The problem here is the plea deal system, combined with the stacking mentioned in the article.
If you're arrested for something minor and during the arrest something happens that might conceivably be construed as bodily injury if you look at it sideways with your eyes seriously squinted. That's not even considering how the incident is reported if there are no witnesses except cops.
So what do you do (guilty or innocent) if they offer you a plea deal for 6 months in jail versus the potential risk of going to prison for 10 years plus? You'll take the deal or you will trust the public defender to get you off, even though they added 98 cases to his workload just this week?
As per usual if you can afford proper legal representation this law will not affect you much, probably.
The writing in the C&D is so bad, it hurts my eyes. It certainly doesn't convince me to read anything of hers in book form.
I'm surprised there are so many titles with cocky in it. I didn't know that word was still in general use. It sounds quite old fashioned and childish to me but I'm not a native speaker so there's that.
It has been pointed out before but in the good old days of dead trees newspapers were not in the news business, they were in the advertising business. In that particular setup you need more subscribers to make more money. However if you asked journalists how their paper made money it was "We're selling news."
If you translate this to today's situation it is easy to see how this goes wrong. The news papers were still trying to get the largest number of eyeballs assuming that would deliver the biggest payments. This has resulted in everybody trying to have the news faster, join every craze or meme that was available and by delivering the shallowest news possible as long as you are first, fact checking be damned. Reminiscent of old-timey paper boys shouting on the street.
Currently eyeballs are very plentiful and cheap for advertisers. So that model brings diminishing returns. The solution is to either bring very targeted eyeballs or make news that people actually want to pay for, so something they can't find anywhere else.
I think all the old names will die since they seem unable to adapt. Out of the ashes will rise the new winners. What that will look like is open for debate but Patronage seems like a viable model, perhaps combined with a more traditional agent model that does the managing of the journalists if they're not capable themselves.
Of course you should install one of those safe encryption back doors I keep hearing about in each tank so you can switch them off at a distance if somebody wants to use them against you.
Why is there so much focus on catching drug users and not drug traffickers? Methinks the drug users are victims more than criminals.
If somebody has 3 pounds of cocaine in the trunk of his car please arrest him. If somebody has used drugs and has a small amount on him. Give him a stern warning and a flyer for a rehab center.
It's incidents like this that give the impression that the US is becoming a police state.
Case in point, the recent attack in Toronto where the attacker/terrorist was apprehended alive. We were looking at the footage of the guy screaming at the cop "I have a gun!" with the policeman approaching him with gun drawn. My girlfriend remarked "Holy shit, if this was in the US, this guy would've been dead 5 times over!
So we've reached the point that we expect the police in the US to go in full Dirty Harry mode (Death Wish mode?) as soon as possible. They can't even spell de-escalation anymore.
Does doctor-patient privilege extend to crimes? It's my understanding that if there is evidence of a crime, and a child with an STD would definitely qualify, the doctor has to report it. They're obviously also reporting gunshot victims.
To be honest I couldn't focus too much on the article since finding out that apparently people are taking a DIY approach to aligning their teeth! The wonders never cease. Next we'll have a home appendectomy kit.
I think that people that are thinking about this should take the fact that you could, and probably will, fuck up your mouth as a given. I'm amazed that it's not obligated for the SmileDirectClub to plaster that exact warning all over their website.
If your teeth need straightening please seek professional help! Yes, it will most likely cost thousands of dollars but it's the only way.
(I'm not an orthodontist by the way, although I had plenty of work done in my youth, to full satisfaction)
"While most other countries have local film industries, the majority of films watched in most of them are American"
I agree, there must be something more than only media. However, we also must be cautious to immediately discount the influence of pop culture on this. It certainly seems as if the attitudes(for lack of a better word) of Americans and pop culture are enhancing each other.
Still, many fingers can be pointed to many things. Politicians are a big part of the problem as well. Being, like you, from Europe, I have a hard time believing that the blatant pandering to industry interests (NRA) would be accepted here. Obviously our politicians say other stupid things but that is another issue.
What I wanted to say is that perhaps we go too soon into problem solving mode, without really understanding the root cause of the issue.
Having said that, I feel that creating stricter gun legislation is a good start without significant drawbacks. I have yet to see a good argument for unfettered access to handguns, semi automatic or otherwise.
If I remember correctly even Michael Moore, hated by everybody left and right, agrees with you that it's not necessarily only the guns. At the end of Bowling for Columbine he compares the US to Canada and even though Canada does not have a substantially lower number of weapons, relatively speaking, there is much less gun violence.
So, it's a complex issue, who knew? That's not to say that putting stronger controls on guns is a bad start but it's probably not the only answer.
I've also never seen evidence of video games creating solutions but I think this is also where it becomes complex.
An argument can be made that the gun culture in the US is mirrored by the media and specifically by games and movies. In American movies and games violence is always the solution, never the problem (I'm generalizing a bit of course).
So the big question is if the media is causing the American attitude to guns or is the media giving voice to existing attitudes?
I don't have the answer but I think this is where the crux of the answer to gun violence is. I'm all for better gun regulation but I also think this is not the full answer.
