This. Deprivation of rights using official authority to do so while in possession of a firearm is a federal felony (18 USC 242, 18 USC 924). If dressing alike, carrying the same weapons and identifying with the same group while breaking the law in any way makes you a criminal gang, then thpse cops are gang members without question.
For that matter, it’s also a felony (18 USC 241) for a court to conspire to violate people’s rights, which is what charging someone with a felony, the judge not dismissing the obvious retaliation against exercise of rights and even a correctional officer imprisoning someone found guilty of exercise of rights would be.
This. Deprivation of rights using official authority to do so while in possession of a firearm is a federal felony (18 USC 242, 18 USC 924). If dressing alike, carrying the same weapons and identifying with the same group while breaking the law in any way makes you a criminal gang, then thpse cops are gang members without question.
For that matter, it’s also a felony (18 USC 241) for a court to conspire to violate people’s rights, which is what charging someone with a felony, the judge not dismissing the obvious retaliation against exercise of rights and even a correctional officer imprisoning someone found guilty of exercise of rights would be.
Robbins had probable cause for the officers using their official authority to violate his first and fourth amendment rights.
Iowa allows a citizen's arrest to be made for a felony the citizen witnesses (the only state that doesn't is North Carolina). The US Supreme Court has ruled that unless there is a superseding statute (there wasn't then and isn't now) a federal citizen's arrest is lawful under the same circumstances and limits that a state citizen's arrest would be (United States v. Di Re (1948)).
Which brings us to Title 18, Section 241 of the US Code, which defines any two or more government officials using their official authority to violate any civil, statutory or constitutional rights to be a felony punishable by ten years in a federal prison.
Not quite spoliation, but evidence tampering did take place when the cop disabled a recording device so that it could not record evidence he reasonably knew would be of interest to investigators.
Since the cop's "no photographs" order violated federal law, that brings federal jurisdiction into the matter, and the penalty for a conviction for federal evidence tampering is 20 years in prison - the bar for a conviction is set rather low as well, much lower than it is for evidence tampering at the state level in most states.
It's especially alarming (and absurd) when you consider the fact that the division of the Department of Justice with the responsibility of investigating, arresting and often prosecuting use of governmental authority to practice viewpoint discrimination... is the FBI. And it's a felony.
Re: I wonder if there's a term for that sort of thing...
If the uploaded YouTube video is the only copy in existence of a given video, and the police agency trying to get it deleted is being sued for that incident of brutality depicted in the video, wouldn't that count as spoliation?
The main difference between a drone operator and one of the guys who took down the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 is that one of them is a courageous individual willing to do anything for his chain of command...and the other sits in a chair somewhere and never goes anywhere near danger.
People get exonerated and released from prison every year when it is finally proven that police coerced them to confess to a crime they never committed.
Should they be punished for being the victims of police abuse?
Re: Zero sympathy. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
He didn't make a terrorist hoax though. A terrorist hoax is phoning in a bomb threat for a bomb that doesn't exist.
This guy pretended to be something he is not, and acted out a role on social media. He's no different than the guy who pretends to be a combat veteran despite never coming within a thousand miles of any fighting while serving in the quartermaster corps.
The only difference with this particular poser is that he managed to make the cops look stupid for believing his act.
By declaring that police can be excused from crimes because they are ignorant of the law (despite having MORE training in the law than most regular citizens get), they have either made ignorance an excuse for everyone, or they have created a VERY LARGE less privileged class of citizen. A class that comprises some 99.67% of the population!
Which brings us to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution...
My state requires that my landlord give a ten day notice to pay up or vacate if something goes wrong with my rent payment and the landlord doesn't have it before the deadline - something that has only happened to me six times in 15 years. One was a bank error, four were because the landlord lost the check after receiving it. The one that was even vaguely my fault was due to the landlord changing the due date for rent without informing me.
If payment is not made within 7 days of the 10 day notice, a 3 day notice is sent. At the end of the period, eviction begins unless payment is made.
That's fair. But my landlord loves delivering the 10 day and 3 day notices at the same time in the same envelope. Which always leaves me wondering - are they being bizarrely efficient on saving on postage, or do I only have 3 days to pay before they evict me?
