Anonymous Goes After Miami Police Officer Who Doxed An Innocent Woman (softpedia.com)

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Anonymous Goes After Miami Police Officer Who Doxed An Innocent Woman (softpedia.com)

Posted by BeauHD on Sunday February 28, 2016 @02:57AM from the an-eye-for-an-eye dept.

An anonymous reader writes: After Miami resident Claudia Castillo noticed a cop speeding down the freeway without a siren, she pulled him over and told him to stop going so fast. The cop's police union chief, Javier Ortiz, decided to take the woman's private details and put them on his Facebook account, asking friends to call her and give her a piece of their mind. Of course, harassment ensued. Now, Anonymous hackers have decided to return the favor and dox the police union chief as payback. For once, these hacktivists did something useful.

174 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Report + Judgment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 03:00 · Score: 4, Insightful

> For once, these hacktivists did something useful.
Up until that, the submission was good. Why the judgement in the summary? Is that trolling? Report - then let people discuss.
1. Re:Report + Judgment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 03:10 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  But it was anonymous that made the submission. Come on dude, pay attention.
2. Re:Report + Judgment by retroworks · 2016-02-28 03:19 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Wait, did they finish shutting down ISIS already?
  
  --
  Gently reply
3. Re:Report + Judgment by hey! · 2016-02-28 03:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Actually what might be useful is figuring out whether the officer misused confidential information in a way that is either illegal or against department policy.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
4. Re:Report + Judgment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 03:21 · Score: 0
  
  So it was you? Or was it me? I'm confused now.
5. Re:Report + Judgment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 03:30 · Score: 0, Insightful
  
  The whole post is stupid. Either your against doxing, then it is obviously wrong in both cases. Or you have nothing against doxing, then there should be no problem in both cases either.
6. Re:Report + Judgment by sumdumass · 2016-02-28 03:38 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  I was wondering the same thing. Either way, I don't think activity like this should be happening from a cop or any public official in response tto any public interactions from citizens regardless of any legalities. How can anyone be expected to peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances if they are harassed and menaced by that same government.
7. Re:Report + Judgment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 03:42 · Score: 0
  
  Either your against doxing, then it is obviously wrong in both cases. Or you have nothing against doxing, then there should be no problem in both cases either.
  Since when it this an either or situation?
  You can be against doxing in general and for doxing of someone who engages in doxing. The right to privacy is not inalienable.
  The concept that you've neglected is known as "waiver."
8. Re:Report + Judgment by Falos · 2016-02-28 03:58 · Score: 1
  
  Like this is the first time /. has put spin into the summary?
  
  Even choice of article is something an agenda causes. Even if the userbase gets tired of it after The Year of the YouKnowWhat.
9. Re:Report + Judgment by sumdumass · 2016-02-28 04:00 · Score: 1
  
  Or perhaps against it but knowing that the only way certain others will see the light is to experience the results of the it the same way as their victims did. In an ideal world, neither instance would have happened.
10. Re: Report + Judgment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  We are legion.
11. Re:Report + Judgment by ArchieBunker · 2016-02-28 04:08 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Cops can straight up murder someone and receive no punishment. I'm sure this guy will get the book thrown at him for misusing department computers.
  
  --
  Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
12. Re: Report + Judgment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 04:18 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  I don't know. The summary lost me at "she pulled him over".
13. Re:Report + Judgment by Immerman · 2016-02-28 04:26 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, eye for an eye punishments tend to be extremely effective deterrents, provided they're applied by someone who is immune to reprisal so that you don't end up in a multi-generational feud scenario. (Which is sort of the original point of a police force and judicial system)
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
14. Re:Report + Judgment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 04:46 · Score: 1
  
  Ah, so no incarceration, since holding people hostage is wrong, even if that person robbed a bank or maimed or killed someone.
15. Re:Report + Judgment by wnfJv8eC · 2016-02-28 04:49 · Score: 2
  
  Not only accessing database without cause, but if they were federal databases or cost the county money (credit ratings), that could be malfeasance in office. Accessing a federal database illegally, cause for federal felony charges. It's about time this privacy issue come the front. Government officials have a too cavalry opinion of themselves. More need to be in jail. I wonder if their databases have access logs along with a case number the access was authorized by. If not that would be a good start to keeping police officer's noses clean.
16. Re:Report + Judgment by justaguy516 · 2016-02-28 05:06 · Score: 2
  
  In natural law ethics, it is called the 'law of forfeiture'. When you attack somebody's fundamental rights, you forfeit your own.
17. Re:Report + Judgment by Lunix+Nutcase · 2016-02-28 05:17 · Score: 1
  
  So basically only effective in a theoretical world.
18. Re:Report + Judgment by Immerman · 2016-02-28 05:56 · Score: 1
  
  Not really. That's kind of the original purpose behind courts, police, and executioners. You get society to agree to hold certain groups immune from reprisal so that you can inflict punishment on the guilty while also interrupting the the cycle of revenge.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
19. Re:Report + Judgment by Lunix+Nutcase · 2016-02-28 06:20 · Score: 1
  
  Execpt that judges, prosecutors and even jury members have been murdered on numerous occasions for their involvement in the justice system. So again, only useful in a theoretical world.
20. Re:Report + Judgment by sjames · 2016-02-28 06:35 · Score: 1
  
  No, not really. There are plenty of actions that are acceptable in some circumstances and not others. For example, it is not a crime to kill someone who is trying to kill you.
  There is room to debate the ethics of doxing the cop who doxed a citizen. It is not OBVIOUSLY wrong.
21. Re:Report + Judgment by sjames · 2016-02-28 06:38 · Score: 2
  
  The imperfection of the immunity doesn't negate the general usefulness of the technique any more than the slim possibility that a fair coin can land on it's edge negates it as a source of random boolean decisions.
22. Re:Report + Judgment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 07:44 · Score: 0
  
  Article says internal affairs is investigating that.
23. Re:Report + Judgment by AthanasiusKircher · 2016-02-28 08:06 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Cops can straight up murder someone and receive no punishment.
  Technically, that's not true. Murder requires intent to kill, and it cannot be a "justifiable" homicide.
  If a police officer randomly targets someone and deliberately kills him/her with no provocation, they should be charged with murder -- and will be if the investigation is honest. (Yes, I know in practice that police are often corrupt and try to "protect their own," but legally, a cop is responsible in a situation like this.)
  The problems tend to come in more in the ambiguous cases, where there's some provocation or threat, and police did not attempt a less lethal solution even where one could have handled the situation. These are arguments about "judgment calls" that unfortunately tend to usually favor the police.
  Even more disconcerting, from my perspective, are cases that involve negligence or reckless disregard for safety. In most of those cases, police are generally granted straight-out immunity, even if their actions resulted in someone's death. Technically, these are NOT "murder," but usually some form of manslaughter or negligent homicide from a legal perspective. But police are rarely held accountable for such actions.
  Actual murder, though, with proven intent? If you have that, even a cop can be convicted and punished accordingly.
24. Re:Report + Judgment by epine · 2016-02-28 08:07 · Score: 1
  
  I felt there was a lot more of these trollish summary statements a while back. It would be nice to see this gone completely.
  Sure, it starts discussion, but it starts a bad discussion and then heroic posts to get the discussion back on track again, but by then half the readers have skimmed, gagged, and moved along leaving behind a trail of short sentences from contributors with the poorest sense of smell.
25. Re:Report + Judgment by sumdumass · 2016-02-28 08:33 · Score: 1, Insightful
  
  Why? Do you think their non peacful assemblage and petitioning of the government for redress of grievances was somehow trampled on by the government harassing and menacing them?
  Ferguson has little to no bearing on this as far as I can tell. And as far as the real record is concerned, the cops didn't really overstep their bounds in the shooting either. But that is another topic altogether.
26. Re:Report + Judgment by davester666 · 2016-02-28 09:01 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It is virtually impossible for a police officer to do such a thing, as you can tell by the number of convictions, terminations or even suspensions of a police officer for doing something "wrong".
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
27. Re:Report + Judgment by HiThere · 2016-02-28 09:23 · Score: 2
  
  You are responding as if you believe the police are being tried by an unbiased court. There is much evidence that cases doubt upon that assumption.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
28. Re:Report + Judgment by meerling · 2016-02-28 09:29 · Score: 1
  
  Anonymous has a huge tendency to target the wrong people and have done so very publicly many times. Just look it up.
  Shall we mention, for a small example, a certain credit card company that didn't use sufficient security with their customers data and it got stolen, so then Anonymous goes and posts the customers personal information. Wow, talk about targeting the victim! I guess they couldn't get around to posting the companies financials, or the details about the company officers so they'd know what it feels like....
  
