Best law enforcement books according to redditors

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

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

See "Three Felonies a Day"

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


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> 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...

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

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

You can read it in one weekend

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

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

> 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..

As others have said, communication is key.

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

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

"No pity for felons"?

Everything is a felony.

Nobody even knows how many federal crimes exist.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

​

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

​

Ban plea deals outright. Disincentivize prosecutorial overcharging.

​

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

​

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

try to avoid perjuring yourself when they do jury selection:

>Take the questions literally. Answer as briefly and generally as you truthfully can.
>
>Do you have any political, religious, or philosophical beliefs that might prevent you from delivering a verdict based on the facts? (Not at all. I want to decide a fair and just outcome.)
>
>How do you feel about people accused of breaking the law in question? (They deserve fair trials, like anyone accused of a crime.)
>
>If it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime, can you set your opinions aside and vote guilty? (Yes, I can.) As trial lawyer and jury nullification expert Clay Conrad notes in response to this question, of course you can. You can also shove your arm down a garbage disposal! That does not mean you are committed to doing so.
>
>The goal is to present an open mind that is concerned with fairness and the facts.

https://www.flexyourrights.org/faqs/can-go-jail-jury-nullification/

Oh boy, I like that you just found out the word for dismissing evidence that disagrees with you but don't actually have even the pretence of knowing what it means. 'Cherry picking' is cropping a portion of a fuller dataset to support a view unsubstantiated or contradicted by the actual statistic. There has never been a single year in which PoC were less likely to be the victim of police violence than their white counterparts in the entirety of American history. I chose modern ones because modern is more reflective of modern society... Drug charges are useful because you can get an accurate reporting on uncharged possession rates. More critically, drug charges are the cause of the majority of incarceration for PoC. Apparently citing units of analysis which are the most pertinent to the discussion is cherry picking now...

You want fuller data on the subject, here ya go:

[After controlling for numerous state-level factors and for the underlying rate of fatal shootings of black victims in each state, the state racism index was a significant predictor of the Black-White disparity in police shooting rates of victims not known to be armed (incidence rate ratio: 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.02-1.50). For every 10-point increase in the state racism index, the Black-White disparity ratio of police shooting rates of people not known to be armed increased by 24%.](After controlling for numerous state-level factors and for the underlying rate of fatal shootings of black victims in each state, the state racism index was a significant predictor of the Black-White disparity in police shooting rates of victims not known to be armed](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0027968417303206)

Frank R. Baumgartner, Derek A. Epp and Kelsey Shoub reviewed 20 million traffic stops. Blacks are almost twice as likely to be pulled over as whites — even though whites drive more on average...

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"

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

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

https://www.amazon.com/Problem-Political-Authority-Examination-Coerce/dp/1137281650

https://www.amazon.com/Private-Governance-Creating-Economic-Social-ebook/dp/B00XCTPVAU/

https://www.amazon.com/State-Collected-Papers-Anthony-Jasay/dp/0865971714

https://www.amazon.com/Against-Politics-Government-Routledge-Political/dp/0415513650/

https://www.amazon.com/Machinery-Freedom-Guide-Radical-Capitalism/dp/1507785607

https://www.amazon.com/Chaos-Theory-Essays-Market-Anarchy/dp/1479258377

https://www.amazon.com/Legal-Systems-Very-Different-Ours/dp/1793386722

https://www.amazon.com/Myth-Rational-Voter-Democracies-Policies/dp/0691138737

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.

According to data from Armed: New Perspectives on Gun Control, by Gary Kleck, PhD, your uncited statistic is wrong. Here's a table detailing injury rate of the victims of different types of crime when using various self protection (SP) measures. Using a gun to protect oneself was found to have the lowest injury rate even when compared to cooperating/not defending oneself.

And more on the author if you're so inclined.

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

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

Suggested reading: 3 Felonies a Day

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

First, let me suggest that you read a copy of my first book, [Men in Black] (http://www.amazon.com/Men-Black-Supreme-Destroying-America/dp/1596980095), where I address this and other issues at great length.

