unixknight

Thanks for clarifying. May I ask what you think of the video, or would you rather stay clear of this one? :)

Not sure how to interpret that. Do you mean you feel that these officers were perfectly justified in this incident, and that anyone who disagrees must necessarily be nothing but a simple cop hater who never acknowledges good cops? Because that's kinda how it came across to me.

Yeah I know it was just weird the way he said it. Of course recently, what passes for a declaration of war is simply the Congress voting to keep funding whatever military action the President has ordered. We haven't officially declared war since 1941.

I don't even have it in me to be surprised by this garbage anymore. I really don't.

Duplicated. Apologies. Wanted to add something though... This quote at the bottom of the article sums up my thoughts pretty well... "What he did in the past was irrelevant once he was detained, arrested, and place in cuffs. He no longer represented a threat to the officers. The officers failed to serve and protect someone who they were responsible to protect. "

This statement strikes me as odd... Who declares war if not politicians?

Appreciate your participation, Mirkwood. Always good to have your input on these types of discussions since you can offer a perspective the rest of us lack. There are a couple of problems with the article you linked though. "I did almost exactly what three cops in Baltimore did, and they just got indicted." Well, no. The suspect that was arrested in the story from the article isn't dead. Had Freddie Gray not died, the BPD officers would NOT have been indicted for anything. As it is, a prosecutor and a grand jury, who know more about this case than we do, decided to indict. "Something happened during transport, Gray was fatally injured and died a week later." This vague acknowledgement that "something happened" is pretty important, wouldn't you say? A man died. The way this article is written, it sounds like the point he's making is "Well the guy died, but stuff happens. What can ya do? It's all his fault anyway." Is that really the defense you're looking to apply here? Besides, we have video evidence suggesting that something happened to Gray before he was placed in the vehicle, and his injuries do not appear to be consistent with being banged around in the van. Are supposed to ignore that? The article goes on at length justifying the arrest. Ok fine, the cops went after a guy who saw them and took off. It was a reasonable thing to do. I'll concede that point gladly. The issue here isn't that Gray was arrested alone, the issue is that he's DEAD. He's dead. He's DEAD. In ANY other job if the actions of some of the employees cause the death of a person there are consequences. Yet those defending the BPD here seem to think we should all just say "well that sucks" and drop it. I don't hate cops. I'm not against cops. I don't wish ill on cops. Had an encounter with a MD state trooper yesterday after I made a wrong turn and he was helpful, polite and professional. Naturally I was polite and friendly with him. Good cops are good cops. What I want is the same level of accountability that would be applied to anyone else when things like Gray's death happen. Why is that a bad thing?

Probably so. What bothers me is how quickly the "ends justify the means" argument is used to breach the Constitution and how many people go along with it because they just can't imagine how it could go badly.

That sort of thing always makes me suspicious of Government motives. They make problems worse, not better. Thing is, most cases are "one off" offenses that wouldn't likely be repeated anyway. It's a myth that they always reoffend. (Caveat to that: An acquaintance of mine, a Parole/Probation officer who handles these kinds of cases, tells me that for whatever reason guys who molest young boys have a very high recidivism rate. It seems to be the only category of sex crimes in which that's true.) In any case, most states now require treatment as a condition of release from prison or probation, so the therapy you mentioned is already happening, and is a factor in why the overall recidivism rate is low.

As of midnight last night several controversial sections of the Patriot Act are all done. For now. I'd like to buy Rand Paul a steak dinner.

Calling for caution is perfectly reasonable. Ostracizing people in the name of caution is another thing entirely. In a sense, people on the registry are the low hanging fruit, aren't they? In no other category of criminal history can one so easily tap into the information. We see people panicking and moving out of neighborhoods because they've seen that a neighbor is on the list, yet they could be living across the street from a one-time murderer and never know it unless they go out of their way to look into it. It wasn't created for practical reasons. It was created for emotional reasons and politicians use it to get elected. Every couple of years they trot out the registrants and introduce a few new restrictions and rules just to "be safe" when it's really just a way to play on people's fear.

Sure seems that way, but celebrities get a pass across the board, don't they? I mean, look at Roman Polanski. Fled the U.S. to avoid being prosecuted for just such a crime and yet he's celebrated worldwide. As to the first part, I can assure you nobility plays no part in my own motives.

He didn't say, but my impression was that it was an FCC thing. I never looked into it though but it made a lot of sense.

You're not alone, my brother. I got your back :)

Yeah, see that's why I have a problem with the reasoning being used to ban the guy in the subject of this thread... He was literally banned out of fear that he MIGHT do something in a circumstance that wouldn't even happen anyway. Bad call. Just a bad call.

