Reddit reviews Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent
We found 276 Reddit comments about Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent. Here are the top ones, ranked by their Reddit score.
Encounter Books
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.
> 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.
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.
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 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...
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.
> 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..
"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
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.
I see you have read some Harvey Silver in your past.
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
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.
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
> 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"
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.
Suggested reading: 3 Felonies a Day
Chances are, you've committed a crime today you weren't aware of.
> 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.
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
> 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
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.
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.
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.
There's a whole book about it: Three Felonies A Day
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.
> most people are felons who have simply not been caught.
Yep, there is even a book on this. [Three felonies a day] (https://smile.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1502838198&sr=8-1&keywords=three+felonies+a+day). The authors argument is that most people commit three felonies a day without even knowing it. Stupid things like being in possession of a lobster that is too small, [releasing balloons as a romantic gesture] (http://reason.com/blog/2013/02/26/man-charged-with-felony-for-letting-go-o), having pseudoephedrine, connecting to an open wifi network, Singing happy birthday in public, using fake names online (hello all reddit users), making a bet with a friend, and possessing a permanent marker.
All of those are felonies. Are they all enforced and enforced equally? Obviously not, but they can be used to stack charges upon charges on someone that is targeted by police. Its not hard to get a felony conviction and its absurd that ham radio of all things would ban felons.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
> 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.
Or maybe you just don’t know what you’re doing wrong
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.
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
Three Felonies a Day
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.
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
> 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
When you make enough laws everyone is guilty of something. Once you commit a crime they can do what they want to you.
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.
When freedom is outlawed, freedom lovers become criminals. A well-known book titled Three Felonies a Day says it all.
> 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
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)
> 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'?
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.
Yeah, well she's a criminal illegal trespasser alien invader! She broke the LAW! Along with almost all Americans at one point or another!
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
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.
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.
>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.
> 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
This segment of the comic, on strict liability, is about a 10 minute read. Stick with it, it's worth the read!
This ought to make a good educational share for those hanging out in the land of the Twittiots.
edit: formatting
That is a very narrow view. Maybe read this book.
Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent
You might be surprised.
>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.
> 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.
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
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
This is the book you're looking for: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
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.
>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.
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
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."
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.
http://kottke.org/13/06/you-commit-three-felonies-a-day
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.
"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?
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
You have a point, but only because the breadth of law practically guarantees that everyone is guilty of something.
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 ....."
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.
So is jaywalking, hypocrite.
If you're talking federal crimes:Three Felonies a Day.
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.
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.
There is a whole book written about it:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1594035229
Sure thing. Study and WSJ Article
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
> 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.
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.
> Well they shouldnt be committing felonies then.
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
> 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
Three felonies a day.
The average person commits three felonies a day. Are you prepared to face the consequences for those you've committed?
This is true. Although it applies to all aspects of life in the US.
Three Felonies a day discusses this.
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.
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?
> How about enforcing the Rule of Law...
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
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
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.
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
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229/ref=nodl_
Three Felonies a Day
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.
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.
By one count, the average person in this county commits three felonies a day. By your logic, no one should be allowed to vote.
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
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
I haven't read it yet, but I've heard that Three Felonies A Day is a really good book on this topic.
Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent
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.
Three felonies a day!
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
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
My estimate was a bit low.
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.
>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?
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'
The average person commits 3 felonies a day.
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
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/
Just gonna put this here.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
There's a great book on this subject called "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent."
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.
I don't know how true it is, but this book covers the idea for the federal government.
There is a great book on this subject, highly recommend it:
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
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
Yeah, as the other guy said. This book is about how many felonies the average person commits daily.
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.
> 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.
>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.
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
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.
Archives for the links in comments:
----
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
The CIA blackmailed Martin Luther King.
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.
Three Felonies a Day
> 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.
> 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.
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.
No person can confidently say they don't violate any federal law.
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
> There should be stricter punishments for minor laws that a lot of people break
I can agree with increasing action against dog poo, to create a stronger deterrence.
