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.
-
@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.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@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.
Caller did not know it was the person's house. Definitely a crime.
-
Entering an open door holding a gift basket is also not a crime, unless you are trespassing. Breaking and entering cannot be determined without an investigation unless it is YOU against whom the crime is committed. And even then, you still have the responsibility to prove it.
-
@obsolesce said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@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.
Caller did not know it was the person's house. Definitely a crime.
No crime. None. What the caller knows or does not know has NOT bearing on something being a crime.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@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.
Did you not read the article? The WHOLE point is to shift the responsibility. That's what this law would do. It CHANGES who is responsible. Your personal opinion of how it SHOULD be is not relevant. The current law puts the onus on the police, the new one puts it on the reporter. Clear as day.
