Slashdot Mirror
Police In Canada Are Tracking People's 'Negative' Behavior In a 'Risk' Database (vice.com)
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Motherboard: Police, social services, and health workers in Canada are using shared databases to track the behavior of vulnerable people -- including minors and people experiencing homelessness -- with little oversight and often without consent. Documents obtained by Motherboard from Ontario's Ministry of Community Safety and Correctional Services (MCSCS) through an access to information request show that at least two provinces -- Ontario and Saskatchewan -- maintain a "Risk-driven Tracking Database" that is used to amass highly sensitive information about people's lives. Information in the database includes whether a person uses drugs, has been the victim of an assault, or lives in a "negative neighborhood."
The Risk-driven Tracking Database (RTD) is part of a collaborative approach to policing called the Hub model that partners cops, school staff, social workers, health care workers, and the provincial government. Information about people believed to be "at risk" of becoming criminals or victims of harm is shared between civilian agencies and police and is added to the database when a person is being evaluated for a rapid intervention intended to lower their risk levels. Interventions can range from a door knock and a chat to forced hospitalization or arrest. Data from the RTD is analyzed to identify trends -- for example, a spike in drug use in a particular area -- with the goal of producing planning data to deploy resources effectively, and create "community profiles" that could accelerate interventions under the Hub model, according to a 2015 Public Safety Canada report. Saskatchewan and Ontario officials say the data in the database is "de-identified" by removing details such as people's names and birthdates, but experts Motherboard spoke to say that scrubbing data so it may never be used to identify an individual is difficult if not impossible.
The Risk-driven Tracking Database (RTD) is part of a collaborative approach to policing called the Hub model that partners cops, school staff, social workers, health care workers, and the provincial government. Information about people believed to be "at risk" of becoming criminals or victims of harm is shared between civilian agencies and police and is added to the database when a person is being evaluated for a rapid intervention intended to lower their risk levels. Interventions can range from a door knock and a chat to forced hospitalization or arrest. Data from the RTD is analyzed to identify trends -- for example, a spike in drug use in a particular area -- with the goal of producing planning data to deploy resources effectively, and create "community profiles" that could accelerate interventions under the Hub model, according to a 2015 Public Safety Canada report. Saskatchewan and Ontario officials say the data in the database is "de-identified" by removing details such as people's names and birthdates, but experts Motherboard spoke to say that scrubbing data so it may never be used to identify an individual is difficult if not impossible.
Is that yet another newspeak term?
And who the FUCK is shocked/surprised over people keeping all kinds of databases? Like every single male geek, I have a database myself keeping track of every single person I've ever met, plotting their current house positions on a map and showing all kinds of stats such as whether they're married, living together with other people, etc. I use it for my personal use only, and it's been very enlightening and depressing...
Information in the database includes whether a person uses drugs, has been the victim of an assault, or lives in a "negative neighborhood." ...information about people believed to be "at risk" of becoming criminals or victims of harm is shared between civilian agencies and police and is added to the database when a person is being evaluated for a rapid intervention intended to lower their risk levels. Interventions can range from a door knock and a chat to forced hospitalization or arrest.
Saskatchewan and Ontario officials say the data in the database is "de-identified" by removing details such as poeple's names and birthdates
Which is it then?
What are they going to do, forcefully hospitalize or arrest a statistical de-identified person.
Insufficient maple syrup
Not being a hockey fan
Disdain for Tim Horton's
Lack of deference to the Corgi-Enthusiast-in-Chief
Not translating everything into French
Moose baiting
Too little gravy in the poutine
Mainlining smoked meat
Kraft Dinner addiction (outside of the norm)
and finally...
Insincere and/or infrequent apologies
"Time flies like an arrow; fruit flies like a banana." --Groucho Marx
You know the score pal. You're either cop or you're little people.
Canada wake the fuck up your unalienable rights are being flushed down the toilet.
Stop and Frisk in Toronto was one of the main drivers of crime downwards. Since Toronto stopped this in high crime areas, the crime rates are screeching ever higher now. Even went as high as the Supreme Court of Canada, that ruled that in particular circumstances such as high crime areas, it's an allowable behavior. It is a form of oppression, but here's what's weighted by the courts: "Does the action create a positive or negative effect for the community." This is weighted as societies rights to be safe vs the rights of the individual. This is a broader action then "detaining any 'close to' suspects in the case of an indictable offence(felony)." To give you another example, in Canada RIDE programs(anti-drunk driving) are a fundamental charter violation and an illegal search. The courts specifically stated that the rights of society to not be hit, injured or killed by the offender or possible offender outweigh the fundamentally guaranteed rights against an unlawful search.