However, I don't think that the general principle you're suggesting (i.e. "stricter punishments for minor laws that a lot of people break"), would be a good idea.
In the book Three felonies a day, the author explains how it has become impossible to live one's life without doing many otherwise innocuous, but technically illegal things:
> 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.
Kind of like how most people technically commit ~3 Felonies a Day just going about their daily life.
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.)
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.
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.
>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.
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.
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.
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
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
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."
Sometimes impossible. US law system is so out of wack almost everyone breaks multiple laws a day.
Read more about it if you like
There's a book "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent"
Harvey Silverglate told us all that we commit an average of Three Felonies A Day.
Read https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
Read this book..
It is impossible to put a dozen prosecutors in a room, give them the full power of the United States Federal Government, an unlimited budget, allow them to investigate whatever and whomever they want and not have them come up with all sorts of shit to charge and prosecute. There are just too many laws and they are just too complex for this not to be the case.
I will refer you to Harvey Silverglate's Three Felonies a Day. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1594035229/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1789&creative=9325&creativeASIN=1594035229&linkCode=as2&tag=dailywealth-20&linkId=CA5CXIZ6CIUVXAOK
I fully expect one or more people to get Scooter Libbyed. It's going to get a lot worse before it gets better and it could be that the only people who can stop the NeverTrump train are the millions who voted for him, standing up and saying enough.
It's probably a very good approximation:
The average American inadvertently commits three felonies a day.
Ok, so maybe you've never taken a look at economics or business but regulations have costs. If I, as an extermination service, want to offer my services to you, and I have to employe workers who are trained to recognize every single one of the 41,415 animals on the endangered species list on sight, and also insure myself/retain lawyers against any accidents my workers can incur, I'm going to have to pay for that. A worker of that caliber is going to be expensive, and the insurance/lawyers is going to be expensive if we're talking about the kind of penalties some people here are screaming for. That's going to be prohibitively expensive. So, if we try to follow your proposed scenario, which is very strict enforcement of endangered species laws, an exterminator working under what you're proposing has the following options.
Keep in mind that in most cases business will choose option #2 in a situation as onerous as you're proposing if they possibly can. Otherwise it's option #3. The kind of costs you'd need to meet to adhere to endangered species laws perfectly mean it's much more likely exterminators would simply go out of business. (And don't forget of course, you need to kill pests to maintain crops. Expect your food prices to skyrocket in your scenario as well.) Which of course means you'd just end up having untrained amateurs doing pest control with whatever they can lay their hands on instead. The reason exterminators aren't feeling the effects of this is because the enforcement of the laws is very lax, like many laws are. Generally for the reasons I mentioned. It's not in any politician's best interest to cause pest control prices and by extension food prices to skyrocket. They'd be dragged into the street and torn limb from limb.
Speaking of lax law enforcement, for example the average American commits around three felonies a day. If all those laws were strictly enforced you'd have the entire population inside prison cells. Laws like this generally exist to make people feel good or make it seem like the government is doing something, and they provide a useful piece of leverage or cudgel to beat someone or some company with when it's convenient. If the man in this article had never gone to the police I guarantee you he'd probably never have been fined or put in jail in the first place.
No. This is absolutely wrong. We are all committing crimes every day. MOST of which harm nobody. Three Felonies per day.
We should be up in arms about this. If it were illegal to grow tomatoes, nobody would say "Its illegal federally, sucks for him." Bullshit, we need to change this.
Multiple federal felonies a day.
It's virtually impossible to live life without breaking the law. Age of consent is a bullshit arbitrary statute, and pedophilia is sexual attraction/acts with prepubescent children. If this person is worried about her/his friend breaking a meaningless statute, I'd recommend reading "Three Felonies A Day", and getting over it. Pedophilia is completely irrelevant to this situation.
If they're both consenting, I'd suggest minding your own business.
or autistic... Also, everyone regularly breaks the law whether they know it or not. Ever hear of the book 3 felonies a day?