You've really asked two questions here: where does the Supreme Court's power of judicial review come from and does it have the power to strike down state and federal laws. I believe judicial review outside of those areas specifically mention in the Constitution, or authorize under various judiciary acts passed by Congress, are implied, if legitimate at all. As you may know, the federal circuit courts and federal district courts are created by acts of Congress. Congress also has the power to limit the jurisdiction of these courts, although, it almost never does.

As to your second point about striking down state and federal laws, it depends on the facts. If a state passes a law that clearly usurps a federally granted power under the constitution, then a federal court will strike it down. But again, I would need to know the facts from each case.

The model proposed by the Chicago school, generally, and Park and Burgess, specifically, was based on ethnographic fieldwork in Chicago in the 1920s. The Concentric Zone Model, while it still has some adherents and adaptations, has generally fallen out of favor, at least in the United States. It is overly ecological and premised on competition over resources, ignores culture, and is fairly reductionist in how it treats physical and social spaces in city. Empirically, the concentric zones do not really match up with how cities grow over time, which becomes especially problematic with the changing nature of American cities in the post-WW2 era, suburbanization, White Flight, and the rise of a globalized economy. The New Urban Sociology goes into much more depth on these critiques, and offers a compelling multidimensional model that accounts for the interactions between space, culture, economy and the usual sociological variables (i.e., race, gender, class, etc.) as well as migration patters.

To return to the OPs question, white flight (the mass migration of white people from city center to surrounding suburbs) is the widely accepted answer for the decrepit state of many American urban areas. This makes sense to an extent; whites left the city for the suburbs, commerce followed, and inner cities were left disproportionately populated by the poor, uneducated, and minorities. With declining tax bases and loss of manufacturing jobs, cities couldn't (and/or wouldn't) support the infrastructure necessary to break the cycle of poverty (e.g., adequately fund schools). The missing pieces to this puzzle, though, are neoliberal globalization and increased "crime control". Loïc Waquant goes over this in great detail in Prisons of Poverty and Punishing the Poor. In short, since the 1970s, the decline of the welfare state and diminishing social programs have been replaced by a neoliberal state that emphasizes commerce and "free markets" while simultaneously relying on police and crime control to fill the vacuum left by the absence of social support (See David Garland's largely Foucauldian The Culture of Control: Crime Control and Social Order in Contemporary Society for much more detail on how this functions).

In sum, suburbanization and globalization have changed the racial and class structure in the cities. The welfare state has retrenched and withdrawn support for already vulnerable populations, and replaced support with a highly punitive model of crime control that perpetuates the cycles of poverty and crime. Of course, this whole post is the tl;dr version, but there are enormous bodies of research on these processes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you sure?

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

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

Amen Brother! grabs pitchfork

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

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

Three Felonies A Day

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

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

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three felonies a day: how the feds target the innocent

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

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

​

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

​

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

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.

That's an extremely complicated question, and the answer depends who you ask. There was a nationwide decline in crime during the same period of NYC's decline, so there seems to be some kind of larger social trend that can't be explained through policing strategies. This book by a Berkeley criminologist found that it had less to do with broken windows and stop and frisk and more to do with simple things like keeping a database of when/where crimes were happening and assigning cops to those times and locations.

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

Oh, wait...

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

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

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

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

> 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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Don't talk to the police.

> it overwhelmingly seems directed at African Americans.

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

To be fucking blunt - the numbers do not lie:

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

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

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

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

This is an interesting read on the topic:

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

Relevant link;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> Copyright violation is both civil and criminal.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And that's the problem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

From the blurb:

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

Said book is Written by:

>Harvey A. Silverglate

Who graduated from Harvard Law School.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This one.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

All of the above are criminals.

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

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

Three Felonies a Day

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

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

> Rules are rules.

Absolute BULLSHIT.