Now to the article at hand, the entire premise of this is based on crime reduction. Let me give you an example, if you're living in Toronto(Ontario) you're more likely to be shot or stabbed then 10 years ago. Crime is a serious issue, more so that there are areas that are degenerating into ghettos ala the US type. In Regina(Saskatchewan), there are entire parts of the city that are ghettos. Crime is staggeringly high(for Canada), it revolves around a single group of people in most cases(aboriginals), this is similar in the US where cities have serious black crime problems in particular areas for example. Regina for instance, has(or had) the highest rape and murder rate in Canada with Winnipeg(Manitoba) catching up second or Toronto. In Winnipeg's case, similar problems similar groups of people, with similar issues leading to generational crime for instance. I.e. broken homes, no fathers, poor education, heavy substance abuse, etc.
Enjoy the shit show.
Om, nomnomnom...
So will this turn into Canada's version of the "Sesame Credit Score"?
So far China seems to be ahead because they have a phone app that lets users know there is a low credit looser nearby. If you hang out too near them you might get infected and be squashed like a bug too.
The US seems to be falling behind. We have all this data on everyone, and the public and private sector data is fused, but it's only Wall Street and law enforcement seem to use it as a permanent non-alterable black mark: no-fly and insane interest rates respectively. When Canada is ahead of the US as a surveillance state it's pathetic.
Why is Snark Required?
>"Stop and Frisk in Toronto was one of the main drivers of crime downwards. Since Toronto stopped this in high crime areas, the crime rates are screeching ever higher now."
Freedom and safety are often at odds with each other. To me, "stop and frisk" is a vile abuse of government power and a violation of essential civil liberties. Sure, it might be effective at reducing crime, but there is a big cost that comes with it... one that I hope people aren't willing to pay.
So, they're trying to build a crude version of "the machine" from Person of interest?
Sure, it might be effective at reducing crime, but there is a big cost that comes with it... one that I hope people aren't willing to pay.
That depends. Do you live in a country with no right to own a firearm, and self defense is heavily restricted? In turn your only real protection comes from the state, acting as a medium between the various facets of society. I get your reasoning, in the US for example castle laws exist. They don't in Canada, and there are places in Canada where police aren't minutes away they can be half a day or more away.
Om, nomnomnom...
information related to events, who, where sure seems to me, to damage the usefulness of said information. So what are they saying their plan is?
;)
;)
Collect useful information then modify the raw data until it is useless and that is a productive thing to do.
mmm I wonder if they are keeping everything, then trying to pass the collection off as safe! Seems to do otherwise is a waste of time.
Minority Report and Pre Crime here we come
Just my 2 cents
I know it's hard to separate what you hear on Fauxnews with reality but what you're describing is pure fantasy entirely of your own delusional state. SAD.
They should put you on a psych hold.. oh wait, it's not the USA!
Imagine being so stupid, that you don't know that's exactly how it works in Canada. Why don't you go make a visit to a court room monday morning, and you can go see the hold in temp-psych ward cases from Fri/Sat rolling in. I'll even give you some help, London, Ontario.
Om, nomnomnom...
Well you either showed yourself as an idiot that doesn't live in Canada, or are an idiot living in Canada. First, Canada doesn't have misdemeanors. Second, that case isn't closed. Third, don't forget the 'indigenous women' being killed and the federal investigative committee coming to the same conclusion as the previous one, that the vast majority of cases those women were killed by other natives. And in both cases, the media and Federal government went very quiet. And last but not least, having a fundraiser where people pay isn't fraud. But if you think it is, just remember that it was the previous government(Liberals) that changed that law including removing ALL donation limits, the current government changed the maximum allowable donations per-person to $1250 at a fundraising event. And the previous government illegally destroyed documents on the NG power plant, covered it up, and then did the same thing with ORNGE and had actual closed door pay-for-access fundraisers where people were required to sign a NDA, and the press were bared from. Maybe you can tell everyone about the SNC-Laval scandal going on, can't wait for you to start defending Trudeau on it.
Don't quit your day job, but if you do and keep posting? I'll enjoy you making a further idiot out of yourself.
Om, nomnomnom...
So how in hell do you do an anonymized Door Knock?
The police go out and knock on every door in the city: Excuse me, can I please talk to Mr/Ms Anonymous, he/she/it may be at risk of something or other...
This is obvious transparent BS and exemplifies the growth of the Nanny State.
