Slashdot Mirror
Police Asked Facebook To Deactivate Woman's Account During Deadly Standoff (abc7.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from KABC-TV: In the midst of a five-hour standoff that turned deadly, Facebook granted an emergency request from the Baltimore County Police Department to take offline the social media accounts belonging to a woman who wielded a shotgun at officers. Baltimore County Police officers shot and killed Korryn Gaines, 23, after she barricaded herself inside her Randallstown apartment with her 5-year-old son and pointed a shotgun at officers attempting to serve an arrest warrant. Police Chief Jim Johnson said Tuesday that the department made the emergency request to have Gaines' social media accounts suspended after she posted videos online showing the standoff. People who saw the postings, Johnson said, responded by encouraging her to not comply with police. Videos posted on Facebook and Instagram appeared to show Gaines, who was black, talking with police in the doorway to her apartment and to her son during the standoff. The standoff Monday began after three officers went to Gaines' apartment to serve arrest warrants on her and her boyfriend, Kareem K. Courtney, 39, according to police. Gaines' bench warrant stemmed from charges during a March 10 stop, including disorderly conduct and resisting arrest. Authorities said she was armed with a 12-gauge pistol grip shotgun that was legally purchased last year and toward the end of the negotiations pointed it directly at an officer and said, "If you don't leave, I'm going to kill you." An officer shot at her and Gaines fired two shots, but missed the officers, who returned fire and killed her, police said. Facebook's policy says that it may grant law enforcement permission to suspend accounts in cases where there is a substantial risk of harm. Facebook has received roughly 855 requests for emergency disclosures of information to government agencies due to the threat of harm or violence between July and December 2015, according to their Government Request Report. About 73 percent of those requests were granted.
how the hell does one get in contact with facebook anyway?
Sacred cows make the best burgers.
On facebook people were reportedly egging her on telling her no to give up and fight til the end. Pretty much pushing her to try to kill cops. Police have asked FB to keep a record of it all pending a warrant later.
Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
Nothing of value was lost.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
Like that her supporters on Facebook were egging her on?
That she was pulled over for having a cardboard license plate.
That she was one of those "free range Americas" that have opted out of the government and believe its law does not apply to them.
She refused to go to court because she did not recognize its power over her.
There is only so much a Police Officer can do.
What does being black have to do with anything? The cops were black too.
The cops wanted it turned off so there would be no video recording of them killing her that could be used against them.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
officer: a woman is barricaded in her home with child and weapon. we are escalating the situation slowly but surely, however negotiators are on scene to try and reason with this woman. we have all the time in the world to calmly and rationally approach this very critical situation
Lieutenant: lets get facebook to close her account. I heard someone live streamed their husband getting the ole "serve and protect" and frankly id like to make it to the golf course on time.
Good people go to bed earlier.
So cops shot at her first and she fired back in self defense then they killer her? Uh...
Just another case of suicide by cop. Think of it as evolution in action.
Good, inexpensive web hosting
They didn't silence her right to free speech. They just stopped her from using Facebook to propagate her free speech, which, BTW, violated Facebook's terms of use.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
I'm impressed how quickly the powers that be got the whole "live streaming" thing under control. As for the whole black lives matter aspect that part makes me nervous. I'm not really worried about overt racism so much any more as the casual kind. Were they more likely to use force or just plain more aggressive because they were dealing with a black perp. That's what makes the issue so hard, and that's what folks mean by "Institutional" racism.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
She can speak all she wanted. Facebook is not required to help. People egging her on while she is holding out with a 5 year old is not being helpful. How about the 5-year old's rights?
Government shutting down social media accounts represents a prior restraint on subsequent speech. From one view, it's like cutting off your ability to write letters to a newspaper because you wrote one and then somebody posted a letter urging you do do something illegal. In terms of precedent, similar acts could prevent her from livestreaming in order to ensure police behavior remains professional while she is arrested.
On the other hand, the person or people urging her not to comply with police is clearly engaging in behavior not protected by the First Amendment, i.e. inciting imminent lawless action likely to occur, and police absolutely have to have the ability to terminate that kind of outside input. Keeping it Constitutional might require having very clear standards for under what conditions they do it, allowing (deferential but meaningful) judicial review after-the-fact, and perhaps only terminating *incoming* messages when that is a practical option...
This would be an interesting case to argue on either side.
Real lawyers write in C++
A long time ago, a man named Randy Weaver barricaded himself in his remote Northern Idaho cabin against federal agents, who wanted him to infiltrate the Aryan Nations. Weaver had refused, fearing that the Aryan Nations knew he was not a white supremacist and would kill him.
The siege was widely reported in the news media at the time. Police of all stripe described Mr. Weaver as a white supremacist, racist, and all sorts of other names. In reality, Mr. Weaver was opposed to white supremacy and its movement.
