Slashdot Mirror
Oklahoma Video Vigilante Uses Drone To Wage War Against Prostitutes and Johns (bbc.com)
HughPickens.com writes: Chris Baraniuk writes at BBC that Brian Bates, known in Oklahoma as the "Video Vigilante," is taking credit for Amanda Zolicoffer's conviction on a lewdness charge after being caught on Bates' drone mounted camera in a sex act in a parked vehicle last year. Zolicoffer was sentenced to a year in state prison for the misdemeanor while the case against her alleged client, who was released following arrest in December, is still pending. "I'm sort of known in the Oklahoma City area," says Bates . "For the last 20 years I've used a video camera to document street-level and forced prostitution, and human trafficking." Bates runs a website where he publishes videos of alleged sex workers and their clients. "I am openly referred to as a video vigilante, I don't really shy away from that," says Bates adding that the two individuals were inside a vehicle and the incident occurred away from other members of the public. The drone dropped to within a few feet of the vehicle where it filmed a 75 year old in the front seat of the white pickup truck. The duo separated after Zolicoffer, who was identified by her tattoo saying "Baby Gangster," saw the drone hovering overhead.
... to force your morality unto everyone else. Of course he's proud of his "successes."
Dude needs to learn to mind his own business.
Please see "The Twilight Zone", season 3, episode 29 - "Four O'Clock".
Bates runs a website where he publishes videos of alleged sex workers and their clients
And nobody's turned the tables on him and shot him yet? I'd say he ought to count his blessings. What a piece of garbage, he's lucky most people don't subscribe to his vigilante tactics.
used a video camera to document street-level and forced prostitution, and human trafficking.
One of these is not like the others.
I doubt he caught a lot of human trafficking or forced prostitution on camera. The article certainly doesn't mention any.
I'm sure that he does.
Captcha: abstain
He's likely just a voyeur/peeping Tom who used this excuse to avoid charges.
"Seriously! I'm only using the video to fight prostitution!"
Brian Bates even has a perverted name.
This guy seems like a nosey neighbor that everyone else on the block hates.
People go to jail while this idiot jerks off to his collection of amateur hooker porn.
What if the drone unexpectedly went out of control and flew into the vehicle?
What if the drone unexpectedly went out of control and flew into the vehicle and hit the 75-year-old gent's cock?
You think that would somehow be acceptable?
A 75 year old man gets an erection, but it is damaged by an out-of-control drone. You somehow think that's a good thing?
What the hell?
Isn't it enough punishment that she had to do a 75-YO? Who do you think you are, DonaldJTrump? There is only ONE Donald!
VOTE TRUMP 2016
More here...
If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
In unrelated news, police agencies buy more and more drones. Not to worry though -- they assure us our privacy will be respected.
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
who needs villains? Perpetuating the cycle won't help the trafficked.
Most prostitutes these days are virtually, or literally, slaves. They are often kidnapped or trafficked into the US. They are then beaten into submission by their pimps until they no longer resist, and then sold to men on the streets. Regardless of your views on the morality of prostitution, I would hope we can agree that sex-slavery is evil.
Have gnu, will travel.
If you were only talking about prostitution, you might have a point.
But you're not. You're talking about violence, pimping, and human slavery. You're also talking about underage prostitution.
The Johns don't always realize that, and the sex workers who voluntarily do sex work don't always realize that, but it's still what you're talking about.
I see so many 1-occupant cars using HOV lanes. I would love to have them all fined.
"I never got laid, and while I live noone will"
>By the way, being Jewish is not illegal in most states, and never has been
But can you go up to a Jew on the street and get him to suck your dick for $20 without some busybody video recording it to turn in to the Gestapo? THAT'S the real issue here.
"The quality of life is determined by its activites."--Aristotle
I'm sure that he thoroughly investigates each person to make sure that they are really a person using the services of a prostitute before posting the video.
And how does posting a video of an alleged prostitute help them escape their life if you claim that they are a victim? Posting a video which will stay online and get them arrested will just keep them where they are. How about offering assistance to make a change in their life?
Zolicoffer was sentenced to a year in state prison for the misdemeanor
For those reading the BCC in native UK, its hard to comprehend this being more than a sensible chuckle. However, in the united states, a conviction resulting in a prison term can prohibit you from ever getting a job. ex convicts are barred from social services in Oklahoma in many cases, cannot vote in elections, and are frequently required to pay restitution for their incarceration.
what Bates did was to issue biblical retribution for a victimless crime.
