Non-IT News Thread
-
@scottalanmiller The article pretty much sums up as:
You had better see a person actively committing a crime, robbery, murder etc before you call the police. Not just suspicious activity that "you don't like".
He apparently had the police called on him, while he was campaigning for reelection or some such activity.
-
@obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
Isn't harassment already a crime?
Yes, but maybe there are too many loopholes unless that is specifically stated in the law.
they should remove the loopholes rather than making specific racist laws.
It's like how in NY distracted driving was already illegal, but THE they added texting laws and texting exceptions... because they weren't able to determine if texting WAS a distraction.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller The article pretty much sums up as:
You had better see a person actively committing a crime, robbery, murder etc before you call the police. Not just suspicious activity that "you don't like".
He apparently had the police called on him, while he was campaigning for reelection or some such activity.
Right, but you just need a general harassment law for that.
-
Which what this law will do, is actually discourage people from ever calling the police against any person of color (which this is a bit reverse-racist) even if they do enfact commit a crime because the person will be concerned with possibly being labeled a racist for calling the police on suspicious activity.
I guess "See something, Say something" means "see something, just STFU and go back to your popcorn"
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
Which what this law will do, is actually discourage people from ever calling the police against any person of color (which this is a bit reverse-racist) even if they do enfact commit a crime because the person will be concerned with possibly being labeled a racist for calling the police on suspicious activity.
I guess "See something, Say something" means "see something, just STFU and go back to your popcorn"
Right, because it means unless they commit a crime that you can prove.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
Which what this law will do, is actually discourage people from ever calling the police against any person of color (which this is a bit reverse-racist) even if they do enfact commit a crime because the person will be concerned with possibly being labeled a racist for calling the police on suspicious activity.
I guess "See something, Say something" means "see something, just STFU and go back to your popcorn"
Right, because it means unless they commit a crime that you can prove.
It's not on the caller to have to prove, that is what the courts and police are for.
Without concerned citizens (regardless of any scenario) a lot of crime would never be solved. No witnesses here (because they're afraid of being labeled a racist).
What if I see a person popping a window open at 2AM across the street from me. I now have to be concerned that if I call the police (and the person does actually live there) that I'd be labeled a racist.
Rather than the police going and checking to make sure that someone isn't being robbed or worse.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
What if I see a person popping a window open at 2AM across the street from me. I now have to be concerned that if I call the police (and the person does actually live there) that I'd be labeled a racist.
No, that's a reasonable concern in your example.
They are talking about someone just waiting in a restaurant for someone or using the bathroom, not actively raising a reasonable suspicion of criminal activity....
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
Which what this law will do, is actually discourage people from ever calling the police against any person of color (which this is a bit reverse-racist) even if they do enfact commit a crime because the person will be concerned with possibly being labeled a racist for calling the police on suspicious activity.
I guess "See something, Say something" means "see something, just STFU and go back to your popcorn"
Right, because it means unless they commit a crime that you can prove.
It's not on the caller to have to prove, that is what the courts and police are for.
But the new law says you can only call for a crime, not a suspected crime. That clearly moves the responsibility of proof from the police and courts to the concerned citizen. Policy are not legally allowed to be called until a crime is known, never only when suspected. That's black and white, the onus is on the caller, not the police.
-
@obsolesce Let's take the Marley sibling that had the police called on her because she was "taking things from the marley residence" and had the police called on her.
The neighbor had no idea who this person was, what she was doing there or why she was taking things from the residence. Called the police, and then had the Marley sibling label her a racist because she was actually allowed to be there.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
Which what this law will do, is actually discourage people from ever calling the police against any person of color (which this is a bit reverse-racist) even if they do enfact commit a crime because the person will be concerned with possibly being labeled a racist for calling the police on suspicious activity.
I guess "See something, Say something" means "see something, just STFU and go back to your popcorn"
Right, because it means unless they commit a crime that you can prove.
It's not on the caller to have to prove, that is what the courts and police are for.
Without concerned citizens (regardless of any scenario) a lot of crime would never be solved. No witnesses here (because they're afraid of being labeled a racist).
What if I see a person popping a window open at 2AM across the street from me. I now have to be concerned that if I call the police (and the person does actually live there) that I'd be labeled a racist.
Rather than the police going and checking to make sure that someone isn't being robbed or worse.
Even worse, what if the police know that there was a crime but can't make it stick in court. This COULD leave people open to retaliation from the courts, even for something that WAS a crime.
Because legally, a crime only exists with proof.
-
@scottalanmiller OK take this example.
I suspect my neighbors house is being broken in at 2AM in the morning as I see a guy break a window and crawl through it.
I call the police with what I've witnessed.
They show up, find the suspect, and it is actually just the owner drunk off his ass and lost his house keys.
I'm then labeled a racist for this "living while black" law because I didn't go investigate the activity myself.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller OK take this example.
