|Enzo||6/14/2017 9:50 AM|
|OK< paranoia on the internet|
So elsewhere we touched on "they" watching us.
Here is a guy who came to Washington from Illinois and shot up a softball game of republican congressmen.
Lawmaker Steve Scalise injured in GOP baseball shooting. Suspect James T. Hodgkinson dies after shootout
The guy put up a facebook page and wrote:
“Trump is a Traitor. Trump Has Destroyed Our Democracy. It’s Time to Destroy Trump & Co.”
|Leo_Gnardo||6/14/2017 1:17 PM|
On TV news the "suspect" is shown on his farcebook page with a display in the background "We Are ASHI". American Society of Home Inspectors? Geeze ya can't trust anybody . . .
Representative Steve King (R, Iowa) showed up at the scene of the crime, of course he starts running his stupid mouth and immediately blames "the left." Don't apprise him of the facts, genius Congressman Steve King already made up his own! Now the right will take this as their cue to start shooting back. Guess who has more weapons & ammo? Oh well it was a nice day, until 7 AM. Wonder what fresh horror tomorrow will bring.
|J M Fahey||6/14/2017 2:08 PM|
|Personal opinion, may be wrong, I don´t read much on what happened today.|
Granpa woke up angry today, his hemorrhoids or back pain or bad kidneys didn´t let him sleep for the third night in a row, absolutely hates Trump like millions, he decided to do something about it, grabbed a gun and did it.
Lone wolves like him are impossible to track or stop, because there is no pattern or organization to track.
What kind of intelligence could have singled him out between millions who post exactly the same on FB yet, obviously, do nothing of that kind?
Do you jail *everybody*?
And firearms, although a factor, are not indispensable, those 2 Pakistanis in London last week killed a lot of people (and wounded way more) just with a car and a couple kitchen knives .... how do you successfully lock both kinds of weapons out of the reach of general public?
|Justin Thomas||6/14/2017 2:23 PM|
A lot of people make a LOT of money in this country. Our prison system only works under the GUISE of "punishment" or serving justice. It's a Big Business, like anything else, called "Criminal Justice." And so in answer to your question, yes, there ARE those on BOTH sides who would jail untold millions if they could.
Having to build more jails to hold all the "dangerous" undesirables means that those in power can ask for more tax dollars, because that 19-year-old with two joints on him who can't make a coherent sentence is a dangerous thug who is a menace to all of us (especially The Children! Think of the CHILDREN!) and who needs to be taught a lesson. Nab him, lock him up - more money we need! When he gets out cuz his life is ruined and he hasn't learned anything besides how to be a smarter criminal, he turns to crime. Gets caught again, hey, more money for us! Repeat ad nauseum.
And, some people make shitloads of money!
I have nothing against prison guards. This is about the INSTITUTION.
|The Dude||6/14/2017 6:44 PM|
|That guy was obviously a whacko. A sane person would know the difference between baseball and golf.|
|Enzo||6/15/2017 1:08 AM|
|He was trying to get a hole in one?|
|bob p||6/15/2017 3:56 PM|
|Enzo||6/15/2017 4:13 PM|
|And conversely, even the most repressive governments still have crimes in their lands.|
|bob p||6/15/2017 4:54 PM|
|> And conversely, even the most repressive governments still have crimes in their lands. |
One difference between free and repressive societies is in the way "criminals" are treated. In a free society if you tear down a poster you don't get shipped home in a persistent vegetative state. That case illustrates my point -- I don't think any of us would like to live in a society that is so intolerant of crime that you are sentenced to brain-death for committing a misdemeanor.
Back to Juan's point: even the most repressive governments won't bother trying to eliminate crime by taking away kitchen knives.
|bob p||6/15/2017 5:27 PM|
Of course, that doesn't mean that the computer tracking algorithms aren't activated every time that somebody posts a threat against the government on a site like Facebook.
