As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

[Police Brutality] is still a problem even in 2021.

1568101121

Posts

  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    There are all sorts of differences between countries in the more technical distinctions between rights profiles. We don't operate on common legal precedent and are all significantly ignorant about the practical legal issues of countries where we have no experience or in-depth education.

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    Kayne Red RobeLord_AsmodeusIncenjucarFencingsax
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    Nova_C wrote: »
    The right to not have fascist police is quite an important right.

    Yes, and he can be fired and barred from ever working as a police officer ever again to achieve that goal. But he wasn't just fired. He's going to prison for it.

    And Nova, yes governments violate people's rights all the time and nothing is done about it so your conclusion is that we shouldn't even bother having codified rights in the first place? I don't get what you're criticising me of here. Are you suggesting I think Breonna deserved what she got? Because that's a straw man and a total non sequitur with what happened in that article.
    Wow, no freedom of association in the UK huh? Didn't know that.

    I'm criticizing this post, because I can easily replace the "UK" with "US" and it still applies, so I guess, if you didn't mean this to be dripping the contempt that it seems to be, what even are you trying to say or do with this? Because as far as I can tell, you're dunking on the UK for not having a right that you seem to believe you have. You don't.

    There's a clear difference between possessing a Constitutional right that gets violated, and not having that right at all.

    Lord_AsmodeusDisruptedCapitalistShadowfireElvenshaeKamar
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited April 2
    Paladin wrote: »
    There are all sorts of differences between countries in the more technical distinctions between rights profiles. We don't operate on common legal precedent and are all significantly ignorant about the practical legal issues of countries where we have no experience or in-depth education.

    Which means that if we are talking about constructing remedies within their respective legislative and judicial systems for the problems both the US and the UK face, they may have to be constructed differently for each country.

    But it does not mean that we cannot talk about problems that both the US and UK face - such as police brutality and the mainstreaming of white nationalism/supremacy - as related issues to the degree where actions taken in one country have ripple effects in the other.

    DarkPrimus on
    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    DisruptedCapitalistNobeard
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    Paladin wrote: »
    There are all sorts of differences between countries in the more technical distinctions between rights profiles. We don't operate on common legal precedent and are all significantly ignorant about the practical legal issues of countries where we have no experience or in-depth education.

    Which means that if we are talking about constructing remedies within their respective legislative and judicial systems for the problems both the US and the UK face, they may have to be constructed differently for each country.

    But it does not mean that we cannot talk about problems that both the US and UK face - such as police brutality and the mainstreaming of white nationalism/supremacy - as related issues to the degree where actions taken in one country have ripple effects in the other.

    Yeah, but it's a nightmare to compare as a layperson

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    Nobeard
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    edited April 2
    spool32 wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    The right to not have fascist police is quite an important right.

    Yes, and he can be fired and barred from ever working as a police officer ever again to achieve that goal. But he wasn't just fired. He's going to prison for it.

    And Nova, yes governments violate people's rights all the time and nothing is done about it so your conclusion is that we shouldn't even bother having codified rights in the first place? I don't get what you're criticising me of here. Are you suggesting I think Breonna deserved what she got? Because that's a straw man and a total non sequitur with what happened in that article.
    Wow, no freedom of association in the UK huh? Didn't know that.

    I'm criticizing this post, because I can easily replace the "UK" with "US" and it still applies, so I guess, if you didn't mean this to be dripping the contempt that it seems to be, what even are you trying to say or do with this? Because as far as I can tell, you're dunking on the UK for not having a right that you seem to believe you have. You don't.

    There's a clear difference between possessing a Constitutional right that gets violated, and not having that right at all.

    By comparison, you would say someone's Constitutional rights were being violated if they were fired for being a member of ISIS, as both groups are designated as terror organizations?

    DarkPrimus on
    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    The right to not have fascist police is quite an important right.

    Yes, and he can be fired and barred from ever working as a police officer ever again to achieve that goal. But he wasn't just fired. He's going to prison for it.

    And Nova, yes governments violate people's rights all the time and nothing is done about it so your conclusion is that we shouldn't even bother having codified rights in the first place? I don't get what you're criticising me of here. Are you suggesting I think Breonna deserved what she got? Because that's a straw man and a total non sequitur with what happened in that article.
    Wow, no freedom of association in the UK huh? Didn't know that.

