So this begs the question: Why isn't Steele and the rest of team Prenda in jail?
I agree, and dream of the day when this is true, however there is one problem. Speeding is a crime (albeit, a very common and not entirely unsafe one, given the circumstances,) being a colossal douche-bag isn't. There are many potential crimes Steele and the rest of team Prenda may have committed, but these need to be proved before they can go forward with jailing them.
Now, what you got arrested for was probably a warrant for failure to appear. When you sign the bottom of the ticket, you aren't admitting guilt or innocence, you are just promising to appear in court to tell your side of the story. You were given notice to appear, and you apparently failed to do so. If Steele and Team Prenda do fail to appear, Judge Wright can do the same, issue a bench warrant for failure to appear and the marshals can get some fun tracking down Steele and placing the nice silver jewelry on both of his forearms.
I sat on a jury selection panel once where one of the prospective jurors had accidentally been called to two separate courtrooms at the same time, and he happened to go to the other court than the one I went to. When the clerk called roll of the prospective jurors sitting in the audience, he was noted by the clerk and the judge to be missing. The judge issued, right there, a $2K bench warrant for failure to appear in court for jury duty for the poor guy, who actually got selected as a jury member in the other court. After the jury was empaneled, and the rest of us were dismissed to return to the jury room, but right before we left, the judge announced that the court had made a mistake and that the juror with a bench warrant for a failure to appear had actually been assigned to two court rooms, and that he was serving in the other court, so the bench warrant would be struck. Now that would have sucked if that warrant had stayed, get arrested as a juror in one court because you failed to show up for jury duty in another court!
(a) this is a very inexpensive way for a real live terrorist to find out if they're on anybody's radar: buy a plane ticket, try to fly. If you're denied because you're on the no-fly list: then you know that they know. That's highly useful intelligence, and acquiring for the price of a plane ticket is a bargain.
What kills me is why anyone thinks that a name would stop a terrorist. How many of the 9/11 terrorists used their real information to obtain tickets? From what I've seen from various news reports, most of them had assumed names and credentials.
What it does do is open the door wide open to corruption and abuse. Don't like a competitor, no problem, we can add them to the no-fly list. Hate your ex, not a problem, she can now no longer fly.
The only people inconvenienced by this are non-terrorists.
I don't know why he didn't countersue under the same law. After all, a traffic ticket is a written communication and it sure annoys the hell out of me when I get one.
You have a good point. And unlike Barboza's letter, a traffic ticket isn't protected as free speech, but is instead a formal notice of due process issued by action of the state. I don't think it would work, but it is an interesting angle on a bad law.
This certainly can't be an accident, launched today:
It probably was. GoG has a "twice a year extravaganza" (my words, not theirs) where they mark down most if not their entire collection. Usually right after Christmas, and at the beginning of summer break. I usually spend my entire entertainment budget for the month on GoG in December and June. They usually have limited deals (less than 9 hours each,) where they have deep discounts on some titles (picked up Alan Wake/Wake in America bundle for the normal cost of one of the games last night,) and most of their collection is either 33% or 50% off. Every once in a while I go in there and buy something at full price, but I spend a lot more during these times for games that I really have no interest in playing but merely want to check them out (so far, it's been in my favor as I've found a bunch of games I play often now that I didn't even know about until I picked them up at discount.)
EVERY device on The Internet has an IP. In most cases they are dynamically allocated as needed. So, blocking a particular phone is not really feasible.
Few devices on the Internet have public IPs. Many use RFC 1918 addresses and live behind firewalls and proxies. And many devices out there on mobile networks use APNs and gateways. Blocking the public IP address of these devices will block huge swaths of people.
Phones don't usually have public IP addresses. Every mobile device I have from all four carriers have an IP address which is unaccessible from the internet (at least one carrier, I believe T-Mobile, uses 10.x.x.x for their network addresses but connections come from the 212.x.x.x network,) and blocking an IP address associated with a phone will likely result in a large population of users on that carrier being blocked.
The Fourth Amendment is not specifically limited to citizens. For Fourth Amendment purposes, the word “people” encompasses non-citizens who have “developed sufficient connection” with the United States to be considered part of the “national community.” United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990).