I suspect my neighbors house is being broken in at 2AM in the morning as I see a guy break a window and crawl through it.
I call the police with what I've witnessed.
They show up, find the suspect, and it is actually just the owner drunk off his ass and lost his house keys.
I'm then labeled a racist for this "living while black" law because I didn't go investigate the activity myself.
Exactly, because there was no crime. Because you can't prove it, you would have no legal right to report it.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@obsolesce Let's take the Marley sibling that had the police called on her because she was "taking things from the marley residence" and had the police called on her.
The neighbor had no idea who this person was, what she was doing there or why she was taking things from the residence. Called the police, and then had the Marley sibling label her a racist because she was actually allowed to be there.
Again, in that case, for all the caller knows, that person IS doing something illegal.
The law is referring to purposefully calling police knowing there is not crime being done, and no evidence of crime being done.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller OK take this example.
I suspect my neighbors house is being broken in at 2AM in the morning as I see a guy break a window and crawl through it.
I call the police with what I've witnessed.
They show up, find the suspect, and it is actually just the owner drunk off his ass and lost his house keys.
I'm then labeled a racist for this "living while black" law because I didn't go investigate the activity myself.
Exactly, because there was no crime. Because you can't prove it, you would have no legal right to report it.
What?!
Of course there is the "right to report it". You report suspicious activity to prevent even worse activity. That's how the law works.
-
@obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@obsolesce Let's take the Marley sibling that had the police called on her because she was "taking things from the marley residence" and had the police called on her.
The neighbor had no idea who this person was, what she was doing there or why she was taking things from the residence. Called the police, and then had the Marley sibling label her a racist because she was actually allowed to be there.
Again, in that case, for all the caller knows, that person IS doing something illegal.
The law is referring to purposefully calling police knowing there is not crime being done, and no evidence of crime being done.
I'm using the same example over and over, but with different examples. Which in every case of this law's explanation so far, would have me labeled as a racist.
Is it my job to investigate a possible crime in progress or the police, @scottalanmiller (rhetorical question) it's the polices.
-
@obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@obsolesce Let's take the Marley sibling that had the police called on her because she was "taking things from the marley residence" and had the police called on her.
The neighbor had no idea who this person was, what she was doing there or why she was taking things from the residence. Called the police, and then had the Marley sibling label her a racist because she was actually allowed to be there.
Again, in that case, for all the caller knows, that person IS doing something illegal.
The law is referring to purposefully calling police knowing there is not crime being done, and no evidence of crime being done.
Right, which in his example, there was no crime and no evidence of a crime. Nothing criminal at all. That's the exact point. Climbing through a window is in no way a crime.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@obsolesce Let's take the Marley sibling that had the police called on her because she was "taking things from the marley residence" and had the police called on her.
The neighbor had no idea who this person was, what she was doing there or why she was taking things from the residence. Called the police, and then had the Marley sibling label her a racist because she was actually allowed to be there.
Again, in that case, for all the caller knows, that person IS doing something illegal.
The law is referring to purposefully calling police knowing there is not crime being done, and no evidence of crime being done.
Right, which in his example, there was no crime and no evidence of a crime. Nothing criminal at all. That's the exact point. Climbing through a window is in no way a crime.
Yes it is. That's breaking and entering, which is a crime.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
Is it my job to investigate a possible crime in progress or the police, @scottalanmiller (rhetorical question) it's the polices.
Currently the polices'. If the new law comes through, that CLEARLY is switched. And you are completely responsible, under how they have described it, to be completely sure that a crime has been witnessed and can be proven BEFORE the police are legally allowed to be called.
That's what this law is, a change in who is held responsible for proving a crime.
-
@obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@obsolesce Let's take the Marley sibling that had the police called on her because she was "taking things from the marley residence" and had the police called on her.
The neighbor had no idea who this person was, what she was doing there or why she was taking things from the residence. Called the police, and then had the Marley sibling label her a racist because she was actually allowed to be there.
Again, in that case, for all the caller knows, that person IS doing something illegal.
The law is referring to purposefully calling police knowing there is not crime being done, and no evidence of crime being done.
Right, which in his example, there was no crime and no evidence of a crime. Nothing criminal at all. That's the exact point. Climbing through a window is in no way a crime.
Yes it is. That's breaking and entering, which is a crime.
Nope, entering a window is NOT breaking and entering. And even breaking and entering into your own house is not a crime. There is NO crime here, none.
-
@scottalanmiller but as a person who's responsibility in this Country isn't to investigate possible and actual crimes, the only possible responsibility would be to call the police to report what is believe to be a crime.
Punishment for reporting activity like in my examples is insanity. I get cases like the water-bottle crazy bitch case. 100%
But this law doesn't define the difference. Just calling the police, at all, for suspicious activity against a person of color, immediately makes it a hate crime if there was no actual crime.