During the siege, a helicopter carrying a large object was seen flying towards the cabin. But here's the actual quote from the time:
Mr. Gritz said that he and a local real estate agent were in the area near the cabin. They saw a helicopter approach with a large object hanging from the helicopter -- like one of the fire-fighting helicopters.
Both men were out in the open and Mr. Gritz was sure that they were spotted by the men aboard the helicopter. The helicopter changed direction and left the area.
Mr. Gritz suggested that just possibly the Weaver cabin was about to have a fire -- I can spectulate how it would have been reported -- "White supremacist kills wife, children, and self with arsenal of napalm bombs and flamethrowers! Federal agents look on in horror, wait for rest of arsenal to explode."
I personally remember Mr. Gritz being interviewed at the time on camera by someone famous (perhaps it was Morely Safer), and my memory of his verbal account matches the one quoted above.
I'm uncomfortable with this "turn off all social media" sort of action, because it also turns off the victim's ability to call for help, give their side of the story, and perhaps prevent law enforcement from telling a one-sided narrative.
We've recently seen how law enforcement's version of events don't track with video camera footage of events.
I'm very much in favor of keeping all channels of information open.
It keeps both sides honest.
(*) Weaver was later awarded 3.1 million dollars for the death of his son and wife, and the government admitted no guilt in the matter.
If she's dumb enough to take advice from FB crowd that are urging her on to resist ARMED police at her front door that are trying to convince her to surrender peacefully, she deserves everything she got.
ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI!?
You don't think a simple radio jammer could have knocked her offline?
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
From disorderly conduct to death. That really escalated poorly. If I were the cops I woulda backed down until I could use a taser or another non lethal approach.
Cops kill woman and shoot child over traffic stop warrant. What's to twist?
Learn to love Alaska
Why was she barricading herself for hours and pointing a shotgun at cops over a traffic warrant?
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
They didn't silence the free press, they just confiscated the presses and the ink.
Learn to love Alaska
The government's "request" was the reason the private company complied. That makes it a government action. The government, not facebook, shut down her speech, though obviously Facebook was involved..
Learn to love Alaska
You have no right to a internet connection or access to facebook while in an armed standoff with the police, especially when they were serving an entirely valid warrant..
Erm... I don't believe that's correct.
Unless I'm mistaken, you have *every* right unless it's specifically forbidden by law.
Or has that changed? Admittedly, it's been a long time since civics class...
"Korryn Gaines, 23", "who was black," well thank you for stating that so bluntly. It doesn't matter what race she was. She was an American citizen, that's all that should matter to anyone within the US, everything else only serves to marginalize.
And how many others? Also, who says that she wasn't on cable or fiber?
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Facebook is not "the free press." If that's your news source, that explains a lot.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
"The greatest country on earth" with yet another example of greatness. Why would someone be allowed to "legally own" a shotgun?!
Fuck those assholes.
Are they deliberately dropping this shit during DEFCON?
The government's "request" was the reason the private company complied. That makes it a government action. The government, not facebook, shut down her speech, though obviously Facebook was involved..
But only Facebook would have standing to sue, and they agreed with the government, apparently.
And how many others?
Collateral damage, perfectly acceptable in their eyes.. Like roping off the streets in the area. These things usually don't last very long. And I don't know how selective you can be with Stingray.
Also, who says that she wasn't on cable or fiber?
Snipping the wire is trivial, and you can cut the power while you're at it. How long does a battery last while transmitting video?
Or the cops can listen to muzak on hold while their call (which is very important, please remain on the line), will be picked up in the *order it was received*, by the service center in India.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
And if you read the article, Facebook only agrees to do this 73% of the time. It is an option for Facebook to comply, not a requirement.
This is all Zuckerbergs fault. He is the murderer who deserves to die, and I hope he burns in hell along with fuckerbook.
I submit that "whiteness" is cultural, and that anyone can become "white". Here are a few simple rules to do this:
a) When in Rome, do as the Romans do.
b) While in Rome, do not find fault with the Romans.
c) Remember that anyone, by following the above rules, can become a Roman.
Indeed, if you can understand how Romans act, and act that way yourself, you are perceived by the Romans as one of them -- or, at the very least, an ally. You will find that Romans reward those who are their allies, and prefer to do business with other Romans. And, since most people with money in Rome are Romans, it does one best to cultivate their company.
If you constantly find fault with the Romans, you are not one of them, and they will close ranks in both subtle and overt ways against you. You will find that Romans do not want to do business with you, and anything you want to do which needs Roman help becomes harder.
Indeed, what has happened to the Africans -- the most notable of the not-Romans? They have been bought off by rich Romans -- been thrown a few slices of bread and been given a few circuses -- so that they can feel like they have accomplished something, while their schools are deliberately given undereducated teachers who look like them to prevent upward mobility, and their children are convinced that single parenthood is liberating -- exactly the opposite of what is needed in Roman society to excel.
