More likely is being shot dozens or times by all of the other cops, left to die on the floor of your living room and posted on the news as a dangerous psycho.
To see where this is headed look here for one example.
Police: "We can search you or your house or your car when we want, we can take your guns or your money or anything else when we want, we can throw you in jail when we want for as long as we want because ... well, just because.
It is tough to make any positive changes in the system when all three co-equal (co-evil?) branches of government are asservationally arrayed against double plus unOrwellian non-untruth.
The legislatures enact laws that are clearly unconstitutional, while at the same time not being clear in any other sense of the word.
The executive branch then enforces these laws far beyond even highly creative extrapolation of their applicability.
And then the courts come up with some mind-boggleingly twisted "reasoning" to support their conclusion that it is all just hunky-dory.
It is Lewis Carroll, George Orwell, and the brown acid all rolled into one.
But once a new domestic surveillance baseline is established, it's tough to roll all of it back after the virus is contained and treatable.
Domestic surveillance is not the only area of expanded government power that we will need to try to roll back when the current pandemic has passed. The politicians are already heavily involved in "not letting this crisis go to waste."
In this case, the exoneration of the police by the police, in the face of clear proof of criminal activity, just adds to the mountain of evidence that there is a clear and widespread (some might say universal) “pattern and practice” of criminal behavior by police, and cover-up of same. However, most courts still accept the word of a cop as unimpeachable truth. Which is to say that the courts are complicit in the perpetuation of this problem.
In my area (Florida) the local school system (School District) has a long history of corruption and malfeasance of all types. At one point, after a whistle-blower obtained some incriminating documents via public records requests, it was reported in the local papers that the School District Superintendent then advised all School District personnel to just not write anything down.
In another instance, another whistle-blower reported this to the local papers ("District" refers to the local School District):
I have been informed by District legal counsel that when I am provided with a document, the District does not couch for or otherwise guarantee that the document is what it purports to be. There is no representation by the District, implied or real, that the contents of the document are valid, authentic, or accurate. This is especially the case when the document purports to be a District policy or procedure.
In other words, the school system can provide you with complete BS, and it is up to you to prove that it is BS, which would probably be impossible, since any evidence to prove that it is BS would probably need to come from the school system.
These are just a couple of examples of the myriad ways that government agencies circumvent open records laws. Others include complete document redactions for reasons that can't be substantiated or refuted (can you say "national security"?), indefinite delays, exorbitant and prohibitive "copying and research" fees, etc.
Unfortunately the FOIA and similar open records laws have, in most cases, become a complete joke. Instances where they accomplish what they were intended to accomplish are rare exceptions.
Hanlon was a blind ostrich who wore rose colored glasses and persistently whistled the theme song to Annie. Unfortunately, applying Hanlon’s Razor often results in giving someone a pass, or a psuedo-legitimate excuse, when it is not warranted.
In the case of Voatz, it is definitely a stretch to think that their responses to revelations of serious security problems with their product are the result of incompetence or ignorance. It also seems unlikely that the security problems themselves are the result of incompetence or ignorance.
Just because the security holes were not clearly labeled "Back Door to Alter Election Results" does not mean that they were not intended to be exactly that.
There is no way to guarantee that the security, privacy, and transparency requirements for elections can all be met with any practical technology in the foreseeable future.
Police departments, police unions, prosecutors, and state legislatures generally fight tooth and nail to keep police records of all types, particularly disciplinary records, secret. This despite many states having some form of "open records" law. And often police are not even disciplined for this type of outrageous behavior. Were it not for the camera, this particular situation would likely have resulted in the conviction and imprisonment of a completely innocent individual, and we would have never heard anything about it. Examples of this type (and other types) of police criminality abound. And the examples you can find with a quick Internet search are just cases where the cop(s) got caught and it made the news. This leaves us with the inescapable conclusion that this kind of thing happens far more often than is documented, and therefore far more often than most people realize, or are willing to admit.
The propaganda that we grew up with, that police are like Andy Griffith in Mayberry, is bunk, and likely always has been.
I did not mean to suggest that the differences were in any way trivial. They are most decidedly not trivial! I was trying to indicate that the two factions differ only in relatively few specifics, (and even then they often differ only in degree, as opposed to binary opposition) but are indistinguishable in larger generalities.
I would suggest that presently the US. has a two party system in name only, and that the reality is more like a single governing class with two fairly similar factions. These two factions of the government strive mightily to differentiate themselves on just a few key, “hot-button” issues. These are issues that certain voters are extremely passionate about, often to the point of becoming single-issue zealots. For the past 50 or so years the most significant of these issues have been guns, drugs, and abortion. Recently, particularly since Sept. 11, 2001, immigration policy has also become prominent among these ‘differentiating’ issues.