    I'm criticizing this post, because I can easily replace the "UK" with "US" and it still applies, so I guess, if you didn't mean this to be dripping the contempt that it seems to be, what even are you trying to say or do with this? Because as far as I can tell, you're dunking on the UK for not having a right that you seem to believe you have. You don't.

    There's a clear difference between possessing a Constitutional right that gets violated, and not having that right at all.

    By comparison, you would say someone's Constitutional rights were being violated if they were fired for being a member of ISIS, as both groups are designated as terror organizations?

    Fired or convicted?

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    ElvenshaeLord_Asmodeus
  • spool32spool32 Contrary Library Registered User regular
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    The right to not have fascist police is quite an important right.

    Yes, and he can be fired and barred from ever working as a police officer ever again to achieve that goal. But he wasn't just fired. He's going to prison for it.

    And Nova, yes governments violate people's rights all the time and nothing is done about it so your conclusion is that we shouldn't even bother having codified rights in the first place? I don't get what you're criticising me of here. Are you suggesting I think Breonna deserved what she got? Because that's a straw man and a total non sequitur with what happened in that article.
    Wow, no freedom of association in the UK huh? Didn't know that.

    I'm criticizing this post, because I can easily replace the "UK" with "US" and it still applies, so I guess, if you didn't mean this to be dripping the contempt that it seems to be, what even are you trying to say or do with this? Because as far as I can tell, you're dunking on the UK for not having a right that you seem to believe you have. You don't.

    There's a clear difference between possessing a Constitutional right that gets violated, and not having that right at all.

    By comparison, you would say someone's Constitutional rights were being violated if they were fired for being a member of ISIS, as both groups are designated as terror organizations?

    Fired? No.

    Prosecuted? Probably yes. The Constitution isn't a suicide pact, but rights aren't absolute either.

    Lord_AsmodeuszepherinJebus314
  • OneAngryPossumOneAngryPossum Registered User regular
    edited April 2
    This is getting outside the realm of physical brutality, but it’s the scenario that comes to mind when I think about being prosecuted for your associations in the US:
    Pursuing her conversion and new religion, Jaelyn went to the Internet. And there, she found ISIS.

    Jaelyn merely showed Mo the videos – the clips did the rest.

    “It started out with when … she first became Muslim, you know, she wanted to learn more. … I’m not sure how she came across some of the videos that she did at first, but I remember, like, some of them. Like, one of the first ones I remember seeing, a video that how ISIS came to be. And it was basically mentioning … historical struggles in the Middle East. And then somehow it ties that back into, you know, everything is, like, the Western society’s fault. You would see a lot of non-Muslims using like, vulgar language, and a whole lot of slander on top of that.”

    ...

    According to the FBI, Jaelyn reached out to a contact she thought would help her and Mo travel to Turkey, cross the border into Syria and join ISIS. The two secretly married, began an intensive preparation period and bought one-way plane tickets to Istanbul.

    And on August 8, 2015, Mo and Jaelyn packed their bags. He wrote a touching goodbye letter to his parents. The first lines read: “I’m sorry. I love you. I’ve decided to leave and I won’t be coming back.” A small heart is scrawled at the bottom of the page. Then the couple went to the airport near Columbus, Mississippi. They got as far as the boarding gate, and then they were arrested.

    ...

    The FBI said both Jaelyn and Mo confessed at that moment. But they didn’t have to. It turns out the online ISIS recruiter who had been helping make arrangements for the couple was in fact an FBI employee.

    https://www.cnn.com/2016/12/02/us/mississippi-isis-muhammad-dakhlalla-interview/index.html

    I’ve never seen this confirmed anywhere, but I followed this story a bit, and it seemed entirely possible that neither of these people ever said a word to an actual member of ISIS or took any actions to support ISIS until they ran into this FBI agent.

    Both received extended prison sentences (12 years for her, 8 for him).

    OneAngryPossum on
  • PolaritiePolaritie Sleepy Registered User regular
    There's absolutely an issue of the FBI basically creating criminals to catch that way, yes.