  So anyway, since Anonymous actually seems to have targeted the right person this time, I think now would probably be a good time to look into investing in a ski shop in Hades.
29. Re:Report + Judgment by meerling · 2016-02-28 09:31 · Score: 2
  
  That would be to add additional charges to him, since I'm pretty sure doxing and cyberbullying are illegal in most of this country if not all of it.
30. Re: Report + Judgment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 10:50 · Score: 1, Informative
  
  By child you mean a hulking 6'+ teenager with a device deliberately modified to look like a real gun, who went to pull it from his pants when the cops went to make contact, then yes, a kid with a toy gun.
31. Re: Report + Judgment by phorm · 2016-02-28 10:52 · Score: 2
  
  Either way I'm fairly sure it counts as police harassment, which is also illegal.
32. Re: Report + Judgment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 10:59 · Score: 0
  
  I think the 'child' bit was a reference to hulking 12-year-old Tamir Rice.
33. Re: Report + Judgment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 11:28 · Score: 0
  
  I'm against bullying. I'm happy someone has punched the bully back. The person who punches the bully back may have committed an assault, but I'm still happy.
34. Re:Report + Judgment by hey! · 2016-02-28 12:05 · Score: 1
  
  While what you say is true, it may not apply in this case. In general juries give a huge benefit of the doubt to police in doing things which are justified in certain situations. Sometimes it's legitimate for a cop to split someone's head open with a night stick, to tase someone, or to shoot someone dead. There's a strong presumption that a cop doing these things is justified, because jurors are afraid of crime and don't want cops to be hampered by doubts. It's an irrational position, but it's understandable at least.
  None of that applies to cops doing things which they are never supposed to do, like stealing drugs from the evidence locker and selling them.
  
  --
  Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
35. Re:Report + Judgment by jthill · 2016-02-28 13:37 · Score: 2
  
  Murder requires intent to kill
  A person is presumed to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his voluntary act
  
  [Technically,] cases that involve negligence or reckless disregard for safety [...] are NOT "murder"
  Yes, they are. The line between manslaughter and murder is "behaves in a way that shows extreme, reckless disregard for life and results in the victim's death".
  
  --
  As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
36. Re:Report + Judgment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 16:53 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, they are. The line between manslaughter and murder is "behaves in a way that shows extreme, reckless disregard for life and results in the victim's death".
  Both manslaughter and murder results in the victims death. I don't see how that clause helps distinguish the two.
37. Re: Report + Judgment by samkass · 2016-02-28 17:04 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  You mean a 5' 7" 12-year-old who had a toy gun tucked into his belt while sitting on a swing, and which never left his belt in the 4 seconds it took the cops to fire on him after arriving on the scene nor the four minutes they allowed him to bleed out before the first officer attempted any sort of first aid? Who was shot by a rookie police officer whose weapons training was rated "dismal", was said to be unable to follow "basic functions as instructed", and showed a "dangerous loss of composure" in his previous assignment before being fired?
  Let's at least get the facts straight.
  
  --
  E pluribus unum
38. Re: Report + Judgment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 17:47 · Score: 0
  
  I find it interesting to note that you said "went to pull it from his pants", which implies that you understand that it was in his pants and thus the cops could not have known if it was a gun-type device at all, let alone whether it would appear real.
  And of course you when you say that he "went to" pull it from his pants, you admit that he did not actually do so, thus it's purely conjecture that he "went to" pull the gun from his pants.
  So what you're saying is that it's OK to kill somebody that you think might be reaching for something that might be a gun? I hope I never encounter you in real life!
  dom
39. Re:Report + Judgment by SuricouRaven · 2016-02-28 18:57 · Score: 1
  
  Anonymous has many factions. Sometimes they even target Anonymous.
40. Re: Report + Judgment by rtb61 · 2016-02-28 19:20 · Score: 1
  
  It seems likely she would be in a fairly good position to for a a colour of law prosecution by the FBI for infringement upon her rights as it is clear the intent is harassment this done in a conspiratorial fashion by the police union puts in into RICO territory and it's nature to alter the political stance of the individual with regards to their beliefs about police authority and accountability also counts as terrorist charges. The intent was to put the fear of death into the victim, taking into account the individual instigating the harassment, the position and power not only as a senior law enforcer but senior position in law enforcers union.
  
  --
  Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
41. Re:Report + Judgment by DarkTempes · 2016-02-28 20:53 · Score: 1
  
  I was lead to believe that training and escalation of force rules basically say that once an American cop is using lethal force that their intention is supposed to be to kill.
  As in, they're not supposed to aim for shoulder or leg or wounding shots -- they're supposed to do center of mass body shots that will put the target down / kill them.
  Most lethal force would still fall, arguably, under justifiable homicide but your "proven intent" argument seems poor.
  I could buy an ignorant, untrained person shooting a lethal firearm at someone else and not having an intent to kill but a trained officer?
  I think it's telling that our system is broken when countries like the UK can go years without their police killing anyone (or maybe even firing a gun) while our system kills at least 1000 people a year.
  Sure, in the grand scheme of CDC-tracked death causes, 1000+ people isn't really that many people but we can still do better. And the fact that we don't even have real statistics and media are having to track the fatalities themselves is also shameful.
42. Re:Report + Judgment by kmoser · 2016-02-29 05:32 · Score: 1
  
  If she pulled him over, how did the police ever get her name and address?
43. Re: Report + Judgment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-29 07:45 · Score: 0
  
  https://www.justice.gov/opcl/criminal-penalties
44. Re:Report + Judgment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-29 08:13 · Score: 0
  
  So it's OK that he did it to another citizen, but just because he wears a badge, he's "special"?
  If he had a legitimate reason to post that woman's information would be one thing, but he had none, aside from a sense of entitlement.
  Police are NOT above the law.
45. Re:Report + Judgment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-29 08:57 · Score: 0
  
  Cops can straight up murder someone and receive no punishment.
  Technically, that's not true. Murder requires intent to kill, and it cannot be a "justifiable" homicide.
  Or, if you live in Texas, just put them on a bicycle and run over them. In the thousands of cyclists killed in Texas, maybe a handful of those responsible have ever faced any kind of punishment. So yeah, you can murder someone and get away with it. You don't even have to be a cop.
46. Re:Report + Judgment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-29 09:02 · Score: 0
  
  "Government officials have a too cavalry opinion of themselves."
  They think they ride horses? WTF does that even mean?
47. Re: Report + Judgment by Agent0013 · 2016-02-29 09:18 · Score: 2
  
  And let's not forget the kid that got shot for having a candy bar in his hand. It isn't just pretend guts that get you shot by the above the law folks in blue!
  My favorite is how the Superintendent (not sure on the actual title) of the Chicago police though that the officer that shot another person who was unarmed should not even be investigated. No need right! They are a cop, then the laws don't touch them, so why even charge them and investigate. Yeah, the higher-ups like that need to be taken out with a few sniper rifles until the replacements realize we don't want a bunch of thugs breaking the law running around out there pretending to be a lawful organization!
  