Supposedly, the timers run from receipt of the notices, but given they're already breaking the law by sending me the 10 day and 3 day notices together, I always worry a bit that they're counting from the day they mailed the notice.
If you are illegally evicted remotely by making your key stop working, what prevents you from going to a rental business, renting a drill, and drilling the lock?
When the first opportunity you get to protest your deportation and maybe prove your citizenship is at the gates of the US embassy in whatever foreign country ICE dumps you in, it proves beyond doubt that those hearings ICE considers very vaguely optional are in fact necessary.
I have no idea where it comes from, but I keep running into people who have the idea that a trial is a privilege that the clearly guilty don't deserve - rather than the means by which the government finds out if someone is guilty or not in the first place.
And the bar for 'clearly guilty' pre-trial keeps creeping lower in direct proportion to how opposed to the viewer's politics the accused appears to be.
The thing is though, that some of those words actually are pretty descriptive of the people they're applied to.
Someone whose very presence inside a country's borders is a criminal act is very much illegal - even Canada, with one of the most liberal immigration laws in the world, will still prosecute people who enter the country illegally.
For another example, how would you describe this person without using loaded terms, yet still accurately describe what she is doing?
Software is, ultimately, a set of instructions. The speech aspect is due to the expression of those instructions, which is often just as artistic as any poem.
But if the execution of that software's code is protected by the First Amendment, then you could write someone instructions that caused them to break the law - criminal or civil - and you would be protected from liability even though the instructions were illegal.
It would effectively abolish conspiracy laws on the spot, if valid.
The first step to heroically defeating a cyber-attack at the very last second before countless lives are lost to it is to connect the critical system(s) to the internet.
Simply skipping step one would eliminate the core plot of dozens of Hollywood movies.
Unfortunately, far too many corporate executives and government officials seem to use Hollywood movies as their guide to how technology should be implemented.
This illustrates a classic problem people have. That many are unaware they have. It's often dismissed under the "first world problems" tag.
While any injustice is bad, some injustices are worse than others. There's a strong tendency to assume that what we have now is just as bad as what people had in the past, and it's just not true.
This comment by rangda illustrates it nicely. The difference between then and now is that then it was multiple orders of magnitude worse than it is now. There was a time when casual statements about how jews or blacks being evil or dirty or otherwise subhuman would be met by nods and noises of agreement in public, rather than the shocked horror such statements meet today (outside of fringe groups).
Now we have bigotry of various flavors, but most of the bigots are in the minority. They keep silent outside of their fringe groups because they know the rest of us not only won't agree, we simply won't tolerate their hatred.
But back then, those same people who nodded in agreement would also look the other way or even help out when it came to attacks on people for their skin color or religion or whatever. Not just a few individuals here and there, but the majority of the general public.
The war against bigotry is ongoing, but it used to be a lot worse than it is now.
On the post: Arizona Prosecutors Pretend 'ACAB' Is Gang Lingo To Hit Protesters With Felony Gang Charges
Re:
This. Deprivation of rights using official authority to do so while in possession of a firearm is a federal felony (18 USC 242, 18 USC 924). If dressing alike, carrying the same weapons and identifying with the same group while breaking the law in any way makes you a criminal gang, then thpse cops are gang members without question.
For that matter, it’s also a felony (18 USC 241) for a court to conspire to violate people’s rights, which is what charging someone with a felony, the judge not dismissing the obvious retaliation against exercise of rights and even a correctional officer imprisoning someone found guilty of exercise of rights would be.
On the post: Arizona Prosecutors Pretend 'ACAB' Is Gang Lingo To Hit Protesters With Felony Gang Charges
Re:
This. Deprivation of rights using official authority to do so while in possession of a firearm is a federal felony (18 USC 242, 18 USC 924). If dressing alike, carrying the same weapons and identifying with the same group while breaking the law in any way makes you a criminal gang, then thpse cops are gang members without question.
For that matter, it’s also a felony (18 USC 241) for a court to conspire to violate people’s rights, which is what charging someone with a felony, the judge not dismissing the obvious retaliation against exercise of rights and even a correctional officer imprisoning someone found guilty of exercise of rights would be.
On the post: No Qualified Immunity For Cops Who Made Stuff Up To Justify Seizing A Man's Phone For Twelve Days
Conspiracy Against Rights under Color of Law
Robbins had probable cause for the officers using their official authority to violate his first and fourth amendment rights.