A few escape that trap and become Romans -- only to be told by their peers that being Roman is something ugly which severs them forever from non-Roman Africans. Indeed, those who fight to become Romans are beset both by those rich Romans who do not want them, and by their own people, who do not realize that it might do them far better if they were to achieve true Roman citizenship. And yet, many manage; if their children can ignore the besmirchment of their parent by non-Romans, they are easily set up to be Romans too.
To understand this, just watch TV.
Does not matter. If you break into your neighbor's house because you think he killed his wife, and you find her head in a hat-box, then you can give the head to the police and they can use it against him in court. If you tell the government your suspicions, and they ask you to get the hatbox, and you break a law in doing so (that the government would have broken, had it been an agent/employee doing it), then it can't be used against the neighbor. It doesn't matter if they asked nicely, or allowed you to decline. It's still legally considered a government action.
Learn to love Alaska
Because she had mental issues? Because she thought that if they served a warrant against her, she'd lose her children. I don't know, and it doesn't matter. Nobody was in danger until the police came. The police killed someone, rather than backing off. The "crime" was a traffic stop. No spin. Yet no reason for the cops to rush in. White people get hours, and teargas. Black people get bullets.
Learn to love Alaska
I'm amazed at people asking about technical details about IT in this case.
Now, let's do this thing right: approach the woman when she's distracted and make sure you get her while she's away from her gun. Do whatever you want, arrest her, talk to her, subpoena her... anything. That would be better that what has been done. Any two-day in job officer should know that.
But first unkill her.
Ah, so if you don't approve of the means of speech, it shouldn't be protected. Glad we have you dictating our acceptable means of communication, and expecting the government to shut down speech you don't like.
Learn to love Alaska
Blue lives matter.... ...
Or blue brain matter?
The correct answer is that it depends intimately on the circumstances surrounding their showing up at your door.
She was claiming she was being lead poisoned, and in the end, she was right ~
Good ol America....
we aren't racist - but have to point our every time someone isn't white..........
Perhaps you've lost sight of the fact that Facebook is (1) not an arm of the US government and (2) under no obligation to transmit anything from anyone to anyone unless they bloody well feel like it, in the absence of a binding contract to the contrary which I don't think you'll find in their TOS.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
It matters significantly. When police are dealing with a private compny there are a couple of different ways to approach it. Provide a order under a section of the law, and order the company to comply. In most cases, this would require a judge to hear arguments and issue an authorisation. OR Ask the company politely to do it, in which case the company can choose whether (or not) to comply. Because it is a private portal, no right to free speech exists (facebook can censor you for whatever reason they see fit). The second case is what appears to have occurred in this case. Facebook decided that everyone was best served by not having this played out on Facebook, so disabled the account to minimise the risk to the lady in question, her child, the police, any people that came to support her, and the public in general.. (can you imagine what could have happened if some of those people egging her on had turned up with guns of their own??) A better example would be You and a friend are living in a house... Your friend decides to do something illegal, and the police knock on the door. You answer\, and agree to let them in, at which point they see evidence that implicates your friend. Because you voluntarily let them in, that evidence is legally obtained.
So you're advocating the use of human shields? I mean, fuck, if I can grab a 5 year old and be immune to arrest, let's go hit a bank.
I question your example and your premise.
Please show in case law where evidence obtained illegally is ever legally admissible. I think you'll find that it doesn't matter whether the illegal access was by officers or not--illegally obtained evidence is still illegally obtained evidence, and can't be used in court.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... I'm not going to bother to LexusNexus some case law for you. If you know what case law actually is, you'd be able to find the answer. You either don't know, or wouldn't change your mind if the case law was given.
Learn to love Alaska
1) Facebook was acting on official request by the government, making it a government action.
2) Given it was a government censorship, point 2 is invalid.
Learn to love Alaska
The second case is what appears to have occurred in this case. Facebook decided that everyone was best served by not having this played out on Facebook, so disabled the account to minimise the risk to the lady in question, her child, the police, any people that came to support her, and the public in general.
Your wording sounds like Facebook made that decision independently. That doesn't seem to fit the facts here. The government found out that she was communicating with people outside her home. The government contacted Facebook and proactively notified them of the situation (wink-nudge) or asked them to cut off access. Facebook didn't independently run across the situation and cut off access independently.
" Facebook granted an emergency request from the Baltimore County Police Department to take offline the social media accounts"
FTA, TFS, and the title clearly indicate that the police reached out to Facebook and pro-actively made the request.
Learn to love Alaska
And the world is a better place now. You act like this is a bad thing, but statistics say you're wrong.
No, you dumb motherfucker.
You're the most stupid moron on slashdot. Literally everything you say is diametrically opposite of the truth.