Serious question: If the problem revolves mostly around aboriginals, what changed starting 10 years ago in their overall lives?
One should think that shouldn't be too hard to determine...
When I spent 3 months in Toronto in 98, Canada was the better USA. American way of life without much of the negatives...
And today Canada seems to be on the forefront of much that I despise.
Sure, I've gotten way more conservative over the years... But I don't remember it being THAT leftist back then.
I'm yearning for balance becoming the political agenda du jour but looking back in history, if it ever was a thing, it will likely take benevolent dictatorahip.
And who wants to take those odds?
I identify as an electron and I object to this racist and blatant tracking offense. It's almost like they want to know where I'm going.
Jokes on them, though, I turn into a wave when they're not looking.
So, seems like they're watching "people of interest", where interest is defined as how upset you are. Isn't this what they're supposed to be doing? Just asking.
If the universe is someone's simulation -- does that mean the stars are just stuck pixels?
Stop and Frisk in Toronto was one of the main drivers of crime downwards.
Your supporting argument for this claim is that the crime rate has increased after the practice was stopped. That's... something. I don't know whether or not crime has actually gone up in Toronto, but given that the man assigned to evaluate the effectiveness of carding (Stop and Frisk) called it, "a practice that has not definitively been shown to widely reduce or solve crime," it seems as though you're jumping to conclusions. Even if it's true that crime has in fact increased since then, there doesn't seem to be any reason to believe that it's not a coincidence.
You might also consider New York's Stop and Frisk program, which had few positive results.
What you describe in your second paragraph is racial profiling, what the article is describing seems to be broader than that. Though the "negative neighborhood" comment might be interpreted as having a racial component.
Don't lie, do not call it stop and frisk, call it was it is, illegal detention and sexual assault, as a SLAVE, refusal will be severly punished, with, far more violent assault, kidnapping and extended detention, with sexual assault.
THIS IS HOW YOU TREAT SLAVES, not bloody citizens.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
If people are putting their personal shit out there then it's their own fault.
The other big problem with "stop and frisk" is that it's almost always used only against minorities and poor people, and it causes the divide between those groups and law enforcement to widen. They're already leery of law enforcement, but stop and frisk makes them downright resentful. It is the literal opposite of "community policing". It might actually drive crime down slightly in the short term (although I'd have to see good research to be convinced) but I'd argue that in the long term it's almost certainly going to have the opposite effect.
Do you have ESP?
Hmm... now I need to make one for politicians and enforcement time to purchase a scaleable platform. If they think it's okay to do it to us, I can do it to them too :-)
Whoa, whoa ..... just... whoa. I'm from a visible ethnic minority and have been stopped a few times while minding my own business. The first few times, it was really annoying but the cops were super polite and very clear on what they were doing. I was polite back, they asked a few questions (e.g. "Are you carrying a weapon, how's your day going so far etc) but never actually searched me.
Was I so offended that I considered that illegal detention? Of course not. Put it in perspective dude/dudette. I was inconvenienced for maybe a minute. Not even really inconvenienced - apart from them having lawful authority to detain me if they so wanted, it was more akin to having a quick chat with a stranger.
I work in analytics so maybe I have a completely different viewpoint from most folks. But here's why I'm not up in arms, before anyone freaks out, I would ask you try and take and objective view of this..
1. I am from a visible ethnic minority that is responsible for some not-insignificant portion of crime
2. My minority group also generally falls into the lower income bracket
3. It is statistically more probable that a member from my ethnic group will commit a violent crime compared to Caucasian or other groups
4. If I'm stopped and even searched by someone who is polite and has the welfare of MY community at heart, I welcome it
Now, on the other hand, if a cop stops you in the street and starts asking you questions and your first reaction is to get uber-defensive and maybe even confrontational, then I'm sorry to say but in my eyes, you're the problem. If you are unfortunate to fit the profile of someone the police are concerned about, you don't ALWAYS have to take it personally. It's not YOU they are interested in, it's the profile. Some folks just need to be able to distinguish between the two.
That's part of it. The other part is that we've progressively handcuffed police over time to the point that enforcement of the law when the perpetrator is native has become incredibly difficult. Even if police manage to investigate and effect an arrest, chances are the perp ends up in a "healing lodge" on some reserve instead of in a prison.
I agree, mostly. Freedom and safety are often at odds. I disagree that "stop and frisk" is a vile abuse of gov't power. It's an unfortunate action but maybe a necessary one. I know someone, somewhere is going to trot out the old, "If you sacrifice liberty for safety, you deserve neither" line but c'mon. A minutes inconvenience (if that, even) is not depriving you of your liberty, unless you decide to escalate the issue.
