Best criminal law books according to redditors

It's simple. Can even lay it out in a few steps.

Step 1. Make many things in your country illegal. So many that many law abiding citizens will commit crimes without realizing it.

See "Three Felonies a Day"

>The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.


Step 2. Make the Rule of Law optional. This way your friends and cronies won't get caught up in Step 1 by accident. Too big to jail

edit: If they accidentally do get caught, have Congress change the laws, and then have the Supreme Court grant them retroactive immunity.

Step 3. Start a massive surveillance program of US citizens. Now you can play "6 degrees of Kevin Bacon" with terrorist groups. Or find a few misc. felonies to charge dissenters with. After all, with endless reams of data to sort through, odds are you'll be able to manufacture a crime out of something innocuous.


If that doesn't work, label peaceful protestors as terrorist groups, now you can apply the Patriot Act to anything related to them, or their friends, or family members. Know anyone who had anything do to with anyone in Occupy Wallstreet? You're probably being monitored.

Step 4. Control that data network. Now you have your hooks into just about anyone and everyone.

We continue to spend billions in tax payer money on catch all dragnet programs that don't protect us in any meaningful way. Terrorist attacks continue unabated while we practice this farce known as security theater. Meanwhile we've got government cronies that continue to use our data for other things that have nothing to do with fighting terrorism.

Meanwhile you've got politicians continuing to make laws that make even the most benign citizen a criminal.

The millennial generation will look at the baby boomers as the generation that ripped up the constitution with the same disdain that we currently view McCarthyism. Count on that.

Folks should read and remember "3 Felonies A Day". Amazon link..

When everyone is guilty of something, selective enforcement is what lets inequality disguise itself as equality.

You are completely missing the point. I don’t even know where to start addressing this. It’s not just about people killed by police, they are protesting an entire system that punishes certain races more harshly than others. They are protesting a justice system that favors the rich. They are protesting the existence of for profit prisons that make money off throwing people in jail.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/141027_iachr_racial_disparities_aclu_submission_0.pdf

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2014/09/09/you-really-can-get-pulled-over-for-driving-while-black-federal-statistics-show/?utm_term=.3a50f9924266

Here’s a link to a whole book on the subject https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431/ref=nodl_

And if books aren’t your thing there is a documentary called 13th on Netflix.

> people get thrown in jail for unpaid fines/fees and other minor violations in 13 states,

So is this a space where we can discuss the excellent book The New Jim Crow because it seems highly relevant.

I don't take issue with the statement that the media has an influence. I take issue with that being used as a way to diminish the real grievances that likely sparked the unrest.

Yes there are instances that turn out not to be ideal (with less than sympathetic victims, but that's been happening since Rosa Parks and Claudette Colvin) and there is the question of why white people have to have their property destroyed to resolve larger societal issues for which they are not directly culpable. But can't you apply the same logic to all the black people whose harassment and predetermined criminality at the hands of the police should not be dismissed out of hand because of the actions of a small handful of violent black people? I'm a big believer in fiat justitia ruat cealum, but I think the difference is that people are viewing Darren Wilson as a guy who deserves due process and others see him as a representative of the Ferguson Police Department. In reality he's both. He must be held to a higher standard as an institutional figure, but he's also entitled to have the facts of his particular incident evaluated fairly. Unfortunately, the notion of "fairness" comes from the the great beyond. He's getting his actions evaluated by a well-meaning (and almost exclusively white) accountability apparatus which is often very far disconnected from the experiences and root living conditions of black Americans. That's another big crux of the issue. It's justice being determined by people who sincerely believe they are neutral, but who unfortunately view the scenario through the spectrum of their own whiteness and skepticism of the idea of inappropriate or violent behavior from a cop. I wonder what would happen if the grand jury was all black and from Ferguson. Why are they likely to be any less partial than some white people who have also almost certainly seen some of the international news coverage? Again a question from the beyond, because they are not deciding what happens to someone who is supposed to be serving them. There is no structural accountability to the black people the cops are supposed to be serving the interests of, and black people do not have much collective political power to alter the white establishment save from mass civil unrest.

No I don't think that most white people are violent racists, or that they're even actively or consciously racist. The larger problem is blindness and willful ignorance. I think people see the disparities and don't see them at the same time. There is plenty in the public discourse about the ludicrous rates of arrests of blacks for offenses committed primarily by whites and how they fare much worse in every stage of the judicial process, but society rationalizes it. Is it because there are structural impediments suppressing black upward mobility or is it because they're lazy and need to have the moral fortitude to resist falling into rap music and the "thug" lifestyle? Interestingly, narratives similar to these have been going on since slavery and segregation. I think the white racism is definitely fueled by the right while the left sometimes makes facile arguments that don't get to the core of the problems. Yes I think there are cultural clashes that occur when two different cultures are next to each other that results in the dominant one using racism to justify fiendish or oppressive behavior. But the big fat zoom out issue is that it's used as a smoke screen to keep poor whites and blacks from organizing against the corporate state. I don't think Rush Limbaugh and those morons at Fox give a shit about black "thugs." I think they get white people so worked up about the negroes coming to take their job that they don't to pay attention to the crooks behind the curtain stealing all the money. Also, blacks tend to have very anti-authoritarian views such as checking the extensive power of the police and the expansion of social programs to resemble much of the western world. Notice how gleefully the left is in saying this issue has larger racial overtones, but they don't leap up and fix the militarized police force either or attempt to remedy larger societal problems that perpetuate these disasters either. They spout the same law and order crap as the Republicans, because it benefits them when they proliferate the same corporate state.

What is and isn't seemingly more important is hard to determine. That's another argument that's been around in every major social movement in US history. It wasn't time for blacks to have full citizenship because you know the economy, Vietnam blah blah blah. What is and isn't important is also largely determined by white people, but what I will say is that our democratic process should (but doesn't) serve the needs and alleviate the suffering of actual human beings instead of corporations and its own power. Black people are seriously suffering (as are many whites but not at the same rates as determined economically) and have very little political power (likely because of their widely held real left wing views) and this sometimes spills over into the revolt we're currently seeing in Ferguson. Is the question whether or not this doesn't seem so important, or just whether or not it happens to not be so important to white people?

EDIT: Cleared up a few thoughts and thanks for the gold!

EDIT 2: Grammar stuff

Hijacking the top comment to repost this:

To elaborate on how prison has replaced slavery as a means of racial control, here's an excerpt from a book called The New Jim Crow.

It's written by a legal scholar named Michelle Alexander, and it explains how mass incarceration in America has replaced slavery and the Jim Crow laws as a racial caste system.

> Mass incarceration in the United states has emerged as a stunningly comprehensive and well-disguised system of racialized social control that functions in a manner strikingly similar to Jim Crow.
>
> This is, in brief, how the system works: The War on Drugs is the vehicle through which extraordinary numbers of black men are forced into the cage. The entrapment occurs in three distinct phases.
>
> The first stage is the roundup. Vast numbers of people are swept into the criminal justice system by the police, who conduct drug operations primarily in poor communities of color. They are rewarded in cash — through drug forfeiture laws and federal grant programs — for rounding up as many people as possible, and they operate unconstrained by constitutional rules of procedure that were once considered inviolate. Police can stop, interrogate, and search anyone they choose for drug investigations, provided they get “consent.” Because there is no meaningful check on the exercise of police discretion, racial biases are granted free rein. In fact, people are allowed to rely on race as a factor in selecting whom to stop and search (even though people of color are no more likely to be guilty of drug crimes than whites) ‒ effectively guaranteeing that those who are swept into the system are primarily black and brown.
>
> The conviction marks the beginning of the second phase: the period of formal control. Once arrested, defendants are generally denied meaningful representation and pressured to plead guilty whether they are or not. Prosecutors are free to load up defendants with extra charges, and their decisions cannot be challenged for racial bias. Once convicted, due to the drug war’s harsh sentencing laws, drug offenders in the United States spend more time under the criminal justice system’s formal control — in jail or prison, on probation or parole — than drug offenders anywhere else in the world. While under formal control, virtually every aspect of one’s life is regulated and monitored by the system, and any form of resistance or disobedience is subject to swift sanction. This period of control may last a lifetime, even for those convicted of extremely minor, nonviolent offenses, but the vast majority of those swept into the system are eventually released. They are transferred from their prison cells to a much larger, invisible cage.
>
> The final stage has been dubbed by some advocates as the period of invisible punishment. This term, first coined by Jeremy Travis, is meant to describe the unique set of criminal sanctions that are imposed on individuals after they step outside the prison gates, a form of punishment that operates largely outside of public view and takes effect outside the traditional sentencing framework. These sanctions are imposed by operation of law rather than decisions of a sentencing judge, yet they often have a greater impact on one’s life course than the months and years one actually spends behind bars. These laws operate collectively to ensure that the vast majority of convicted offenders will never integrate into mainstream, white society. They will be discriminated against, legally, for the rest of their lives ‒ denied employment, housing, education, and public benefits. Unable to surmount these obstacles, most will eventually return to prison and then be released again, caught in a closed circuit of perpetual marginality.

The American criminal justice system is rigged against black people, black men in particular. It's a disgusting injustice, and nobody in mainstream society seems to really care. I'm glad Kanye is shining a light on it though.

https://theintercept.com/2015/02/26/fbi-manufacture-plots-terrorism-isis-grave-threats/

https://www.amazon.com/Terror-Factory-Inside-Manufactured-Terrorism/dp/1935439618

Let's not forget the 9/11 hijackers lived with a FBI informant and with the 93 WTC bombing the FBI was going to have their informant build the bomb with fake material, but that got screwed up, additional source. Here is the transcript from the informants secret recordings with his FBI handler:

>FBI Special Agent John Anticev: But, uh, basically nothing has changed. I'm just telling you for my own sake that nothing, that this isn't a salary, that it's—you know. But you got paid regularly for good information. I mean the expenses were a little bit out of the ordinary and it was really questioned. Don't tell Nancy I told you this. [Nancy Floyd is another FBI Special Agent who worked with Emad A. Salem in his informant capacity.]

>FBI undercover agent Emad A. Salem: Well, I have to tell her of course.

>Anticev: Well then, if you have to, you have to.

>Salem: Yeah, I mean because the lady was being honest and I was being honest and everything was submitted with a receipt and now it's questionable.

>Anticev: It's not questionable, it's like a little out of the ordinary.

>Salem: Okay. Alright. I don't think it was. If that's what you think guys, fine, but I don't think that because we was start already building the bomb which is went off in the World Trade Center. It was built by supervising supervision from the Bureau and the D.A. and we was all informed about it and we know that the bomb start to be built. By who? By your confidential informant. What a wonderful, great case!

Audio source at 4:20

Actually it goes way farther back then that! After slavery was abolished, the white people in charge (for a lack of a better phrase) realized they could not just do what they wanted to black people anymore. The solution to this, through the law, was arresting them for minor reasons and locking them up. This of course expanded over time and as you said, The Drug War became a great resource for continued oppression- intentional and unintentional.

The New Jim Crow does an incredible job of going over it. Whether or not you agree with her theories, it's an important viewpoint to familiarize yourself with.

> TSA treated me like I was a criminal

I'm sorry to say it, but you are a criminal, now. You did actually break the law, even though it's a stupid one. Zero tolerance laws make for bad public policy.

If it makes you feel better, you're in good company: the rest of the adult population of the USA.

I don't know what the solution is when we're supposed to have 'rule of law' but the law is so complex and far reaching that it's impossible for anyone to keep it 100% of the time. Obviously anarchy is out. But the current system is just as broken, in different ways.

I'm sorry this happened to you, I hope you get a good lawyer and you're able to put this all behind you soon.

>And your stats don't mean anything. They can be interpreted as meaning that blacks are more likely to commit crime in general, which the stats also show.

First, I appreciate that you're taking a different line of reasoning here. It's not easy to stand up against a multitude of people that see things differently than you. However, I think you're cherry picking statistics here.

You're right that statistically speaking, black people are more likely to commit violent crime - but if you don't follow up that statistic without asking yourself "why" then you're missing the crux of the issue.

For instance, did you know that white people are statistically more likely to abuse drugs than black people, but that black males are convicted at a rate 10 times higher than white males?

There's a long and complicated history as to why black people are inordinately prosecuted in our judicial system. But I strongly believe that if you look at the total numbers with an unbiased view you'll agree with me here. If you're interested in learning more on this topic, I strongly recommend The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.

If you're actually serious, this is an excellent read and a good starting point. Here is a free PDF copy. Here is another free PDF copy with links. One of the most incisive, accessible, and well-researched resources out there today.

It's not just a matter of being exposed. Three Felonies a Day is a great book about how it's almost impossible to not break the law on a daily basis.

It's this kind of thinking that fuels racism. There are too many people who think that Obama being elected as president was a sign of racism ending. This couldn't be further from the truth. Explicit racism is certainly on the decline but it has taken new forms that are more socially acceptable such as racially-motivated policing, constitutional rights being revoked from former convicts, and much more. There's a really great book called The New Jim Crow that details this way better than I can.

EDIT: THANK YOU for the gold! I'm not entirely sure what it does but I definitely appreciate it. Also, I think anyone who reads The New Jim Crow deserves gold in my book.

The tone of this came out a bit more antagonistic than intended, so please, do not think that is the design. I would like to hear your opinion on the underpinning issue, while also pointing out there are some deeper complexities.

-------

So /u/ogre14t, in your experience, as a corrections officer, have you found that a.) isolation from the rest of a post-industrial technological society while providing diminished an laughable attempts at career training while strictly adhering to draconian policy regardless of context or b.) allowing a little leeway for those who are trying to turn their life around, tends to lead to actual rehabilitation rather than recidivism?

You seem like a man who likes rules. Or at least enforcing them. The problem is the rules you enforce are not always optimal for the circumstances. He is not necessarily missing the rehabilitation of his sentence just because he is committing some infraction that violates the letter rather than spirit of the law.

I can tell you, as a professional software engineer, that while it is possible for him to learn to code without the use of his internet connection in a general sense--data structures, algorithms, even most language syntax--he is not easily going to be able to learn the employment-ready skills that typically depend on knowing some common popular libraries, and have reference docs.

While I am certain there are violent criminals that utilize communications platforms to perform all sorts of ilk, and even some that would do so to endanger the lives of you and your coworkers, the dichotomy you present about 'following rules' and 'not following rules' is just not as black and white as you make it seem.

The average American commits Three Felonies A Day from a statutory basis. This provides the executive and judicial branches all the ammunition they need to arbitrarily target those who disagree with others in power.

You are a felon. I am a felon. We are all felons. So let's not pretend like we can all just 'live by the rules' in any meaningful way.

I presume that, as a corrections officer, you got into your field hoping that you could 1.) protect society in a meaningful way, and 2.) make an impact on the lives of those trying to turn themselves around. To that effect, which would you rather see? Someone violating a rule for good, or yet another untrained ex-con that has to resort to crime to survive under a highly prejudicial job market that you'll see back there in a year or two?

I don't think many people ever wake up in the morning truly wishing others misfortune, so I am guessing it is the former... on a more constructive note, what would be the appropriate policy for him to follow in order to get a, perhaps supervised, internet connection; or perhaps have someone there install the necessary software and download some libraries and documentation? I don't think any of us here want to see his sentence get extended for violating policy.

It’s also deliberate: The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness

Don't even try to play this "I'm not sure, I need evidence" bullshit. This is the definition of being naive. You must actually not be a human with any grasp of the society you live in to even think someone needs to present evidence to you of institutionalized racism. There's literally no way you're old enough to type on a computer to not have been presented countless times of institutionalized racism throughout your life.

Alive and well in our justice system.

Alive and well in our schools.

Alive and well in our food supply.

Billions of other examples for your naive mind.

You should check out this book if you actually are as naive as you claim to be.

It's very common for regulators to talk with companies that don't fall under their legal jurisdiction and put extra-legal pressure on them anyway, because they can destroy a company and even put people in jail.

Even if they'd eventually win the case in the courts, most companies can't afford to defend themselves against that kind of attack. Not to mention, the laws of the US are so numerous and so broad that if the feds really want to put you in jail there's no degree of compliance you can perform that will make you immune from conviction. Everybody is guilty of something.

"Nice company you have here. It'd be a shame if something were to happen to it."

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how...

There's actually an entire book written on the subject.

Amazon link

I can't remember what the statistic is, but, I want to say it was something like 90% of the "terrorists" that have been arrested have been FBI setups. So, pretty much only ten percent are real.

Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement is a must read book for any cop. It should be given to every 5 year vet. He’s right at point where not naive enough to believe the job won’t change him, but young enough to still escape with his marriage, family, finances and health.

Get it: https://www.amazon.com/Emotional-survival-law-enforcement-officers/dp/0971725403

You can read it in one weekend

This story has two important points: 1. Texas justice is completely fucked up and 2. Police and prosecutors often act in ways that callously disregard the rights of others, yet they are rarely held accountable for their own criminal acts. The numerous videos of innocent people being shot by cops that've surfaced in the last several years demonstrate the problems in police departments.

Rise of the Warrior Cop: The Militarization of America's Police Forces is good further reading on these topics. So is Three Felonies a Day. Almost no one is safe—not even victims.

>Indulge me in the systemic injustices of the black community from the last 40-50 years after the civil rights movement ?

There are entire books you can read about this. Here's one: https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431

​

And then the rest of your post is just taking your incorrect premise and running with it.

From the book Terror Factory: Inside the FBi's Manufactured War on Terrorism:

"When Barack Obama took office in January 2009, his administration provided some early indication that federal law enforcement would deemphasize the targeting of potential terrorists in Muslim communities and focus more attention on right-wing extremists and other growing threats in the U.S. In April 2009, the Dept. of Homeland Security's Office of Intelligence and Analysis released a report titled "Rightwing Extremism: Current Economic and Political Climate Fueling Resurgence in Radicalization and Recruitment," warning that violence could come from right-wing extremists concerned about illegal immigration, abortion, increasing federal powers, and gun control. Returning military veterans were particularly susceptible to recruitment into these extremist groups, the report said.

A political storm gathered following the report, with Fox News providing inspirtaion with exaggerated interpretations such as: "The government considers you a terrorist threat if you oppose abortion, own a gun, or are returning war veteran." U.S. Representative Lamar Smith, a Republican from Texas, accused DHS of "politcal profiling." A House Homeland Security Committee inquiry followed, whih the committee's then-chairman, Bennie Thompson, a Democrat from Mississippi, called "a GOP stunt aimed at embarrassing the new administration." IN fairness, three months before the right-wing report, DHS had released an assessment predicting increased cyber threats from left-wing extremists--but the federal government's concerns about extremists on both ends of the politial spectrum were cut out of the controversy, which became so great that Homeland Security Janet Napolitano withdrew the right-wing report and ordered it re-written."

Good TED talk on the subject: https://www.ted.com/talks/trevor_aaronson_how_this_fbi_strategy_is_actually_creating_us_based_terrorists?language=en

Another book called Green is the New Red is all about how the FBI continues to target left-wing and eco groups as terrorists despite very, very few instances of violence, even going so far as to deliberately entrap them. Meanwhile, right wing terrorists are the most prolific terror group in this country.

> We all accidentally break the law, or reasonably ignore it when it's completely safe, all the time.

If you're interested in this topic, Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent is a good read. It will likely get you angry. On the plus side though, you will also get the feeling that you're not able to do anything about it so there's that to look forward to..

-blacks are 3.73 times more likely to be arrested for marijuana despite roughly equal usage rates (https://www.aclu.org/gallery/marijuana-arrests-numbers)

-the bureau of justice statistics found that blacks receive longer sentences for the same crimes even when other variables are accounted for (https://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/fsd0512_sum.pdf)

-"African-Americans are far more likely than whites and other groups to be the victims of use of force by the police, even when racial disparities in crime are taken into account" (https://www.nytimes.com/.../study-supports-suspicion-that...)

-Black men nearly 3 times as likely to die from police use of force - http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/20/health/black-men-killed-by-police/index.html

If you want more information, here is a fantastic book on our systems of mass incarceration in the US called "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness."

As others have said, communication is key.

In addition, there are resources out there to help. He may not be receptive to this, but there are resources out there to help him deal with the stress of the job. One that was recommended to me (which I cannot personally endorse, as I haven't read it) is "Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement: A guide for officers and their families". (http://www.amazon.com/Emotional-survival-law-enforcement-officers/dp/0971725403)

There are many similar resources out there, both for you and him. In the end though, it comes down to how receptive he is, which is where the communication really needs to take place.

"No pity for felons"?

Everything is a felony.

Nobody even knows how many federal crimes exist.

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

http://www.volokh.com/2009/12/14/honest-services-fraud-your-third-felony-today/

Felons can be someone who had 4 ounces of pot on them. Felons can be someone who drove too fast. Felons can be someone who didn't get the right permit TO have A GODDAMN RAFFLE FOR THEIR CHURCH FUNDRAISER

So when you say you have no pity for felons, you are either being ignorant and painting with too broad a brush, or you are callous and on a moral high horse.

> I'm not particularly worried that the government would access my phone or spy on me. I also don't have anything untoward or illegal on my phone even if they did

No, you just don't think you do: Three Felonies a Day

The nature of federal laws is that they are so broad, they can always find something to pin on you, even if it has nothing to do with what they were originally after you for. This is especially concerning for the freedom of speech. This is not a new phenomenon.

> "Show me 6 sentences from an honest man and I will give you a reason to hang him" - Cardinal Richelieu

Exactly! There is even a [book about this called three felonies a day] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00505UZ4G/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1)

This is the problem with the constant surveillance that the NSA and increasing police do. You are always breaking a law and all it takes is someone who had perfect information about you to look back into your NSA or even [police records] (http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2013/07/17/license-plate-scanners-aclu-privacy/2524939/) to find when and how then charge you with something.

Take a farmer, any farmer in the U.S. He likely has guns in his house. He also has access to truckloads of high explosive, also know as ammonium nitrate or fertilizer. So his kid is going off to college and he rents a UHaul truck. So is this now a farmer who's kid is going off to school or a crazy Oklahoma city bomber type loading a Uhaul with explosives? Sure is hard to tell the difference and its easy to spin a story for a jury. Just hope you dont piss off the wrong person or lead the wrong protest.

On the macro-scale, end the "drug war". Massive decriminalization of all sorts. Our legal code is a massively overgrown nest of bullshit that criminalizes every single person in the country not currently in a coma. For a rundown of the more egregious corners of this, read "Three Felonies a Day".

​

On the technical side, a massive increase in the number of police officers, judges and public defenders. Reduction or removal of immunity for prosecutors and police officers. Reduction or elimination of most fines, and channel the money from fines to the public defender's office.

​

Ban plea deals outright. Disincentivize prosecutorial overcharging.

​

If I really want to get into the weeds, I recommend public shaming/corporal punishment as a substitute for minor jail sentences and fines. I believe it would be more of a disincentive and more humane to the criminal at the same time.

​

The ideal system I would like to see would have massively frontloaded resources. Actual crimes (as opposed to silly bullshit) would be investigated with the zeal and manpower of a federal task force. I'd want to see clearance rates in excess of 90% across the board. I care a lot less about the punishment than I do about finding and convicting the maximum number of criminals. In the short run (say, the first ten years), this would massively increase the prison population, but over time it would shrink it. Something I recall from a criminology class was that the harshness of punishment had little correlation with deterrence effects, but the likelihood of apprehension was strongly correlated.

Yeah, then go read The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander.

> Colton said he didn't view it racially

Using racially charged terms and then saying, "No, I didn't mean it in a racist way," is the hallmark of racists (SEE: Donald Trump). No one self-identifies as a racist. They see their views as justified because they aren't against a particular race; they're against crime, poverty, drugs, etc. The main problem is, they overlook that behavior in the majority groups they belong to. White frat boys doing coke at a college party are just kids having fun, but black people doing crack in a poor neighborhood are violent criminals. Colton wouldn't have labeled a struggling white stand-up comedian as ghetto, so let's stop pretending like him calling Bill ghetto isn't racist.

tl;dr Colton is a racist.

EDIT: If anyone's interested in looking into this topic more, The New Jim Crow is a great book about how racism has evolved since the days of "Whites Only" water fountains and segregated schools.

If you really want to get technical, the average American commits 3 felonies a day due to some ridiculously vague laws (like CFAA, which for example is so broadly written it allows federal prosecutors to criminally prosecute you merely for violating the TOS on a website). But the thing is those ridiculously vague and broad laws that everyone violates on a daily basis are almost never enforced, except as a way to prosecutors extra leverage in plea bargains.

But I highly doubt that this was what the person quoted was referring to. They sounded like they were talking about serious crimes, not stuff that shouldn't even be illegal.

You and other activists who think throwing Asians under the bus is en vogue.

 

I just showed you a list of problems. Are you and other activists on the streets protesting anti-Asian violence from Blacks? Thank you. You listing what whites do to Blacks is precisely my point. It's whites who have a racial problem against everyone and that includes Asians so more focus on their misdeeds instead of pinning stuff on Asians as if Asians invented http://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431/
would help.

I see you have read some Harvey Silver in your past.

The post cites this book. In the introduction, the author writes about these stories:

> A lawyer was indicted (probably not prosecuted, or the author would have said that) for obstruction of justice because he destroyed child pornography

> Michael Milken plead guilty to securities and reporting violations, which a judge later ruled didn't constitute a crime (though he did this to avoid racketeering & insider trading prosecution)

> Arthur Andersen accounting firm was convicted for obstruction for following normal document retention/destruction policies before receiving a subpoena in the Enron accounting scandal, the conviction was later overturned

> A professor, Steven Kurtz, was arrested for having a bunch of petri dishes and books on biological warfare, the jury didn't indict on bioterrorism but did for mail/wire fraud for breach of "material transfer authority" agreements when getting the petri samples through the mail, he plead guilty to a misdemeanor before the whole indictment was thrown out

These cases all seem to come to a common sense outcome, though the cost & stress of litigating was obviously detrimental, especially in the last case. So I'm not sure what the examples of 3 felonies/day would be, and the book's intro doesn't give much information either.

Americans all technically commit about 3 felonies a day, simply because there are so many laws. http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1451793874&sr=8-1&keywords=three+felonies+a+day

"[President Nixon] emphasized that you have to face the fact that the whole problem is really the blacks. The key is to devise a system that recognizes this while not appearing to."

• H.R. Haldeman, White House Chief of Staff under President Richard Nixon
  
  _____
  
  This is a long read, but it's well worth it if you have the time. The first section is mostly background information that is not essential to the War on Drugs sub-context, if you want to gloss over that part. About halfway through is where you get to the relevant discussion:
  
  >A smooth-faced, heavyset politics junkie of twenty-four, Brownell had a dream job: administrative assistant to Nixon's political manager, Harry S. Dent. Dent had masterminded the so-called "southern strategy" that pried white southerners away from the Democratic Party during the last election by playing to their fear of black power and their anger at the civil rights movement. It had transformed the GOP's image from country-club golfer to defender of working whites fed up with expensive hand-wringing over Negroes and the cities. The strategy worked, but was poorly named. Nixon's win was national, and its most visible new adherents were manifestly northern--union-affiliated former Democrats known loosely as "hardhats."
  
  >The White House lived by the principles of the southern strategy, and Dent's office had its own lingo. There were issues that mattered to "our" people, and those that mattered to "their" people. "Their" people were what the White House called "the young, the poor, and the black." The phrase rolled off the tongue like one word: theyoungthepoorandtheblack. The young were the longhaired student antiwar types for whom the president had open and legendary contempt; the poor and the black were leftover concerns from the Great Society.
  
  >Brownell daily read a dozen newspapers from around the country and clipped stories that played on those themes. He looked for stories about badly managed social programs, watched for currents of localized resentment, combed the columns for colorful quotes and juicy anecdotes the presidential speechwriters might use. He particularly kept an eye out for drug stories. Drugs were one thing the young, the poor, and the black all seemed to have in common.
  
  If you're interested and want a further read on the subject I highly recommend checking out The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. It's an incredibly informative and well-researched discussion of this exact issue. While the book and author have received some fair criticism, it is still very thought provoking and should encourage you to "think about mass incarceration in a new way."

You might want to read this.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1487354433&sr=1-1&keywords=three+felonies+a+day

If you really want to know what's going on in America you should read the following books.

White Trash

The New Jim Crow

Some examples of fake terror plots:
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html

https://amp.miamiherald.com/news/nation-world/national/article135983268.html

Also here’s a book for you: https://www.amazon.com/Terror-Factory-Inside-Maufactured-Terrorism-ebook/dp/B00ATLNH78

Read Michelle Alexander's "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness" and it's massive list of citations and statistical research, then tell me you still believe what you've posted is the reason we have a higher incarceration rate of blacks in general, but especially young, black males.

In fact, I'm so serious about you reading that book PM me, and I'll buy the book for you.

Aggravated assault is a felony charge. A number of studies have demonstrated that whites are more likely to be allowed to plead to a lesser charge, or to not be charged at all. The aggregate effect of the favorable treatment of whites is reflected in the arrest statistics. For example, see Racial Disparities in Pretrial Diversions.

For a more detailed treatment of this topic—and the "big picture"—I highly recommend reading The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.

Edit: Here's [a BJA summary of the research](https://www.bja.gov/Publications/PleaBargainingResearchSummary.pdf "Research Summary: Plea and Charge Bargaining"), from 2011, that calls out the racial disparity in plea and charge bargaining.

> But one thing I can't help but think is that the old idea of "ignorance of the law is no excuse" doesn't really hold water anymore.

I believe that was the point of the book "3 Felonies a Day"

I have read legal advice that teaches you to offer your name, the fact that you needed to defend yourself, additional exculpatory information (such as assailants weapons), and the location of witnesses that observed the fight. The reasoning was that a simple or hardline "don't talk to the police" stance might risk that evidence being missed, or the witnesses not being interviewed in time. You NEED that stuff to clear your name, and it's probably better if you direct the cops to that evidence. You're not giving up a whole lot by giving up that little bit of information.

Other than that, he says, you take the fifth. Not much different from this advice.

The Law of Self Defense, 3rd Edition https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01F9FAJBA/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_-tdMAbG5FJGAJ

I'm not a police officer, but I've always heard that Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement is almost a must-have.

http://www.amazon.com/Emotional-survival-law-enforcement-officers/dp/0971725403

It was, in fact, the subject of a book: https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

The veracity of said book is debatable, in particular the "three a day" claim, but regardless, the reality is that there are a whole lot of things that are felonies that the average person isn't aware of. That's what fifty years of "Get tough on crime" rhetoric does.

>Slavery never ended, it just got swept under the rug. All the owners had to do was to criminalize being black.

Slavery never ended, it just got modernized to fit the social and political climate of its time. All the owners had to do was to criminalize being black.

I never said that was the case, and I'm not sure that I even see a point that you are making. What are the other things working against people? I agree, there are many factors, but you can't say something like that and not give any warrants for saying it.

My point was that, once you are in the system like that, the chances of getting out are low due to exactly what sinner13 said. I never said that was the only factor pre or post conviction; only that, post conviction, it is all but a foregone conclusion.

Check out the book The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. It is a wonderful read on this subject as well as racial motivations of the drug war.

> Trump orders that the IRS treats American corporations in the exact same way it treats ordinary American citizens. Levy tax on their global earnings.

He can't do that, they're doing this legally. But he can throw them in jail and likely get them convicted of various expansive Federal crimes, per Three Felonies a Day. See what happened to Joseph Nacchio when he was the only telecom executive to not let the NSA et. al. freely spy on us.

Suggested reading: 3 Felonies a Day

Chances are, you've committed a crime today you weren't aware of.

America has a huge problem with the criminal justice system and race.

The FBI conducts more terrorist plots in US than any other organization. There's a book dedicated to FBI's records of radicalizing or bribing poor and unstable citizens to commit terror (see Trevor Aaronson’s The Terror Factory).

At one point the FBI was even boasted about it when an agent admitted that a certain would-be terrorist was “a retarded fool who didn’t have a pot to piss in".

The New York Times and the Guardian have all reported on this repeatedly.

Republicans have historically taken the same stance on anarchists, communists, and "Islamic terrorists," sorry to say. Guilty until proven innocent.

I think it's important to recognize our own biases. The modern "left" has failed miserably on the issue of due process rights for men accused of sexual crimes; the right has failed miserably on due process rights for men accused of "terrorism," even though many "terrorist plots" are essentially engineered by the FBI and various intelligence agencies. This is a respectable study on the matter:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Terror-Factory-Manufactured-Terrorism/dp/1935439618

Turning Men's Rights into a strictly partisan affair and using it as a means of bolstering political parties is a sure way to divide and conquer the movement. I say that as someone who loathes Democrats and Republicans in equal measure.

A pamphlet being distributed in the UK thinking through the intersectionality of gender justice / queer activism / prison abolition.

One of several articles on The Feminist Wire about prison abolition.

A talk by Angela Davis on prison abolition with an accompanying transcript. (You can also just look at pretty much the entirety of her work and the discussions that her work engenders.)

This book, The New Jim Crow, written by a black feminist and championed in many a feminist circle

The work of Dean Spade, a trans prison abolitionist who also happens to be a feminist.

Some really interesting discussions on detention and the prison system here.

I've also seen a lot more chatter about it also on my Facebook feed within the conversations that are springing up out of the Michael Brown and Eric Garner cases.

Yeah but he's black. The US criminal justice system was literally made for black men.