Bates runs a website where he publishes videos of alleged sex workers and their clients.
You'd better be very, very certain of what youre doing. impoverished sex workers and 9-5 johns dont fight back too hard. Trying this stunt with a C level for a major multinational however will earn you cancelled credit cards, ruined credit, and foreclosed homes.
the two individuals were inside a vehicle and the incident occurred away from other members of the public.
So you went out of your way to play Batman for the day. Its worth remembering though, that batman has an alter ego. People you have publicly destroyed now know your full first and last name. For many of them, there may be very little standing between them you.
Good people go to bed earlier.
If unable to have consensual sex for money with a lonely 75-year-old, Zolicoffer can no doubt fall back on more socially acceptable occupations like muggings or pushing drugs outside school. Besides, how is one to know whether a 27-year-old woman is making a voluntary choice to have sex. Sex outside marriage needs to be made illegal (as in Saudi Arabia) to ensure that no woman is ever pressured into sex against her will. The loophole of a woman providing sexual favors without charging money for it needs to be closed.
Give a man a porno, and he can pleasure himself for a day, teach a man to fly a drone and he can pleasure himself for a lifetime.
Illegally video taping consensual adults doing consensual adult stuff. Probably jacks off to it, too.
Copyright (c) 1990 - 2014 Dice. All rights reserved. Use of this comment is subject to certain Terms and Conditions.
At some point, some John's going to get pissed enough about this because he's getting divorced and loses everything that he rids the world of the asshole and everything's back to normal.
Remember kids: If the law fails to solve problems, people will.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Some people build model airplanes, others fly drones around to get poor women setenced to jail time.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
This asshole has his little johnson rubbed raw with all the wanking he's doing?
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Wait hold up, is it seriously still illegal to sell in the us? Guess i shouldn't be surprised but still... One could've hoped you had come to realise the same that everyone else did a long time ago, the sellers should not be punished..
Trying it with a major executive will get him shot and his home burned down.
Spying on neighbours, employing covert monitoring technology, publicly humiliating those he dislikes and having them hauled off to jail when he is able. Once again we see that few are so unconstrained by morality as those who honestly believe they are doing the right thing.
He probably honestly believes that he has 'saved' the prostitute now. She has been freed from her life of indignity and sin and released into the loving care of the US state prison system, where she can start her new life as an unemployable convict.
Looks like he was kind of selective about who he harassed.
Most prostitutes these days are virtually, or literally, slaves.
Not true. Most prostitutes work because they need the money, and are not otherwise coerced.
"Most" isn't really the question. The question is whether it happens enough that it is a problem. It does. The figures for the US are relatively low, in the tens of thousands. In-country trafficking is also a problem--abusing an at-risk use and offering them attention and the illusion of caring and then putting them on the corner and telling them to earn money.
They are often kidnapped or trafficked into the US.
False. Only a near-zero number of sex workers are "trafficked" into the US. "Sex trafficking" is mostly hysteria used by law enforcement to justify bloated budgets. It is nearly non-existent in America.
Not true at all. Law enforcement budgets have nothing to do with it--most law enforcement agencies don't even recognize human trafficking when they encounter it. Statistics are hard to get because it's a crime--you don't do a lot of gallup polls identifying drug users either. People who encounter it often don't know they do, because men seeking sex tend to not be the most observant people in the world.
They are then beaten into submission by their pimps
Wrong again. Prostitutes with pimps are less likely to be victims of violence. They also make more money, even after paying their pimp, than women working solo. Some groups of prostitutes will team up and hire a pimp, boosting both their safety and income. Source: SuperFreakonomics.
Coercion, violence, trafficking, etc. are not reasons to make prostitution illegal. They are the result of making it illegal.
Hahahahahaha. Parts of what you are saying are almost true. If someone teams up and hires someone to be their security or agent, that's one thing--if they are being coerced, it is another. Coercion, violence, and trafficking are NOT the result of making prostitution illegal. They are the result of demand exceeding supply and of the very high ROI you can get from trafficking in women. Even if you legalize, demand still exceeds supply, and demand grows more because you've just *legalized* it.