    Steam: Polaritie
    3DS: 0473-8507-2652
    Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
    PSN: AbEntropy
    DiannaoChongMartini_PhilosopherElvenshaeNobeardLord_AsmodeusShadowfireDavid WalgasDarkPrimussomething a million times dumberMvrckArdolMan in the MistsCalicaHacksawStyrofoam SammichDoodmannJaysonFourMrVyngaardKamarStabbity Styledispatch.oOneAngryPossumNitsua
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    For information purposes, the charge was conspiracy to provide material support for terrorism, which was a crime created by the PATRIOT act and heavily criticized by the ACLU

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
    DiannaoChongMartini_PhilosopherFencingsaxDisruptedCapitalistLord_AsmodeusBlackDragon480Gnome-InterruptusRingoDoodmannJaysonFour
  • CelestialBadgerCelestialBadger Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    There's absolutely an issue of the FBI basically creating criminals to catch that way, yes.

    It does have the purpose of sowing paranoia among terrorist groups, knowing that half of them are the FBI setting a trap.

  • zagdrobzagdrob Registered User regular
    Polaritie wrote: »
    There's absolutely an issue of the FBI basically creating criminals to catch that way, yes.

    Eh, while some cases do get fuzzy, if already radicalized people are reaching out to provide support to terrorist groups but the FBI is intercepting them I don't find that particularly problematic.

    Most of the cases I take issue with had the FBI legitimately radicalizing and coercing people themselves just for the purpose of arresting them. Cases like the above are kind of what the FBI should be doing.

    Netscape
  • OneAngryPossumOneAngryPossum Registered User regular
    edited April 2
    I mostly brought this case up as a contrast to the UK situation - these people were never members of ISIS, they didn’t appear to have any conversations with ISIS, but they were assisted with/talked into attempting to join ISIS and then sentenced to roughly a decade in prison.

    In contrast, the UK individual was a listed member of the organization, possessed violent instructional literature, and had lied about that membership while seeking a position of government authority.

    OneAngryPossum on
    DarkPrimusMan in the MistsNyysjanqwer12
  • DiannaoChongDiannaoChong Registered User regular
    a
    Polaritie wrote: »
    There's absolutely an issue of the FBI basically creating criminals to catch that way, yes.

    It does have the purpose of sowing paranoia among terrorist groups, knowing that half of them are the FBI setting a trap.

    It doesn't because so far the targets in these cases have been people who are extremely hesitant and are badgered and bullied into springing the trap. It's like security theater in that sense, show the public that they are accomplishing something by arresting people who were never going to commit the stuff they are accused of.

    steam_sig.png
    Lord_AsmodeusBlackDragon480David WalgasDarkPrimusbrynhrtmnRingoMan in the MistsDisruptedCapitalist
  • Lord_AsmodeusLord_Asmodeus goeticSobriquet: Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered User regular
    edited April 2
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    There's absolutely an issue of the FBI basically creating criminals to catch that way, yes.

    Eh, while some cases do get fuzzy, if already radicalized people are reaching out to provide support to terrorist groups but the FBI is intercepting them I don't find that particularly problematic.

    Most of the cases I take issue with had the FBI legitimately radicalizing and coercing people themselves just for the purpose of arresting them. Cases like the above are kind of what the FBI should be doing.

    I find pretty much all cases of entrapment to be disgusting and violate the intent and spirit of the law. If people who are radicalized/addicted/whatever get spotted by the FBI before they can actualize whatever they're thinking of what they should get is help, not a prison sentence. Prison sentences have never helped anyone, and most of the people in prison in most countries, let alone the US, probably wouldn't be more of a danger if we just let them out than if we left them in prison until their sentence is over. Arguably , most people are made into far more of a danger by being sent to prison.

    Lord_Asmodeus on
    Lord_Asmodeus.gifLord_Asmodeus2.gifz1i30sg.png
    David WalgasAistanRingoMan in the MistsDisruptedCapitalistCalicaStyrofoam SammichMagell
  • MonwynMonwyn Registered User regular
    edited April 2
    Drafts were a mistake

    Edit: I SAW THAT

    Monwyn on
    uH3IcEi.png
  • HamHamJHamHamJ Registered User regular
    I mostly brought this case up as a contrast to the UK situation - these people were never members of ISIS, they didn’t appear to have any conversations with ISIS, but they were assisted with/talked into attempting to join ISIS and then sentenced to roughly a decade in prison.

    In contrast, the UK individual was a listed member of the organization, possessed violent instructional literature, and had lied about that membership while seeking a position of government authority.

    Attempting to join ISIS in this case being literally flying to a foreign country intending to illegally cross a border to join an active violent insurgency.

    Going by a quick browse of Wikipedia it does seem like NA was attempting to actively incite violence. That said I see providing actual assistance to these activities to be a higher bar than just being on a list of members somewhere or hanging out in a chat room. Lying on a government background check is a pretty legit crime though.