Well, that's actually a pretty significant problem with the prison system, historically. I'm not just being glib, it's something historians of incarceration and African American history have been saying for a long time. Long story short, following the American Civil War, when slavery was abolished, many white Southerners still needed 'forced labor' simply because there were many jobs it wouldn't be economic to hire free labor for. Thus was born the "prison-industrial complex," where newly freed slaves would be incarcerated for things like "vagrancy" and had to do labor similar to that under slavery. Naturally, this led to many social problems similar to those found under the antebellum regime. Again, it's hard to get into off the cuff like this, but this book is a pretty solid introduction to the issues, IMO:

https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1465956818&sr=8-1&keywords=jim+crow+prison#reader_1595586431

Mass detention already goes on

"Someone who willfully commits a crime is not "impacted" the way the victims of criminal activity are "impacted." People who commit crime subject themselves to the criminal justice system. There is no conspiracy."

If you are genuinely interested in finding out why the above statement is, at the very least, not right, I highly recommend this book: http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431

Centuries of systematic racism (slavery, Jim Crow Laws, the war on drugs) have specifically targeted communities of color. There are a countless number of studies that show that people of color don't commit crimes at any higher rates than white people, yet they are arrested significantly more often.

So, the problem with 'the box' is that someone is more likely to get arrested than their white peer for the same crime, are then labeled 'felon' and lose the ability to get a job, and then are often forced back into the same situation which led to them getting arrested and sent to prison in the first place.

Seriously, read the book. It's eye-opening.

Nearly every PD has an EAP (employee assistance program) of some sort, an anonymous number they can contact in order to talk about the issues they may be having.

Many PD's have groups that meet, shooter groups, loss groups, etc.

I have posted it before and I will again each time because it is that good.

Emotional Survival For Law Enforcement is an awesome book. I bought a dozen copies over the last two years to give out to coworkers, new recruits, family members and those who just have issues dealing with stress. The book really explains a lot and what it does not explain it touches on enough that you can do the research for the answers on your own.

Education and understanding are the #1 ways to fight against mental issues, stress and depression specifically, that come from the job.

I have seen a lot, done a lot and been exposed to so many horrible things that I have no doubt if I had not read and educated myself on this topic beforehand I would have issues.

Saying you have a problem is not a sign of weakness, crying is not a sign of weakness. Last time my PD lost an officer I cried like a little girl, no shame in it, we are all human.

> I am a law abiding American citizen ... I'm not doing anything illegal

Are you sure?

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

>I look forward to a time when American citizens recognize our responsibility to imprison those who make a mockary of our rights established by the constitution.

Amen Brother! grabs pitchfork

Not me, but then, I don’t know all of the possible things that might be illegal. Do you?

Or illegal activities I haven’t done, but that a cop could construe evidence of.

Three Felonies A Day

In addition to what others say, people constantly violate the law unknowingly and knowingly and at that level it's basically impossible to not be violating any number of laws. Three Felonies A Day is a great book about how we're all basically just unprosecuted felons at any time.

The neighborhoods are not like that because of democrats, it's because of redlining. Literally just google "redlining" and there are plenty of resources to understand what this practice is.

Institutional racism does exist. I don't give a shit what you say. Your parents are wrong, your friends and parents that believe this are also wrong too.

This is a good book to read, it will explain that yes, institutional racism does exist. it will hopefully open your mind up. Get it from the library - https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431

Every citizen is estimated to commit Three Felonies a Day. If you don't think you're breaking the law, it's because you're ignorant of the law.

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00505UZ4G/ref=nosim/0sil8

It might not be a given, but it is reasonably close.

You've broken the law, probably dozens if not hundreds of times. Every time you sped of the highway, or crossed against the light, or entered a "01/01/1950" as your birthday on an Internet age gate, or streamed a basketball game. In fact, one author argues that the average American probably commits three felonies a day.

Are you a terrible person? Would you think it's a little overboard for a SWAT team to bust down your door and lock you in prison?

There's a concept in the law, called "malum in se" and "malum prohibitum." It refers to the difference between things that are illegal because we say they're illegal, and things that are illegal because they're inherently wrong. Murder, theft, assault -- these are things that are inherently wrong. But things like driving on the left side of the road, or getting paid to cut hair without a barbers' license -- they're not inherently wrong, but are made illegal (with good reason) as a matter of public order.

There's nothing inherently wrong with wanting to come to the United States to make a better life. Pretty much all of your ancestors did the exact same thing, and it's likely that you celebrate them for it.

So, think of something like online piracy. A lot of people have pirated copyrighted materials, which can be a felony. Yet I bet you don't dismiss everyone who illegally streamed a movie as a felon and demand that they be rounded up and thrown in prison. You'd probably support a system in which people who pirated are given amnesty, DRM systems become widespread, but the industry puts media into a format in which it can be accessed easily for reasonable payment. That's what people want to do with immigration -- don't brutally rip people from their homes, but develop a system by which people who are otherwise good Americans can be brought into compliance with the law.

I recommend the book : Terror Factory: https://www.amazon.com/Terror-Factory-Inside-Maufactured-Terrorism-ebook/dp/B00ATLNH78/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1543377819&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=terror+factory

There's a whole book about it: Three Felonies A Day

No it is a consequence of living in a country where there are so many Federal Laws, the government was asked to count them and gave up after 4 years.

When there are so many laws that no one knows what they all are, it is no longer a just society - it is a society of arbitrary enforcement where people are selected for punishment, then investigated to see what laws they have broken.

Sure, there are absolutely criminals who deliberately break laws - but most people have committed felonies without ever realizing it, and all that stands between them and a felony conviction is the fact that no one has bothered to choose them to be the one to have those laws enforced on them.

There was a book written about this a few years ago, called Three Felonies a Day.

Yup. Walk across the border so you can get a job and feed your kids? Clearly you are prepared to murder and eat babies.

Those asses should read Three Felonies a Day.

I'm not trying to incite a reddit riot but the idea of Racism = Prejudice + Power definition is pretty standard in sociology/anthropology, and was popularized in part by the insanely popular and well-reviewed book The New Jim Crow. Saying it is "Tumblr-esque" is an extremely nuanced and uneducated view.

Upvoted because of my love of Freakonomics. Another interesting book about this topic is The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.

People of color, particularly men of color, born in 1970 or later have not been welcomed into society as passively as you claim. Beginning in the late 1980s and continuing through to today in some areas, Americans of color have been consciously and unconsciously targeted by discriminatory and institutionalized practices and policies that restrict one's access into mainstream society. Collectively, these practices are generally referred to as mass incarceration, though politicians have tended to sell them as a War on Drugs that is Tough on Crime.

American-style mass incarceration is quite evidently discriminatory against people of color because the War on Drugs neither reducies drug use in the nation nor reduces crime in troubled areas. In fact, it has tended to increase both. Allow me to explain.

Since the late 1980s the American prison population has boomed from about 300,000 to about 2 million. This is the highest rate of incarceration in the world. Almost all of the prisoners in America are African-Americans, as high as 80% in some areas, and they were mostly convicted of minor non violent drug offenses. This makes no sense when you consider that Americans of all races consume illegal drugs and participate in the illegal drug market at approximately the same rate (Source).

Most of these non-violent prisoners of color, admittedly, spend only a short period of time in jail. However, once released almost all of them are branded felons because American laws offer little leniency on this account for persons convicted of drug offenses involving drugs that are frequently found in poor, African-American populated areas. Once labeled a felon, a released non-violent offender who has supposedly paid their debt to society sees little opportunity for a stable life because career, housing, educational, and social opportunities are severely restricted. Ask anyone who has been labeled a felon in America and they will tell you that given such a status is like being branded with a mark of the beast that essentially establishes one as part of an often ignored and almost invisible undercaste.

The lack of opportunity for this undercaste often leads to two things. First, many of the undercaste turn to drug use as way to deal with their emotional depression onset by a perpetual and inescapable state of impoverishment. Second, many of the same group turn to crime to make money because other opportunities never present themselves. They might be seen as having the "ghetto mentality" that other users spoke of. Hopefully you can see at this point how a deleterious cycle builds. Such a cycle benefits no one and also costs an incredible amount of money to maintain.

This is obviously a simplified account of mass incarceration (this is Reddit after all). Nonetheless, I hope it illustrated how opportunity is restricted in America for a large portion of the population. The mass incarceration system is "hidden" from us because there are no federal, state, or local laws in the US that explicitly target people of color so I don't think your comment is the result of a lack of intelligence on your part. Rather, the plain and simple fact that you live as part of an inherently flawed American society and culture stands behind your antiquated viewpoint. I hope you try to learn more about this so you can help fix the county that I, for one, love so much.

Further reading: Michelle Alexander, The New Jim Crow

Emotional survival for law enforcement: A guide for officers and their families https://www.amazon.com/dp/0971725403/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_gdJ6Cb2V38NHD

Yeah I would push for the country home, that being said

> he admits that's he's not rational about this

You should buy emotional survival for law enforcement and read it together. He's showing hyper vigilance.

https://www.amazon.com/Emotional-survival-law-enforcement-officers/dp/0971725403

Seriously grab it. Read it and find the parts about hyper vigilance and ptsd. show it to him. get him to talk to someone. It is imperative if he wants to stay in this career that he balance this out.

There's a book called "Three Felonies a Day", which makes the case that the average person unwittingly & often commits federal crimes.

President Trump, far from being an average person, was targeted by a ruthless federal prosecutor, aided by assistants that were 100% leftists, with an unlimited budget, could find nothing after 2 years of really looking.

Like it or not, that's how you can know Trump didn't do anything wrong.

Leo wife here! We have a sub that I can send over to you. It's not very active but it's good for support when you need it. If you're in my state, I'll send you a link to our group (where they will verify you).

So here's the thing, academy is fucking awful and so is your FTO period (ours was about 12 months but they recently upped it to 18 months). One thing I HIGHLY suggest is purchasing this book. It will help you understand what is happening to him and how to not fall into the situation you described. Depending on your department, your guy will have to swap shifts a few times so you'll be thrown upside down a few times over the next two years. There's benefits and cons to each one.

My advice for now? Just survive. Do what you can to keep your lives together but get through it with as little resentment as you can. It'll be over and once he's on his own, it will be so much better because he's not having to follow the exact process of whomever is educating him ex: one trainer expected you to be out of the car before him but wouldn't tell you that. Another wouldn't let Dude use the online system the entire 10 weeks because sometimes it went offline, which has happened twice in the last few years. There will be times he will want to quit and you will have (if you've agreed to do so) to keep him invested and going. There is a high rate of divorce in our community but I've also seen a lot of really successful relationships too. It's all about making yourselves come together as a family and not losing sight of it or prioritizing it lower. The ones I see splitting are the ones spitting, "she knew what she got into. This job is my life! She has to work around ME forever." Nah. This is a one way ticket to trouble. There's gotta be respect.

For holidays and events, do them on his off day. Don't start living totally separate lives. It's so easy to do and sometimes you will just have to go to events anyway but make sure you can get him to some of them. Keep as many non first responder friends as you can. Nobody will get your situation like other LEO families but it can be easy for them all to start getting negative about work or becoming an echo chamber. My husband's personality has changed and he has become more rigid because he sees so many awful things. Having "regular" friends reminds him that WoW, metal concerts, family dinners, soccer - they're all still part of who he is.

There are things you can't drive yourself crazy about and that's women who specifically creep on guys with a badge, females on shift either on his beat or dispatch, where he is at all times, mandatory overtime (it'll happen, and I tell people we will arrive an hour late to an event just in case), and sometimes when he needs space. Too much space is bad but it's shit like, today my husband had to (TW GORE/MISCARRIAGE) dig through a shopping bag of human tissue because homeless woman miscarried in a stairwell. And that's not even the worst or weirdest thing he's seen this month. You will have to decide as a team if you want to talk about that stuff or not (we do). Some wives also pretend there isn't a real threat to life (yet two guys almost got killed on shift in the last 2 months) and some pretend every call is going to be the end (though statistically chances are small and Dude went a very long time before he ever had to pull any weapon on anyone). You'll have to find a balance. We did talk about what happens if he is injured or killed in action and what our expectations were.

Anyway. I could go on forever. Feel free to PM me anytime though!

What are crimes? There's a strong case that the average American commits 3 felonies per day, most unknowingly. 'Waiting' becomes 'loitering' based on the desires of any given cop. Police forces in The US make announcements that they're going to begin enforcing previously ignored laws or that particular laws will be demoted to 'low priority' (unenforced). Medical marijuana users in The US are all federal criminals. Basically no one actually knows what their state and local laws are and even people who's vocation demands they do can't agree on what those laws mean.

Also here is a good book on the topic Three Felones A Day.

The basis of the book is that everyone commits at least three felonies every day. Most of us don't know every single law but we are expected to know and abide by every single law.

Three felonies a day: how the feds target the innocent

A book describing how the average American is a lawbreaker, and prison can happen to anyone. How we treat prisoners is your business. Even if you're not in prison, their treatment reflects on us as a society.

Here's a book that mentions the "Ferguson Effect": https://www.amazon.com/War-Cops-Attack-Order-Everyone/dp/1594038759

​

Police group director: Obama caused a 'war on cops': https://www.politico.com/story/2016/07/obama-war-on-cops-police-advocacy-group-225291

​

It's another "Us vs. the Libs" issue

Check out The New Jim Crow. Their numbers absolutely do matter. And we absolutely should not be removing the right of citizens to vote based on laws written by those that benefit from removing those citizens right to vote.

If you're not outraged by our "justice" system yet, I recommend this NYT best seller.

The things the "war on drugs" has done to our society are atrocious.

Unironically?

Have you read anything by Michelle Alexander?

Here ya go: https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=new+jim+crow&qid=1550175272&s=gateway&sr=8-1

Try not to use words you don't know the meaning of. It makes you sound like a moron.

Whew, okay. Pulled out my actual computer to answer this.
So, a lot of what I could recommend isn't short stuff you could read in an afternoon because 1. it's depressing as fuck, and 2. it's likely heavy with the sheer volume of references wherein at least one book attempts to bludgeon you with the facts that "this was depressing as fuck." Frequent breaks or alternating history-related books with fiction/poetry/other topics is rather recommended from my experience. Can't remember if I got onto this topic through Howard Zinn's A People's History of the United States or Loewen's Lies My Teacher Told Me: Everything Your American History Textbook Got Wrong or just some random book found in the library.

The very clean cut, textbook Wikipedia definition of "sundown town", aka "Don't let the sun set (down) on you here.", (Ref: BlackThen.com), is:
> sometimes known as sunset towns or gray towns, are all-white municipalities or neighborhoods in the United States that practice a form of segregation by enforcing restrictions excluding people of other races via some combination of discriminatory local laws, intimidation, and violence.

For my intro into the subject however, read Buried in the Bitter Waters: The Hidden History of Racial Cleansing in America. This is a very emotionally draining, mentally exhausting book though, frequently with lists of atrocities in paragraph form. I think it's an important read, one which frankly should've been covered my senior year of highschool or so, but it's a difficult one. Also on my reading list is The Warmth of Other Suns: The Epic Story of America's Great Migration which is a surprising and sneakily hopeful title for such a depressing topic, so only guessing the narration may be somewhat more accessible.

Also, 'cause I totally didn't run to my kindle app to list out titles before fully reading your post, here's some below, and relisted one above, by timeline placement, best as can be figured. These might not be the best on each topic, but they're the ones available to my budget at the time and some are still on my reading list.

The Fires of Jubilee: Nat Turner's Fierce Rebellion

• Timeline 1831
  
  Buried in the Bitter Waters: The Hidden History of Racial Cleansing in America
  
• Timeline post-Civil War in 1865 through the 1920's, with thousands of towns still containing obvious racial divides (see "wrong side of the tracks", etc) and sometimes still utilizing laws to push black folks out of neighborhoods today.
  
  The Mis-Education of the Negro
  
• 1933, please see the book later down the list "Brainwashed"
  
  At the Dark End of the Street: A New History of the Civil Rights Movement from Rosa Parks to the Rise of Black Power
  
• 1944 through the 1970's
  
  Assata
  
• 1960's through 1970's, about Black Panther Assata Shakur (aka JoAnne Chesimard)
  
  Revolutionary Suicide
  
• 1940's through late 1980's, about Huey P. Newton, Black Panther co-founder.
  
  Dark Alliance: The CIA, the Contras, and the Crack Cocaine Explosion
  
• 1980's through ?
  
  Sister Outsider
  
• 1980's essays on sexism, racism, ageism, homophobia, and class
  
  See also:
  
  Black Street Speech: Its History, Structure, and Survival
  
  Women, Race, & Class by Angela Y. Davis
  
• "A powerful study of the women's liberation movement in the U.S., from abolitionist days to the present, that demonstrates how it has always been hampered by the racist and classist biases of its leaders."
  
  Black Feminist Thought
  
• Supposedly there's a correct and incorrect version of this with severely cut or modified chapters, but not sure which is which.
  
  Outlaw Culture: Resisting Representations by Bell Hooks
  
• Contemporary essays
  
  Brainwashed: Challenging the Myth of Black Inferiority
  
• from slavery through today, how black people have been taught they're inferior to the point they help drag themselves and each other down
  
  The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness
  
• Supposed to be really good, haven't read this yet.
  
  
  
  
  

I used to support the death penalty. Having been raised in Texas, I absorbed the pro-capital punishment culture. Only in my 40s did I start actually doing research on the death penalty and how it is applied. Reading books like Actual Innocence: When Justice Goes Wrong and How to Make it Right and many others convinced me that there is no way I can support the death penalty any longer. It is applied randomly, and the main determinant of who is sentenced to die is not the heinousness of the crime, but instead whether the defendant can afford to hire an attorney or has to rely on a public defender.

Also, reading about cases in which a forensic lab was found to have falsified results to get convictions (thereby keeping their business from the police department), detectives who routinely paid people to give "eyewitness testimony" in court, prosecutors who covered up exculpatory evidence that would have kept them from getting a conviction, judges who allowed a defense attorney to sleep in the courtroom during a trial, and more led me to believe that every single step in the "criminal justice" system is fraught with error. Over 100 people have been exonerated from death row by The Innocence Project.

It's possible to release people from prison if they are found to have been convicted wrongly. But you can't un-kill someone who has been executed for a crime he didn't commit. I used to think that capital punishment was a good thing, but I am now firmly against.

Combine the concept behind this book with machine learning A.I. data mining everything we do and it will be possible to lock up the whole country.

Oh, wait...

It's either a natural right or it's not. I believe it is. You're talking as if it's not.

Look, this is always the argument. "You have to be reasonable and give up just this small part of your freedom for the good of society." And then the same argument after the next election. And again and again. And each time it's a load of horseshit that doesn't do anything but burden ordinary people, to the point they either cease activities undesirable or become criminals. So you're damn right I don't want to give another inch. It's gone too far already.

As for "criminals and the mentally ill" - We have nearly no consensus on either the diagnosis of certain mental illnesses, or which mental illnesses should serve as reason for supression of the patients natural rights. As for criminals, we are all criminals, even if we haven't been caught yet. The average American unknowingly commits about three felonies a day. We have more laws and a higher per-capita incarceration rate than any other nation in history. So yeah, I have a hard time believing that the people in charge have the slightest idea what they're doing, much less that we should give up even a shred of our freedom for their guarantees of safety.

Sounds like ignorance to me. Get off Reddit and read a book.
Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent https://www.amazon.com/dp/1594035229/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_WGG9BbXYK993P

Well, laws are made to be broken, so that the authorities always have something on you when they want (https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229).

The Germans, loving rules, also love enforcing them I guess, even the most insignificant ones.

Of course, all I'm saying here comes mostly from stereotype and is tongue in cheek and shouldn't be taken seriously.

The term "racist" can be very loaded and charged, because some people (especially white people) view the label with such fear and dread that they will vigorously defend themselves against any hint of an accusation of being racist. The defensiveness masks for them the systemic racism within the culture into which they were born.

It's not always as simple as saying "X person is a racist" or "Y person is not a racist". There aren't just two options. Outside of people like white nationalists, who are overt and admitted racists (and who Trump regards as "fine people"), for everyone else, the label of "racist" is given out by others, and when it is, people usually run from it as fast as they can.

The reason I like to use it only sparingly when directed at an individual is not because it isn't true that the person being accused isn't a racist, but because the label halts any possibility of either person shifting from their position. A person labelled a racist becomes blind to even their own actual views on race, and blind to the larger existing cultural problems involving race.

Trump supporters will often respond to accusations of Trump being labelled a racist much in the same way as if they themselves were being accused, so we encounter the same problem.

If you really want to know the ways in which Trump is racist, you can just Google it, read about it on Wikipedia, or read one or two of the numerous, well-documented, thoroughly researched articles on the topic.

What I recommend instead is that, if you genuinely want to understand race in America, these three books are a pretty great place to start:

White Fragility: Why It's So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism by Robin DiAngelo

Between the World and Me by Ta-Nehisi Coates

The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander

When the Pentagon Papers were released, no one went to jail. Now Assange and Snowden are fugitives, and Manning is a felon.

Reporters go to jail for not revealing sources. This was back before the media was completely controlled. Now they don't even bother resisting.

The law is a tool in the hands of the powerful, and you are committing 3 felonies a day.

Your "freedom of speech" will last exactly until you say something sufficiently offensive to someone with the power to silence you.

But sure, let's quibble about the difference between reporters and whistle-blowers.

You think you lead a squeaky clean life, but this book ought to sober you up. The federal criminal code is so expansive and so ambiguous in places that it gives US Attorneys the discretion to overzealously charge you with crimes for things you never even considered might be considered crimes.

Don't talk to the police.

> it overwhelmingly seems directed at African Americans.

No, there are a ton of problems with policing in the US - but there is very little evidence that it is racially based.

To be fucking blunt - the numbers do not lie:

• Of all the people who have been killed by police in the United States in recent years, about 42% were white, 20% were Hispanic, and 32% were black—even as blacks committed nearly 39% of the types of serious crimes most likely to result in a violent confrontation with police.
  
• In 2015, there were 38 unarmed blacks and 32 unarmed whites who were shot and killed by police. These figures are roughly proportional to the respective numbers of violent crimes committed by blacks and whites nationwide.
  
• The likelihood of a police officer being killed by a black male is 18.5 times greater than the likelihood of an unarmed black male being killed by a cop
  

There is actually this really good book that came out recently called "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness". It talks about how the U.S. Justice system has become this form of racial and social control. Felony charges take you out of the voting pool for life and limit you to what what types of jobs you can and can't get. It's very interesting to say the least.

> Law makers making thing illegal because they know it'll effect minority's

Sure, check out this article which quotes Nixon's White House counsel:

> Nixon's White House counsel, John Ehrlichman, verified the intention of the War on Drugs in a 1995 interview with author Dan Baum, author of Smoke and Mirrors: The war on drugs and the politics of failure.

> "Look, we understood we couldn't make it illegal to be young or poor or black in the United States, but we could criminalize their common pleasure," Ehrlichman confessed. "We understood that drugs were not the health problem we were making them out to be, but it was such a perfect issue for the Nixon White House that we couldn't resist it."

The Nixon Presidency marked the beginning of the heavy criminalization of drug use. It is not a coincidence that Nixon's most famous contribution to our electoral history was the Southern strategy, designed to win Southern racists over to the Republican Party who were upset with Democratic support of the Civil Rights Movement. That's probably what Ehrlichmann meant about drugs being a "perfect issue for the Nixon White House."

I'm a little busy at work right now so won't address your other point here at the moment, but maybe someone else can find some good sources (there should be many) about police disproportionately interacting with minorities (leading to more arrests etc.). Stop and frisk would be a good example. Edit this article is as good a starting point as any for the various ways in which police disproportionately target minorities.

In general I think The New Jim Crow is an excellent account of many of these issues.

Here's some reading for you.

And ignoring the oversimplified and outright false accusation that "so many black men abandon their children", what else is wrong? You learn how to be a father from your father. And if your father didn't have the opportunity to learn from his father because they were property? Well, there's another difficulty, isn't there? And it's a difficulty that's not going to go away in one generation in the best of circumstances.

And why is it so far away from being "the best of circumstances"? Well, you could read Slavery by Another Name and The New Jim Crow to see how slavery actually lasted well past its abolishment and how the for-profit prison complex is preventing black people from simply "working past it". It's really such a complicated, horrible web... It's too much for me to try to discuss in one post.

But put simply: No other enslaved group, not the Irish, not the Japanese, not any other group of people has faced the same level of obstruction while attempting to rise up to equality. And if you think that these issues aren't part of the cause rather than the result of crime and drug use and poverty which results in black fathers being taken from their families... well, you're wrong.

Check out The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, she discusses mass incarceration in relation to the war on drugs and it's relation to institutional racism. I don't know enough on the topic to answer your question but she covers it in detail.

Pretty sick of people making false equivalences. Let's be objective here.

The West created an entire fake science to justify centuries of exploitation of "lesser races" that greatly influences modern day ethnic abuse http://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431/

Then, one tasteless ad or starring or refusal to give a high five = Chinese are soo racist.

 

It's a false equivalence. It's a farce and only spread to demonize Chinese people. Another example. China builds infrastructure in Africa = colonialism/neoimperialism. It's preposterous especially since these labels come from the most exploitative group of all. I don't need to name them do I?

Read The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness by Michelle Alexander. This was one of those books that I had to pick up and put down many times because of the internal rage it caused. The drug war and mass incarceration are among the biggest issues we have in the US, and we need to find a way to change the way we think about it as a society.

Three Felonies a Day

> The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law

Not insensitive at all! This is my job, so I keep one foot in the compassion camp and one foot in the matter-of-fact camp.

It depends on the caliber of the firearm, the angle of the barrel, placement of the muzzle and general body posture. And there are infinite combinations of these things and other additional factors.

The larger the caliber, generally, the more damage occurs. Our female patient who severely damaged her face, had placed the muzzle just behind her left eye, on the foremost part of her temple. She was also very intoxicated at the time because she had been in an argument with her significant other, therefore, when she injured herself, it was an impulsive behavior and the barrel was pointing toward the front of her face. The face (and its tissues and bones) are pretty delicate and come apart fairly easily with a firearm blast. So, in her case, it was mostly direction and path of least resistance. The cranial vault (the part of the skull that holds the brain) can deflect a decent amount of force, if not directly applied.

Many people who shoot themselves in the head (again, this statement is based purely on my work experience, not on any proper study) are upset and often intoxicated, whether it be alcohol, meth, etc. And often in this state, people make impulsive decisions and they do not have a solid plan, let alone accurate geometry to cause instant death.

Another thing to consider when it comes to instant death, or lack thereof, is how intact the brain stem remains and how much brain swelling occurs. If the cranial vault has been compromised, i.e. it has been fractured or a section has been removed by the blast, this will allow room for the brain to swell and lowers the likelihood that it will protrude down and out of the opening of the base of the skull (the foramen magnum), assuming enough of the brain is left intact. This is what is called herniation and it is always fatal.

Honestly, after all of the combinations that I've seen in my department, I would have to say the way to guarantee a completed suicide would be a very deliberately placed .45 or shotgun barrel placed in the mouth.

If you're genuinely interested in how the pathologies play out in firearm injuries, you might want to check out the textbook Gunshot Wounds: Practical Aspects of Firearms, Ballistics and Forensic Techniques. It's pretty much the 'bible' on the topic.

Since you mentioned the name I'll go ahead and mention his book. Anyone interested in this subject should read Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It: A Judicial Indictment of the War on Drugs - Judge James P. Gray.

> a) I don't believe in unverified studies by individuals having agendas

Um, everyone has an agenda. I mean, literally everyone. Does this mean you ignore everyone?

In any case, the guy wrote a book about it. It is very thorough and citations are quite exhaustive. If you don't want to read it, fine. But he makes a completely different point than you think. It is not a political book.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

But yeah, it sounds like you have already made up your mind, so there is no point in continuing this.

There is a slippery slope between a drink to get through a really hard day, then a drink to get through a sort of hard day, and then a drink to get through every day.

I don't mean to sound alarmist about it but there is a reason alcoholism tends to run in the industry. If its just a bad day, walk it off, move on. If its more, please consider speaking to someone and getting support.

Also, I always recommend Gilmartin's Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement even though its meant for officers' it applies to first responders in general.

This one.

Emotional Survival For Law Enforcement is a book that deals with this exact issue, and even describes it the exact same way as you do.

It's well worth reading, if you're a cop, or just in a relationship with one.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

When you make enough laws everyone is guilty of something. Once you commit a crime they can do what they want to you.

> Most of the examples given were where police used the tech to identify people at a rally that had outstanding warrants and then arrested them.

This combined with the idea of Three Felonies A Day (How the Feds Target the Innocent) can really lead to some draconian, selectively enforced punishments.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

Fugitive Slaves were criminals too. So were people who harboured jews. So are people who own both weed and firearms, even in a state where both are separately legal. So are people who watch movies on streaming sites, or take an expired painkiller. So are people who run lemonaide stands or have ever traded even $1 of cryptocurrency for cash without being a licensed money transmitter. So are jaywalkers and people who run bake sales without a food production license (in lots of states).

All of the above are criminals.

What the hell kind of libertarian are you who gives a shit about people who break the laws of the state in terms of whether or not they are technically guilty of a crime? You're guilty of literally hundreds of crimes. I bet you've already hit at least one felony today.

Who gives a shit if illegal immigrants are "technically criminals"? If they aren't otherwise violating the NAP then I don't give a shit and the state can suck my dick.

Three Felonies a Day

Can we please also remember that the Controlled Substance Act came about in an attempt to combat civil equality. So groups that benefit from inequality and racism are also at play here, which could very well mean everyone that benefits from the low wages in America.

Relevant read: The New Jim Crow

There are serious and endemic issues facing African-Americans today. They are not fairly represented in politics, and people in the inner cities for several reasons have the deck heavily stacked against them. While it's true that through hard work some of them may get out of poverty, it's not at all comparable to the upward mobility of middle-class whites.

The reason the inner city is a crap place to live and grow up is due to several discriminatory policies, including redlining. Black neighborhoods were denied loans and insurance from banks through federal policy dating back to the 1930s. This had several effects. an important one being that black people couldn't get a mortgage in a white neighborhood, they were largely left in the urban core while post WWII whites moved to the suburbs.Since whites had much of the business capital, jobs began to leave the inner city and move out. Thus blacks were now living in a place with few jobs, and the remaining jobs were far away and difficult to access without a car. In sociology this is called a spatial mismatch.

Job discrimination is rampant and inhibits blacks from getting careers with promotion opportunities. A famous sociological study called "The Mark of a Criminal Record" (PDF) found a large racial disparity when confederates applied for jobs. In one set, both white and black individuals applied for jobs without stating a criminal record, in the other they stated they DID have a criminal record. The end result (p. 958) is that blacks without a criminal record get fewer callbacks than whites with a criminal record. In a more recent study it was found that people with "black-sounding" names had to send 50% more applications to get a callback than people with white-sounding names.

The criminal justice system is rife with racial discrimination:

>On average, blacks receive almost 10% longer sentences than comparable whites arrested for the same crimes. At least half this gap can be explained by initial charging choices, particularly the filing of charges carrying mandatory minimum sentences. Prosecutors are, ceteris paribus, almost twice as likely to file such charges against blacks.

Source

Mandatory minimum sentences tend to be for crimes that blacks commit more frequently than whites. In murder cases, whites that kill blacks serve shorter sentences than blacks who kill whites, and blacks are far more likely to get the death penalty.

There are far more things that could be addressed. Blacks are packed into gerrymandered districts that were originally meant to get blacks elected to legislative office. Now they are used to ensure that most districts have virtually no black constituency. It's part of why Democrats (a party almost universally supported by blacks) have gotten more votes in congressional elections yet still are a minority in the House.

There's the issue that blacks get less pre-K education and are chronically behind their white peers. The family and economic background that black student have matters a huge amount:

>Understanding the reasons why so many black and brown Americans enter adulthood with extremely weak skills and low educational attainments is central to figuring out how to change the future. Poverty and inadequate family resources are a key piece of the problem. One in four children of color lives in poverty. Two of three black children and one of three Hispanic children live in a single-parent family. The low resource levels available to support these children’s initial development means that most come to school not ready to learn.

>The low quality of the schools black and brown children attend is another critical piece of the problem. Children of color tend to be concentrated in low achieving, highly segregated schools.

Source

Simply put, if your parents have a bad education, they can't help you do assignments- or because they work long hours as a single parent, they're hardly around to supervise whether their children are doing academic work- or avoiding falling in with the wrong crowd. To add an anecdotal bit to this post, I was tutoring a minority kid in a school with a low local reputation. He was near tears because I wasn't able to help him finish his math homework- he couldn't do it at home because neither of his parents understood 5th grade math. Few middle-class whites have a similar problem.

Conclusion: The people at your school are mostly correct. While slavery is not a good metaphor, a hugely influential book on racism in mass incarceration has came out in 2010. It is called The New Jim Crow.

Colonialism is an appropriate term in some cases. Also, just because segregation policies and their ilk were ruled unconstitutional doesn't mean their effects don't exist here, in 2013. White flight, redlining, and spatial mismatch no longer play as much of a role in racial wealth disparity as they used to, but it's why blacks live in inner cities and whites usually aren't.

Hiring discrimination exists and there is huge amounts of research to show that it is serious. The fact that whites with a criminal record are more sought after than blacks with no criminal record whatsoever should point to a system that is rotten.

The American Dream idea that people can succeed through hard work is an idea. It is not policy, it is not a law. Are we going to fault the new generation of black teens and young adults for being in poverty, when several generations before were as well? Are we going to fault them for not getting a good-paying job, when they don't exist in their neighborhoods and they have to compete with whites on an unfair playing field?