I wish I could mod you up but I've already commented here :(
If you're a victim of a crime or about to become one, I wish you luck if your recourse is waiting for the cops to arrive and save you. Especially in Canadian winter when the roads are bad and people forget how to drive.
In Canada, if you're about to get robbed, the cops will NOT be there to save you. And they won't even really be motivated to investigate afterwards.
Canada didn't run out of weed; the "approved" (aka legal) distributors had problems keeping up with the demand as people tried to switch away from the gray/black market. There was plenty of weed to go around; just not through the legal channels.
... one that I hope people aren't willing to pay.
This kind of thinking depends heavily on where you live. A happy liberal in a white suburb values individual freedom much more than a poor liberal in a ghetto. It's always easy to talk about individual freedom when you're not the one getting shot.
That's not to diminish your position; freedom is in some way a cornerstone of a solid and strong society. But freedom means different things in different situations. I value the freedom from violence, abuse, and robbery, higher than individual freedom, as the former if left unchecked causes the downfall of a society.
Wait, large scale gun ownership makes a society safer? So why do we have the highest homicide rate in the first world by over 2 times the next closest country?
Violations of personal freedom like stop and frisk and are even more necessary when there are guns all over the place. The effect it had on New York's crime rate helps illustrate this.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Sound similar to London where stop and search just make things worse by increasing distrust in and animosity towards the police, making it harder for them to intervene early or gather intelligence. Of course the Metropolitan Police have had problems with institutional and individual racism for decades too, which only exacerbated the problem.
What really helped in London was funding youth services and community projects that diverted people away from crime and gangs. When austerity started a decade ago the money went away and crime rates went up. Now there is a serious knife crime problem and the only effective solution takes at least a few years to really start working.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
at least in my experience is that they're like a time bomb waiting to go off.
Having known and grown up with several mentally ill folk (the real kind, diagnosed schizophrenics and the like) they're not crazy 24/7. They go through months of lucidity and then have "episodes" of crazy for several weeks/months.
What's especially tough is that during the lucid times they know and understand what they did while they were in crazy town. So they go out of their way to hide the signs of problems because, well, what else can they do?
Folks see them and assume they're faking because of the lucid periods. That's the real problem. It makes it real easy to talk about pulling social services from them because why should I have to pay for somebody who's sane to have a place to live? Never mind that for two months out of the year their batshit crazy and can't do a thing about it and they wreck everything around them.
I hate to say this, but I've learned to stay away from them. Like I said, during the crazy times they wreck everything. They're a disaster waiting to happen. It's messed up, but I'm not in a position where I can do anything about it. I know somebody who has made mid 6 figures his whole life and deals with somebody like this and he barely makes it.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Because the research I've seen says it's worthless. And like just about everywhere else Toronto's crime rate is going down. 2005 seemed to be the peak.
Stop and Frisk in the States is mostly used to keep undesirables (read: the poor) out of your neighborhood. It's also used as a segregation technique in large parts of the South. That's why we shot it down. Not sure about Canada though.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Now, on the other hand, if a cop stops you in the street and starts asking you questions and your first reaction is to get uber-defensive and maybe even confrontational, then I'm sorry to say but in my eyes, you're the problem.
And in my eyes, if you don't do this, you're the problem.
Normalizing a police state is not what we should be doing. I am not ok with "papers please". A police state never ends well for its citizens. Given that here in the US police shoot non-armed individuals all the time, yeah, I'm fucking going to be on the defensive if some try to stop me. There's a non-zero chance that they will kill me. In fact, it's about as likely that they will kill me as an actual criminal would.
1. I am from a visible ethnic minority that is responsible for some not-insignificant portion of crime
2. My minority group also generally falls into the lower income bracket
3. It is statistically more probable that a member from my ethnic group will commit a violent crime compared to Caucasian or other groups
And the answer to none of those problems is police action. Those are 100% social issues, and need to be addressed with social change. Cops stopping you and potentially killing you does not solve those issues.
4. If I'm stopped and even searched by someone who is polite and has the welfare of MY community at heart, I welcome it
In what fantasy world do cops have the wellfare of your community at heart? Stop and frisk is the opposite of that. It's a tool of authoritarian repression and discrimination. It does nothing to solve the root issues of the problem, and everything to propagate them. You are far less likely to be carrying drugs than a white person, but you are far more likely to get stopped, searched, possibly killed, and sent to jail if you're not. Killing and jailing the men of minority populations does not make crime better or reduce poverty within those populations. It does exactly the opposite.