The 14th Amendment made the 4th Amendment apply to everyone within the borders of the US, not just citizens. This was kinda the point of the 14th Amendment. Some states, after the American Civil War, thought that they would infringe on the rights of the African-American slaves because they weren't citizens. The 14th Amendment made the protections of the Constitution apply to everyone, whether or not they were citizens.
Your case study appears to make it even broader than the borders of the US, as anyone outside of the US, not a citizen, but with sufficient connection to the US as protected by the Constitution as well.
Playing violent video games 10 hours a day for weeks and months, in my opinion, will BECOME reality to that person, and that is where the danger is.
I disagree. I work 10 hours a day for weeks and months, and work isn't reality to me. A good 70% of what I do at work is manufactured BS and manufactured panics. I realize this, do my job the best I can, and then return to reality the moment I step out the door.
When I do play video games (which is quite often,) I have no difficulty separating reality from the game, and aside from the occasional weird light-display of the game when I close my eyes after a 10-hour binge of Minecraft, I don't seem to be running around with a sword, pick-axe, and shovel looking for zombies and creapers.
I second that. I don't have any research to prove it, but I am pretty sure if people read more books, there would be a lot less time for them to be perpetrating crimes of violence.
Even speed-reading takes time. Time that you can't spend murdering someone (since it is really hard to read with all the bloodspatter and all.)
Re: Yes, real world is you don't exactly own those phones.
And the only way you got the phones was to agree that they're not entirely yours.
This may be true for AT&T and Verizon (though I recently saw an ad for AT&T saying that you could bring your device to AT&T, though they still charge you the same price whether you bring your own or use theirs,) but it certainly isn't true for T-Mobile, Sprint, or many of the MVNO cell companies out there.
I just bought an unlocked Samsung III, which I am using on T-Mobile. I didn't agree or sign anything when buying the phone. I bought it unlocked, and have root on it. However, the same vendor was selling locked phones which would have worked fine for most people (mine has all of the data-bands, so I could theoretically use my phone on AT&T, which was worth the extra cost even though I'd never again use AT&T.) The only difference between the phones is I bought it directly from the manufacturer unlocked, so no DMCA violation occurred, while the folks that bought their phones locked would have to violate the DMCA to unlock them. T-Mobile doesn't care...as they aren't subsidizing either my purchase of an unlocked phone or their purchase of a locked one.
The problem isn't buying them, it is going to AT&T/Verizon and agreeing to not buy the phone that is the problem. Don't sign stupid contracts that lock you into a phone that you didn't "buy".
All these Judge may do is to officially pass on the data to RICO to validate further.
RICO is a law, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which is usually charged by the US Attorney or an indictment from a grand jury and investigated by the FBI/DHS/IRS/etc.
I am just guessing here (as I have no personal knowledge of what the wheels of justice are doing here, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night,) but I am pretty sure that if a grand jury hasn't already started seeing this case, they will likely in the future.
It's Mullvad VPN: we know for ages that Steele and his gang uses this relatively unknown VPN provider
I know Mullvad says they don't keep logs, but I wonder if, like the Hide* VPN, if they accidentally have logs hidden somewhere? But they really don't need logs either, just getting the payment information for Steele on Mullvad could give some good circumstantial evidence to link him to it.
Re: Re: I sure don't need gigabit. Have15Mb, but just one would do fine.
But you don't need more than 15mbps so I'm sure you'll be fine with your legacy devedes and streaming cat videos.
I'm pretty sure that in 10 years, cat videos will be holovids and reality simulators too. I watched an HD cat video a while back, so as people start buying cheap HD cameras, they start using them to video cats. I'm sure that will be true with holovids and reality sims too.
Of course, the internet is still about catvids, and I suspect that won't ever change.
So hopefully one of the old guard will step forward and offer a nice premium feature to downgrade cat videos for blue so he can watch them on his 20 year old computer when the time comes.
What I've had a lot of difficulty understanding is why hidden comments, the ones where the report button has been clicked by X number of unique IP addresses, are capable of being expanded, read, and replied to.
Many times, those who replied did so before the comment reached the threshhold to be hidden. The few times I responded to OOTB/BOB/etc, it has been before the comment was hidden.
I tended (until recently) to respond to OOTB not because he'd listen (he usually just moves on to the next story and doesn't return, unlike AJ who usually does return, and occasionally has something worthwhile to say,) but because others would read his comment, and my rebuttal, and hopefully learn from it. However, I think you're right and the best method of handling them is denying them the attention they so desperately need, so I have stopped responding to them altogether.