This isn't to say that some whites aren't in the same bind. Nor is to say that all whites are racist or don't understand what privilege is. But the evidence is stark- African-Americans don't have things pretty good.

Then you are absolutely a criminal, at least by your own definition. Not having been caught for a traffic violation or other minor infraction doesn't mean you never committed one.

You're actually almost certain to be a felon who has committed crimes that are punishable by actual prison, but simply don't know you did so.

This is an interesting read on the topic:

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

Relevant link;

> The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.

Or maybe you just don’t know what you’re doing wrong

If you think the War on Drugs is fucked up now, wait until you read The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.

If books aren't your thing, there's a ~1hr talk from the author free on iTunes (Ep. 98) where she pretty much sums up the entire book. Makes for a good listen at the gym or in the car.

I was always opposed to the War on Drugs based on my libertarian beliefs, but after reading that book, it really makes me sick to my stomach.

> Jarvious Cotton cannot vote. Like his father, grandfather, great-grandfather, and great-great-grandfather, he has been denied the right to participate in our electoral democracy. Cotton’s family tree tells the story of several generations of black men who were born in the United States but who were denied the most basic freedom that democracy promises—the freedom to vote for those who will make the rules and laws that govern one’s life. Cotton’s great-great-grandfather could not vote as a slave. His great-grandfather was beaten to death by the Ku Klux Klan for attempting to vote. His grandfather was prevented from voting by Klan intimidation. His father was barred from voting by poll taxes and literacy tests. Today, Jarvious Cotton cannot vote because he, like many black men in the United States, has been labeled a felon and is currently on parole.

Drug use rates are very similar between blacks and whites, but the far majority of those targeted for by The War on Drugs are people of color. Her book really makes you sick when you find out why. ಠ_ಠ

You're launching into odd free speech strawman arguments when I never said white people shouldn't be able to talk about race. I'm only saying that on this topic, white people should consider their inexperience and measure their comments out of respect for furthering the discussion in a meaningful way. It doesn't mean "don't say anything." It means come at it as a person trying to learn something rather than a person who believes he's automatically equally qualified on the matter. It would be like me talking to a physicist about dark matter and pretending I'm his equal. I just wouldn't come at a physicist like that in a discussion because I recognize my own inexperience.

Also, I strongly disagree with you that colorblindness will ever result in a substantially positive change for minorities. I've been reading material regarding race relations, academic and not, for nearly eight years and it only reinforces the idea of deep systemic inequality. The playing field is not level right now, and it will never become level by not talking about the problem or attempting to actively solve it. The more you learn, the clearer it gets.

Here's a book to get you started on systemic inequality for blacks: http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595581030/ref=cm_cr_pr_product_top

Read this first

The justice system is utterly broken. From top to bottom.

Please read The New Jim Crow.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1595581030/ref=redir_mdp_mobile?pc_redir=T1

I think it's naive to say the rich conspired in some form as an attack on the poor and middle class. However the fact is that the income gap between rich and poor is widening by nearly every metric. The rich are getting richer.

It's also extremely difficult for poor people to get by in America. Here's a good book describing the broken policies that make the cards stacked against the poor.

Tied into that is institutional racism. Minorities, especially blacks, are unfairly targeted by the war on drugs, incarcerated, then labeled a felon and stripped of their rights. The New Jim Crow describes the policies and reasons that the war on drugs is effectively enforcing racial caste in America.

It's important to gain a deeper understanding of these issues if they are to be solved. All of these issues are visible to us on a surface level, but without a deeper understanding it can seem that the rich are actively trying to bleed out the poor.

These issues are not so much an agenda as they are something that emerges from our collective behavior. For example, studies have shown that many of us who do not identify as racist still exhibit conscious and unconscious biases. Our biases affect our society. Cynicism and pointing fingers gets us nowhere. Change starts with ourselves and we are all responsible.

Here, friend.

That's not what I said. I didn't say that now is the worst time. I said that we've been collectively pretending there is NO racism, and now more people are realizing just how wrong that is. Just because it's better than it was in the 1890s doesn't mean we've solved the problem.

A lot of white people, especially since the 80s, were raised with the idea that being "colorblind" is the ideal, but are now starting to realize that doing so ignores the fact that black people live a different experience in this country than white people. Part of solving that problem is recognizing that basic fact, which requires "seeing color", and then coming up with solutions that take that into account. "Colorblind" solutions often just give discretion to those in power, which ends up reinforcing the racial disparities that are already written into our society. (Edit: I highly recommend The New Jim Crow, which examines this through the lens of our justice system)

(As a side note, I think there's a decent case that racism in the US reached its lowest point sometime 2-5 years ago, and has increased since then. It's definitely come to the surface more)

Read "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness" by Michelle Alexander: http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1595586431.

It takes everything you think you know about the drug war and takes it to another level, all while making you rage.

According to "The Good Book", as a friend of mine calls it, the Springfield M1A, DSA FAL, rebarreled Garand, or HK91 (In that order, I think).

It's been a while since it was updated, so there maybe new info to consider.

Edit: lol.. I don't know how I missed "AR-10 style".. Oh well. Sorry about the irrelevance.

I highly recommend this book for those who want to learn about all those "terrorists" the FBI has arrested lately: http://www.amazon.ca/The-Terror-Factory-Manufactured-Terrorism/dp/1935439618

Step 1: Convince impresionable person to become a terrorist.

Step 2: Give them the training, motivate them to commit the crime and give them a FAKE device to activate.

Step 3: Convince courts to charge people who detonate fake devices with the same crimes as if they had detonated real devices

Step 4: Charge the people you groomed, trained, convinced to destroy America, who you GAVE the "devices" to, who you told where and when to go with the device and who pressed the button YOU told them to with crimes.

Step 5: Security!

Amazing book, worth the read if you are at all interested. Well cited, not an Alex Jones type book.

> So you didn't read it. Then don't comment on it.

I read it, which is how I know it doesn't say really say anything.

> Copyright violation is both civil and criminal.

Copyright violation is only criminal if you directly profit from unauthorized selling, so your example is not a criminal example.

>Laws are very simple, even in total they are quite simple.

Then how come law is a 3 year doctoral level degree and U.S. tax law alone is so complicated that the IRS help line gets a significant chunk of tax questions wrong? The U.S. tax code, printed on paper, could fill a decent sized library. The municipal code of New York city is regularly trotted out on Stossel's show, on paper, in small print, and it's still several feet high.

> The difficulty in law is how laws interact, which laws become more important when they clash, what an appropriate punishment, and most importantly, is there sufficient evidence to prove that the accused actually did X and so on and so on. If act X is criminal or not, is basically always very clear cut.

Wrong. If laws were so clear cut, then court rulings would be unimportant and any idiot could be a judge. Some laws are so vague that it takes thousands of government bureaucrats years to figure out what they mean and write tens of thousands of pages of regulations to delineate the disparate statutes into coherent regulations. The ACA, long and awful as it was, spawned regulations orders of magnitude longer and more awful to implement it.

>And the important part of the quote, is that it highlights that everyone has committed a crime.

And that's the problem.

>Not because they didn't realize it was a crime, but because they simply did not care because they don't think they'll get caught.

Really? Then I'm sure you have the entire federal register of laws, the state register of laws for your state, and the local municipal and county codes memorized to a T. You probably know the exact dimensions and measurements required of the grate that has to go over your firing barrel if you burn trash on your own property. I'm sure you also know how many inches of easement you have to give your neighbors in not planting trees. You probably also know the exact translucency rating of tinting allowed on windows and exactly how many inches of tinting are allowed on your windshield before you can be arrested in your state.

>Do you think people driving too fast are actually unaware that driving too fast is illegal as an example?

That depends. Are they driving on a marked road or do they know the prevailing speed limit of the town on unmarked streets? Do they know the local ordinances adjusting speed limits away from the marked speed depending on road conditions? Do they know what vehicle they are classed as and how that might effect the adjustment to the allowed top speed? Are there any emergency vehicles in the area? How close is the nearest school? Is any building within sight classified as a child care facility?

>Ofc they know, they just think they'll get away with it, and proportionality principle means that they usually will, because it's unproportional to install speed monitoring devices in all cars as an example.

So basically, you think that the quote means that everybody knowingly commits crimes, but that they think they'll get away with it because so few people are caught. Behold:

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent-ebook/dp/B00505UZ4G/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1474607218&sr=1-1&keywords=three+felonies+a+day

From the blurb:

>The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day.

Said book is Written by:

>Harvey A. Silverglate

Who graduated from Harvard Law School.

The law is not simple, and unless you're sitting on a law degree, 45 years of experience in the law profession, and a legal foundation (FIRE), I think I'm going to take this guy's opinion about it over yours.

Edit: Clarified that I meant the guy who wrote the book, not the guy who wrote the forward that's quoting what the gist of the book is, because the guy I'm debating is a case study in argumentum ad ignoratio elenchi.

Excessive punishments don't help anyone. They don't serve as good deterrents, they cost more money to implement (such as a longer jail term) and they hurt people worse without any actual benefit.

Why spend more money without any benefit? The best way to reduce crime is to invest in prevention and catching people. Increasing the likelihood that people are caught IS a good deterrent. Increasing the punishment to something excessive to compensate for your lack of ability to deter people is simply unfair to everyone. Some people don't get punished. Other people get punished way too much. And we have studies that show that people just don't respond very much to increasing the severity, which is probably especially true among younger kids who picture themselves invincible.

And that is before you start talking about how excessive punishment allow for selective punishments and make the effects of selective punishment much worse. For example, white people and black people are about equally likely to smoke pot, but black people are way more likely to get caught and punished.

And your idea that we can just avoid committing crimes is wrong too. The book three felonies a day talks about how many federal laws are so loosely worded that they can catch pretty much anyone in about 3 different felonies a day.

EDIT: Have you never even gone 1 mph above the speed limit? Or missed a road sign? How would you feel about going to jail for 10 years for that infraction?

If the story by the witness in the link is accurate, the CCW holder was the initial aggressor and could be charged with second degree murder or voluntary manslaughter.

I've been reading this book lately, and I highly suggest it to anyone that frequently has questions like this.

This is silly. Did you wake up this morning and decide to take up geopolitics as a pastime?

Most of the readers here are too far into this to waste time giving history lessons.

If you want to brush up on the subject here are a few books to start with:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0805075593?pc_redir=1408767114&robot_redir=1

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0985271027?pc_redir=1408686538&robot_redir=1

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0615602223?pc_redir=1408631528&robot_redir=1

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1935439618?pc_redir=1408800754&robot_redir=1

http://www.amazon.com/Shadows-Ultimate-Insiders-Story-Presidents/dp/0684834979/sr=8-1/qid=1163059092/ref=pd_bbs_1/102-8219747-6907339?ie=UTF8&s=books

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/094500110X?pc_redir=1408852909&robot_redir=1


Read these books and then do your own research and look into the claims for yourself. Most of his claims are common knowledge, and have been widely reported with frequency over the past decade. They are easily researchable with rudimentary search engine skills.

Your burden of proof logic games are misguided and add nothing to such a prima facia discussion

No shit? Was this ever in doubt? THIS IS WHAT THEY DO.

https://www.amazon.com/Terror-Factory-Inside-Manufactured-Terrorism/dp/1935439618

> If every law on the books were perfectly enforced, almost everyone would be in jail.

Agreed, but this is, in my view, a problem with the law, not responsibility. We have far too many stupid laws in existence, and not enough mechanisms to eliminate them. Harvey Silverglate has an excellent book on this topic from a business standpoint, and Matt Taibbi has another fantastic one demonstrating it from a criminal vs. white collar crime perspective. I'm personally a huge critic of American copyright law, which makes most normal internet behavior illegal in some way.

>I would love it if everyone played by the rules and the rules were relaxed a bit from what they currently are and we held people responsible.

I wasn't just talking about responsibility when it comes to the law, I was talking about responsibility in a general sense. Changing your oil is a responsibility, but there's no law requiring it nor forbidding it (yet, I guess...sigh). Women should be held to the same legal standards as men, but they should also be held to the same general responsibility as men. Even if the behavior isn't illegal, if a man and women are drunk and have sex, it's usually assumed that the man was responsible for the behavior.

>Ultimately I agree with you, everyone should be responsible. Do you think that is possible with the current laws on the books? Practical?

No, but that's because we aren't holding politicians accountable. The U.S. Congress has been absolutely negligent in their duties for the past hundred years, ceding almost all of their power to the executive and judicial branch. Many of the laws you are talking about were never passed by an elected representative; they are policies of appointed bureaucrats in agencies Congress created so they wouldn't have to bother doing their job.

I'm not really arguing that people should be responsible, I'm arguing they are responsible, whether they admit it or not. Neglecting to take action is a failure of responsibility. So while I'd love to cut about 90% of federal laws and virtually all executive departments, I don't think it's an issue that's going to be addressed until people start thinking of responsibility as something they have rather than something other people will take care of for them.

I heartily recommend you read this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Law-Self-Defense-3rd-ebook/dp/B01F9FAJBA/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1497645297&sr=8-1&keywords=law+of+self+defense+3rd+edition

> Whites don't have the ability to put their pitfalls on racism. Whites are thought to automatically be advantaged compared to blacks simply because of their skin color, so not being accountable for their actions is bogus.

It seems like we aren't even talking about the same thing anymore. You have some kind of narrative that black people aren't taking responsibility for something and it's not fair because black people can blame their problems on racism. But that is not the question that you discuss at the top of the tin.

I am talking about whether the difference in outcomes between US black people and US white people on a population level can be blamed on racism. The fact is, not much distinguishes black people from white people in this country except for the legacy of slavery and racism. The entire meaning we attribute to "blackness," and why we compile statistics on whites and blacks but not blue eyed people vs brown eyed people or brown haired people vs black haired people, is a consequence of that history, and a legacy of racism. No amount of apologetics or attempts to shift blame can elide that history.

> Does that legacy of racism get to last forever? Does it get to supersede the consequence of our actions?

Again, either we are talking past each other here, or your reasoning is difficult for me to understand. The legacy of racism lasts as long as the legacy of racism lasts, and it's still going plain and simple. Slavery lasted 300 years, and Jim Crow lasted another 100 before the civil rights movement. Even if you think that racism is over now, you don't undo that all in ~50 years.

Then recently we've had decades of the harsh punishment and overincarceration of black men, redlining, toxic mortgage loans targeted disproportionately at racial minorities... A good summary of very recent acts of discrimination is here, and a great book on our racially unjust system of incarceration is here.

Just because we all want the legacy of racism to be over doesn't mean it is, or that people asserting the bald truth that it still exists are looking for excuses for the "consequences of our actions." If anything, it's the other way around. People seem determined to turn a blind eye to the consequences of our actions as a nation, and to whitewash our history towards that end.

> I'm not getting why we can ignore the actions.

I explicitly said at the top that we can't. People obviously and trivially bear personal responsibility for their actions. But nevertheless, the difference in population level outcomes is attributable to historical and present racism within the United States.

>Another claim made by BLM is that they are regularly targeted by police officers in an unfair manner. This can be attributed to the fact that blacks commit a highly disproportionate amount of crime.

So what you're saying is that it's okay for officers to treat all blacks poorly because blacks are more likely to be criminals? I hope you're able to see why that would be a problem.

I would also suggest reading The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. It doesn't shy away from the fact that a larger percentage of blacks than whites commit crimes in America. What it focuses on is the fact that the punishment for these crimes are usually unfairly more harsher for blacks than whites. It also brings up the fact that poorer blacks are more likely to be targeted than poorer whites despite having similar crime rates.

There is most certainly a problem, it's just not so much in the open as in other countries.

I'm not so sure I agree with this analogy. It doesn't address the fact that the question is flawed in the first place. The problem with it is that assumes that black people don't also organize against the crime in their communities, which happens at so many levels. There are many, many people trying to make their communties better who speak out against crime, but the OP isn't bothering to see if any such action is happening. He might not be aware of all the black people trying to address violence, but the question assumes that black people don't do anything at all.

On another level, high crime rates are very much the result of systemic forces that have existed in our country for centuries, but going into that is going to make this comment turn into a book, and the book has already been written.

I haven't seen this doc yet (just added it to my list!), but it reminds me of an amazing book I just read called The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, about how the felony and incarceration system in the US limits the rights of african americans in a way similar to the Jim Crow segregation laws. I was skeptical of the scope of the problem at first, but the book was really convincing- I'd recommend it if you're interested in learning more about our prison system and how messed up it is.

The justice system is horribly broken. It can and does, perhaps not by design, take perfectly functioning people and put them into an endless cycle of criminality.

Let us not mention the sheer number of laws that exist, many of which are simply inane.

> Rules are rules.

Absolute BULLSHIT.

Consider what a 'rule' is. Every 'rule' is a sweeping generalization in which the promulgator of the 'rule' taxed his/her command of the language in an attempt to say what was really meant - and very, very few of us are truly skilled at that task, most especially the average school administrator, and most, most especially, School Board members whose real skills lie primarily in winning elections.

NO 'rule' can cover every single situation the 'rule' is meant to encompass - and a great many rules sweep in others that the 'rule' was never intended to encompass (see Three Felonies A Day (Amazon)).

MOST 'rules' represent a failure of the language skills and foresight of those crafting the 'rules'.

 

Proms have age limits for a reason.

Oh, please, great enlightened one, what IS that 'reason'?

This was an AUTISTIC boy whose SISTER volunteered to be his date.

If you cannot grasp the permissibility AND appropriateness of that, then, should you have any progeny, they are GUARANTEED to end up in therapy.

tl;dr: What would your thoughts be had it been his MOTHER who was his 'prom date'?

It's the title of a decent book.

Here's a random article found at Google about this phenomenon.

It's most troubling because laws are enforced unevenly: everyone commits felonies but some groups within the population are much more likely to be targeted by law enforcement. It's an effective way to give a clothing of legality to glaring abuse of the criminal system. (an example of such corrupt behavior is the kids for cash scandal, in which for-profit detention centers bribed judges to sentence minors)

> All I'm saying is you legally enter a country, or legally remain in a country past your legal residency status, then yes, you can be deported.

well, yeah, but the way the codes are written these days, everyone is guilty of something (and this is very much by design)

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

When freedom is outlawed, freedom lovers become criminals. A well-known book titled Three Felonies a Day says it all.

Not possible. Or at the least, not possible to know whether or not you are breaking any laws. At best, one can refrain from breaking laws one knows or suspects exist.

>So racism is a combination of that inherent distrustfulness, tied together with cultural stereotypes about different groups. So maybe we'll never be truly rid of racism; the best we can do is teach our children about these negative thoughts, and learn to examine those thoughts for real truth.

I'm going to have to vehemently disagree with you on this point. While there is certainly a personal aspect to racism, to reduce it to a mere combination of "inherent distrustfulness" and "cultural sterotypes" is to ignore the vast systemic issues that constitute true racism. Under your definition, only persons can be racist. How then are we to critique - for example - the carceral state in America, in which blacks are imprisoned at a significantly higher rate than whites. According to the US Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) non-Hispanic blacks accounted for 39.4% of the total prison and jail population in 2009.[41] According to the 2010 census of the US Census Bureau blacks (including Hispanic blacks) comprised 13.6% of the US population. (Elizabeth Anderson recently wrote a very well argued book on this issue)

Any constructive discussion of race in America (which I am attending to specifically, forgive me if you are a non-American, it is the area in which I am familiar) must, necessarily, attend to systemic issues of economic exploitation, cultural devaluation, and political disenfranchisement as well as the personal prejudice and cultural stereotypes that underlie individual participation (not to discount apathy and fear, which play a significant role) in the maintenance of a system of racial domination.

Some critical race theorists whose work I find very prescient are David Theo Goldberg and Charles Mills.

(thanks for jump starting the conversation by the way, it is much appreciated)

Edit: realized they were Aussies, but I find that the point about focusing on individual prejudice rather than systemic oppression still stands.

The comparison to slavery is apt: The New Jim Crow goes into detail about how the drug war and spike in mass incarceration is being used not to keep dangerous criminals locked up but as for-profit social control, much like how vagrancy laws were used to lock up blacks and put them to work after slavery was abolished.

> What new Jim Crow laws are you talking about?

Primarily mass incarceration, but also continued redlining, police brutality, etc. I recommend reading this book, it's amazing.


> What do you mean by “have this”?

Let them have their own film and simply be a guest in this space, e.g., not being a cop and dressing up as black panther.

> By letting black people “have this” does that mean no one can buy it on DVD? Or that they can’t buy the merchandise or listen to the music?

No and no (meaning you can do those things). It's mostly about respect. We should partake, not take.

If anyone wants to learn more about Number 6, there'a good book called "The New Jim Crow" which goes into detail of some of the shadiness that was engaged in. Also, Cracked doesn't mention it but this era of time is where vagrancy laws came from.

>The law is a tool in the hands of the powerful, and you are committing 3 felonies a day..

And the first highest helpful tagged Amazon review said this:

>The product description of this book on amazon.com (the US site) starts by claiming that "The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day". So I was keen to find out what crimes these might be, that ordinary people were unconsciously committing in such profusion. Sadly, that is something you cannot learn by reading this book. As far as I can ascertain, there is literally no mention of "three crimes a day" or anything similar on any of its pages, from the foreword by Alan M Dershowitz to the index.

Come on.

>Your "freedom of speech" will last exactly until you say something sufficiently offensive to someone with the power to silence you.

Sufficiently offensive =/= illegal outright. Nobody genuinely cares what you have to say in the "free world" countries, what you're trying to actually say is those with power only hate free speech when it exposes corruption, instead you muddled your own message in conspiracy fears.

Even the sleazy NYT didn't say he lied. Nice editorializing. So they found a paperwork issue. Let 69 accountants pour over every detail of your life and lets see what they find. Hell, there are over 175,000 pages of federal regulation and even this liberal law professor estimates that the average persons probably commits 3 felonies a day and doesn't know it.

It's the subject of a book written by Harvey Silverglate. Here is the summary from Amazon (*note: I have not read this book):

>The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets. The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to “white collar criminals,” state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional democracy hangs in the balance.

Many people don't really know exactly what could constitute incrimination. People are committing crimes that they may think are innocuous actions of regular people. An interesting book was written on this : Three Felonies a Day : http://www.amazon.ca/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

Yeah, well she's a criminal illegal trespasser alien invader! She broke the LAW! Along with almost all Americans at one point or another!

Seems to be a book. Would like to know where she got her numbers though.

E: link to purchase book for anyone interested: https://www.amazon.com/War-Cops-Attack-Order-Everyone/dp/1594038759

You may have read it already, but this book (http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595581030) covers grounds similar to those your post does.

I don't know anyone who has been incarcerated, so until reading it I had no sense of the magnitude of the problem, or (though I knew that black and Aboriginal people were disproportionately over-represented in prisons) of the degree to which the current legal system amplified/perpetuated structural racism.

Stunningly fucked up situation.

Pretty sure he's doing this because his life is already over. He has a long rap sheet. The system only creates criminals, it does not rehabilitate them. Life outside is probably worse to him. And it's all on your dime.

So maybe adjust your attitude about how our system works?

This is simply not true. You should read The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.

You've got that right. We can start by legalizing all recreational drugs.

That’s what I’m saying. The laws don’t explicitly target Black people but they disproportionately affect Black people. It’s like what GOP strategist Lee Atwater said:

>Y'all don't quote me on this. You start out in 1954 by saying, "Nigger, nigger, nigger." By 1968 you can't say "nigger" — that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff. You're getting so abstract now [that] you're talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you're talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is [that] blacks get hurt worse than whites. And subconsciously maybe that is part of it. I'm not saying that. But I'm saying that if it is getting that abstract, and that coded, that we are doing away with the racial problem one way or the other. You follow me — because obviously sitting around saying, "We want to cut this," is much more abstract than even the busing thing, and a hell of a lot more abstract than "Nigger, nigger."

Bonilla-Silva has discussed this in Racism Without Racists, terming it “color-blind racism.” And Bobo et al have called it “laissez-faire racism”. And, of course, Michelle Alexander’s The New Jim Crow is popular as well on the topic. If you don’t want to read a book or article, Ava DuVernay’s Netflix film 13th is insightful too. Examples abound. Take a look at the disparity in sentencing between crack cocaine and powder cocaine. They’re essentially the same drug, but the former is more likely to be found in Black communities and the latter is more likely to be found in white ones, but the former has much harsher penalties. Or look at sentencing for marijuana. Surveys show that white and Black people use and sell it at the same rate, but Black people are put in jail for marijuana offenses at a rate of 20 to 50 times more than white people. So I’d point to the example of the war on drugs, mass incarceration, and broken-windows policing as ways that racism has evolved.

You'd be surprised that today, it's rare to be black in an all-white neighborhood. Even education today is more segregated than it was in 1968 (the height of the civil rights movement).

"White flight" has resulted in all-minority neighborhoods in America. This results in less funding for local schools, lower property values, and fewer businesses wanting to establish themselves in low-income, racially segregated areas. This means that even grocery stores that sell fresh fruits and vegetables don't want to be in a low-income, high-minority neighborhood, limiting their access to healthful foods. Instead, they rely on the local corner store that doesn't even primarily sell food.

There isn't just an unequal standard of living, but also unequal access to opportunity. Your network (from family to your college alumni) can be so important when you're trying to find a job, but if you couldn't afford to go to college and your family has always been working class, you're already set up to have unequal opportunities compared to the kid whose parents are lawyers or doctors. Even if you look in the news today, you'll see instances of discrimination by banks, hiring managers, and federal regulations.

If you're really serious about learning more about why it's more difficult to be Black in America today, I urge you to pick up a book. Here are some of my suggestions:

American Apartheid by Douglas Massey and Nancy Denton

The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander

The Shame of the Nation by Jonathan Kozol

It sounds like you need to do a lot of research on your own and have a lot to learn. It's not other people's job to teach you. However I would recommend this book The New Jim Crow. It also has an audiobook that I actually have and would be willing to upload if you wanted to listen to it. There were also certain practices like redlining which segregated neighborhoods, and the fact that the G.I bill which many veterans used after WWII to get homes and build capital was denied to African-American veterans. Also look up Stop and Frisk in NY. There's more to it you just have to be open to it. If you have any questions and you're seriously interested to learn please contact me. If you don't want to and just want to deny everything then please don't.

Yea I agree with you that he shouldn't so easily dismiss the non-violent incarceration rate that has been messing up the black family for decades. Also it's not just drug dealers that go to jail fyi. If you want more in-depth information on the incarceration problem in the US I suggest reading this book http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1595586431.

Now, as another red pill black guy I really had to have an open mind when watching this video because in the past O'Reilly has made one too many inflammatory and crude statements toward the black community, but after watching this video I do have to admit that he makes some very valid points about the community's deep-seeded issues.

However, I would have liked for him to back up his statements with some sources. I'm also sure his assessment of the problem and the solution is a lot more complicated than he tried to make it out to be. True, the disintegration of the black family and the high rate of children being born out of wedlock play huge rolls in the issues plaguing certain black communities, but there are also other micro and macro issues at play here that we really have to delve into to get the full picture - at least in my opinion.

The 40% claim is based on a study from the early 90s so it does need to be taken with a pinch of salt in light of probable attitude (and indeed police demographic) shifts since that period.

This said, while the statistic shouldn't be taken as ironclad fact it does serve a possibly useful rhetorical function when cited (in good faith, of course) in public discourse. IE, citing it to claim that 40% police today are indisputably domestic abusers is wrong, but using it to point to a clear issue with how the police encourages certain relationships to violence is legitimate. Used right it can problematise the police as an institution and question the legitimacy of their monopoly on violence. This gives the 40% meme some polemical use outside of the merely factual insofar as the questions it raises are being examined in serious scholarly works and deserve further attention. (For example Alex S. Vitale's [the end of policing] (https://www.amazon.co.uk/End-Policing-Alex-Vitale/dp/1784782890) is an excellent book I'm reading right now which touches on these topics.)

In terms of better statistics, there are qualitative studies ones which look at police organisational culture and how it breeds attitudes which can normalise violent behaviours amongst police officers such as police brutality, discriminatory attitudes and violent tendencies. Claire Renzetti's feminist criminology reader examines this from an external crime-management perspective (IE police attitudes causing problems in how domestic violence is policed etc.), but there's also [this] (https://www.law.virginia.edu/system/files/faculty/hein/armacost/72geo_wash_l_rev453_2004.pdf) comprehensive article by Barbara Armacoast that examines the relation between organisational culture and deviant/violent police behaviours.

There's a great book about this:

https://www.amazon.com/Terror-Factory-Inside-Manufactured-Terrorism/dp/1935439618/

Do they really though? I mean, at least on a subconscious level women must realize that rape culture is complete bullshit, otherwise they wouldn't go near universities. And they certainly wouldn't be comfortable getting shitfaced and going to sleazy clubs and bars. Fantasies of being raped (by some chiseled billionaire) are not the same thing as desiring to be raped, as you obviously know.

While your ideas are certainly interesting (as they come from a female perspective), I think a more mundane explanation is that feminists are running out of things to complain about, so they have to invent new crises. It's sort of like when the FBI or CIA manufacture then miraculously foil terrorist attacks by using agent provocateurs, entrapping mentally ill and borderline retarded Muslim youth in order to justify their bloated budgets.

I do think this point is correct though:

>The idea that a man wants you so much that he's willing to break the law and risk his future just to have you can be stupidly galvanizing.

Not to be unkind but a lot of feminists and women who attend "slut walks" are not very attractive. And as HL Mencken recognized a hundred years ago:

“The woman who is not pursued sets up the doctrine that pursuit is offensive to her sex, and wants to make it a felony. No genuinely attractive woman has any such desire. She likes masculine admiration, however violently expressed, and is quite able to take care of herself. More, she is well aware that very few men are bold enough to offer it without a plain invitation, and this awareness makes her extremely cynical of all women who complain of being harassed, beset, storied, and seduced. All the more intelligent women that I know, indeed, are unanimously of the opinion that no girl in her right senses has ever been actually seduced since the world began;”

You'll want to read the book then. Or don't, because it's pretty boring. Just take our word for it. Or ask the WSJ for examples.

Read the book The Law of Self Defense by Andrew Branca. It's a quick read - only about the first half is the actual text, the second half is the appendix (state laws, etc).

That one book completely changed my mind about situations like you mentioned. A good chunk of it's dedicated to defense of others, and it was a real eye opener.

My answer to your question: I wouldn't fire unless he turned his gun towards me. I'm not going to put myself in a position where a prosecutor decides to come after me because I shot someone that didn't even know I was there. I wouldn't yell at the criminal because that same prosecutor might twist that to mean I was the instigator.

The justice system isn't there to protect you, and you shouldn't count on it to agree with your opinion on what is morally correct.

Swing and a miss on so many levels. You're like the person who struck out on your first pitch.

As a forensic anthropologist with an emphasis in genetics, I can tell you specifically what science (anthropology specifically) says about this- race is a social construct that has nothing to do with genetics, and there's no such thing as "success" when it comes to culture or "racial groups" in science.

Here's a few books you can read up on:
Demographic Methods and Concepts

The Genetics of Human Populations


and for osteology:

The Human Bone Manual


This should clear up some of the bigger misconceptions you might have. I also recomment Svante-Paabo for ancient DNA work as well.

I have learned a lot from this one.

Good book for dealing with a cop's life and stress is

http://www.amazon.com/Emotional-survival-law-enforcement-officers/dp/0971725403

It is also good to give to significant others or family to help them realize what you may going through.

This book is a must read

https://www.amazon.com/Emotional-survival-law-enforcement-officers/dp/0971725403

These books have helped me tremendously through the hiring process so far. I took recommendations from friends and acquaintances in law enforcement and from searching through previous threads on this subreddit.

On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society https://www.amazon.com/dp/0316040932/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_GNK.ybMTBZKVX

Emotional survival for law enforcement: A guide for officers and their families https://www.amazon.com/dp/0971725403/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_EOK.ybR4XSKZY

Verbal Judo: The Gentle Art of Persuasion, Updated Edition https://www.amazon.com/dp/0062107704/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_EQK.yb1MWMEPV

I haven’t read it yet, but I’ve been recommended this book and have heard really good things about it.

Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement by Kevin M. Gilmartin, Ph.D.

No problem. Also, this is the book some of us mentioned. It's an important read for officers and their spouses.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

>In this case, I don't know if I agree. This statute was clearly enacted prior to electronic correspondence being a widespread communication method and as such does not cover it. The intent of the law, however, does seem to be to cover all methods of disseminating information in written form. The courts have extended such older definitions to cover electronic distribution in other cases to comply with the spirit of the law and such an extension would seem reasonable in this case.

I'm not talking about paper versus electronic though. If there's a PDF with "TOP SECRET" digitally stamped on it, then she'd still meet that element of the charge. Rather, the question is whether mental knowledge is encompassed by the statute. Mental knowledge certainly existed when the statute was written. If she wrote the information out herself, especially given her status as an original classification authority, it's very hard to prove a violation of section (f).

>And there is where we philosophically differ and is the underpinning of why we see this from opposing solutions. I don't agree with that tradition at all -- the POTUS should be held to the highest standards given the power and importance of that position. If there is evidence that they should be tried for a crime, then they should be tried for that crime and let the justice system work the way it is intended for every American. A POTUS candidate shouldn't get a pass on potentially illegal activity just because they are a POTUS candidate; it is that selectivity and elitism that has so many people up in arms about the disconnectedness of Washington insiders.