In all likelihood, these types of posts ARE being investigated. All of them. It's just likely that most of the investigations are automated, and the automated tracking doesn't always result in enough useful leads to result in actionable data. It's not that the surveillance programs aren't paying attention to the mention of these words -- more likely, they DO pay attention to them -- but the algorithms are intended to stratify the level of risk that these kinds of statements represent. It's likely that the shooter's facebook posts did get him investigated, and the investigation probably showed that he was a lone wolf type of complainer, rather than someone who was operating within an organized terrorist cell with accomplices who were prepared to carry out an organized attack. It's a fallacy to think that surveillance is not being performed just because in this case the the surveillance did not yield actionable data. In all likelihood, the results of his investigation fell below the actionable threshold.
I'm willing to bet that someone who is responsible for risk-stratification in the automated surveillance department is getting his ass chewed on today, now that a bunch of governmental bigwigs have been injured in an embarassing high profile case, all because the shooter's FB threats were ignored. It would seem logical that if any response is forthcoming, it's going to involve paying closer attention to FB posts.
With that in mind, I think it's wishful thinking to suspect that they aren't paying attention because this shooter slipped through the detection mechanism. In all likelihood, the outcome is that they're going to start paying more attention to these things tomorrow than they were paying yesterday, and they'll tighten up on surveillance.
|Enzo||6/15/2017 6:39 PM|
|Yeah, but the context was the earlier concerns that citizens like us here using a couple words like bombs was going to result in dropped cell phone calls because of all the line tapping etc. Our comments are very mild compared to the posts of the shooter. And even at his level of virulence, whether noticed by software or not, did not rise to the level of triggering actual response.|
|The Dude||6/15/2017 6:55 PM|
|I almost hate to "go there" because I know it'll start a feud. I'll say it anyway. Maybe "Johnny Law" would miss this shooter's rantings in a sea of similar rantings. BUT, one would hope that when such a person goes to purchase a semi-automatic weapon, it would trigger at least minor investigation into his psyche and discovery of his rantings. Sadly, this isn't so.|
|bob p||6/15/2017 8:13 PM|
The FBI has been performing instant background checks on every person that purchases any type of firearm for the past 24 years. The National Instant Criminal Background Check System, aka NICS, has been in effect since 1993 as a result of the Brady Handgun Violence Protection Act of 1993. Everyone who purchases a gun has an FBI background check performed at the time of sale.
I wonder why people keep calling for this sort of thing, when it's been in effect for almost 25 years.
|The Dude||6/15/2017 8:30 PM|
|Well, it seems they aren't doing a very good job of it.|
Reported by NBC:
"Hodgkinson has a history of arrests and was charged in 2006 with domestic battery and aggravated discharge of a firearm. At the time, police recovered a pocket knife and a 12-gauge shotgun at the scene."
|bob p||6/15/2017 9:06 PM|
What's really sad is that the news media deliberately reports half-truths in order to manipulate the opinions of people who are willing to take news reports at face value. All too often human nature wins out, and people who are too lazy to investigate the story in detail will form opinions based upon the amount of information they get in a 10 second sound byte. It's really most sad when the 10 seconds of information that's made available in the sound byte is intentionally placed misinformation that's been specifically crafted to manipulate your opinion.
It's nothing new that the news media likes to dirty-up everyone they can -- dirty stories help to sell soap. They deliberately report half-truths as if they were fact, and they'll freely resort to all sorts of innuendo in order to convince us to believe whatever they what they want us to believe. They know that most people are too lazy to do the due diligence that's necessary for them to be able to recognize bullshit as bullshit, and to call "Bullshit!" when they hear bullshit on the television.
The case in point is a good example: NBC says "he was charged in 2006 with domestic battery and aggravated discharge of a firearm." Notice that they were not able to say that he was convicted of domestic battery, or aggravated discharge of a firearm, because he was never convicted of such a crime. If NBC were honest in reporting the news, they would have told you that he was ACQUITTED of bogus charges against him in 2006, but telling you that truth doesn't help their agenda, now does it? In typical fashion of dishonest reporting they purposefully avoid telling you that he was not convicted. They tell you that he was charged, to dirty up his character; they never tell you that he was exonerated because that truth doesn't suit their purpose.
They get away with these sorts of things because they know that the average person listening to the idiot-box is not paying enough attention to the details to call "Bullshit!" and is easily manipulated into holding the opinion that the idiot-box wants them to hold. It's sad that people are so easily manipulated by intentional half-truths.