There are absolutely cases where prostitution is a victimless crime. But let's not pretend they're unrelated.
...than sex. Or porn. Or to swear.
http://statelaws.findlaw.com/o...
A. Every person who willfully either: ...
3. Writes, composes, stereotypes, prints, photographs, designs, copies, draws, engraves, paints, molds, cuts, or otherwise prepares, publishes, sells, distributes, keeps for sale, or exhibits any obscene or indecent writing, paper, book, picture, photograph, motion picture, figure, form of any description or any type of obscene material; or
4. Makes, prepares, cuts, sells, gives, loans, distributes, keeps for sale, or exhibits any disc record, metal, plastic, or wax, wire or tape recording, or any type of obscene material or any other kind of sound recording of any obscene or indecent language, poetry, or songs, or who speaks any words by means of a telephone to any person which are offensive to decency or are calculated to excite vicious or lewd thoughts or acts, or who speaks any other communicable words which are offensive to decency or are adapted to excite vicious or lewd thoughts or acts,
shall be guilty, upon conviction, of a felony and shall be punished by the imposition of a fine of not less than Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) nor more than Twenty Thousand Dollars ($20,000.00) or by imprisonment for not less than thirty (30) days nor more than ten (10) years, or by both such fine and imprisonment. Persons convicted under paragraphs 3 and 4 of subsection A of this section shall not be eligible for a deferred sentence.
A. It shall be unlawful for any person knowing that he or she has Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or is a carrier of the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) and with intent to infect another, to engage in conduct reasonably likely to result in the transfer of the person's own blood, bodily fluids containing visible blood, semen, or vaginal secretions into the bloodstream of another, or through the skin or other membranes of another person, except during in utero transmission of blood or bodily fluids, and:
1. The other person did not consent to the transfer of blood, bodily fluids containing blood, semen, or vaginal secretions; or
2. The other person consented to the transfer but at the time of giving consent had not been informed by the person that the person transferring such blood or fluids had AIDS or was a carrier of HIV.
B. Any person convicted of violating the provisions of this section shall be guilty of a felony, punishable by imprisonment in the custody of the Department of Corrections for not more than five (5) years.
So basically, someone could get 10 years for describing a dream in which he/she gives AIDS to someone through sexual intercourse - but only 5 years if it was not a dream.
Mit der Dummheit kämpfen Götter selbst vergebens
You bang someone Amanda, save $40 for a drone jammer.
..
and if ya bangin a lot, save some for a barret 50 cal and a hummer.
guitar strums
It is unfair and ruinous damage being done to the life and family of the woman in this Slashdot post.
A year in jail guarantees that if she has a child or a family or a marriage she will likely lose all of them. With no income for a year, how many parts of her economic life will fall apart. Remember that in a "get a job" and "pay your own way" and "no welfare" society a single credit card balance at 22.5% interest rate will drive a truck sized hole through her finances in a year.
I point to this prostitution law as as a perfect example of making a relatively minor social offence an overall reduction in the quality of life for all.
The problem here isn't with drones. Nobody would give a fuck about these videos. The problem is that a consensual human activity, namely prostitution, has been made illegal. The fix for that isn't to restrict drones further, it is to get rid of laws banning prostitution.
Oh, shut the fuck up, Frosty Dick. It's not a Straw man, although I am well aware how much people like you love to throw that term around. It's a fitting analogy. I know you're a stupid motherfucker, so let me give you a better one: Imagine that Jim Crow laws are still in effect and some asshole like you uses a drone to capture video of a black person drinking from a white fountain. Fucking scum like you would just say, "Well, he's breaking the law, so he's bad and I'm good."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
A Peeping John lures on a vehicle "away from other members of the public", gets off what happens in there, that happening becomes public and the guy is not charged with intrusion of privacy?
Twisted world for sure...
If I were him I'd be a lot more worried he videotaped the wrong meth dealer/cook, it being Oklahoma and all.
You are right that Batman keeps his identity shrouded for a reason...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Is Frosty Piss your real name? No.
Do you associate identifying information with your account? No.
Are you an anonymous coward with a vanity name? Yes.
Bankers broke US' economy throwing into misery hundreds of thousands, but he thought he'll make justice by putting in jail people who actually work for their money, people who actually provide a useful service to the community?