Wow your ignorance is astounding. Go read the facts about her mental status, prior issues with the police, how she opened fire first, how the cops called her parents to help negotiate, gave her 6 hours, let her boyfriend run out with an infant so they wouldn't get hurt etc.... and the cherry on the shit-sundae is she used her own son as a shield.
If only she had put the shotgun in her mouth instead, at least she would have won a darwin award. Instead she wins the worst parent of the year award.
"In retrospect, I feel that I was foolish to checking to see how I was trending in my social media while engaging in an armed standoff with all the collective tri-state SWAT teams. I think I will be more focused, and I will definitely be on my 'a' game next week when I have a stand off with the ATF agents at my fortified compound."
HA! I just wasted some of your bandwidth with a frivolous sig!
The police couldn't have known if backing off wouldn't lead to her shooting someone by trying some stupid shit like stealing a car on gunpoint.
White people get hours, and teargas. Black people get bullets.
Nice victim rhetoric. However according to empirical evidence[1] [2](paywalled) it is entirely false.
Why would she have a shotgun for a mere traffic violation. No one would believe they'll lose their kid(s) for a £200 fine and a four hour online driving safety course. Stop making excuses for criminals. Leftie fewm-mongers like yourself facilitate and pander to them. She shot first, moron. Her intent was to murder cops.
Is every arrest warrant is a license to kill?
Dude, if you point a GUN at me, you get hearts and minds. One in the heart, one in the mind.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
They actually wrote "who was black."
As if dying makes black people into some other race.
O.o
So you would do exactly what she tried to do - except she didn't hit the cops pointing guns at her.
YOU won't last long being confronted by the police then.
Nobody was in danger until *she pulled a shotgun on the police*.
FTFY.
That's why I probably would not do that unless I have a better plan than to try a standoff with me on one side an half a dozen policemen on the other. That doesn't even work out in movies.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
That was her mistake.
If you have a gun, use it. Or put it away. Both are valid options, but just waving it about is only going to get you shot pointlessly.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Actually, this case is noteworthy and unusual because it was a black woman, rather than a man, who was shot. Black women are shot by police at a lower rate than the rest of the population - significantly less than white men (who in turn are shot at a lower rate than black men).
Wow your ignorance is astounding. Go read the facts about her mental status, prior issues with the police, how she opened fire first, how the cops called her parents to help negotiate, gave her 6 hours, let her boyfriend run out with an infant so they wouldn't get hurt etc.... and the cherry on the shit-sundae is she used her own son as a shield.
Ok so she has a son
If only she had put the shotgun in her mouth instead, at least she would have won a darwin award. Instead she wins the worst parent of the year award.
Darwin awards require someone to die with no offspring....
White peoples are meek and submissive, discussion or teargas work. Niggers are violent thug. They only talk about "muh dick" and babble incomprehensible gibberish. Also more white peoples are killed by the police then blacks. And it has been showed that police are more hesitant to shoot at a black person because it's more trouble for them. There is no racism problem. Police is overly militarized but that is irrelevant to race.
The longer to take the race-bait, the longer we can't discuss police militarization, mental illness and criminal behavior of specific community. You are the useful idiot that keep the same fascist in power.
Nobody was in danger until the cops charged her home with guns drawn. The cops threw the first violence. They always do.
Learn to love Alaska
Because she had mental issues? Because she thought that if they served a warrant against her, she'd lose her children.
A mentally unstable person brandishing a weapon is exactly when you need police intervention. And pointing a gun a cops is a lot more likely to lose you your children than a simple warrant, especially because that's a good way to end up dead, as this woman found out. There are plenty of cases where police overreact. This isn't one of them.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Ya, she really seemed to care about losing her child.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
If you've made it to LEO, you may as well just nuke them from there. It's the only way to be certain.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
This is Maryland we are talking about - a hot bed of statist infringement upon civil rights. Maryland's government routinely ignores the constitution, including the requirement that a warrant be supported by evidence that meets the requirement of probable cause. Most judges in Maryland have a big rubber stamp for warrants, evidence or not.
The woman was well within her rights to document what the police were doing and publish it online.
Now they have a kid whose outlook of cops will be "the bad guys that shot my mom who was just trying to keep me safe." Not sure there was anything else they could do, though.
What the hell are "roughly 855 requests for emergency disclosures" FFS ?
Was that 855,23 before ? I am probably naive to assume that much like pregnancy there is or there isn't so that number should be an integer anyway...
Americans and their crazy "illegal evidence" laws.
Where I live, evidence is evidence - no matter how illegally it was collected. So such evidence sometimes decides a court case. Of course, someone who collect evidence in an illegal manner will still be prosecuted for that, which is why cops don't do it. For a cop looses his job permanently the moment he is convicted for anything illegal.
Nobody was in danger until the police came.
