I wonder how the FBI would react to discovering hidden bugs in the public spaces around their offices? After all, electronic interception of a conversation is a crime unless you have a warrant or there is no expectation of privacy.
They cannot have it both ways, either they need a warrant or no one does.
Re: Re: The United States is moving away from this.
If someone cannot afford a lawyer and the state cannot provide one, and a court cannot convict someone without one of the two things happening, cutting that budget will lead to an awful lot of defendants being released without a trial.
After all, a conspiracy to violate rights happens when two or more people work together to deny someone rights under color of law. All it would take to meet that legal standard is a prosecutor and a judge holding a trial for a defendant who wants a lawyer but has no defense attorney present -- Title 18, Section 241 of the US Code defines that as a felony.
Public defenders don't work for free. They are paid state employees. To a wealthy man like the governor, the pittance a public defender is paid may look like working for free, but that's just not true.
If a lawyer is unwilling to accept the obligations of being a member of the bar, he is of course free to surrender his membership.
You appear to be ignorant of an important point. Regulations and laws are not the same thing.
Laws are passed by the legislative branch of the government and are enforced by police. Regulations are rules created by government agencies of the executive branch. They lack the force of law unless backed up by legislative order and are enforced by that agency, not police.
Our legal system was founded on the idea that it is better than 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be wrongly convicted.
All we're asking is that we be treated by that legal system as it is REQUIRED BY LAW to treat us. The problem is, corruption is so systemic that they almost never do that, yet consistently get away with breaking the law. Because reasons.
Re: Get pulled over, fear for loss of car, shoot first out of fear?
If you phrase it like that, you are effectively confessing to at least attempted second degree murder.
Don't do that.
Instead, cite the fact that you are 60 times more likely to be killed by police than foreign terrorists, talk about all the stories/videos you've seen of police drawing their guns and murdering people for no good reason and getting away with it. Claim you felt certain your life was about to end and that rationally fearing for your life, you felt you had no choice if you ever wanted to see your family again. Breaking down in tears on the stand helps too.
After all, if foreign terrorism justifies extra-judicial killing of US citizens, bombing of cities and generally burning the middle east to the ground, then surely being confronted with something 60 times more dangerous to you than a terrorist justifies self defense!
No, Mike Masnick expects the police to have the same level of knowledge about the law that all citizens are REQUIRED to have. Remember, they can't become a police officer without being a citizen.
Citizens are expected to know enough about the law to avoid breaking it, just from graduating from mandatory education. If they try to claim ignorance of the law in court, the court rejects their claim on that basis. Even dropouts are held to that standard.
Police, being citizens and having had to graduate from mandatory education to even apply to become police, should be held to that standard of knowledge of the law. But they aren't. Many police officers have college degrees in law-enforcement related fields or have graduated from a police academy and have MUCH more knowledge of the law than most citizens (aside from lawyers and judges) and are STILL allowed to use ignorance of the law as an excuse in court.
So, Whatever, I'll ask you this: Why does it make sense in your world for police -- who are paid to enforce the law -- are not required to be at least as educated in those laws than ordinary citizens?
Re: Simply official oppression from the courts on down
Depends on the state. Sometimes it's a misdemeanor.
What I'd love to try is to sue the state (not the state officials) for asset forfeiture.
Any official organization or individual official you can file a federal civil rights lawsuit against and win (under 42 USC 1983) has also violated 18 USC 241 or 242, which are CRIMINAL law violations. Any organization's equipment (cars, guns, real estate) that has been used to commit crimes is guilty under asset forfeiture laws and subject to seizure accordingly.
Bonus points if the forfeiture is overturned on appeal, and you charge 'administrative' fees for the return of the property. $2000 per car, $200 per gun, $10000 per building...that sounds about right.
Citizens are expected to be sufficiently knowledgeable about the law to avoid breaking it, solely on the basis of mandatory schooling that every citizen receives.
Professionals (in any field) are further expected to know all the laws and regulations that govern their profession.
In either above case, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
Police cannot become police without having graduated from that mandatory education every citizen gets. Almost all (but not quite all) police departments require additional education to become a police officer -- either a 2-year college degree in a relevant field or graduation from a police academy. By any standard, most police officers have much greater training in the law than any ordinary citizen other than a lawyer.
But despite the fact that they have AT LEAST the same legal training every citizen does, they are excused from having to know anything about the law by the corrupt courts -- usually on the theory that current laws are too complex for non-lawyers to know much about!
This seems to me to create unequal enforcement of the law -- something almost every state constitution (and absolutely the federal constitution) prohibit to the extent a law can be struck down by the courts for it. If those with less education in the law are held to a greater standard of obedience to that law than those who are more trained in the law, it cannot create anything else but unequal enforcement of that law!
Makes me wonder -- where in the anti-racketeering laws is the government exemption from those laws? If the only reason they aren't being slammed with the RICO Act is that those who should be bringing it are corrupt and/or the people doing the racketeering, what do you do then if you want justice?
"When peaceful revolution becomes impossible, violent revolution becomes inevitable." -- President John F. Kennedy
It's equally true for justice as it is for revolution.
There are two problems with your statement about BLM.
The first is that every movement has splinter factions and fellow travelers. The core movement WILL be blames for anything those sub-groups do, even if the core movement had no idea they were planning their own actions.
The second problem is that BLM has misidentified the core issue because they are fixated on race. Some of them (mostly the splinter groups and fellow travelers I mentioned above) are so fixated that they deliberately exclude non-blacks from their protests. But by making it about race like that, they ignore the fact that police are out of control and shooting EVERYONE. Native Americans get abused by police even more than blacks do -- but the BLM movement doesn't care much about anyone but blacks.
The problem isn't that the police are shooting black people too often, the problem is that they are shooting EVERYONE too often. Red lives (to continue the racist narrative) matter too and are even worse off than black lives, but the BLM movement focuses solely on black people.
By making it about race, BLM has simultaneously alienated natural allies, obscured the core issue (that police are shooting EVERYONE too much) and divided we the people, making us easier to conquer.
Something I wonder -- does the Arizona asset forfeiture law require that the court action to seize property be brought by a government official? Does the Arizona constitution allow for laws that require unequal rights like that? Most state constitutions (as well as the federal constitution) render any statute that creates a less privileged class null and void -- witness what happened recently to a law protecting children from sexual predators in Ohio.
ANY violation of rights by government agents that you can sue in federal court for and win under Title 42, Section 1983 of the US Code is ALSO a criminal act under Title 18, Sections 241 & 242. If a police department has lost a 42 USC 1983 lawsuit, then they have also committed crimes -- especially if the officer(s) who violated rights are still employed by the department!
If all of the above is true, why not try suing such a police department? Not the officers but the building, vehicles, etc? Under asset forfeiture laws, that building and all the equipment in and around it have been used to commit crimes.
It would be hilarious if someone did manage to seize all of that, take custody of that -- and even if the police won on appeal, charge $2000 per car, $200 per gun and $10000 for the building for their return, citing administrative fees!
The term 'public domain' has a specific meaning, and those images are not (and never were) in the public domain.
The amount she is suing for is no more and no less than the amount specified by the statute she is suing under. If you have a problem with the dollar amounts, blame the people who lobbied for those laws (hint: Getty is one of the companies behind those lobbyists).