A lot of the problems with police subverting the law have always been there, but were just never believed by “anyone who mattered.” Another huge chunk of the problems can be traced directly to Nixon’s “War on Drugs,” which was really just a way to attack his political enemies and other “undesirables.” The problems with police subverting the law again ramped up in the late 80’s and early 90’s as the “crack cocaine epidemic” became the excuse du jour. It is really only since the widespread use of cellphone video cameras that anyone beyond the victims of the police (and their defense attorneys) has begun to accept that such a problem even exists. And, in spite of vast quantities of overwhelming and incontrovertible video evidence, most courts and most of the public still refuse to accept that the police ever subvert the law.
This is a good sign. Let’s just hope that NDA’s, conditions of contracts, bogus claims of “need to know” or “might compromise the investigation” or that old favorite “national security” or similar absurd excuses do not continue to supersede laws, civil rights, and court orders, as they have in the past.
I wonder if they can count how many political organizations they have illegal dossiers on? Or how many people they put into "internment camps" based solely on their ethnicity? Or how many people they have investigated for exercising their First Amendment rights? Or how many crimes they have aided and abetted in the name of "catching bigger fish"? Or how many people's civil rights they have violated because of their political positions, or "just because"? Or how many people they have helped to wrongly imprison based on flawed "forensics" analysis? Or how many people they have killed for trivial legal violations? Or how many peoples lives they have ruined based on their sexual orientation? Or how many warrant-less searches they have conducted?
It seems to me that losing count of some guns and ammunition, and creatively counting some phones, pales in comparison to the FBI’s long and persistent history of serious civil and criminal violations.
I think it is an excellent point, and if you had not made it, I would have. And, as JoeCool said, we are stuck with countless similar (and similarly useless) agencies. DHS and TSA are probably the two most egregious examples. In addition to being generally useless, these "seemed like a good idea at the time" agencies are intrusive and expensive. They are a drag on an economy that is dissolving before our eyes. They are a great example of what we are likely to face much more of in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. We must all do whatever we can to put a stop to this government addiction to using crises as excuses to expand power and control.
While "parallel construction" is the common euphemism for the despicable practice of concealing illegally obtained information or evidence used to initiate criminal investigations, I believe the phrase is misleading and does not have sufficiently negative connotations.
There is nothing “parallel” about the practice. Rather it refers to a sequential process whereby illegally obtained information or evidence is used as a reason to initiate a subsequent investigation. These subsequent investigations would have never been undertaken absent the previous illegally obtained information or evidence.
And while the term “construction” generally has positive connotations, the practice is actually very destructive. It is destroying what little privacy rights remain for American citizens, and it is also destroying what little respect remains for the Constitution, in particular, and the rule of law, in general.
I believe "evidence laundering" is a much more accurate term, and has more appropriately negative connotations. And while the practice is clearly wrong, I do not believe it has been made explicitly illegal. It should be.
is truth (or the dissemination thereof). In the current war against a tiny but very dangerous virus, both the government at all levels and private entities have been guilty of suppressing the free flow of information, information that could well be vital to winning this war sooner, rather than later, and with fewer casualties, rather than more.
It helps to legitimize the generally necessary legal defense that "I reasonably feared for my life (or serious bodily injury or the life of someone else)." The theory is that if you have reasonable fear of (one of the above) you will do that which has the best chance of immediately stopping the threat.
Attempting to injure an arm or leg does not meet that condition due to much greater chance of missing completely, and even if you do hit, there is much less chance of immediately stopping the threat. At least, that is what a prosecutor would say. It makes sense to me, too, but my opinion doesn't really matter. How a prosecutor might frame it in court to a jury is what matters.
And, as R.H. said, this is what is taught in the classes that some states require for a pistol permit (or concealed carry license, or whatever they happen to call it in the state in question). In my state in the permit class it was presented essentially as I stated above.
In this case, there was no reason for there to be a victim at all, and that is not why cops aim for center mass and not limbs. If you are ever in the position of having to fire on someone to defend yourself, aim at the torso:
You are absolutely correct on both points. From a criminal liability standpoint torso is always preferred because of better chance of hitting and better chance of immediately stopping the threat. I was just trying to point out that there are some other, unfortunate, considerations, too. In any case, the idea that "ya coulda just winged 'im" is not a valid concept. I should have made that more clear.