But despite their best efforts at differentiation, the two factions of the government are strikingly similar. Both factions are increasingly authoritarian. Both factions have continuously expanded the role, and cost, of government in our society. Both factions have also continuously eroded the rights and responsibilities of individual citizens. Both factions 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 simply ignored. Each faction has always pointed to the other as the culpable party, when in fact they have both been acting more in concert than at cross purposes.
I am reminded of the old English Punch and Judy puppet shows, where a single puppeteer, hidden behind the small stage, has the Punch puppet on one hand, and the Judy puppet on the other. The common theme in the Punch and Judy shows is extreme animosity and physical violence. But, of course, the puppeteer emerges after every show completely unharmed, but having collected a significant amount of money from the audience.
As a prominent subject matter expert you will definitely be a tremendous asset for the PPP. The 1st Amendment needs all the help it can get in these increasingly censorious times.
Re: Re: “We develop probable cause in order to seize money,”
Parallel Construction aka Evidence Laundering
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: First Circuit Appeals Court: 'Community Caretaking' Function Applies To Warrantless Seizures, Not Actually Caring For The Community
Re: Re: ... just because.
What teka said is a virtual certainty.
On the post: First Circuit Appeals Court: 'Community Caretaking' Function Applies To Warrantless Seizures, Not Actually Caring For The Community
... just because.
To see where this is headed look here for one example.
Police: "We can search you or your house or your car when we want, we can take your guns or your money or anything else when we want, we can throw you in jail when we want for as long as we want because ... well, just because.
On the post: First Circuit Appeals Court: 'Community Caretaking' Function Applies To Warrantless Seizures, Not Actually Caring For The Community
It is tough to make any positive changes in the system when all three co-equal (co-evil?) branches of government are asservationally arrayed against double plus unOrwellian non-untruth.
The legislatures enact laws that are clearly unconstitutional, while at the same time not being clear in any other sense of the word.
The executive branch then enforces these laws far beyond even highly creative extrapolation of their applicability.
And then the courts come up with some mind-boggleingly twisted "reasoning" to support their conclusion that it is all just hunky-dory.
It is Lewis Carroll, George Orwell, and the brown acid all rolled into one.
On the post: Governments Around The World Are Tracking Their Citizens' Movements To Prevent The Spread Of COVID-19
Beware the ratchet effect!
Domestic surveillance is not the only area of expanded government power that we will need to try to roll back when the current pandemic has passed. The politicians are already heavily involved in "not letting this crisis go to waste."
On the post: Body Camera Once Again Catches An NYPD Officer Planting Drugs In Someone's Car
In this case, the exoneration of the police by the police, in the face of clear proof of criminal activity, just adds to the mountain of evidence that there is a clear and widespread (some might say universal) “pattern and practice” of criminal behavior by police, and cover-up of same. However, most courts still accept the word of a cop as unimpeachable truth. Which is to say that the courts are complicit in the perpetuation of this problem.
On the post: Local Government Employee Fined For Illegally Deleting Item Requested Under Freedom Of Information Act
Re:
In my area (Florida) the local school system (School District) has a long history of corruption and malfeasance of all types. At one point, after a whistle-blower obtained some incriminating documents via public records requests, it was reported in the local papers that the School District Superintendent then advised all School District personnel to just not write anything down.
In another instance, another whistle-blower reported this to the local papers ("District" refers to the local School District):
In other words, the school system can provide you with complete BS, and it is up to you to prove that it is BS, which would probably be impossible, since any evidence to prove that it is BS would probably need to come from the school system.
These are just a couple of examples of the myriad ways that government agencies circumvent open records laws. Others include complete document redactions for reasons that can't be substantiated or refuted (can you say "national security"?), indefinite delays, exorbitant and prohibitive "copying and research" fees, etc.
Unfortunately the FOIA and similar open records laws have, in most cases, become a complete joke. Instances where they accomplish what they were intended to accomplish are rare exceptions.
On the post: Cybersecurity Firm Hired By Voatz To Audit Its System Finds Voatz Is Full Of Vulnerabilities
Re: The Benefit of the Doubt.
Hanlon’s Razor might not be so sharp after all.
Hanlon was a blind ostrich who wore rose colored glasses and persistently whistled the theme song to Annie. Unfortunately, applying Hanlon’s Razor often results in giving someone a pass, or a psuedo-legitimate excuse, when it is not warranted.
In the case of Voatz, it is definitely a stretch to think that their responses to revelations of serious security problems with their product are the result of incompetence or ignorance. It also seems unlikely that the security problems themselves are the result of incompetence or ignorance.
Just because the security holes were not clearly labeled "Back Door to Alter Election Results" does not mean that they were not intended to be exactly that.
On the post: DEA Returns Money It Stole From An Innocent Woman, Gets Court To Let It Walk Away From Paying Her Legal Fees
Re: Don't hold your breath...
