Random General Headlines

[allegro]

People just love to hate that ACLU and the NAACP.

[tony.parente]

People just love to hate that ACLU and the NAACP.

It's mainly Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson that cause most of it, kind of like how George W made people think all republicans spend all their extra time coloring.

[allegro]

It's mainly Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson that cause most of it, kind of like how George W made people think all republicans spend all their extra time coloring.

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are not affiliated with the ACLU or the NAACP.

[tony.parente]

Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are not affiliated with the ACLU or the NAACP.

But ignorant people like me associate them with said groups.

:/

[orestes]

Not exactly the most unbiased source you posted from.

[allegro]

But ignorant people like me associate them with said groups.

:/

Dude, BILL COSBY is commonly (and correctly) associated with the NAACP.

[allegro]

This pisses me off to no end
http://m.theatlantic.com/national/ar...-black/379357/

[DigitalChaos]

This pisses me off to no end
http://m.theatlantic.com/national/ar...-black/379357/

He did better than most, but he could have made the interaction much simpler and probably an even bigger win in court.
1 - Whip out phone and start recording video
2 - "officer, am I being detained or am I free to go?" (do not stop asking until they give an answer)
3 - If they say you are being detained, ask them what their RAS is (reasonable articulable suspicion of a crime). If they have a legitimate RAS, then you have to identify*.
4 - Do NOT resist the moment they try to arrest you, even if the cops are in the wrong. Save that fight for court.

*Depending on your state



Video capable smart phones have become a gigantic equalizer for all citizens and it is awesome. We just need everyone to fully realize their rights now...


edit: oh fuck yea, that article had a link to FlexYourRights http://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/w...ce-ask-for-id/ Great stuff.


edit2: "Lollie was charged with three misdemeanors -- trespassing, disorderly conduct and obstructing legal process. All counts were dismissed July 31. Lollie said his attorney went to court with surveillance video from the skyway and witness statements." WOOO! But since the assholes held his phone as evidence the entire time, he was just now able to share the video.

edit3: but that didn't stop the internet from hunting down the cops

[allegro]

Minnesota is not a stop and identify state.

St. Paul's mayor has called for a review.

Here's Mayor Coleman's Statement.

Twin Cities paper gives detailed report, including info about the 3 officers and the nasty arrest

The Atlantic article I posted (above) included a lot of good links:

Atlantic Link 1: http://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/w...ce-ask-for-id/
Atlantic Link 2: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stop_an...80.9D_statutes
Atlantic Link 3: http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2...yway_video.php
Link in that link: http://blogs.citypages.com/blotter/2...e_of_force.php
Atlantic Link 4: http://www.washingtonpost.com/postev...-challenge-me/

Thank God this dude is really intelligent and articulate.

We spoke to Lollie last night and asked him about the trespassing allegation.

"It's all false," he says. "They lied."

Lollie says he was sitting in a chair in the skyway's hallway when a security guard approached him, told him he was in a private area, and threatened to call police if he didn't leave. But Lollie didn't see any signs specifying that the area was employees-only or private in any other way, so he decided to hold tight, confident police would have his back if they showed up.

Officers showed up shortly thereafter, and Lollie says he started filming his now-infamous video after the first cop on the scene grabbed him.

As we told you about yesterday, Lollie was eventually charged with trespassing, disorderly conduct, and obstructing the legal process. Law enforcement kept his phone until the charges were dropped in July, meaning Lollie wasn't able to upload his footage to YouTube until quite recently.

Asked why the charges were dropped, Lollie says one of his daughter's teachers saw the entire incident and corroborated his version of events. Lollie says another woman who works near the First National Bank Building told investigators she would often sit and have lunch in the stretch of skyway where Lollie was arrested and had never been badgered by security guards or police.

With those two witness statements working in Lollie's favor, prosecutors decided to drop the charges, and Lollie was finally reunited with his phone.

We spoke with Robert Bennett, arguably the Twin Cities' foremost police misconduct attorney, and asked him what he makes of the footage.

Bennett says that even if police had a reasonable suspicion Lollie was committing a misdemeanor, that still wouldn't justify officers using a taser against him. Lollie says the taser strike left him with bruises and marks on his leg.

"It's sort of like spitting on the sidewalk," Bennett says. "There's not much reason to use force on somebody in that case... It's really about 'contempt of cop.'"

Bennett's sentiments were echoed by Twin Cities lawyer and media personality Ron Rosenbaum, who questioned whether police were working with the reasonable suspicion Bennett refers to.

"I think [Lollie's treatment] is outrageous," Rosenbaum tells us, though both he and Bennett acknowledged not being sure whether the area Lollie was sitting in is a public place or not.

Though the St. Paul PD has pointed out more than once that no formal complaint has been filed against the officers involved in Lollie's arrest, Lollie tells us he plans to file one as soon as today. He's also moving forward with a lawsuit against the city.

We asked Lollie if he thinks Bruce Schmidt, the officer who tasered him, should lose his job.