Velociraptor = Distiraptor / Timeraptor
Gangs.
Largest by far percent of gun violence is gangs with handguns shooting each other. Next is suicide.
The chances of you getting involved with a shooting by the majority of legal gun owners is less than you dying in a car accident.
I for one, like to have the option to protect myself.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
I'll just say this, my experience with cops must be vastly different to yours for us to have such polarizing opinions
His wasn't a serious comment. There is a concerted effort from...somewhere...to dissuade thoughtful participation by posting rude responses that address almost nothing.
Slashdot should look into it. This is worse than typical outrage trolling designed to elicit clicks and responses to increase ad views.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Private firearms in the hands of citizens didn't prevent the Third Reich. It helped to enable it.
^ this.
Really I know it's trendy to pick on cops but most of them really do have the welfare of the community at heart. Are there exceptions? Of course. But they are just that... exceptions.
Source: Know lots of cops, mostly professionally but some personally as well.
Please stop APK.. you're only hurting yourself.
"Gangs.
Largest by far percent of gun violence is gangs with handguns shooting each other. Next is suicide."
There are plenty of gangs in every first world nation, they just have a much harder time getting guns because guns are much rarer.
"The chances of you getting involved with a shooting by the majority of legal gun owners is less than you dying in a car accident."
Absolutely. Where do the guns come from that are illegally owned though? Are there illegal gun factories in the US pumping out black market guns? No, they are all legally manufactured in the US and legally sold to distributors or direct to vendors in the US. Only afterwards do they end up illegally owned. In other words, we have so many people who own guns illegally precisely because of our mass legal gun ownership.
I for one like the idea of living in country where, generally speaking, the worst a mugger has is a knife because if they're a mugger they'll have their weapon out well before I ever would so my own right or non-right to carry a gun would be irrelevant.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Must visit this website Www.delhigigolo.ga
So, we should deny the rights of the VAST majority, the millions of legal, responsible gun owners, due to a small minority of criminals?
I mean geez, when a drunk drives a car into people and kills them, do you blame the car?
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
You're putting words in my mouth, I have advocated for nothing. I have only pointed to the source of our homicide problem.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
I'm not sure how your post got modded "informative" when the criminal statistics you state are factually wrong. The murder rate in Toronto is lower than it was ten years ago, for example. Also Toronto's murder rate is below the national average, not #2.
"Grab them by the pussy" -- President of the United States of America
For others who are reading this and modding it up, a bit of perspective.
The Stop and Frisk version in Toronto was known as Carding, and had problems. It targeted blacks disproportionately.
Read and watch these:
DocZone: Stop and Frisk
What You Need to Know About Carding
You also make it sound that Toronto is a kill zone. Yes, murder rate has gone up, and is the highest in Canada, but compared to cities in the USA, it is nothing.
Baltimore has 56 per 100,000, and Chicago had 23.8 per 100,000 in 2016.
Toronto's worse year in a decade (2018) is 96 murders for 2.8 million people, so 3.4 per 100,000, and that is up from around 2 previously.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
Yet cars are highly regulated. All kinds of safety features required. Other requirements such as good tires required on the road. Licenses needed.
Cops everywhere enforcing the various rules of the road.
Meanwhile simple safety features like a safety or requiring x ounces of pressure on the trigger to fire the weapon seem to be a no go in the States as if requiring a safety infringes rights unreasonably.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
China is building a Black Mirror-like social citizen rating that will deny you not just loans and bank accounts, but riding the bus and so on, if your Good Little Communist rating goes down too much.
They are piloting this for the dictatorship in Venezuela right now.
Meanwhile companies in the US, and the security agencies, are robo-building AI models of you to predict behavior. Do you think this is all anonymized and well-tracked (in the case of agencies) to prevent abuse by spying on political opponents?
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
Without them, freedom is meaningless because it doesn't exist.
Freedom is the key power of the West. Democracy is its servant, and a means to that end. Democracy is not the end itself.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
1. Guns are HIGHLY regulated, don't kid yourself there. Guns pass rigorous testing to make sure they are safe, and if something is found (like fires when dropped [the first Sig P320's had a problem if you struck them on the back with a hammer or threw them down hard in just the right way]), these problems are immediately addressed and fixed. I'll grant you some companies (like car companies) are better and faster than others, but they do watch this in a BIG way.
And you ONLY need a car license if you are going to be driving on the public roads IN public. If you only drive your car on private land, or on a private track, then you do not need any sort of license for a car. Same with guns. You do not shoot them willy nilly in public, you either target shoot on private ground, or ranges. If you wish to even CARRY a gun in general public on your person, you do require a Carry Concealed License. Most states have this provision.
