Slashdot Mirror
Baton Rouge Police Database Hacked In Retaliation For Killing of Alton Sterling (dailydot.com)
Patrick O'Neill quotes a report from The Daily Dot: Just days after the fatal shooting of a black man by Baton Rouge police prompted international outrage and a Justice Department investigation, the Baton Rouge city government's servers have been hacked and 50,000 city police records leaked including names, addresses, emails, and phone numbers. A hacker that goes by the name @ox2Taylor claimed responsibility for the breach, which was confirmed by security intelligence analyst at Patch Penguin, Jamie-Luke Woodruff. He told the Daily Dot that the administrators of the website had failed to implement proper security measures. When the hacker first announced the hack, he accompanied the tweet with three hashtags revealing the motivation: #AltonSterling, #Hacked, and #BlackLivesMatters. "The reason i did it is because of what that officer did to alton sterling," Taylor told the Daily Dot in a private message. "i'm sick of seeing police abuse their power and all the killings."
This problem has a few pieces. First cops have the us versus them mentality. Everyone other than a cop is just a person who hasn't committed a crime yet. Second cops are taught to maintain control of the situation to matter what. Tell a cop knocking on your door that he can't come in and what him flip out, kick the door in and pull a gun on you. Third the unions and legal system ensure cops rarely do jail time. Why do cops get trials where a judge decides? How can an average citizen get those privileges?
Only the State obtains its revenue by coercion. - Murray Rothbard
Anyone can waive the right to a jury trial and have a judge instead. Read a fucking book.
How many of the people impacted by the dump are Black? How much redaction was done to protect the innocent?
Yeah, I hope Karma comes knocking.
I do find it interesting that many of the same people claiming the police are corrupt want to take away the 2nd amendment. The same people claiming certain groups need protection are fine to oppress other groups. The same groups yelling "listen to me" also attempt to prevent opinions they disagree with.
Karma - cares about right and wrong, not about personal hypocrisy.
Not necessarily directed at you, but if the shoe fits give it a good sniff.
-The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.
Why do cops get trials where a judge decides? How can an average citizen get those privileges?
Generally, defendants can waive their right to a trial by jury, and have their case heard just by the judge (a "bench trial"). Technically, the prosecution has to consent, but it almost always does, since to decline to do so is opening up grounds for an appeal.
Defendants usually go for bench trials when their lawyers believe that the law is on their side, but the defendant isn't sympathetic.
It's targeting 49,900+ people who had little or nothing to do with the event, and the vast majority of whom are most likely sympathetic to the existence of a serious cultural problem that needs to be addressed, and would like to see that problem get better.
There are many potential ways to improve the situation, few of them fast or easy. I fail to see how this is one of those ways. Doxing the front desk lady and the janitor doesn't do much to prevent the next such event. All it does is create an even deeper culture of mutual antagonism and distrust... which is sort of the whole problem to begin with.
Other police forces have been making dents in this problem through increased social contact between the police officers and supervisors, and the local populace. Once you've had a burger with someone, it's a lot harder to shoot them in the back. Once you've sat down to talk to a local store owner about the problems they face running their shop, it's easier to want to help them.
Why do cops get trials where a judge decides?
Everyone gets this. The right to a jury trial is something a criminal defendant has and can waive. There are rare cases where an average citizen thinks he'll get a fairer shot at acquittal from a judge than a jury and waives the right to jury trial. Usually, this happens if the accused thinks that a jury will hold a particular prejudice against him for matters unrelated to the crime which the prosecutor has a way of putting in front of the jury. For them, it's about avoiding unreasonable jury bias. For cops, it's about seeking unreasonable bias in their favor from the judge.
Cops get trials where the judge decides, because that is in the best interest of the cop, and the cop chooses to forgo a jury trial. It is their right (as is yours as well). Most of the time, you WANT a jury trial, cops are one of the exceptions where judge tends to be more dispassionate.
And you're right, cops don't like to lose control. But the moment THEY lose control, they've already lost. Having been arrested by a pair of cops who "lost control" (verbal, not physical) I can assure you, I have no loss of love for the police.
Actually how it happened ..
Cops: "You're under arrest for being drunk in public"
Me (already in cuffs): "Officer, I am neither drunk nor in public"
slam jerk yank ....
Cops: "um I mean assaulting a police officer"
The way I view it, the cops have an impossible task of breaking liberties to protect "the public". The fact is, cops should be under the goal of "Defend liberty" and not "Protect and serve". "Protect and Serve" is way too nebulous and has been twisted into "shooting a guy during a traffic stop for a broken tail light" in a vain effort to "Protect and Serve". What are they protecting, serving?