  --
  
  -- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
48. Re:Report + Judgment by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-01 06:15 · Score: 0
  
  They made Apple unlock her iPhone.
Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 03:03 · Score: 1

One, how come the union haters are silent when it comes to the police union?

In the end, the whole story is even more ridiculous because Mrs. Castillo, as well as the cop she pulled over, Officer Fonticella, both have a history of bad driving....
The should know better an act professionally. Comparing Mrs. Castillo's driving to the cop's is asinine.
1. Re:Wait a minute by Daemonik · 2016-02-28 03:11 · Score: 1
  
  One, how come the union haters are silent when it comes to the police union?
  Because they need the police to protect them from the pissed off Union members they've been antagonizing.
2. Re:Wait a minute by sumdumass · 2016-02-28 03:45 · Score: 1, Flamebait
  
  Not in Florida. They can just stand their ground and relegate the police to a secretarial position.
  It is likely because in a lot of areas the police ditched the "to protect and serve" moto for the newer "to harass and menace" as illustrated by this story.
3. Re:Wait a minute by sethstorm · 2016-02-28 04:04 · Score: 0
  
  Only if you believe the line of those harassing cops, such as the blatantly racist BLM.
  
  --
  Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
4. Re:Wait a minute by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 04:49 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  If you think you're making a joke, the Colorado State Patrol literally carried the moto "We're your worst nightmare" for a while. Not their official moto, but they sure printed it on a lot of their official public communications. They were all posed around a Corvette trying to look as bad ass as possible, and clearly aimed at speeders, but even then, they're not supposed to be trying to be the speeders worst nightmare, they're supposed to try to keep the roads safe. A good police force should never want to be thought of as a worst nightmare.
Neutrallity of the "press" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 03:05 · Score: 1

>For once, these hacktivists did something useful.
Cmon.
1. Re:Neutrallity of the "press" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  That's only in the summary, not in the article
2. Re:Neutrallity of the "press" by Lunix+Nutcase · 2016-02-28 05:19 · Score: 1
  
  You give Slashdot for too much credence.
"For once, these hacktivists did something useful" by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 03:07 · Score: 0, Troll

I don't really follow Anony-moose's hacktivities all that much, but I think they've done some pretty alright things before.
Not sure why that final part was added in, really.
No - it wasnt useful by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 03:27 · Score: 0

An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
Better that the police chief be fired at worst and sued for civil and criminal damages and fired at best.
1. Re:No - it wasnt useful by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-02-28 03:32 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  Unfortunately, police who screw up usually can't be fired, and are insulated from any consequences by the legal system. In Los Angeles a cop, driving wile texting, plowed into a cyclist and killed him. The country prosecutor declined to indict because police privilege. Fortunately the cyclist was a Silicon Valley executive whose family had the resources to sue.
2. Re:No - it wasnt useful by geekmux · 2016-02-28 03:49 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, police who screw up usually can't be fired, and are insulated from any consequences by the legal system. In Los Angeles a cop, driving wile texting, plowed into a cyclist and killed him. The country prosecutor declined to indict because police privilege. Fortunately the cyclist was a Silicon Valley executive whose family had the resources to sue.
  As a cyclist, this is very upsetting to hear, especially in the aftermath of no prosecution and even a change.org petition failing to amass requisite attention.
  And unfortunately, simply because you have the resources to sue does not mean it will end in justice. Sounds like in this case the LA sheriffs office is hell-bent in labeling texting while driving completely legal as long as you're texting in the course of your law enforcement duties, even if you kill someone as a result.
  Not quite sure how much more fucked that concept can get when the entity of "Protect and Serve" legalizes vehicular homicide while Protecting and Serving.
3. Re:No - it wasnt useful by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-02-28 04:01 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  A more accurate version of that motto might be "Protect Ourselves, Bend Over So We Can Serve You."
4. Re:No - it wasnt useful by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 04:02 · Score: 0
  
  Yeah - At that point I'd have no problem with anonymous exposing the DA who wouldn't even bring charges or blindly protecting the union official to highlight the corruption in the system.
  Just returning fire on the union official, while emotionally satisfying, isn't solving any of those problems and, really, isn't even vigilante justice.
5. Re: No - it wasnt useful by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 04:06 · Score: 0
  
  The union rep started a campaign of harassment against the woman, encouraging officers to harass her. When the system is so corrupt that asshats like this can't be touched, do you just sit back and hope for divine retribution? Wait for Karma to kick in, as he's reincarnated as some kind of butthole parasite to better reflect his current spiritual status? Take it to the Pope?
  Of you're going to decry one method, at least provide an alternative.
6. Re:No - it wasnt useful by sumdumass · 2016-02-28 04:10 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  One of the news stations in Columbus Ohio did a story on something similar. They framed it as electronic distractions but highlighted an enormous amount of cop cars involved in accidents showing dashcam footage of cops plowing through crosswalks hitting people and such. There is a law about texting and driving but the chief said that the cops were exempt because they are trained professionals.
  What it boils down to is there are laws for us and law for them.
7. Re:No - it wasnt useful by Immerman · 2016-02-28 04:32 · Score: 1
  
  >An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
  Not if the punishment is applied by someone granted immunity for their actions - like say the police/judiciary acting in their approved legal capacity who were originally created in large part to interrupt the cycle of reprisals you get otherwise. In that case only the victims and perpetrators end up blind, and why should the perpetrators get off easier than their victims?
  And if the police/judiciary exceed their legal authority, then they're criminals and should be treated as such. Ideally with even more severe punishments than commoners since they have betrayed the public trust bestowed upon them with their position.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
8. Re:No - it wasnt useful by SylvesterTheCat · 2016-02-28 05:20 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  There is a law about texting and driving but the chief said that the cops were exempt because they are trained professionals.
  That's interesting. I would counter to the chief that because they are allowed to do something the general public is not allowed to do (as a result of being "trained professionals"), the consequences to them should be higher than the general public rather than being exempt.
  The same way that we hold licensed engineer professionals to higher standards, law enforcement should be held to a higher standard with higher rewards for demonstrated competence and higher punishments for demonstrated failure.
  On a related note, what exactly is it that makes these "trained professionals" better at texting while driving than the general public? Do they go through specialized training where they learn techniques of scanning the road while manipulating the phone? Do they go through a practical exercise and exam that involves a closed course with obstacles and are graded to a time standard and number of cones that can be hit? I am really curious about this.
9. Re:No - it wasnt useful by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 05:22 · Score: 0
  
  Oh my god! They ignored a change.org petitions? The fiends!!!
10. Re:No - it wasnt useful by Megol · 2016-02-28 05:46 · Score: 1
  
  Citation needed. As the ACAB crowd is relatively strong on this site I would like confirmation. In short:
  . Did the police (which is the proper name of the profession) text while driving? Were there evidence of that?
  . Did the prosecutor make a decision based on "police privilege"? I find that very unlikely, not having enough evidence is another thing and many people avoid criminal persecution because of weak evidence.
  Having the ability to sue and even settle isn't an indication if the prosecutor could have done a better job. The level of evidence required in a civil proceeding is dramatically lower than that in a criminal case! If the police in question didn't get financial support of some kind then he/she may have settled even when innocent!
  So again: Citation needed.
11. Re:No - it wasnt useful by phantomfive · 2016-02-28 05:52 · Score: 1
  