Americans' moral compass is just whack.
"The agriculture ministry is not in charge of Gundam" - Japanese ministry official.
That is crazy. Thanks for pointing that out. Although with precedence in sentencing, etc., in practice, the act itself may still tend to yield a harsher sentence. Such is the world we live on...
His full first and last name has been plastered all over the place for years now. He's been very visible and public in his campaign. Nobody has taken any action against him.
The misery in the sex industry is not because of the sex, the misery is because of the illegality of sex for hire and the Hobbesian circumstances it produces. Legalizing and regulating would allow a significant portion of the market to be liberated from the misery-inducing circumstances associated with sex for money.
Sex for money isn't inherently unjust if the participants aren't coerced into it by anything more than the need for money (a need we all have, those of us not having sex for money merely trade our dignity for money in other ways, but it's still coercive).
No sane person wants to legalize trafficking of poor immigrants, physical coercion or violence. You can keep those illegal.
After that, the only misery would be the nature of the job and the reality is that some people find having sex for money to be a reasonable bargain. It requires no formal training, you don't need a grad school degree to be good at it.
Presumably people who would engage in a job like this would like sex more than average, and thus might actually enjoy sex with their customers. Chances are mostly it would be a job and sometimes gross to sleep with some clients because they're physically unappealing, but with occasional moments where it was pleasurable.
There may be misery associated with prostitution, but the actual sex is the least of it.
a conviction resulting in a prison term can prohibit you from ever getting a job...
Close, but not exactly. This is where the distinction between misdemeanor vs. felony comes into play. Misdemeanors (jail time up to 1 year) typically do not result in forfeiture of civil rights (you still get to vote) but may result in loss of privileges (as in losing your taxi license from a misdemeanor recless driving conviction). Felonies (any jail time over 1 year), on the other hand, you are absolutely right, these result in significant penalties (loss of job opportunities, can't vote, ...) long after the sentence has been served.
This explains old TV shows where I didn't understand why the judged sentenced someone to `a year plus a day'. That extra day turned the punishment into a felony.
Don Dugger
"Censeo Toto nos in Kansa esse decisse." - D. Gale
The whole hypocritical puritanical streak that runs through this country makes me wish the first settlers here had been porn stars.
Chas - The one, the only.
THANK GOD!!!
I haven't been very aware of the concept of maintaining laws. Searching for "violence to maintain laws" doesn't turn up results pertinent to the concept. Do you know of any sites that cover the concept as well as whether or not that's what the Nazis did as opposed to the Nazis getting away with violating existing laws?
Why must there be war against prostitutes? I suspect this "war" is a self-gratifying construct to defend use of a drone, perhaps also to satisfy voyeuristic tendencies.
While you might catch the odd Senator or Congressman you will soon feel the colar of the Law.
That would puat an end to your activities.
As an aside
Now that your drone operations are know to the world, I'm sure that more than a few 'oldies' will be heading for your location in the hope of getting filmed. The sexual needs of the older generation are being ignored. So what if a 75yr old used a prostitute. Good luck to him is he can still get a stiffie.
If he gets prosecuted it will be a badge of honour for him.
If there was ever a case for legalizing this industry then this is one.
Not really, no. You're close but not quite there. You can get a felony and serve no time. The year and a day means they go to the big house (prison) and don't do their time in county. Except in some States - like California where you can do up to five years in the county system - post sentence.
The conviction is a felony or not - the added day doesn't magically change it into a a felony. It just changes where they do their time. Some States, it's up to a few different things. For example, Maine *can* send anyone with 9 months and a day to prison - instead of the county. At the same time, unless there are extenuating circumstances, anyone serving a sentence of 365 (not one year plus a day but one year) goes to one of the DOC facilities.
Hopefully that clears it up for you. The day just means where they're going to serve their time. The crime is either a felony or not, sentencing is at the discretion of the judge with some caveats. They do have a lot of leeway and can work in collusion with the State (the prosecutor) to decide what charges you'll be charged with.
How do I know? Well, it's a long story but the answer might not be what you're now guessing. I spend a lot of time in court. I go and observe the courts. It's my end of the social contract. If we are not observing the courts to observe that justice is being served then we're relying on others to observe for us - and they have failed us. The court system is the most easily approached branch of the government and meant to be only quasi-government in nature - a third branch, known as the judicial branch.
