Slashdot Mirror
Anonymous Goes After Miami Police Officer Who Doxed An Innocent Woman (softpedia.com)
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.
> 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.
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.
>For once, these hacktivists did something useful.
Cmon.
https://ghostbin.com/paste/v8gh8
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.
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).
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.
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.
At least the cop didn't shoot her.
A more accurate version of that motto might be "Protect Ourselves, Bend Over So We Can Serve You."
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.
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.
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.
The officer received her name and other public record identification.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
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."
>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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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."
The victim's name was Milton Olin. Lots of news about this case is available:
http://www.dailynews.com/gener...
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;
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:
Not sure about FL, but it's difficult to believe that CA cops get an exemption that FL cops don't.
Fascinating.
"First they came for the slanderers and i said nothing."
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.
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.
https://ghostbin.com/paste/v8g...
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."
"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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
An eye for an eye leaves the whole world with one eye each and a sense of perspective.
Extra judicial action is wrong... Except when it's done by a cop, right?
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.
why most people hate and distrust most cops?
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
Well, no, one eye each would LOSE the sense of perspective.
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.
Good luck finding a towing company that would tow cop cars if you aren't a cop.
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.