Slashdot Mirror
In Florida, Secrecy Around Stingray Leads To Plea Bargain For a Robber
schwit1 writes The case against Tadrae McKenzie looked like an easy win for prosecutors. He and two buddies robbed a small-time pot dealer of $130 worth of weed using BB guns. Under Florida law, that was robbery with a deadly weapon, with a sentence of at least four years in prison. But before trial, his defense team detected investigators' use of a secret surveillance tool, one that raises significant privacy concerns. In an unprecedented move, a state judge ordered the police to show the device — a cell-tower simulator sometimes called a StingRay — to the attorneys. Rather than show the equipment, the state offered McKenzie a plea bargain. Today, 20-year-old McKenzie is serving six months' probation after pleading guilty to a second-degree misdemeanor. He got, as one civil liberties advocate said, the deal of the century.
Plea bargaining should be illegal as a circumvention of the judicial system.
He's a petty thief The police are violating the constitution, and completely ignoring the rule of law. For all intents and purposes the cops are the judge, jury and executioner, with a badge and gun.
The police were able to avoid a trial, which is one of the major ways that the legal system has been subverted. The penalties are so draconian that even innocent people plead guilty, because if they don't they will be held forever.
Here's a current example from Montana.
That's right. Life in jail for showing fake nipples three times. Of course they backed off on it, but the fact that this was even considered shows how corrupt the law has become.
Why is Snark Required?
Congratulations, you just reinvented the concept of "outlaw". The original idea was that law protected the law abiding. Those who broke the law had the aegis of the law removed and thus anyone could harm the outlaw in any way without legal repercussion.
Interestingly, originally courts required that defendants recognize their authority before the court could try them. Defendants who refused to do so were subjected to various coercions. The coercive method of choice was "pressing".
Here's one bad mother fucker who refused to submit to the state... read his last words: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giles_Corey
In other legal news from the great State of Florida, the Charlotte County Sheriff’s Office has been caught recording defendants' privileged conversations with their attorneys, and, on occasion, providing said recordings to prosecutors.
Hey, other countries get along fine without civil rights. Who needs 'em, amirite?
http://www.winknews.com/2015/0...
Because they are unwilling to disclose the use of these devices it is possible that
a very long list of prosecutions will be undone including this plea should the information
see the light of day.
There is some reason to believe that a court order to demand the police retain all records could be justified.
It is not clear if the records can be released but this and other actions with these tools implies the legal footing
is not clear and that the tool is astoundingly broad and effective in what it gathers.
I might note here that it has been recently disclosed that the keys to SIM card codes
have apparently been stolen by one or more TLA. http://www.ign.com/articles/20...
One article gave a four year window to this key theft perhaps more.
If these devices are sold and if these stolen keys are involved it gets interesting.
Truth is stranger than fiction, but it is because Fiction is obliged to stick to possibilities; Truth isn't. Mark Twain.
Lol..
Suppose someone robbed you with a .45 but they claimed it was just a BB gun when caught. Does that make you a fool for belirving the BB gun could kill you when you went to the ATM and withdrew the max your accout allows to stop this guy from killing you?
The problem is not if the weapon could cause harm but if you believed it would and thereby was forced to act in ways you wouldn't to protect your life.
6 months probation for committing an armed robbery? That's nuts.
From the victim's perspective, he thought his life was in danger because it likely looked like a real gun. From the perpetrator's perspective it was a bluff, but the victim didn't know that. In most states the victim could have used deadly force to defend himself and easily gotten away with it. Even the best police department wouldn't have even blinked if an officer shot him with it. And it's not like it's impossible to seriously hurt someone with a BB gun.
Further, the perpetrator showed the willingness to use violence and the implied threat of death to accomplish a robbery. It's reasonable to assume this person is dangerous and a threat to society -- maybe next time he has a real gun, and the time after that he's willing to pull the trigger.
The fact that he stole pot doesn't matter. If this same guy had robbed your grandma's purse with a BB gun would it still seem like a 6 months of probation crime?
This all hinges on what "that money" is.
Sure, they repaid with interest "that money" which was their bailout, fronted by taxpayers when nobody else could loan cash.
But if "that money" refers to all the losses they caused to investors, losses to businesses incurring cash flow problems they wouldn't have had, losses to individuals whose homes dropped in value and were foreclosed, and the huge amount of financial loss and pain felt by pretty everyone else who works for a wage, especially people paid off work, I'm pretty sure those bankers never repaid any of "that money".