"That's a tough one. I think it depends on his history," Lollie replies. "I think someone needs some racial sensitivity training, something like that."

"Police are supposed to help, and they still have that capacity," Lollie continues. "But the mental capacity of many officers today is questionable.

[DigitalChaos]

i'm actually surprised they didn't charge him for carrying weed. It's not like they discovered it with an illegal search, the guy simply told them he had it.
but yes, it's awesome that this guy is intelligent. I'm actually curious what his background is. Most people don't know enough and cave in to police.

[allegro]

i'm actually surprised they didn't charge him for carrying weed. It's not like they discovered it with an illegal search, the guy simply told them he had it.

Yeah, you can hear that in the recording, but nobody mentions it at all. His background is listed in several of the stories; he's a local musician but he was working as a temp at an upscale Italian restaurant, cleaning the restaurant.

this blog shows the hallway where he was sitting, waiting for his kids.

[Deepvoid]

ISIS releases Sotloff beheading video(Reuters link - no video)

[allegro]

California approves Yes Means Yes bill because we need laws to tell stupid people that passed-out chicks that you got drunk can't really say yes

[Pillfred]

Native kid gets the boot from kindergarden for having hair too long.
http://thewest.gawker.com/texas-school-boots-navajo-kindergartner-on-first-day-ov-1630114395?utm_campaign=socialflow_gawker_facebook &utm_source=gawker_facebook&utm_medium=socialfl ow

[slave2thewage]

Ian Paisley is dead.

The world is a slightly better place.

[Deepvoid]

California adopts "yes means yes" law.

What did yes mean before this law? Was rape legal?
I'm obviously kidding but I honestly don't understand why you need to pass such a law.
"Under the bill, someone who is drunk, drugged, unconscious or asleep cannot grant consent."

What if both are drunk? How will they determine who's the victim and who's the rapist?
If you smoke a joint, you can no longer have sex? Do you need to sign a fucking release to have sex? (pun intended)

[Sutekh]

You need to pass the law because at the moment if you know ten girls then between 3 and 6 of them will have been raped at some point, it's high time society went on an offensive against it. Not saying you don't know all about this but it's a real problem and campuses are amongst the worst places

It's poorly worded but in practice it will mean if the person is so bombed they're either out cold or incoherent & unable to give consent

You wouldn't be able to convince a court that a couple of beers or joint left you so incapacitated you were unable to give meaningful consent

but yeah legislation like this is a real nightmare to devise and throws up all sorts of questions

[DigitalChaos]

What if both are drunk? How will they determine who's the victim and who's the rapist?
If you smoke a joint, you can no longer have sex? Do you need to sign a fucking release to have sex? (pun intended)

All you have to do is look at how these very situations have already been handled to see how lacking in justice the "investigations" have been. The schools end up making judgements based on character. Things like having a high GPA end up being a mark against you.

[DigitalChaos]

More detail

The two students had been drinking. Lots of evidence that the sex was consensual: text messages from the girl to the guy asking if he had a condom, text message from the girl to her friends saying she was going to go have sex with the guy. Yet, the guy “fit the profile of other rapists on campus in that he had a high GPA in high school, was his class valedictorian, was on [a sports] team, and was ‘from a good family.’” ... so that totally makes HIM guilty of rape in the situation.

http://www.thefire.org/sexual-assaul...cused-student/

[Sutekh]

craziness... so er... what's the hard evidence that rape took place? Or is this just a case of people lunging from neglectfully doing nothing to being abusively policing

edit - correct me if I'm wrong, but he had sex with her after she passed out?

[Deepvoid]

No has always meant no. It's unfortunate people are to fucking dumb to understand this basic understand of the English language.
It goes without saying that if the girl cannot say no because she is passed out drunk, there's clearly a lack of consent. It feels like an overkill to pass a law providing a definition of the word "yes" throwing exceptions into the mix. Are we getting that dumb as a society?

[DigitalChaos]

craziness... so er... what's the hard evidence that rape took place? Or is this just a case of people lunging from neglectfully doing nothing to being abusively policing

edit - correct me if I'm wrong, but he had sex with her after she passed out?

Read my last link on thefire.org (FIRE is a great organization by the way). There was absolutely no hard evidence that rape took place. In fact, there was hard evidence that the act was completely consensual! That's why all the prior investigations said there was no rape. The school is desperate to look like they are "doing something" so the guy got expelled for being statistically likely to maybe rape someone.

[DigitalChaos]

No has always meant no. It's unfortunate people are to fucking dumb to understand this basic understand of the English language.
It goes without saying that if the girl cannot say no because she is passed out drunk, there's clearly a lack of consent. It feels like an overkill to pass a law providing a definition of the word "yes" throwing exceptions into the mix. Are we getting that dumb as a society?

That's not what this law is doing. It's basically saying that unless someone explicitly says yes, then it is automatically rape. It's also saying that you are legally unable to give consent if you are intoxicated. And thanks to the ambiguity, that basically means even a bit buzzed on any substance.