From what I understand about the possible civil legal repercussions of defensive (which is what the cops tried, unsuccessfully, to claim) use of deadly force in general, one (cop or not) is usually in a better legal position if one is sued by a deceased person’s relatives, rather than by a (possibly very sympathetic) living victim with (possibly huge) current medical bills and / or (possibly huge) future and continuing medical bills and / or permanent disabilities. You might file this one under bad incentives create bad outcomes.
Yes, Poe's law is definitely in effect here. I prefer to think that David was being dryly sarcastic / humorous because
I try to be positive, even if it may not be warranted
I tend to like that sort of humor
It is less stressful than the other disturbing / outraging option
However, given the current state of outrageous policing, the courts' equally outrageous responses to said outrageous policing, and the public's general indifference to both, it is not much of a stretch to think that his comment might be accurate and insightful, no matter how distressing that thought might be.
We really need to stop using the term 'justice system.' It is a legal system, and any result resembling 'justice' is merely an occasional side effect. Using the term 'justice system' only serves to further unfortunate misconceptions.
It should probably also be noted that 'justice' is often considered impossible to properly define, and, by extension, impossible to properly achieve.
Old school flip phone with no SIM card is good. It will still call 911 if you need that, but very limited track-ability. Not no track-ability, but much less than "smart" phone.
Most LEO's, it seems, view the Constitution as not merely a quaint anachronism, but as an impediment to their power, an obstacle to be overcome by whatever means necessary, or to simply be ignored.
Isn't there some corollary or variation of Poe's Law about government agencies or regulations going so far off the rails that they cannot be parodied?
If not, there should be.
And I think the above "Global Pandemic (and US pandemic) / Orphan Drug Status" situation would be a good example of the corollary. Particularly when you consider:
1) This hockey-stick bar chart of US cases. Projecting from the chart it will just be a few more days until the magic 200K number is reached.
2) And that the bar chart only shows diagnosed cases. There are certainly many more (possibly several times more) cases that have yet to be clinically diagnosed.
3) And the fact that there is also a large, but unknown, number of cases that will never be clinically diagnosed because they present as asymptomatic or only mildly symptomatic. However it is currently believed that these cases still contribute to the spread of the virus.
Yes! IANAL but I have long thought that too many people take a much too narrow view of what qualifies under RICO. Just because an Organization wasn't started (or doesn't exist) for the express purpose of criminal activity does not mean it is not Influenced by Racketeers and Corrupt.
Have there been any instances where a DOJ consent decree has actually worked in the long term? It seems to me that these are just to give the ephemeral impression of "doing something."
On the post: Appeals Court Tells Baltimore PD To Start Coughing Up Information About Its Cell Site Simulators
Re:
A lot of the problems with police subverting the law have always been there, but were just never believed by “anyone who mattered.” Another huge chunk of the problems can be traced directly to Nixon’s “War on Drugs,” which was really just a way to attack his political enemies and other “undesirables.” The problems with police subverting the law again ramped up in the late 80’s and early 90’s as the “crack cocaine epidemic” became the excuse du jour. It is really only since the widespread use of cellphone video cameras that anyone beyond the victims of the police (and their defense attorneys) has begun to accept that such a problem even exists. And, in spite of vast quantities of overwhelming and incontrovertible video evidence, most courts and most of the public still refuse to accept that the police ever subvert the law.
On the post: Court To Cops: No Expectation Of Privacy In A 'Beer-Drinking, Nap-Taking Hideout'
Re: Re:
A perfect example. An unnecessary agency created to fill a small, temporary need, but that has lasted over 120 years.
On the post: Appeals Court Tells Baltimore PD To Start Coughing Up Information About Its Cell Site Simulators
This is a good sign. Let’s just hope that NDA’s, conditions of contracts, bogus claims of “need to know” or “might compromise the investigation” or that old favorite “national security” or similar absurd excuses do not continue to supersede laws, civil rights, and court orders, as they have in the past.