2. Same cops are everywhere for gun violations...you fire one off in city limits, they'll be on you quick...And penalties for misuse of a gun are MUCH higher and harsher than most any car law violation. If you do something wrong with a gun on the federal level, easily 10years and many, many, many thousands of dollars fine.
3. Again, all modern weapons have safety features on them. Most all rifles I"ve ever come across have safeties on them. Most handguns do too, the ones that do not have a physical safety button/lever...have other safe features. For instance, some DA/SA handguns (Double actions/Single Action) take a good deal of trigger pressure to fire them double action when you've decocked the hammer. They are not likely to go off by themselves. Many also have firing pin blocks which mean they cannot go off without explicit trigger activation.
Many striker fire pistols, like the Glocks, have an extra dingus (or lever type thing) as part of the trigger mechanism, and cannot be fired unless it is explicitly pulled along with the usual trigger pressure and travel required to fire the weapon. I think you can easily Google for seeing how safe glocks are....I've seen them dragged behind cars on a rope and they don't go off, even bouncing around on the road.
Trust me, if you heard of an inherently unsafe pistol or rifle out on the market, and it has a record of misfires and mishaps, it would be ALL over the news.
But just like with any other complex mechanical device, if a gun defect slips out, much like with cars....there are notifications and recalls sent out.
From the factory, guns have the same type safety records and guards that any other complex, commercial mechanical device does....very analogous to automobiles.
Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
Good to hear, as others on this site have stated otherwise.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism
A minutes inconvenience (if that, even) is not depriving you of your liberty, unless you decide to escalate the issue.
It is, actually. At least for those few minutes. And the real metric to measure this by is not the few minutes they're claiming on average from those who meekly fall in line, but rather the amount of force they feel justified in using against those who do not.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Correlation != causation, have some citations that Stop and Frisk was actually the driver of the reduction in crime and not other contemporaneous factors?
"goodbye and hello, as always" ~Prince Corwin, from Zelazny's Amber series
"even before we start to look at the circumstances, and find that most people shot by police were in the process of attacking them"
I'm pretty sure the first words following every police shooting were "He was coming right for me", whether justified or not.
"Stop and frisk." Here's a thought for those of you in favor of this: I'm a type 1 diabetic, I carry a syringe and a bottle of insulin in my pocket. Want to guess how many times I've gone to jail for drug paraphernalia? Three.
Twice they've thrown the insulin out (Apidra, costly) because the prescription's on the box, not the bottle.
Fuck you, and the police, if you support that kind of bullshit.
My reality check bounced.
It is literally depriving them of their liberty to leave.
What if you're running late for an important appointment, and the cop's having a bad day? Maybe he decides to stretch it out because you didn't show him the proper respect.
Sorry, we're gonna need the drug dogs to come due to your suspicious behaviour. That'll be 30 minutes. Maybe an hour.
Oh geez, the dogs signaled. I'm gonna need to perform a cavity search.
Are you resisting me?
Hands behind your back.
Let's agree to disagree, I suppose. If a cop stops me and asks how my day is going and if I'm carrying a weapon and I say, "Going good, no, I'm not carrying a weapon" and then we talk about the cold weather for 30 seconds, I personally don't feel that's a violation of my human rights.
That may not be true for you, and that's OK.
But losing one freedom never gets you the other freedom, you've simply lost multiple freedoms.
Could that happen? Sure. You could also get into a terrible car accident on the way to work. Or maybe your car battery dies unexpectedly. Or maybe even there's a freak storm and you get 2 feet of snow in an hour.
I'm my entire life, I've been stopped maybe 8 times by a cop and 100% of them have been polite and courteous. Maybe I'm an anomaly. Maybe it's Canadian cops. Or maybe I've just been extraordinarily lucky and only the nice, honest cops have stopped me.
I fear there's a lot of pearl clutching going on. No-one will deny there aren't real-life instances of cops abusing their authority but let's not get carried away with the "what ifs". Otherwise we'll end up calling ICE on every non-Caucasian we see.
^ This guy/girl.
Ontario is currently in the midst of a full-on war against firearms because of shootings in Toronto. The gov't wants to ban handguns and have stirred up the population right good.
Never mind the fact that NO legal, licensed firearm owner has been responsible for the shootings. They're all done by criminals gangs who got their hands on illegal firearms.
So you got a social credit 1984 thing going on there, eh? Hold my Molson, buddy...