[DigitalChaos]

With all the social media apps out there for hooking up, someone should just build in consent to the apps. Like, both people consent to sex before it allows you to meet. Granted, this doesn't handle situations where someone wants to revoke consent, but with the "yes means yes" shit... there needs to be something.


I get why people want more ways to handle the rape problem, but this stuff is just hysteria that doesn't really do anything to help. In fact, I'm surprised they don't see how insanely conservative and puritanical this stuff is.

[allegro]

I get why people want more ways to handle the rape problem, but this stuff is just hysteria that doesn't really do anything to help. In fact, I'm surprised they don't see how insanely conservative and puritanical this stuff is.

It's not puritanical in intent; the problem is excessive drinking and these really young girls are plied with liquor (usually intentionally), don't realize that they will pass out, and then the male(s) have sex with them while they're unconscious. One cannot consent while unconscious. The "lack of no" used to mean "yes" in some areas of law enforcement (not fighting back, which of course you can't do if you're unconscious via liquor or a roofie). Now, this law says that's not true. Yes, it's sad that these boys don't have the common sense or the decency to think, "hey, if she's unconscious, maybe it'd be AWFUL of me to have sex with her because that's, just, uncivilized. Never mind the fact that I'm the one who deliberately got her drunk." Nah, gotta have laws to spell these things out, because the parents never sat these kids down and told them that these things are something not even primates do. But, now there are the few out there thinking there has to be some way to analyze how "unconscious" the victim is because, hey, those poor defenseless boys could be wrongfully accused by these wanton drunk whores.

The concept of the "Gentleman" seems to be an archaic thing. Hence, these laws.

By the way, I posted this On September 2nd.

[allegro]

p.s. Most "investigations," in fact, never happened. The vast majority of colleges and universities have been far too worried about their reputation than about protecting their students and have swept this under the rug and have refused to notify law enforcement and have refused to do anything about the problem.

Here, read these:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...uses-to-comply

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...51c_story.html

[Sarah K]

Just because there are texts between them EARLIER in the night in no way proves what happened in the moment. People change their minds all the time.

Also, rape cases are notoriously mishandled, under investigated, shift the blame to the victim, etc, etc, etc.

I literally had a cop tell me one time "I'm tired of you girls having sex, regretting it, and then trying to make a big deal out of it". Why? Because it was my boyfriend. So of COURSE it couldn't have been forcible!

Edit: I'm not saying he's culpable. I have no idea. But to automatically dismiss the possibility isn't going to fix any issues, either.

[Deepvoid]

Texas jury hands out wrong sentence to drunk driver.

I can't wrap my head around this one. How the hell can 12 jurors screw up like that?

[allegro]

Texas jury hands out wrong sentence to drunk driver.

I can't wrap my head around this one. How the hell can 12 jurors screw up like that?

jury sentencing is very unusual and uncommon, especially without any guidance, mostly because the code is daunting to people under normal circumstances let alone those circumstances.

Here's the Texas code:

http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.u.../htm/CR.37.htm

[DigitalChaos]

It's not puritanical in intent; the problem is excessive drinking and these really young girls are plied with liquor (usually intentionally), don't realize that they will pass out, and then the male(s) have sex with them while they're unconscious. One cannot consent while unconscious. The "lack of no" used to mean "yes" in some areas of law enforcement (not fighting back, which of course you can't do if you're unconscious via liquor or a roofie). Now, this law says that's not true. Yes, it's sad that these boys don't have the common sense or the decency to think, "hey, if she's unconscious, maybe it'd be AWFUL of me to have sex with her because that's, just, uncivilized. Never mind the fact that I'm the one who deliberately got her drunk." Nah, gotta have laws to spell these things out, because the parents never sat these kids down and told them that these things are something not even primates do. But, now there are the few out there thinking there has to be some way to analyze how "unconscious" the victim is because, hey, those poor defenseless boys could be wrongfully accused by these wanton drunk whores.

The concept of the "Gentleman" seems to be an archaic thing. Hence, these laws.

By the way, I posted this On September 2nd.

p.s. Most "investigations," in fact, never happened. The vast majority of colleges and universities have been far too worried about their reputation than about protecting their students and have swept this under the rug and have refused to notify law enforcement and have refused to do anything about the problem.

Here, read these:

http://www.businessweek.com/articles...uses-to-comply

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/...51c_story.html

I'm not disagreeing with any of that. I'm just disagreeing with the poorly designed law that is going to find guilt by default where none exists. For instance, with the wording of the law, if someone was drinking any amount of alcohol, they cannot legally consent. THAT is fucked up. Like, is it too hard to define a more coherent boundary? I think we can all understand the intent of the law, but it's opening up the potential to go in a bad direction. Situations like Occidental College will be more common.

Question about the schools failing to involve police (which is fucked up)... I've never understood why the victims aren't involving the police on their own. Is there some school "rule" that is getting in their way or something?