  There is a law about texting and driving but the chief said that the cops were exempt because they are trained professionals.
  I seriously doubt there is a training program police go to called "how to text and drive"
  I also doubt there's an exemption written into the law for them.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
12. Re:No - it wasnt useful by Applehu+Akbar · 2016-02-28 05:57 · Score: 1
  
  The victim's name was Milton Olin. Lots of news about this case is available:
  http://www.dailynews.com/gener...
13. Re:No - it wasnt useful by Mattwolf7 · 2016-02-28 06:01 · Score: 2
  
  http://codes.ohio.gov/orc/4511...
  (A) No person shall drive a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar on any street, highway, or property open to the public for vehicular traffic while using a handheld electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication.
  (B) Division (A) of this section does not apply to any of the following:
  [...]
  (2) A person driving a public safety vehicle who uses a handheld electronic wireless communications device in that manner in the course of the person's duties;
14. Re:No - it wasnt useful by bware · 2016-02-28 06:17 · Score: 2
  
  In California, you'd be wrong. There is an explicit exemption for police to text and drive. http://laist.com/2014/08/27/da_wont_charge_deputy_who_hit_napst.php
  CA Vehicle Code section 23123.5:
  
  (e) This section does not apply to an emergency services professional using an electronic wireless communications device while operating an authorized emergency vehicle, as defined in Section 165, in the course and scope of his or her duties.
  Not sure about FL, but it's difficult to believe that CA cops get an exemption that FL cops don't.
15. Re:No - it wasnt useful by phantomfive · 2016-02-28 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  Fascinating.
  
  --
  "First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
16. Re:No - it wasnt useful by sjames · 2016-02-28 07:01 · Score: 1
  
  Ideally, we could count on the police department to punish it's own when they break the law, but in this case, it's extremely unlikely without the publicity that can only be created by doxing the cop.
17. Re:No - it wasnt useful by William+Baric · 2016-02-28 07:50 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  No, "an eye for an eye" doesn't leave the whole world blind.
  "An eye for an eye" is a naturally accepted form of justice. If I slap someone for no reason, I won't be shocked if I'm slapped back with the same level of force. "An eye for an eye" is a concept so natural that being slapped back is a possibility I will always consider. I may have a feeling of frustration if I'm slapped back, but I won't have a feeling of injustice. This means I won't have a desire for revenge if I'm slapped back.
  Of course, I never slap someone for no reason. If I slap someone, it's because I want to take control and partially submit the other person to my will. If I'm slapped back, it obviously means my attempt to take control failed. Because of that, I may be tempted to increase the level of violence in order to accomplish my initial goal of taking control. But this new violence I will initiate won't be the results of a feeling of injustice, it won't be the result of a desire for revenge, it will be only the consequence of having failed the first time. I may feel frustration after a failed attempt, but frustration is a lot less powerful a feeling of injustice.
  Second, initiating violence is generally a rational action. If I slapped someone with the goal of taking control, it's because I believe my action might be successful. If I'm slapped back (if my first attempt fail), I might decide to increase the level of violence, but again this behavior is rational. The moment I will judge my actions have no chance of success, the moment I believe the price I might pay because of my action is superior to what I might gain, I will stop initiating violence. I won't continue violence until the whole world is blind, I will stop violence when I see no gain.
  The justice system works not because it avoids using the concept of "an eye for an eye", it works because the justice system is extremely powerful and the "victim" of the justice system can't do anything about it. Any form of violence against the justice system is doomed to fail. The justice system could use the "an eye for an eye" system and it will work as well.
  The main reason society dropped the concept of an eye for an eye because "justice" is not the goal of the justice system. The goal of the justice system is to do what is best for the system we call "society". The justice system is about order, it is not about justice. This means that if we want justice, we have to do it ourselves. And that's what a lot of people do.
18. Re:No - it wasnt useful by AthanasiusKircher · 2016-02-28 07:57 · Score: 1
  
  I can see reasons why police should be exempt in SOME circumstances (e.g., emergencies, as opposed to random driving around town or patrolling). That's the problem with the law here: there should be no general exemption, but rather something more specific than "in the course of the person's duties."
19. Re:No - it wasnt useful by AthanasiusKircher · 2016-02-28 08:12 · Score: 2
  
  Unfortunately, police who screw up usually can't be fired, and are insulated from any consequences by the legal system.
  Yes, this is really problematic. I really can't understand why police are often granted general immunity from negligence, etc. in a democratic form of government.
  I can understand that exemptions should be made in case of emergencies. Sometimes police responding to or dealing with an emergency need to be granted immunity from negligence that comes about by accident in a tense situation. Otherwise, you'll have cops hesitating to do what is necessary to protect public safety in emergencies, etc.
  But that shouldn't be true in general. If a cop is randomly driving around town or patrolling and runs over someone and kills them (in a non-emergency situation), they should go to prison, like anyone else. Unfortunately, I would also note that accidental pedestrian strikes by motorists are often not prosecuted as much as they should be... this isn't just a problem with police.
20. Re: No - it wasnt useful by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 08:23 · Score: 0
  
  That's ridiculous dribble. You poke someone's eye out on purpose then they get to poke your eye out on purpose. How does that blind the whole world? Try to think for yourself rather than repeating mindless dribble.
21. Re:No - it wasnt useful by HiThere · 2016-02-28 09:34 · Score: 1
  
  What you don't understand is who they are supposed to protect and serve. The police exist to protect and serve the state. All other matters are optional. And it is my belief that I'm not being hyperbolic here, but that this is a precise statement of their legal purpose.
  In a well run civilization they protect and serve the state by causing the citizens to trust that the state has their welfare in mind and by maintaining order. But their purpose is to protect the state.
  
  --
  
  I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
22. Re:No - it wasnt useful by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 11:01 · Score: 0
  
  Uh. Yeah, but I IIRC the LA cop that hit the cyclist was texting his wife or something.
23. Re:No - it wasnt useful by daveime · 2016-02-28 16:42 · Score: 1
  
  An eye for an eye leaves the whole world with one eye each and a sense of perspective.
24. Re:No - it wasnt useful by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 17:11 · Score: 0
  
  See, now I always thought the "to protect and serve" was "to protect" a crime scene with yellow tape "and serve" each other doughnuts.
25. Re:No - it wasnt useful by DarkTempes · 2016-02-28 21:15 · Score: 1
  
  Though I honestly wonder how useful it is to send people to prison for stuff like that.
  Maybe if prison were some form of profitable conscripted labor where the profits went to the victims.
  I'd say that justice for negligent vehicular homicide might be a lifetime ban from getting a driver's license, a term of public service of some sort as penance, and financial restitution to the victims.
  In the event that the person doesn't reasonably follow through on that then I'd send them to prison -- primarily to protect society.
  Maybe a little prison time first as an incentive would be useful but really I think studies would have to be done to see what's generally the most effective.
  Certainly our current system seems based on millennia-old "we'll just ostracize people into terrible conditions when they do bad things and treat them like they're not really people anymore" methodology with no objective measurement if that actually makes sense to do.
26. Re:No - it wasnt useful by rhazz · 2016-02-29 04:10 · Score: 1
  
  On a related note, what exactly is it that makes these "trained professionals" better at texting while driving than the general public? Do they go through specialized training where they learn techniques of scanning the road while manipulating the phone?
  