I don't see, however, how they are chilling the discussion here, as I remember in the good old days when a post with 20 comments was unbelievable. Now posts with 50-100 comments are the norm, and I am seeing a lot more people providing differing opinions (even if some of the stuff is off-topic.) Having the report/hide button has been quite helpful in removing some of the most obvious junk, while still giving folks a chance to say something even if it isn't what everyone else agrees with.
A temporary ban until they act civil is far better than permanently removing them. I think the current system, which allows them to be heard if the reader takes a little extra effort is the best way to handle this and there is no need to change the system.
For the love of God, won't someone please think of the lawyers.
Michael Crichton does all my thinking about lawyers for me, ever since Jurassic Park.
Just wish we could send some of the Prenda lawyers for an all expenses paid vacation at a little island off the coast of Costa Rica, but we'd have to pay some unfortunate folks to set up cameras on the island first so that we can get access to the video via NetFlix. But then again, seeing John Steele go head-to-head with a Velociraptor may increase their subscriptions so they could make more shows.
Re: Re: Re: As I've said, police aren't even thugs now, just attack dogs.
Nine cops and no cop cameras. Incredible.
This is actually quite common. Not very many agencies have car mounted cameras, and even fewer have officer mounted cameras. Cameras are expensive (though not really that bad,) and money has to get spread around to higher priorities. Many cops buy still cameras for investigations, but they don't carry them on them all the time. With camera cell-phones, this is often the best camera they have with them, capable of capturing video and still shots, and they aren't likely going to be using them when they interact with the public.
That is a little less suspect than phones of private citizens being taken and when returned, the video missing. That is extremely suspect, and is unacceptable. Evidence of a crime needs to be properly documented so that the chain-of-evidence is preserved. The people directly involved in the use of force that resulted in a death should not have had anything to do with the collection of the evidence, and the police should have asked for copies of the evidence, not confiscating the phone where the evidence could be destroyed by someone who is unfamiliar with the phone over a 3rd party who knows how to use the phone and doesn't have a vested interest in making the evidence disappear. There are way too many opportunities for corruption here, and the only way to fix it would have been following the rules (which assure integrity of the evidence over convenience.) They should have subpoenaed the evidence, not asked a judge for a search warrant. If they were concerned about tampering the evidence, then they could have sat with the person and assured that the video was recorded to CD properly.
Re: As I've said, police aren't even thugs now, just attack dogs.
it's as though eye-witness testimony is being edged out entirely.
Eye-witness testimony is notoriously sketchy. The camera, when it captures the whole truth and isn't tampered with, is a lot better than human memories, which can forget, rationalize, etc, and people have been convicted of a crime based on witness testimony when other technologies (i.e. DNA, video tape, etc.) have ultimately overturned those convictions. The problem is that cameras are still really crappy and don't capture everything, and they tend to be directional and may not capture stuff happening on the periphery.
However, it is not being edged out entirely. In most cases, video-tape and other technology enhances what the eye-witnesses saw, giving juries a better idea about what really happened.
Kinda, we have debt collectors, bounty hunters and repossessors, But they are usually commercial entities with no law enforcement powers and very strict rules on what they can do (which they often break.) The Sheriff or Marshall is usually responsible for seeing that the orders of the court are enforced.
They might be useful with this hive of scum and villainy.
Considering the characters above, this would be like a Chronicles of Riddick moment where you use one evil to take out another evil. I wouldn't wish debt collectors, bounty hunters, or repossessors on anyone...talk about a hive of scum and villainy.
On the post: John Steele Keeps Playing Games With Judge Wright
Re: Now wait a minute...
I agree, and dream of the day when this is true, however there is one problem. Speeding is a crime (albeit, a very common and not entirely unsafe one, given the circumstances,) being a colossal douche-bag isn't. There are many potential crimes Steele and the rest of team Prenda may have committed, but these need to be proved before they can go forward with jailing them.
Now, what you got arrested for was probably a warrant for failure to appear. When you sign the bottom of the ticket, you aren't admitting guilt or innocence, you are just promising to appear in court to tell your side of the story. You were given notice to appear, and you apparently failed to do so. If Steele and Team Prenda do fail to appear, Judge Wright can do the same, issue a bench warrant for failure to appear and the marshals can get some fun tracking down Steele and placing the nice silver jewelry on both of his forearms.