Also, depending on where you live, a felony conviction may not bar you from voting. It almost certainly should not bar you from voting in a federal election but my understanding is that some States prohibit that. I should like to see that taken to the SCOTUS at some point but, frankly, I don't have standing and I'm not about to move and commit a felony just to get that overturned/abolished.
To cite Maine, again, they actually encourage the incarcerated to vote and provide easy registration and absentee ballots to the inmates on request. They don't just do that for the larger elections but even for the smaller, yearly, elections. At one point in time, there was discussion of allowing campaigning in the prisons but they decided (I think) that the security risk was too large - which is kind of silly. Maine has a rather tame prison system. There are fewer inmates in the entire system than there are in some county jails.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
but I guess he is to chicken... Better go after the prostitutes, I guess he feels their lives aren't shit enough to start with.
The lesson here is form a co-op an run a brothel, or is that another crime? Or the prostitutes, notably the drug-addicted ones, could move to another suburb.
Filming underage teens, including underage prostitutes, opens him to charges of producing and distributing kiddie-porn.
And he can publish a video of his face after it was re-arranged by an irate john. Or if he's lucky, some horny teens he just publically defamed. He's seeking attention as well as criminals: That's going to end badly.
So by recording people having sex, our heroic vigilante has committed a felony. Can we see THAT prosecuted?
AC
Undo wrong mod.
Is prostitution illegal in the US or something?
I remember that when I checked the offerings offline, it was low quality and very expensive; that might have been the reason.
If the BBC are correct, and her sentence was a year in prison - not even suspended - then I am of the view the punishment here is itself a crime.
It is *extreme*. You do not take away a year of someone's life for engaging in prostitution.
I would add also that it is incredibly expensive in tax. The people footing the bill for prisons which are I would guess by the sounds of it stuffed with people given criminally long sentences for their crimes is huge.
Yes he is the voyeur, the master voyeur..
It is he... Master Bates!
so he helps the abused prostitutes by putting them in jail? that's amazingly helpful I'm sure! /s
Having sex is legal. For some weird reason, having sex in exchange for money isn't. But doing the same thing on camera is legal again.
He filmed it, so it was porn. Therefore it wasn't illegal.
Also, he had no right to it, so he infringed on their copyright on the porn. Hit him with the DMCA and sue him for 6 bajillion dollars.
Wrong.
At the bottom of the
ex convicts are barred from social services in Oklahoma in many cases, cannot vote in elections, and are frequently required to pay restitution for their incarceration. what Bates did was to issue biblical retribution for a victimless crime.
I'm surprised that in a country which such lax rules on firearm ownership, this guy doesn't already have a bullet between his eyes.
Prostitution is a crime which may or may not have victims. Where lack of prostitution tends to always have victims.
If you look at statistics worldwide, cities which are known for overlooking prostitution worldwide even though they have laws prohibiting it tend to have far lower rape incidents. I personally have a terror of diseases one risks by using the services of these ladies, so I wouldn't make use of them myself, but I do know consumers of their services. Some of them speak openly about it as if it makes perfect rational sense.
I worked with one guy for several years who would talk about hiring a prostitute no differently than the other guys would talk about going on a date. He didn't get into details about what he would do with these girls, but he knew that he was not the guy who would be able to find a mate for an evening at a bar (he unfortunately was not a pretty man) and his personality was too analytical and not warm enough to find someone long term. So, he came to grips with the fact that prostitutes were his only real option for sexual and possibly emotional companionship. He did inform me that he had found methods of hiring girls who were "their own pimps" and beholden to no one (other than the mortgage bank, electric company, telephone company etc...). He would never hire a girl who had a boss and he would go so far as to pay above asking prices and even give gifts.
I will admit, the way he made it sound, it very likely was the "purest way" of having something like a spouse he could find.
Prostitution has many forms. I have been to many bars where I've learned that it's very important to pay cash, using small bills for everything. I was visiting one bar where the moment I took an American Express Gold Card out of my wallet to pay for a drink for myself and a friend (this was in the rural areas of North Carolina) and he smacked his head and exclaimed "Here we go". This happened at around 1pm.