So what if he was charged? He was never convicted. In the absence of a conviction it's both illegal and unethical to hold any of those 2006 deeds against him -- no matter how juicy they may be, no matter how foreshadowing of today's events they might have been. I realize that most people reading this wouldn't agree with that statement -- human nature is that most of us like to think that the law is supposed to work to our arbitrary standards. We like to think that if someone has been arrested multiple times, then they must be a bad person, irrespective of whether they have been convicted or not. Those evil people don't deserve to have rights.
The truth is that being able to buy a gun is a constitutional right, and you have to be convicted of a felony to lose that right. That guy was never convicted of being a felon. He was never prevented from buying a gun because he was not convicted of any offences that qualify as Federal or State "Prohibitors" in denying a background check.
What does this tell us about the background check system? It tells us that the system works exactly as it was intended to work. What's the reason that this guy slipped through? He had done nothing previously to warrant conviction of a serious crime, his name was clean in the databases, and his background check never reached the threshold of action.
FYI here's some more information on exactly how the NICS system works behind the scenes, courtesy of the FBI's Youtube account. It's amazing how much information they can process in a matter of seconds.
If we all believed what NBC wants us to believe, then I'd be as dirty as Hodgkins, but the truth is that I'm not.
|The Dude||6/15/2017 9:34 PM|
|I liked your post because I think you made some valid points and it's well thought out. I don't necessarily agree 100%. Sure the guy wasn't convicted of any felonies. But there is an arrest record that clearly demonstrates a history of violent activity and domestic abuse. Couple that with his online rantings. Yep, one can say there weren't convictions- no felonies- nothing to see here- move along. |
IMO, conviction or not, having such a lengthy history with the law should at least garner a psych profile and a bit more investigation before any firearm purchase. It's my understanding that there are plenty of non-felons on the no fly list and even employers are using social media profiles as hiring tools. I'm also not naďve enough to think that we will stop these sorts of things completely, regardless of what is done. I respect your opinion, but we'll just have to agree to disagree.
For the record, I have a 12-ga shotgun and a 22 pistol at home. I'm not anti-gun.
|bob p||6/15/2017 10:00 PM|
|> But there is an arrest record that clearly demonstrates a history of violent activity and domestic abuse.|
NO! An arrest record without a conviction proves nothing more than that the police arrested someone who was never proven guilty of a crime.
An arrest record without a conviction clearly demonstrates nothing but an UNPROVEN ALLEGATION of violent activity and domestic abuse. You can't view those unproven allegations as being fact without a conviction. This is where the vast majority of well-intentioned people lose track of what it means to be fair. Too many people believe whatever they're told. It's like a sheeple, who believes anything they're told, saying something like, "He must be guilty of a crime. Why would the police arrest him otherwise?"
(Leo, that's your tack if you want to get out of jury duty. If you want to be dismissed, just make a fundamentalist comment like "Why would the police have arrested him if he wasn't guilty?" I guarantee that lack of objectivity will get you dismissed.)
It's interesting that the newspeople interviewed the guy's wife today on TV and she only had nice things to say about him. He's dead now, and there's no way that he can come back to get her for anything that she says, and she's still being nice when she describes him. If she were a long time victim of violent activity and domestic abuse, then is she still being quiet out of fear, or are those allegations just false stories that we're being told? (Does anyone actually believe the news report that the Oklahoma City Bomber left a receipt for fuel oil and fertilizer on top of his dresser?)
I think that a distinction needs to be made between what type of information is actionable for investigation purposes vs. what type of information is actionable for discrimination. Someone's criminal record (convictions) can be used to discriminate against them, as those are proven facts. But arrrests that did not lead to convictions should not be used to discriminate against them or to suspend their civil rights -- if we travel down that road then we become guilty of judging people based upon innuendo and accusation rather than fact. With that said, even though something like an FBI background check can't discriminate against someone who was never convicted of a crime, Law Enforcement still has that arrest record (without conviction) information available them, and they do use it in their investigations. But in the spirit of fairness to those who have not been convicted of a crime, that sort of innuendo cannot be used to deny anyone's rights... unless we decide we'd rather live in a banana republic where there are no rights and there is no rule of law.