Easy for you to say, mister lawyer.
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
And the average person commits three felonies a day...
The State does not mind its own business with anything. They care about what you do in your bedroom, at your job, at your church, with who you love, what's in your wallet, how you spend your money... The State does not let people mind their own business. I bet every single thing you did today from waking up in bed to visiting the movie theater had government involvement (be it regulation or subsidization) in some way and you probably broke several laws unintentionally (for which you can get fined or put in jail for) and its only by good grace with authority that you haven't been arrested yet.
Some enlightening reading:
Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent
>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.
Yep, and most people don't realize the "Three Felonies a Day" theory. There are literally too many laws.
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
Some would agree.
Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent
The Average Person Commits Three Felonies a Day
3 Felonies a Day.
>Re: It takes a lot of bad behavior to get to prison,
Three felonies a day
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
Indeed we are:
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
Clue time: you're not the one who decides whether or not you have "nothing to hide." The government does that.
You probably commit a couple of felonies a day, just like the rest of us. We're just lucky that those laws don't count, I guess.
I think he is referring to this nonsense. This site is largely culled from this book and is full of little more than sensationalist nonsense. In each case they claim that you may have committed an "arguable felony" but the pretexts are all so thin that the charge is nearly impossible to convict. The "real-world" examples they provide also ignore large parts of their context and are deceitfully manipulated to reinforce their premise.
Not breaking the law is pretty difficult. Not getting caught breaking the law is fairly easy most of the time for most people.
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
I assume you have never ever in your life even once broke any law, regulation, or ordinance even the ones that counteract each other. If you have then I hate to break it to you, but you are criminal.
See this for more information: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
The targeting of individuals is but an infinitesimally small part of the problem. The issue is with the data that's collected and stored for later analysis, which appears to be just about everything at this point. This means what you do today can be scrutinized tomorrow. Laws are not written this way and public opinion changes over time.
Also: http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
There are so many laws out there, it's hard to stay clear of them all.
http://www.amazon.ca/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
Average American commits 3 felonies a day. Are you really going to bullshit us that you're going eagerly give the DA every shred of evidence they need to lock you away, take away your rights and cost you thousands of dollars in court & attorney fees even if you aren't convicted? And don't give me any of that "if you don't have anything to hide" bullshit, the legal system still puts the hurt on plenty of innocent people or people who committed "crimes" that don't have a victim.
Well, lets see, here's one book you might want to read sometime. Or this article. Or this one.
> “There is no one in the United States over the age of 18 who cannot be indicted for some federal crime. … That is not an exaggeration.” -- John Baker, a retired Louisiana State University law professor, in a comment to the Wall Street Journal.
There's a gigantic difference between leaving it up to a judge to decide mens rea in a murder case, and putting people in situations where it's literally impossible to be compliant with one law without violating another law and then leaving it up to prosecutorial discretion to not unreasonably use that to dick people over.
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
Read this book and you'll understand how the feds can get anyone and everyone for something eventually if they have a big enough budget.
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
You Commit Three Felonies a Day (The Wall Street Journal)
Or if physical books are more your speed...
Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent by Harvey Silverglate
Three Felonies a Day talks about this and how the only reason anyone is not in jail is because nobody's decided to prosecute them yet.
Here's his book. Its actually called "Three Felonies A Day."
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229/ref=sr_1_1?crid=OD0LF2BIFKXA&keywords=three+felonies+a+day&qid=1571395308&sprefix=three+felonie%2Caps%2C178&sr=8-1
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
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.
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
> 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.
> 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
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
You shouldn't be so sure
Have you read Three Felonies a Day by any chance?
> 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.
Three Mortal Sins a Day
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
> 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.
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.
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.
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.
Relevant book?
"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.
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.
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
Not really
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
> 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?
> 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
What laws have you broken lately?
Esse problema não é só nosso, recomendo o livro
'Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent'.
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.
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.
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
probably more than you know - https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
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.
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.
There's a great book on this topic called Three Felonies a Day
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
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.