Three young ladies across the bar who were clad in outfits intended to draw the attention of men immediately discussed who gets to go first and the winner came around the bar moving her hips in a long practiced fashion. She came up to me and started talking with me where I explained I was not interested and I greatly appreciate the attention from such a nice young lady.
These three girls were prostitutes... not in the sense of having a price and a rental rate, but upon leaving high school, their only assets (since they were cheerleaders or whatnot) was their bodies and looks. They even lacked personalities as they never bothered learning anything worth conversing about while they were younger. My friend explained that their career path is to find someone who can afford to furnish them with a good life and in exchange, I would have someone willing to do nearly anything to earn her keep.
Common prostitution and this type of prostitution are in fact incompatible with each other as men willing to pay for women simply for the use of their bodies are likely better off with the short term rentals than with the long term ones. It's almost definitely less expensive... although I imagine that would depend on the price and frequency of the services desired.
Therefore it is EXTREMELY important to steer as many people (generally through legal means) away from prostitution as possible since these girls have no prospects otherwise. Even more, most of these girls are daughters of people who are most offended by prostitution and make the most noise about it demanding such laws.
But back to the crime issue.
If you visit any bar where there is sports played on TV, you are almost guaranteed to encounter what we fear most. There are many many guys there pumping up their testosterone levels and surrounding themselves in an environment which is legitimizing poor, caveman like behavior over competitions of domination. That so called "nice boy" down the road is in the hell den yelling at TVs while watching modern day gladiatorial competitions of fighters attempting to domin
Really? You are surprised that most people aren't murderers?
Are you also surprised that in a nation with as few restrictions on penis ownership as the US, this guy hasn't already been raped?
He posts videos and stories, like helping to catch the people responsible for raping and torturing a 3 year old nearly to death. He helps catch pimps that are selling kidnapped 11 year old kids.
So yeah he is violating privacy, but he may be the kidnap victims only chance. This isn't some guy recording people going to a legal brothel. These are the worst of the worst people and they really do deserve to be locked up.
What I don't get about such laws, apart from the fact that I consider them ridiculous anyway, are phrases like "Writes, composes, stereotypes, prints, photographs, designs, copies, draws, engraves, paints, molds, cuts, or otherwise prepares ..."
This sounds mind-bogglingly stupid. If you have an otherwise clause anyway, why would you need a list long list before that?
"any disc record, metal, plastic, or wax, wire or tape recording, or any type of obscene material or any other kind of sound recording of any obscene or indecent language"
Again. Are they retarded? Or is there some kind of freakish legal reasons for listing all the things and then adding an otherwise clause? This is not a rhetorical question, I'm really wondering.
He probably masturbates to the videos in private.
Because it clarifies which things are certainly breaking the law. The "otherwise" clause shows the general intent of the law, but intent is subject to interpretation; the list ensures some things are not interpreted.
All my liberal friends think I'm a conservative, all my conservative friends think I'm a liberal.
Folks, a video vig is the least of your worries. The bigger deal is that the govt has given themselves the right to peep in your windows and inside security cams without even having a warrant.
Life is in a state of dynamic equilibrium, it both blows and sucks
Yeah, it's almost like the US isn't the Wild West fantasy that you guys are always shrieking about. That sure won't calm your hysterics and collective panty-bunching, though will it?
Wait... I forgot...... Does Obama dump the screaming new born kids in the fire @ Bohemian Grove during the Cremation of Care Ritual , OR Just the High Priest? Drone The Grove 2016! Yes Grandma, for the last time there will be countless wave after wave of Drones flying above the Bohemian Grove streaming the Cremation of Care Ritual to YouTube and CNN, get over it and take your pills silly...
I am surprised no one has turned around for suing him for posting a sex tape without consent. It is not like he has a signed release from these people, even if it is in public. It is the equivalent of girlfriend revenge porn sites. Just because you have a video does not give you a license to post it on the internet.
Someone needs to go out there with a shotgun, pick up a prostitute, wait for the drone, blow it out of the sky, and take it away.
The year and a day thing can be a favor too. Often for any sentence under a year or under you don't get time off for good behavior. Getting a year and a day means you'll do less time, almost 2 months less under federal rules (54 days.)