I think the reason I find this so troublesome is that the scope of Federal criminal law is so vast that everyone is guilty of something. If you start aggressively using Federal criminal law against candidates, you're going to convict all of them of something. And that gets you the past month in Brazil. Much like if you aggressively investigated almost any ordinary American you'd likely be able to convict them of something.

Exactly. And isn't this the real issue with 1984-type surveillance? What is that book? Three Felonies a Day - How the Feds target the innocent.

This is the book you're looking for: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

This lawyer says the number is around three per day for the average American, if they were all prosecuted per the letter of the law.

It's truly a frightening read.

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent https://www.amazon.com/dp/1594035229/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_xQJWAbP9CRZH6

I very much dislike selective law enforcement in situations where the prosecutor has a slam-dunk case. If it’s not practical to prosecute in all cases where someone runs afoul of the law, the government is basically putting the sword of Damocles over the citizenry’s head. Don’t you dare piss off a wealthy person or be black because that sword can fall at any time.


https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

> So basically same old government just now with drone regulation too.

Correct. Laws for us, none for them. Accountability is the last thing that any government agency wants. They HATE having the laws applied to them. That's why government agencies give each other free passes. The FBI very rarely applies the law (they refuse to investigate crimes that local police commit) when it comes to other agencies.

That is why discretion needs to go away. If facts support an investigation, and a citizen requests one, then the investigation should be done, or else the employees need to get fired with prejudice (no chance for re-hire).

It's the only way to get accountability and justice when the government is so content to violate citizen's rights.

>что в США все очень любят судиться

Ну, есть некоторые люди которые любят. Специально могут "поскользнуться" на ступеньке в магазине, например. А потом в суд.

Но в основном, нет. Большая часть людей идут в суд потому что нужно, а не потому что хочется. Например много разводов сопровождаются судом, потому что не могут миром поделить дом и время детей.

> некоторые законы написано чисто для того, чтобы поставить лоха незадачливого незнающего на деньги/срок.

На уровне штатов, наверное нет. Если не считать жестокие законы против наркоты.

На федеральном уровне - да. Кому надо, статью найдут. Но это для "особых" лиц (в большинстве случаев).

Вот хорошая книга про это - https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

Лично я на практике не сталкивался.

You might be surprised.

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

That is a very narrow view. Maybe read this book.

This segment of the comic, on strict liability, is about a 10 minute read. Stick with it, it's worth the read!

• Solid primer on what these legal terms mean, where they came from, and how they've evolved in the US legal system.
  
• Nice historical contextualization to the larger problem of runaway, crufty law.
  
• Couple of good Three Felonies a Day real world examples
  
  
• As an aside, check out A Crime a Day for exactly what it sounds like
  
  This ought to make a good educational share for those hanging out in the land of the Twittiots.
  
  edit: formatting

> Cue all the guys whining about how this will infringe on their right to peep.

[i]942.08 (3) Whoever knowingly installs or uses any device, instrument, mechanism, or contrivance to intentionally view, broadcast, or record under the outer clothing of an individual that individual's genitals, pubic area, breast, or buttocks, including genitals, pubic area, breasts, or buttocks that are covered by undergarments, or to intentionally view, broadcast, or record a body part of an individual that is not otherwise visible[/i]

Just need to find a person that cannot legally see without glasses and have another person bend over in front of them wearing a short skirt/kilt. At that point the first person can be arrested for a felony and needs to defend themselves.

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

Problem is that police use a tactic that almost guarantees that a victim will pick "the guy they like" out of the line up. They have the suspect somewhere where the victim can see them before the line-up inside the police station. Then they do the line-up. Victim has seen the "perp" in custody and figures it must be that guys. The victim picks their guy. Slam dunk and compelling as hell. Problem is that some of these folks then get DNA testing after being in prison for decades. Source: http://www.amazon.com/Actual-Innocence-Justice-Wrong-Right/dp/0451209826/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1452823186&sr=8-1&keywords=actual+innocence

The idea that you can't go to jail if you didn't commit a crime is incredibly wrong. Please read this book.

Further, merely being accused of rape or sexual assault will attach your name to rape or sexual assault in a google search. If you think that has no potential effect on future careers I think you need a wake up call. You don't get a chance to explain that you were falsely accused when you never get an interview.

It's from a book that's available to read free on the web.

I would encourage all marijuana activists to read it. If not from cover to cover, it's still very interesting to dip into for little gems like that Nicholson quote.

Switching on and off the hyper-vigilance required for his job can be exhausting. Sometimes Officers get caught in a routine of not talking about their problems. I suggest you read Gilmartin's "Emotional Guide for Law Enforcement". The book is spot on about what officers go through. I would encourage you to have your boyfriend read it too. He will feel like Gilmartin has been following him around and is writing about exactly what he goes through. Read it! It saves lives. Amazon link

You guys who shell up when off work might want to take a look at this: Emotional survival for law enforcement

Its pricey but a good read.

Emotional survival for law enforcement: A guide for officers and their families https://www.amazon.com/dp/0971725403/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_YCYyCbBVD98YT

I'll give the somewhat standard reading list (Standard as in these are the ones that come up the most)

Calibre Press Trilogy Street Survival, The Tactical Edge, and Tactics for Criminal Patrol. I'd be willing to bet someone on the department already owns them or even your department itself has them.

On Combat by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman

On Killing by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman

Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement

That ends the standard reading list, then I recommend this as well

Me Talk Pretty One Day-David Sedaris Because he is hilarious, and has nothing to do with police work in any way shape or form.

Dealing with criminal law is a lot like the process buying a car you don't want to buy. The best situation is to get out without buying anything (being found not guilty); but like a car salesman, the prosecutor gets paid to make you pay the highest price (jail time, court fines, etc.).

The problem is that, if you're caught up in the system, then you're likely guilty of the crime. I don't mean that as a criticism of people who get arrested as being "criminal scum;" I mean that there are so many goddamn laws in this country that the Library of Congress said that it's impossible to count them all. In all seriousness, it is not at all an exaggeration to say that law enforcement in the US follows the quote attributed to Lavrentiy Beria, head of Joseph Stalin's secret police in the Soviet Union, "show me the man and I'll show you the crime."

There are so many laws, and so many of them that are vague, that it's impossible for anyone to be in 100% compliance with all of them at all times. A good book on subject is Three Felonies a Day. Truthfully, Americans would be in greater trouble if law enforcement had the resources to more enforce the already existing laws. But since logistically they can't enforce all the laws, law enforcement instead just focuses on enforcing the laws against niggers, largely as a continuation of the racist policies we've historically held in this nation.

So everyone is guilty of something, and now you're caught up in the system. What do you do? Well, you could have your day in court to make the prosecutor prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you are guilty. But keep in mind that actual guilt or innocence isn't a component of the trial process. It's all about convincing the judge or jury that you're guilty. Understand that an estimated 4% of people on death row right now, those who have been convicted of capital murder "beyond all reasonable doubt," are actually innocent of the crime.

So your day in court isn't likely to go your way, especially when a lot of judges out there have the discretion to accept illegally obtained evidence. So if the police violated your constitutional rights in obtaining evidence against you, many judges will still be like, "meh, you still got caught, nigger."

So the system is most definitely stacked against you. But there is a saving grace: prosecutors are still human, which means they typically want the greatest reward for the least amount of work. So here comes the negotiation, or the "plea offer."

The plea offer is the rough result of a middle ground between likelihood of winning, likelihood of losing, and the potential punishment. As a super rough example, let's say you get busted for a crime that has a statutory 10-year jail sentence; but the case only has a 10% chance of actually resulting in a guilty verdict. So the prosecutor might say, "ok, in exchange for pleading guilty to the crime, we'll offer 1 year in jail."

That way, they still get the points for a "win" on their side, and you don't have to go to jail for the full 10 years.

However, if you decide to say "fuck that, Ima roll the dice because I have a 90% chance of getting out of here Scott free," then the prosecutor has to do more work to prepare for trial. If after your first court appearance you get the feeling that things aren't going your way and you might want to deal, then the prosecutor will be like, "aight nigga, now it's 5 years jail time instead of the 1 year we originally offered. That's what you get for invoking your constitutional rights."

So is the plea deal always the way to go? Well, that most definitely depends on your situation. I'm just saying that this is why a lot plea deals get pushed.

So is jaywalking, hypocrite.

If you're talking federal crimes:Three Felonies a Day.

This puts me in mind of a quote from Ayn Rand's Atlas Shrugged;

>"Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?" said Dr. Ferris. "We want them broken. You'd better get It straight that it's not a bunch of boy scouts you're up against - then you'll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We're after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you'd better get wise to it.
There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws.

>Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of law-breakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with."

More recently a book called Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent illustrated from the viewpoint of modern attorneys what Rand proposed as a philosopher. By the way, for those that object to Rand as a 'right winger' (or whatever), note that Three Felonies is written by civil libertarians in good standing Harvey Silverglate(1) and Prof. Alan M. Dershowitz.

Well, they were in good standing, except they stayed liberals while the Left moved on from them...

(1) You may know him as one of the founders of FIRE.

Three Felonies A Day

I have heard both, my uncle the city cop and, my cousin the county sheriff say exactly that, they assume everyone has done something wrong. And the thing is, they are right, what with 2.5 million laws on the books all of us commit 3-5 crimes each and every day.

https://www.amazon.com/One-Nation-Under-Arrest-Prosecutors/dp/0891951342/ref=pd_sbs_14_t_0?_encoding=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=64Y65XNKJS6XX7KD9SQH

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

"The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets. The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to ....."

If SES has historically been driven by race I feel that it is necessary to show that SES no longer continues to be driven by race, rather than the other way around.

However, we do have evidence that socio-economic status continues to be driven by race. Two popular works that are very well cited provide excellent examples of why this is true.

The first is Root Shock, which details the multi-generational impacts of disinvestment and community dis-location. I think it is fairly intuitive that if your grandparents are made poor you, yourself, are less likely to be rich. The real implications go beyond such simplified concepts as wealth. There are real, documented, health impacts that extend for multiple generations. When you look at historic inequities that drive current living conditions it becomes obvious that race continues to be a factor in SES.

The second is The New Jim Crow, when you look at the levels of mass incarceration of young black men and the impact of having a jail record on future job prospects I think that it is quite obvious that a new generation is being forced into an underclass. In addition to this felons are not allowed to vote in many US States, which adds another burden to civic participation.

Edit: Added links.

I'm not sure what makes you think the FBI would care about you looking into racial studies.

There are countless resources that discuss race issues you can look into.

"Black people commit more crimes than white people" - False. See next point.

"they have longer prison sentences than white people" - True. Often black people are arrested and charged more than white people, they are also more likely to get longer sentences, this is related to racial profiling and prison industrial complex.

"They have more economic hardships than white people" - True, that's how racism works. Our society is built upon white supremacy, in the US especially while black people were slaves white people were largely in power so in a position to create the laws and economy to benefit them, when slavery ended black people were left with less than nothing then faced with situations like Jim Crow laws and Redlining as well as general discrimination preventing them from working and building generational wealth. Racism and poverty are inherently linked, and there is a significant racial wealth gap.

"They are genealogically inferior to other races" - False. Race is a social construct, not biological, but in the past science was used to try to justify racism and some of the scientific racism ideas persist today. Whiteness as we know it today is different to what it has been in the past, for example Jewish people, Irish people, and Italian people were once not considered white, some Middle Eastern people today like Persians consider themselves white but others disagree, and an Indian man was seen as white.

"they have lower IQ/brain capacities than white/Asian people" - False. See above re. scientific racism.

Racism isn't just racial bias or thinking your race is superior to others, it's racial bias within our society/culture - we're conditioned to think certain ways about certain races, there are systems in place and history that means some races have more social power or influence than others - a person doesn't have to be screaming the 'N' word to be racist and simply believing all people should be equal isn't enough when society ensures we're not all equal ("In a racist society, it is not enough to be non-racist, we must be antiracist.” — Angela Davis).

You really need some RACE 101 resources, and to look into these issues yourself - as there is a lot to understand and race is complex, plus I don't know what you know or what you might need to know, also because I don't think I'm very good at explaining racism 101 stuff! Try these: Race, Are We So Different? or Race-The Power of an Illusion may help you, if you listen to podcasts try Seeing White – Scene on Radio, there are many great books like The New Jim Crow which will tackle some of the issues raised here. There are resources like various syllabuses that have been put together following recent issues with anti-black racism and police brutality in he US: Curriculum for White Americans to Educate Themselves on Race and Racism, Charleston Syllabus, and Ferguson Syllabus.

FYI : You cannot be 'a bit autistic', you're either Autistic or you're not.

​

​

I am late to the party and the OP here seems to have deleted his comment, but could someone link to the Harvard study and maybe post a screenshot of the deleted message (or is that a faux pas)?

FWIW, a couple months ago in a debate about race and violence I put together a few graphs based on what people have posited as factors behind gun violence (whole thread here). What shook out of that (admittedly weak/shallow) analysis was that gun violence by state fit really well with % African American by state. In the context of this thread, it seems like that's already a foregone conclusion, but it was a little surprising to me how tightly the data correlated. Hence, I'd like to read through this Harvard study since they likely would have done a much better job analyzing the data than I ever could.

Also, someone suggested an interesting hypothesis about gangs but the conversation sort of petered out. This inspired me to read The New Jim Crow and develop a better understanding about the complexity of these issues. I don't know if this is helpful to anyone else, but I figured I'd post a run down of things that have recently influenced my thinking about these issues.

You probably won't find someone to talk to you about feminism or BLM randomly in Starbucks, even in Harvard Square. Democracy center may be a good place, but I think the internet and books can be a pretty good source for to start with, so your in-person learning can be more meaningful for both you and the person who ends up taking the time to help you grow into it.


Feminism and BLM are both possible solutions to problems within society. Learning about the problems from the bottom up is a good way to have the necessary context to understand the movements.

The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander is a must read. amazon link
Michelle also has a good bit of writing on the internet that is accessible.

Speaking of writers on the internet, the tireless journalism of Shaun King has had a real impact in bringing police injustice and BLM to the mainstream, so I think he is a good place to start, too. His Soul Snatchers series, particularly his most recent installment about the NYPD and Bronx DA's criminal conspiracy against Pedro Hernandez is a must read.

Feminism can be hard on the internet, too, because there are so many kinds/sects/schools of thought, but I think it's still a good place to start. I think a good launchpoint is from a context that is close to you, as a man. This guide to how feminism is relevant to men seems like a good starting point. From there, I think learning about feminism by reading articles from a feminist perspective might be a good approach. Academic analyses about feminism are boring and probably won't keep your interest. My favorite source as far as trans-inclusive, pro-gay, pro-safe space feminism is Autostraddle. Yes, it's heavy on queer lady content, but I think it's a good website with years and years and years of content so you can find things that interest you. The politics tab is probably a good place to start, as you can read about issues you may have already read about from mainstream sources, from a more casual and feminist lens.

Good luck.

Maybe it shouldn’t be illegal? And the only reason it is, is so that laws can be selectively enforced on communities of color - specifically, black men - and serve as a surrogate race control measure in the absence of Jim Crow Laws?

Read a book.

Specifically, this one

educate yourself

I agree that many minorities were financially unstable and unable to get mortgages because of institutional disadvantages created by racism, like receiving poor education at segregated schools. That doesn't mean that financially unstable people receive mortgagees, even if they are unqualified because of reasons beyond their own control. The justice department started to enforce the CRA and fannie and freddie started to buy bad mortgages in the 90's, years after desegregation ended. The FHA offered zero downpayment loans in the early 2000's.

Their were racist institutional disadvantages facing minorities after desegregation, like [occupational licensing laws] (http://www.amazon.com/State-Against-Blacks-Walter-Williams/dp/0070703795/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373341935&sr=1-1&keywords=the+state+against+blacks ) and more importantly, [the war on drugs] (http://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1373341862&sr=1-1&keywords=the+new+jim+crow). These are some of the sources of inner city poverty. The solution is to end those disadvantages.

You have a point, but only because the breadth of law practically guarantees that everyone is guilty of something.

You're a fucking idiot.

You have nothing but ignorant assumptions that are mostly incorrect. You really sound like an awful human being from the two replies I got from you, to be honest.

Why don't you read this and get back at me: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

"people have been abusing our privacy for all of history, so why should we want to change that now that we have the means too?! get used to it!"

If you don't value your privacy, that's fine. That's your choice. Don't you dare go around acting like you're a superior person though because you are okay with letting any random person look into every facet of your life. And dont act like for a second that we shouldn't have the right to privacy just because you decided to give yours up.

Pro Tip: We have the 4th Amendment because back in England where they did not have something of that nature, you could be royally fucked over by the government. I dont know what types of crimes people did back then so I'll use a modern example. You get caught for drunk driving. Alright, pretty bad offense admittedly. Cops could then search your home willy nilly -- they had no privacy protection, and then they find some cocaine or marijuana. They find an unregistered firearm. They find whatever they can, they'll tear your fucking house apart looking for something and those 2 nights in jail turn into 7 years in jail.

You think that's not a problem today? Okay, how about the fact that the average person commits three felonies a day. There's an entire book written on the subject. Do you honestly, after reading this, feel safe with the government having unrestricted access to your entire personal life and knowing everything you say or do on the internet or phone or what have you?

1. You almost certainly DO have something to hide: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
   http://kottke.org/13/06/you-commit-three-felonies-a-day
   
   
2. We the People arguably have very little control over legislation, which leaves the "slippery slope" of prohibition and criminalization of ordinary things like putting lobsters in plastic bags: http://www.askheritage.org/how-can-we-fight-arbitrary-government/
   or opening lemonade stands: http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/03/the-inexplicable-war-on-lemonade-stands/
   entirely out of our hands.
   
   Therefore, if you almost certainly are a felon, or will become one if and when other ordinary things (diet soda, cigarettes, etc.) are criminalized, and the government records and tracks all of your communications, purchases, gps locations, etc., having "nothing to hide" today may get your door kicked in tomorrow.

Check out three felonies a day. The short version is that there are so many laws on the books now that it's pretty much impossible to go a whole day without breaking one. Allowing the government access to everyone's private lives opens the door for them basically go fishing - pick some guy at random, dig into his past in enough detail to find out what law(s) he's broken in the past few months, then put him in prison. In theory, it's supposed to be the other way around - the government can't start investigating you unless they have a specific, articulable reason to believe that you're doing something illegal.

Do you have any idea how many Federal Crimes are on the books?...durrrrrr

This is a great book for which you probably should read

"The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior. The volume of federal crimes in recent decades has increased well beyond the statute books and into the morass of the Code of Federal Regulations, handing federal prosecutors an additional trove of vague and exceedingly complex and technical prohibitions to stick on their hapless targets. The dangers spelled out in Three Felonies a Day do not apply solely to “white collar criminals,” state and local politicians, and professionals. No social class or profession is safe from this troubling form of social control by the executive branch, and nothing less than the integrity of our constitutional democracy hangs in the balance."

let me take a stab at it.

the thing is, africans brought to this country helped to build it. the u.s. would literally not exist as it does today without blacks.. they are as american as apple pie and yet many feel, for reasons like this, that they are not welcome in this country. at the same time there is a pride and a yearning for a connection to a land from which they were displaced. how to bridge these two feelings is tricky and it's something that only each person can decide for themselves.

but having brought them here some 400 years ago and having maintained their domination over them since, (again, read this) it's really not appropriate for white people, as a whole, to outline the contours of black identity. whether in how they name their children, how they dress, what they eat, whatever. even with the best of intentions, chances are that whites will step in it. Black History Month is well and good in one sense (again, the pride thing) but it also helps to highlight the subjugated position blacks have in this country for the rest of the year (the domination thing).

oh and generally speaking, slavery's having happened a long time ago doesn't mean anything. thought experiment: suppose blacks had been paid for their labor? suppose, with that income, they'd been able to own property and build wealth in greater numbers? suppose they'd passed that wealth down through generations? suppose the reconstruction hadn't happened to thwart whatever post-slavery economic progress was possible?

the point is the effects of slavery are still trickling down. and it's galling to have it glossed over the way that it is in this country. an honest accounting and an end to institutionalized racism would be healthy for the entire country, yet a modern president can't even suggest that he might apologize on the country's behalf for racism without a shitstorm.

so suggestions for animal print clothing to celebrate black pride from what i assume is a school with a majority-white administration is just dumb.

Ahem, please broaden your perspective, maybe start here: https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595581030/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1521228567&sr=1-1&keywords=the+new+jim+crow

The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness - Michelle Alexander

Preaching to the choir, man. You should check out Michelle Alexander's New Jim Crow. https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431

Changed my perspective.

I'd be interested to hear Grey's thoughts on Michelle Alexander's book, The New Jim Crow. It doesn't real with false confessions, but it goes over bias in the justice system. My (cynical) opinion as to why juries exist as they do is that juries aren't formed to find truth, they are about social control and promoting the dominant mode of thought.

Good book on this exact thing: https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431

Why do you hate Black Lives Matter?

EDIT: For anyone that wants a better understanding of why BLM exists, I suggest you read The New Jim Crow

I don't have a favorite, I have a long list of favorites. Listed below is a good starter selection. Lucifer's Hammer is the book that probably most directly led to the path I am on today. I have always liked science fiction and read it long before I would have ever called myself a prepper.


Fiction, to make you think:

• Lucifer's Hammer by Jerry Pournelle and Larry Niven
  
• Patriots: A Novel of Survival in the Coming Collapse by James Wesley, Rawles
  
• Lights Out by David Crawford
  
  Self Defense:
  
  
• Boston's Gun Bible by Boston T. Party (Kenneth W. Royce)
  
  Sustainable Living:
  
  
• The Encyclopedia of Country Living by Carla Emery
  
• Gardening When It Counts: Growing Food in Hard Times by Steve Solomon
  
• Ball Blue Book Guide to Preserving by Altrista Consumer Products
  
  Health and First Aid:
  
  
• Where There Is No Doctor by David Werner, Jane Maxwell and Carol Thuman
  
• First Aid -- Responding To Emergencies by the American Red Cross
  
  Free Your Mind:
  
  
• The Most Dangerous Superstition by Larken Rose
  

Check out https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00505UZ4G/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1

Tl;dr the average American commits three felonies per day. Anyone in the US can be imprisoned at any time.

It’s not all we have right now. It’s what’s in power right now and we can change that. We have the resources to do that.

And here’s one article from a while ago stating that


https://www.businessinsider.com/henry-blodget-you-commit-three-felonies-a-day-2009-9

Also a good book:

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent-ebook/dp/B00505UZ4G/ref=sr_1_1_nodl?ie=UTF8&keywords=three+felonies+a+day&qid=1415141894&sr=8-1

You might want to read Boston's Gun Bible for some great info and comparisons on battle rifles- particularly addressing the differences between the FAL and the M1A.

Also, pare off a bit of your budget for a Marlin 795 or Ruger 10/22 so you can actually get down your rifle technique before going .30cal.

> if they can legally disarm me, and I make it known that I don't consent, is there a case for me in the courtroom?

No, because they can legally disarm you.

When I say don't consent to any search, I'm referring to posts like this one from yesterday. The reason to do this is to capture for their dashcam/audio and your dashcam/audio that no searches have been consented to. That way if they do go beyond a Terry search you've got it on record.

Also, I recommend checking out the book You & the Police!. Much will have changed since this book was published, but as a basic primer on what the police can and can't legally do I believe it still remains relevant.

It's all a fabricated shame. This book does an excellent job of explaining what's going on beyond the kneejerk headline:
https://www.amazon.com/Terror-Factory-Inside-Manufactured-Terrorism/dp/1935439618

This is how they justify their budgets.

Read the book Amazon: Three Felonies a Day. Basically, it is impossible for any normal American to get through a single day without committing multiple felonies. The progressive discounting of mens rea by the state means that your intent or even awareness no longer matters.

Then why was Aaron Shwartz prosecuted over 'unauthorized use' of MIT computers? Anyway that is one example, as I said. It'd probably help to read the article I linked.

How about piracy? Another example. Drug use?

Maybe read some of these comments

The citation is Harvey Silverglate - a Harvard Law professor who published a book about it in 2011.

In general - the book was more about how mundane things we do everyday could be interpreted as a crime.

Here are a few examples:


https://mic.com/articles/86797/8-ways-we-regularly-commit-felonies-without-realizing-it#.rFrGFdLSt

Its that exactly. I recommend The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander for anyone interested in the topic.

> The US is responsible for vast numbers of human rights reforms around the world as it usually puts some standards in place when doing trade deals with other countries/regional associations.


And the U.S. also operated the Iraqi Abu Ghraib prison where the U.S. routinely tortured inmates and subjected them to humiliating acts of sexual abuse.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/30/world/meast/iraq-prison-abuse-scandal-fast-facts/index.html

The U.S. also operated (and still does operate) a series of underground interrogation sites (black sites) where we conduct "enhanced interrogations" that the U.S. Senate had even determined to be torture.

https://www.hrw.org/tag/senate-torture-report

The U.S., the "land of the free", has a higher percentage of its population constrained of their liberty (in jails/prisons) than any country in the entire world. The U.S. incarcerates its black population at a rate higher than South Africa during apartheid, the most openly racist regime in the modern era.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431

Despite the Geneva Convention banning the targeting of hospitals in war, the U.S. stormed the hospital in Fallujah in the first days of the Iraq war in 2004, and the assault on the hospital was even broadcast on the front page of the New York Times.



The U.S. runs Guantanamo Bay, where the U.S. holds individuals under indefinite detention despite never formally accusing them of a crime, in violation of a host of global conventions on the rights of the accused.

I could keep going and do this all day.

Don't get me wrong; I was born, live, and work in the United States. I legitimately love it here, and think we've done some great things. At the same time, it's incredibly naive to claim that the U.S. is responsible for "vast numbers of human rights reforms around the world" through trade deals or whatever.

The reality is that the US, like most western nations at this stage, has a pretty brutal and horrifying history of rights abuses.

Good lord. Someone needs some Michelle Alexander in their life. (For context: she wrote The New Jim Crow and is one of the scholars featured in Ava DuVernay's documentary 13th. If you haven't seen her work, you need to.)

The best book you could possibly read is a book called 'The New Jim Crow' by Michelle Alexander. It's about America's racist criminal justice system.

Eh, while I appreciate your reasoned approach to the issue, I think you’re misrepresenting the severity of the issue of racial disparities in policing. I can’t recommend The New Jim Crow highly enough as a meticulously researched, data-packed analysis of the issue and its historical precedents.

De facto slavery of African Americans actually continued after the Civil War through other legalized means: http://www.slaverybyanothername.com/reviews/tales-show-how-slavery-lingered-after-civil-war-atlanta-journal-constitution/

I recommend reading Michelle Alexander's "The New Jim Crow", which summarizes post-reconstruction-era slavery of blacks quite well in its introductory chapters.

I dare you to read this: https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1478788311&sr=8-1&keywords=the+new+jim+crow

PM me your email address and I will literally send it to you.

Regression: The right of former criminals. (also disproportionately targeting minorities for crimes)

This might take the form of "all 50 states doing this simultaneously" instead of "federally" but the results are the same. In the 20th century there have been many facets of the War On Drugs (WOD) and being Tough On Crime (TOC). The first big push happened under Nixon, then the second under Reagan.

When these two popular republicans were elected they consoled white working class voters that were put off by racial and economic issues. By saying you were "tough on crime" the presidents and almost every governor and state legislature was able to target minorities, or disaffected groups and make it look like they were doing something. These policies did little good, had disproportionate racial impact, and by that I mean they mostly targeted blacks for crimes that appeared equally among whites.

New ways people were hurt and rights turned back by being TOC:

1. Three strikes laws (more jail time for a third offense, even if you already paid society back for your previous offenses).
   
   
2. Mandatory Minimum Sentences (takes judge's authority away and punishes people more strictly than a reasonable person would deem appropriate).
   
   
3. The right of equal treatment for WOD or TOC offenses (see crack vs coke sentencing)
   
   
4. Mass incarceration in general (jail time for minor offenses, jail time for non-violent offenses, private prisons paying political donation money to politicians that promise to be TOC, race bating by politicians to get whites to vote TOC even if there is no more crime than before which was incredibly common).
   
   source: The New Jim Crow

Both very sad and interesting documentary. There is a real problem with the american justice system. I can't believe the judge told to this man's face "I hear you, and I can see you have been rehabilitated. But I will not release you today, instead I'll sentence you to a 40 years sentence"

For those interested, the book "The New Jim Crow" is a great read and explains a lot of things about the american mass incarceration problem and how black people have been targeted : http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431

The New Jim Crow

Once in a great while a book comes along that changes the way we see the world and helps to fuel a nationwide social movement. The New Jim Crow is such a book. Praised by Harvard Law professor Lani Guinier as "brave and bold," this book directly challenges the notion that the election of Barack Obama signals a new era of colorblindness. With dazzling candor, legal scholar Michelle Alexander argues that "we have not ended racial caste in America; we have merely redesigned it." By targeting black men through the War on Drugs and decimating communities of color, the U.S. criminal justice system functions as a contemporary system of racial control—relegating millions to a permanent second-class status—even as it formally adheres to the principle of colorblindness. In the words of Benjamin Todd Jealous, president and CEO of the NAACP, this book is a "call to action."

Called "stunning" by Pulitzer Prize–winning historian David Levering Lewis, "invaluable" by the Daily Kos, "explosive" by Kirkus, and "profoundly necessary" by the Miami Herald, this updated and revised paperback edition of The New Jim Crow, now with a foreword by Cornel West, is a must-read for all people of conscience.

One thing I meant to recommend and forgot was to buy and read this book:

http://www.amazon.com/History-American-Law-Third-Edition/dp/0684869888/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1407940051&sr=8-1&keywords=history+of+american+law

Bryan A. Garner recommends Friedman as a very good legal writer. Also, the content will give you more than a leg up in law school. It presents the entire history of and an explanation of American law. You will go into your classes with a deeper understanding than anyone else. Would make law school a lot easier, I believe.

Also, take some writing courses in undergrad.

I really enjoyed reading A History of American Law followed by American Law in the Twentieth Century, both by Lawrence Friedman of Stanford Law School.

Both Amazon Smile links (I choose the EFF):

• Fundamentals of American Law
  
• A History of American Law

This is considered the gunshot wound bible. Take a peek, I'm pretty sure it can be found in pdf form somewhere as well.

https://www.amazon.com/Gunshot-Wounds-Ballistics-Techniques-Investigations/dp/0849381630

You can start here if you have a legitimate desire to find empirical data on terminal ballistics. There is a looooooot of misinformation out there absolutely. My basic evaluation after all my own research is that shot placement is what counts. Hollow point pistol rounds are cool but don't have any advantage over FMJ in terms of terminal ballistics. Where the hollow point shines is its tendency to deform and stop inside flesh rather than pass through and cause collateral damage on the back end.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nycYxb-zNwc

Pistol rounds need to hit vitals to stop an attacker, there is no significant difference in caliber over a certain range so it would be safe to say that there is no significant difference in bullet construction in the same caliber.

I run hornady critical duty in my pistols of normal barrel length, and critical defense in my shorter barreled pistols.

No book will prepare you for law enforcement, it has to be touched, smelled, heard, and seen. If you're already a cop then the best thing you can do to be better is to be a well rounded human being and books can help with that.

Here's the recommended reading from some of the prior threads I was able to find in the sub.

1. On Killing
   
2. On Combat
   
3. Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement
   
4. Intro to Criminal Evidence
   
5. Blue Blood
   
6. 400 Things Cops Should Know
   
7. Cop: A True Story
   
8. [Verbal Judo] (https://www.amazon.com/Verbal-Judo-Gentle-Persuasion-Updated/dp/0062107704/)
   
9. [What Cops Know] (https://www.amazon.com/What-Cops-Know-Connie-Fletcher/dp/0671750402/)
   
10. [Into the Kill Zone] (https://www.amazon.com/Into-Kill-Zone-Deadly-Force/dp/0787986038/)
    
11. Training at the Speed of Life
    
12. Sharpening the Warrior's Edge
    
13. The Gift of Fear
    
14. Deadly Force Encounters
    
15. The Book of Five Rings
    
    I've read a good portion of the above listed. I highly recommend Emotional Survival and going to see one of Gilmartin's talks if he's in your area. Below are a few of my personal suggestions.
    
    
16. Meditations
    
17. Blink - Not sure if I buy it, but interesting to think about.
    
18. [Armor] (https://www.amazon.com/Armor-John-Steakley/dp/0886773687/)
    
19. Iron John: A Book About Men
    
20. The Dictator's Handbook: Why Bad Behavior is Almost Always Good Politics
    

It's not enough and it never will be...Our patients demand perfection and in many ways deserve it, but that's not reality. Reality is that we are imperfect persons working in an imperfect system, making choices with imperfect information, all in the hope that we are healing/helping imperfect patients. You must draw a line between your work and your life otherwise the negativity and toxicity of the work will taint the rest of your life. Unfortunately there aren't any books that talk about managing the emotional stress you will be exposed to in healthcare. I've found that books about dealing with the stress of law enforcement are a good analog.


I recommend:

Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement: A guide for officers and their families

and
Warrior Mindset: Mental Toughness Skills for a Nation's Peacekeepers


Best wishes; hope you find the strength and balance you're looking for.

The classic, age-old question. Money or fulfillment. For me, I balanced the two, chasing the money but at the same time finding fulfillment by looking adjacent to what I was doing to see who had a 'better' job in my industry/company.