Generally speaking I agree with you that it's an intimidation tactic that should be avoided and that it is too much like mob justice.
However, and I think this is where Mike is going with his "more speech" comment, there is a lot of grey area. I think that we could agree that it would be justified to try to get somebody fired from a civil rights organization if he was a card carrying member of the KKK. However, there are many grey areas.
(off topic: They do carry cards I hope? I always think that somebody cannot justifiably call himself an Exalted Cyclops or Grand Wizard without carrying a full deck of Magic: The Gathering cards)
Yes, it's interesting isn't it? That's probably because grandstanding is much cheaper and easier than actually doing something constructive.
Terrorism, child porn, human trafficking, murder, drugs trafficking and theft are older than the internet by a substantial margin and some of those crimes might be as old as humanity itself. I haven't seen a study yet that links growth of crime to the internet.
How many of the politicians that are proposing that Mark Zuck fixes the world, have proposed a serious plan recently to increase funding for additional police detectives to actually counter these problems?
Facebook et al. function as a nice lightning rod for all criticism of people that want the world to be fixable. It's much easier to point fingers and let somebody else take the blame.
It's not the case that they'll just walk up to some random guy who looks "too poor" to ask for his receipts. They're specifically targeting people whom they know.
So in practice it is like this: They spot a guy they know has a criminal record and they know he's on welfare but still he's wearing expensive clothing and watches or, for that matter, he's driving a brand new BMW M3. In that case they'll want to check how he can afford these things.
While there is an asset forfeiture procedure in The Netherlands, as mentioned above, it can only start after you have been convicted of a crime and the prosecution has to prove they are ill-gotten gains.
That is not to say that the procedures from the article do not have their problems. Cases of racial profiling do happen and the rules are not always implemented properly. It's however a bit over the top to suggest that if you look "Moroccan" and you wear an expensive coat you'll have to carry your receipt with you at all times.
Re: What Does “Hate Crime” Mean Anyway?
The French even have a term for it: Crime passionel
Re: Re: Re: Not every bump
The problem here is the plea deal system, combined with the stacking mentioned in the article.
If you're arrested for something minor and during the arrest something happens that might conceivably be construed as bodily injury if you look at it sideways with your eyes seriously squinted. That's not even considering how the incident is reported if there are no witnesses except cops.
So what do you do (guilty or innocent) if they offer you a plea deal for 6 months in jail versus the potential risk of going to prison for 10 years plus? You'll take the deal or you will trust the public defender to get you off, even though they added 98 cases to his workload just this week?
As per usual if you can afford proper legal representation this law will not affect you much, probably.
Not advertizing
The writing in the C&D is so bad, it hurts my eyes. It certainly doesn't convince me to read anything of hers in book form.
I'm surprised there are so many titles with cocky in it. I didn't know that word was still in general use. It sounds quite old fashioned and childish to me but I'm not a native speaker so there's that.
Journalists don't understand their own business model
It has been pointed out before but in the good old days of dead trees newspapers were not in the news business, they were in the advertising business. In that particular setup you need more subscribers to make more money. However if you asked journalists how their paper made money it was "We're selling news."
If you translate this to today's situation it is easy to see how this goes wrong. The news papers were still trying to get the largest number of eyeballs assuming that would deliver the biggest payments. This has resulted in everybody trying to have the news faster, join every craze or meme that was available and by delivering the shallowest news possible as long as you are first, fact checking be damned. Reminiscent of old-timey paper boys shouting on the street.
Currently eyeballs are very plentiful and cheap for advertisers. So that model brings diminishing returns. The solution is to either bring very targeted eyeballs or make news that people actually want to pay for, so something they can't find anywhere else.
I think all the old names will die since they seem unable to adapt. Out of the ashes will rise the new winners. What that will look like is open for debate but Patronage seems like a viable model, perhaps combined with a more traditional agent model that does the managing of the journalists if they're not capable themselves.
Re: This is totally the beginning of a buddy-cop action movie.
More like the next Police Academy. How many shenanigans might ensue if they had tanks, mine detectors and military grade lawnmowers?
Why do they actually hand out lawn mowers with this program?
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Of course you should sell them!
Of course you should install one of those safe encryption back doors I keep hearing about in each tank so you can switch them off at a distance if somebody wants to use them against you.
Drug use != criminal?
Why is there so much focus on catching drug users and not drug traffickers? Methinks the drug users are victims more than criminals.
If somebody has 3 pounds of cocaine in the trunk of his car please arrest him. If somebody has used drugs and has a small amount on him. Give him a stern warning and a flyer for a rehab center.
Police state
It's incidents like this that give the impression that the US is becoming a police state.
Case in point, the recent attack in Toronto where the attacker/terrorist was apprehended alive. We were looking at the footage of the guy screaming at the cop "I have a gun!" with the policeman approaching him with gun drawn. My girlfriend remarked "Holy shit, if this was in the US, this guy would've been dead 5 times over!
So we've reached the point that we expect the police in the US to go in full Dirty Harry mode (Death Wish mode?) as soon as possible. They can't even spell de-escalation anymore.
To protect and serve?