I sat on a jury selection panel once where one of the prospective jurors had accidentally been called to two separate courtrooms at the same time, and he happened to go to the other court than the one I went to. When the clerk called roll of the prospective jurors sitting in the audience, he was noted by the clerk and the judge to be missing. The judge issued, right there, a $2K bench warrant for failure to appear in court for jury duty for the poor guy, who actually got selected as a jury member in the other court. After the jury was empaneled, and the rest of us were dismissed to return to the jury room, but right before we left, the judge announced that the court had made a mistake and that the juror with a bench warrant for a failure to appear had actually been assigned to two court rooms, and that he was serving in the other court, so the bench warrant would be struck. Now that would have sucked if that warrant had stayed, get arrested as a juror in one court because you failed to show up for jury duty in another court!
On the post: Federal Judge None Too Impressed With Government's Defense Of Its 'No Fly' List
Re: It doesn't seem to occur to anybody
(a) this is a very inexpensive way for a real live terrorist to find out if they're on anybody's radar: buy a plane ticket, try to fly. If you're denied because you're on the no-fly list: then you know that they know. That's highly useful intelligence, and acquiring for the price of a plane ticket is a bargain.
What kills me is why anyone thinks that a name would stop a terrorist. How many of the 9/11 terrorists used their real information to obtain tickets? From what I've seen from various news reports, most of them had assumed names and credentials.
What it does do is open the door wide open to corruption and abuse. Don't like a competitor, no problem, we can add them to the no-fly list. Hate your ex, not a problem, she can now no longer fly.
The only people inconvenienced by this are non-terrorists.
And that is the crux of the problem.
On the post: Connecticut Man Arrested For Writing Obscenity On Traffic Ticket Payment Form
Re: Re:
You have a good point. And unlike Barboza's letter, a traffic ticket isn't protected as free speech, but is instead a formal notice of due process issued by action of the state. I don't think it would work, but it is an interesting angle on a bad law.
On the post: NSA: If Your Data Is Encrypted, You Might Be Evil, So We'll Keep It Until We're Sure
Re: Re:
Pffft...I've been using ROT-156 for years. They finally decided to upgrade to ROT-26. Amateurs.
On the post: 'Gears Of War' Designer: Used Games Must Be Killed So Unsustainable Development Can Live
Re: Re: Re:
It probably was. GoG has a "twice a year extravaganza" (my words, not theirs) where they mark down most if not their entire collection. Usually right after Christmas, and at the beginning of summer break. I usually spend my entire entertainment budget for the month on GoG in December and June. They usually have limited deals (less than 9 hours each,) where they have deep discounts on some titles (picked up Alan Wake/Wake in America bundle for the normal cost of one of the games last night,) and most of their collection is either 33% or 50% off. Every once in a while I go in there and buy something at full price, but I spend a lot more during these times for games that I really have no interest in playing but merely want to check them out (so far, it's been in my favor as I've found a bunch of games I play often now that I didn't even know about until I picked them up at discount.)
On the post: MPAA's Chris Dodd Will Be The Chair Of 'Free Speech Week'
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: What a joke
Few devices on the Internet have public IPs. Many use RFC 1918 addresses and live behind firewalls and proxies. And many devices out there on mobile networks use APNs and gateways. Blocking the public IP address of these devices will block huge swaths of people.
Phones don't usually have public IP addresses. Every mobile device I have from all four carriers have an IP address which is unaccessible from the internet (at least one carrier, I believe T-Mobile, uses 10.x.x.x for their network addresses but connections come from the 212.x.x.x network,) and blocking an IP address associated with a phone will likely result in a large population of users on that carrier being blocked.
On the post: Former NSA Boss: We Don't Data Mine Our Giant Data Collection, We Just Ask It Questions
Re: Re:
The Fourth Amendment is not specifically limited to citizens. For Fourth Amendment purposes, the word “people” encompasses non-citizens who have “developed sufficient connection” with the United States to be considered part of the “national community.” United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259 (1990).
The 14th Amendment made the 4th Amendment apply to everyone within the borders of the US, not just citizens. This was kinda the point of the 14th Amendment. Some states, after the American Civil War, thought that they would infringe on the rights of the African-American slaves because they weren't citizens. The 14th Amendment made the protections of the Constitution apply to everyone, whether or not they were citizens.