|Chuck H||6/16/2017 12:29 AM|
|I agree that anti guns for psyco's screening is a good idea. I also agree that it's being done, sort of (IMHE it's a lot more lax than it should be). In fact America is currently enjoying some of the safest times per capita in forty years! Many gun incidents occur in heated moments between people that are family or otherwise acquainted and expected to be civil. Legal gun owners. Premeditated criminals don't have any problem getting a gun illegal or otherwise.|
A real problem with profiling for legal gun ownership is where to draw the line without affecting civil rights. For example, and this is just IMHO, the guy that says "They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead hand." (attitude and southern accent implied) is just the sort of person that probably shouldn't have a gun. He also represents , probably, better than 50% of the people that want a gun. Or, rather, insist on it. Then this guy cheats on his wife, comes home drunk and hits her in the course of an argument and she shoots him with his own gun. They haul her off in cuffs on an episode of COPS and she's yelling "He's a sunovabitch!" Just sayin'
Yes, there are definitely signals for who might use a gun for the purposes of crime. They're not limited to "It's time to destroy Trump." In fact, that's not even an unusual thing to hear in these times. It's the bumper sticker that says "This truck protected by Smith & Wesson" you need to look out for. That guy can barely WAIT for a chance to use his gun on someone. He's also the guy who's rights we're trying to preserve when we fight for gun rights since that personality type is largely represented in the demographic.
And I'm not anti gun either. In fact I believe the right to keep and bear "arms" being limited to hunting rifles and shotguns is skewed from it's original intention of allowing the public to arm itself against ANY potential threat to their rights. Including their own government. Should I qualify some mandatory, and hopefully very stringent profile test I should be allowed to buy a f'in F-16 fighter jet, fully armed if I can afford it. We don't "arm" ourselves against deer. Hunting guns were surely an assumed right with no questions when that amendment was written. It specifically addresses arms.
So consider, please, that all of the above was written by the same guy that wrote the last paragraph. I'm NOT anti gun. I'm also not blind. I agree with Bob. As long as we have a free society we're going to have to accept some associated problems.
|Enzo||6/16/2017 12:45 AM|
|Innocent until proven guilty is a term of law, but it does not mean the same thing as "didn't do it".|
Allegations are another term of law, but not the same thing as the police never saw anything. A lack of convictions is not the same thing as a clean slate.
If I SEE my neighbor steal my lawn mower, but the cops cannot prove it in court and he goes free, I do not forget that I saw him steal my lawn mower.
And just one man's opinion here: I find it interesting to discuss gun laws, how the authorities do or do not enforce them, etc. etc., but when we add blaming the "liberal media" on some part of it, frankly I think it dilutes your argument.
|Justin Thomas||6/16/2017 1:16 AM|
|Good point about those who get off due to "technicalities," Enzo. I am simplifying that a great deal, admittedly. But yes, lack of proof does not necessarily mean lack of crime.|
As far as "innocent until proven guilty," I always say guilty until proven innocent in the court of the press. And with society, the speed of data transmission, etc. being what it is today, I would think it's much more difficult to find a fair truly impartial jury of your peers...
|Enzo||6/16/2017 3:20 AM|
|I believe in everyone getting a fair trial. But people confuse the law with life. here in Lansing we have MSU with its large football program. And every now and then a young player gets too full of himself and takes liberties with a young coed. Often it will be a pair of players who assault a young woman. There have also been cases where a player has strongarmed money from another student at a club. The coach is pretty strict about this stuff, I believe him when he says he wants to build good men, not just good athletes. SO in these cases, the offenders are usually thrown off the team.|
Inevitably there will be letters to the editor in the paper about how dare he throw those guys off the team when they haven't been convicted of anything. Innocent until proven guilty. The thing is, while they have not been convicted in a court of law, and have not faced any resulting penalties, that is not the same as the coach knowing they have done the deed. Coach is aware of their actions, and he acts accordingly. The law may or may not catch up with them, but that is separate.