On the post: We Know The FBI Can't Count Phones. A New Report Shows It Can't Count Guns And Ammo Either.
Some perspective
I wonder if they can count how many political organizations they have illegal dossiers on? Or how many people they put into "internment camps" based solely on their ethnicity? Or how many people they have investigated for exercising their First Amendment rights? Or how many crimes they have aided and abetted in the name of "catching bigger fish"? Or how many people's civil rights they have violated because of their political positions, or "just because"? Or how many people they have helped to wrongly imprison based on flawed "forensics" analysis? Or how many people they have killed for trivial legal violations? Or how many peoples lives they have ruined based on their sexual orientation? Or how many warrant-less searches they have conducted?
It seems to me that losing count of some guns and ammunition, and creatively counting some phones, pales in comparison to the FBI’s long and persistent history of serious civil and criminal violations.
On the post: Court To Cops: No Expectation Of Privacy In A 'Beer-Drinking, Nap-Taking Hideout'
Re:
I think it is an excellent point, and if you had not made it, I would have. And, as JoeCool said, we are stuck with countless similar (and similarly useless) agencies. DHS and TSA are probably the two most egregious examples. In addition to being generally useless, these "seemed like a good idea at the time" agencies are intrusive and expensive. They are a drag on an economy that is dissolving before our eyes. They are a great example of what we are likely to face much more of in the wake of the coronavirus pandemic. We must all do whatever we can to put a stop to this government addiction to using crises as excuses to expand power and control.
On the post: Voluntary Virus Tracking Apps Seek To Get A Grip On The Coronavirus Problem
Words matter
While "parallel construction" is the common euphemism for the despicable practice of concealing illegally obtained information or evidence used to initiate criminal investigations, I believe the phrase is misleading and does not have sufficiently negative connotations.
There is nothing “parallel” about the practice. Rather it refers to a sequential process whereby illegally obtained information or evidence is used as a reason to initiate a subsequent investigation. These subsequent investigations would have never been undertaken absent the previous illegally obtained information or evidence.
And while the term “construction” generally has positive connotations, the practice is actually very destructive. It is destroying what little privacy rights remain for American citizens, and it is also destroying what little respect remains for the Constitution, in particular, and the rule of law, in general.
I believe "evidence laundering" is a much more accurate term, and has more appropriately negative connotations. And while the practice is clearly wrong, I do not believe it has been made explicitly illegal. It should be.
On the post: WTF Hospital Administrators? Now Is NOT The Time To Silence Doctors & Nurses From Commenting On COVID-19 Shortages
The first casualty of war . . .
is truth (or the dissemination thereof). In the current war against a tiny but very dangerous virus, both the government at all levels and private entities have been guilty of suppressing the free flow of information, information that could well be vital to winning this war sooner, rather than later, and with fewer casualties, rather than more.
On the post: Appeals Court Says No Immunity For Cops Who Shot A Man Standing Motionless With His Hands In The Air
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
It helps to legitimize the generally necessary legal defense that "I reasonably feared for my life (or serious bodily injury or the life of someone else)." The theory is that if you have reasonable fear of (one of the above) you will do that which has the best chance of immediately stopping the threat.
Attempting to injure an arm or leg does not meet that condition due to much greater chance of missing completely, and even if you do hit, there is much less chance of immediately stopping the threat. At least, that is what a prosecutor would say. It makes sense to me, too, but my opinion doesn't really matter. How a prosecutor might frame it in court to a jury is what matters.
And, as R.H. said, this is what is taught in the classes that some states require for a pistol permit (or concealed carry license, or whatever they happen to call it in the state in question). In my state in the permit class it was presented essentially as I stated above.
On the post: Copyright Is Broken: COVID-19 Pandemic Revealing Just How Messed Up Our Permission-Based Culture Is
I am not holding my breath
This is very broadly applicable, not just to copyright. But what are the odds?
On the post: Appeals Court Says No Immunity For Cops Who Shot A Man Standing Motionless With His Hands In The Air
Re: Re: Re:
You are absolutely correct on both points. From a criminal liability standpoint torso is always preferred because of better chance of hitting and better chance of immediately stopping the threat. I was just trying to point out that there are some other, unfortunate, considerations, too. In any case, the idea that "ya coulda just winged 'im" is not a valid concept. I should have made that more clear.