Iowa allows a citizen's arrest to be made for a felony the citizen witnesses (the only state that doesn't is North Carolina). The US Supreme Court has ruled that unless there is a superseding statute (there wasn't then and isn't now) a federal citizen's arrest is lawful under the same circumstances and limits that a state citizen's arrest would be (United States v. Di Re (1948)).
Which brings us to Title 18, Section 241 of the US Code, which defines any two or more government officials using their official authority to violate any civil, statutory or constitutional rights to be a felony punishable by ten years in a federal prison.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/conspiracy-against-rights
On the post: Fifth Circuit Tosses Child Porn Conviction Predicated On Unconstitutional Searches Of Three Cellphones
Re:
The warrants based on sex-related evidence would still have been faulty. It's not illegal for adults to own adult underwear, sex toys or candy.
If owning completely legal items was grounds for a search warrant, there would be no such thing as the fourth amendment.
On the post: Fifth Circuit Tosses Child Porn Conviction Predicated On Unconstitutional Searches Of Three Cellphones
Re:
He had 14 years of experience with judges who rubber stamped his flimsiest hunches. Why would he expect that not to happen now?
On the post: Internet-Connected Chastity Cages Hit By Bitcoin Ransom Hack
Re:
More like cocklocked!
On the post: Appeals Court Denies Immunity To Cop Who Broke A Truck Driver's Jaw During A 'Routine Accident Investigation'
Re: Re: spoilation
Not quite spoliation, but evidence tampering did take place when the cop disabled a recording device so that it could not record evidence he reasonably knew would be of interest to investigators.
Since the cop's "no photographs" order violated federal law, that brings federal jurisdiction into the matter, and the penalty for a conviction for federal evidence tampering is 20 years in prison - the bar for a conviction is set rather low as well, much lower than it is for evidence tampering at the state level in most states.
On the post: Internal Documents Show The FBI Is Only Interested In Punishing Anti-Trump Speech By Its Employees
Re: How very reassuring
It's especially alarming (and absurd) when you consider the fact that the division of the Department of Justice with the responsibility of investigating, arresting and often prosecuting use of governmental authority to practice viewpoint discrimination... is the FBI. And it's a felony.
https://www.justice.gov/crt/conspiracy-against-rights
On the post: Content Moderation Case Study: Google Refuses A Law Enforcement Agency Demand To Remove A Video Depicting Police Brutality (2011)
Re: I wonder if there's a term for that sort of thing...
If the uploaded YouTube video is the only copy in existence of a given video, and the police agency trying to get it deleted is being sued for that incident of brutality depicted in the video, wouldn't that count as spoliation?
On the post: Canadian Man Arrested For Not Being A Terrorist
Re: Railguns are terrorism
The main difference between a drone operator and one of the guys who took down the World Trade Center on 9/11/2001 is that one of them is a courageous individual willing to do anything for his chain of command...and the other sits in a chair somewhere and never goes anywhere near danger.
On the post: Canadian Man Arrested For Not Being A Terrorist
Re: Re:
People get exonerated and released from prison every year when it is finally proven that police coerced them to confess to a crime they never committed.
Should they be punished for being the victims of police abuse?
On the post: Canadian Man Arrested For Not Being A Terrorist
Re: Zero sympathy. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.
He didn't make a terrorist hoax though. A terrorist hoax is phoning in a bomb threat for a bomb that doesn't exist.
This guy pretended to be something he is not, and acted out a role on social media. He's no different than the guy who pretends to be a combat veteran despite never coming within a thousand miles of any fighting while serving in the quartermaster corps.
The only difference with this particular poser is that he managed to make the cops look stupid for believing his act.
On the post: Prosecutor Says It's OK That Deputies Faked Evidence Reports Because They Didn't Know It Was A Crime
Re: Re: That's handy
By declaring that police can be excused from crimes because they are ignorant of the law (despite having MORE training in the law than most regular citizens get), they have either made ignorance an excuse for everyone, or they have created a VERY LARGE less privileged class of citizen. A class that comprises some 99.67% of the population!
Which brings us to the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment to the US Constitution...