I'm calling bullshit on this. She was willing to ignore police orders and point a shotgun at police officers. I know I feel safer when they take people like this off of the street. How that was going to happen was her decision. She chose death when she pulled out that shotgun.
The police served and protected that day. They served us by protecting us from that lunatic with a gun.
Don't be purposefully silly. The single point of failure is Facebook. Cut that off, and you don't have to cut off power, snip wires, jam signals, or all that other stuff.
Also, a battery can last an hour or more transmitting video. It's just data, same as downloaded video.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Facebooks has nothing to do with "free speech". That you seem to think it does shows that you don't have two brain cells to rub together. So, fuck you in the heart, as howard stern would say.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Fuck you again. So what if the government takes action? Do you expect government never to do anything? Oh, right - fucked-up libertarian point of view. Go suck some more Ayn Rand dick.
Facebook was free to disregard the government request, so how is that censorship? And, as I pointed out before, the user was in violation of the Facebook TOS, so they had neither the legal nor the moral standing to access it for any purpose.
And as a private service, with a TOS, they are free to censor anything whatsoever, and there's nothing you can do about it except whine. Don't like it? You're free to set up your own service. Otherwise, quit whining like a 1-year-old.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
He's just a stupid libertarian troll. Fun to swear at, and then move on. Nobody takes him seriously - he's just as bad as Trump.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
no the crime was resisting arrest
Are you saying that the cops have a hot line to facebook? That would be an interesting story in itself. No, the single point of failure is the local service provider. That is where to cut her off entirely, from twitter, etc, not just facebook.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
So you can share your amok-running or terrorist activities unhindered.
But more seriously, as we saw, after the fact, the culprit's iPhone can't be decrypted. so it would be better to make them believe their account still works but not share it with the rest of the morons, only the cops.
If I point a gun at *you*, I'm firing before you realize it's a gun. I can't imagine a situation in which I'd have a gun (due to not being able to imagine a situation where I'd be best served by having a firearm), though, so whatever.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
No, I never said that, and where would you get that sort of inference?
You can't "cut off" the local service provider if you don't know which local service provider they're using. DUH! Fiber? Cable? Wireless? Cellular? Many people have two. Cutting off their fiber, cable, or wireless just means they go to cellular. Facebook is the single point of failure for when someone is posting on Facebook.
As for the others, who cares? That's not what this article was about. Besides, twitter use is declining. Don't have to shut them down - they're doing it themselves.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
And so do all of you clueless tools that use it.
Stop your hyberbolic bullshit.
Your hair look like poop, Bob! - Wanker.
Exactly. Finally someone with a hint of common sense when handling firearms.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
When Faceberg starts dictating laws and telling officers what they can and can't do, you fucking KILL Zuckerberg.
That is the sum of the parts.
Facebook data is all given to spy agencies at any whim. It is a government control apparatus. So are Microsoft and Google.
All spy networks paid for by you.
true. Jews think law. they always seek precedent. never let them do this.
Going from a disorderly conduct charge (which could be anything), to getting shot, just sad.
Hard to defend anyone who pulls a shotgun, but what a waste.
Because she had mental issues? Because she thought that if they served a warrant against her, she'd lose her children. I don't know, and it doesn't matter. Nobody was in danger until the police came. The police killed someone, rather than backing off. The "crime" was a traffic stop. No spin. Yet no reason for the cops to rush in. White people get hours, and teargas. Black people get bullets.
If it was just a traffic citation, she should have either paid the fine or submitted to arrest. What did she think was going to happen about losing her children when she pulled out a shotgun on a cop? Nobody was in danger until she resisted arrest, pulled a weapon and threatened to kill the police. The police were doing their job. It sucks she died, especially for her kid(s).
"...Instagram appeared to show Gaines, who was black, ..."
Is she still black?
I was with you until you started in with that "White people get hours and tear-gas. Black people get bullets." stuff.
Actually, white people get killed for the same kind of thing by cops, but black people get news coverage and white people get media silence. So unless you dig a little deeper to follow such things, you wouldn't realize it.
If you ever call the cops, i hope you realize that you put EVERYONE in danger. Also you are a giant hypocrite.
You're quite the Internet Tough Guy but I sincerely doubt you'd be so tough if the cops were actually pointing their guns at you.
Could have something to do with her skin color...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Cops interrupted a shootout in progress, and shot nobody. BLM isn't about Black Lives Matter More, but that All Lives Matter, but Black Lives are suffering the most at the moment.
And the statistichs show that an unarmed and compliant black person is killed about 5 times more often than an unarmed and compliant white person. The difference isn't as great with the armed comparison, because as you say, everyone gets shot. Except Koresh. He waited months for the FBI to storm in with tear gas and such. "But he had hostages" Yeah? So what was the child shot by police? He was an innocent bystander/hostage, shot by police to ensure the mother was executed.