    While racing light mechs, your Urbanmech comes in second place, but only because it ran out of ammo.
    Lord_AsmodeusFencingsax
  • Lord_AsmodeusLord_Asmodeus goeticSobriquet: Here is your magical cryptic riddle-tumour: I AM A TIME MACHINERegistered User regular
    Monwyn wrote: »
    Drafts were a mistake

    Edit: I SAW THAT

    I'll be honest I'm on mobile so I didn't even see what the drafts were when I was deleting them.

    Lord_Asmodeus.gifLord_Asmodeus2.gifz1i30sg.png
  • PaladinPaladin Registered User regular
    I could be wrong - in fact, I'm pretty sure I am wrong in a practical sense - but in the US, you can be a member of a terrorist group legally if you are not giving them material aid

    Marty: The future, it's where you're going?
    Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
  • BethrynBethryn Unhappiness is Mandatory Registered User regular
    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/901434/20200717_Proscription.pdf

    This is the UK's current list of proscribed Terrorist groups.

    They're mostly Islamic, but the right wing ones, alongside National Action, are Feuerkrieg Divison (international), Sonnenkrieg Division (international).

    If you read the criteria, they have to be known, organised groups. Hate crimes are still tried as hate crimes, but they're not considered part of terrorist groups unless an actual group affiliation is known.

    The one that somehow escapes definition is the BNP, which is a political party but its members have on several occasions been radicalised to point of preparing to engage in domestic terror acts. I guess there's an argument the BNP is not training them itself, but it's certainly on the circuit...

  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    spool32 wrote: »
    DarkPrimus wrote: »
    spool32 wrote: »
    Nova_C wrote: »
    The right to not have fascist police is quite an important right.

    Yes, and he can be fired and barred from ever working as a police officer ever again to achieve that goal. But he wasn't just fired. He's going to prison for it.

    And Nova, yes governments violate people's rights all the time and nothing is done about it so your conclusion is that we shouldn't even bother having codified rights in the first place? I don't get what you're criticising me of here. Are you suggesting I think Breonna deserved what she got? Because that's a straw man and a total non sequitur with what happened in that article.
    Wow, no freedom of association in the UK huh? Didn't know that.

    I'm criticizing this post, because I can easily replace the "UK" with "US" and it still applies, so I guess, if you didn't mean this to be dripping the contempt that it seems to be, what even are you trying to say or do with this? Because as far as I can tell, you're dunking on the UK for not having a right that you seem to believe you have. You don't.

    There's a clear difference between possessing a Constitutional right that gets violated, and not having that right at all.

    By comparison, you would say someone's Constitutional rights were being violated if they were fired for being a member of ISIS, as both groups are designated as terror organizations?

    Fired? No.

    Prosecuted? Probably yes. The Constitution isn't a suicide pact, but rights aren't absolute either.
    You can be fired for way less than being a member of ISIS. Being fired from a job for anything is not a constitutional issue. There are federal laws for protected classes (race ethnicity sex age disability religion etc) but you could fire a worker for being a member ISIS, or a member of Mothers Against Drunk Driving or because you don't like that they wear a fedora to work. In most states we have very few protections, let alone constitutional ones.

    BlackDragon480DisruptedCapitalistGiantGeek2020spool32Moridin889Netscape
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    edited April 2
    The right to not have fascist police is quite an important right.

    Yes, and he can be fired and barred from ever working as a police officer ever again to achieve that goal. But he wasn't just fired. He's going to prison for it.

    And Nova, yes governments violate people's rights all the time and nothing is done about it so your conclusion is that we shouldn't even bother having codified rights in the first place? I don't get what you're criticising me of here. Are you suggesting I think Breonna deserved what she got? Because that's a straw man and a total non sequitur with what happened in that article.

    Edit: am I missing something from that article? It says he was found guilty, so I'm assuming that means prison time, and not just merely being dismissed from his job.

    He's going to prison because National Action is an illegal organisation. Membership is an offence because they are violent Nazi terrorists. If he wasn't a copper, he would also have been charged.

    Something which is a good thing, and I support it. This is the first serving copper to be convicted, not the first person. We have quite a few people who have been convicted of membership of Nazi organisations, and rightfully so.

    Solar on
    shryke
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Bethryn wrote: »
    https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/901434/20200717_Proscription.pdf

    This is the UK's current list of proscribed Terrorist groups.