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Most people I know, of those who have experienced both, would much prefer to do their time in prison than in a county jail. If I were given six months, I'd probably ask for a full year (assuming it was in a State where this applied) instead - I'd make it part of the plea agreement. You get a gym, pool table, can buy a television, have a decent library, have regular television, have contact visits, and things like that while you're in prison. You do not necessarily get those things while in county jail and almost certainly don't get some of those things. Not here, not in the US inasmuch as I'm aware.
I did feel it was important (enough to comment, at least) that the parent poster knows the actual difference. They seemed to be legitimately misunderstanding and not maliciously attempting to misinterpret. I'll go out of my way to help those out (where I can). I spend a whole lot of time (compared to most) in court - but it's usually just observing it. It's free, it's default open to the public. It's my end of the social contract.
It's my job to know what the courts are doing in my name. It's my job to observe and see that Lady Justice hasn't slid the blindfold up to peek. It's my job to see that the spirit, and letter, of the law is being upheld. I can, and have, written to a number of judges and filed a motion to be heard - often only simply to express a view, more or less - you can almost always petition the courts, just don't be a nuisance about it. It may not come to anything but I've done so on more than one occasion, with varied levels of success.
The doors to the courtroom, while in session, default to unlocked for a reason. If there is no room in the court, seek another judge and have them pipe the video and sound to an anteroom. I've actually gone down to the jail to watch the court feed. Why? If we don't watch the justice department then their natural progression is towards abuse. It's human nature and I'm a pragmatic bastard - as well as a realist.
The only other avenue to approach the government (for the average citizen) is the press. The courts are far more accessible and always have been. Much justice is done locally and that's the way it should be. In fact, more of it should be than currently is but that's beyond the scope of this conversation. Err... Email works. ;-) However, I'd probably be preaching to the choir as you seem to have an understanding of the system as it stands.
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
I have a bit of experience with the system due to some bad choices in the mid 80s involving Sprint, a C64 and the USSS. One rule of thumb, given a choice, go Federal, the food is better.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
And nobody's called him Master Bates yet.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
I understand and have always figured that if I'm going to step up to the plate, I'm going to swing for the fences. It'll be Fed or not at all. Given the likelihood of offense-types that I'd be most inclined to commit, my current lack of a record, and my financial status then I'm pretty sure that I'd not only be going to a Federal Penitentiary but that I'll be most likely to go to ClubFed.
No Lewisburg for me. I'll be in Danbury or something. I've got a couple of dollars and a clean record. It'd be white-collar, non-violent, and probably a bit (in)famous. I've a (small and mostly meaningless in the scale of things) level of notoriety. Any offense that I would be likely to commit AND prosecuted for would be in the tame classification and my "points" would be pretty low. I've got a few friends in the system (on both sides of the yellow line) so I imagine I'd be just fine - but I'd absolutely go Fed.
I can't believe I'm having this conversation. I can't believe I'm having it on Slashdot.
As an aside; I've two things to add... I'll try to keep them short but I think they're salient and you might find them interesting.
I shan't delve into details but I was "online" in the mid-1980s. I'm also actually a fully degreed (Ph.D. even) mathematician. I hated computers but I had to learn how they worked. Learning how they worked entailed lots of things and a few close friends. Some of them are friends to this day - we were all at MIT back in the late 1980s. Some of them, you might have heard of. Some of my actions might be questionable then and would certainly be felonious today. I was never malicious, however. I was mischievous and sometimes a bit overeager to seek retribution. However, I was largely non-malicious in nature and I never caused any real harm.
I realize harm is subjective as far as perception goes and I'm big on accepting what accountability I can. So, I'll say that I never caused any real harm on my own but I may have, knowingly, aided and abetted those who did and thus share culpability - though probably not legal culpability. I'd rather be discrete than an idealist accepting accountability and punishment so, suffice to say, that's the end of that part of the story but I will add that I later passed a SECOND security clearance and full acknowledged my participation in certain events as well as my familiarity with certain people or groups of people in the disclosure done for that purpose.
Sadly, that information is known to be a part of the OPM hack. Yeah, credit reporting is REALLY going to help... Assholes...
The second thing is that I paid for my education with the GI Bill. During my final stint, having already attended the various driving schools and learning everything from asset protection to safe large passenger motor vehicle operator class III (with a P certification) - which is also known as a bus, I attended school to become a "chaser/escort." It's largely the equivalent to the civilian version of a 'transportation officer.' I didn't go into the detention facility, through the second Sally Port, very often but I did train in there and was a member of SERT.