And it works the other way, convicted does not mean you did it. We hear stories every week of some poor schmuck who was let out of prison after it was shown someone else had done the crime. That is simple mistaken wrongful conviction. But we had a prosecutor here, who fraudulently convicted some people. Even went to far as to hide filmed proof the perp was elsewhere at the time of the crime. More important to convict someone, I guess, than to actually jail the criminal. That former prosecutor is now in jail, convicted. And I do believe he "did it".
|tedmich||6/17/2017 6:18 PM|
|Enzo||6/18/2017 2:50 AM|
|To be fair, gun control helps prevent second degree murder, but not first degree.|
|bob p||6/18/2017 2:12 PM|
|I'm not sure that I follow. Can you explain that?|
|Enzo||6/18/2017 2:38 PM|
|People often complain that gun control won't stop murders, that a murderer will find some way to kill someone if they want to. So if you prevent someone from buying a gun they can buy a knife or burn your home. But those are generally people planning a murder, a first degree murder. A second degree murder is a killing in which the killer intended to kill, but only in the moment. Not a planned act - an emotional outburst. Someone in a rage who runs out to buy a gun so he can shoot me will usually be thwarted if he has to wait three days or wait for a background check or whatever the impediment might be. Three days later he has cooled to the point of just hating me, but not willing to murder for it.|
SO when I make the assertion, it isn't some hard and fast rule, but in general, the laws to prevent someone rushing to own a firearm will deter the murder. Someone carefully planning to do me in will find an alternative weapon. Nothing deeper than that.
It seems to me in gun control arguments, the NRA side often likes to say something like "if you take away their guns they will find another way". WHich I would agree with if we are discussing first degree murder. But they then use that as a basis for claiming all gun control is therefore useless. And that I do not agree with for the above reasons.
|J M Fahey||6/18/2017 7:06 PM|
|My Lawyer always said that "people should be forbidden to carry guns in thir cars, even if they have a valid posess/carry permit", simply based on his own experience defending (sometimes attacking) perfectly "normal" people who killed or, most often, *gravely* hurt others who lightly damaged their car , cut them off on a highway exit, etc.|
|Chuck H||6/18/2017 11:38 PM|
|That's what I meant about the guy with the "This truck protected by Smith and Wesson" bumper sticker. It might just as well say "Please give me a reason to shoot you." Which is the wrong mentality for a gun owner. And yet one of the most common within that demographic.|
|J M Fahey||6/19/2017 12:05 AM|
|Spaniards have two old sayings, that like most popular ones have at least a grain of truth behind them:|
1) "El que tiene un martillo, ve todo problema como un clavo" - "he who has a hammer, sees all problems as if they were nails" ... which in this case would be: "those who have guns think only way to solve problems is by shooting"
2) "El que tiene pistola, la usa" - "he who has a gun, uses it" ,meaning "he who has a gun is itching to use it ... so one way or another he eventually will"
|rjb||6/19/2017 12:54 AM|
I always heard it as "To a boy with a hammer, the whole world is a nail."
|J M Fahey||6/19/2017 5:47 AM|
|Jews were in Spain for at least some 700 years (arrived with and were protected by Arabs) , maybe as much as 1000, a few must have arrived even in Roman times, so probably that´s where they did catch it .|
Spaniards themselves caught a lot of things from Phoenicians, Greeks, Romans, Arabs and Germanics, which colonized at least part of the Country in that order.
The Mediterranean is very easy to navigate back and forth, being more of a huge "salt water lake" than an actual hard to handle full ocean such as the Atlantic or even worse, the Pacific, so people has been trading and travelling end to end for at least 2000 or 3000 years, an incredible melting pot.
So in the beginning I was very surprised, now not any more, about finding things which were "typical from here" being actually also quite typical "there" ... some 2000 km and 5 Countries away ... and viceversa.