Given that the average American commits 3 felonies per day, I guess you agree that everybody belongs in jail? Maybe even you do.
> 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.
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.
> 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?
Too late.
Three felonies a 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: 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.
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
Probably three of them a day.
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.
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")
> 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
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"
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.)
> 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.
Now you can be even more paranoid
I'm pretty sure I commit 3 felonies a day.
That being said any law I find personally morally objectionable I will not follow.
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.
TL;DR: You are riding upon a very high horse there cowboy... I fear for your safety should you ever fall.
> I've made mistakes but not
committedconvicted of any felonies.I'm not accusing you of being a ne'er-do-well like I am, I am merely pointing out that sometimes you can commit felonies without realizing you are doing so. As an example that is current in today's society, did you ever go and buy an ounce of the wacky-tobacky and split it with your friends so you all get a better price? ... that would be felony drug distribution.
Here's a very interesting read in the WSJ from 2009 discussing the book Three Felonies a Day wherein Boston civil rights attorney Harvey Silverglate identifies how easy it is for an average, 'law abiding' citizen to find themselves facing felony charges.
> Citizens don't commit felonies because they have a sense of moral judgement and fear of consequences of breaking laws.
Citizens... I think you meant to say 'law abiding citizens' here. Even though I have been disenfranchised because of my behavior of 40+ years ago, I am still a citizen of the USA, with all rights and liberties except the ability to vote, hold public office, become a notary public, or possess a firearm.
because they have a sense of moral judgement... I think this portion of your statement is missing the phrase "different than mine". Or perhaps you honestly believe felons actually have no morals? Or perhaps you do not understand the definition of morals to be "a person's standards of behavior or beliefs concerning what is and is not acceptable for them to do."?
I mean
Apparently we commit an average of 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
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
Three Felonies A Day
As a common plebeian scum layman, I'm not sure I would support it. It's already hard enough understanding laws, especially when every American citizen is a law breaker and has no way of even knowing it.
Your comment is, like, fractally wrong. I would have to quote sentence fragments to straighten it out.
> If you are indeed an American citizen you are just as free as I am.
Let's put any acrimony aside and actually address this point, because this is really where our disagreement lies; not how much we donate or how much time we spend volunteering. You think we're free. I think we're not as free as you think we are. So let's look at this.
Let me define freedom in a very simple way that anyone should be able to agree with: You are not free if you are in jail. Are we still together on that?
And if so, let me add a corollary: Your freedom is not secure if you are in DANGER of going to jail, not by some mistaken identity but for actual things you did that people can PROVE you did.
So, for example, a murderer is not secure in his freedom, because if word of his crimes comes to light, he will go to jail and not be free.
So the question is two-fold: 1) Who decides if we are "criminals" and 2) Who has the power to bring our "crimes" to light.
I don't think of myself as a criminal. I certainly don't plan and execute crimes. I'm sure you don't, either. But, I assure you, we have both broken the law.
Have you ever violated the terms of service of a website, for example, signing up for email under a false name? You could be prosecuted under CFAA, as Aaron Swartz was. Have you ever posted a silly threat on Facebook, followed by "lol jk"? You could be sitting in jail right now with a $500,000 bond, for "making terrorist threats", as Justin Carter has been. Has anyone you know ever done drugs? Did you report them? If not, you could be guilty of misprision of a felony, depending on your jurisdiction. Even if you never touched a drug yourself.
The fact is, there are no non-criminals in the United States. There are too many rules for that, and prosecutors have too much latitude to define whether a broadly-written crime or regulation has been violated.
There are only criminals who have not yet discovered what crime they committed.
Whether you know about it or not, it is a serious problem, and one I am trying hard to remedy. But it's an entrenched problem.
You can pretend it's not happening because nothing has happened to you YET. One day, though, someone may take notice of some minor thing you did, and decide it rises to the point of a felony. You actually have no control over this. If this line of thinking has moved you at all, I highly urge you to read this short article on the topic.
Now let's talk about the second point: Who can reveal evidence of your crimes?