    They're mostly Islamic, but the right wing ones, alongside National Action, are Feuerkrieg Divison (international), Sonnenkrieg Division (international).

    If you read the criteria, they have to be known, organised groups. Hate crimes are still tried as hate crimes, but they're not considered part of terrorist groups unless an actual group affiliation is known.

    The one that somehow escapes definition is the BNP, which is a political party but its members have on several occasions been radicalised to point of preparing to engage in domestic terror acts. I guess there's an argument the BNP is not training them itself, but it's certainly on the circuit...

    A lot of BNP members have, however, been successfully charged with inciting racial hatred

    BethrynFencingsax101
  • DarkPrimusDarkPrimus Registered User regular
    Any further discussion of outlawing hate groups and/or terrorist organizations feels like something that should be moved to the Free Speech thread, but also feels like something that is already well-trod ground in there.

    dt3GeqU.png
    Gamertag: PrimusD | Rock Band DLC | GW:OttW - arrcd | WLD - Thortar
    IncenjucarzepherinMan in the MistsKayne Red RobeBlackDragon480DisruptedCapitalistMartini_PhilosopherHacksawNetscape
  • MayabirdMayabird Pecking at the keyboardRegistered User regular
    Per request, posting here about the police brutality in the UK:

    There were a series of protests in the UK against police brutality, specifically brutality against women. This has blended in with protests against an anti-protest bill which would punish protesters who are "noisy" and statue defacing worse than rape.

    Spoilers for violence and a woman being stripped by police on the streets - because how else are the police supposed to show how little they think of the women protesting against violence against them?

    MorganVTicaldfjamMartini_PhilosopherMan in the MistsIncenjucarGnome-InterruptusTofystedeth
  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    There's absolutely an issue of the FBI basically creating criminals to catch that way, yes.

    Eh, while some cases do get fuzzy, if already radicalized people are reaching out to provide support to terrorist groups but the FBI is intercepting them I don't find that particularly problematic.

    Most of the cases I take issue with had the FBI legitimately radicalizing and coercing people themselves just for the purpose of arresting them. Cases like the above are kind of what the FBI should be doing.

    If you can find and reach them before they've actually hurt anyone there are several things you can do that are more humane and constructive than egging them on and imprisoning them.

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    HacksawRingoMagellsomething a million times dumberMartini_PhilosopherArdolMan in the MistsYamiB.Lord_AsmodeusOneAngryPossumNitsua
  • something a million times dumbersomething a million times dumber JUDGE BROSEF Registered User regular
    I don't know how a functional de-radicalization effort can involve ramping up the worst parts of someone's radical ideology and then putting them in prison for it

    seems like that might have the opposite effect!

    Styrofoam SammichLord_AsmodeuszepherinMagellOneAngryPossum
  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    There's absolutely an issue of the FBI basically creating criminals to catch that way, yes.

    Eh, while some cases do get fuzzy, if already radicalized people are reaching out to provide support to terrorist groups but the FBI is intercepting them I don't find that particularly problematic.

    Most of the cases I take issue with had the FBI legitimately radicalizing and coercing people themselves just for the purpose of arresting them. Cases like the above are kind of what the FBI should be doing.

    If you can find and reach them before they've actually hurt anyone there are several things you can do that are more humane and constructive than egging them on and imprisoning them.

    What are they? Who's going to get the FBI on board with it? Do you need congress to fund it?

  • tinwhiskerstinwhiskers Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    In America you would be prosecuted if you were a member of ISIS or Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations too.

    Yeah the only real difference here is that the UK is able to recognize that white supremacist organizations are terrorists and considers knife fighting instructions a dangerous thing on par with bomb building instructions.


    Honestly, that is the part I find a bit farcical, just because it reminds me of some old friends who read 'samurai' sword fighting manuals and shit as weeboos in high school. Its been many years, but to the best of my knowledge none of them have since became terrorists via their mastery of the blade.

    6ylyzxlir2dz.png
    zepherin
  • Kayne Red RobeKayne Red Robe Master of Magic ArcanusRegistered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    In America you would be prosecuted if you were a member of ISIS or Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations too.

    Yeah the only real difference here is that the UK is able to recognize that white supremacist organizations are terrorists and considers knife fighting instructions a dangerous thing on par with bomb building instructions.