Some ideas on how to earn one: Come out as gay. After all, in the 21st Century, you're never too young to explore sexual identity issues!Interview a family member who has been persecuted by those nasty religious zealots and draw a poster!Write a witty skit on why being gay is just better (Make sure it's a musical)Lecture a Christian of any denomination on why being gay is just as good IN EVERY WAY as being straightDraw a poster of at least 10 historical figures who were probably gay (even if they weren't)Help a Cub Scout build a FABULOUS rainbow pinewood derby car with all the gay marriage equality emblems on itPretend to be gay for a week. (Especially effective if done in teams of 2)Boycott Chik-Fil-A for a monthShow up to the award ceremony in dragAttend a gay weddingAttend a gay pride eventJoin a pro-gay marriage demonstrationMake signs for the demonstrationPunch a Westboro Baptist in the face (To be fair, that one should get its own badge, IMHO)

A friend of mine made an interesting point about this. He was saying that it used to be there were no commercials during the news broadcasts, and that each channel was obligated to provide news and information. The change happened when it became possible to run commercials during the news shows. When that happened, it turned news broadcasting into a competitive venture, just like every other type of TV programming. So how do you get people to watch YOUR news over the other stations'? You all report on the same events. You all send correspondents, cameramen, etc. to the same places, so what do you do? You make your version of the news more INTERESTING, of course. You make it a form of entertainment. You tell people what they want to hear, or run the kinds of stories that interest them. It becomes less about keeping the public informed and more about making money on how you sell information. And thus: The situation as it stands today.

I'm with Vort's perspective on that. Too often people give SO's a hard time so they can feel noble. "Look how righteous I am! I'm joining in on the virtual lynch mob!" I think in this case, the ban was a mistake. Nobody's being protected here. The vast majority of the perpetrators in these cases are not strangers, but people the victim knows and is/was close to. It's not like people from the registry are randomly showing up at some single mom's front door and kicking it in to rape her. Besides, the ones who are on that list have already been caught, punished, given treatment and released. They aren't the ones you have to watch out for. I mean are we honestly saying that everybody who is NOT on the registry is automatically safe? If you're a single mom and you sold something online are you really going to throw your front door wide open to the stranger who bought your item because, hey, they filter out the sex offenders? Of course not. That would be absurd. You always take reasonable precautions with your own safety with ANY person you don't know. It makes no difference. It's like when a friend of mine tried to defend these registries by saying "Well at least this way I can tell my kids who to stay away from." Oh yeah? Well I teach my kids to avoid ALL strangers, so what exactly is the registry doing to help me? Statistically if any of my kids were to ever be molested it would be by someone who ISN'T on that registry.

As a fellow Baltimore person (I don't live in Baltimore, I just work here.) I find this easy to believe, but I would hope there's more to it than that. You are right, in any case... BPD had an awful reputation long before Freddie Gray was killed. I was recently reading about a Baltimore city cop who had to resign because he reported misconduct by some of the other officers and was ostracized and threatened by the department. That's kind of why I'm not very impressed by the "There are plenty of good cops out there" argument... It may be true, but not in Baltimore. Where were all these paragons of virtue when Joe Crystal was being punished?

Yes, I am. Otherwise, where does it end? Ban them from public business? Ban them from eBay? Those with kids already can't go see their kids perform in school plays or participate in school sponsored sporting events without special permission. Think that isn't difficult and painful? They say it isn't about punishment, but it is. As I said, generally speaking, sex crimes have a very low recidivism rate (this according to the DOJ.) So instead of showing forgiveness and reason, it would become about fear and suspicion. And by the way, it is possible to look and see specifically how severe the offense was in most states, even if the exact nature of the crime isn't listed. Is there no room for that?

Are they also screening for convicted murderers, armed robbers and arsonists?

Unless and until this person actually does something to cause trouble, leave him be. You'd be amazed at how easy it is to get put on that list in some states. I was once taking to someone very knowledgeable in this area who said that it can be as simple as who happens to catch a person urinating in public. If an adult sees you do it, it's a misdemeanor, maybe nothing but a citation. If a kid sees you do it (accidentally, of course) you get a misdemeanor and have to register for 15 years. Add to that, in some categories, the recidivism rate is so low you can be reasonably assured that you won't get any further trouble from such an individual. (For some reason guys who molest boys have a high recidivism rate, but that seems to be the only category where we see that.) In any case, the vast majority of cases of this nature, the perpetrator is not a stranger to the victim, but a close friend or family member. Not really applicable to a public trading site. A person on the registry has done something wrong, been caught, punished, and has been through the justice system. There's no reason to pile on more. They have a hard enough time getting life back on track as it is without being constantly reminded of their screwup in the past. What would the Savior do?

Yeah you're right that makes sense. I guess it's a tricky balance and we sort of have to be introspective about it. In the case of a guy who is on death row, it's unlikely he'll be able to hurt anyone so I'd think that sense of relief and justice would come when the conviction was achieved in court.

Oh I wouldn't expect anyone to have sympathy for him, I sure don't. I just feel weird about celebrating someone's death. Whey killed Bin Laden I was watching the news and they showed people out in the streets celebrating in New York. I mean, I guess I can understand their feelings, but it struck me that it didn't seem all that different from when Palestinians were in the street celebrating as the Twin Towers fell. Are we really better than they are if we act like that?

I think that the death penalty has its place, and it seems appropriate to use it in a case like this... but it bothers me a bit how many people who call themselves Christians are practically salivating at the prospect of executing this guy. Raise your hand if you think Jesus Christ would be sitting there as a witness to the execution with a big foam novelty finger on His hand. Anyone?