What also seems unaddressed by the court are the rights of people who aren't sex offenders.
It's bad enough to violate the offenders' rights but what about the people who haven't committed any crime who are the actual owners of some of these properties? If a guy who has the conviction is living at his parents' home, that doesn't mean his parents-- who have not been accused of, let alone convicted of any crime-- lose their private property rights against trespass, nor their 1st Amendment rights against having government propaganda posted on their property.
Traffic tickets aren't federal. That means there are 50 different sovereignties all with different laws. You can't make a sweeping generalized statement like "traffic tickets aren't criminal violations to begin with" and have it be true of all jurisdictions.
In some jurisdictions, moving violations are indeed criminal offenses (or were until they were downgraded to administrative violations so that tickets could be issued to vehicle owners regardless of who was driving).
tickets will be issued to the owner of the vehicle, rather than
the actual driver, which is going to cause problems for
people who haven't actually committed a moving violation,
beginning with increased insurance rates and possibly ending
with bench warrants for unpaid tickets that were issued to
the wrong person.
The only way the government can issue tickets to a registered owner (rather than the actual driver of the vehicle) is to decriminalize the violation and issue them administrative fines because the Constitution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person accused committed the crime for criminal violations. And if the violation is downgraded to administrative rather than criminal to get around that, then they can't issue arrest warrants for non-payment like they can for criminal violations.
Basically, instead of an arrest warrant, they do what any debt collector does-- send it to a collection agency and report you to the credit bureaus as delinquent and f-up your credit and/or put a bar on your vehicle registration until payment is received. But no one can come to your door and arrest you for it any more than they can show up and arrest you for failing to pay your Visa bill this month.
"...ever since police forces were created for
the purpose of tracking down escaped slaves
and returning them to their owners."
That's simply not true and the facts are easily enough discovered that it amounts to an intentional lie.
Yes, policing in Southern slave states has some roots in slave patrols, but policing itself as an institution absolutely does not owe its existence to capturing escaped slaves.
Policing-- i.e., enforcing the law, preventing crime, apprehending criminals-- has a very long history that long predates American slavery. Hell, it long predates even the discovery of North America by Europeans.
Augustus Caesar, born in 27 BC, created the cohortes urbanae near the end of his reign to police ancient Rome.
Policing in England took form with Henry II’s proclamation of the Assize of Arms of 1181. In the 1600s England established constables and justices of the peace to oversee them.
The Metropolitan Police Act created the first official police department in the U.K. in 1829.
In America, the first constables were created in the 1630s in what came to be known as New England. Boston has the oldest “modern” police department. It was created in 1838. New York and Philadelphia soon followed. None of which were created for or had any hand in tracking down runaway slaves.
Your politics are obvious, Cushing. Stop outright lying to shill for them.
In addition to vehicular homicide, Santiago was charged
with leaving the scene of crash resulting in death,
endangering an injured victim, desecrating/moving human
remains, hindering one's own apprehension, conspiracy
to hinder prosecution, tampering with physical evidence,
obstructing the administration of law, and two counts of
official misconduct.
Sounds like the system is working as intended, then. A couple of guys committed some crimes and they're gonna have to pay the price for it. Unless TechDirt has officially become nothing more than a crime blotter, how is this newsworthy here?
And some of those charges... "endangering an injured victim"? How do you endanger someone who's already dead?
And "hindering one's own apprehension"? Wouldn't that apply to literally every criminal? I mean, unless the criminal walks directly from the scene of his crime and voluntarily turns himself into the police, wouldn't he be hindering his own apprehension?
The reality is that my daily experience on Usenet for oh, the last 23 years or so, is that not one post I've ever sent has failed to show up because some self-appointed overlord somewhere decided it violated some half-assed and purposely vague 'community safety guideline' (because there are none). Nor have I ever found my ability to post suspended because a new rule suddenly emerged one day that was applied retroactively to the beginning of time.
So maybe you should study up a bit about the technologies you profess to know so much about
LOL! I never 'professed to know so much about' anything here, you jackass. I made a comment on the fact that one can post on Usenet with little to none of the censorship found in the walled gardens of the social media titans. That's all. And that's a true statement.
The point you are totally missing is that a majority people
doesn't want to see spam and assholes filling their feed and
they don't want to do judicious application of filters - they
expect it just to work.
Oh, well, then those people can graze around in their walled gardens with rules that pop up out of nowhere one day and find their accounts suspended over something they posted 10 years ago that was perfectly fine at the time but now suddenly violates this new and exciting rule.
I choose to use a forum where that (and a myriad of other 'safety' guidelines) don't get in the way of people talking amongst themselves. And yes, we have great discussions, so it works just fine for me.
Isn't that what all you Masnick remoras are always telling people? "If you don't like how the social media titans run their platforms, go somewhere else?"
And now here I am, having indeed done just that. I've gone somewhere else and all I get is a raft of condescending shit from the usual suspects for doing exactly what they constantly say I should do.
The assertion that all these dogs are only alerting to invisible cues from their handlers is ridiculous.