One caution. Police officer is a very tough job, and it's not for everyone. In particular, if you have a lot of compassion for people and feel the things you experience deeply, my advice is look elsewhere for ways to help people.

Here's a great book on surviving as a first-responder. It's absolutely worth your time to read it and talk with some other officers - particularly those who are still on the beat and have been in-role for 10+ years.

Consider border control. The government wants to stop the flow of drugs over the border. It has its agents in place. The drug cartel offers one agent twice what he makes in one year to simply look the other way at 1:10pm. He does, the drugs pass through and he pockets the money for having done nothing but turn his head. While not all agents can be bribed, you only need one or two. And you can always find one or two. Hence corruption is nearly inevitable.

While that story is contrived, the next is a lengthy quote from "Why Our Drug Laws Have Failed and What We Can Do About It" by Judge James P. Gray, p. 51:

"We decided to test the effectiveness of simultaneously arresting every drug seller on the streets of an isolated city, and picked Phoenix for the exercise. Using more 'buy money' than Arizona had ever seen before, we bought into each street dealer we could find, two or three times each. It turned out that Phoenix had 76 drug pushers. In the middle of a weeknight, with the help of state and local police, we arrested all 76 at the same time.

For a week it was impossible to buy drugs on the streets of Phoenix. The single local drug treatment program was swamped. Addicts who could not get treatment left town to score elsewhere. But on the eighth day, new street pushers began to appear in the city, and before a month had elapsed, it was business-as-usual. We had spent tens of thousands of federal tax dollars, and sent scores of pushers to prison, but there was no lasting effect on the availability or price of illicit drugs."

Consider cocaine. The vast majority of users are white, yet the vast majority serving time are black. Why does the government focus so much energy on low-level crack users on the street, but doesn't go after the banks laundering the cocaine receipts?

The more you study the problem the more you realize that it's not about stopping drugs at all.

I'm not sure if this will help. But The International Crime Writers Association Links might offer something useful. Also the book Police Procedure & Investigation: A Guide for Writers (Howdunit)

Got a few bucks? ( $4.45 )

"With practical information and extensive detail, former PI Fallis uses real-life scenarios to show writers how investigative professionals gather evidence, interview witnesses, determine motives and find the answers they seek."

http://www.amazon.com/Just-Facts-Maam-Investigators-Investigation/dp/089879823X

I knew most of it, but it was handy, so I would recommend.

-------------------
This one handles the police end. ( I don't have it, so can't comment )

http://www.amazon.com/Police-Procedure-Investigation-Writers-Howdunit/dp/1582974551

-----------------
There's several more in their writers series. Do a search in Amazon for : howdunit for a bunch of books on crimes/investigations for writers. It's worth it if you plan on doing a lot of writing on these topics.

http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=a9_sc_1/176-6365676-1784133?rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Ck%3Ahowdunit&keywords=howdunit&ie=UTF8&qid=1452719352

Just gonna put this here.

You've also likely committed some chargeable fraud felony, securities/banking violation, etc. The point is with a fine enough microscope and the desire to look/charge, one can become a "criminal" guilty of serious felonies (we are talking years in jail potentially) without even trying (or even realizing it)

Suggested reading:

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1546698280&sr=8-1&keywords=three+felonies+a+day

http://ulrichboser.com/how-many-felonies-did-you-commit-today-an-interview-with-harvey-silverglate/

So, I was in contact with a lawyer / friend of a friend who is a federal defense attorney called Harvey Silverglate, and he did indeed write a book ago this exact topic. He's very passionate and has served on the board of the Boston ACLU for many years. Here's a link to it his book:

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1394428090&sr=8-1&keywords=harvey+silvergate

The average person commits 3 felonies a day.

Actually, on a serious note, I recommend this [book] (http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229) the premise of which is that no matter what you do, the structure of the modern legal system in the U.S. is so messed up that you can't NOT break it. Also, check out the related books. Liberal, libertarian, or conservative, it should scare the hell outta ya. ;) Just sayin'

>I don't remember asking them to go out and commit crimes.


I don't remember asking you to commit three felonies a day. Crime has been dropping yet prison population is increasing, the good factory job I had was taken by a prisoner making $17.85 an hour less than me. To get that job the prisoner had to be non-violent, so most likely a pot smoker is now making rims for GM for $0.15 per hour.


If you're so worried about your money why aren't you demanding that the criminals (Wall Street) that wrecked the economy pay for their crimes? Why arent' you demanding the police that confiscate property pay for their crimes?


Perhaps it's because you're a profiteer with the slavers?

Seize Google's databases. Sit on them. Find illegal activity in them (everyone is a felon: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 ) Blackmail your way to totalitarianism.

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

My estimate was a bit low.

That's almost certainly not true for you or the average person.

You should read the book Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

Three felonies a day!

Three felonies a day.

we are literally all criminals

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2014/11/04/david-barton-explains-how-you-could-be-committing-three-felonies-a-day

in principal i agree with you though, employers dont care what you are doing with your money, and more importantly do not have the ability to trace your money movements on the blockchain since adresses are not people and bitcoin is pseudo anonymous:

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

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

I haven't read it yet, but I've heard that Three Felonies A Day is a really good book on this topic.

That's just it: people who the cops like get "put that away"; anyone they don't like get arrested.

And I don't say that to criticize the police. In the abstract, people the police don't like are generally people who need arrestin'.

But you can see how the situation degenerates. If everyone is guilty of, say, three felonies a day, then each one of lives totally at the sufferance of the people in power.

> There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What's there in that for anyone? But just pass the kinds of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted - and you create a nation of lawbreakers - and then you cash in on guilt. Now that's the system, Mr. Rearden, that's the game, and once you understand it, you'll be much easier to deal with.
> — Floyd Ferris

It essentially comes from the vagueness of many laws (therefore open to interpretation). Stuff like unintentionally walking onto federally controlled land, conflicts between state and federal laws, wire fraud by lying or exaggerating about something on the phone, and yeah lots of copyright bullshit. If you are interested you can read this book:

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1496975217&sr=8-1&keywords=felony+a+day

By one count, the average person in this county commits three felonies a day. By your logic, no one should be allowed to vote.

The issue here is the disconnect between the perfect surveillance state and perfect law.

All forms of surveillance state are biased against the citizenry because of a very flawed way we make laws. Simply put, in the US, no one really knows the actual number of laws that apply to a citizen day to day. We do know the number is in the 10s to 100s of thousands. We are talking about laws just past days ago to laws from the date our country formed. There have already been countless cases where law enforcement wanted to make a case against individuals and dug around in books to find the exact one they needed. Three Felonies a Day touches on this with the federal government.

The problem here is you are using the most obvious felonies such as murder as you're example, but really murders are rare. This system will be used as a method to assess a huge number of tickets for mundane things. And with the disparities we already have in our legal system, they will be used to a much greater effect in places that do not have the money to fight such tickets.

You really have to understand the history of how US laws were allowed to be written by the supreme court. Lots of laws have been 'allowed' because enforcement was difficult, when enforcement becomes easy the law needs to be assessed.

Did you know the average human commits three crimes that the government could consider a felony per day?

Laws have become so complicated and vexing that if the government wants to make you a felon they can.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229/ref=nodl_

Three Felonies a Day

Well, maybe there are certain circumstances where the prosecution of an offense is of sufficient community interest that an unrelated lesser offense on the part of the victim is treated as if it were out of bounds for investigation or at least prosecution on due process grounds or by offering the victim official immunity in return for their testimony. For example, it'd be a bad thing if victims of human traffickers were deported before they could testify.

Three Felonies a Day description: "The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day."

Should reporting a crime and cooperation with the authorities in prosecuting it be an invitation for one's life to be investigated, taxes audited, etc?

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2203713

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

But why? Is there any good reason why that would be the case? Since we have the capability to write things down and refer to them later, shouldn't we want to increase clarity? As a lawyer and a significant believer that our criminal laws are in a severe state of overreach, I still think that the larger problem is vague laws, not too many or too confusing laws. When overzealous prosecutors bring questionable cases, it is almost never the case that they are making use of arcane laws that the defendant has never heard of. It is usually the case that they are applying existing laws to fact scenarios that the actors did not believe to be criminal. This problem is only made worse when we trade clarity for brevity.

I had the good fortune to acquire a free copy of the book Three Felonies A Day which I think is very much in the spirit of our discussion. If you have not already, I suggest that you read it, or at least some of it. It includes many case studies on malicious or overreaching prosecutions. I think you will notice that usually it is a vague bribery, racketeering, fraud, or similar statute that is used. These are not hidden and arcane, they are known to everyone, but they are so broad and vague that their contours are not easily defined and it is easy to come up with plausible arguments that innocent conduct falls within their ambit. I suggest to you that this is the much larger problem and we should not be so eager to trade clarity for brevity.

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1419846332&sr=1-1&keywords=three+felonies+a+day

> How about enforcing the Rule of Law...

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

Yes, I have.

Your article only talks about wrongly accused crimes, what about crimes that shouldn't be crimes? What about the expansion of federal laws to the point that accessing the internet incorrectly is a crime?

But not all crimes are immoral, you would be placing undue difficulty on people who are generally good but commit crimes that affect nobody.

Also if you start to eliminate most crimes, even minor divergence from the imposed norm are magnified. Until a person like you is impacted.

EDIT: the book Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent might be of interest to you.

This is true. Although it applies to all aspects of life in the US.

Three Felonies a day discusses this.

The average person commits three felonies a day. Are you prepared to face the consequences for those you've committed?

Three felonies a day.

> The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

"It is a violation of Federal Law to use this product in a manner inconsistent with its labeling."

Just one example of a law that probably everyone has violated. Did you hold the windex exactly 6 inches from the surface you were cleaning? No? Then prison.

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

> Well they shouldnt be committing felonies then.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

and yeah this seems like it could be solved by a congressman who makes his laws about removing/streamlining the code of law.

> This is probably true. But it has nothing to do with people going to prison for crimes they actually committed.

And which crimes are those? Running a red light in Florida on a short yellow? Buying crack instead of cocaine? Driving while black?

And what crimes did you commit today but went home in peace because not too many people are looking for what you may be doing or that you don't stand out in a crowd. How many times have you been frisked for walking around a large city?

Let's get this straight. If you murder some one, if you rape or beat someone, if you rob some one, fine, do the crime, do the time.

But what "time" is that? More than someone of a different sex, race, or religion? More time than someone who can rip off 1000's of people. More time than someone who affects the health and welfare of 1000's of people? How about those who can do it "legally."

> No offense taken.

Good, non intended. (Edit: Also note, the rest of this below is not directed -at- corduroyblack but to the community and society at large, he just happens to be the one I'm talking with about it.)

> I see where they're coming from.

Again no offense, but I doubt it. At least I doubt it in a "walk a mile in their shoes" sense.

I seriously doubt it based on your interactions in the original clusterfuck Belmont thread when others were calling you out to walk a mile on their shoes and you took serious offense, and I doubt it now.

And that doesn't make you a bad person, but either life experiences or some other factor would suggest that you have selective sympathy, but not empathy. And empathy doesn't mean approval either. But no, from your comments, I think you draw a very concrete line where you end, and where you picture other people begin and to what degree you can imagine trading places with them. It seems to be who you are which is why I phrase it the way I did.

> I just don't care.

Then you are part of the problem. You may have very good reasons. But you are part of the problem. Until we stop, as a society and pretend like these millions of individuals are literally just millions of cases of "individual choice" and not a symptom of much larger problems, then we are not likely to do anything about that.

> I worked with incarcerated individuals and juvenile delinquents for years.

And I worked with people who could have become delinquents but either there was someone there to make a difference (like myself), or their environment was a lot more stable than many other people -- which again justifies nothing per se, but approaches it from a macro level. Anecdotes are great, they help us identify with a problem, but neither your nor my experiences could account for an "1 in 8" statistic.

> They're the reason I don't do criminal law now.

No, I think that reason would be that if you were a public defender, then the system is screwing you as well and you have my sympathies.

If you weren't, then perhaps that job is something that most people don't have the stomach for long term. There are also plenty of people who work in difficult situations like that and still believe in their fellow citizen despite being betrayed by individual ones. I'll give credit where credit is due to those people because not everyone can and they may more than either you or I.

> I have little sympathy or patience for people making excuses for their own adult behavior.

And you know what I have little sympathy nor patience for?

The excuses that we make as a society that suggests that some people need to play by the rules and other people will never, ever have to play by the rules no matter how hard you try and catch them. And that seems to have a very direct correlation with money and power. So each election cycle we go for those who are "tough on crime" and shy away from actual problem solvers because it might take "my money" and give it to someone else. Of course I'm oversimplifying, but its a classic example.

I think the hyper-focus on the "individual" past a basic lawfulness is ridiculous and any of your response does not account for why we have the highest incarceration rate in the world. When we see the basic social contract fail, you honestly are going to get into the individual "excuses" as the root of the problem?

Its the same reason why micro-economists may not make good macro-economists nor understand the larger regional, national or world economies. I can appreciate you were a lawyer with a difficult time. My condolences. Still doesn't refute anything I've said. I'd say if your heart wasn't in that field, its best you did give it up and move on for your own sake. Your personal experiences still don't answer the question of why we have 1 in 8 African American men in prison.

> Excuses are like assholes: everybody's got one and they usually stink.

You're right, they do. And the trite "personal responsibility" excuse for explaining a larger social problem stinks equally as well. So do thought terminating "catchy phrases" And suggesting that people are making "excuses" when in fact we will have to unpack all the baggage that we as a society have before we can roll up our sleeve and as how "we" collectively went wrong, instead of asking where "they" went wrong and just suggest they "stop doing that."

Then "maybe" we might start getting somewhere.

This is selective prosecution/enforcement at its finest. There are tons of federal crimes and regulations for corporations, and only a handful of federal prosecutors. So if you piss off the administration they will find a law that you have broken and make it stick.
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/product-reviews/1594035229

Sure thing. Study and WSJ Article

There is a whole book written about it:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1594035229

Yeah you're right, no one innocent has ever been to jail. Clearly if the police accuse you of something, its 100% chance you did it, let's just get rid of courts! But seriously, there's a lot of people in jail for bullshit offences. You can be thrown in jail for not paying child support on time, and they still expect you pay while locked up. We have prostitutes and nonviolent drug offenders all together with rapists thieves and murderers in some cases. Just because you commit a crime (in a country where apparently on average people commit 3 felonies a day without knowing it, check out the [book] (http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1594035229) ). Doesn't mean you should be dehumanized, especially since we will likely start locking up political prisoners soon enough.

It is racist when you don't consider why it occurs and, instead, associate it with blackness and black culture when, in fact, it has more to do with poverty, policing, and racialized, if not flat out racist, policy and policy enforcement.

I'd check out some books like The New Jim Crow, The Condemnation of Blackness, As Long as They Don't Move Next Door, Punishment and Inequality in America, Prisons of Poverty, and Punishing the Poor. I know of very few criminologists who would say that crime is a racial thing, instead, it is the enforcement of crime that is racial and it is the income disparity between blacks and whites that causes us to see higher rates of crime amongst blacks in America.

Sounds good but in practice...

In reference to stop and frisk tactics in New York:

> Weapons were seized in 1.0 percent of the stops of blacks, 1.1 percent of the stops of Hispanics, and 1.4 percent of the stops of whites.

> Contraband other than weapons was seized in 1.8 percent of the stops of blacks, 1.7 percent of the stops of Hispanics, and 2.3 percent of the stops of whites.

First result when I googled "stop and frisk success rate"

The downright low success rates of these tactics were detailed in the book The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.

You can read about it yourself.

http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595581030

The criminalization of counter culture and free thinkers is just a happy side effect of the effort to implement a formally colorblind but effective racial caste system.

Seriously, read this book http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595581030

The opponents of civil rights simply shifted their focus into being "tough on crime." This obsession with so called 'law and order' has been massively successful in its aim, even civil rights democrats embraced it.

For those of us who aren't Canadian cell phones

Must reads:

Slavery by Another Name: The Re-Enslavement of Black Americans from the Civil War to World War II https://www.amazon.com/dp/0385722702/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_B0KwDbBN2MT7W

The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness https://www.amazon.com/dp/1595586431/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_50KwDb9M4ECGM

You can start with books like this?

1. Police officers have been caught using their systems to bully their ex lovers.
   
   
2. US government plot has been exposed whereby they would use the porn habits of political opponents to discredit them.
   
   
3. You have broken federals laws and you don't even know it. In the future it will be easier to convict you of crimes you didn't know you commited using better data processing software. source
   
   
4. If you start speaking out against the government, example you don't like something Trump or Obama does, the government will have a record of every action you have ever performed to fuck you over and black mail you.
   
   The CIA blackmailed Martin Luther King.

Archives for the links in comments:

• By whygrendel (twitter.com): http://archive.is/okAPu
  
• By hga_another (en.wikipedia.org): http://archive.is/tJBH0
  
• By hga_another (en.wikipedia.org): http://archive.is/tJBH0
  
• By mcantrell (heavy.com): http://archive.is/IrdK8
  
• By hga_another (amazon.com): http://archive.is/upiJb
  
• By hga_another (twitter.com): http://archive.is/IqwFq
  
• By Cinnadillo (dictionary.com): http://archive.is/z3Qos
  
  ----
  I am Mnemosyne 2.1, Watch out for moon rocks! ^^^^/r/botsrights ^^^^Contribute ^^^^message ^^^^me ^^^^suggestions ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time ^^^^Opt ^^^^out ^^^^of ^^^^tracking ^^^^by ^^^^messaging ^^^^me ^^^^"Opt ^^^^Out" ^^^^at ^^^^any ^^^^time

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

Older book but very interesting read.

Edit:
When everyone is a criminal, the people who decide who to pardon hold supreme power.

And they can put anybody away if they want: the typical American commits 3 felonies a day.

unless you have deep pockets for good lawyers

>I'm not talking about assessing risk, I'm talking about knowing something is illegal and still doing it.

But we have to discuss risk assessment, because people do illegal things all the time. "The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day." And beyond US law, it sounds like you're saying people also need to make sure they're not violating laws of all other countries with which their country has an extradition treaty. That's an awful lot to ask, especially of a teenager or someone with a mental disability, don't you think?

I mean, heck, you were in this thread about the king of Thailand. So you know that under Thai law, it's illegal to insult the king of Thailand, and you can get up to 15 years in prison. Did you know that the US has an extradition treaty with Thailand? Did you research how it might apply to reddit posts? Do you refrain from insulting the king of Thailand on reddit for fear of being extradited, or did you assess the risk as low?

Because once we've established that risk assessment has to be considered, then it's entirely appropriate to consider evidence that someone's ability to assess risk is impaired.

>And I don't think folks should not be subject to going to jail because they have a depression.

Even if expert witnesses testified that the person is likely to commit suicide? Then you're advocating for the death penalty even though the judge didn't impose it.

> there is no point on having laws,

Laws should exist. unethical laws should be subverted. There is no uptopian future, war is eternal, new laws will always be created and old laws always be subverted.

>if anyone can decide which laws are unethical and should not to be obeyed

Every individual can choose to decide to subvert the laws if they believe they are unethical and deal with the consequences in doing so.

> It only provides a way to make illegal payments

Bitcoin , like physical fiat , is very fungible , so it can be used for whitemarket purchases as well .

>including ransom, trading stolen cards and identities, laundering stolen money, running all sort of scams, corruption, sabotage, murder, ...

Like popular fiat currencies, yes.

>people were staking their lives, the two sides had to hide or fight,

Agorism and Counter-economics is a form of war too , with a lot at stake.

>You cannot expect to live within a society in peacetime while ignoring its laws

If you don't believe that everyone ignores laws all the time and this is the status quo we currently live in, with or without bitcoin, than you are delusional .

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

>expecting the government to protect you "right" to break its laws

no one is suggesting this. i expect states to try and regulate and eventually attack bitcoin more directly.

Technically speaking, you're a criminal too. Whether you've been convicted or not, you've committed crimes, so you're a criminal.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

The system is designed for this. Border crossing is not a felony and we don't take children away from people convicted of misdemeanors. Even felons almost always keep their kids.

Yeah, as the other guy said. This book is about how many felonies the average person commits daily.

That quote of "3 felonies a day" is from a book with a misleading title where examples are never even given of these "common felonies". The book is about high profile politicians.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1382543575&sr=8-1&keywords=three+felonies+a+day

There is a great book on this subject, highly recommend it:
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

I don't know how true it is, but this book covers the idea for the federal government.

So you looked up pictures of dud 12 gauge shells, fired .270 brass cases, and muzzleloader bullets... only the box of Winchester .40 cal rounds are ammunition.

>Dude broke the law. He's not innocent. Not saying that the raid wasn't overkill, but he did break the law.

People break the law all the time, in fact, you broke several laws today. Guess you deserve to be bent over and have a broom handle shoved up your ass. What they did to this man is ridiculously disgusting. They swat raided a family expressly to terrorize them. They significantly damaged his house and possessions. They are prosecuting him for having a few rounds of miscellaneous "ammunition". Do you have any idea of how many Americans have at this moment a loose round of ammo unknowingly wedged in their ass crack? Don't bother contemplating on the number of car trunks with a loose round rolling around, it's a shitload. Oh he broke the law alright, a petty infraction of an immoral and unjust law.

>Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier reserves such harsh tactics for ordinary citizens. When NBC News anchor David Gregory violated the gun-registration law last year by wielding an illegal 30-round magazine on live television, he was not arrested.

Notice that David Gregory didn't get bent over and swat-teamed. He too broke one of your precious laws, but apparently they don't apply to a house organ of the authoritarians.

There's a great book on this subject called "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent."

The fact that the NSA is being governed by a court appointed by an unelected official is disturbing in and of itself. The fact that they are legally violating the 4th amendment is terrifying. I fully understand the NSA.

As for what you could be doing wrong, take a look at this book called three felonies a day.

It is unbelievable to me that a (I'm assuming) United States citizen would be unconcerned about an unauthorized secret organization that scoops up all of the worlds data and does unknown things with it. At the very least you should be concerned that your data could be acquired by a hacker and used to manipulate your entire life from top to bottom. With the profiles that NSA is reportedly building, anyone with sufficient social engineering skills could rip your life apart and destroy any semblance of sanity you currently have.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

I think 3 felonies a day is probably a bit of an exaggeration but I think it's absolutely true that every adult in the country unknowingly commits felonies regularly.

Again though, when entire categories of crime are being created for expressly political reasons, and when daily life is so overcriminalized in general that practically anybody can be jailed at cops' and prosecutors' discretion, focusing on whether or not any specific person is being jailed "for political reasons" is already missing the forest for the trees. The broad scope of political repression in the US as enforced by agencies like the FBI is impossible to gauge in real time, except to the extent that information about programs like COINTELPRO has been leaked or declassified — after all, we only know the scale of Soviet repression because of similar leaks and declassifications by the USSR — but even on a more immediate level, despite my right to free speech I'd be genuinely terrified of what might happen to me if I were to put a "fuck the police" or "cops are gangsters" bumper sticker on my car, not just at the hands of cops themselves but also at the hands of cop-sympathizing civilians.

The genius of the US system as a matter of PR is that my formal "freedom" to express political views like that in theory can coexist perfectly well with my actual unfreedom to express them in practice, and plenty of US nationalist ideologues (maybe even the same ones who'd gladly smash my taillight for an anti-police bumper sticker) would still gladly argue that the formal freedom is what defines the US as a society, and the actual unfreedom is irrelevant.

Yeah, part of me thinks felons being banned should only apply to violent crime, especially when you account for the 3 felonies a day theory.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1594035229?pc_redir=1406792637&robot_redir=1

Ironically, Three Felonies a Day is mostly about how unfairly broad the law is to white collar defendants. A sample review from the Amazon page:

> Thought this book would be about the common person getting rolled by the feds. Instead, it's a bunch of stories about Wall Streeters and politicians that get nailed; people I couldn't care less about. Couldn't relate.

What's a "trumpkin excuse"?

Anyways, educate yourself, it doesn't require a fancy degree and $200k in student loans debt:

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/test-9

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/26/black-suspects-more-likely-to-be-shot-by-black-cop/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/13/why-a-massive-new-study-on-police-shootings-of-whites-and-blacks-is-so-controversial/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-are-so-many-black-americans-killed-by-police/

https://www.amazon.com/War-Cops-Attack-Order-Everyone/dp/1594038759

https://www.amazon.com/War-Cops-Attack-Order-Everyone/dp/1594038759/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1481293424&sr=1-1&keywords=heather+macdonald+war+on+cops

The new Jim Crow.

Read The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness for details, it is very thorough, well sourced and the reasoning is very sound.

The two main ways (but not limited to) that laws are selectively applied to people of color are related to drug possession laws and forfeiture laws.

The basic premise is that studies have shown time and time again that white people use drugs at approximately the same rate or higher than people of color, yet the laws are highly disproportionately applied to people of color.

Forfeiture is another form of disproportionate application of law, where people are profiled by the police and are then searched under threat of violence and then the police take their cash.

This is just the tip of the iceberg. If you want another good book that explains the scam in an even broader historical context then try reading The Peoples History of the United States.

Is this when we all share our anecdotes and draw conclusions about the ideal behavior from them?

Seriously, this depends on

• The cops in your area
  
• What you have on you
  
• Race/Gender/Looks
  
• The whims of fate
  
  Without a study with significant sample size, we're more or less just full of it. As of now all I can say statistically is to hope you're white (sorry, but it's true). Those links are lazy searches, but there are good books that support it.
  
  Anyway, this is just one of those things which in the absence of good empirical data you just have to play to your strengths. If you don't know the law (and you should, the basics aren't hard) then perhaps the honesty attempt will help with nice cops, there are certainly anecdotes to support that. If you geek out about the difference between detainment and arrest, do your best lawyer impression.

If anyone thinks racism is gone, check this book out. It's not an affiliate link, just want to spread awareness.
http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595581030

Thanks for the response.

Then let me be clear, I think the country has made great strides in the last 50 years. But, we still do have state racism within our justice system. If you are interested in learning more about the role of institutionalize racism, I encourage you to read

• The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander
  
  
• Racism without Racists by Eduardo Bonilla-Siva
  
  
• The Condemnation of Blackness by Khalil Gibran Muhammad
  
  
• Brainwashed: Challenging the Myth of Black Inferiority by Tom Burrell
  
  As for the genes of Black Americans, they are still an estimated 80% African on average.

If anyone is interested in how the War on Drugs is wrong and the criminal justice is flawed, read The New Jim Crow. Excellent book.

This is a cool article...you all should also take a look at this book: "The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Era of Colorblindness.". It also says a lot about this issue.

there's all sorts of literature about living in a "post-racial" society. "the new jim crow" by michelle alexander comes to mind.

https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/16/politics/blacks-white-racism-united-states-polls/index.html

This shows the divide.


This is a full study on it from pew.

http://www.people-press.org/2017/10/05/4-race-immigration-and-discrimination/


This speaks about police and justice reform that is needed

https://www.joincampaignzero.org/

This talks about racism that happens to Asian people.
https://psmag.com/news/ghosts-of-white-people-past-witnessing-white-flight-from-an-asian-ethnoburb

And if you would like to educate yourself more about race in the US.
these books are a great start

Dog Whistle Politics: How Coded Racial Appeals Have Reinvented Racism and Wrecked the Middle Class


So You Want to Talk About Race

The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness

White Rage: The Unspoken Truth of Our Racial Divide

White Trash: The 400-Year Untold History of Class in America


I see where this convo is going. And I will reference you to literature that will help for you to expand your knowledge on race and class in this country. There isn’t a reddit post in the world that can wholly give you the full picture on what’s wrong with race in America but these books give you a great starting point. Good luck.

The situation you presented is clearly a catch-22 though. If these things are felonies what reason would a person have to seek help when they could be easily locked away for doing so?

I understand your burden argument. But you must know it costs, on average, 44k/year to incarcerate a person. That seems, in my view, to be a far larger burden then forcing them to seek help and providing them with the basics to start their life. I am also in favor of a Basic Income for this reason, it is simply cheaper than the alternative.


I disagree with your point that legalization/decriminalization would increase use. In fact the study of Portugal proves that contention is incorrect. We could, in theory, still coercively get these people to mental health and social workers. Because sure locking them away solves the problem temporarily, but what happens when the get out with a record? They're not going to get a job that is for sure. I reccomend you read The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness.


This is in part why our recidivism rates are so high, you leave people with little other choice and prison in this country is obviously used to exact revenge not rehabilitate people.

If you really want to have an understanding of this topic, I think you should read this book. It explains everything in painstaking, referenced detail that I don't have nearly enough the time or patience for.

ah, you're looking for the statistics. i can oblige.

>Do you not see how the welfare system correlates at all?

nobody sees how the welfare system correlates at all. it's a non sequitur with no argumentation actually presented, going on about lyndon b johnson, when it's clear the problems are actually a) much more difficult and complicated than nthat, and b) much less to do with lyndon b johsnon.

but i digress.

• http://www.nbcnewyork.com/investigations/NYPD-Officers-Arrest-Quota-Exclusive-Interview-Pressure-Numbers-374077091.html
  
• http://www.vox.com/2015/5/28/8661977/race-police-officer
  
• http://www.vox.com/2016/7/8/12128858/police-racism-officers-admit
  
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2014/12/06/i-was-a-st-louis-cop-my-peers-were-racist-and-violent-and-theres-only-one-fix/
  
• http://theconversation.com/slow-death-is-the-trauma-of-police-violence-killing-black-women-62264
  
  >“These killings come on top of other forms of oppression black people face. Mass incarceration of nonwhites is one of them. While African-Americans constitute 13.1% of the nation’s population, they make up nearly 40% of the prison population. Even though African-Americans use or sell drugs about the black rage hillsame rate as whites, they are 2.8 to 5.5 times more likely to be arrested for drugs than whites. Black offenders also receive longer sentences compared to whites. Most offenders are in prison for nonviolent drug offenses.”
  
  of course, the education system and the structures of capitalism are all parts of the problem. they are simply one element of a racist system. the police and justice system form another, extremely important part. i don't see what this has to do with a "welfare system" from lyndon b johnson being the problem, i don't see why you can't figure out that your "sigh, if only black people would listen to me" story doesn't make you sound like a fucking dickhead. but let's move on.
  
  
  
• Black-on-Black homicides have decreased by 67% in 20 years, a sharper rate of decrease than white on white homicide.
  
• According to FBI statistics 7361 Blacks were killed by fellow African-Americans in 1991. In 2011, it dropped dramatically to 2447 African-Americans.
  
• Among Black youth, rates of robbery and serious property offenses are the lowest in more than 40 years.
  
• Five times as many Whites are using drugs as African Americans, yet African Americans are sent to prison for drug offenses at 10 times the rate of Whites.
  
• Controlling for other factors, including severity of the offense and prior criminal history, white men aged 18-29 were 38% less likely to be sentenced to prison than their Black male peers.
  
• African Americans were two times as likely to be arrested and almost four times as likely to experience the use of force during encounters with the police.
  
  source: http://www.demos.org/blog/7/29/13/myth-black-black-crime-epidemic
  
  why is this relevant? it shows the black crime rate is decreasing. if the black crime rate was the primary factor in why police target and kill black people, we should expect that the rate of police killings of black people should decrease too. and yet, they aren't.
  
  here's also a key link.
  
  institutional/systemic racism is not magically confined to one area or one cause or one system. but that doesn't chagne the fact that cops killing people is the problem, and as mapping police violence proves, is uncorrelated with black crime, or violent crime in general.
  
  perhaps you should read The New Jim Crow so you can actually understand the issue before you start talking bullshit. to be honest, your argument is so unclear that it's hard to argue directly against what you're presenting, instead of arguing at what you seem to be supporting.

Silly me, I'm such a peasant with my [conspiracy theories] (https://www.thenation.com/article/hillary-clinton-does-not-deserve-black-peoples-votes/). You are lord god almighty with your masters degree, what do I know and what does [Michelle Alexander know about HRC's racism] (https://www.amazon.co.uk/New-Jim-Crow-Michelle-Alexander/dp/1595586431)? This is obviously a conspiracy theory funded by Karl Rove!

You really need to read some history and educate yourself on the realities of militarized policing and the treatment of black Americans.

Here are some suggestions where you can get started:

https://www.amazon.com/Slavery-Another-Name-Re-Enslavement-Americans/dp/0385722702

https://www.amazon.com/Rise-Warrior-Cop-Militarization-Americas/dp/1610394577

https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431/ref=pd_bxgy_14_img_2?ie=UTF8&psc=1&refRID=37DDCSH6HQ7WTMAV25ZF

This is a poor format to have this discussion.

There is a great deal of research into this subject that will be difficult to summarize in a Reddit comment but I will try.

The first is that most schools are funded by local property taxes if you live in a poor area your schools get less funding then the rich areas.

The second is that Drug Laws are disproportionately enforced in poor areas leading to ridiculous incarceration rates. And even after you get out we put a lot of effort into making it almost impossible to reform yourself after you get a criminal record. Almost all crime can be traced back to poverty related issues.

Poor areas are used for tax generation through the Justice system in many areas leading to breakdowns in trust between the police and the community. This also helps feed in to the poor get poorer cycle.

I am not going to bother listing all the evil shit we did before the civil rights era that resulted in most black people being poor in the 70s.

This is all fairly thoroughly documented and researched. If you want me to look up sources/documentaries on these please ask and I can find them for you.

I would recommend this as a good starting point if you are curious.

