Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

In Florida, Secrecy Around Stingray Leads To Plea Bargain For a Robber

Posted by timothy on from the it-looks-just-like-a-snipe dept.

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.

11 of 246 comments (clear)

  1. About right by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:About right by jpapon · · Score: 5, Insightful
      Seriously... what's the point of putting someone in prison for four years for that? If anything a sentence like that is just as likely to turn them to harder, more violent crime than rehabilitate them.

      It makes much more sense to give first time offenders for stupid crimes like this a year of probation, a significant amount of community service, and forced enrollment in some sort of vocational school / work program.

      You don't reform people by making them sit on their asses for four years talking to other criminals. You reform them by putting them to useful work.

      --
      -- Let us endeavor so to live that when we pass even the undertaker shall be sorry. -- M. Twain
    2. Re:About right by amiga3D · · Score: 5, Funny

      You must be the guy they stole the pot from.

    3. Re:About right by manwargi · · Score: 5, Insightful

      High recidivism is good for shareholders in privatized prisons. This is a system that profits more from harsher sentences and more prisoners, not fewer.

    4. Re:About right by Zaatxe · · Score: 5, Funny

      --- THIS IS AN AUTOMATIC MESSAGE, DO NOT RESPOND! ---

      A level 5 Slippery Slope was detected in your message. It is very dangerous and could start flame wars.
      Please retreat your argument before anyone gets hurt.

      Sincerely yours,

      AFD - Automatic Fallacy Detector

      --
      So say we all
    5. Re: About right by dasunt · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You don't consider the threat of being shot and then having your property taken a violent crime? The fact the weapon turned out to not be able to shoot bullets doesn't matter, nor should it.

      Assume a criminal has either the choice of a BB gun or a regular gun to commit a crime with.

      In scenario A, the BB gun is considered a lesser offense than robbing someone with a regular firearm.

      In scenario B, the BB gun is considered the same as robbing someone with a regular gun.

      Under which scenario do you assume that more people are held up with weapons that are actually capable of killing them? In which scenario are more crime victims shot?

      Being tough on crime sounds good, but it can have unintended consequences.

    6. Re:About right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So armed robbery is a crime you feel just fine letting someone out with a slap on the wrist? This is a violent crime (threatened deadly force), not a victimless crime like smoking that pot. This kind of action that is unacceptable. You may not prey on other members of society. If you do you are going to be removed from society for a long time.

      It is not important that he got only $120 in pot. He could have robbed someone that had nothing and gotten nothing, would that mean he did nothing wrong? It is not important that he only had a BB gun; He wanted the victim to think it was real and his life was under threat.

      Violent crime must be punished and this guy did get one hell of a deal because the cops don't want to disclose their actions. Keep in mind that this man who committed a violent crime (allegedly) is still able to buy and own a real gun with this misdemeanor on his record. Kind of makes a mockery of the law doesn't it.

  2. Call your congressman by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Call your congressman and ask them why they're using illegal surveillance tools to let criminals get away.

    --
    -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
  3. Now we know who is the bigger crook by Required+Snark · · Score: 5, Interesting
    The cops just showed that they are by far more dangerous criminals then the guy that they tried to put away.

    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.

    If you want to show your fake nipple in Montana, do it before HB 365 gets passed, or you could face a $500 fine and 6 months in the county jail. It could have been worse. The original bill called for "life imprisonment" for a third offense.

    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?
  4. Re: So law protects me even when on illegal activi by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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

  5. In other news ... by return+42 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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...