    Honestly, that is the part I find a bit farcical, just because it reminds me of some old friends who read 'samurai' sword fighting manuals and shit as weeboos in high school. Its been many years, but to the best of my knowledge none of them have since became terrorists via their mastery of the blade.

    There have been terror knife attacks in the UK so I think they're justified being concerned. Like how maybe studying for a commercial license and buying a delivery truck for no discernable reason could also be concerning if it fits a certain pattern.

    We don't worry about those things in the US because our homegrown terrorists don't have to work very hard to procure a means of mass murder.

    Gnome-InterruptusMan in the MistsRingoMoridin889Tofystedeth
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    In America you would be prosecuted if you were a member of ISIS or Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations too.

    Yeah the only real difference here is that the UK is able to recognize that white supremacist organizations are terrorists and considers knife fighting instructions a dangerous thing on par with bomb building instructions.


    Honestly, that is the part I find a bit farcical, just because it reminds me of some old friends who read 'samurai' sword fighting manuals and shit as weeboos in high school. Its been many years, but to the best of my knowledge none of them have since became terrorists via their mastery of the blade.

    Yeah and that won't get you in prison here.

    What will get you in prison is if you go on white supremacist message boards with a username like "Hitler" and post about how you wanna kill a bunch of people and start a race war and then join an international group chat full of Nazis and then start poking around online looking at how to kill people with a knife. Cos the Judge will look at that and say "yeah you're a fucking terrorist in the making mate" and you'll be sent down.

  • redxredx I(x)=2(x)+1 whole numbersRegistered User regular
    edited April 5
    Solar wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    In America you would be prosecuted if you were a member of ISIS or Al Qaeda or other terrorist organizations too.

    Yeah the only real difference here is that the UK is able to recognize that white supremacist organizations are terrorists and considers knife fighting instructions a dangerous thing on par with bomb building instructions.


    Honestly, that is the part I find a bit farcical, just because it reminds me of some old friends who read 'samurai' sword fighting manuals and shit as weeboos in high school. Its been many years, but to the best of my knowledge none of them have since became terrorists via their mastery of the blade.

    Yeah and that won't get you in prison here.

    What will get you in prison is if you go on white supremacist message boards with a username like "Hitler" and post about how you wanna kill a bunch of people and start a race war and then join an international group chat full of Nazis and then start poking around online looking at how to kill people with a knife. Cos the Judge will look at that and say "yeah you're a fucking terrorist in the making mate" and you'll be sent down.

    If you're ever going to let them out, I have a hard time thinking of a worse way to prevent someone from becoming a violent racist than putting them in the US prison system.

    Well, short of giving them a gun and a badge.

    redx on
    This machine kills threads.
    zepherin
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    Yeah well we have big problems with our prison system too. We desperately need prison reform and IMO decriminalisation of almost all drugs to alleviate the pressure on it, as well as a focus on rehabilitation in a non prison environment.

    Special KLord_AsmodeuszagdrobzepherinMan in the MistsRingo
  • MortiousMortious The Nightmare Begins Move to New ZealandRegistered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    There's absolutely an issue of the FBI basically creating criminals to catch that way, yes.

    Eh, while some cases do get fuzzy, if already radicalized people are reaching out to provide support to terrorist groups but the FBI is intercepting them I don't find that particularly problematic.

    Most of the cases I take issue with had the FBI legitimately radicalizing and coercing people themselves just for the purpose of arresting them. Cases like the above are kind of what the FBI should be doing.

    If you can find and reach them before they've actually hurt anyone there are several things you can do that are more humane and constructive than egging them on and imprisoning them.

    What are they? Who's going to get the FBI on board with it? Do you need congress to fund it?

    You know the fact that you don't think there's political will to actually help people makes it worse right?

    Move to New Zealand
    It’s not a very important country most of the time
    http://steamcommunity.com/id/mortious
    David Walgas
  • David WalgasDavid Walgas Registered User regular
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    There's absolutely an issue of the FBI basically creating criminals to catch that way, yes.

    Eh, while some cases do get fuzzy, if already radicalized people are reaching out to provide support to terrorist groups but the FBI is intercepting them I don't find that particularly problematic.

    Most of the cases I take issue with had the FBI legitimately radicalizing and coercing people themselves just for the purpose of arresting them. Cases like the above are kind of what the FBI should be doing.

    If you can find and reach them before they've actually hurt anyone there are several things you can do that are more humane and constructive than egging them on and imprisoning them.