TLDR: In the past it was public policy to make black people as poor as possible, and In our current system if you get poor you tend to stay poor even if the originating factors are removed.

http://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1458154494&sr=1-1&keywords=jim+crow+law

/u/NeoDestiny If you're interested in a book discussing the justice system's unintended consequences on black youth I strongly recommend The New Jim Crow.

Yep.

But that's from so long ago.


You're right but still after MLK's days.

But that's not a reputable source, it's only hearsay.


Damn, got me there guess I only have hearsay sources.
But that's not real racism you start to type that's only against illegal immigrants and Jews.


Oh well, guess I don't have any statistics.
But those are the outliers...


Guess I'm all out of links.

Not bullshit. Read The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander for more info.

A reference to this, I assume.

(Coincidentally, I have a copy I got for free in a criminal procedure class, but have yet to get around to reading it.)

Serious question: you complain to a friend about the weather being 110 degrees, and your friend says "that's nothing: it's 130 in the Persian Gulf right now." Be honest, your response is a) "wow man, thanks for that perspective. Really changes how I feel about going outside today." Or b) "how the hell does it being 130 degrees in Bahrain make 110 degrees any more comfortable for me right now?"

So it was bad for Black people in the 50's and 60's. White people need to stop saying that.

A problem that's fairly new is everyone can see how everyone else lives now. The data is in: systemic racism is not a debatable point.

When young disenfranchised Black people reach out to young disenfranchised White people only to have young disenfranchised White people lash out with inanities about the 60's, it makes all of us less safe.

Yes, things have gotten worse for young white people since the 60's. Things have gotten better for young Black people since the 60's. Black people are still fighting for things White people don't even have think about.

Y'all know there's been civil rights books written for our day since MLK, right? Read some Eric Lamont Hill or some Michelle Alexander for chrissake.

Most importantly, White people turning a blind eye to systemic racism (or worse, punching downwards) ensures two things: that the people in power stay in power, and that violence will happen.

It is a fundamental strategic reality that if you kill Martin Luther King Junior, you will get Malcolm X. People will be heard one way or another.

You are basing your argument from your conclusion. Let's take this in order.

> You can create hypothetical future scenarios as much as you'd like (ignoring the reality of alcohol and crime) but it is fantasy.

Advocating for policy changes that are sensible and match what other civilized countries are doing is not a fantasy. Calling it such shows your inherent contempt for change, for whatever reason.

> Drug users have a huge economic need and maintaining a drug habit with a work schedule is next to impossible. Often drug users must resort to criminal means to supply very expensive drugs on a reoccurring basis.

Perhaps you've been victimized by a drug user. I am sorry if that is the case. But the crime of theft, robbery, or worse, is separate from the crime of drug possession, purchase, and use. Those truly are without a 3rd party victim in the way theft and robbery are not. Although you will not believe it, I promise you that the majority of drug users are not criminals apart from their drug use and are not addicts either. You are conflating addiction with use, a common mistake. Here's a start on that

> Often dealers are allured to the money but get attracted to the drugs. They begin to use also. Suddenly you're carrying a gun to 'protect yourself from others', which is often sold behind doors. Now you have a powerful, drug addicted, fearful person with a gun watching their back. No wonder so many lives are lost in the fight for revenge or money.

Again, these crimes are separate crimes. That drug sales and use led to them is obviously a problem with drugs, but if drugs were sold in Wal-mart next to the beer and wine, there might be a different story. If drug addiction was treated like alcoholism, there might be less crime, less criminals, and less economic waste.

Your explanation for the downward spiral that accompanies drug use is not untrue, but your characterization of a "culture" is racial and not cultural. I do not see the above arguments suggesting that changing the laws will fix everything, merely that changing the law is an important first step.

> he US has the highest incarceration rate in the world just because a single culture won't accept that the laws that exist today apply to them. You started off your argument that if we changed the laws all of the crime would stop. These same laws have applied to other races, many very poor, and only one group hasn't changed.

White drug users outnumber or equal black drug users in almost every drug category. Yet incarceration rates are heavily shifted towards blacks because if unequal policing, unequal charging, and unequal sentencing. These are accepted truths of TODAY. You don't need to take my word for it..

Your view is clearly inherently biased against one race and based on false suppositions about the facts and speculations about cultures you cannot know about. Hispanic communities have suffered the same downward spiral as black communities, perhaps just not in the neighborhoods you've seen.

Louis CK addresses this question more concisely than I will be able to here. John Scalzi also explains it using exceedingly nerd-friendly language.

It sounds like you are pretty new to deeply thinking about issues of racism; I commend you for seeking to learn more, and recommend you start with some reading. Why are all the Black kids sitting together in the cafeteria? is a particularly accessible and informative introduction to issues of race and racism in the US. The New Jim Crow is also great, it thoroughly and clearly demonstrates the racism inherent in the current US criminal justice system, and is a great illustration of how contemporary racism is less about individual bigots and more about institutions that systematically oppress people of color.

Here is how I have found it helpful to think about issues of race and racism, as a White person: I think it is easiest to explain using a different form of privilege as an example – being able bodied. I am an able-bodied person, which means I experience the world a certain way. I don’t really notice if any of the doors I go through have a button to automatically open them, or if I have to go up a step to get into a store, or if there’s enough room between tables at a restaurant I’m in for a wheelchair to navigate. I don’t have to notice those things as I go about my business – they aren’t relevant to my life, so why would I? I am operating in a world that was built by people like me for people like me, which means it is very easy for me to live my life in it. But for someone in a wheelchair, all those doors and steps and aisles I blithely walk through actually do present a big problem to their ability to live life as they want. That doesn’t mean it’s my fault, or the fault of other able-bodied people, every time a building doesn’t have a handicapped accessible entrance. For the most part we didn’t build this world, we inherited it. But it does mean that when someone, or a lot of someones, who are differently abled than I am raise an issue as a problem for them, I have a responsibility to listen to them, and trust that they know their own lives and experiences better than I do.

In many ways, being white in America is like being able-bodied. The systems I operate in were designed by people like me, and the majority of them are still run by people like me. It would be really easy for me to live my life oblivious to the fact that people who look different than me have a very different experience of America than I do. The only reason I know that’s not the case is because I’ve spent years working with and becoming friends with and caring about people who don’t share my race and class (I work in public education in a large urban school district). I see my male students get stopped and frisked for no reason other than they are Latino males. I see them get followed around by suspicious security personnel when I take them on field trips to public places, in a way that I have never in my life been followed. I’ve seen my Black colleagues have to present ID or additional proof to gain admittance to places that I don’t (most recent example would be when checking into a hotel for a conference, I just had to give my name, my colleague had to present ID). The list goes on. Any one of these things in isolation would be easy to brush off, but the fact that they happen over and over and over again makes it impossible to pretend it’s a racially neutral coincidence. And I know I am only seeing a small glimpse of the picture, because at the end of the day I’m still not experiencing any of this directly, I’m only witnessing it – and I’m sure there are plenty of times when I don’t even notice because it is so routine.

The fact that we live in a systematically racist country is hard to accept, because we all want to believe that we are in sole control of our own destinies – I worked hard to be successful, therefore anyone who struggles must not be working hard enough, right? If I still just interacted with my own family and the people I went to school with – people who, like me, are all white, middle class, college educated, straight, and able bodied – I’m sure I would think that way too. But the more time I spend with people outside of my own demographics, the more impossible it becomes to pretend my naïve version of reality is all there is. Again, that doesn’t mean institutional racism is my fault, it just means that I have a responsibility to learn from people who are different than me and from their experiences, and to do what I can to make it better – hence my choice to work in public education, which is possibly the least lucrative option I could have chosen after graduating MIT. But I love my work and feel lucky that I get to do it, because I believe it brings us one step closer to an America that lives up to its promise of equality for all citizens, and I can’t imagine anything more worthwhile.

Amazon

The Pirate Bay

Heard good things about the book "The New Jim Crow"

http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431

Dude there are thousands of studies out there. The way that the criminal justice system has targeted black people since the Civil War is hardly a controversial claim anymore. Check out The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. Great primer on the subject if you need to get up to speed.

Fatherlessness is a product of mass incarceration, and mass incarceration has always been the end result of a deeply racist pursuit of justice (or control, if you're really cynical).

Okay, now hold your butt cause I'm gonna get hot. Is affirmative action a piddling government bandaid? Absolutely! It's a throwaway remedy to a racial group that's been locked out of every beneficial social program from the New Deal to the GI Bill to the housing subsidies of the 60s and 70s.

Redlining, loan denial, threats of violence, and questions of political expediency barricaded black Americans from the policies that literally created the middle class in the 20th century, and they have been relentlessly policed in their own communities for more than 60 years. That's the real elephant in the room in these conversations, but it's been there so long we've gotten used to treating it as another piece of furniture.

The New Jim Crow is a great book about mass incarceration if you want to take the time. (Wiki)

The Case for Reparations is a journalistic review of redlining, loan discrimination, and outright theft stretching back more than a hundred years and cascading through today. Unabashedly radical but imposingly well-researched, it at times speaks directly to the concept of fatherlessness and the idea that "the kind of trenchant racism to which black people have persistently been subjected can never be defeated by making its victims more respectable."

The wiki article for African Americans and the G.I. Bill, is something I found illustrative as well. Good reference list too, particularly When Affirmative Action was White.

Before Reagan's election, the US was seen soft on the Russians, weak from Vietnam, and overrun by liberalism and black people. Post-Reagan: we talked about nuking the Russians; invaded Grenada; garrisoned in Lebanon; bombed Libya; fed weapons to anti-communist Nicaraguan rebels; began a 30 year campaign of blocking tax increases; and started throwing black people in jail en-masse for drug possession.

Mad as Hell was a good read on this. I plan on reading The New Jim Crow, which also touches on the Nixon-Reagan "War on Drugs"

Yes there is.

http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431

Actually, their ancestors DIDN'T start out in the same socio-economic situation as everybody else. In fact, there isn't even a standard starting point for anyone. Each continent had different natural resources, and those people who happened to be lucky enough to be born on continents with better and more plentiful resources became more prosperous. The only reason white people became the most prosperous race is because Europe had better natural resources than any other continent on Earth (though Asia was a close second). The book Guns, Germs, and Steel by Jared Diamond reveals the absurdity of racial meritocracy.

Also, legal rights mean nothing if those in power still want to keep you down. The book The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander exposes how white politicians have used all sorts of creative and underhanded methods to keep black people uneducated and poor, despite the passage of apparent equal rights in the legal system.

Don't know what you are specifically looking for, but I would venture into the area of sociology more if I was you since you are starting to see a pure financial/economic analysis of the world is incomplete:
Hottest book right now is Evicted:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0553447459/ref=tmm_pap_title_0?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=

Just won a Pulitzer.

More books focused on poverty and societal issues:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/054481195X/ref=tmm_pap_title_sr?ie=UTF8&qid=&sr=

The New Jim Crow, more focused on racial inequality:
https://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1595586431/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1492095495&sr=8-1&pi=AC_SX236_SY340_QL65&keywords=the+new+jim+crow&dpPl=1&dpID=51GxNVbFjCL&ref=plSrch




If you are looking for more historical stuff biographies are always good.

I'm pretty sure they can actually come in without a warrant or without knocking now as long as they have 'probable cause' and yes, illegally-seized evidence can be used in some circumstances... --> Understanding Search and Seizure Law

I'm also not one to typically advertise something... but as an ent who has had to deal with the law once or twice, I highly suggest this book to all other ents, for their own safety and the safety of their fellow frients. You and the Police!

https://www.amazon.com/Terror-Factory-Inside-Manufactured-Terrorism/dp/1935439618

Wouldn't surprise me

A lot of it, yes.

It's not much different than today. The same as the "terrorist" threat. Two good books on the subject are Satanic Purses and Ghost Plane: the CIA rendition program

Before 9/11 the Blind Sheik was operating throughout America, while his disciple Ali Mohamed was kicked out of Egypt, (Egypt warned the Americans) and he came to work for the FBI & the CIA.

You could ask John O'Neil about it but he died, after he was offered a job in the Twin Towers (subsequently dying on 9/11). He had tracked Bin Laden & Al Queda better than anyone, but was ordered off it by the CIA.

He then tracked USS Cole operatives back to Yemen, linking Mossad to people they didn't want to be linked to. Ambassador Bodine tried to repeatedly shut him down and there was a Mossad plot to kill him.

Forced out of the counter terror chief of NY for FBI, he left behind his 30 year career under pressures, lured out with the head of security position at the WTC building. And he died there. 2 weeks after taking up the position.

What has the "fight" on "terror" done for most everyone? They've done a great job manufacturing events. and the majority of actual events are not even Muslim extremists. So in the end, the gov gets total control over the people, strips rights, increases power and divides the populace.

If you read those books I mentioned, and look over John O'Neil's story, you'd realize security services have a bead on everyone. Hell, in a German mosque, the operatives realized they were spying on friendly country agents, because they were so full of spooks.

Not unlike the 'Cold War', where they had taps on every communist support group, but used the 'threat' as a means to subvert civil rights, follow around, tap the phones of MLK, attack & spy on citizens and use the story outwardly for worldwide support and chess plays.

It's a game, a big stage play that creates good guys and bad guys, but the winners stay the same and the losers are always those who don't wanna play, or haven't signed up to.

>Unsurprisingly, the study confirms the role of the military industrial complex in perpetuating the decades-long state of panic. The text shows how "the defense industrial complex, not the Soviet high command, played a key role in driving the quantitative arms buildup" and thereby "led U.S. analysts to … exaggerate the aggressive intentions of the Soviets."

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2009/09/mark-g-brennan/the-cold-war-was-a-fraud/

Why would we need to imagine it, when we have all of these sources:

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/29/opinion/sunday/terrorist-plots-helped-along-by-the-fbi.html

https://www.amazon.com/Terror-Factory-Inside-Manufactured-Terrorism/dp/1935439618

http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2017/08/family-man-accused-of-right-wing-bomb-plot-is-mentally-ill.html

https://www.gq.com/story/matthew-llaneza-alleged-terrorist-fbi-snare

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/dec/12/newburgh-four-fbi-entrapment-terror

https://www.hrw.org/news/2014/07/21/us-terrorism-prosecutions-often-illusion

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/16/fbi-entrapment-fake-terror-plots

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/21/government-agents-directly-involved-us-terror-plots-report

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/20/fbi-informant

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/07/fbi-terrorist-informants/

https://www.businessinsider.com/the-fbi-hatched-some-crazy-terror-plots-2013-3

https://www.salon.com/2017/03/30/tear-up-texas-how-the-fbi-played-a-central-role-in-the-first-isis-attack-on-u-s-soil_partner/

https://www.grassley.senate.gov/news/news-releases/what-did-fbi-really-know-terrorist-attack-garland-texas

http://www.businessinsider.com/fbi-is-manufacturing-terrorism-cases-2016-6

https://www.amazon.com/Terror-Factory-Inside-Manufactured-Terrorism/dp/1935439618

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/08/us/fbi-isis-terrorism-stings.html

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/01/27/details-on-fbi-sting-operations-since-2001-terror-attacks.html

http://www.fox9.com/news/investigators/86880652-story

Did you know that the FBI employs 15,000+ informants working on terrorism cases?

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/21/139836377/the-surge-in-fbi-informants

Did you know that the reward for an informant successfully recruiting someone to commit a terrorist act runs up to $100,000?

http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/blog/a-former-fbi-agent-talks-about-handling-informants/

Some relevant parts that scare me:

"agents have helped people suspected of being extremists acquire weapons, scope out bombing targets and find the best routes to Syria to join the Islamic State, records show." - from the NYTimes article.

Did any informants approach Omar while he was being investigated by the FBI? We know at least one did, according to the nytimes here: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/14/us/omar-mateen-fbi.html

If so, did they help him pick a target, and his wife is now being blamed for helping him scope out the club? Do you think there is an informant who would try to persuade someone to commit a terrorist act for up to $100,000 but then fuck it up and accidentally set off the loose cannon that was Omar and then never tell the FBI about it?

You could try reading.

https://www.amazon.com/Terror-Factory-Inside-Manufactured-Terrorism/dp/1935439618

And the agencies that are charged with this job also can't so shit either. The FBI "stops" terrorism because they manufacture it by giving stupid people bomb making material.

http://www.salon.com/2011/09/29/fbi_terror/

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/nov/16/fbi-entrapment-fake-terror-plots

http://www.amazon.com/The-Terror-Factory-Manufactured-Terrorism/dp/1935439618

Nailed it

Great read, the FBI "creates" terrorists from burnout teenagers all the time.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1935439618/ref=mp_s_a_1_1?qid=1371603800&sr=8-1&pi=SL75

> TL;DR: Stick to 2D, and you won't have any legal issues. In the absolute worst case you'll be hit with an obscenity charge, but even if you are, you can contact the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and they will defend you for free.

This isn't a very sane analysis of those cases. Nothing you've posted doesn't prove it's not illegal. It clearly is and has survived scrutiny) under several cases. It's just that, similar to piracy and myriad other stupid laws, you are very unlikely to be prosecuted unless you are already being targeted. The same way you aren't going to get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt unless you are caught doing something else too.

However, and this is the important part, companies and very public entities don't have the luxury of fading into obscurity the way citizens do, and they already have leverage on them in the form of business licences. If they're big enough they might be able to bribe themselves out of it but they can't exactly afford a public media blitz that they distribute child pornography. That's why you are going to see this stuff being banned on platforms and censored by translation companies, because even if it's likely that the private citizen isn't going to get nabbed for this sort of thing that's not a risk anyone is willing to take with their company and investor's money.

*Also you are sorely misrepresenting the ruling in the Christopher Hadley Case. What happened in that case was the court re-affirmed that Hadley could be charged under the PROTECT Act of 2003 as long as the material was deemed obscene. That's why he plea bargained after that determination, because he knew full well his material would be deemed obscene and he'd be convicted anyway. Here's a quote from the case that makes it very clear. It's not a separate obscenity charge. It's another provision under the same law which has the same penalty, and you still get put on the sex offender registry as well.

>This conclusion has minimal impact on this case given the almost complete redundancy of the conduct criminalized by subsections 1466A(a)(1) and (b)(1) with that of subsections 1466A(a)(2) and (b)(2). The observable differences between these subsections are (1) subsections 1466A(a)(1) and (b)(1) incorporate the Miller test as essential elements, whereas subsections 1466A(a)(2) and (b)(2) do not; (2) subsections 1466A(a)(2) and (b)(2) include the “appears to be” language in relation to “a minor;” and (3) subsections 1466A(a)(1) and (b)(1) encompass a broader list of sexually explicit conduct.
>
...
>
>The indictment in this case simply charges Defendant with violations of subsections 1466A(a) and (b). There is no reference to whether Defendant is being charged under subsections 1466A(a)(1) or (a)(2), or (b)(1) or (b)(2). The conduct outlined in count one states sufficient facts to allege a violation of § 1466A(a)(1), and the conduct outlined in counts two through four state sufficient facts to allege violations of § 1466A(b)(1). Because subsections 1466A(a)(1) and (b)(1) incorporate the three-prong Miller test for obscenity, these portions of the statute are not overbroad in violation of the Due Process Clause. The conduct alleged in the superseding indictment delineates violations of those constitutional portions of the statute; therefore, Defendant’s argument that the entire superseding indictment must be dismissed based on overbreadth must fail.

It also follows in line with the Whorley case's finding.

>But in making his argument, Whorley ignores the language of § 1466A(a)(1), which prohibits visual depictions of minors only when they are obscene. See 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(1)(B). Ashcroft itself noted that obscenity in any form is not protected by the First Amendment. See Ashcroft, 535 U.S. at 245- 46; see also Miller, 413 U.S. at 24; Kaplan, 413 U.S. at 119. Thus, regardless of whether § 1466A(a)(1) requires an actual minor, it is nonetheless a valid restriction on obscene speech under Miller, not a restriction on non-obscene pornography of the type permitted by Ferber. We thus find Whorley’s as applied constitutional challenge to § 1466A(a)(1) to be without merit.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent-ebook/dp/B00505UZ4G

These terms are not new. Yes, these terms can be applied to deck trackers. Yes, under these terms Blizzard could ban you for using a deck tracker the same as they always could. No, informal statements from Blizzard employees don't provide any kind of defense should Blizzard decide to ban people for using deck trackers.

Blizzard probably won't ban players en masse for using deck trackers, but it is very handy for them to have bannable offenses be common-place; Any time they want to ban someone for whatever reason they can just ban them for common-place ToS violations. It's like Three Felonies A Day: there are so many federal laws that everyone is routinely and unknowingly breaking them, so any time the feds want to target someone they can always find an excuse.

Im not a libertarian actually, I just don't believe in strong IP laws because they've been shown to stifle innovation and having all techies scared shitless of copying some CSS is unhealthy. Thankfully, webdevs have no such issue.

Defending the IP system in the USA is asinine and you know it. Wait until a patent troll comes for you and tell me how wonderful it is. Or how copyright is never ending because congress just moves up the dates.

Also:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00505UZ4G/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1

and Lessig's famous essay:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122367645363324303

All the basics

https://www.corneredcat.com/contents/

A bit more advanced (in the armed self-defender context)

https://www.integratedskillsgroup.com/blog/guns-of-isg-handgun
Straight Talk on Armed Defense: What the Experts Want You to Know


Know the Law
The Law of Self Defense, 3rd Edition

Deadly Force - Understanding Your Right To Self Defense

My copy of The Human Bone Manual is one of my most prized possessions - it's indispensable as a reference text for bioarchaeology (or anyone in a skeletal anatomy class :D). Here's a relevant sample.

It helps to note also the sort of procedural and financial battles that the actually innocent encounter. And yes, a person may have done it, but legal innocence is not the same as actual innocence, mostly because legal guilt is not the same as actual guilt. For more insight I'd read this book: http://www.amazon.com/Actual-Innocence-Justice-Wrong-Right/dp/0451209826/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1302035662&sr=8-1. After reading this book and speaking to exonerees. I am at least convinced that people do not adequately consider all that goes into these determinations; it's more complicated than you did it or you didn't.

Edited to provide working link.

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Philosophy-Law-Revised-Lectures/dp/0300001886

This is the book I was talking about by Roscoe Pound. It will be slightly outdated, because he published it in 1922, but it's a great starting point (written specifically for beginning law students)

https://www.amazon.com/History-American-Law-Third/dp/0684869888

This was the textbook we used in my 3L Legal Philosophy class, but I wouldn't be intimidated by that, it's very easy to understand.

Other than that, just googling "introduction to philosophy of law" will give you an array of options. Pick one, and go from there. Remember, it's going to take more than just one introductory text to get you comfortable with the subject.

(Chuckling) ... I happen to be reading Lawrence Friednman's History of American Law at the moment. There were laws in Massachusetts during the 17th century that called for any Quakers who were found in the colony to be flogged.

Let's see...you can start by reading the books on Handgun Wounding Factors and Effectiveness by Dr. Martin Fackler. You then read the FBI's Terminal Effects report published after the Miami shootout. There's this: http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/march-2012/focus-on-training

and this:

http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Aveni/OIS.pdf

and then this:

http://www.amazon.com/Gunshot-Wounds-Ballistics-Techniques-Investigations/dp/0849381630/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1408492966&sr=8-1&keywords=Gunshot+Wounds+Vincent+Di+Maio

And the monthly periodical releases to Police regarding Officer Involved Shootings and the effectiveness reports.

and this
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tueller_Drill

and this

http://www.fbi.gov/stats-services/publications/law-enforcement-bulletin/2006-pdfs/mar06leb.pdf

And so on and on and on.

I'll warn you, I did my time doing Combat shit, and then 8 years looking at bodies and wounds, talking to doctors, trauma surgeons, and ER nurses/doctors, Police, FBI, and so on on the topic, and have seen a lot of crap first hand.

All of the stuff you find in the reports above, I can pretty much confirm really is true. :)

You just need to do your due diligence. A round travelling at rifle velocities will cause tissue damage in the temporary cavity where a handgun round will not.

https://www.amazon.com/Gunshot-Wounds-Ballistics-Techniques-Investigations/dp/0849381630

https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=750&v=T6kUvi72s0Y

http://www.amazon.com/Gunshot-Wounds-Ballistics-Techniques-Investigations/dp/0849381630/

http://www.amazon.com/Gunshot-Wounds-Ballistics-Techniques-Investigations/dp/0849381630/

The stuff you want is in Chapter 9. I couldn't find a copy online.

I messed up before on the percentage. It is 10-15% have internal ricochet.

Warning Graphic: book sample showing some comparison of gunshot head wounds

A .22 would be great if you are firing into a crowd of zombies with a silenced rifle from a rooftop, but the inconsistent level of damage (a one shot drop from a head hit would require luck or ricochet) and greater chance for dud ammo makes it a poor choice for a main weapon.

Sorry for the cut and paste below. I typed it in response to another person's question regarding the same issue, but that person deleted their post before I could post my reply:
**

There are many officers who get it right the first time, and put in the hard work to get through a marriage. I know know all three of them (joke).

There is a slightly higher prevalence of divorce statistically among officers. IIRC it's even higher among correctional officers. I'm now happily married, and I don't forsee that changing.

I think your desire to stay married has a far greater impact on your divorce potential than does a career in law enforcement. If you read through my response earlier, it certainly wasn't my ex-wife's fault that I changed. Does your current wife support you having a law enforcement career? Are you open with her about the very real changes that can occur in you?

Read and have her read Emotional Survival in Law Enforcement. I found it to be an excellent help, and addresses some of the psychological issues at hand.

If you haven't, read Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement. You can read it in just a few hours. I don't believe it is absolute gospel, but it is a good starting point.

http://www.amazon.com/Emotional-survival-law-enforcement-officers/dp/0971725403

If your dept. has an employee assistance program, speak to them.

LEO spouse here.

My advice to you: read " emotional survival for law enforcement." Get a good understanding of hypervigilance. Understand that even when he's off duty he'll still be eagle eyed and spot things you wouldn't have noticed. Get used to sitting with your back facing the room when you go out to eat. Also, you may have to stop eating at your favourite pub because he's arrested half the kitchen staff.

When my spouse was on shift (he's a detective now), he enjoyed bringing in my cooking and his shift reported enjoying eating it. Give him some time to get settled into his shift and become more familiar with the force's operating procedures and his shift mates.

You can't go wrong with communication and that may be hard for him. There are going to be times where he doesn't want to, or he simply can't talk about what happened on shift. Also, it isn't your responsibility to carry the burden of those things and he probably won't want to unburden himself to you. Seriously though, reading the book can help a lot.
http://www.amazon.com/Emotional-survival-law-enforcement-officers/dp/0971725403/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1421116153&sr=8-1&keywords=Emotional+intelligence+for+law+enforcement

My spouse says that is is important for him to maintain friendships outside of law enforcement. That gets more and more difficult as he becomes immersed in the "brotherhood." He won't work the same hours as other people and it might be difficult to schedule those social times. But those the importance of those friendships is that they remind him that he is not just a cop. If you don't work to maintain those friendships, pretty soon you'll find that the only friends you have are other LEO's and their spouses. While the LEO family ( and trust me, it will be your family) is great, it doesn't give your spouse a chance to put 'put down his badge.' He needs that kind of break for his own well being and your's too.

Wow, I tried Amazon.com and the cheapest copy I found was over $30 for a used paperback. :(

Edit: Found a link to it at Amazon where it is only $20 and ordered it. Thanks again. http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0971725403?ie=UTF8&condition=new&seller=AQYA5H2T7CWRJ

Chapter President of Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) from University of Oregon here. I wanted to add that SSDP is a great way for you to start your marijuana law reform career if you're still in college. It opens the door for many new possibilities, makes you feel good about the work you're doing, lets you meet amazing people, and is honestly one of the best things you can ever do during your time in college.

*Edit: I also have a book suggestion

If anyone is interested in hearing more from this guy he wrote an entire book on the drug war and the inherent problems with prohibition and its implementation in our society. I'm reading it at the moment and it's excellent, I'd highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in knowing more about the pitfalls of the drug war.

http://www.amazon.com/Why-Drug-Laws-Have-Failed/dp/1566398606/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1335596836&sr=8-2

There's a whole series of books like this which you might find useful. It's the real-world equivalent of most of the garbage that appears on TV and in the movies in regard to police procedures.

I haven't read it myself, but I've heard good things about Police Procedures & Investigation, perhaps that's worth a look: https://www.amazon.com/Police-Procedure-Investigation-Writers-Howdunit/dp/1582974551

Lee Lofland's book might be a good start for you. Police Procedure & Investigation A Guide for Writers

Read https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

Harvey Silverglate told us all that we commit an average of Three Felonies A Day.

There's a book "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent"

Sometimes impossible. US law system is so out of wack almost everyone breaks multiple laws a day.

Read more about it if you like

He's right. Every fucking thing is a 'crime'.

>The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day. Why? The answer lies in the very nature of modern federal criminal laws, which have exploded in number but also become impossibly broad and vague. In Three Felonies a Day, Harvey A. Silverglate reveals how federal criminal laws have become dangerously disconnected from the English common law tradition and how prosecutors can pin arguable federal crimes on any one of us, for even the most seemingly innocuous behavior...

Politicians create conditions where the government isn't functioning properly. They cut taxes and then say there's no money for schools, for example. There's no money for after school programs for kids. Then they tell the police to take care of any problems that arise from that.

They get paid by lobbyists to create these laws.

The voters say "look at all these problems, I'm not paying to fix them, fuck that, just hire more police. And let the police fund themselves by seizing people's cash."

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

For further reading on how everyone commits multiple felonies a day without realizing it, check out Three Felonies a Day.

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

Yeah. Have you read 3 Felonies a Day? Talks about we all break so many laws every day, the vast majority of us without meaning to. And the whole ' more prisoners per capita than any other nation' thing.

Excluding AnCap in the following (I thought this was obvious because I specifically called out weak government in my op, althought I quoted the "ideal ancap" part too, so I understnad the confusion.):

> It basically does, since it eliminates the apparatus that would enforce the laws.

Unfounded assumption. You're assuming a small government would have no way of enforcing its rulings, but that isn't the only scenario. State governments do the vast majority of regulating in the country and they somehow manage to enforce their rulings despite their relatively small size (when compared to federal government).

>It removes the legal basis for pursuing crimes, or for rendering appropriate remedies.

This seemed to be aimed at the ancap argument. Based on the other responses here, I cant make an argument that would convince you otherwise that isn't the same as many of the other posts.

>Small governments have small bodies of law, which is a problem.

This I definitely disagree with you on. We have far to many laws right now and they are more or less designed to put the government in a perpetual position of power above the citizens. Look at whats happening with Yates v United States right now. The case revolves around the criminal charges brought against a fisherman who had a catch with fish too small, threw the offending fish back into the water (presumeably expecting to just pay the fine as he had already been cited at the time) and wound up instead getting arrested and charged criminally for violation of Sarbanes-Oxley. Check out 3 Felonies a day (the title is a bit of a misnomer).

Tax law is another area where we have let the IRS engage in more or less unchecked mission creep to the point where even educated people need to resort to a paid resource to do it properly (or be liable to the most belligerent institution in the US government).

Edit: misplaced a parenthesis and it broke the whole second half of the post.

>And inconsistency: Realistically, as I am a law-abiding member of society, this kind of constructive possession would not be charged to me, because the police have better things to do. But at any point that could change. They could decide to enforce this against me on a whim. If I break any other laws, they could deploy this against me to get me a harder sentence. These things have happened, frequently. And so, my goal was clear: establish whether or not I can legally own firearms, and if not, how my at-the-time girlfriend could legally own them without me being guilty of constructive possession.

OP, you just described the U.S. legal system in a nutshell right here.

Lets say a gangbanger does a drive by.

That's ALREADY 40 counts of criminal activity, just for the one action.

Shooting at a residence.

Discharge of gun within city limits.

Discharge of gun within an incorporated area.

Discharge of gun from a moving vehicle.

Discharge of gun WITHIN a vehicle.

Discharge of a gun with intent to cause harm.

Etc, etc.

What these laws are, especially constructive possession you're alluding to, are called "rider charges", that is, they dont have any effect in your day to day life until you become accused of some crime, and then they all come out to play.

These charges, are designed to avoid the "No double Jeopardy" laws in the constitution, as well as avoid having a person be found not guilty of murder and attempted murder and then be perfectly free.

It goes like this:

---

Court case A without rider laws. The person shoots at the house to try to kill someone. They are only accused of that. If found not guilty, they go free completely.

Court case B with rider laws. The person shots at house, blah blah.

They are found not guilty of trying to murder someone, but they are found guilty of shooting in city limits and from a moving car.

Instant felon status, deprivation of gun rights, long prison sentence.

---

Did you know that over 80% of cases in the U.S. never make it to trial? Nearly all of them plead out. Even lawyers who are low-tier will tell you to "take the deal". Everyone makes bank off this system.

The justice system gets money in payment from the defendant as "reparation", which usually is the form of pulling it from friends/family of the defendant since they have no job and no income, and thus have to beg.

The lawyers make bank because of this revolving-door of clients who all take plea deals and thus lighten their case loads so they can take more clients and more quickly.

The DAs make bank because their rates of "successful cases" goes through the roof and that gets them tons of money from the state, as well as re-election into that position by the constituents. The rally cry of "im tough on crime!" is omnipresent for DAs, no "Im FAIR and REASONABLE" here.

There are so many laws in the U.S. lawyers don't know them all. There are so many laws that to be even modestly competent you have to educate yourself in a quasi-lawyer format.