PJRC: Electronic Projects, 8051 Microcontroller Tools
So, armed robbery isn't a violent crime because they were only pretending that they would kill me? I know that the weapon in this case was a BB gun, but someone who uses the threat of violence to get money isn't in the same category as a common thief. If someone pulled a BB gun on me during a robbery, I would attempt to shoot them to save my own life.
1> I have no idea that the BB gun isn't a real gun.
2> Regardless of the criminal's words, I have no knowledge of their real intentions or capabilities beyond what they present to me.
3> I can't take their word that they only want my money, since they've already shown (by threatening my life) that they value life below property.
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
6 months probation is about right for what he did anyway. I can't believe they're clogging prisons with petty criminals like this then turning violent criminals out because of over crowding. A BB gun as a deadly weapon? They're turning the legal system into a farce with that kind of bullshit.
Actually a BB gun can seriously injure someone. I was hit with a BB once (accidental) mind you, hitting me on my knuckle. That dig itself in bad. I do not want to think what it could do to an eye.
== the following below are generalizations of what the law says, counting variations across different jurisdictions within and outside the US ==
By law, a "deadly weapon" is not just a weapon that can kill for certain, but that has the potential to cause a serious injury that can lead to death. A BB to the eyeball at short range can do that. So can a rock being thrown to someone's face. In some jurisdictions around the world, a professional boxer's hands can be considered deadly weapons given that, unlike other people within their respective weight classes, professional boxes can kill someone with a punch to the temple.
The fact that using a BB gun has the potential to seriously injure someone makes its use a 3rd degree assault (potential to injury + recklessness). Use it to commit a crime and that shit by default ups it up to 2nd or even 1st degree depending of the circumstance.
Moreover, the law (as it should be) takes into consideration the state of mind of a potential victim. If the victim seriously thinks he is in physical danger, that is enough to bring a 3rd degree assault charge, even if the assault never takes place. This is more so if the person is put into a state of being scared of his well being or life while being subjected of a crime (then it goes to 2nd or 1st degree).
The person would have to know pretty well that the weapon is a BB gun and not a real gun. It is unreasonable to expect a person in a state of fright to recognize the two. If this were the case, one could argue I could attempt robbery with a fake gun (or a gun without rounds in it) and then claim in my defense that I did not use a deadly weapon. I hope I don't think I have to explain this one any further.
I disagree with you that 6 months probation was enough. This wasn't a harmless crime, and this person is a criminal.
I agree that we put petty criminals to jail too often. But armed robbery is not petty crime.
Breaking into a house when no one is there, and stealing a TV is. Cutting a bicycle chain to steal it, that is petty crime. Shoplifting is a petty crime. Selling bootlegged DVDs or dope is.
Armed robbery, subjecting a victim to a state of being afraid of his physical well being, that is not a petty crime.
What I'm really curious, and what I'm really afraid, and the real question of importance is: what the hell were the authorities so afraid to disclosed that they opted to drop charges and offer a plea. There is something absolutely wrong going on here if they have to cover that shit like that. That is the stuff we should we worried about.
Perhaps, but you have to break through the two party system first.
No, what you need to do is realize that when the Founding Fathers stated that there should be no less than 1 member per 30,000 people, there really should be no less than 1 per 30,000.
Sure the logistics are tough, but guess what? Plenty of problems get solved.
First - we don't need all 10,000 people to attend in person - it's just not possible. And since they're supposed to represent their local jurisdiction, they should do just that. Votes and everything can be done through telepresence. We certainly have the technology to manage 10,000 members easily enough. Hell, let's have them work from home - saves the need to pay for office space.
Second - we're not going to pay 10,000 members the outrageous salaries they currently get. No, we want them to be representative of their area - so we pay them based on the mean/median/mode of the earnings in their area. They work from home anyways, and their earnings reflect the region they're in. if it results in barely a living wage, well, extra incentive to bring up employment and earnings in their region, no?
Third, bribing 5001 people spread out geographically is a lot tougher. I mean, a billion dollar campaign contribution spread out over 5001 people is just under $200k each. Or $6.66 per person in their area. This means local funding is a lot easier to accomplish - if you have 10,000 people, and can get them to contribute an average of $50 each towards your cause, then that can easily override that $200K industry contribution.
And better yet, all you need is to get the courts to enforce it.
Using the existing rules to your advantage is the best way to enact change.