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
Resisting arrest and wrestling with police while possessing a gun is not healthy - this can't be stressed enough.
We have a gun loving culture and as such police having a hair trigger mentality is a survival advantage. A local cop in my area hesitated last year and paid the price, they got great body cam video of the criminal searching his dead body for another weapon.
ha!
they do NOT protect NOR do they serve. not us, anyway.
the courts ruled that cops have no obligation to PROTECT you.
sleep well, america.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
the thin blue line stands together.
they abuse together.
let them hang together.
what goes around, comes around.
I have no sympathy for those that DAILY abuse citizens and get away with it. ZERO.
let them all suffer. maybe then they'll change their act.
its us vs them, and yes, its gotton to that. I could not care less about cop lives.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Get real, people. Sterling was a registered sex offender, with a long history of violent crime, spousal abuse, and had tried to disarm a police officer during a previous arrest. This is a guy who broke a wall to steal an old lady's goldfish so he could sell them for $20. Nothing was below him. He was well known to area police, and he's your typical punk thug who thinks that a gun makes him tough.
Waves a gun around threatening to kill someone, the cops show up, he is MOST uncooperative because he's a gangsta with a gun, and don't have to take no shit from nobody, especially da man!
It would have been (and has been) the same outcome if he had been white in Canada with a knife, as opposed to black in the southern US with a gun. You keep asking for it, eventually you'll get it. The world is a better place without him, and all other punk-asses. He doesn't get a pass just because he's black. Reverse discrimination is as bad as outright discrimination.
As for him being shot 4 times, nobody's going to shoot only once and then wait for you to pull out your gun. People are making a big thing about that because carrying a gun is legal there. They seem to forget that making threats while waving a gun around isn't.
This has nothing to do with race, and people shouldn't be giving a perp anything close to a pass just because of their skin colour.
Now all you people who are so bent on being seen as so politically correct and pure that you can't see or think stright, flame on!
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
They are protecting themselves. Ever watch a real cop show on tv? They do a raid or bust someone, they always say to the camera how happy they are all of their people got home fine. I'm sorry, but that shouldn't be the mindset of a cop. The police's primary goal should be to make sure that innocent citizens get home fine. The cop's life should be secondary to that goal.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
let them hang together.
Ah yes, collective guilt.
All Muslims are terrorists.
All gun owners are murderers.
All computer gamers are anti-social psychopaths.
It might surprise you to learn that there are plenty of good, non-racist cops just trying to help their local communities. Are there also racist and power-tripping ones? Yes, plenty of them too, and there is a big problem due to the power they wield over the people. But painting everyone with the same brush leads to the kind of racism that leads to these shootings to begin with, or led to lots of very nasty events in human history. It's the same mentality, applied to a different target.
Cops are individuals. There are good ones and bad ones, and they have good days and bad days. Their lives are often at risk. Sometimes they do heroic things, sometimes they do horrific things. You cannot solve problems like this by painting with too wide a brush.
None of which justifies his murder by police. Yet another example of unjustified shooting by US police.
Cops go for bench trails because they only consider other cops as their "peers". No way to get a jury of only law enforcers so the judge is the next best thing. In my experience, most cops do not relate to their fellow man very well, and if they do they are not in the field for long.
You can choose to be a police officer. You can't choose your skin color.
Karma applies to everyone and Alton Sterling was hardly a stand-up, do-right kind of person.
The man was pinned to the ground and incapable of anything more than a token fight.
The video clearly shows the officer pull his gun, point it at Sterling, and after a delay of a few seconds, he shot the man in cold blood. This officer is guilty of 1st degree murder, plain and simple. There is pretty much no way you can misinterpret that video. The officer used deadly force with absolutely no good reason to do so. Sterling was effectively subdued, and the officer had no remotely justifiable reason to pull the trigger. A good cop would have cuffed Sterling right then. A murderer does what this guy did.
I wish I had a good sig, but all the good ones are copyrighted
It's true - the 99% bad apples spoil it for the other 1% of law enforcers.
When you wipe your ass with the constitution.
When your police fail to police the police.
When you subvert the media to the point that the public doesn't recognize the concept much less the term "fifth estate"
You have forfeited your legal mandate.
You have demanded the public no longer trust you.
You have asked each of us to take it upon ourselves to expose your crimes against the public trust.
And some of are willing to take up the work.
If we don't hold their feet to the fire it's only going to get worse.
Look to Russia to see where we're headed.
A kleptocracy controlled by thugs.