  In my readings on the case it was not texting per se, he was actually communicating using his laptop's messaging application with another officer, though it was not duty-related. They are probably actually trained on acceptable use while driving, and acceptable use does allow operation while driving. I would agree with the idea that due to whatever level of training they get, they are at least somewhat less of a risk than your average texter, but that might be cancelled out by frequency of use. Only stats would show if there really is less risk, or any benefit to allowing it. Regardless, in my opinion, he should have been charged since his use of the system was not duty-related.
27. Re:No - it wasnt useful by CyberKnet · 2016-02-29 06:57 · Score: 1
  
  This is a pretty well thought out post, and on the most part I would agree - to the extent that you are dealing with rational people.
  I would point out though that it does fall apart completely once sociopaths come into the picture - and a single sociopath can lead and convince normally rational to do abnormal and entirely irrational things - which most definitely include doing violence where there is no chance of success, and where the price paid is superior to what is gained.
  Food for thought.
  
  --
  Video meliora proboque deteriora sequor - Ovidius
28. Re:No - it wasnt useful by jasontiller · 2016-02-29 10:02 · Score: 1
  
  The only "rational" I see here is "rationalization" for your screed.
  
  Of course, I never slap someone for no reason. If I slap someone, it's because I want to take control and partially submit the other person to my will.
  "Submit... to my will?" Are you intentionally trying to sound psychopathic?
  
  But this new violence I will initiate won't be the results of a feeling of injustice, it won't be the result of a desire for revenge
  So, in the seconds after being slapped, your brain goes through a decision tree of options to arrive at your intended outcome... not "WTF?" You don't have adrenaline? You don't have dopamine? You don't have cortisol? You're in complete command of your thinking at all times.
  Translation... you're an AI?
  
  Second, initiating violence is generally a rational action.
  
  Whoa, gimme a break. What infinite wisdom allowed you to come up with this pearl? Your assumption that everyone is a robot like yourself?
  
  Really? So, you would prefer it that if you mistakenly hurt someone, they should just hurt you back in some manner? "Oops, sorry I hurt your toe, here's mine to crush?"
  Man, I hope you're not in any position of authority...
29. Re:No - it wasnt useful by DutchUncle · 2016-03-01 07:14 · Score: 1
  
  Well, no, one eye each would LOSE the sense of perspective.
So scary - publicly available real estate info by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 03:27 · Score: 1

https://ghostbin.com/paste/v8gh8
How to use commas by wonkey_monkey · 2016-02-28 03:28 · Score: 0

After Miami resident, Claudia Castillo, noticed a cop speeding down the freeway
In cases like this, when you use commas to add further identification or distinction, you should be able to remove what's between the commas and still have it make sense:

After Miami resident noticed a cop speeding down the freeway
Nope.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
1. Re: How to use commas by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 03:38 · Score: 0
  
  It could have been a typo... The sentence would have made sense of it was "After a Miami resident..." Note the additional "a" to identity the resident. The identification between commas would have been used correctly in this case. Missing an "a" is a common typo, too.
They wonder why they get no respect by MikeRT · 2016-02-28 03:35 · Score: 4, Interesting

He broke the law, got called out for it and then a buddy called for a mob to join in a conspiracy to commit the crime of harassing the woman. This is probably a violation of a state statute on stalking. Even if it isn't, the union head should be fired and blacklisted from working in a government position in Florida.
Note: this is harassment. A constant stream of people retweeting your stuff, referencing you and stuff like that is not harassment. 90% of what happens on social media and gets called harassment these days is just someone refusing to acknowledge that when you post something in public, you are intrinsically inviting a public response. If you don't like that, use a privacy option. There is not such thing as privacy in public except with regard to what's under your clothes (and that's only outside of an airport).
1. Re:They wonder why they get no respect by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  FWIW this guy, Ortiz, has a long history of pulling shit like that. He is one of those cops who will stick up for the dirtiest of the dirty because, for him, its all about "cops versus bad guys" and if you don't suck cop dick you are a bad guy.
  I don't even live in Miami, haven't even been to Florida for 15+ years and I still knew about him before this story blew up. He is notorious. Just google him to find a practically unlimited list of cases where he was behaving badly.
2. Re:They wonder why they get no respect by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 04:14 · Score: 0
  
  She pretty much deserved it. You don't go trying to give the mexican drug cartels a piece of your mind so you shouldn't give the local corrupt gang of thugs grief either.
  Time is long gone of the friendly neighborhood police officer who'd always be there to help. These days they are (mostly) trigger-happy thugs with an arrest quota and a massive chip on their shoulder. Either former bullies who learned that without the virtual immunity from the law being a cop provides you can't bully people or bullied kids who grew up and wanted to take their anger out on the rest of the world.
  Cops are legally allowed to ruin your life for any reason whats-so-ever. Avoid them at all costs.
3. Re:They wonder why they get no respect by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 04:18 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Many non-police don't understand police culture. As an inescapable consequence of how the brain adapts, cops understand non-cops as second-class citizens. Not only that, they largely see all non-cops as children; needing to be managed and disciplined because they are inherently immature (or just evil) people.
  A civilian calling a cop out is not unlike a child trying to punish an adult for breaking a rule that only applies to children. Not only does the rule not apply (at least in the cop's mind), but the child is being sassy and uppity and disrespectful and is not allowed to punish an adult.
  I am not saying this is right. Clearly it is not. I am just explaining why this sort of response is unavoidable. And cops don't start seeing the world like this just because they are jerks, but because the majority of their interaction with people fits neatly into either of two categories....person is a cop and is a decent person, person is not a cop and is a criminal. The brain cannot help but start seeing the world in these terms.
  I wonder if there is a way to address the root cause...how does one keep a cop busy doing police work but also mitigate the psychological damage police work does to a person?
4. Re:They wonder why they get no respect by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 04:34 · Score: 1
  
  Something being easily predictable is not the same as something being deserved.
5. Re:They wonder why they get no respect by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  How to mitigate it? That's simple. Prosecute them when they break the law. The officer was speeding without his lights on, give him a speeding ticket. He breaks policy, he's reprimanded for it and potentially loses out on pay raises. If he has a history of breaking policy, fire him. I've stood by for a long time, the problem isn't with the police, the problem is with the judicial system which refuses to enforce punishments on poorly behaving officers. I make a game out of it. Next time an officer does something so horribly that they have to bring charges against the officer, think what charges would be brought up against a normal person who did the exact same thing, and then think about what charges the officer will be charged with. It's amazing how citizens, they try to come up with the most trumped up charges they can, where officers they try to come up with the most lax charges that they think will appease the populace. It's ridiculous the double standard.
6. Re:They wonder why they get no respect by Immerman · 2016-02-28 04:42 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Doesn't seem like it should be too hard. Keep the police under constant surveillance (or at least protect public recording of their actions), and then, with 100% consistency, punish criminals in uniform to the maximum extent permitted by law. Plus further punishment for the violation of public trust. And that includes conspirators and accessories like the cop that stands by and does nothing while their partner commits a crime. Perhaps have something like a three strikes law - after your third violation you get a lifetime ban from ever serving any role within the legal system.
  The problem I think is largely not that they get extra power and privilege, but that they are not held accountable for their crimes. You get the same effect in a classroom where cheating has no consequences, it doesn't take long for cheating to go from an exception to the norm.
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
7. Re:They wonder why they get no respect by Dereck1701 · 2016-02-28 04:57 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  "cops versus bad guys"
  Why go with a generic statement when there is a direct quote from Ortiz, "It doesn't matter what color your uniform is. If you bleed blue, we have to back each other up." That doesn't sound nefarious, not at all. As you noted he has an extensive and public history of racism, abuse, lying and intimidation. He even goes after other cops who don't keep to the blue wall or show "enough patriotism".
8. Re:They wonder why they get no respect by mariox19 · 2016-02-28 05:04 · Score: 1
  
  The sad thing is that, from the video I saw, the cop who got pulled over by the woman handled it in a reasonably professional manner. The head crybaby over at the union started the "We'll show her" nonsense. All that aside though, I agree with you about what police work seems to do the mind.
  
