Showing posts with label police. Show all posts
Showing posts with label police. Show all posts

Tuesday, May 05, 2009

Wait, Whose Privacy?

Because this is just ridiculous

No, not the fact that mug shots are being published - once you're arrested, your identity and transgressions become public property for the safety of others.  Newspapers are finding some delicious (perhaps) morbid interest by the public in examining mug shots.  Not that this hasn't been done many times before by the folks at TSG, but now mainstream newspapers are getting in on the fun. 

The ridiculous part I'll just quote for you below:
Shannon Nicole Hulton was arrested for drunk driving earlier this year. She says she “knew that so many people were going to see this picture, so I don’t want a really gruesome picture of me where everybody knows the situation.” She adds that this is a “horrible invasion of privacy…and it makes me uncomfortable and sad.”
Um... you smiled for a mug shot after you got arrested for drunk driving, and then you complain about your invasion of privacy?  You put the public in danger and got caught; that's the point of criminal justice.  You do something to endanger the public, you are going to pay with a bit of embarrassment, a bit of your privacy.  Even worse offenders than yourself are able to give a photogenic shot for the police.  Because folks like you, even after you make a dumb mistake, are still at ease enough to smile for your cute little mug shot, not worrying that you'll be mistreated in prison, will have the right to a defense attorney assigned to you at the expense of the state, and that you live in a country where they don't put drunk drivers to torture or death.  You poor gal!  Your privacy was invaded!  Never mind the fact that you'd probably be singing a different tune - erm, smile? - if an innocent person were killed because of your stupidity.

I just... I can't... attempting at... processing... stupidity... CRASH.  Rebooting...

Further on in the report, the defense attorney interviewed makes a pretty good point:  
“If you have a photo of a person with a toothy grin after just being arrested for a very serious crime, jurors might find that somewhat offensive, and find that the person is looking at it in kind of a dismissive way.
Right on, sir - although prosecutors might welcome this cheeky humor.  

Wednesday, November 28, 2007

Get OUT of my home!

I often wonder what would happen to our country if we started surrendering many of our rights to the government to police for us. Like raising our kids. I bet the government can do it better than I can, for sure! (Please do note the sarcasm in these words.) I bet it would take care of the illegal immigration debate, for one - no one would want to come here if that were the case.

Yet here is a print article, and a video of the interview with the nurse who convinced a Massachusetts state representative to introduce the bill to ban corporal punishment - in other words, this bill includes spanking.

It was one thing for the Patriot Act to let the government come in and listen in on our phone calls. Even if you have nothing to hide, I don't live here in America so they can take away my privacy. But it's quite another when someone wants to decide what I can and cannot do with disciplining my child.

Spanking has been a controversy among parents for ages, so I'll state this: Spanking is rare but necessary. I choose a time-out (which she utterly hates) over spanking, and I've never used an instrument such as a belt or a paddle. But some days, they need that snap back to reality, a bit of a sting to get them back in the moment, not just to "sit and think about what they've done."

Rep. Jay Kaufman mentions in the video that "it's not about criminalizing behavior; it's a matter of changing our behavior." Ah, but you are suggesting to criminalize behavior, and using the money from the fines to build a public awareness program to educate the public. Doesn't that seem backwards to you, folks? Let the parents break the law first, make them pay, and THEN tell them how to discipline their kids the "right" way. Make the kids get a spanking first before we tell them what the parents did wrong!

But laws tend to suppress behavior which usually morphs into another. Tax law is probably a classic example. Everyone who knows tax law knows there are ways to build up your capital without paying taxes on it. There's all sorts of loopholes in those thousands of pages; it's just a matter of knowing how to get through them, and the smart ones manipulate the system to their advantage legally. I don't even want to know what kind of punishment some parents might come up with for their kids without touching them. Are they going to pass a law stating what we can and cannot say to our kids, too? How about only certain times when we can ground them or take away their Nintendo?

Yet the FOX news article says that Rep. Kaufman is not taking a stand on the issue. Well, Rep. Kaufman, if you're going to let your left hand do one thing while your right does another, then let me know when you sync up, and I'll listen to you.

The nurse who convinced the proposal of the bill, Kathleen Wolf, even asserts that a small "swat on the seat" is not abuse. But the bill bans all corporal punishment. Look, I know I just wrote about Riley and the horrors of abuse at the hands of her mother and her mother's boyfriend. The systems in place to protect kids from abuse is overburdened and the reports of abuse have apparently skyrocketed (no numbers provided by CNN). Public education is a good start, I suppose, but is no one listening to these people when a "crime" has to be committed FIRST before they bother to educate others? Who gets to be the poster child for this kind of bill? I feel sorry for the one who does.

What I'm interested in is if Massachusetts actually passes this bill into law. How will this be enforced? Will the police be given the right to enter a home without due process to inspect our children for bruises? What if my kid just fell down the stairs? Does that give DSS or the police the right to whisk away my kids at the slightest cry, even when I caught her doing something wrong? What will the judicial system have to say when a DA is ready to prosecute the first parent under this law, setting a precedent for all cases to follow it? That, to me, is even scarier than the bill passing into law. What will happen to parents who are rightfully, safely, disciplining their children and yet are put on the same pedestal as those who killed Riley?

These are the questions we need to ask before any law goes into effect. That's what the three branches of government are here fore, checks and balances. But I don't need Big Brother in my home making sure I raise a law-abiding American citizen who will obey tax law without a slap on the hand or on the butt.

Tuesday, November 13, 2007

Flaunt it if you've got it

All right, guys, I know I'm on a posting spree today - but this stuff drives me nuts. I do not agree that police have killed unarmed black men, okay? We'll get that statement out of the way before I proceed.

An 18-year-old man was killed in New York. The man's mother called 911 and in the background, he was screaming that he had a gun. When police arrived, apparently, he was holding an object under his shirt and started to approach police. Police told him to stop and he refused. After 20 rounds were fired at the man, the weapon turned out to be a black hairbrush.

What buggered me about this article was that they interviewed a gentleman who was a neighbor to the 18-year-old man who was killed. He says:
Another neighbor, Wayne Holder, said police should be required to see a weapon before opening fire on a suspect. "At least see a gun before you start to discharge it," Holder said. Police "don't even have to see it, [if] they think you got one, you're going to get shot."
Wow. That is some backwards logic. There is a reason that police ask you to put both hands up. Who hasn't thought of the whole conceal-gun-in-pocket-and-shoot ploy? Yea, everyone thinks that will work. Concealed weapons are the reason why we have to take our shoes off at the airport. Concealed weapons are the reason why we get patted down at the courthouse. Concealed weapons are the reason suicide bombers are successful. Look, I'm not saying the police are right 100% of the time. But they and the military are in no danger of taking over our streets! (See Pakistan and Musharraf; Cuba and Castro.) So why is it that it's unfair to our police to protect themselves under a very important assumption when it is a life and death situation?

The fact that this guy was shot at 20 times is very concerning to me. The fact that Mayor Bloomberg and Rev. Al Sharpton are involved are not surprising. But the fact that people think that forcing a suspect to show they're actually armed, especially when they have proof that the kid confirmed that suspicion over a 911 call, is foolish and dangerous to our police forces. It's not the solution to the bigger problem - and what is that, exactly? Racism? A lack of cultural sensitivity training? That's a whole different bag of frozen peas, people, but I certainly know that visual evidence of a weapon will not save lives on either side of the police tape.
Photobucket
Powered By Blogger