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." - Philip K. Dick
From the initial complaint they knew that he had a gun. Even you admit they couldn't control his hands. I'd have shot him too. He wasn't being "punished" - so get your terms right instead of trying to reframe the situation.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
This officer is guilty of 1st degree murder, plain and simple.
You don't actually know what 1st degree murder is, plain and simple.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
Oh yes, let's blame the victim. Yay. Whoooo.
"...used a gun to threaten someone outside a convenience store."
The murder victim had been robbed several times, and it was a rough neighborhood. A homeless man came up and asked him for money, but the murder victim declined. When the beggar persisted, and continued to molest the murder victim, they allegedly presented their firearm in a non-threatening manner to warn them off. (Showed the assailant they had a gun in their pocket.)
"... violent offenses..."
Resisting arrest, obstruction of an officer, disturbing the peace. Gosh. Such violence. Wow. Those are like, consolation prizes in the game of Living While Black.
"...possession of a controlled substance."
Weed. A dimebag of weed. Less an ounce, maybe a few grams. But hey, I guess you already know that Louisiana has an absolute zero-tolerance policy to *any* amount of cannabis? At least, prior to 2015, anyway.
So yeah. Take your KKK-brand dogwhistle and head for the door.
[End Of Line]
The man was pinned to the ground and incapable of anything more than a token fight.
I disagree.
If you read the story, Mr. Sterling had been stunned twice and *was still standing.* Wow! That guy is a tank! So the officers physically took him down. One officer pinned Mr. Sterling's left arm, while the other officer was unable to pin his right arm because of the car in the way. From the store's video camera view, we see that Mr. Sterling's right arm was reaching down to his side. After the shooting, the police remove a gun from his right side.
So I see:
* Man refuses to stand down when verbally asked.
* Man stands-up to two stuns.
* Man is still struggling after being pinned to the ground.
We can stop here: at this point, they might well legally be able to shoot him. They have exhausted all other options. What else could they do? Stun him 50 more times? Hope another officer arrives and that 3 people can take him down? I'm seriously interested in hearing what the next escalation level is that doesn't involve a gun.
* Man has a gun.
I am no lawyer, but I am pretty confident that NOW they can shoot him. At this point, even if he laughed and said "Sorry guys, I just was messing around, let me up and we can chat about this" they might still be room to shoot him. He demonstrated that he is willing to use force, that he is strong as hell, and he isn't giving up. Now he has a deadly weapon too?
* Man is reaching for a gun.
No brainer. Done.
I don't know enough about this particular event to have a full opinion, the initial video did not show the whole story, the second video doesn't tell the whole story. Apparently, Alton flashed a gun and threatened a homeless man, police were called and Alton was armed. Alton resisted arrest and while wrestling with him still resisting, Alton reached for the concealed firearm and was subsequently shot dead. I watched both videos, Alton was clearly not cooperating and although he was on his back both officers (not small men by any standard) were struggling to get him rolled over and cuffed and Alton was not having any part of it.
Perhaps you should watch the videos again. From the second one, the officer that's closer to the camera - the same officer that pulled his gun, pointed it at Alton's chest, and shot him at point blank range - was kneeling on Alton's left arm. You can see Alton's left hand past the officer, fingers spread.
Now let me just ask you an objective question: when one officer is kneeling on his arm so that he can't move how is it Alton's fault that he can't roll over?
As a follow-up question, shouldn't the officer kneeling on his arm realize that he's kneeling on his arm (it was clearly intentional), and therefore not shoot him for "not having any part" of being rolled over?
You'll notice, I hope, that these two questions can be answered with a simple understanding of physics, and not require any inferences about whether he was "clearly" cooperating or not.
All Alton had to do was kneel and put his hands on his head and keep his mouth shut. Tell the officers he is indeed armed and where the firearm is located. Allow the officers to cuff him and remove the firearm for the officers own safety. If Alton is a legal concealed carry permit holder he would know these things.
A legal concealed carry permit holder tried that in Minnesota last night. He's dead now. Need it also be mentioned that he was black?
The other recent shooting in Minneapolis was due to a frightened officer who panic'd. That was a truly tragic event, it never should have happened. The car was pulled over for a broken tail light. The driver was asked to produce his license and registration which is standard procedure. He correctly informed the officer that he was a concealed carry permit holder and he was armed. At this point the officer drew his weapon, again, standard operating procedure. What happened next is the bad part. The victim was complying but there was some form of communication breakdown and he reached to get his wallet and the officer shot him four times. This all took place in mere seconds. You never ever take your hands off the steering wheel and do not make any sudden movements!