  --
  quiquid id est, timeo puellas et oscula dantes.
9. Re:They wonder why they get no respect by voss · 2016-02-28 05:23 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  http://www.policestateusa.com/...
  In 2011 a Florida Highway Patrol officer pulled over and cuffed a miami police officer for going 120 mph to a second job.
  The FHP officer was harassed by other cops.
  "After filing a public records request with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Watts discovered that her personal information had been pulled up by scores of officers from 25 different jurisdictions. Her data had been accessed more than 200 times total."
10. Re:They wonder why they get no respect by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 07:05 · Score: 0
  
  90% of what happens on social media and gets called harassment these days is just someone refusing to acknowledge that when you post something in public, you are intrinsically inviting a public response. If you don't like that, use a privacy option.
  You can't really blame the sheeple for this. Sillicon Valley has spent a lot of time and money convincing people there's no such thing as privacy, and as such there is no "privacy option".
11. Re: They wonder why they get no respect by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 10:03 · Score: 0
  
  Dude, your bias is showing. Being on the side of the cops when they are wrong is not gonna make you're daddy love you. AC indeed.
12. Re:They wonder why they get no respect by SuiteSisterMary · 2016-02-28 10:06 · Score: 1
  
  Much like the one parent in the room who says that maybe the other parent's little angels need to learn some manners gets ostracized. God help the first parent if they actually address the other parent's child.
  
  --
  Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
13. Re:They wonder why they get no respect by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 11:28 · Score: 0
  
  but what if your little angel is being an asshole and endangering the lives of the other children needlessly?
14. Re:They wonder why they get no respect by sjames · 2016-02-28 11:43 · Score: 1
  
  It used to be managed by the cop walking a beat. In that setup, most of the non-cops he would meet (and it was always he at that time) would be regular decent citizens.
  Outside of the urban environment, the communities tended to be small enough that he would see the rest of the people in his jurisdiction at church, the store, etc. If he screwed someone over, there was nowhere he could go where people didn't know it and his victim.
15. Re:They wonder why they get no respect by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 12:21 · Score: 0
  
  Many non-police don't understand police culture. As an inescapable consequence of how the brain adapts, cops understand non-cops as second-class citizens. Not only that, they largely see all non-cops as children; needing to be managed and disciplined because they are inherently immature (or just evil) people.
  A civilian calling a cop out is not unlike a child trying to punish an adult for breaking a rule that only applies to children. Not only does the rule not apply (at least in the cop's mind), but the child is being sassy and uppity and disrespectful and is not allowed to punish an adult.
  I am not saying this is right. Clearly it is not. I am just explaining why this sort of response is unavoidable. And cops don't start seeing the world like this just because they are jerks, but because the majority of their interaction with people fits neatly into either of two categories....person is a cop and is a decent person, person is not a cop and is a criminal. The brain cannot help but start seeing the world in these terms.
  I wonder if there is a way to address the root cause...how does one keep a cop busy doing police work but also mitigate the psychological damage police work does to a person?
  Fucking bullshit. You can't get away with this in any other line of work, why the fuck should cops be able to get away with it? Imagine if I re-wrote that, but substituted "admin" or "developer" for cop and "user" for the citizens. Person is an admin or developer and is a decent person, person is a user and is an idiot who only calls when they fuck something up and want me to fix it. They must be "second-class" children because they can't manage to do what they need to do without my intervention.
  And if a user points out to me an error I've made? Whollllyfuck, I should unleash the wrath of my entire colleague base on them to shame them for pointing out my mistake or a policy I've broken! Horse shit. Cops are here to do a job just like I, an admin, am here to do a job or a developer is there to do a job. Just because the majority of interactions cops have with citizens are when they are fucking things up doesn't mean you have the right to treat everyone who isn't a cop like shit. If a user pointed out an error I made or a policy I've broken, I would thank them for making me aware of it and try not to let it happen in the future.
  But the cops, no, their job is just "so dangerous" that they get a pass, right? Again, complete bullshit. Look it up, cops generally don't even make the top 10. But I'm sure we would accept loggers, truck drivers, cabbies, facilities/maintenance workers, etc. treating us like shit because their job is so goddamn dangerous right? Even the lists of dangerous jobs that cops DO manage to make, they're only there because they spend so much time driving an automobile, which every one of us generally does.
  So yeah, your argument kind of makes sense, unless you factor in that they only get away with it because they are the petulant little children with a brotherhood mentality and unions enabling them to act that way, not to mention scumbag apologists like you.
16. Re:They wonder why they get no respect by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 13:01 · Score: 0
  
  And this is why we can trust police having the ability to remotely backdoor a phone/computer? Thank you Apple for fighting for higher moral ground and pulling this into this into the spotlight. Police did this to one of their own, I don't think they would think twice about secretly going into Claudia Castillo's phone to look for damaging pictures that she might have sent to her lover or even incriminating evidence to possibly build a case around.
17. Re:They wonder why they get no respect by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 15:25 · Score: 0
  
  A civilian calling a cop out is not unlike a child trying to punish an adult for breaking a rule that only applies to children. Not only does the rule not apply (at least in the cop's mind), but the child is being sassy and uppity and disrespectful and is not allowed to punish an adult.
  I suppose we're fortunate then that our police forces don't exactly attract our best and brightest minds. If they did we might actually have to think in order to avoid them but as it happens there's already more than enough fools walking around to keep them occupied. If their misguided thinking further obscures the rest of us, so much the better.
18. Re:They wonder why they get no respect by Grishnakh · 2016-02-29 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  No one likes people who rock the boat.
  It doesn't matter if the boat is sinking, don't be the one to point it out or the other passengers will turn on you.
19. Re:They wonder why they get no respect by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-29 05:57 · Score: 0
  
  What they really hate is the people who say that it could all be avoided with a lot of hard work.
20. Re:They wonder why they get no respect by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-29 08:14 · Score: 0
  
  "why this sort of response is unavoidable."
  It's not unavoidable, we just choose to not allocate the proper resources to counseling and psych evals for the police.
  Every single one of them should be in weekly counseling sessions, and a psych eval every 6 months.
What do you mean "for once"? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 03:36 · Score: 1

Just because they did some things you don't agree with doesn't mean that was ALL they did. But it's a lot easier to pretend this is the case than to reassess your pique against Anonymous. Isn't it.
Re:Report + Judgment - gets readership by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 03:37 · Score: 0

You need to "Troll" and give value judgements to get the attention.
Rational discussion doesn't get people's blood going and subsequently coming to your website/magazine/channel. That's how to get through the noise.
Be louder and more obnoxious.
A newspaper that I once loved for its analysis and reporting has jumped on board in the last few years. The web has ruined media. It democratized ideas and analysis, but now everyone who has an opinion - regardless of the facts and reasoned analysis - has a voice that is just as loud as the folks who actually know what they're talking about.
Phew. by Harold+Halloway · 2016-02-28 03:49 · Score: 2

At least the cop didn't shoot her.
1. Re:Phew. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 04:04 · Score: 0
  
  At least the cop didn't shoot her.
  She isn't black.
2. Re:Phew. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 04:10 · Score: 0
  
  Blacks get shot 2.5 times as often as whites based on total population.
  Blacks get shot at the same rate as whites based on criminal population.
  The problem is black culture accepts criminal behavior as normal.
3. Re:Phew. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 04:30 · Score: 0
  