We are moving into an era in which everything we do, everything we write in a moment of anger, everything we look at, every suspicious or innocent pattern, is being recorded. Couple that with a law that can be twisted to make a wide variety of behaviors into crimes, and you have a recipe for MASSIVE incarceration. That means you are NOT free, because your freedom could be threatened at any moment by someone with authority who doesn't like you. Our only protection against this is the Fourth Amendment, which explicitly forces the police to have probable cause before they can troll your documents for evidence of some crime, any crime.
And so I am protesting.
So, let's see. If I'm right, you'd have to see people being thrown in jail left and right. If I'm wrong, nothing like what I described would ever happen (or at least, it would be vanishingly rare).
Let's look at the statistics. America is the world's number one jailer. We imprison more of our people, for longer, for smaller offenses, than any other country on EARTH. We imprison more juveniles. We are one of a small number of industrialized nations that practices the death penalty. We even execute people for non-murder offenses. Also, people paroled from prison lose many of their constitutional rights for the rest of their lives. Even people who take felony plea bargains that totally avoid prison will often lose the right to vote or bear arms. People who insist on a trial face decades of prison if they lose, because of increased sentencing laws from the 1990s--their lawyers urge them to accept felony pleas, even when they believe they are innocent. Most prosecutions never go to trial; people are just declared felons and released back into the wild.
And still the prisons fill.
So I have to wonder: Are you just ignorant of all this? Do you just not care? Is it not your problem? Do you think this is just going to fix itself in a few more years?
You bluster a lot about how free and unaffected you are, but I don't really see where your confidence is coming from. We're in trouble as a country. We're not particularly free, as the statistics prove, and we're getting less free all the time.
I'm going to do something about it. You're going to go have a beer and watch fireworks and brag about how nothing ever changes for you.
Maybe neither of us will change anything, but we're not alike.
> innocent people lie to the FBI and engage in witness tampering
You should read Three Felonies a Day.
I think you are referring to (three felonies a day)[https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229#productDescription_secondary_view_div_1491591415158] which is a rather disturbing assertion. But that is another problem altogether.
The pressure has been building for years to address illegal immigration. But people have fought it tenaciously, often using sob stories. Possibly had not illegal immigrants been encouraged to come and remain there would be some room for compassionate exceptions. But it is too late for that now. The attraction of skewing apportionment, illegal voting, a new voting block, and cheap labor proved too seductive for politicians to resist.
We're all guilty of something. Its more of a matter of who the police watch more than who is committing crimes.
The only murderer I ever talked at length with at a bar was a white girl. My black friends understand the power of a good beatdown to fix attitudes. White people mentality is that the person must be erased, not just adjusted.
Three then...
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1372102654&sr=8-1&keywords=three+felonies+a+day
The problem is the government has made everything a crime.
Read "Three Felonies a Day"
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
Your definition of libertarianism is fine, but there's a lots of variety amongst us regarding what power, if any, should be retained by government. For example, I do think that managing externalities like carbon emissions is an appropriate role for government (Milton Friedman thought the same thing).
I think there's a principled as well as a practical reason to mostly be anti-regulation though.
The principled reason is that your rights can't can't compel me to do something. They can only prevent me from not doing something to you. So if I own a business, and I don't want to serve minorities (or in today's actual cultural climate, bake a wedding cake for a gay couple), then you can't use the state (i.e. men with guns) to force me to do what you want. Your liberty can not depend on my enslavement.
The practical reason is that in reality, the rulebook gets filled with thousands (millions?) of regulations that may or may not make sense. In practice, the state just keeps adding regulations. This book deals with how out of control federal laws and regulations have become https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
It's obviously impossible to know about every single regulation. There are some justifiable one and some indefensible ones. So I'm not ALWAYS against some new good ones, but if you ask me if we should in general be adding regulations or removing them, I go with removing them.
>And if it didn't suck, what would motivate a pirate to purchase it when they already have it for free?
