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."

27 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 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."
    6. 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.

    7. 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
  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 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.

    8. 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.
  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. 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
  6. 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?

  7. 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.

  8. 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.

  9. 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
  10. Re:Makes Sense. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    California State Senator Leland Yee (D)

  11. 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
  12. 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