  Or that society is 2.5 times as likely to put a black person into the criminal population as whites.
  Just playing the devils advocate there. I tend to believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle. The black population is slightly more accepting of the "thug" life style which creates the impression of them more likely being criminals (which is true, but only just, again, my belief not being stated as fact) which then feeds the perception leading to them being prosecuted more harshly than other portions of society. It's a phenomenon not just limited to the black community either. As a white guy, yes, I'm much less likely to be jailed than my black counterparts, but I am much more likely to be jailed than my female counterparts. None of it's fair, none of it's right, continue working on changing things. Trying to create a just society usually feels like a lost cause, but it's a cause worth fighting for.
4. Re:Phew. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 06:50 · Score: 0
  
  I tend to believe that the truth is somewhere in the middle
  Eeeyarg, I hate this phrase. The truth is what the truth is. It does not have to be between two arbitrary claims, no matter how vested in a particular conclusion the claimants you choose are. It is no virtue to form your opinion by averaging two opposing viewpoints; it's laziness.
More retards... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 03:49 · Score: 0

Ah yes, vigilante justice at its best, fking retards.
1. Re:More retards... by Immerman · 2016-02-28 04:45 · Score: 1
  
  So then can I assume you endorse the complete absence of justice in cases where vigilantism is the only realistic option?
  
  --
  --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
2. Re:More retards... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 05:28 · Score: 0
  
  Yes because vigilantes are notorious for causing collateral damage to innocent people once the mob mentality kicks in.
How is this even acceptable? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 03:50 · Score: 0

The Ortiz's guys action, not anonymous ...
An employee used confidential information and posted it to the public. He accessed someone's information without permission (was she a suspect, investigated, under arrest, was there a court order)?
There are privacy policies even with the cops. This is flagrant abuse by someone pretty stupid. What are the repercusions? Suspension (with/without pay), demotion, firing, or gee gosh, prosecution?
The District Attorney should be acting on this. Except that in the US, everyone seems to be afraid of the cops. It's not cool for politicians or public officials to prosecute the criminals in the police force. Not that all are bad, but they should be held to a higher standard.
Then put up a reward for capture and conviction by sethstorm · 2016-02-28 04:02 · Score: 1

So far, "Anonymous" has a very poor track record of not being caught. They'll be found soon enough.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
1. Re:Then put up a reward for capture and conviction by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 04:41 · Score: 0
  
  Conviction for what?
No they did nothing usful by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 04:04 · Score: 0

As the cops are all still breathing.
I have only known two good cops in my life, Both were forced to quit.
I have serious doubts about the catch phrase they are not all bad.
And even if it is true chances are that lone wolf is not the one you are going to see.
Nope. by sethstorm · 2016-02-28 04:08 · Score: 1

No, that title belongs to the soon-to-be-identified-and-convicted individual who harassed the cops.
Thankfully, despite Florida being a Southern state, you can't blackball unions.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Vote Trump! by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 04:11 · Score: 0

If Trump wins and opens up the libel laws, the Ms. Castillo will have less of a legal hurdle to jump in order to make a case defamation.
Ha! Just kidding. She may already have enough to bring a case of harassment and defamation. She ought to go with a lawyer and get a protective order against the cop.
BTW, where the fuck is the Twitter's "Truth and Safety Council" to protect Ms. Castillo from the obvious harassment that sociopath is heaping on her? I though doxing with the intent to incite harassment was a grounds to ban a user, but his account is still active.
How is this even "private information" by sethstorm · 2016-02-28 04:12 · Score: 1

The officer received her name and other public record identification.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
Re:agreed with first poster -- whats the deal Beau by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 04:18 · Score: 0

That said, I'm going to my room!
how does one pull a cop over? by phantomfive · 2016-02-28 04:29 · Score: 2

How do you pull a cop over? Because if I did that every time I saw a cop speeding, I would be pulling a lot of people over.

--
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
1. Re:how does one pull a cop over? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 04:36 · Score: 0
  
  Follow them while holding a donut out your window. When they look in their rearview and see the donut, they pull over immediately. Works every time.
2. Re:how does one pull a cop over? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 05:35 · Score: 0
  
  Put up a sign that says "dozen free donuts" on the side of the road?
3. Re:how does one pull a cop over? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 09:22 · Score: 0
  
  If you're in a white neighborhood, tell your black friend to get out of your car and walk on the sidewalk.
4. Re:how does one pull a cop over? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 22:38 · Score: 0
  
  You probably need to get in front of the cop, and then put on the brakes, which slows things down... which will want to cause the cop to talk to you.
  Of course, that requires going faster than the cop to get in front of the cop in the first place.
5. Re:how does one pull a cop over? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-29 03:20 · Score: 0
  
  You sound like someone just wanting to get doxed...
  by a cop...
  chief...
  Have you not read any part of the summary?
6. Re:how does one pull a cop over? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-01 06:17 · Score: 0
  
  I wish I had a dollar for every time I've been going the speed limit and watched a State Trooper go sailing past me, no lights or siren on.
  Cops are just as likely to break the law as enforce it.
7. Re:how does one pull a cop over? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-04 06:37 · Score: 0
  
  She did it by flashing her lights and honking her horn. The officer thought she was in distress, so he pulled over to assist her. At this point, she scolds him for speeding.
Re:Report + Judgment - gets readership by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 04:39 · Score: 0

You're not the only one to notice this.
I don't agree by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 04:54 · Score: 0

Doxing should is unethical, regardless of who "deserves" it.
For once by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 05:10 · Score: 0

For once? You must not read very much news.
A little help by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 05:11 · Score: 5, Informative

Full Name: Ivan Javier Ortiz Also Known As Ivan Javier Ortiz Javier Javi Ortiz Age: 50 Born in, Miami, FL ZodiacSign: Sagittarius Email: Ortiz@FOPmiami.com connected to: http://klout.com/JavierOrtizFO... (USN: JavierOrtizFOP) stsmp@gmail.com javiero@cinci.rr.com javior1@hotmail.com stsmp@hotmail.com Work Summary: President at Fraternal Order of Police Title: Sergeant Work: City Of Miami Location: 1000 NW 62nd St, Miami, FL 33150 Numbers: 305-854-5019 COMMON LANGUAGE Location Identifier Code: MIAMFLBA85E Operating Company Number: 9417 305-795-2300 Previous Jobs: Sergeant Of Police Vice President MiamiFOP President Miami Beach FOP Webmaster Miami Beach FOP President Fraternal Order Of Police Spokesman Fraternal Order Of Police Union President Fraternal Order Of Police ; President Of FOP City: Miami Zip/Postal: 33184-2467 State/Province: Florida Country: US Home Address: 12195 SW 10th ST Miami, FL 33184-2467 APT3 25Â45'32.8"N 80Â23'31.2"W Property Value: $107, 220.00 Taxes: $323.00 Other Listed Address: 1021 SW 88th CT Miami, FL 33174-3269 --- 131 SW 18th AVE Miami, FL 33135-2097 -- 2075 SW 122nd AVE Miami, FL 33175 -- 13509 SW 27th ST Miami, FL 33175-6624 - 400 NW 2nd ST Miami, FL 33129 Phone Numbers: (305) 219-4729 (305) 225-1340 (786) 290-1183(AT&T/MetroPCS) Tiffany Zwick AKA Tiffany Calderon Age: 32 Girlfriend of Javier Ortiz from Miami FOP(Officer who DOX'd innocent civilian for pulling over a Miami FL officer.) Home Address: 7331 63 Rd Miami, FL 33143 786-268-7272 786-715-4008(cell) Relatives Laura Suhanov 63yo Alexandria Zwick 36yo Barbara Labrador 43yo Works at: BeachFront Realty Inc 18205 Biscayne BLVD Ste 2205 North Miami Beach, Florida 33160 Work Phone: 305-405-0615 Fax: 305-305-9331
1. Re:A little help by Anonymous Coward · 2016-03-01 06:36 · Score: 1
  