And you know the saying, the more laws you make, the more criminals you create.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-d-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=1594035229

https://www.mic.com/articles/86797/8-ways-we-regularly-commit-felonies-without-realizing-it

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwsLAqjqnxo


Now watch this video below. It details what you do and don't do. Only give information to police that they need. Think about Nazi interrogations of british soldiers "you can have my name, rank, and number". That's fucking it. Every other question they ask, don't lie, don't tell the truth. Say nothing. If you're not under arrest, you have no reason to respond. If you're under arrest, you have the right not to respond. The worst clients are the babblers.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

In this video you'll note the Dunning-Kruger effect at work on that fat asshole who calls himself a detective. He somehow always has a guilty party in his presence 100% of the time. Given that we know www.innocenceproject.org has released thousands of convicted-but-innocent people through evidence or better lawyers, given that we know people WILL PLEAD TO LESSER CRIMES AS GUILTY TO AVOID LONG JAIL SENTENCES, he's likely full of shit.

Yes, people who are INNOCENT will take plea deals for lesser crimes to avoid the threat of going to trial and receiving a full 20 years, both for the original crime and all the "rider charges" it may come with.

This is how DAs gets their high conviction rates and look good. Its how 80%+ of cases never make it to trial. Its how innocents are COERCED daily into taking plea deals.

All those crimes in the book of law become a weight which threatens to crush even the innocent, who will admit to things they've never done in order to have a fraction of their life back when released early.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIghbrn5yfI

>Debtors' Prisons: Life Inside America's For-Profit Justice ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGomdoO368g

>Inside America's For-Profit Bail System

Dont make the mistake of thinking this is uniquely U.S.ian. Canada is moving towards this already, especially in the realm of digital communications. harassment, and "causing offence".

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-georgia-deputy-acquitted-after-flash-bang-grenade-hurts-toddler-n479361

Rather, after it melts and blows apart the toddlers face.

Their defense? "the toddler should've known to get out of the crib when we threw that in there". Seriously.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170108/14383136439/court-says-tossing-flashbang-grenade-into-room-with-toddler-is-unreasonable-police-behavior.shtml

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60dvqenKASg

>STOSSEL: Too Many SWAT Raids - YouTube

To justify their equipment and costs, SWAT raids are being perpetrated for anything from being accused of selling weed to being a mass murderer. And they get the wrong house frequently.

Lots of dead dogs in their wake, including dead military veterans who grab their AR15 to defend their house/life from invading people with guns.

---

On your subject of hunting, OP, you can get your SoT and FFL07 I beleive it is, in order to have "dealer samples" of legitimate machine guns made after 1986. But that's ONLY if you can prove that you're a legitimate business.

For instance, with that hunting license, the students would've had to have bagged a few deer, and should've bought/owned some "legitimate hunting rifles" first. That is, a rifle which holds 3-5 rounds of 30.06 or .308, e.g. rounds used in the military since WW1 but also for hunting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW_mTW_p5yQ
After that, they could buy their AK variants and whatnot, because they have a "good faith" show that they owned the "correct" hunting gear before grabbing these others.

The system is literally a game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW_mTW_p5yQ

LLet mike schmidt regale you with the gamey nature.

---

Right now a California Sheriff is being investigated for "pay for play" concealed carry permits. That is, in this location they have sole discretion over whether you can obtain one, and as such they are ostensibly to make a judgment on whether you have need/good faith to own it. Again, this is a law where "if you carry concealed you're a criminal... UNLESS you pay money to the state then its okay". Just like your hunting exemption.

The notable part of this issue is the Sheriff basically being accused of only giving out CCWs to people who contributed to the sheriff's campaign with money.

In other words "you help me get elected, I give you CCW".

In San Francisco its largely similar since only about 3-5 CCWs are given out a year, and that's to wealthy people or friends of the department.

That article is based on this book about how everyone unintentionally commits several felonies every day. When everyone is an accidental criminal the state has free reign to oppress people arbitrarily. Enforcing all laws is literally impossible and if it were possible it would cause society to collapse because everyone would go to jail.

You've probably committed a felony today. Do you have a complete disregard for humanity?

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

That's the attitude I'm talking about. "I'm perfect and everybody else is a dirty sinner." Great way to be.

The average American supposedly commits Three felonies a day, so sure, they are.

(I'm not too sympathetic to the case in question, but I am extremely afraid of "If you don't have something to hide, the police should be able to look at everything." That way lies a police state, including police using blackmail to run the politicians.)

Thanks.

People might get used to surveillance, but that just means that they will adapt their behaviors to fit a society under total surveillance, instead of feeling as free as under a society without surveillance. It encourages groupthink and conformity: no one wants to stand out. With everything you do, you have to think about how this could potentially be perceived (or misunderstood) by others. Especially since most of us aren't even aware of the full range of things that are potentially illegal.

In the book Three felonies a day, the author makes the case that it is impossible to live your life without doing many otherwise innocuous, but technically illegal things. Everyone becomes a target for selective law enforcement/prosecution.

Edit: a word

Kind of like how most people technically commit ~3 Felonies a Day just going about their daily life.

No person can confidently say they don't violate any federal law.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

A lot of people drive over the speed limit, 'because its the most practical and effective thing to do.

And in fact, laws today are so complex and strange that people arguably commit roughly three felonies a day.

> So, if I understand you correctly, in theory, the government could pass a law that exempts itself from all laws and making everything the government does "legal" but still requiring citizens to obey the law and breaking the law by citizens would still be punishable.

I don't know how such a law could stand up in court, but as Teri Shavio taught us, Congress can author and pass pretty much anything it wants.

> Ive said before and Ill say it again: If the government does it, its legal.

Functionally speaking, if you do a thing and you are not apprehended, prosecuted, and convicted, it is legal. What the legislature writes is only a small part of "making a thing illegal". If, for instance, Congress defunded the IRS and removed any form of enforcement of the tax code then failure to report and pay taxes would be as illegal as invisible jaywalking. Ain't no one gonna catch you, so you're free to do the thing.

And there are a lot of laws that go - functionally - unenforced. There's even a book Titled Three Felonies a Day which explores all the laws that non-government officials violate every day, with the vast majority of us failing to undergo prosecution.

So it's a much more complex problem than just "Government officials are unaccountable". There is a general question of how to identify violations of law and enforce those violations. The topic is easily as controversial as the passage of laws, themselves, as most people won't support a law if they think they'll be marked as violators but may well be ok with a law if they believe they are functionally exempt.

> I have nothing to hide.

That doesn't end well. Have a look at "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent". Whether you know it or not, you do have something to hide.

Three Felonies a Day

By expanding what constitutes a felony or misdemeanor domestic abuse. By making criminal defense unaffordable. By making laws so vague, only the wealthy or powerful can defend against spurious accusation. By making criminal many activities which should not be. Here’s a great primer to start on the subject:

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent https://www.amazon.com/dp/1594035229/

And btw, many states have misdemeanors which carry possible sentences long enough that the 4473 considers them felonies.

I don't know if you are in school or not but if you have access to an anatomy or biology lab that has real human bones you could use them as reference. You could look at the human bone manual https://www.amazon.com/Human-Bone-Manual-Tim-White/dp/0120884674/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1467507833&sr=1-1&keywords=human+bone+manual You should also think about are the bones you are modeling male or female, Juvenal or adult because these will change the dimensions.

I don't quite know what forensic genetics is, but if you want to learn more about bones you should get The Human Bone Manual! I loved this book. It's what we used in my human osteology class. Of course it's much easier to learn when you have bones to look at - my professor was very good too, but there's also nice online stuff and books. What kind of job are you trying to get?

When I took osteology we used this book. It was hella helpful and I really liked it. https://www.amazon.com/Human-Bone-Manual-Tim-White/dp/0120884674

The Human Bone Manual is like a biblical source to me. Also, Stiff, by Mary Roach is some SERIOUSLY interesting stuff.

There's a somewhat old, but good book full of them.

This Book has all of your answers. Don't think of them as victimless crimes, by the way, because some people (see enron and thieves) who believe certain crimes are victimless merely because there's no physical harm.

However, it discusses the same exact thing you're addressing here. Basically, the premise of the book is that there should be no such thing as "consensual crimes." It differentiates between possessing or using a drug at home from drinking and driving. Obviously, one puts someone at risk other than one's self, while dropping acid and watching "fear and loathing" risks only one's self. It's a great book, and everyone should read it.

You should probably try some light reading:
http://www.amazon.com/Aint-Nobodys-Business-You-Consensual/dp/0931580587/ref=wl_it_dp_o?ie=UTF8&coliid=I2DUYJRPRMLN98&colid=2PO2HI4B22ZOA

In another thread, below. Sry, that.


There's no such thing as a victimless crime.

When you say that, do you mean "nothing victimless ought to be deemed a crime", or "there are actually no crimes which are victimless"?

Also, if you meant the former, rather than the latter, you might want to consider the terms "consensual" rather than "victimless", in describing some of these things. Some things do have victims, if only in a minor way, while being consensual, like buying the services of a prostitute, or recreational drug use. Other things are consensual, but intrinsically exploitative, like having no real financially feasible alternative to entering into an exploitative contract with an employer (in many cases), or a drug seller trying to hook a recreational drug user on a particularly addictive substance (whether such is legal, like tobacco, or illegal, like heroin).

So, I think we perhaps agree then that some instances of government overreach doesn't demand the complete repeal of all regulations.

BTW, I have a book you'll probably enjoy, Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do - Peter McWilliams

http://www.amazon.com/Aint-Nobodys-Business-You-Consensual/dp/0931580587

You both may want to give this a read, it doesn't specifically address the problem you're facing now, but does address some that may come up later.

https://www.amazon.com/Emotional-survival-law-enforcement-officers/dp/0971725403

Read this

Just search it on Amazon.. Should be there.

Edit: here's the link on Canadian Amazon:

https://www.amazon.ca/Emotional-Survival-Law-Enforcement-Officers/dp/0971725403

>My LEO lives to work, and he's drinking away his anxieties.

This is bad. You have to have outside activities and step away from the job from time to time. This is a great book that helped me get through some rough times. I highly recommend it to all officers:

http://emotionalsurvival.com/

You can also buy it on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0971725403/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

Actually, the main focus of my blog (The Graveyard Shift) is for writers of mystery, thriller, suspense, and some romance. But everyone is welcome. Students use the site as a research tool, and some people are simply curious about police procedure and forensics. You're right, though, the information doesn't apply to every genre.

By the way, here's a book that might be useful. It's not the one mentioned below but it features the same and similar topics.

http://www.amazon.com/Police-Procedure-Investigation-Writers-Howdunit/dp/1582974551/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1305388238&sr=1-1

Thanks for visiting the site. I hope you find something there that's useful to your writing. Also, please let me know if I can help with research, etc.

They have some books on Amazon that goes in depth on police procedure if you want something deeper.

I haven't read this, but it is an example of what is out there to help you and should give you better info than reddit.

https://smile.amazon.com/Police-Procedure-Investigation-Writers-Howdunit/dp/1582974551/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1536556585&sr=8-1&keywords=writing+police+procedure

I got sidetracked and completely forgot to say thank you for this comment, but THANK YOU, this was really helpful. (As far as the blitz attack thing, I was assuming a physical/non-sexual assault with the intent to maim.)

(Also for non-leo/crime writer folks, I came across this book that's helpful on the basics, although like most other sources it doesn't really address the investigation procedure post-crime-scene as this helpful gentleman has done.)

If you want to be surprised even further.

They just have not caught you yet.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

The average American commits several felonies a day. Virtually everything has been criminalized.

https://www.amazon.ca/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

Apparently we commit an average of https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229.

I mean

Read Three Felonies a Day and get back to us about 'worthless humans'.

Whether you believe it or not, our legal code is so complex that it is childishly easy to charge you with a felony. In Virginia that stays on your record, even though you are not convicted, until you get it expunged by the Governor.

Yes, some people are fakakta, but the system is totally fuxored.

You are misrepresenting my advice. I never suggested it as a first resort or the best choice for everyone in all situations. As you can see from my advice, posted hours ago, I agree with your first instincts, but don't just dismiss firearms outright: https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/cqc5xv/video_man_violently_attacks_woman_outside_san/eww4duk/

You probably commit multiple felonies a day without realizing it, the laws are so convoluted: https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

If they want to get you, they get you.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong. Protecting yourself + others should be more important to you than legality. I think most victims of violent crime would rather be in court defending themselves than dead or in the hospital.

I'm pretty sure I commit 3 felonies a day.


That being said any law I find personally morally objectionable I will not follow.

This book argue that this is not the case. If someone were to look closely at any given individual, there are illegal acts there, even if the person is pro-social and causes no trouble.

Now you can be even more paranoid

> I just basically mean I don't want to live in a world/country where my every movement and location is tracked and recorded. I was trying to apply your view on internet tracking to location tracking citizens.

I can understand your view here, however we are living in a tech advanced world and this is going to change things. The internet is a world wide place, it's big and I believe there is no real expectation of privacy. You and I right now are discussing our ideas publicly, someone can come in and read everything we typed and can even respond to it. I will draw the line when it comes to personal emails but most of the internet is public. Even the websites you connect to require a entire network between you and the server that hosts the website. No conversation on the internet is a truly private one due to this, nor are your actions.

Now, I will say I don't have the right to view it, but law enforcement with a probable cause should be able to and they should be able to with ease. This reasons for this should be written clearly, it's not a spy program and the law should make that clear as well.

> The average person commits multiple felonies on an average day. http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

This is the fault of a over-bloated and unclear law system. I would agree that changes are drastically needed within our law system and this is why I would advocate my idea to be a international law that is written very clearly and ensures privacy rights unless there is probable causes for law enforcement to investigate.

> I know there are certain topics that interest me that I have not researched because I don't want them to show up in my search history.

Seeking knowledge is no a crime. I love the Roman history but that doesn't mean I wish to reinstate the Roman Empire. The only way your search records would be used against you is if you were researching something harmful and actually went and did the crime that you researched. I think you would agree that if someone researches how to make a bomb, and does so and uses the bomb their previous research would certainly be relevant evidence within the case.

> Surveillance changes behavior. As a result I believe this will also stifle progress and creativity.

Which is not entirely a bad thing. If you know that stop lights now have cameras that take pictures of the car and plates upon it. Which will lead to less people running red lights and causing accidents. Reasonable surveillance is a good thing. You can go two routes here, either the internet is a private place leaving you at the terms and mercy of the corporations which will gladly share the information with the government , or the internet is a public place, which in turn means there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Just like at that stop light.

Also I hear the claim of it effecting progress and creativity but it always ends there. So, please offer me one example on how my idea would. I want to be clear and say specifically my idea, not involving any other ideas. Why do you believe this? If you are correct I am willing to examine and adapt my idea to best avoid such.

> I think the intentions behind your opinion is certainly noble, but I think freedom is more important.

I agree freedom is more important, which is why this would not step on
it. I'm not asking to install a government run camera into your bedroom. I'm not asking for you to stop going to your preferred websites. But what you, myself, and no one else has the right to do is commit a crime. A simple identification method is not stepping on your freedom.

> A little off topic, but it seems your original position comes from a desire to reduce harm. A plan that would reduce harm drastically more than total removal of internet anonymity would be to make refined sugar illegal/prescription only, not to mention cigarettes.

Certainly it's to reduce harm done, and I will gladly admit it's also a law enforcement tool as well. Law enforcement isn't a dirty thing as long as it's done right. I think our government has the responsibility of trying to ensure our safety and well being. Whether it be in a time where we need medical assistance to when we need law enforcement to protect us from those that wish us harm. I think my positions are reasonable but I am most certainly open to discussion.

I just basically mean I don't want to live in a world/country where my every movement and location is tracked and recorded. I was trying to apply your view on internet tracking to location tracking citizens.

The average person commits multiple felonies on an average day. http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

I know there are certain topics that interest me that I have not researched because I don't want them to show up in my search history.

Surveillance changes behavior. As a result I believe this will also stifle progress and creativity.

I think the intentions behind your opinion is certainly noble, but I think freedom is more important.

A little off topic, but it seems your original position comes from a desire to reduce harm. A plan that would reduce harm drastically more than total removal of internet anonymity would be to make refined sugar illegal/prescription only, not to mention cigarettes.

(Sorry if this is unclear or disjointed I was under general anesthesia earlier today, and am on painkillers.)

There are a lot of felonies on the books.

So many that most average people commit a few felonies a day.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

Of course if you piss off the wrong person that means there's little problem finding something you actually did that's a felony. Congratulations on forever more beige listed as a felon. Employers could be thoughtful and take into account the felony but it's easier to just throw those applications in the bin. Even if some are no more likely than non felons to steal from the company eventually someone will and then your boss will say "you hired a felon? How could you be so stupid, that's why we got stolen from"

> If you were looking for someone to prosecute...

... you wouldn't have to look past the next human being you encountered.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

Weil man ja nichts schlimmes tut?

[siehe auch dieses Buch](http://www.amazon.de/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 "falls ihr mutig seid, der Link zeigt auf Amazon :P")

You almost went to Juvie? I've had a friend sent to military school because his friend smoked a little weed. He didn't do shit, but he spent 2 years in military school. The internet's not really the place to talk about how you were abused as a child. There are tons of groups like DEFACS.

If you're into video game design, then check this out: http://www.kongregate.com/shootorial-games I just pirated the appropriate Adobe software and I'll make a "China Spa Business Simulator" this year.

Don't worry about the law, do whatever you want. You probably break the law every day. Stop stressing about it.

When I was still trying to figure out what the hell I was doing in China, I wrote a children's book and had it illustrated for just one kid. You could make and sell homeschooling materials online, make an informative website, do something related to what your major should be. Just don't be fucking stagnant. Don't let next year come around and you say "Well, I did earn 80,000rmb last year teaching English... so that's something"

You're a young adult, you should start developing.

Probably three of them a day.

It's not actually hyperbolic. The problem with federal law is that there are so many(10,000+ no accurate count) along with government organizations(FDA/FAA/ATF/EPA/ect) regulations and edicts and many of them are intertwined and can increase the severity of a state misdemeanor or even something entirely legal by just fulfilling certain criteria. That coupled with laws hundreds of years old(most inherited from English Common Law) compounds the issue. The problem is that you don't even know you're committing a felony, nor do law enforcement or even most attorneys as the laws are so obscure. No one is actually arrested for these felonies because of this, but the entire fact that they are committing them is what makes the entire system so farcical and prone to extremely selective enforcement. If "they" for some reason want to find something to arrest you with, it would be extremely easy to do so with all of the unknown laws and statues.

My area of study is Criminal Justice, I learn about this kind of stuff every day, it would be funny how bad it's gotten if it wasn't so sickening because of the larger ramifications.

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842.html

Three Felonies a Day: The average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day.

If it was not the trees, she could have said he abused her. Or she could have claimed rape. Or she could have turned him in for any number of crimes real or made up. Downloaded any movies? Any songs? Ever? Had sex outside of marriage (illegal in some states)? The list is literally so long that there are libraries dedicated to storing and cataloging them (go visit your local law library to see what I am talking about).

Laws create criminals, not the other way around. The fewer the laws means the fewer the criminals. The reverse is also true. That is why America has the most criminals because we have the most laws.

It is one of my favorite things to do is show people how they are breaking the law. Within 24 hours of knowing anyone I can point out a number of things that they could go to prison for. My mother, who has never even had a speeding ticket, challenged me on this once. Within 15 minutes I pointed out so many things that I had her concerned that the FBI was going to come and bust in her door. Read the book Three Felonies A Day to get a better understanding of how the American legal system is so screwed up they have made criminals out of everyone. All anyone needs is a motive and it is easy to get someone thrown in jail.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, as any judge will gladly tell you. To say that he decided to take the risk is no different than me saying that you are taking the risk for all the crimes you are committing every day whether you know about them or not.

Three felonies a day

Too late.

> But if you actually read the book, Silverglate (a white collar defense lawyer) isn't making the argument that normal people routinely commit felonies accidentally, much less argue that we commit three of them a day.

Umm... here's a quote from the introduction of Mr. Silverglate's book (ETA: which you can apparently read on Amazon! yay!):

>Today, in spite of Jackson's warning, it is only a slight exaggeration to say that the average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day.

Leading up to that thesis statement, Silberglate tells, in the opening pages of his book, of a trucker who was out deer hunting with his son when he found some apparently abandoned shell casings, sold them for scrap (for $84), and then was sentenced to two months in prison for stealing from the federal government -- quite by accident. His argument is precisely that normal people routinely commit felonies without realizing it. The link I gave (the one citation in my post!) listed several more such cases.

You have wildly mischaracterized Mr. Silberglate's thesis. You then accused me of doing it instead. Perhaps you disagree with the thesis, but you are wrong to say that the book made an entirely different argument. Where did you get that notion?

This sounds like a great opportunity for everyone to read "Three Felonies a Day" (Amazon link, sorry, also available at libraries and used bookstores) by Harvey Silverglate, describing how much of our daily lives is actually criminal and how severe the punishment can be for No Big Deal crimes like, dunno, sharing your password to an online account.

It's one of those It Could Never Happen To Me things until you or someone you love is arrested and charged, and you can't pay the bail and the lawyer says fighting it will cost more than you earn in a year and now you're looking to plead out just so you can go home to see your kids.

> I fully support an individuals right to smoke so long as it does not interfere with my right to clean, unpolluted (by cigarette smoke) air.

I see. I misread your original comment. I thought you were saying risk to themselves.

But going back to your original comment:

> If there is a risk to those not choosing to assemble then their right is trumped.

What if it isn't a "risk", but a mere inconvenience?

> do not break the law

Easier said than done

> If I do not break the law then a police officer has no power over me whatsoever.

I think that's tragically naive, but even assuming you were right, what if they assert their power anyway? Or if their assertion of power is out of proportion with the crime/infringement? I submit that there is an insufficient framework for holding police accountable in the event of them wrongfully or excessively asserting their power.

Given that the average American commits 3 felonies per day, I guess you agree that everybody belongs in jail? Maybe even you do.

Like, say, non violent felony convictions which have been repeatedly proven to disproportionately target minorities and strip them of their legal rights to vote?

Closing polling locations in minority population centers, perpetrated organized campaigns of voter suppression against minorities (such as banning bringing anyone as a passenger to their local polling station) are another tactic, but mostly the fact that our criminal justice system is organized so basically everyone commits 3 felonies a day and felonies remove your right to vote and, surprise surprise, this is basically entirely enforced against minorities is the bigger deal since it's ACTIVELY RESTRICTING THE FREEDOM OF PEOPLE that means calling the US "the free world" is completely wrong.

And that's without even addressing the concentration camps full of refugees currently along the southern border. Because nothing says "freedom" like forcing people to drink out of a toilet for following the proper legal procedures to enter this country.

There's a great book on this topic called Three Felonies a Day

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

YUH! Great idea!11!!1 https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

Fucking shill

-mercurymarinatedbeef, parent

This subreddit and bot are not in any way affiliated with the moderators of /r/The_Donald. Direct questions about removal to them.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

Yea. It's a thing. You're guilty, even if you don't believe it. Tyranny isn't locking EVERYBODY up, it's being able to lock ANYBODY up any time you want.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

probably more than you know - https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

It's actually quite difficult to not commit a felony. Every person reading this today has (due to the extreme volume of laws, regulations, codes, court cases about all of those, etc.) likely committed 3 felonies, completely unknowingly, this very day.

I suppose this has to do with how much faith you have in the US Court System. At present, after looking into this and other things, I have absolutely none.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

Just responding to your steel man case: If its true (or anywhere close to true) that the average American commits 3 felonies a day, then punishing people just because they don't respect our laws isn't something we do, or want to do. That's probably for the same utilitarian reasons you articulate in your pro case.

Actually, almost every charge against me had been dropped by the prosecutor; the one that was pursued ultimately became "disorderly conduct" which was granted "time served"… but if you want to get technical then pretty much everybody is a criminal. I at least don't have a single speeding ticket / moving violation (on my record); but there again, I guess you're right that we're all criminals in this regard, too.

To your question, it involved confined spaces; I asked my boss for an attendant, as OSHA stipulations AND common sense demand… boss told me we were "understaffed all week - just do it anways."
Stupidly, I just "did it, anyways."

His demeanor and year of passive aggressive abuse was what my lawyer said I "had no chance of winning being a young white male."

Thanks for your intrigue.

Esse problema não é só nosso, recomendo o livro
'Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent'.

What laws have you broken lately?

> You can eliminate the vast majority pretty easily by reading the headings.

Or, we could get rid of laws that are never enforced.

> I would love to see a citation to that

There's a great book on the topic.

> Therefore, crimes are not created through the CFR; that would only come through the US Code.

But increasingly, federal regulations ARE being enforced with criminal penalties. Congress passes broad laws, but each of those laws bring regulations. Often, congress will not confront a difficult issue in their lawmaking, leaving it up to a regulator to do as they please. And as noted here, the SCOTUS defers to regulators when congress is vague frequently.

Worse, many of these regulations don't require intent. If you simply did the prohibited act without knowing, you could be looking at jail.

Related...don't you ever wonder why the EPA carries guns?

> If it's your address, you're the person to whom it's directed,

Not if it's not your name. See the book.

> You can look at the headings and see which ones apply to you.

There are, in all, 200 books of federal regulations--80K pages. What you advise is just not practical. At all.

> Or you could do ten minutes of googling if it's a simple business

How about you spend the 10 minutes and find out all the implications for me to import a 100W laser cutting machine from China? Or, spend 10 minutes googling and tell me all the implications of selling a bottle of whisky I distilled out of state? And then I'll tell you if you missed anything.

These are both extremely simple issues. And each will take $2000 of consultation. And even then, the lawyer will tell you he cannot give comprehensive guidance on the topic.

> I'd love to see an example of that because the way you've described it would be an ethical violation for the attorney.

You don't read the news much, do you? Source Source

Google has pages and pages of these types of stories.

> I would love to see a citation to that.

Here you go

> action of breaking the law is a violent act

Wait, so, anytime you break the law, you consider it a violent act?

According to this book, the average American commits 3 felonies every day. Would that mean all Americans are violent if they commit so many violent acts?

Oh, he won't, because the message won't really get out and change anyone's minds. If it had a chance though, they'd find a reason.

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

As the title suggests, it's a book about how Americans commit an average of three felonies a day. The federal government gave up on just counting the federal level laws, said it couldn't be done because it changes faster than they can figure it out.

If there's more laws than you can count, you definitely can't know the laws, and if you don't know them, you can't avoid breaking them.

So anyone causing trouble can be targeted and prosecuted for something even if they're a saint.

"Show me the man, I'll show you the crime." Lavrentiy Beria

Not really

do you have any earthly idea how many crimes you "do" on a daily basis?
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

shut the fuck up and read it

Was the pace of legislation really so slow that it was reasonable to expect Athenians to know and comprehend the law, or was there a point similar to the modern "most adults commit three felonies a day"?

The root of my question is whether ancient legislators were any more honorable or sensible than modern-day ones, and if not whether they understood the risk they were posing to their fellow citizens.

"committing a felony" on its own hold very, very, little weight with me. Considering you probably committed Three felonies yesterday, I think most would prefer if you were judged by the circumstances and intent of the felony over the simple fact that is was committed.

Relevant book?

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent - Harvey Silverglate

Our laws are becoming less and less definitive; more vague in order to ensnare the smartest criminals while entrapping the innocent.

Just on the subject of a criminal broken justice system.

Your argument as for this being criminal activity is debatable. After all, everyone is a felon these days, so it would be up to a judge to decide. So my point about them being sued about it stands as before; if they aren't, then it's irrelevant.

People aren't losing money unfairly unless they can't read, but that's their responsibility.

Valve, or "the vulnerable" as you refer to the "victims" of their "criminal activity", do not need a random Reddit post to come to their rescue. Again, if someone feels negatively affected by Valve's activities then they are free to sue, which is something very popular in certain parts of the world, and is where a lawyer would be necessary.

 

If you want to help Valve, send them an e-mail and forget about it; it's their responsibility if they ignore it. You can already rest peacefully knowing you did everything in your power to help poor Valve survive the onslaught of criminal charges coming their way.

If you want to help people harmed by Valve's practices, contact them and help them sue, or start a class action lawsuit.

If you want to just randomly bring "awareness" to the issue (which everyone likes to do for every pointless thing ever) then rest assured that everyone who cares is aware, and that everyone else is just going to keep ignoring it.

If you don't fall in either of these three points then what you're doing qualifies as shitposting. Which is usually fine around here, but in your case it's just repetitive.

 

Well, arguing was fun, but I'm gonna do something else with my time now. Have fun on your future shitposting!

 

 

Edit:

> lawyers become lawyers (to safeguard) the vulnerable

Good jokes mate, et cetera.

> You can't even understand or make the simplest of syllogistic expressions.

This is demonstrably false, but we'll ignore that for the moment.

> I never said it would! lol @ bunk.

> > I would feel a lot safer knowing there was constant documentation attesting to the fact that I am innocent of whatever crazy shit someone dreams up to accuse me of.

The problem here is that you're presupposing that documentation is honest. Which it can't be in a systematically compromised infrastructure with sufficient mass surveillance. Let's see if we can break this apart.

1. There was constant documentation (we agree here)
   
   
2. That the documentation attests to the facts (we disagree here)
   
   
3. That the documentation facts include that you are innocent (though in fact, they can create crimes to charge you with especially post C-51 but that's neither here nor there and not particularly relevant)
   
   
4. That if someone accuses you of something (as something we probably agree has some chance of happening)
   
   
5. that the facts will be accessible by you (doubtful on my part, but we may as well agree)
   
   
6. and that the truth contained within them will therefor be accessible by you (probably agree contingent upon 5)
   
   
   
7. and that your innocence as ascertained by the truth contained within them will be accessible by you (agreed contingent upon 6)
   
   So what we are really disagreeing about is whether or not the constant documentation will actually, in fact, 'attest' "to the fact".
   
   There is no syllogism here even worth considering because we disagree on the premises of your argument. The reason that the documentation is not honest is the kinds of things that mass surveillance allows: control of the infrastructure that is used to secure said documents.
   
   By the way it is not up to me to offer a syllogism/argument. It's up to you to justify yours.

The average person commits 3 felonies a day and doesn't even know it https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

Three Mortal Sins a Day

> Incorrect, I understand cryptography and how it is used in Bitcoin very well. You would be served well by stopping to assume things.

I've read your history, this is flatly false. I encourage anyone else reading this conversation on the sidelines to do the same, this person has no idea how cryptography works and has continuously stated that the state has the power to pass laws that will in some way warp the material of reality such that those who wish to perform cryptographic operations are somehow no longer able to, because they're now "criminals" in having done so. As if this matters, and as if [all his countrymen are not already at any rate] (https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229).

> the rest would simply be criminals

Like this.

Please, baghold those government bonds right into the dirt, your misery will amuse me when the turn comes.

> Stopping Bitcoin use does not require cracking cryptography at all, only identifying users.

Which requires breaking cryptography to those that do not wish to identify themselves.

Have you read Three Felonies a Day by any chance?

You shouldn't be so sure

Well, that's one felony for the day. What will be your other two?

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/331

> I don't commit crimes and out myself in situations like that so I don't have to worry.

I bet you commit far more crimes than you realize.

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

> I wouldn't want them using my google history from today against me...though I'm not sure we'd have to worry about something like that, but who knows.

This article from the Salt Lake Tribune list some figures on the NSA data center in Utah. The quote that jumps at me follows

> "That is far more storage than you would need to store what’s on every hard drive owned by every American, much less any database anywhere,’’ said Allan Friedman, a technology-policy specialist and fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

If the feds have the ability to store every datapoint they ever collect, why wouldn't they? They already have enough storage for everything today, and physical storage will only get cheaper moving forward. On to the crux or your argument.

> Maybe not surveillance on a single place or individual person, but we have constant police surveillance throughout our towns. 99% of the population will never commit a serious crime, yet they're constantly observing the actions of all of the public just in case that one "boogeyman" happens to show up. You may not be the one dealing drugs, but the policeman is still driving down the street you're walking on and sees what stores you go into. Thats the way I see this, your actions may be noticed, but if you've got nothing to hide then the information they gather on you will be completely irrelevant and useless to their cause.

I respectfully disagree with these points. It is impossible for a police force to have constant surveillance everywhere in meatspace, the logistics of that would be ridiculous. With regards to the second point, there are so many laws on the books that it is impossible to not break them, as Harvey Silverglate details in his book. In the real world, this is no big deal, precisely due to the lack of constant surveillance by the authorities. In the digital world, however, the authorities have enough data to reconstruct every move you make, and keep this data forever. Further, this data is much more precise than what a police officer would see driving down the street, more like what a detective assigned to follow 3 feet behind you at all times would see. And now we know that this huge network of "3 foot behind detectives" (PRISM) has, for all intents and purposes, infinite notebook space (data centers) to write record your actions. Practically, this means that the executive branch can arrest whoever they want by selectively enforcing some laws and not others.

This story from Wired summarizes many of these points more eloquently than I just did.

Have my up-vote for a thoughtful articulate response. I honestly wish your last statement was true, but not all laws these day are moral. There does exist an overlap between illegal and moral on the truth tables. This is an interesting (but slightly off-topic) read:

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

The government may not be looking to arrest you for downloading the latest tomb raider game, but it IS a crime.

So some day when they want something from you, they can use their knowledge about that to blackmail you.

The average American commits three felonies a day. Do you honestly think that any agency is sufficiently incorruptible that, with the knowledge needed to go after anyone they want, they will refrain from doing so?