On the post: Appeals Court Says No Immunity For Cops Who Shot A Man Standing Motionless With His Hands In The Air
Re:
From what I understand about the possible civil legal repercussions of defensive (which is what the cops tried, unsuccessfully, to claim) use of deadly force in general, one (cop or not) is usually in a better legal position if one is sued by a deceased person’s relatives, rather than by a (possibly very sympathetic) living victim with (possibly huge) current medical bills and / or (possibly huge) future and continuing medical bills and / or permanent disabilities. You might file this one under bad incentives create bad outcomes.
On the post: Appeals Court Says No Immunity For Cops Who Shot A Man Standing Motionless With His Hands In The Air
Re: Re: Re: Re: Look, it was a standoff
Yes, Poe's law is definitely in effect here. I prefer to think that David was being dryly sarcastic / humorous because
However, given the current state of outrageous policing, the courts' equally outrageous responses to said outrageous policing, and the public's general indifference to both, it is not much of a stretch to think that his comment might be accurate and insightful, no matter how distressing that thought might be.
On the post: Appeals Court Says No Immunity For Cops Who Shot A Man Standing Motionless With His Hands In The Air
The fact that the above is true is more outraging than it should be . . . or something like that.
On the post: EU Parliament Told Predictive Policing Software Relies On Dirty Data Generated By Corrupt Cops
Words Matter
We really need to stop using the term 'justice system.' It is a legal system, and any result resembling 'justice' is merely an occasional side effect. Using the term 'justice system' only serves to further unfortunate misconceptions.
It should probably also be noted that 'justice' is often considered impossible to properly define, and, by extension, impossible to properly achieve.
On the post: FDA Won't Say When Gilead Applied For Orphan Status On COVID-19 Treatment, Calling It 'Secret'
Re: Surprise! Gilead agrees to give up orphan drugs designation
Looking forward to "the rest of the story"
Wow. I think my BS and Outrage meters both broke a needle on that one.
On the post: VPN Review Site Creates Live Digital Rights Tracker To Compile Coronavirus-Related Surveillance Efforts
Re:
Old school flip phone with no SIM card is good. It will still call 911 if you need that, but very limited track-ability. Not no track-ability, but much less than "smart" phone.
On the post: Houston Police Chief Says He'll Prosecute People For False Statements About COVID-19 Response; Won't Debate 1st Amendment
Most LEO's, it seems, view the Constitution as not merely a quaint anachronism, but as an impediment to their power, an obstacle to be overcome by whatever means necessary, or to simply be ignored.
On the post: Why Is The FDA Giving A Potential COVID-19 Treatment 'Orphan' Status?
Isn't there some corollary or variation of Poe's Law about government agencies or regulations going so far off the rails that they cannot be parodied?
If not, there should be.
And I think the above "Global Pandemic (and US pandemic) / Orphan Drug Status" situation would be a good example of the corollary. Particularly when you consider:
1) This hockey-stick bar chart of US cases. Projecting from the chart it will just be a few more days until the magic 200K number is reached.
2) And that the bar chart only shows diagnosed cases. There are certainly many more (possibly several times more) cases that have yet to be clinically diagnosed.
3) And the fact that there is also a large, but unknown, number of cases that will never be clinically diagnosed because they present as asymptomatic or only mildly symptomatic. However it is currently believed that these cases still contribute to the spread of the virus.
On the post: Another Baltimore Cop Facing Criminal Charges, This Time For Stealing 3 Kilos Of Coke From A Drug Bust
Re:
Yes! IANAL but I have long thought that too many people take a much too narrow view of what qualifies under RICO. Just because an Organization wasn't started (or doesn't exist) for the express purpose of criminal activity does not mean it is not Influenced by Racketeers and Corrupt.
On the post: Another Baltimore Cop Facing Criminal Charges, This Time For Stealing 3 Kilos Of Coke From A Drug Bust
Have there been any instances where a DOJ consent decree has actually worked in the long term? It seems to me that these are just to give the ephemeral impression of "doing something."
Next >>