Your case study appears to make it even broader than the borders of the US, as anyone outside of the US, not a citizen, but with sufficient connection to the US as protected by the Constitution as well.
On the post: Dan Brown: Video Games Lead To Violence
Re: Re: Re: Re: Um funny...
I was much more of an EvE fan, but your point is well taken. Plus blood isn't very good for working computers either.
On the post: Dan Brown: Video Games Lead To Violence
Re: I agree with...
I disagree. I work 10 hours a day for weeks and months, and work isn't reality to me. A good 70% of what I do at work is manufactured BS and manufactured panics. I realize this, do my job the best I can, and then return to reality the moment I step out the door.
When I do play video games (which is quite often,) I have no difficulty separating reality from the game, and aside from the occasional weird light-display of the game when I close my eyes after a 10-hour binge of Minecraft, I don't seem to be running around with a sword, pick-axe, and shovel looking for zombies and creapers.
On the post: Dan Brown: Video Games Lead To Violence
Re: Re: Um funny...
I second that. I don't have any research to prove it, but I am pretty sure if people read more books, there would be a lot less time for them to be perpetrating crimes of violence.
Even speed-reading takes time. Time that you can't spend murdering someone (since it is really hard to read with all the bloodspatter and all.)
On the post: Debate Over Mobile Phone Unlocking Highlights Fantasy Thinking vs. Real World
Re: Yes, real world is you don't exactly own those phones.
This may be true for AT&T and Verizon (though I recently saw an ad for AT&T saying that you could bring your device to AT&T, though they still charge you the same price whether you bring your own or use theirs,) but it certainly isn't true for T-Mobile, Sprint, or many of the MVNO cell companies out there.
I just bought an unlocked Samsung III, which I am using on T-Mobile. I didn't agree or sign anything when buying the phone. I bought it unlocked, and have root on it. However, the same vendor was selling locked phones which would have worked fine for most people (mine has all of the data-bands, so I could theoretically use my phone on AT&T, which was worth the extra cost even though I'd never again use AT&T.) The only difference between the phones is I bought it directly from the manufacturer unlocked, so no DMCA violation occurred, while the folks that bought their phones locked would have to violate the DMCA to unlock them. T-Mobile doesn't care...as they aren't subsidizing either my purchase of an unlocked phone or their purchase of a locked one.
The problem isn't buying them, it is going to AT&T/Verizon and agreeing to not buy the phone that is the problem. Don't sign stupid contracts that lock you into a phone that you didn't "buy".
On the post: Irony Alert: John Steele Denies Uploading Anything Ever Despite Growing IP Evidence
Re: Re: Re: Prison Awaits
RICO is a law, Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, which is usually charged by the US Attorney or an indictment from a grand jury and investigated by the FBI/DHS/IRS/etc.
I am just guessing here (as I have no personal knowledge of what the wheels of justice are doing here, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn last night,) but I am pretty sure that if a grand jury hasn't already started seeing this case, they will likely in the future.
On the post: Irony Alert: John Steele Denies Uploading Anything Ever Despite Growing IP Evidence
Re: Re: I wonder
I know Mullvad says they don't keep logs, but I wonder if, like the Hide* VPN, if they accidentally have logs hidden somewhere? But they really don't need logs either, just getting the payment information for Steele on Mullvad could give some good circumstantial evidence to link him to it.
On the post: Comcast's Top Lobbyist Pens Editorial To Remind Americans That US Broadband Service Is Awesome
Re: Re: I sure don't need gigabit. Have15Mb, but just one would do fine.
I'm pretty sure that in 10 years, cat videos will be holovids and reality simulators too. I watched an HD cat video a while back, so as people start buying cheap HD cameras, they start using them to video cats. I'm sure that will be true with holovids and reality sims too.
Of course, the internet is still about catvids, and I suspect that won't ever change.
So hopefully one of the old guard will step forward and offer a nice premium feature to downgrade cat videos for blue so he can watch them on his 20 year old computer when the time comes.
On the post: Funniest/Most Insightful Comments Of The Week At Techdirt
Re: Re: Re: OOTB has the real funny comments
Many times, those who replied did so before the comment reached the threshhold to be hidden. The few times I responded to OOTB/BOB/etc, it has been before the comment was hidden.