The reason we have the 2nd highest homicide rate in the first world (I'm assuming you're correct about that) has to do with demographics. We have a historically first world European society that prior to the 70s was 90% European heritage but is rapidly being replaced. Ignore wealth and control simply by percentage of each peoples and I think the reasons for this will be very clear.
I was under the impression that London was seeing record levels of violence. Are you saying that while it hasn't improved and in fact has gotten worse, youth services are working and the problem would be even worse without them? Seems like a lot of overhead necessary to accommodate certain groups new to the UK...
I'm saying it's bad now because of ten years in underfunding youth services.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Sure, you could get into a car accident. But nobody has the power to guarantee you get into a car accident without repercussions.
Humans are humans, and they'll do humany things.
By giving cops these powers, we are guaranteeing they will be abused. Not in every situation, not by every cop, but if a power exists, it's only a matter of time until it IS abused.
I'm glad you've only run into nice cops. You know what? So have I.
But there mere fact that these powers exist means that everybody's ok with the most sociopathic human being we can imagine getting employed by the police and using these powers against somebody innocent.
Stop-and-frisk is more than just asking questions, it is laying hands on the person. Questions are bad enough, themselves, if there is no probable cause. There needs to be a presumption of innocence. At least in the USA....
Now, you might feel it is a violation of your rights... and that is fine/OK (just like you said). But it is not OK if one then extends what one feels is OK for themselves to what should be allowed regardinging other people. I don't feel that way, and my point of view is supposedly backed by the Constitution. It is a mental separation that far too few of the population seem to apply. For example, I don't consume alcohol, never have, probably never will. But I am not for making it illegal. I would never get in a car without wearing a seatbelt, but I don't think adults should be compelled to do so with a law. Etc...
>"But losing one freedom never gets you the other freedom, you've simply lost multiple freedoms."
+1 insightful
28 February 2019 9:35 A.M. "Doug" bumped into a lamp post. Did NOT say "sorry". Suspected American infiltrator.
Both legal and illegal immigrants in this country commit less crime than its native citizens ( https://www.chicagotribune.com... , https://www.factcheck.org/2018... ). Couple that with the fact that our crime rate peaked in the 80's and is now at a relative post war low ( https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe... ) and it becomes pretty clear that what you're getting at isn't even close to correct.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Where do you think illegally owned guns come from? They were all legal at some point.
Less legal guns mean less guns that can illegally make their way into criminal's hands.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
They come from the US or having been burgled from homes. Your rationale is the epitome of slippery slope reasoning - by your logic, cars should become illegal because despite being legal the vast majority of the time, they have been used in crimes and therefore the less cars being sold, the less will be used to commit crime.
"Your rationale is the epitome of slippery slope reasoning - by your logic, cars should become illegal because despite being legal the vast majority of the time, they have been used in crimes and therefore the less cars being sold, the less will be used to commit crime."
That's not by my logic at all, the only slippery slope here is being provided by you. Guns have a single practical function and that is to kill something and in most cases that something is people (hunting rifles being the exception). Spinning my argument on to cars is just you piling up enough shit for yourself to slide down.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Guns have a single practical function and that is to kill something
Except, you know, for the fact that the overwhelming majority of legal, licensed civilian gun owners in Canada have never so much as harmed another person with a gun, despite having collectively shot more than 15 million rounds. That's 15 million projectiles that could have easily killed a person, yet didn't.
And yet every single illegally owned fire arm started off as legal so segregating legally owned guns into their own statistic is meaningless.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
Every single car used in a crime started out not being used in the commission of a crime.
Oh, back to cars. Perhaps I didn't elaborate enough on that point the first time you brought them up. A gun's only purpose is to kill something and in most cases that something is people where as a car is built to move people around. Banning guns for doing what they are designed to do is a completely different conversation from banning a car which is widely used for constructive purposes.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
A gun's only purpose is to kill something and in most cases that something is people
Well, since the overwhelming majority of guns and bullets owned by Canadian civilians have not actually killed a person, it would seem that they are extremely poorly designed for that purpose, would you agree? I mean, there's 15 MILLION firearms in Canada with just over 2.2 million licensed firearm owners. That means each gun owner has around 7 guns on average.
The way you portray it, 15 million firearms in a country of only 37 million should mean an extraordinary number of deaths per yer. If a guns only purpose was to kill someone, 15 million guns should be killing MILLIONs of people in Canada.