I helped train some bomb-sniffing dogs at the agency I used to work for and the dogs would find the explosive material every time, and neither the dog nor the handler knew where it was hidden. During training scenarios, the explosives could be hidden anywhere in a building. Sometimes there were multiple finds hidden about the building. Sometimes only one. Sometimes there were no finds hidden at all and the building was clean. In my two years assisting them and watching literally thousands of reps, I only saw one false positive where the dog alerted to explosives that weren't there and no false negatives where the dog missed explosives that were there. (And the false pos was likely due to minute residue left over from previous training.)
It's impossible for a handler to give a dog a cue-- intentional or otherwise-- to alert on something the handler himself does not know is there or if there is even anything to alert on at all. Which means these dogs find what they're trained to find.
Ironically, as the major web platforms turn into ever more censorious asshats, Usenet-- the original social media, long abandoned for the MySpaces and Facebooks and Reddits and Twitters of the world-- is now becoming a bit more robust. The TV newsgroup I frequent has seen an uptick of non-spam, non-troll actual normal people posting and participating in the last couple of years. You can post what you want and say what you want and any censoring is left up to individual user. Yes, that does allow for a lot of spam, but with the a decent newsreader and judicious application of filters, I rarely see more than 5% of it.
What's particularly insidious is that when Twitter comes up with these new policies, they don't just apply going forward. As is apparent from the above examples, people who posted things years ago, which were in full compliance with the rules at the time, are now being locked out of their accounts and/or suspended because those posts violate a rule that just sprang into existence yesterday.
Yeah, they put a guy who is openly racially biased, and anti-free speech at the helm of Twitter and within 24 hours this is what we get. Good luck navigating this emotionally charged Left-fest from now on.
The carve-out for video that's already being covered by the corporate media is key. It allows the corporate media to dictate what can and can't be shared and 'aired' and gives them exclusive rights to cover it first. If someone posts a video they took of Dr. Fauci clubbing baby seals, it didn't happen if NBC didn't report it first.
It also allows them to minimize exposure of 'inconvenient' crimes. Someone has to protect the protesters, rioters, and looters from the consequences of their actions. Unless those rioters are the bad kind, like at the Capitol, then they'll allow full and complete posting of people without their consent.
Re: Re: 1st Amendment?
What also seems unaddressed by the court are the rights of people who aren't sex offenders.
It's bad enough to violate the offenders' rights but what about the people who haven't committed any crime who are the actual owners of some of these properties? If a guy who has the conviction is living at his parents' home, that doesn't mean his parents-- who have not been accused of, let alone convicted of any crime-- lose their private property rights against trespass, nor their 1st Amendment rights against having government propaganda posted on their property.
Re: Re:
Traffic tickets aren't federal. That means there are 50 different sovereignties all with different laws. You can't make a sweeping generalized statement like "traffic tickets aren't criminal violations to begin with" and have it be true of all jurisdictions.
In some jurisdictions, moving violations are indeed criminal offenses (or were until they were downgraded to administrative violations so that tickets could be issued to vehicle owners regardless of who was driving).
(untitled comment)
The only way the government can issue tickets to a registered owner (rather than the actual driver of the vehicle) is to decriminalize the violation and issue them administrative fines because the Constitution requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the person accused committed the crime for criminal violations. And if the violation is downgraded to administrative rather than criminal to get around that, then they can't issue arrest warrants for non-payment like they can for criminal violations.
Basically, instead of an arrest warrant, they do what any debt collector does-- send it to a collection agency and report you to the credit bureaus as delinquent and f-up your credit and/or put a bar on your vehicle registration until payment is received. But no one can come to your door and arrest you for it any more than they can show up and arrest you for failing to pay your Visa bill this month.
An Outright Lie from Cushing
That's simply not true and the facts are easily enough discovered that it amounts to an intentional lie.
Yes, policing in Southern slave states has some roots in slave patrols, but policing itself as an institution absolutely does not owe its existence to capturing escaped slaves.
Policing-- i.e., enforcing the law, preventing crime, apprehending criminals-- has a very long history that long predates American slavery. Hell, it long predates even the discovery of North America by Europeans.
Augustus Caesar, born in 27 BC, created the cohortes urbanae near the end of his reign to police ancient Rome.
Policing in England took form with Henry II’s proclamation of the Assize of Arms of 1181. In the 1600s England established constables and justices of the peace to oversee them.
The Metropolitan Police Act created the first official police department in the U.K. in 1829.
In America, the first constables were created in the 1630s in what came to be known as New England. Boston has the oldest “modern” police department. It was created in 1838. New York and Philadelphia soon followed. None of which were created for or had any hand in tracking down runaway slaves.
Your politics are obvious, Cushing. Stop outright lying to shill for them.
Appalling
Wow. I sure am glad I live in a country where statues and moments aren't torn down to satisfy political agendas.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/18/nyregion/thomas-jefferson-statue-ny-city-council.html
We ll, shit.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere
Cool story, bro.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere
I am both.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere
When did your deficits become my problem?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere
Go back to my original post and you'll find it wasn't a complaint at all.
