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.
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...
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
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.