  Are we really going to degenerate to this? We're better than this. You also posted information for the man's relatives who have zero to do with any of this. You should be ashamed of yourself, if you're older than 10.
Fuck the police, they are not your friends. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 05:13 · Score: 0

All the asshole cops involved in harassing this woman should be fired.
1. Re:Fuck the police, they are not your friends. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 08:15 · Score: 0
  
  > All the asshole cops involved in harassing this woman should be fired.
  Don't hold your breath.
Link to the details? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 05:26 · Score: 0

So does anyone have a link to the details that truthsec released?
Hey Pal by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 07:02 · Score: 0

I pay for those cops, and I dont really care if they doxx you
Javier Ortiz Dox by Cito · 2016-02-28 07:50 · Score: 5, Informative

https://ghostbin.com/paste/v8g...
1. Re:Javier Ortiz Dox by softnewsit · 2016-02-28 13:23 · Score: 1
  
  I thought doxes were forbidden here
  
  --
  Go away!
"Eye for an eye" was a LIMIT by Ungrounded+Lightning · 2016-02-28 07:58 · Score: 1

"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."
As I understand it, the biblical "eye for an eye" was intended as a limit: ~no MORE than an eye for an eye~
This was to substitute for a common practice of the time, of taking disproportionate revenge, leading to escalation: You poke out my eye, I poke out both of yours, your brother cuts off my hand, my brother kills your brother, your brother's son kills my brother, my brother's son kills your brother's son and wounds HIS brother, and so on.
An eye for an eye was to limit that - by asking the community to consider a crime paid for, and for the punishment to stop, when the miscreant has been punished to the extent of his harm to others. If working as intended, it STOPS the WORLD from becoming blind as the result of the first bad guy poking out someone's eye. It makes the MISCREANT half-blind (and makes any escalated revenge on him a new crime, but also suitable for only the same, limited, retaliation).
This seems like a good idea to many. Unfortunately, there are practical problems with it. It leads to (it IS!) the doctrine of "Proportional Response". As applied in warfare (and perhaps in any group setting), limiting the response to the level of the attack leaves the leader of the opposition in no position to stop the attack. To be seen as surrendering to a weak opponent would reduce his stature, possibly even getting him deposed and a more militant replacement installed. So a hawk has to respond to Proportionate Response with escalation. We've seen this over and over. (The Vietnam adventure is perhaps the most explicit example of this, but there are plenty of others.)
In international politics, at least, once you're in a war, you're past "tit for tat" and into the section of the Noisy Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma where modifications work better. The way to minimize casualties on your own side (which also mitigates them on the opponent's) is to go in whole-hog, but constantly leave open the option for the opponent to capitualte. By presenting overwhelming force, you allow your opponent to stop fighting without excessive loss of face.
This is why Democrats tend to fan up minor disputes into major wars, and Republicans tend to bring the resulting major wars to a close.
Of course asymmetric, ideology-driven, guerrilla+terrorism warfare is yet another category. Neither Proportional Response nor Boots To The Head works against the likes of "The Old Man of the Mountain", and neither major party has a proven-workable solution.

--
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
Re:"For once, these hacktivists did something usef by HiThere · 2016-02-28 09:29 · Score: 1

Well, the real problem is thinking of it as a unified group. But if you consider them as if they were a unified group a case can be made from many different points of view that they have done negatively useful things more often than useful things.
"For once" seems stupid hyperbole, but understandable. Though still stupid...or possibly bigoted. (Without more information one can't tell why they said that.)

--

I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
Some departments are okay by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 10:01 · Score: 0

I work in a police IT department. If I used the database to track down someone for personal reasons and that someone filed a complaint, I'd be frog-marched out of the building by two rather large, heavily armed individuals. Some places do it right.
The BLM isn't the police. by sethstorm · 2016-02-28 12:10 · Score: 0

That's true only if you believe the line of those that harass cops, such as the blatantly racist BLM.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
1. Re:The BLM isn't the police. by sumdumass · 2016-02-28 12:28 · Score: 1
  
  So you are saying this person is blatantly racist and harassing cops and deserves to have the head of the police union organize retaliation towards her/him?
For once? by zedaroca · 2016-02-28 12:13 · Score: 1

For once, these hacktivists did something useful
So when they fought child pornography, animal abuse, religious harassment, exposed war crimes and private espionage against people (global intelligence files), they were not doing anything useful?
Impressive.
1. Re:For once? by Sir+Holo · 2016-02-28 17:57 · Score: 1
  
  For once, these hacktivists did something useful
  So when they fought child pornography, animal abuse, religious harassment, exposed war crimes and private espionage against people (global intelligence files), they were not doing anything useful?
  Impressive.
  For those that cannot tell, #zedaroca was using sarcasm in his/her post.
  I totally agree with the point. The bastards who are PAID BY OUR OWN TAX DOLLARS to uphold the law are routinely breaking it with impunity. These small-scale doxxes should be a daily occurrence, in addition to the periodic large-scale releases that fight greater evils.
Vigilantism is bad. Always. No exceptions. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 13:45 · Score: 0

You cheer when these people attack the cop; will you cheer when they attack you and/or yours?
I'm not saying the cop was right in any way. I'm saying extra-judicial action is wrong.
1. Re: Vigilantism is bad. Always. No exceptions. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-28 18:23 · Score: 1
  
  Extra judicial action is wrong... Except when it's done by a cop, right?
2. Re:Vigilantism is bad. Always. No exceptions. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-29 07:06 · Score: 1
  
  So surely you have a judicial method to resolve such issues?
  I worked at a medical facility that handled checkups for most of our local cops. Almost every day a cop would be parked in a handicapped spot. We called in complaints with car numbers, badge numbers and the rest, and the result?
  They started sending two cars to take up BOTH of the handicapped spots.
3. Re:Vigilantism is bad. Always. No exceptions. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-29 08:53 · Score: 0
  
  "They started sending two cars to take up BOTH of the handicapped spots."
  Have them towed. Problem solved.
4. Re:Vigilantism is bad. Always. No exceptions. by JustSomeProgrammer · 2016-03-02 11:01 · Score: 1
  
  Good luck finding a towing company that would tow cop cars if you aren't a cop.
Remind me... by MitchDev · 2016-02-29 01:12 · Score: 1

why most people hate and distrust most cops?
Sheepdog by nicoleb_x · 2016-02-29 01:15 · Score: 2

I recently heard a young man claim that he had become a sheepdog when he joined a local police department. That attitude really scares me. I tend to think of most of them as scarecrows.
Thank You by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-29 06:28 · Score: 0

Anonymous,
Thank You
this is so friggin cool.. by Anonymous Coward · 2016-02-29 07:13 · Score: 0

Burn in heck, for your poor deeds against those you are supposed to protect..
Two wrongs don't make a right. by DutchUncle · 2016-03-01 07:21 · Score: 1

Yes, it sounds childish. And yes, if the union head doxxed the witness, then doxxing the union head seems only fair. But vigilante justice has its problems too.
The BLM isn't the police, racist modbombers. by sethstorm · 2016-03-03 15:57 · Score: 1

That's true only if you are towing the line of those that harass cops, such as the blatantly racist BLM.

--
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.