Worse yet, what happens when these agencies start blackmailing the legislators into doing what the agencies want? Mass surveillance gives them the means, how much do you trust them not to develop the desire? Even if they're not doing it now, eventually they will. And once they do, democracy is dead.

Thats ok, most dads are criminals, nearly everyone in the US is without even knowing it.https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

> Get rid of that shit, or use it when you suspect brigading. It's rankly insulting to label someone as a "donald user". I read and post there occasionally, and it's usually a dissenting opinion.

Yeah, and that's why I responded to you. I didn't mean to insult you, but you have to recognize that you're the 1/100 I clicked into and didn't find something horrific. It's a useful tool so I don't waste time digging up links just so someone can respond "lol retard libcuck." And that happens often enough that someone made a tool to stop it.

Anyway, I'm glad that you seem like the rare conservative who seems repulsed by police brutality. If you're interested in the subject of our (in)justice system, check out Michelle Alexander's "The New Jim Crow." It really opened my eyes as to the iniquity inherent in our policing systems.

...Talking points? I'm a sociologist who works on economics, politics & crime and has worked in several police & prison orgs.

I'd be glad to cite every claim I made--though I can't imagine how explaining the is/ought distinction is a 'talking point.'

Crack is not more addictive than free based or injected cocaine, this is a physiological fact. It is only more addictive than snorted cocaine. And, it is not 18-100X more addictive than snorted cocaine, so that isn't even a justification.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem

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

http://qcpages.qc.cuny.edu/~hlevine/Secret_of_World_Wide_Drug_Prohibition__HG_Levine

https://gspp.berkeley.edu/assets/uploads/research/pdf/ssrn-id1118460.pdf

http://sites.fas.harvard.edu/~ec970ajf/Class_19/economics_drug_war%20copy.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Pursuit-Oblivion-Global-History-Narcotics/dp/0393325458

https://www.amazon.com/Creating-American-Junkie-Addiction-Research/dp/0801867983

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/harvard-economist-jeffrey-miron-on-why-drugs-should-be-legalized-a-886289.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/?utm_term=.765f9157fdf3

http://www.epi.org/publication/wage-theft-bigger-problem-theft-protect/

http://www.independent.org/newsroom/news_detail.asp?newsID=35

http://www.countthecosts.org/sites/default/files/Crime-briefing.pdf

http://www.nber.org/papers/w6950

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/crime/2015/08/racial_disparities_in_the_criminal_justice_system_eight_charts_illustrating.html

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/assets/141027_iachr_racial_disparities_aclu_submission_0.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Color-Justice-Ethnicity-Wadsworth-Contemporary/dp/1111346925

http://www.sentencingproject.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/The-Color-of-Justice-Racial-and-Ethnic-Disparity-in-State-Prisons.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431

https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/20452518.pdf?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/who-are-biggest-killers-america-numbers-will-shock-you

http://therealnews.com/t2/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=31&Itemid=74&jumival=16702

http://hlrecord.org/2015/03/20-things-you-should-know-about-corporate-crime/

https://www.attn.com/stories/2643/crack-vs-cocaine

https://openborders.info/double-world-gdp/

https://www.thenewamerican.com/culture/family/item/21784-prescription-drugs-kill-more-than-illegal-drugs-teens-at-high-risk

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/jun/29/george-will/claims-smoking-kills-more-people-annually-other-da/


edit:

more sources

http://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.2015.303032

http://news.stanford.edu/2016/06/28/stanford-researchers-develop-new-statistical-test-shows-racial-profiling-police-traffic-stops/

http://plsonline.eku.edu/insidelook/how-much-crime-fighting-do-%E2%80%98crime-fighters%E2%80%99-really-do

http://isites.harvard.edu/fs/docs/icb.topic1458086.files/Western.pdf

http://64.6.252.14/class/540/2013/science-cullen.pdf

https://www.prisonpolicy.org/scans/e199912.htm

https://www.amazon.com/Rich-Get-Richer-Poor-Prison/dp/0205137725

http://www.infoshop.org/pdfs/Our-Enemies-in-Blue.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Lockdown-America-Police-Prisons-Crisis/dp/1844672492

i think that today's political landscape provides people with different senses of reality. Many americans go through life seeing little discrimination, and see the opportunities everyone shares. the fact of the matter is that while there is certainly less systematic discrimination discrimination than there used to be, in actuality there are many systems that deeply discriminate. as an example, when you look at racial discrimination in regards to higher conviction rates for POC that have committed the same crimes as a white counter part, in addition to housing and employment discrimination. there are some good books and studies out there on these topics. just because people you may know aren't racist doesn't mean that the system isn't still isn't overall more discriminatory for certain groups. that's not to say that it doesn't swing the other way sometimes. I can recall a case where a large tech company had pressure on them to hire more diversely and it led to unfair hiring practices in favor of people of color. But those cases are much fewer compared to the discrimination faced, and overall are certainly still on the short end of the stick in regards to their opportunities in the US.

All of this is to say that if someones stance on an issue is to support those being being discriminated against and oppressed, and they hold political events, rallies, etc. then the "attack" they are making is against their oppressors. they are asking for equality. We can call this "punching up", because the oppressors are holding them down. So when a group with other views protests against their cause, they are siding with the status quo, maybe they don't think the racism is really playing a role in the outcome of their lives. ultimately they are siding with the oppressors. If they are actively trying to oppose their efforts, they are "punching down".

regardless of what race Joey Gibson is, there are three actions one can take in this situation. actively support the oppressed, take no action, or actively work against the cause of the oppressed. the fact of the matter is that Patriot Prayer has fallen into the last category in regards to race issues and anti-muslim issues. Sure, they also stand up for milquetoast right wing positions (and i certainly share an anti-gov sentiment with them), but they also actively work against the oppressed. i'm not trying to be snarky or anything, just my thoughts here.

/u/psychicoctopusSP just told you about a book that is very short, easy to read, and might make you think about this differently.

http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431

The system definitely punishes blacks more than whites for the exact same crimes. If we are talking about drugs, assume the exact same situation. Same car, same container for drugs, same type of drugs, same quantity of drugs, same demeanor to the officer and in court, same everything. Different sentences. This is well documented at this point.

Brilliant book, absolutely worth a read if any of y’all haven’t read it before: https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431/ref=nodl_

> Why the US ? It's one of the most diverse and free countries in the world. Not a big fan of the government but there's a reason everyone wants to live there.

If I'm going to ring Israel up for defacto discrimination via social norms rather than obvious race based law, then I certainly have to accept that America also fits that definition. Some argue (and I'm amenable to the argument) that features of the current implementation of the American legal system amounts to modern "Jim Crow" laws. The popular book making this argument is Michelle Alexander's: The New Jim Crow. I assume you're not super familiar with American history, so just a quick summary of what I'm talking about:

1. Africans are brought to America during the slave trade. These people have no rights despite America proclaiming that "all men are created equal."
   
2. Though the American constitution doesn't use the word "slave" there is what's called the "3/5ths compromise" where the founders agreed that, when conducting the census, slaves would count as 3/5ths of a person. This is important because the American House of Representatives is based on population numbers and slave states wanted to get as many representatives as possible while non-slave states argued that slaves can't vote and have no rights, so why should they be part of the count that determines how many representatives a state gets in the legislative body.
   
3. After the Civil War was fought over the issue of slavery, America got rid of the 3/5ths compromise and passed the 13th amendment ('Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.') Notice how that's written? What's the loophole?
   
4. "Jim Crow" laws start to spring up in the former slave states. These are laws specifically designed to disenfranchise black voters without directly specifying race. The law might be something like: you can only vote if your grandfather voted (being 'grandfathered in'). Newly freed slaves may not even know who their grandfather is (slaves were routinely separated from their family sometimes for simple economic reasons and other times as a purposeful tactic to keep familial strength down), and even if they did... their grandfather certainly never had the right to vote. At best, apartheid South Africa could have claimed to be in this phase.
   
5. A sort of equilibrium is found where the slave states essentially found ways to continue being slave states without violating the 13th. There was a system of "separate but equal" where slave states would claim that blacks have all of the same rights but have to remain segregated. This is the nearest historical comparison for where I think Israel is right now. In my opinion, you're in your "separate but equal" phase.
   
6. A lot of time passes, and black people slowly gain rights eventually culminating in the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which attempted to deal with the remnants of Jim Crow and the failed effort after the Civil War to integrate southern slave society with the rest of America (we basically put reunifying the country ahead of actually stamping out the core issue... 13th amendment was "good enough" even if it wasn't really respected in the south).
   
7. Remember that loophole? With Jim Crow being mostly defeated and black people beginning to vote and elect representatives again, then President Nixon implements the "southern strategy" which include "law and order" with the result being (some would argue) essentially a new Jim Crow system where you find reasons to arrest and charge your opponents (blacks and hippies in Nixon's eyes) and if you can pin a felony on them, then you can take away their right to vote. This is why American black people are so sensitive to the police issue, because they see it as, essentially, the continuation of an effort to disenfranchise them even if there isn't a law written that specifically targets them.
   
   Ok, so I'm basically arguing that, like I believe to be the case in Israel, in America we're trying to live up to our ideals, but we've historically fallen short and continue to do so based on deep seated human feelings about "us" and "them." We may say that all men are created equal and that justice is blind, but in both of our countries the data says our legal systems produce worse outcomes for minorities than can be accounted for through normal variables. I'm not sure that I'd say American or Israel are the most racist western countries, but I think it's fair to say that we're up there in terms of how out of place and hypocritical our racism is. America, because we're a country of immigrants ... and Israel for the same reason (don't flip out, it's just true by modern definitions) combined with the recent experience of what can be the result of extreme "us" vs "them" thinking with the Shoah. In other words, we're not the worst ... but we should be the most ashamed.
   
   > I still really like your argument and the way you put it. I can't bring myself to disagree with you anymore.. lol
   
   Thanks! It always feels good to hear you made a good argument. That said, I've found my arguments over the years only because people like you attack them and show me where the weaknesses/mistakes/inaccuracies are. I hope that you'll come at me in good faith, and we can continue to make each other smarter and more capable of articulating our respective positions.

Ok, for starters, the survey methodology is already questionable, as different cultures will have different levels of willingness to answer truthfully on a question like that.

Second, a survey on someone of a different race being your neighbor doesn't--at all--capture systemic or institutionalized racism. White people can say they love Black people until the cows come home, but as long as extreme state-sponsored racism still exists, the USA remains really fucking racist. (Full PDF of book here if you're interested)

I would recommend The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander. A great read on some of the topics surrounding crime statistics and what we should glean from them. Not the main topic of the book of course.

The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1595586431

This is one of the most eye-opening books I've ever read, AND she uses research to back up a lot of her claims. Really worth the read. Though I did have to keep putting it down because I'd get too pissed off to read.

http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431/

Try The New Jim Crow.

http://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1374067596&sr=1-1&keywords=the+new+jim+crow

Someone mentioned it below, and I second their suggestion. The New Jim Crow is a fascinating book that explains quite a lot, particularly regarding the War on Drugs (god I hate that name) and it's effects on the black community. I'm white and that book changed my entire perception of "black culture" and the culture of poverty.

> It shouldn't be hard to find a link then to back your claim, sources please

I don't have time to walk you through all of this. I'm not a high school history teacher. That said, here are a couple of quick sources to illustrate the point that workers get screwed, government intervention can be a positive, and your fantasy of free negotiation is absurd: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm4822a1.htm

http://www.history.com/topics/labor

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/supremecourt/capitalism/landmark_westcoast.html (I'd recommend you read the actual case, as it's an example of lived experiences informing a legal decision to reduce freedom of contract).

If you want to know more I recommend picking up a real book, since it's difficult to get a comprehensive idea of what employment relationships have really been like just from webpages and snapshots of time. Some ideas:

http://www.amazon.com/A-Peoples-History-United-States/dp/0060838655

Or selected chapters from this book http://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1421953073&sr=8-1&keywords=the+new+jim+crow&pebp=1421953075409&peasin=1595586431

Or you could even spend time on Google, since it's free.

> I found multiple countries, hardly scattered.

Except that none of those countries actually support your claim. When I said that you could find scattered examples, I was speaking hypothetically, because you haven't provided any, and "yeah but Sweden" isn't an argument, especially when: http://work.sweden.se/living-in-sweden/workers-rights-and-unions/

And again, you're saying that all government intervention should be abolished. You made the claim, now stop trying to pigeonhole the conversation into a discussion about the minimum wage.

I have read 25 non fiction books this year. These are the best

The New Jim Crow Important and convincing, extremely well written - I don't think anyone could read this and not agree with her. 10/10

Unpatriotic History of the Second World War The title (and especially the publisher write-up) is kind of misleading I think. The book does lean left, but I think it just presents a pretty realistic warts and all picture of the war, with everyone out for themselves. I may have just enjoyed this book so much because my knowledge of the war was so cursory.
9.5/10

You think you sound deep but it's really naive. I don't know what your past is but I can tell you don't know what it means to feel that kind of pain and have it thrown in your face. It's not some dead history and I hope some day you take some time to educate yourself there's a lot of great works out there to explain it.

& for the last time, assault is not okay, but don't instigate and expect not to get a reaction.

> but American "justice" confuses and terrifies me regularly.

American Criminal Law is basically about domination, conquest, ostracism, and systemic alienation by the "Master Race" just like almost all of our nation's history. At least the official history which tends to condone such behavior if not lionize it. "after all just look, the master race is still in charge and we still don't have to play by the rules." We've never had a "Magna Carta" moment in our history. The master race being rich white male landowning Europeans. If you weren't at least four of those, Americans don't care about your history if not outright hating and fearing you.

Read for example "Slavery by Another Name." by Douglas A. Blackmon (bit of an appropriate name) or "The New Jim Crow" by Michelle Alexander.

It's systematic abusive behavior written into the laws. It's basically the same kind of stuff that abusers do to their kids. The only reason why we're not a third world country like, say the Phillipines, is that we were the only major country not destroyed by both world wars, so all the scientists and technicians in europe moved over here in the early 20th century.

So, imagine an impoverished alcoholic who abuses his wife and kids, living in one of europes many slums in the 18th's century. Image he gets dissillusioned by his lack of any kind of career sucess (because he's an abusive drunk sociopath) Now, Imagine he decides to ship it over the pond to seek his fortune (partially because his wife and family all hate him.

These are America's founding fathers. Abusive nasty classless wife beating fucks. Seriously. These are the people who wrote out earliest legal system.

We're sentimental about our roots in Europe despite the fact that everyone hated our ancestors often for good reasons over there. We think this makes us awesome that we were willing to take this grand misadventure, when we didn't actually have a choice.

It wouldn't have happened if the actual americans hadn't been devastated by several pandemics introduced a century before.

I am not really sure what you're trying to say here. I completed my thesis on this topic and I encourage some of these readings:

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis

Our Enemies in Blue: Police and Power in America

The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness

In his 1968 run for President, Richard Nixon and fellow conservatives seized the tumultuous events at the time as an opportunity to gain political points--you are spot on.


Nixon dedicated seventeen speeches solely to the topic of law and order. The liberal Democratic establishment was characterized as out-of- touch and weak on crime. In one of his television ads Nixon called upon American voters to reject the lawlessness of civil rights activists and embrace “order.” At the end of the ad, a caption reads: “This time . . . vote like your whole world depended on it . . . NIXON.”

After viewing the campaign ad, Nixon remarked that the ad “hits right on the nose. It’s all about those damn Negro-Puerto Rican groups out there.”

Before Nixon’s inauguration—Krogh and Ehrlichman held strategy sessions with ranking members of the House Judiciary Committee. Their meetings were an attempt to test nationwide federalist crime policy in Washington DC, increasing preventative detention and no-knock raid provisions left out of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act passed six months earlier. The new administration held two strategy sessions on crime, just before Nixon took office, and another shortly after his inauguration. Nixon surrounded himself with some of the most notable conservative crime experts at the time. In addition to Krogh and Ehrlichman, were GOP chief House counsel John Dean, and future Democratic senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then a domestic policy adviser.

Fast forward to the Texas Tower shooter and you have the creation of SWAT. Though SWAT’s original motives were to handle
extreme emergencies, their first official mission is indicative of what the State constitutes
as an emergency. In 1969, in its first mission, SWAT raided an alleged headquarters of
the Black Panther Party.

I could go on and on, but I'll leave you with one final article that I think you should take a look at: How White Users Made Heroin a Public-Health Problem and the 1985 Philidelphia MOVE Bombing. where police literally bombed--as in C4 explosive from a helicopter--a neighborhood because it was rumored to be home of black activists.

well without getting too in depth I'd like to first say you should look into and read up on the issue because I will undoubtedly get something wrong here. It's overwhelmingly complicated and I'm not an expert. If you want a quick easy intro you could start with netflix's 13TH. Many of the authors you should be reading if you're interested in the theory of structural racism are quoted or interviewed in that documentary.

 

The New Jim Crow - Michelle Alexander

Not in my Neighborhood - Antero Pietila (caveat: I read about redlining quite a few years ago now, from someone interviewed in 13th. forget who. would cite them instead but in a rush RN. I think I read a snippet of this book at one point but tbh it's been a long time since I went to school)

 

are both probably good places to start. I have a collection of academic journals and sources from undergrad I might be able to find at home too (although my life is busy this holiday season so no promises). the basic idea is that after the civil rights movement many things aligned to marginalize minorities in place of the more openly racist system of segregation. After WWII vets were given houses, but black vets were encouraged to move into new houses in black neighborhood, which were "redlined" - essentially the houses in black neighborhoods were deemed less valuable and if you lived in these neighborhoods it became progressively harder to get good loans and build your financial assets. so white vets sent their kids to free using the assets their GI bill houses gave their family, while black vets watched their neighborhoods slowly fall into poverty and marginalization.

 

Meanwhile a rhetoric of "criminality" was cultivated in politics - Nixon ran on an anti-crime platform and his adimistration allegedly used drugs and crime to split up hippies and black, keeping them from unifying politically. Reagan grew these policies and next thing you know The New Jim Crow emerged - sorry for wiki but incarceration skyrocketed and disproportionately hit minorities and the lower classes. Check the sources at the bottom of the wiki it's a much more complex issue than one sentence and I don't have time to cite you a million sources. Although democrats don't like to talk about it, Bill Clinton actually resided over a very large part of this trend of mass incarceration and even enacted some of the harshest laws - like three strikes and you're out and mandatory minimums. It's possible this hard stance on crime helped win back the presidency for the Democrats - by then crime had become such an integral part of campaigning that the only way to beat the republicans was to join them.

 

during this time you can actually also find some strong examples of more direct violence against major outspoken black voices - there was the time philadelphia bombed itself - here's an op-ed on that one too and there was the assasination of Fred Hampton while he was asleep next to his wife

 

complicating matters is the privatization of prisons. With so many people in prison states were slow and overcrowding became an issue so profits started to be had in the private prison sector. it didn't take long for other industries to join the party -Lots of big names in American consumerism use or used labor in prison camps to cut labor costs and stay local. Which just makes it more profitable to be tough on crime and run prisons.

 

tl;dr: it pays to have cheap labor and infrastructure/governement can be used to maintain the status quo with a new spin

Hasn't been mentioned yet but extremely important book:

Michelle Alexander's The New Jim Crow

I will look into Thomas Sowell. In fact, I will order one of his books right now. Which do you recommend?

Edit: Looking in him now. I find a lot of what he says to be rather "meh", but I'm going to give his book a shot. However, is he the only black scholar you read? We aren't monolithic and many well educated scholars would agree with many/some of his views.

In return, I ask that you look into "The New Jim Crow", which goes over a lot of what I've grazed upon, but from a much more eloquent and educated woman than myself.

https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431

I'm not saying technology alone was to blame. I'm saying that what people seem to not understand is that when black communities were hit, it had a larger impact, because black communities were not on a level playing field. Racism, especially systematic and institutional racism, added an extra set of challenges that white americans never had to face. As a black american, I acknowledge there are some issues in my community. But I also understand how things got to be so bad and that we cannot expect the government to fix it, the same people who really helped fuck it up. Same thing with Native Americans. Things are bad, but they didn't just get bad for no reason. We really have to take a nuanced look at history.

I linked some great sources, you should consider having a look.

I also suggest maybe rethinking relying on Ann Coulter.

"If we took away women’s right to vote, we’d never have to worry about another democrat president. It’s kind of a pipe dream. It’s a personal fantasy of mine.”

• I don't have to explain why a woman who believes this is a problem. It's also simply not true. More white women voted republican, especially this year.
  
  “A lot of people are upset when I talk about Mexican child rapes, Muslims clitorectomies, Muslim honor killings…white people don’t do that. America is not used to these types of crimes. We are bringing in cultures where child rape is very common.” -
  
  male circumcision. Perhaps different reason, but child mutilation is wrong. Also, the catholic church? Lots of child rape.
  
  "In 1960 whites were 90% of the country. The census bureau recently estimated that whites already account for less than two-thirds of the population and will be a minority by 2050. Other estimates put that day much sooner. One may assume the new majority will not be such compassionate overlords as the white majority has been.”
  
  
• Compassionate overlords?
  
  “This is a country created by white people…I am a Native because I am a descendant from settlers.”
  
  Correction, this country was stolen, then recreated by white people. Only natives are native americans.
  
  Basically, not to knock you, but this woman is part of the reason racial divides exists. I like to think we have a lot more in common than not, but rhetoric like Ann's unnecessarily furthers the divide. I'm sure there are much more reliable and less hateful conservative voices.
  
  
  
  
  

If you really want to know, read "The New Jim Crow" it explains the phenomena rather eloquently.

Michelle Alexander, author of 'The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness' -
>If anyone doubts that the mainstream media fails to tell the truth about our political system (and its true winners and losers), the spectacle of large majorities of black folks supporting Hillary Clinton in the primary races ought to be proof enough. I can't believe Hillary would be coasting into the primaries with her current margin of black support if most people knew how much damage the Clintons have done - the millions of families that were destroyed the last time they were in the White House thanks to their boastful embrace of the mass incarceration machine and their total capitulation to the right-wing narrative on race, crime, welfare and taxes. There's so much more to say on this topic and it's a shame that more people aren't saying it. I think it's time we have that conversation.

That is the most racist and ignorant comment I've read in a long time "The way we FIX African Americans is by supporting them with contraception and encouraging them to marry". WOW. You can just go bury your head in the sand now. Wow. That took my breath away and left me speechless. No wonder we have the BLM movement.

You should really read this book if you really are reading political science books. It's called "The New Jim Crow". And BTW, the Seattle Police Department is using this book to train their officers. A couple of takeaways from the book are 1) certain demographics do not commit more crimes. Period. That's a fallacy. 2) We have created criminals by labeling them as such 3) We have created an economic and judicial system that creates "criminals".

There are many takeaways from the book, but it's highly recommended reading. Blacks don't need "fixing" as you state. The system we've created needs fixing.


http://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1451697091&sr=8-1&keywords=the+new+jim+crow

> 67% of all black children have single parents. Usually the state acts as a surrogate while the fathers are in jail.

And here is a very well researched book explaining why:

http://www.amazon.com/The-New-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431

Institutionalized racism is still a huge problem. But it is not a failing of the victims, it is the fault of the oppressors.

Now, stop deflecting (if you're capable of that) and answer the question: how much "blackness" makes one more prone to violence?

> This is a breakdown of the percentage of those on welfare by ethnicity. Now take a second and think about it. An easy stat to find, 72.4% of America is White verses 12.6% is Black. Are you starting to understand yet? There is an astronomically larger amount of white people than black people, and therefore by STATISTICS, it shows that a much, much smaller proportion (which is what is tested in statistics most frequently) of White Americans are on welfare than the Black American proportion. Even furthermore these actual data, show that, of the people on welfare the Black percentage is STILL HIGHER!!! Q.E.D. You are completely wrong. Period.

Thanks for the updated data. You are correct - my previous assertion was inaccurate. The link I included had old data, and since it, blacks have overtaken whites in their share of welfare claims.

And I do understand proportional statistics, thanks for that. My question to you is: Why do you care so much that they're black? Let me guess - it's not racist, it's just that, you know, blacks are like, lazy. Everyone knows that.

There have been some interesting books the past several years, including The New Jim Crow, which show some evidence that racial profiling has resulted in higher incarceration rates for minorities, which leads to higher percentages of single mothers, which leads to more welfare recipients proportionally. Food for thought...

>Historical context is irrelevant.

Says the guy who thinks the only racism is anti-white racism.

> Jim Crow has been gone longer than 95% of blacks have been alive.

Read this and let's discuss.

Also read a book about racism because it's clear your state's education system clearly fucked you - read The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander, Director of the Racial Justice Project of the ACLU, 4.5 stars over 3 thousand reviews. It was banned from US prisons from fear of causing riots. https://www.amazon.com/New-Jim-Crow-Incarceration-Colorblindness/dp/1595586431

Thank you for engaging in a discussion.

I want to emphasize that I am not excusing Stalin. In fact, in no way did I suggest something like that. All I wanted was for someone to be more weary about passing judgement.

However, I would disagree with you about our prisons. It is my opinion, and that of many other scholars, that it is designed specifically to subjugate poor and minority populations. Both in the word of the law and in its execution. I would refer you to The New Jim Crow for a very good primer on the subject.

There are legal scholars who disagree, but I think the evidence is overwhelming. Now, I am not a legal scholar, so take from that what you want.

And I am aware of Holodomor. I grew up around the Ukrainian community in Chicago. I know people who know personally about Stalin's attrocities. To clarify the comment, I meant post war Soviet Union did not have famines or extensive hungers. At the time of Stalin's death, virtually no one died of starvation. And another thing, he oversaw the largest economic growth ever. But when I say that, I'm not defending him, and it isn't even the point. I really want to emphasize that we need to be more critical of our own transgressions.

Here is a direct link to the book. Seriously, you should read this. It is one of the most accessible books on the subject, and it's not merely "white men are all evil." It is a summary of good, mainstream scholarship. You will only come out better for having read it.

What are your thoughts on the contents of this article?

Are you familiar with the book The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness? (https://www.amazon.com/dp/1595586431/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_i_4bTQCbKZPQ5ZK)

But I also want to reiterate that when people refer to something as a "social construct", we don't mean that it's completely fake and meaningless.

Money is a social construct--cash isn't something that we can find growing on a stalk and the fact that we value some metals and rocks over others is basically arbitrary--but it's still a real thing and someone's relative access to it can have huge consequences for their quality (and duration) of life. In the same way, while the modern conception of race was invented rather than discovered, it has real consequences for people. If you want to read more about that, I recommend The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.

The short answer to "debunk the statistics" is that due to a wide range of factors, people of color are MUCH more likely to experience poverty and as such much more likely to resort to crime. (They also experience the effects of poverty differently, in part due to unequal policing practices.) The economic piece the biggest, but there's a lot going on, so like I said lots of great books on the subject if you're interested, Rothstein's is a good place to start. I would also recommend The New Jim Crow by Michelle Alexander.

The New Jim Crow: Mass Incarceration in the Age of Colorblindness https://www.amazon.com/dp/1595586431/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_WrrTCbYVC8Y0Q

In the New Jim Crow (one of the most important books I have read in recent years, HIGHLY recommended), the author lays a great deal of the blame for the continuation and expansion of the war on drugs and the resultant bloated prison system and discriminatory criminal justice system at Bill Clinton's feet.

You'll be interested and disgusted by the content of the New Jim Crow

download it for free here

Same actually. I picked up this book yesterday and I'm excited to crack it open.

Yes, really.

The truth is there's simply no way to separate American law enforcement from its historical purpose of suppressing minorities and the poor.

Richard Nixon outright said, on tape, that the government needed to come up with a way to single out blacks without appearing racist and that the way was a war on drugs.

> In my opinion, the fact that many of the people who voted for Trump also voted for Obama should showcase that there wasn't any racial intention behind the casting of their vote, rather the welfare of their country and their family was at the forefront.

I've thought a lot about this phenomenon over the past two years and while it would seem that way on its face, (how could voter animated by racial grievance to back Trump have voted for Obama in 2008 or 2012?) I think the answer is more complex.

I think this ignores the types of campaigns Obama and Trump ran and the political atmosphere that existed at the time of their election. One of the ways Obama was able to thread together the winning coalition he did was his ability to allow his racial identity to serve as a stand-in for concern for minority issues. Meanwhile, while campaigning and governing, Obama didn't have to talk at length about culture war issues because maintaining high turnout among African Americans was not a concern of his campaigns. Additionally, his opponents, McCain and Romney, did not substantially contrast themselves with Obama on racial/identity grounds preferring to portray their difference as ideological disagreements on the direction of Federal policy. This allowed Obama to portray himself as a populist defender of all working Americans standing up against wealthy plutocrats who just wanted to gut the welfare state to give tax cuts to wealthy people and corporations.

In 2016 on the other hand, Clinton (who knew that maintaining Obama levels of turnout among non-whites was going to be critical to victory) needed to make a more concerted effort to emphasize her progressivism on social and racial issues. Trump also played into white identity politics far more than either McCain or Romney did.

For non-religious, non-college educated white voters (textbook Obama-Trump voters and critical components to the latter winning OH, IA, MI, WI, and PA) who tend to be economically progressive but still prone to cultural and demographic anxiety, the election in 2012 was a choice between an incumbent who campaigned on helping working people and a pro-business conservative but the election in 2016 was a choice between a multicultural America concentrated mostly in cosmopolitan, global cities that spoke of a future that was unfamiliar and perceived to be hostile to their values and an outsider who promised to MAGA and address their anxiety through his actions and rhetoric. That would seem to explain why Clinton caused certain voters anxiety about the state of American culture and its demographic future in a way that Obama, paradoxically, didn’t (at least not enough for some to vote against him).

> You claim that the two sides of racism are not equal and that racism against non-whites is worse than that of whites because it is systemic, thus having a greater affect on the livelihood of those affected. Are you suggesting that we have laws that discriminate or pick favorites based on skin color? I've heard many people speak of systemic racism but I don't quite understand the notion of its existence. Or are you suggesting that those in power are white supremacists? Please elaborate on how America is home to systemic racism for me.

Sure, let me go into more detail about each point I made before because I think it will better explain where my thinking on this has been and where I come down.

So, first, I want to clarify what I mean when I say "racism" vs. "bigotry." Bigotry is simply the act of casting prejudice on another person based on their membership in a characteristic group (race, gender identity, religion, first language, national origin, etc.). Anyone is capable of being bigoted towards anyone else, for any reason. In fact, bigotry (or at the very least suspicion towards people not like yourself) is pretty universally human and a clear byproduct of how evolution has shaped our understanding of tribal identities to favor familiar groups and avoid (or treat with suspicion) unfamiliar groups as a means of protecting oneself from danger. As I said in my parent comment, judging any individual without knowing anything about their personal views or beliefs, on the basis of a non-mutable trait, is a textbook example of bigotry and anyone who argues that it's something that only applies to certain groups and not others is incorrect.

"Racism" on the hand is when systemic and institutionalized (and often subconscious) discrimination occurs across a myriad facets of life in a society that positively benefit the majority ethnic/cultural/racial group at the cost of the minority group(s). In America (and other countries with a history of European colonization and settlement like Canada, Brazil, Australia, and South Africa), this means a legacy racial caste system that has it's roots first in slavery, then in outright discrimination, segregation, and apartheid, and now in the effects of several centuries of divergent basic human rights, access to public services, educational attainment, etc. between the majority and minority racial populations that perpetuate the negative consequences of such overt discrimination into future generations.

Since the 1960s, there hasn't been negative discrimination against racial minority groups explicitly written into law. However, given that there has been European colonization and racial discrimination in North American since the end of the 15th Century, we've only had less than eighty years out of several centuries to rectify the crimes of the past and develop a truly post-racial society. It's not really a surprise that we still have a long way to go. This also says nothing of the ways that Americans of color have suffered systemic discrimination in the years since the Civil Rights Movement even if such racial discrimination was technically prohibited by law.

Just take a look at the wealth gap between white and black Americans or a glance at de facto segregation with the racial dot map and see the ways that redlining, loan discrimination, over-policing, sub-par educational opportunities, disparate sentencing, mass incarceration, and discriminatory hiring practices still perpetuate institutionalized systemic racism against Americans of color even to this day.

To tie this back to bigotry against whites vs. bigotry against non-whites. When a white person calls a black person the N word, it's not simply a prejudicial personal attack between individuals. It carries with it the entire centuries long legacy of systemic racial discrimination, violence, and oppression that defines America's racial caste system. As opposed to simply being a bigoted statement, it is a reminder for nonwhite Americans that for most of this country's history, the narrative that was re-enforced from womb to tomb was that they were sub-human and fundamentally inferior to people who believed themselves to be white. The gravity of such a legacy is why, in the American context, bigotry against a white person by non-white people doesn't carry the same baggage with it and therefore inherently should not be treated with the same severity and to equate it as such is to deny how bigotry against non-white people by white people is backed up by the legacy of institutionalized, systemic racial discrimination.

Finally, to your question of whether I'm suggesting that those in power today are literally white supremacists, the answer is certainly not. In fact, when most scholars nowadays talk about "white supremacy" and "systemic racism" in the American context, it's mostly meant in the ways that deep-seated subconscious attitudes towards people based on their race or ethnicity color (no pun intended) individual interactions between Americans that results in sometimes subtle (not getting a job interview based on one's name) and sometimes not so subtle (unarmed black men getting shot by the police) outcomes that when measured at a societal level, depicts consistent discrimination against Americans of color.