There was a hallway where you went from the barracks directly over to the third tier secure zone (in past the third set of locks - I'm sure you're familiar with the concept, perhaps even the nomenclature). On the wall, next to the door that led to that hallway, was a sign. This sign was old, embroidered by someone - no idea who, and absolutely not regulation. That sign said:
There, but by the grace of God, go I.
I'll let you parse that on your own and figure out why I mention those two things together, why I think they're salient, and why I thought you might appreciate the bit of history. There's also a HUGE difference between a military detention facility and a federal pen. There's an even bigger difference between that and the State. The difference is even larger when you contrast it with the typical County Jail, more so the crowded inner-city facilities. (I've had
"So long and thanks for all the fish."
The late Peter McWilliams wrote a brilliantly insightful book on such topics.
Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do (The Absurdity of Consensual Crimes in Our Free Country)
He was not very philosophically educated, nor particularly deep in his analysis, but he had a knack for explaining things in such simple terms any average Joe can grasp the point.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Lets be honest here, the guy probably gets off on it.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
If you are doing nothing wrong then you have nothing to worry about! Law abiding citizens who are sick and tired of crime now have more tools to catch people in the act of breaking the law. In the past it wasn't practical for us to film someone in the act of breaking the law but thanks to drone technology and smaller cameras we can capture crimes being committed. If we don't get such illegal acts recorded the cops would tell us there is "nothing we can do" and even tell us that they know this activity is going on but until they actually observe it and catch them in the act, there is nothing they can do. Follow the law and you won't have to worry. I've caught many drunk drivers with my dashcam. I often park in a bar parking lot and when I see someone who appears drunk getting into a car to drive I call 911 and follow the driver until police catch him. I've also caught prostitutes and drug dealers with my dashcam and after reading this story I'm thinking of buying a drone with a mounted camera. This would be useful when catching drug dealers who grow pot in hard to view places such as their back yard or a window not facing the front of their house. They know that a police officer cannot do anything if they don't see pot growing from a front window and that police cannot go into their back yard to peek in windows due to stupid civil rights laws. If you're not a criminal then this should worry you!
I meant to say in my last sentence that unless you're a criminal, you shouldn't be worried.
I assume that in order for him to catch these illegal acts he has to: 1) obtained video footage of the alleged prostitute and john engaging in a sexual act, and 2) capture an exchange of cash with proof that this exchange of cash was exclusively for sex which is what must be proven in most states to successfully convict someone of prostitution. How does he do this without violating both parties reasonable expectation of privacy or trespassing onto private property (even a flyover with a drone can be considered a form of trespassing)? It can also be considered a form of harassment. It would seem that he could easily catch what he thought was an illegal act of prostitution only to find out after the police conduct an investigation that this wasn't prostitution at all. For example, a guy pays an escort where there is no expectation of sex. A lot of people do hire escorts for companionship and no intentions of sexual contact. The escort in question rarely engages in sexual acts with her clients but just one time while Mr. Bates was filming did conduct a sexual act. Keep in mind that the person paying her was paying for her companionship and there was no expectation of sexual contact with her and he was only paying her for her companionship. Mr. Bates captures the exchange of money and the sexual act. Technically this isn't prostitution since there was no expectation of sexual contact for the exchange of cash, the client was paying for her companionship. Another example is a couple rents out a hotel room because they want to keep their relationship secret from others. Mr. Bates captures them having sex by peering into a window with his camera (which in itself is illegal) and also captures an exchange of cash. It turns out this couple engaged in consensual sex and he she needed a loan from her friend and he gave her this money with expectation that she will repay this loan. She wasn't being paid at all, he loaned her money because she needed money. If it turns out that what Mr. Bates captured wasn't prostitution couldn't he get into serious trouble? Can't he get into trouble for violating both parties reasonable expectation of privacy especially if he physically flies a drone onto private property? With him posting footage of alleged prostitution activities, couldn't he get into trouble for violating peoples right to privacy and possibly libel for making a claim that they are engaging in prostitution when it turns out they weren't engaging in prostitution? Isn't it considered voyeurism to record sexual acts even if he is capturing illegal prostitution?
I'm sure I've seen this guy in a porn video somewhere.
Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"