Learn to love Alaska
I called the cops on crimes in progress multiple times. Thankfully, I never put anyone in danger. The police never came. Though detectives came 6 months later to ask questions about the armed robbery the cops didn't respond to at the time.
Learn to love Alaska
Facebook is not obligated to act on such official requests. (They are obligated to act on court orders, but there wasn't one in this case.) Their cooperation was voluntary. They have the right to suspend their services for any reason, unless there's an agreement to the contrary (and Facebook sure doesn't have one with me).
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Sure. However, the situations are not comparable. If the police illegally find your wife's head, you have no basic right to have the evidence excluded. The exclusion is an attempt to solve a serious problem, in which LEOs would violate basic rights pretty much with impunity, and the details are not based on a general legal principle.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Oh, right - fucked-up libertarian point of view. Go suck some more Ayn Rand dick.
You must be confusing me with someone else. The right accuses me of being left The left accuses me of being right. I think I'm somewhere in the middle, and that seems to piss everyone off.
Learn to love Alaska
Oh we're bringing philosophy into this? Ok, if they are morally obliged to return to their families, then they shouldn't be police. The likelihood of dying is pretty high so to VOLUNTEER for such a service is selfish on the part of the officer. They have some inner desire to seek fame, recognition, and be the hero that goes beyond the standard "providing for one's family". If you join law enforcement or the military, at some level, you desire to kill someone as it is a requirement of the job. How is desiring to kill someone, even if they are a "bad guy", morally justified? I don't think it can be on any level.
You are confusing two things
1) The way facbook finds out about it (their own algorithms, a public complaint or a government asking) with
2) Why they decided to comply (Their own process led them to believe this is the best option vs a legal requirement).
In this case, the government informed them of the problem, but they decided to act. They could have turned around and said no, we believe this is in the public interest to see (like they do in over a quarter of the cases), but in this case, they agreed with the government that it was best not for it to be on line. (and I agree with them).
In this case, the government informed them of the problem,
No. Read TFA. The government explicitly asked Facebook to act. They didn't "inform" them. They reached out as the government and requested an act from Facebook, which Facebook immediately performed.
Learn to love Alaska
Except that the government didn't take illegal action except in your deluded mind. Nowhere does it say that it's illegal to ask a web site to suspend a user. The reason you piss off people is because your arguments come from a 13-year-old's simplistic imitation of logic. Fact-free, same as your claim that the police took illegal action to ask Facebook to suspend the account.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
BTW - you really need to learn what the constitution says about freedom of expression. It doesn't say what you seem to think it does. You want to buy your own printing press, you are free to publish what you want. Don't want to buy a printing press, the owner can tell you to fuck off, and they are not depriving you of your freedom of expression. Same with any other platform. Either set up your own site or abide by the rules of the host.
The ToS is a contract. The user was in violation of that contract. Your position would be that contracts are invalid. Good luck convincing anyone of that.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Except that the government didn't take illegal action except in your deluded mind.
The government ordered Facebook to take down her account and access. Facebook complied. The government silenced her. You assert that the government silencing citizens it doesn't like is 100% legal. You are the one holding a deluded mind.
Learn to love Alaska
But if I go to buy a printing press and the government has ordered the maker to not sell to me, that's legal by your standards. So the government can silence you, on facebook or a press, and you have no right, or voice, to complain. ToS is irrelevant. The government ordered the takedown. FB complied. ToS was never given as a reason to suspend the account. You are making up lies to support your delusions.
Learn to love Alaska
Only in the legal sense that they won't be tried for murder.
In every moral sense, they had an obligation to deescalate the situation. She was not a threat to anybody but the cops, and the video proves it.
Just...no. You don't win a moral argument by trolling morality.
Certainly, they had a moral obligation to act. But morals aren't absolute. They shift based on context. The minute she leveled that shotgun, the context changed.
The video proves that the cops grokked the situation rightly. You can't deescalate a situation that is already escalated. You did notice that part, right? Maybe in your ivory tower, you can, but here in reality, you don't negotiate with somebody who is saying they are going to kill you while simultaneously bringing a weapon to bear on you.
The new context obligated the cops to preserve their own lives and the lives of bystanders (you did notice the five-year-old bystander, right?)
She was a threat to the cops, to the bystander, and a case could be made to society at large (pulling a weapon on a cop with the stated intention to kill him is, by any definition you care to invoke, sociopathic behavior.) Leaving aside the threat to society (and the host of morals that would, according to you, obligate all sorts of action) the cops acted morally by acting to preserve their lives and the life of the bystander.
Since you opened this with a troll, I'm going to close it with an ad hom. What would you have done differently in that context? I strongly suspect you have neither the training nor the temperament to react rationally (let alone morally) when threatened with deadly force. I think you would have just crapped your pants and froze.