Yeah, the increasingly statist SCOTUS rarely gets it right, particularly when it comes to giving out-of-control LEOs a pass on just about anything.
On the post: Cybersecurity Firm Hired By Voatz To Audit Its System Finds Voatz Is Full Of Vulnerabilities
Re: I dont know..
From VerifiedVoting.org:
Their Computer Technologists’ Statement on Internet Voting is a good, fairly short (< 1 page) read on the subject.
On the post: Senate Punts FISA Reform Bill For At Least 77 Days
"Serious debate" and "congress" are mutually exclusive.
On the post: Police Department Shells Out $50,000 To Man After His Camera Catches Cops Fabricating Criminal Charges Against Him
Police departments, police unions, prosecutors, and state legislatures generally fight tooth and nail to keep police records of all types, particularly disciplinary records, secret. This despite many states having some form of "open records" law. And often police are not even disciplined for this type of outrageous behavior. Were it not for the camera, this particular situation would likely have resulted in the conviction and imprisonment of a completely innocent individual, and we would have never heard anything about it. Examples of this type (and other types) of police criminality abound. And the examples you can find with a quick Internet search are just cases where the cop(s) got caught and it made the news. This leaves us with the inescapable conclusion that this kind of thing happens far more often than is documented, and therefore far more often than most people realize, or are willing to admit.
The propaganda that we grew up with, that police are like Andy Griffith in Mayberry, is bunk, and likely always has been.
On the post: Police Department Shells Out $50,000 To Man After His Camera Catches Cops Fabricating Criminal Charges Against Him
If cops weren’t such murdering, thieving, bullying, lying thugs then people wouldn’t despise them so much.
On the post: Arrests R Us: Six-Year-Old Cuffed And Tossed Into A Cop Car For 'Throwing A Tantrum' At School
Re:
Those who demand respect, don't deserve it.
Those who deserve respect, get it and have no need to demand it.
On the post: Arrests R Us: Six-Year-Old Cuffed And Tossed Into A Cop Car For 'Throwing A Tantrum' At School
Re: Re:
"fear and mistrust of police" is a healthy defense mechanism.
On the post: Arrests R Us: Six-Year-Old Cuffed And Tossed Into A Cop Car For 'Throwing A Tantrum' At School
When your only tool is a hammer...
...all of your problems start to look like nails.
In the case of cops, their tools are guns, fists, pepper spray, and handcuffs.
On the post: Senators Pretend That EARN IT Act Wouldn't Be Used To Undermine Encryption; They're Wrong
Email services can read this just fine:
On the post: Bizarre: Democrats In Congress Agree To Give Trump More Of The Spying Powers He Complains Were Abused Against Him
Re: Re: Another of many similar examples
I did not mean to suggest that the differences were in any way trivial. They are most decidedly not trivial! I was trying to indicate that the two factions differ only in relatively few specifics, (and even then they often differ only in degree, as opposed to binary opposition) but are indistinguishable in larger generalities.
On the post: Bizarre: Democrats In Congress Agree To Give Trump More Of The Spying Powers He Complains Were Abused Against Him
Another of many similar examples
I would suggest that presently the US. has a two party system in name only, and that the reality is more like a single governing class with two fairly similar factions. These two factions of the government strive mightily to differentiate themselves on just a few key, “hot-button” issues. These are issues that certain voters are extremely passionate about, often to the point of becoming single-issue zealots. For the past 50 or so years the most significant of these issues have been guns, drugs, and abortion. Recently, particularly since Sept. 11, 2001, immigration policy has also become prominent among these ‘differentiating’ issues.
But despite their best efforts at differentiation, the two factions of the government are strikingly similar. Both factions are increasingly authoritarian. Both factions have continuously expanded the role, and cost, of government in our society. Both factions have also continuously eroded the rights and responsibilities of individual citizens. Both factions 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 simply ignored. Each faction has always pointed to the other as the culpable party, when in fact they have both been acting more in concert than at cross purposes.
I am reminded of the old English Punch and Judy puppet shows, where a single puppeteer, hidden behind the small stage, has the Punch puppet on one hand, and the Judy puppet on the other. The common theme in the Punch and Judy shows is extreme animosity and physical violence. But, of course, the puppeteer emerges after every show completely unharmed, but having collected a significant amount of money from the audience.
On the post: Fighting For Better Anti-SLAPP Laws: I'm Joining The Board Of The Public Participation Project
Good news!
As a prominent subject matter expert you will definitely be a tremendous asset for the PPP. The 1st Amendment needs all the help it can get in these increasingly censorious times.
On the post: Michigan State Police Spend The Weekend Getting Ratioed For Bragging About Stealing $40,000 From A Driver
Re: Re: “We develop probable cause in order to seize money,”
Parallel Construction aka Evidence Laundering
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.
Next >>