I see... On the one hand, it was the victim's fault for not complying. On the other hand, it was the victim's fault for complying too quickly. Regardless, it never is the police's fault - either they were acting properly, or it was a "truly tragic event (that was still the victim's fault)".
I don't need to delve into your masturbatory fantasy about how traffic stops go for white people, but I do want to address this:
It's about respect not about an officers authority.
Your badge does not entitle you to free respect. In fact, nothing entitles you to free respect. And if you feel that someone is being "disrespectful" to you, so therefore you should get to kill them with impunity, then you are the one who should be sucking on that barrel, not them. We have the right, as Americans, to tell the officer to give us the ticket or whatever else they want and then fuck off back to the fuckstation and eat their glazed fucknoughts with their fuckbuddies in blue. Disrespectful? Sure. A crime worthy of instant execution? Fuck you.
Resisting arrest can come about if the officers say to put your hands behind your head and you don't do it as fast as they want you to.
Also, we have to take into account that the officers likely didn't know Sterling's record right then and there. They were dealing in the moment and made decisions (good or bad) based on what they saw at the moment. So it's disingenuous to say "well, the guy had these past offenses and so the officers were justified in doing this."
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Personally I don't think they had to shoot him. I'm with you on the fact he was actively resisting and it looked as if he might have been trying to reach for something with his free hand but I'd simply have pistol whipped his ass into submission. If two big ass cops can't handle a guy they're sitting on then they're fucking useless. They'll never get them for 1st degree murder as it's obvious they were in a struggle before they shot him but it's possible a jury might get them for manslaughter. But then they'll ask for a judge and with a bench trial and a non passionate judge applying the law in the strictest sense these guys will walk. Still, they should be fired. If they can't do any better than what I saw in that video they need to find another line of work.
I'm sure there are a lot of bad cops. Unfortunately there are also a lot of people like you. Ignorant and full of shit. I'll take my chance with the cops because I know what life would be like without them. Let a city like Baton Rouge have all their cops walk off the job for a week. It'll become a war zone for real.
No, he wasn't waving a gun around when they pulled up. He had been doing that to OTHER people, which is why they were called to the scene - because the guy was being threatening, dangerous, reckless. And he then went about refusing their commands and fought with them. A huge guy, known well to police for his violent crimes, with every reason to believe (accurately, as expected) he was armed, withstanding their attempts to use non-lethal means (multiple taser hits) to get him to back down, and fighting with them as they tried to restrain him. He wasn't "laying on the ground," - just advance through the video frame by frame.
Of course you know all of this. And if that same guy was waving a gun around in front of your place of business, you'd ALSO call the cops and be glad they were willing to roll up and risk their lives as they do every single day.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
OK, but let's talk brass tacks for just a second. Baton Rouge offers new recruits the princely sum of $25K a year, maybe rising to $35-40K after a decade. Your average nice suburb in Louisiana starts at $32-35K and goes up to $50-55K or more.
So you know what, cops are individuals and there are good ones and bads one -- 100% agree. It's just that Baton Rouge gets a lot of the crappier ones. You get what you pay for, and poor places just don't get very much good police.
Obviously you are willing to ignore that Sterling was armed, that he had threatened someone, that he had resisted arrest, that tazing him didn't work, and that (from the second video) the cops knew he was armed at the time because they didn't have to frisk him to find the gun - they immediately took it from his pocket.
This has nothing to do with race and everything to do with the guy's actions. At that point the cops were acting in self-defence, and you would have shot too, unless you're even more of an idiot than your statements indicate.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
. First cops have the us versus them mentality
I wonder why.
Second cops are taught to maintain control of the situation to matter what.
Must be that whole law and order thing, huh? Would you really want law enforcement not be able to maintain control of a situation they are responsible for?
Tell a cop knocking on your door that he can't come in and what him flip out, kick the door in and pull a gun on you.
Have you tried this? I will bet you haven't. If you don't know what your rights are or what the police can do that is really your problem.
Why do cops get trials where a judge decides?
You do realize you can opt to waive your trial by jury for a bench trial? So, you mean to tell me that a cop, much like the tax collector who is disliked by most, wouldn't want to be judged by a random bunch of emotionally driven citizens? Color me surprised.
I am not trying to make the cops to be completely innocently in this, but their job is walking into an unknown situation with unknown risks and are required to gain control to enforce law and order. You are pretty quick to blame without all the facts of the situation.
Because they have tachyon vision and thus effect can precede cause for them? Because I have a hard time seeing how else the reaction to police brutality could possibly be its cause.