To support the author, studies shows that this is what people do. They use it like a rental service. Everybody knows that if they don't support the content creators they will no longer be able to create content, it's in their own best interest to pay.
http://www.rieti.go.jp/en/publications/summary/11010021.html
http://boingboing.net/2011/12/03/swiss-govt-study-downloadin.html
http://torrentfreak.com/economy-profits-from-file-sharing-report-concludes-090119/
>Oh right, because we're supposed to rely on the moral fortitude of someone that was willing to break the law in the first place.
Are you kidding? Everybody breaks the law on a regular basis, our country is over flowing with laws and most of them are ridiculous. Have you ever recorded a show off of TV back when VCR's were a thing? How about a song off the radio? The Supreme Court said this was okay, but what makes that different than piracy?
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
Then that's what I want and we don't need cops if that's what they do. They need to have a moral compass that doesn't come from a megacorporation.
On a semi-side note, there is a good book called 3 Felonies A Day which basically lays out how there are so many laws in this country that everyone is guilty of a felony at some point. You simply can't avoid breaking all the laws on the books. The cops need to refuse to enforce the ones they know are bullshit. There is a website too that is googlable.
Yeah if they did something wrong, they deserve it! Like, get raped and shit.
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
Three Felonies a Day.
So, yeah, don't do that. I'd never do that.
I mean, most people commit at least one felony a day, so if you aggressively police certain members of a community, you can have higher incarceration rates despite similar levels of crime compared to less aggressively policed people.
Unless career criminals are convicted by a court of law beyond a reasonable doubt, their lives hold the same utility in the eyes of the judicial system than a so-called innocent person. Also, what defines a career criminal? On average an American commits 3 felonies a day without knowing it. http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
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 “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.
Do you really think that a victimless crime should get someone sent to federal prison for 7 years? Pot-smokers break the law, want to throw them in federal prison for 7 years?
People who rely on the "law" as a way of figuring out if something is right or wrong are much more concerning to me than being slightly off on a profit estimate... especially when all the "Victims" profited and are in no way angry about anything.
This is a simple case of someone being smeared by the news media to the point where it became convenient for someone to "find out" some crime he committed even though he's innocent of any real wrongdoing.
Is Shkreli a smug asshole? Yeah. That isn't something that should be punished with federal prison.
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
We are finding out how true it is when Cardinal Richelieu said:
>If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.
Also a relevant read.
https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
These people aren't innocent, but how many of the others in Washington would fall if given the same level of scrutiny and political will to investigate?
That is so true!
Stuff that will actually kill us:
Sugar
Cigarettes
Cars (not CO2 idiot)
Our disastrous financial/pension situation
Our incomprehensible legal system/tax code
Our semi-literate untrained police force
In THAT ORDER
Comey, "a Republican"? About as legitimate as Hitler's memoirs of his distinguished service in Haganah.
Everyone commits 3 felonies a day on average. Most, victimless crimes.
Government "service" is where you commit, with impunity, what would be capital offenses for civilians.
I don't, attorney Harvey A. Silverglate does though, and I'd bet he knows better than I do. I'd put money down on you having broken laws today. If you ever got behind the wheel, probably ones you knew you were breaking too.
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
I don't think you realize how many things can be treated as felonies, including much of that drug use you're referencing. Kids exchange pills pretty regularly. People you knew didn't score adderall in college?
It all just gets pled down to misdemeanors, because almost nothing goes to trial. Its the whole basis of the modern justice system. They throw all the scariest charges at you they can so you plea to a lesser offense.
You are such a fucking nimrod that you failed to realize that 'Three Felonies a Day' is the name of a god damn book.
The article might not be your regular Faux News quality, but it sure as hell has all the information an article needs to have.
In short
>Well that's one of the worst articles I've claimed to have read
FTFY.
No because if you are smart and have the resources you can make anyone guilty of these things. The average American commits about three felonies a day. In fact, I committed a felony by making this post.
Look at Clinton, I thought it would have been a big mistake to remove him from office for perjury.