Re: Re: Hindeing your own apprehension
Wouldn't not turning yourself in both show intent to obstruct and impede the investigation?
Play Stupid Games, Win Stupid Prizes
Sounds like the system is working as intended, then. A couple of guys committed some crimes and they're gonna have to pay the price for it. Unless TechDirt has officially become nothing more than a crime blotter, how is this newsworthy here?
And some of those charges... "endangering an injured victim"? How do you endanger someone who's already dead?
And "hindering one's own apprehension"? Wouldn't that apply to literally every criminal? I mean, unless the criminal walks directly from the scene of his crime and voluntarily turns himself into the police, wouldn't he be hindering his own apprehension?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere
Cool story, bro.
The reality is that my daily experience on Usenet for oh, the last 23 years or so, is that not one post I've ever sent has failed to show up because some self-appointed overlord somewhere decided it violated some half-assed and purposely vague 'community safety guideline' (because there are none). Nor have I ever found my ability to post suspended because a new rule suddenly emerged one day that was applied retroactively to the beginning of time.
LOL! I never 'professed to know so much about' anything here, you jackass. I made a comment on the fact that one can post on Usenet with little to none of the censorship found in the walled gardens of the social media titans. That's all. And that's a true statement.
Re: Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere
Whether they like it or not.
Re: Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere
Oh, well, then those people can graze around in their walled gardens with rules that pop up out of nowhere one day and find their accounts suspended over something they posted 10 years ago that was perfectly fine at the time but now suddenly violates this new and exciting rule.
I choose to use a forum where that (and a myriad of other 'safety' guidelines) don't get in the way of people talking amongst themselves. And yes, we have great discussions, so it works just fine for me.
Isn't that what all you Masnick remoras are always telling people? "If you don't like how the social media titans run their platforms, go somewhere else?"
And now here I am, having indeed done just that. I've gone somewhere else and all I get is a raft of condescending shit from the usual suspects for doing exactly what they constantly say I should do.
Re: Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere
Nah, I'll just stick with Usenet where there is no actual censorship because it's not a centralized platform owned by anyone.
But thanks for the second (useless) tip!
Re: Re: Re: Free speech under attack everywhere
Already there, Captain Obvious, but thanks for the tip!
Re:
The assertion that all these dogs are only alerting to invisible cues from their handlers is ridiculous.
I helped train some bomb-sniffing dogs at the agency I used to work for and the dogs would find the explosive material every time, and neither the dog nor the handler knew where it was hidden. During training scenarios, the explosives could be hidden anywhere in a building. Sometimes there were multiple finds hidden about the building. Sometimes only one. Sometimes there were no finds hidden at all and the building was clean. In my two years assisting them and watching literally thousands of reps, I only saw one false positive where the dog alerted to explosives that weren't there and no false negatives where the dog missed explosives that were there. (And the false pos was likely due to minute residue left over from previous training.)
It's impossible for a handler to give a dog a cue-- intentional or otherwise-- to alert on something the handler himself does not know is there or if there is even anything to alert on at all. Which means these dogs find what they're trained to find.
Re: Free speech under attack everywhere
Ironically, as the major web platforms turn into ever more censorious asshats, Usenet-- the original social media, long abandoned for the MySpaces and Facebooks and Reddits and Twitters of the world-- is now becoming a bit more robust. The TV newsgroup I frequent has seen an uptick of non-spam, non-troll actual normal people posting and participating in the last couple of years. You can post what you want and say what you want and any censoring is left up to individual user. Yes, that does allow for a lot of spam, but with the a decent newsreader and judicious application of filters, I rarely see more than 5% of it.
Ex Post facto
What's particularly insidious is that when Twitter comes up with these new policies, they don't just apply going forward. As is apparent from the above examples, people who posted things years ago, which were in full compliance with the rules at the time, are now being locked out of their accounts and/or suspended because those posts violate a rule that just sprang into existence yesterday.
Wow
Yeah, they put a guy who is openly racially biased, and anti-free speech at the helm of Twitter and within 24 hours this is what we get. Good luck navigating this emotionally charged Left-fest from now on.
The carve-out for video that's already being covered by the corporate media is key. It allows the corporate media to dictate what can and can't be shared and 'aired' and gives them exclusive rights to cover it first. If someone posts a video they took of Dr. Fauci clubbing baby seals, it didn't happen if NBC didn't report it first.
It also allows them to minimize exposure of 'inconvenient' crimes. Someone has to protect the protesters, rioters, and looters from the consequences of their actions. Unless those rioters are the bad kind, like at the Capitol, then they'll allow full and complete posting of people without their consent.
More comments from btr1701 >>
btr1701’s Submitted Stories.
Submit a story now.
Tools & Services
TwitterFacebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports
Company
About UsAdvertising Policies
Privacy
Contact
Help & FeedbackMedia Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story
More
Copia InstituteInsider Shop
Support Techdirt