But hey, kicking a dog and then playing the victim when it finally bites you back certainly deserves plenty of respect, amirite?
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Raids are the wrong way to get safety.
You get a warrant and arrest the perps outside after a low key stakeout. No worries about them suddenly flushing the evidence, no letting them get an AK47 from the basement, etc.
The raids are just adrenaline junky machismo bullshit.
Citation required
As far as I can figure, the rationale for becoming a cop falls into three general categories:
1. "A police officer helped me and my family when I was young, so I wanted to do the same."
2. "Hey, it's one of the few remaining living-wage jobs with benefits."
3. "I get to be a bully to everyone I meet and occasionally execute a minority with the only punishment being a two-week paid vacation."
The problem is, what percentage is number three. Plus, the smaller the force and the Redder the state, that number three percentage rapidly approaches 100%.
I personally know two black guys in my tiny rural town that were pulled over by a cop for some rinky-dink excuse, and the cop quickly called for backup as they were black. Two brittle diabetics in their fifties (one of whom is an Air Force vet) that have difficulty even walking required these Barneys to 'go heavy'.
Their family later joked the cops had pulled over 'Two Canes'. They could joke about it, because they miraculously didn't get shot.
The police did not at that point need to escalate the situation. They were in a ground struggle with the two of them on top. Sterlings left arm was completely immobilized and pinned by the officers legs. That left the officer physically on top of him with two free hands to deal with the other arm. At that point it should be impossible for Sterling to draw his firearm let alone actually point it at anyone. All they had to do at that point was continue to restrain Sterling, instead they jumped up the escalation and shot him multiple times. Sterling never did actually get his firearm out as evidenced by the store clerk witnessing the police later removing it from his pocket.
"You are pretty quick to blame without all the facts of the situation."
I've noticed that when cops get caught red-handed committing violent felonies against defenceless civilians, some people say we're quick to blame the cops, even though there's a pile of evidence of police wrongdoing. Then, without a shred of evidence to support it, they cast aspersions on the victim. Suddenly, there's no problem with being quick to blame. It quickly becomes clear that tribal, us-v-them thinking is really what's at play, here, not evidence or the presumption of innocence.
There also seems to be no connection between the control the police claim they must maintain, and responsibility for outcomes. "I did this thing to maintain control of the situation, but cannot be blamed for its outcome, because I did not control the situation. Pin a medal on me."
It's certainly true that many cops put their own safety at risk in order to serve their communities day in and day out, often working some pretty rough overtime. They will arrest the guy who burglarized your home, they will investigate your brother's murder, they will speak to you with respect, and you will be inclined to respect them in return, both for their hard work and professional behaviour. Then, their partner will mistake your phone/wallet/skin for a gun, shoot you dead, and both will claim that you put your hands in your pockets and sprinted straight at them. Neither will be punished with anything worse than a paid vacation, but your loved ones will be told that you're a violent criminal who deserved to be put down for attacking a police officer. The cops who murdered you and defamed your memory will go on to take dangerous criminals off the streets, and maybe also murder a few more innocent civilians.
We'll continue to be protected from the worst of society, by the worst of society, until we learn how to hold the police as accountable for their actions as they hold us.
Yes, because resisting arrest while armed is "defenseless".
No one is suggesting that. Also, that was a pretty weak straw man.
You are quick to judge a situation without all the facts or without due process of law.
The main thrust of my first paragraph was that tribal affiliation tends to drive our judgement of how many facts are sufficient to reach a conclusion. "None" isn't good enough, and "all" is too much to expect. Where to draw the line in between is the point of contention.
My bet is that at the very least with Louisiana and Minnesota there was an opportunity for the victims to act in way that would not have escalated the situation into violence.
So, guilty until proven innocent. Understood.
I have sympathy for innocent victims.
Of course you do. Everyone does. Unfortunately, you also assume that if the murderer has a badge, then the victim wasn't innocent. That's the problem.
How many high profile cop on black shootings turned out to be justified in some way shape or form after the fact? Not all but many of them, yet we don't care about those ...
Of course we don't care about those. Of course we don't criticize justified use of force. Of course we focus on the UNjustified use of force. Does something about that seem inappropriate to you?
Have you ever carried a weapon concealed?
Uh, no. What does that have to do with opposing police misconduct?
we have so many trials and indictments of police brutality. Just because they are found innocent does not mean the fix is in.
There have been fewer indictments and trials than you seem to believe, and it's pretty clear that the fix is in and always has been. If you're claiming an inability to see that, then I believe you.