"The government" did no such thing. Either produce the court order or quit lying. The police asked Facebook did as requested. Anyone could have asked Facebook to take it down because it was clearly in violation of the TOS.
Same as when a blogger account was illegally selling pharmaceuticals from Canada. I asked google to take it down, and they did within hours. Sure I "silenced" them - they too were in violation of the TOS. And I'm not the government.
There is no requirement for anyone, either as an individual or a business, to give a platform to anyone doing illegal stuff. Her making death threats while holding a shot gun is illegal pretty much everywhere, including Somalia. So again, start acting your age and not your shoe (or penis) size.
If you don't like the rules, change them instead of lying about them, trying to miscast events to suit your own assinine libertarian "the people can do no wrong" agenda.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
More rhetorical bull shit. This is not soviet russia, where even photocopiers were not allowed without supervision, which gave rise to samizdat publishing. Nothing is stopping you or anyone else going into a store and buying a printer. Same as nothing is stopping you from taking one out of the junk and buying another ink or toner cartridge.
Again, you lie. The Facebook account was in clear violation of both the TOS and broadcast law (it was available to people under 18 without a disclaimer as to content).
If you don't like it, sue "the government". Or shut the fuck up, because if you don't sue them, you're by your inaction condoning their actions. (And yes, I've had to sue the government so I'm not being the flaming hypocrite you are).
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
The police asked Facebook did as requested.
Produce the request or quit lying.
Anyone could have asked Facebook to take it down because it was clearly in violation of the TOS.
Anyone "could have". But the government did it. The government initiated the act that resulted in the take-down. Legally, this is the same as if the government did it. This doesn't make sense to you, but you obviously hate personal rights, and like a strong Nazi-like authoritarian government.
To reduce the ability for the government to influence people, simply asking is legally the same as a court order, when it comes to "fruit of the tree" and such. That you don't understand the law, doesn't mean it isn't the law.
If you don't like the rules, change them instead of lying about them, trying to miscast events to suit your own assinine libertarian "the people can do no wrong" agenda.
That you are too dumb to understand the rules doesn't mean I'm lying about them.
And you are a liar. I've stated I'm not libertarian, and you keep spreading that lie. Stop lying. Quite the hypocrite. Always lying, while accusing everyone else of lying. Even you accusations of lies are lies.
Learn to love Alaska
Again, you lie. The Facebook account was in clear violation of both the TOS and broadcast law (it was available to people under 18 without a disclaimer as to content).
ToS is irrelevant. ToS was not mentioned in this, or any other, article about it (at least at the time this article was first published on slashdot's front page). Quit lying about this being a ToS issue makes you the only liar here. All your false accusations of others lying is to cover up your lies.
The government didn't innocently notify FAcebook of a ToS issue. TFA says the government officially requested Facebook suspend the account, not investigate a ToS violation.
Or shut the fuck up,
More proof you hate all freedom. Trying to silence anyone you don't like. You are quite evil.
Nothing is stopping you or anyone else going into a store and buying a printer.
Except you implied that the maker could choose to not sell it to you for any reason, and the government can exert pressure on the printer maker to refuse service to you. So, if the government bans you from buying a printer that's legal, so long as BarbaraHudson approves of the government's actions. You'd make quite the Trump supporter.
Learn to love Alaska
Police Chief Jim Johnson said Tuesday that the department made the emergency request to have Gaines' social media accounts suspended once they realized the videos were online. People who saw the postings were encouraging her to not comply with the police, he said.
So quit lying about who asked (not ordered - asked).
And you're the one who needs to learn about the law. Asking is not "the equivalent of a court order." Ever see anyone say "sure, when you come back with a warrant?" Or are you so cowardly off-line that you would do anything and everything the police asked you to do because, in your own words "simply asking is legally the same as a court order." What a dummy.
So, stop spreading lies. Learn how the law actually works, and how individual rights work. In other words, grow up and start thinking like an adult instead of spewing lies and innuendo.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
So quit lying about who asked (not ordered - asked).
Legally, they are the same. If a police officer asks you to get out of the car, it's an order. Even if he asks, and asks politely. That you are dumb doesn't change reality. When the people with the guns "ask" for something, it's considered an order.
Learn to love Alaska
You claimed that (1) "the government ordered it closed." You also claimed that "Because of (1) it was government censorship".
And when I said that you were full of shit, you said to prove it, which I did, complete with a link.
Neither "the government" nor the police ordered it shut down. So you lose on 1, and since 1 was a lie, you also lose on 2.
Then you went all lamer by saying that a "government request" is the same as an order, because you would never think to tell "the government" to get a warrant, because you're just a coward who doesn't even know their own rights, never mind stand up for them.
