Slashdot Mirror
CHP Officers Steal, Forward Nude Pictures From Arrestee Smartphones
sabri writes: Following the initial suspension of a California Highway Patrol officer earlier this week, news has come out that the CHP has an entire ring of officers who steal and subsequently share nude pictures. The nudes are stolen from women who are arrested or stopped. Officer Sean Harrington of Martinez reportedly confessed to stealing explicit photos from the suspect's phone, and said he forwarded those images to at least two other CHP officers. Where is the ACLU when you need them the most?
She was definitely deprived of her privacy.
A "no true Scotsman" argument is when one redefines terms in a contrived way. When you specifically choose your definitions to support your argument, rather than choosing generally agreed upon definitions, you are making a "no true Scotsman" argument.
This, and the other post you responded to, are not "no true Scotsman" sophistries. They are not redefining privacy, they are saying that it is a trivial invasion of privacy. An example of a "no true Scotsman" sophistry here would be: "this isn't an invasion of privacy, because it was police officers who obtained the photographs." Notice how it arbitrarily chooses to make an exception to the common definition solely for the sake of defending the argument.
If you are having trouble understanding logic and argument, the I suggest imagining yourself as an uninterested observer. It may take practice, but you'll eventually get the hang of it.
The Black Panthers had the only answer. The only thing that can stop a bad cop with a gun is a good citizen with a gun.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
And look what happened to them...
Federal Bureau of Investigation Director J. Edgar Hoover called the party "the greatest threat to the internal security of the country",[7] and he supervised an extensive program (COINTELPRO) of surveillance, infiltration, perjury, police harassment, assassination, and many other tactics designed to undermine Panther leadership, incriminate party members, discredit and criminalize the Party, and drain the organization of resources and manpower.[8][9][10][11]
Founded 1966
Dissolved 1982
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H...
Newton's last words, as he stood facing his killer, were, "You can kill my body, and you can take my life but you can never kill my soul. My soul will live forever!" He was then shot twice in the face by Robinson.[33]
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
Formally, a flash bang is a "stun grenade" and falls in the "less than lethal" category of offensive weapons.
Note it is not harmless, most people report significant temporary (1 year or less not 5-10 minutes ) or permanent hearing loss. If close to the detonation point, 2nd & 3rd degree burns are common. Vision problems (retinal damage, corneal burns, etc) are another frequent side effect.
These weapons are designed for high risk breaches, not raiding a house in the middle of the night to serve a search warrant after you've already arrested the suspect.
"ATLANTA - A family says a SWAT team raided their home in the middle of the night and seriously injured a 19-month-old boy with a stun grenade. Alecia Phonesavanh told Channel 2's Ryan Young her child is at the Grady Memorial Hospital burn unit, and is in a medically induced coma..."
Sources: (left-leaning) and (right-leaning).
Fuck the police.
I read the article on the hand grenade situation linked to by another replier to your post.
1. The cops were raiding a meth house, they had the right address according to the report.
2. They attempted entry via the front door with a battering ram and it was blocked. They thought it was a person pressing against the door so they tossed the flash grenade through the opening.
3. On discovering the infant they immediately go it medical care. Wished they knew it was there, would have used the side doors and no flash grenade.
Now unless that article is a total white-wash, it sounds like a tragic mistake. Like insurgents who hide their weapons behind children hoping to vilify their attackers, it seems quite strange someone would place a baby's crib blocking their own front door.
The way you post it... makes it like Officer Duke Nukem comes through the window... thinks "Where should I toss my grenade? Ahhh... that crib will do nicely!" and intentionally kills a child just to spite a criminal who doesn't even live in that house. I think most people imagine "hand grenade" and "flash grenade" to be very different things, it's interesting your choice of wording.
I agree that many officers abuse their authority and escape prosecution by cronyism. Exaggerating or twisting the facts does not help your argument. There's plenty of real and unquestionable abuse you can point to.
Cwm, fjord-bank glyphs vext quiz
Ever hear of Civil Forfeiture? They steal cars all the time. And cash. And houses.
Formally, a flash bang is a "stun grenade" and falls in the "less than lethal" category of offensive weapons.
Note it is not harmless, most people report significant temporary (1 year or less not 5-10 minutes ) or permanent hearing loss. If close to the detonation point, 2nd & 3rd degree burns are common. Vision problems (retinal damage, corneal burns, etc) are another frequent side effect.
These weapons are designed for high risk breaches, not raiding a house in the middle of the night to serve a search warrant after you've already arrested the suspect.
One more thing: flash-bang devices often ignite fabrics and papers, if they happen to land on them. The amount of heat they put out is quite intense, if brief, and the reason why tactical teams frequently wear either natural (cotton) or ablative (nomex) fibers on the outside. Imagine if a raid starts with the blankets of a crib catching fire while the baby's inside, and the parents can't do a thing about it because they've been put face-down on the floor, hands zip-tied behind them, hysterical while they have a cop kneeling on the middle of their back.
For your security, this post has been encrypted with ROT-13, twice.
No, it's called "asset forfeiture" and it does happen far too often. Hell, happening once is far too often.
In the US there are two kinds of asset forfeiture, criminal and civil:
There are two types of forfeiture cases, criminal and civil. Approximately half of all forfeiture cases practiced today are civil, although many of those are filed in parallel to a related criminal case. In civil forfeiture cases, the US Government sues the item of property, not the person; the owner is effectively a third-party claimant. [...]
In civil cases, the owner need not be judged guilty of any crime; [...] In contrast, criminal forfeiture is usually carried out in a sentence following a conviction and is a punitive act against the offender.
I don't want to put words in your mouth but I think the type of forfeiture you so strenuously (and correctly) object to is called civil asset forfeiture or civil forfeiture for short.
We don't see the world as it is, we see it as we are.
-- Anais Nin
I live near where the incident happened and that article is a total white wash.
1) the cops were raiding a regular old residential home where no drugs had ever been made or sold. The child belonged to another couple staying there after their house burned down. The person they were supposedly after was the son of the owners. He did not live there.
2) The door wasn't barricaded at all. If they had trouble entering it's because they need more time in the gym.
3) They moved a variety of toys that were in the yard aside before the entry was attempted. They KNEW (or at least any adult of normal intelligence would know) there were probably young children in the house.
As for the character of the department, they haven't made a public apology and claim it is illegal for them to pay any of the child's million dollar medical bill.
TL;DR version, the department is packed full of exactly the sort of human refuse they claim to be fighting against.