Yet, since statistically the needle barely moves on the scale, one of the following is accurate:
1. You're scare mongering because it personally benefits you or the ideology you're pushing 2. You've made a terrible mistake because the facts don't support your theory
You're gonna argue there's a 3rd option. But I can assure you, there is not.
This is great. First you falsely accuse me of slippery slope reasoning while you literally engage in the act. Then you try to cherry pick your data by only talking about legally owned guns. After that you revisit your own slippery slope of "if guns, why not cars" and now you're accusing me of exaggerating the scale of gun violence and scare mongering when the only extent to which I have even come close to commenting on gun violence is to point out that the US' homicide rate (not even gun violence rate) is twice that of the West's average and that's just a statistical fact.
So what's next, will you again revisit your slippery car slope or will you again just make something up and claim it's been what I've been saying?
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
by only talking about legally owned guns
My ENTIRE position has been that punishing legal, licensed firearm owners for the actions committed by illegal, unlicensed criminals is both unfair and ineffective as a policy. So you shouldn't really be surprised that my stats cover legal firearms owners..
You seem adamant to push your agenda so there's likely no rational explanation that would convince you to re-assess your position so I'll attempt to clarify one last time:
1. Person passes driving test and gets a license. Person buys car. Car is stolen. Car is used in a crime. Cars are not generally used to commit crimes (refer back to my statistics). Therefore cars should not be banned but people using them for illegal purposes should be prosecuted.
2. 1. Person passes firearms test and gets a license. Person buys fire. Firearm is stolen*. Firearm is used in a crime. Firearms are not generally used to commit crimes (refer back to my statistics). Therefore firearms should not be banned but people using them for illegal purposes should be prosecuted.
*Spelling corrections* 2. Person passes firearms test and gets a license. Person buys firearm. Firearm is stolen. Firearm is used in a crime. Firearms are not generally used to commit crimes (refer back to my statistics). Therefore firearms should not be banned but people using them for illegal purposes should be prosecuted.
This story about the Hub model is the tip of the tip of the tip of the iceberg of a very intentional and elaborate program extending far beyond the agencies named here. All people really have to do is open their eyes and ears to the right things, and close them to the wrong things. But it's only happening because the rest of us have allowed it to. Really, if identifying someone to be "at risk" of being a danger to self or others gives these people some legal avenue to do this to other people, then there is every reason to apply such legalities and initiatives to them. I can think of many good reasons why police, social workers, and health care workers on agenda's like this are a danger to themselves and others. I think they're all "at risk" of pushing these agenda's to suit themselves with no regard to how it's detrimental to everyone.
"My ENTIRE position has been that punishing legal, licensed firearm owners for the actions committed by illegal, unlicensed criminals is both unfair and ineffective as a policy. So you shouldn't really be surprised that my stats cover legal firearms owners.. "
There are plenty of dangerous things that are outlawed or heavily restricted by government. It's not "punishing" anyone.
"1. Person passes driving test and gets a license. Person buys car. Car is stolen. Car is used in a crime. Cars are not generally used to commit crimes (refer back to my statistics). Therefore cars should not be banned but people using them for illegal purposes should be prosecuted.
2. 1. Person passes firearms test and gets a license. Person buys fire. Firearm is stolen*. Firearm is used in a crime. Firearms are not generally used to commit crimes (refer back to my statistics). Therefore firearms should not be banned but people using them for illegal purposes should be prosecuted."
So it's back to cars and your slippery slope a third time. Repeating myself, cars have massively productive uses outside of the undesirable scenario you describe. Guns on the other hand don't have any other use aside from shooting a person (aside from hunting rifles as I mentioned before). In other words, there is no massive social detriment to be had from having very restrictive gun ownership laws. This can be easily observed in every other Western society.
I ignore Anonymous Coward posts. If you want to discuss something, that's awesome. Log in.
There are plenty of dangerous things that are outlawed or heavily restricted by government. It's not "punishing" anyone.
If you curtail the ability of someone to pursue something they're interested in, and that person is in no way harming anyone else, then of course you're punishing them. You're taking what is otherwise a lawful, legal right and taking it away because someone else did something.
Guns on the other hand don't have any other use aside from shooting a person
Back to this....More than 15 million guns in Canada and over 100 million rounds expended and not a single person shot. I think that would tell you that the vast majority of gun owners in Canada use their firearms for putting nice little holes in cardboard than people. It's not for you to decide whether or not that's a good use of their money or time. If 100 million of anything doesn't result in a "bad thing", only an irrational person would claim they can only be used for "bad things".
Look, I get it. You're anti-firearm. That's OK, it's entirely your prerogative but at least try to be objective when it comes to hard facts.