On the post: Smart Locks Could Make Heartless COVID Evictions More Efficient
Re: Re:
My state requires that my landlord give a ten day notice to pay up or vacate if something goes wrong with my rent payment and the landlord doesn't have it before the deadline - something that has only happened to me six times in 15 years. One was a bank error, four were because the landlord lost the check after receiving it. The one that was even vaguely my fault was due to the landlord changing the due date for rent without informing me.
If payment is not made within 7 days of the 10 day notice, a 3 day notice is sent. At the end of the period, eviction begins unless payment is made.
That's fair. But my landlord loves delivering the 10 day and 3 day notices at the same time in the same envelope. Which always leaves me wondering - are they being bizarrely efficient on saving on postage, or do I only have 3 days to pay before they evict me?
Supposedly, the timers run from receipt of the notices, but given they're already breaking the law by sending me the 10 day and 3 day notices together, I always worry a bit that they're counting from the day they mailed the notice.
On the post: Smart Locks Could Make Heartless COVID Evictions More Efficient
Re: Existing Law May Bar Self-Help Evictions
If you are illegally evicted remotely by making your key stop working, what prevents you from going to a rental business, renting a drill, and drilling the lock?
On the post: Appeals Court Says ICE Detainees Should Be Able To See A Judge In 48 Hours, Just Like Criminal Suspects
Re: Cheech!
When the first opportunity you get to protest your deportation and maybe prove your citizenship is at the gates of the US embassy in whatever foreign country ICE dumps you in, it proves beyond doubt that those hearings ICE considers very vaguely optional are in fact necessary.
I have no idea where it comes from, but I keep running into people who have the idea that a trial is a privilege that the clearly guilty don't deserve - rather than the means by which the government finds out if someone is guilty or not in the first place.
And the bar for 'clearly guilty' pre-trial keeps creeping lower in direct proportion to how opposed to the viewer's politics the accused appears to be.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re:
The thing is though, that some of those words actually are pretty descriptive of the people they're applied to.
Someone whose very presence inside a country's borders is a criminal act is very much illegal - even Canada, with one of the most liberal immigration laws in the world, will still prosecute people who enter the country illegally.
For another example, how would you describe this person without using loaded terms, yet still accurately describe what she is doing?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXhl4QYQOuc
On the post: Court Rejects Clearview's First Amendment, Section 230 Immunity Arguments
Re:
Software is, ultimately, a set of instructions. The speech aspect is due to the expression of those instructions, which is often just as artistic as any poem.
But if the execution of that software's code is protected by the First Amendment, then you could write someone instructions that caused them to break the law - criminal or civil - and you would be protected from liability even though the instructions were illegal.
It would effectively abolish conspiracy laws on the spot, if valid.
On the post: Biggest Ransomware Attack Yet Crippled U.S. Hospitals Last Weekend
Re:
The first step to heroically defeating a cyber-attack at the very last second before countless lives are lost to it is to connect the critical system(s) to the internet.
Simply skipping step one would eliminate the core plot of dozens of Hollywood movies.
Unfortunately, far too many corporate executives and government officials seem to use Hollywood movies as their guide to how technology should be implemented.
On the post: Facebook Sued For Not Preventing A Bunch A White Guys With Guns From Traveling To A Protest To Shoot People
Re: Re: Re:
This illustrates a classic problem people have. That many are unaware they have. It's often dismissed under the "first world problems" tag.
While any injustice is bad, some injustices are worse than others. There's a strong tendency to assume that what we have now is just as bad as what people had in the past, and it's just not true.
This comment by rangda illustrates it nicely. The difference between then and now is that then it was multiple orders of magnitude worse than it is now. There was a time when casual statements about how jews or blacks being evil or dirty or otherwise subhuman would be met by nods and noises of agreement in public, rather than the shocked horror such statements meet today (outside of fringe groups).
Now we have bigotry of various flavors, but most of the bigots are in the minority. They keep silent outside of their fringe groups because they know the rest of us not only won't agree, we simply won't tolerate their hatred.
But back then, those same people who nodded in agreement would also look the other way or even help out when it came to attacks on people for their skin color or religion or whatever. Not just a few individuals here and there, but the majority of the general public.
The war against bigotry is ongoing, but it used to be a lot worse than it is now.
Next >>