    What are they? Who's going to get the FBI on board with it? Do you need congress to fund it?

    Countering Violent Extremism Task Force was and is a DHS sub program that focused on that. It’s mandate to counteract white nationalist extremism was removed some time in the last 4 years. So,
    Ask the experts, the Department of Homeland Security, maybe I’m not an expert.

  • Harry DresdenHarry Dresden Registered User regular
    Mortious wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    There's absolutely an issue of the FBI basically creating criminals to catch that way, yes.

    Eh, while some cases do get fuzzy, if already radicalized people are reaching out to provide support to terrorist groups but the FBI is intercepting them I don't find that particularly problematic.

    Most of the cases I take issue with had the FBI legitimately radicalizing and coercing people themselves just for the purpose of arresting them. Cases like the above are kind of what the FBI should be doing.

    If you can find and reach them before they've actually hurt anyone there are several things you can do that are more humane and constructive than egging them on and imprisoning them.

    What are they? Who's going to get the FBI on board with it? Do you need congress to fund it?

    You know the fact that you don't think there's political will to actually help people makes it worse right?

    Yeah, I was just curious to see if there was anything before this than surface level criticism of shitting on Democrats.

  • Styrofoam SammichStyrofoam Sammich WANT. normal (not weird)Registered User regular
    Mortious wrote: »
    zagdrob wrote: »
    Polaritie wrote: »
    There's absolutely an issue of the FBI basically creating criminals to catch that way, yes.

    Eh, while some cases do get fuzzy, if already radicalized people are reaching out to provide support to terrorist groups but the FBI is intercepting them I don't find that particularly problematic.

    Most of the cases I take issue with had the FBI legitimately radicalizing and coercing people themselves just for the purpose of arresting them. Cases like the above are kind of what the FBI should be doing.

    If you can find and reach them before they've actually hurt anyone there are several things you can do that are more humane and constructive than egging them on and imprisoning them.

    What are they? Who's going to get the FBI on board with it? Do you need congress to fund it?

    You know the fact that you don't think there's political will to actually help people makes it worse right?

    Yeah, I was just curious to see if there was anything before this than surface level criticism of shitting on Democrats.

    Harry we were talking about the FBI, what the fuck are you getting this from

    wq09t4opzrlc.jpg
    something a million times dumberMortiousMan in the MistsYamiB.DoodmannDamnItCohaagenRingoMeeqeHi I'm Vee!Magell
  • zepherinzepherin Registered User regular
    edited April 6
    Solar wrote: »
    Yeah well we have big problems with our prison system too. We desperately need prison reform and IMO decriminalisation of almost all drugs to alleviate the pressure on it, as well as a focus on rehabilitation in a non prison environment.
    Our prison system is just terrible. So bad. We have 300,000 non violent not convicted people being held in jail because they can’t afford bail. And 400,000 convicted of drug crimes. We could reduce our incarceration of individuals from 2.3 million to 1.6 million, which is huge. And another 300,000 immigration and public order crimes (DUIs vagrancy, public disorder etc) which would bring our incarceration to 1.3 million violent offenders and property crime folks. I’m ok with releasing some of the property crime people, except maybe burglary and fraud, which gets it around 1.1 million imprisoned people. And that’s more reasonable.

    zepherin on
    NetscapeIncenjucarDoodmannStarZapperTofystedeth
  • SolarSolar Registered User regular
    edited April 6
    Tbh that sounds insanely high to me still. The entire prison population here was 83k in 2018, and as far as I'm concerned, that's much too high. We need to say anyone who would get less than a year doesn't go in, drug possession doesn't result in prison etc. And then put the money into the rehabilitation programs.

    Solar on
    zepherinAistanRingoCalica
  • daveNYCdaveNYC Why universe hate Waspinator? Registered User regular
    Solar wrote: »
    Tbh that sounds insanely high to me still. The entire prison population here was 83k in 2018, and as far as I'm concerned, that's much too high.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incarceration_in_the_United_States

    It's pretty awful.
    The United States has the largest prison population in the world, and the highest per-capita incarceration rate.[3][4][5] In 2018 in the US, there were 698 people incarcerated per 100,000;[6] this includes the incarceration rate for adults or people tried as adults.

    Shut up, Mr. Burton! You were not brought upon this world to get it!
    TicaldfjamIncenjucarMan in the MistsShadowfireRingo
Sign In or Register to comment.