I tended (until recently) to respond to OOTB not because he'd listen (he usually just moves on to the next story and doesn't return, unlike AJ who usually does return, and occasionally has something worthwhile to say,) but because others would read his comment, and my rebuttal, and hopefully learn from it. However, I think you're right and the best method of handling them is denying them the attention they so desperately need, so I have stopped responding to them altogether.
I don't see, however, how they are chilling the discussion here, as I remember in the good old days when a post with 20 comments was unbelievable. Now posts with 50-100 comments are the norm, and I am seeing a lot more people providing differing opinions (even if some of the stuff is off-topic.) Having the report/hide button has been quite helpful in removing some of the most obvious junk, while still giving folks a chance to say something even if it isn't what everyone else agrees with.
A temporary ban until they act civil is far better than permanently removing them. I think the current system, which allows them to be heard if the reader takes a little extra effort is the best way to handle this and there is no need to change the system.
On the post: Once Again, Convenience Trumps Free, As Few People Pirate Arrested Development
Re: Re:
Michael Crichton does all my thinking about lawyers for me, ever since Jurassic Park.
Just wish we could send some of the Prenda lawyers for an all expenses paid vacation at a little island off the coast of Costa Rica, but we'd have to pay some unfortunate folks to set up cameras on the island first so that we can get access to the video via NetFlix. But then again, seeing John Steele go head-to-head with a Velociraptor may increase their subscriptions so they could make more shows.
On the post: France Ready To Shut Down Hadopi As It's 'Incompatible' With Digital Economy
Re: Simple
This.
It is all about the Benjamins (or in this case, the hundred Euros.)
On the post: Released Video From Silva Beating Shows His Last Moments; Video Of Actual Beating Still Missing
Re: Re: Re: As I've said, police aren't even thugs now, just attack dogs.
This is actually quite common. Not very many agencies have car mounted cameras, and even fewer have officer mounted cameras. Cameras are expensive (though not really that bad,) and money has to get spread around to higher priorities. Many cops buy still cameras for investigations, but they don't carry them on them all the time. With camera cell-phones, this is often the best camera they have with them, capable of capturing video and still shots, and they aren't likely going to be using them when they interact with the public.
That is a little less suspect than phones of private citizens being taken and when returned, the video missing. That is extremely suspect, and is unacceptable. Evidence of a crime needs to be properly documented so that the chain-of-evidence is preserved. The people directly involved in the use of force that resulted in a death should not have had anything to do with the collection of the evidence, and the police should have asked for copies of the evidence, not confiscating the phone where the evidence could be destroyed by someone who is unfamiliar with the phone over a 3rd party who knows how to use the phone and doesn't have a vested interest in making the evidence disappear. There are way too many opportunities for corruption here, and the only way to fix it would have been following the rules (which assure integrity of the evidence over convenience.) They should have subpoenaed the evidence, not asked a judge for a search warrant. If they were concerned about tampering the evidence, then they could have sat with the person and assured that the video was recorded to CD properly.
On the post: Released Video From Silva Beating Shows His Last Moments; Video Of Actual Beating Still Missing
Re: As I've said, police aren't even thugs now, just attack dogs.
Eye-witness testimony is notoriously sketchy. The camera, when it captures the whole truth and isn't tampered with, is a lot better than human memories, which can forget, rationalize, etc, and people have been convicted of a crime based on witness testimony when other technologies (i.e. DNA, video tape, etc.) have ultimately overturned those convictions. The problem is that cameras are still really crappy and don't capture everything, and they tend to be directional and may not capture stuff happening on the periphery.
However, it is not being edged out entirely. In most cases, video-tape and other technology enhances what the eye-witnesses saw, giving juries a better idea about what really happened.
On the post: Bad Day For Prenda Continues: Judge Rejects Stay, Adds $1k Per Day For Each Day They Don't Pay Up
Re:
Kinda, we have debt collectors, bounty hunters and repossessors, But they are usually commercial entities with no law enforcement powers and very strict rules on what they can do (which they often break.) The Sheriff or Marshall is usually responsible for seeing that the orders of the court are enforced.
They might be useful with this hive of scum and villainy.
Considering the characters above, this would be like a Chronicles of Riddick moment where you use one evil to take out another evil. I wouldn't wish debt collectors, bounty hunters, or repossessors on anyone...talk about a hive of scum and villainy.
Next >>