When people blame "the government", I know that I'm dealing with either someone who has never worked in their life, is a nutbar factor 6 or greater, a conspiracy theorist, or any combo of those. Grow up. You were wrong, you got called out on it, and you really need to learn a bit of law so that you understand the difference between a request and an order (warrant.) Fucking retard.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Boy, are you stupid. There are plenty of videos on youtube of people refusing to get out of their car when the police request without giving a valid reason. Same as there are videos of people refusing to stop making videos of the cops when asked to.
And they're dealing with cops with guns. Same as I've told cops with guns to go fuck themselves when they've asked me to do something that I wasn't required to do by law. Like I said, you are a coward. You don't know your rights. You are too scared to do anything but obey "the man with the gun." You'd be worse than useless at any civil rights protest - you'd just get in the way of those of us standing up for civil rights. In other words, you're a sheeple!!!
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Neither "the government" nor the police ordered it shut down.
The wording in TFA is"an emergency request from the Baltimore County Police Department".
An emergency request by the government. And, though you disagree, the courts have ruled that a "request" from the government is considered an "order" as far as law goes.
Then you went all lamer by saying that a "government request" is the same as an order,
No, I went all lamer by pointing out that the Government asserts that a request by the government is legally considered an order, when it comes to violating rights. That's not my opinion. That's the governments. If you don't like it, argue with the Supreme Court. Not me. I can't change reality to match your broken opinion.
the difference between a request and an order (warrant.)
If the police ask you to get out of your car during a traffic stop, is that a "request" or an "order"? It's both. That "request" is a "lawful order". You are arguing that the law is wrong because it doesn't match your personal opinion. I can't change the law to match your broken opinion. Go argue with the Supreme Court.
Fucking retard.
Nice signature. Quite accurate.
Learn to love Alaska
Boy, are you stupid. There are plenty of videos on youtube of people refusing to get out of their car when the police request without giving a valid reason.
And a number of them getting pulled from their car and (optionally) beat. Often the result ends in an arrest. OMFG, you saw a youtube video of a traffic stop, where the cop decides to not press the issue when they could have, and that's proof the cop couldn't have pressed the issue.
You are an angry, evil person. You can't handle someone willing to tell you a truth you don't like. And you are lying about me, because you know you've lost on the facts.
Learn to love Alaska
Neither "the government" nor the police ordered it shut down.
The wording in TFA is"an emergency request from the Baltimore County Police Department".
That's right - an emergency request, not an order accompanied by a summons. Learn how the law works in your own country. Fucking dumb libtards.
An emergency request by the government. And, though you disagree, the courts have ruled that a "request" from the government is considered an "order" as far as law goes.
Bullshit. There would be no need for a warrant otherwise.
In an emergency, the police CAN order, but this was not an order, it was a request. You said I was a liar, and to prove it, and I found the proof in the very first link. So what do you do? Waaa, that's not fair! Words don't mean anything other than what I want them to mean.
And let's face it, you have NO experience standing up for civil rights against the police. You are just a coward who talks big behind the keyboard.
Then you went all lamer by saying that a "government request" is the same as an order,
No, I went all lamer by pointing out that the Government asserts that a request by the government is legally considered an order, when it comes to violating rights. That's not my opinion. That's the governments. If you don't like it, argue with the Supreme Court. Not me. I can't change reality to match your broken opinion.
No, you failed to provide any proof beyond your assertion, while demanding I provide proof for mine. The difference between us is I'm not a fucktard, I found and provided the proof. You, on the other hand failed to prove that the request was really an order in this case - because you can't. The police did not have the jurisdictional authority to order it.
Here's a clue - Facebook is headquartered in Menlo Park, CA, not under the jurisdiction of the Baltimore police department in any shape, manner, or form. No maryland police department can order a company outside it's jurisdiction to do squat.
the difference between a request and an order (warrant.)
If the police ask you to get out of your car during a traffic stop, is that a "request" or an "order"? It's both. That "request" is a "lawful order". You are arguing that the law is wrong because it doesn't match your personal opinion. I can't change the law to match your broken opinion. Go argue with the Supreme Court.
No, it's not. a LAWFUL ORDER is a lawful order. A request is not. Police make requests all the time, people refuse, the cops either leave, or make an arrest and get told off by the judge in court.
Ask anyone who was arrested because they refused a police request to stop videoing their activities during an arrest. Or anyone who refused a police request to search their purse without either probable cause or a warrant.
But like I said, you are the one who bends over and grabs your ankles in the face of questionable law - even defending it. And then you have the hypocritical gall to accuse me of what you're doing? Take the log out of your eye (or more likely, your ass). You're a coward, and cowards who don't stand up for their rights don't really deserve them.
Fucking retard.
Nice signature. Quite accurate.
I'm quite proud of now being the first ever.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Or are you now going to claim that they should be obeyed even when they're acting outside their jurisdiction? I dare you.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.