Re: Cause for Attorney-Client privilege...
Does doctor-patient privilege extend to crimes? It's my understanding that if there is evidence of a crime, and a child with an STD would definitely qualify, the doctor has to report it. They're obviously also reporting gunshot victims.
Just curious.
People do this?
To be honest I couldn't focus too much on the article since finding out that apparently people are taking a DIY approach to aligning their teeth! The wonders never cease. Next we'll have a home appendectomy kit.
I think that people that are thinking about this should take the fact that you could, and probably will, fuck up your mouth as a given. I'm amazed that it's not obligated for the SmileDirectClub to plaster that exact warning all over their website.
If your teeth need straightening please seek professional help! Yes, it will most likely cost thousands of dollars but it's the only way.
(I'm not an orthodontist by the way, although I had plenty of work done in my youth, to full satisfaction)
Re: Re: Re:
"While most other countries have local film industries, the majority of films watched in most of them are American"
I agree, there must be something more than only media. However, we also must be cautious to immediately discount the influence of pop culture on this. It certainly seems as if the attitudes(for lack of a better word) of Americans and pop culture are enhancing each other.
Still, many fingers can be pointed to many things. Politicians are a big part of the problem as well. Being, like you, from Europe, I have a hard time believing that the blatant pandering to industry interests (NRA) would be accepted here. Obviously our politicians say other stupid things but that is another issue.
What I wanted to say is that perhaps we go too soon into problem solving mode, without really understanding the root cause of the issue.
Having said that, I feel that creating stricter gun legislation is a good start without significant drawbacks. I have yet to see a good argument for unfettered access to handguns, semi automatic or otherwise.
Re:
If I remember correctly even Michael Moore, hated by everybody left and right, agrees with you that it's not necessarily only the guns. At the end of Bowling for Columbine he compares the US to Canada and even though Canada does not have a substantially lower number of weapons, relatively speaking, there is much less gun violence.
So, it's a complex issue, who knew? That's not to say that putting stronger controls on guns is a bad start but it's probably not the only answer.
Re: Re:
"I've also never seen evidence of video games creating solutions"
Aargh. I meant to say:
"I've also never seen evidence of video games causing violence"
Re:
I've also never seen evidence of video games creating solutions but I think this is also where it becomes complex.
An argument can be made that the gun culture in the US is mirrored by the media and specifically by games and movies. In American movies and games violence is always the solution, never the problem (I'm generalizing a bit of course).
So the big question is if the media is causing the American attitude to guns or is the media giving voice to existing attitudes?
I don't have the answer but I think this is where the crux of the answer to gun violence is. I'm all for better gun regulation but I also think this is not the full answer.
Re: Ratings Systems - The Gateway Drug to Censorship
You are right but that is because most people, especially politicians, view them the wrong way.
Rating systems contain information for parents, not for kids and definitely not for sellers of content.
Re: Re: Re: Re: Lets all say it together now...
Great sir, you solved it! Correlation IS causation, super.
So, the US has the largest number of guns in private hands and the largest number of mass school shootings.
Now, we learned from our history major that correlation IS causation so guns cause mass shootings!
Thank you, game over.
Re:
You beat me to it!
Re:
Generally speaking I agree with you that it's an intimidation tactic that should be avoided and that it is too much like mob justice.
However, and I think this is where Mike is going with his "more speech" comment, there is a lot of grey area. I think that we could agree that it would be justified to try to get somebody fired from a civil rights organization if he was a card carrying member of the KKK. However, there are many grey areas.
(off topic: They do carry cards I hope? I always think that somebody cannot justifiably call himself an Exalted Cyclops or Grand Wizard without carrying a full deck of Magic: The Gathering cards)
Re: Obtuse to a blinding degree
Yes, it's interesting isn't it? That's probably because grandstanding is much cheaper and easier than actually doing something constructive.
Terrorism, child porn, human trafficking, murder, drugs trafficking and theft are older than the internet by a substantial margin and some of those crimes might be as old as humanity itself. I haven't seen a study yet that links growth of crime to the internet.
How many of the politicians that are proposing that Mark Zuck fixes the world, have proposed a serious plan recently to increase funding for additional police detectives to actually counter these problems?
Facebook et al. function as a nice lightning rod for all criticism of people that want the world to be fixable. It's much easier to point fingers and let somebody else take the blame.
Re: Re: Laws
Just to clarify some more:
It's not the case that they'll just walk up to some random guy who looks "too poor" to ask for his receipts. They're specifically targeting people whom they know.
So in practice it is like this: They spot a guy they know has a criminal record and they know he's on welfare but still he's wearing expensive clothing and watches or, for that matter, he's driving a brand new BMW M3. In that case they'll want to check how he can afford these things.
While there is an asset forfeiture procedure in The Netherlands, as mentioned above, it can only start after you have been convicted of a crime and the prosecution has to prove they are ill-gotten gains.
That is not to say that the procedures from the article do not have their problems. Cases of racial profiling do happen and the rules are not always implemented properly. It's however a bit over the top to suggest that if you look "Moroccan" and you wear an expensive coat you'll have to carry your receipt with you at all times.