holy shit, you can't possibly be that blind. Rush Limbaugh himself is an addict that rails against drug users. And how many homophobic Republicans have been caught in gay sex scandals? How many complain about wasteful spending, while throwing away trillions on pointless wars?

      Yet somehow you didn't think of any of that. They really have got you, haven't they? It's amazing what a steady diet of propaganda can do to a man.

    10. Re:What party was that again... by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      As an European, I find it hilarious that you bicker about what edge of The Party someone came from instead of realizing that it just doesn't matter what letter is next to someone's name.

      It's absolutely amazing to watch that fight. It's like watching two religious nuts fighting over who has the cooler imaginary friend, not realizing that they're both being bullshitted by the system behind it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    11. Re:What party was that again... by geekoid · · Score: 2

      "It's a factual rule of thumb."
      You don't know what the means, do you?

      It's cute that you think you personal observation actually has Merritt or is accurate in any way.

      If you want to be ignorant of science, and think you you observe if perfectly correct, that's fine by me, but shut the hell up until you have something substantial to back it up.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
    12. Re:What party was that again... by shizzle · · Score: 2

      " the odds are very high that the person is a Democrat"
      and thats false.

      How is that false? We have two examples right here (the LA Times article and the CBS article), and at this point, no counterexamples. I already explained how to find more examples via google. I'm not saying that proves it's true, but at least I have evidence. You're just making a totally unjustified assertion.

  3. Prohibition keeps the competition down. by Ungrounded+Lightning · · Score: 5, Insightful

    [Parent poster talks of ONE of his many anti-gun (i.e. anti-gun-in-private-hands) projects.]

    Prohibition of something means the illegal providers of it have less competition and can thus sell for a higher price. So it's very convenient for those sellers. Thus, for instance, drug lords are just fine with keeping the drug laws strong and complex, and opposed to legalization of their product (which would put them in competition with efficient conglomerates who could compete the pants off them).

    (Incidentially: I suspect Yee's opposition to video games was a spinoff of his antigun agenda.)

    By the way: Pro-gunners are celebrating tonight. (The call from a friend a few hours ago with the news made both my wife my own day. B-) )

    --
    Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
  4. Re:Of course marijuana is involved. by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If you want to make anything and crime go hand in hand, make that thing illegal. This has worked more times than there are rivets on the underside of your bridge.

  5. Re:Any actual police work? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Read the articles, the undercover officer met with Yee multiple times and gave him cash for a small initial shipment.

  6. Politicians are generally the bad guys now by GoodNewsJimDotCom · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Politicians like to keep pointing fingers at other people at being the bad guys so less people points fingers at them.

    As long as the law says it is legal to bribe politicians with campaign contributions, the only way someone will get in a significant office is if they're willing to take bribes. The system is designed to get crooks in office and keep honest folk out. Mandatory corruption is generally unsustainable in the long run.

    --
    God spoke to me
  7. We should all care a great deal by SuperKendall · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm a Republican (or at least that's what the card says), and I have no idea what party this politician happens to be, nor do I care.

    I myself am a Libertarian, and I DO care. I care very much that the press tries to harm as much as possible one major party and tarnish every member with the brush of a few lunatics, while shielding the Democrats as much as possible from any negative behavior by members and making sure that each and any infraction is isolated from any and every other Democrat.

    The reason I care is because the press is supposed to be the watchdog that keeps people honest. Instead it's busy rigging the game in conjunction with politicians, and if you don't care about that then all is lost.

    I'm not making it a source of division, I'm pointing out a major flaw with an institution that's supposed to keep politicians in check.

    --
    "There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
  8. Re:Any actual police work? by tsotha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Can you imagine a scenario where an FBI informant would be able to lead a principled gun control advocate down the path of importing machine guns and rocket launchers? Can you imagine a scenario where a clean politician is even associating with the head of the SF Chinese mafia?

  9. Re:All politics are local by Biff+Stu · · Score: 2

    In California, if there's a scandal, it's likely to be a Democrat, just based on the statistics. There are far more Democrats than Republicans in office. Furthermore, if you're in San Francisco, you're going to have a Democrat in office. It's the way the city votes. It's your job to pick a good one.

  10. Re:All politics are local by Biff+Stu · · Score: 2

    In recent news, a state senator from Montana (R) was arrested, and a tea-party-republican-congressman from Florida was also arrested. A Republican from Montana and a Republican from Florida. Who would have guessed that. It has nothing to do with Sacramento or party. Like I said, all politics are local. Especially corrupt politics.

  11. Re: Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too by reboot246 · · Score: 4, Informative

    He's actually a Democrat. It's not mentioned in the article, but he's definitely a Democrat.

  12. Re: Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun to by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Of course he is. If he were a Republican, it would have been in the summary in all capital letters, bold, italic, and blinking.

  13. Re: Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too by Talderas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The summary didn't mention party affiliation. Therefore it was safe to assume he is a Democrat.

    --
    "Lack of speed can be overcome. In the worst case by patience." --Znork
  14. Re:Makes Sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    California State Senator Leland Yee (D)

  15. Re:Makes Sense. by ganjadude · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I think you missed it the hypocritical part is him trafficking guns illegally well being an anti gun person publicly

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  16. Re:Any actual police work? by geekoid · · Score: 2

    What about entrapment?

    --
    The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  17. Re:Makes Sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Anytime a politician is arrested and the media doesn't report the party, you can assume that they're a Democrat