Small World indeed
|Leo_Gnardo||6/19/2017 6:32 AM|
|Enzo||6/19/2017 7:33 AM|
|My Spanish is rusty, but I think I remember this one:|
Mi coche de alquiler está lleno de anguilas.
|g1||6/19/2017 11:07 AM|
|g1||6/19/2017 11:11 AM|
|J M Fahey||6/19/2017 11:26 AM|
As of Galicians, they are Celts, even play the bagpipe.
|Enzo||6/19/2017 11:51 AM|
|People think the government is watching them, but here is who REALLY is watching you:|
The New York Times reported in May that the "sophistication" of Google's and Facebook's ability to identify potential customers of advertisements is "capable of targeting ads ... so narrow that they can pinpoint, say, Idaho residents in long-distance relationships who are contemplating buying a minivan." Facebook's ad manager told the Times that such a description matches 3,100 people (out of Idaho's 1.655 million). [New York Times, 5-14-2017]
|Leo_Gnardo||6/19/2017 1:03 PM|
|Leo_Gnardo||6/19/2017 1:08 PM|
Bagpipes & plaid/tartan cloth developed in Italy. But most of all I luv the German word for a bagpiper: der Dudelsackpfeifer.
|J M Fahey||6/19/2017 2:36 PM|
|Oh, German is easy |
No need to learn or create new words to expand vocabulary, just glue together as many already known ones as you need and you´ve got it
In this case droning + bag + pipe(ish) which is as accurate a description as I ever heard
|Dave H||6/19/2017 4:57 PM|
|rjb||6/19/2017 10:07 PM|
Or kill you with a hidden treasure. Pastor dies in search for famous hidden treasure - CBS News
|bob p||6/22/2017 3:03 AM|
I agree that it sounds logical, though I'd add a qualification to the idea that "lack of access" is a deterrent to 2nd degree murderers: it's only an effective deterrent to that subset people who aren't highly motivated to complete the task irrespective of whether or not a firearm is readily available.
I'm inclined to think that the problem of lack of access to a suitable weapon (knife, gun, ballpoint pen, guitar cord, whatever) only applies to the class of people who: a) are programmed to believe that they need access to a gun to kill someone (in reality they don't); b) who are the kind of people who aren't willing to put their own safety at risk when they're contemplating killing someone (ie: cowards who prefer to kill from the safety provided by distance); and c) are not morally and ethically restrained from being likely to commit a 2nd degree murder in the first place.
There are a lot of people in the world who aren't: a) lacking in a capacity for creative thinking and improvisation, b) cowardly and fearful for their own safety and c) morally disinclined to kill someone in a fit of passion. Those kinds of people, if highly motivated by passion, will in all likelihood will think up an alternative means of accomplishing their goal regardless of whether any particular class of weapon is handy. If they're the kind of person who is willing to go hand-to-hand in a fit of passion, sacrificing regard for their own safety, then they are not going to feel repressed by the lack of immediate access to a firearm. Those people aren't the kind of people who will abort their plans just because Weapon A isn't available. They're likely to improvise. And if they have a well developed sense of moral ambiguity then they probably won't hesitate. As an example: there are many 2nd degree murders that are committed with heavy blunt objects, where access to a gun or a waiting period didn't factor into the outcome.
To be fair, I think that the only time that lack of access to a firearm actually dissuades someone from committing 2nd degree murder is when a murder scenario is being imagined in the minds of people who aren't likely to ever commit bare-handed murders. People who aren't likely to commit a murder probably believe that a lack of access to weapons will dissuade everyone else as much as it would dissuade them. Their viewpoint creates selection bias as the project their views onto the imagined actions of others.
I agree that limiting access would probably limit acts from being performed by the types of kinds of cowards who only gain bravery through ready access to a weapon that empowers them with overwhelming advantage coupled with a perceived sense of personal safety. But there are also a lot of people in the world who aren't such cowards. Those people, if highly motivated by passion, aren't going to be dissuaded by a waiting period. Those people will improvise on the spot and execute their passion-fuelled plans without hesitation. People who are committed to getting something done certainly aren't going to be deterred by lack of access to the easiest way of getting what they want. Not having ready access to a weapon that makes the task easiest for them might not create a hurdle high enough to stop them from proceeding with a more difficult task. There are plenty of people out there who, in the heat of the moment, will think creatively and find a way to accomplish what they want to accomplish, irrespective of whether or not a gun is available. In that light, the belief that 2nd degree murders are prevented by restricted access to tools seems to amount to wishful thinking.