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

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

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

 

Proms have age limits for a reason.

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

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

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

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

It's the title of a decent book.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> 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

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

And the first highest helpful tagged Amazon review said this:

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

Come on.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I have learned a lot from this one.

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

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

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

This book is a must read

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

First off: you probably meant to say a "voluntary state". "Governance" and "State" are not synonyms.

After all, when you go to a movie theater, you don't talk on your cell phone (their 'governance') at the risk of being kicked out; When you go to a baseball game, you don't throw rocks at the players (their 'governance') at the risk of being kicked out.

A "voluntary state": this is an oxymoron. A state can't be voluntary because it requires that you give it money at the point of a gun.

If a state were voluntary, it would collapse overnight. If a state were voluntary, it would be a "company": the "state" would have to convince you to give it money by providing services.

A state gets its money through taxation. A tax is a price that you pay at the point of a gun -- this is not voluntary.

-----------------------------------------

That being said, if you'd like to learn more about the ideas of how a privatized system of protection would work, there are many cheap sources of information:

Stefan Molyneux

Robert Murphy

The Conscience of an Anarchist

Mises.org - a lifetime of media online for free that explains economically how governments are inefficient.

------------------------------------

A few favorites of mine:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DX1uPaTf2BA&list=UUC3L8QaxqEGUiBC252GHy3w&index=803&feature=plpp_video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OikCTCgYKr0

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79ZosnxGKgk&feature=bf_prev&list=PLD78A4CA3338CFA7E

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rPILhiTJv7E

Edit -- Oops, should have included this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Ak3TwNXA0w&list=PLSHQ57qEHuB220VA-TAMF_sY_Aki1s2Ca

------------------------------------------

PS: It might sound like I'm evading your question. You asked "Are there any voluntary governments you would join", to which I responded "INVALID!!!".

But it's VERY important that you realize that I did NOT evade your question. It's VERY important that you realize that your question is IMPOSSIBLE.

Your question, if we change the topic, is essentially: "Evolution-ists: if Jesus drove a dinosaur over the pacific ocean last week, could humans have enough time to evolve into humans from the crocodiles in Montana?"

Hopefully, after reading that question, your brain started to hurt. It's the same thing with your OP question: because the premise is invalid, the question can't be answered without forcing an An-Cap to betray his beliefs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It's truly a frightening read.

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

>что в США все очень любят судиться

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

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

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

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

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

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

Лично я на практике не сталкивался.

You might be surprised.

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

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

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

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

I would recommend Law 101 by Jay M. Feinman. It goes into a fair amount of detail about constitutional law, litigation, torts, business law, property law, and criminal law. I think it would be a good starting point for you to decide where you might want to delve a little deeper.

First of all, the stats you cite showing the injury rate include all instances of accidental injuries, not instances where someone carrying a concealed handgun injured themselves. Second, this bill would not make and new concealed carriers, it would just expand the area where people who already possess a license can carry. As to your call for statistics, well there's John Lott's studies. Its ancedotal, but this book has multiple instances of someone using a firearm to stop a crime involving another firearm. Do you happen to have any statistics that a ban own ownership reduces gun violence?

Edit to add:

Abstract of an article from 1994 in which there were an estimated half million instances of a homeowner using a firearm to scare away an intruder. Unless you want to say that every intruder did not have a firearm or had one but was unwilling to use it, I'd say that prevented some gun violence.

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

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

Its pricey but a good read.

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

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

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

On Combat by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman

On Killing by Lt. Col. Dave Grossman

Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement

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

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

You should read The Machinery of Freedom and/or Chaos Theory. Both books build a case for market-based alternatives to the state better than anyone will do in this thread.

However, I should also mention that Robert Nozick – who some believe to have made the best intellectual case for libertarianism in his book Anarchy, State, and Utopia – came to the conclusion that government should provide basic protective services (and only basic protective services) including police, courts, and a military. He described his ideal state as a "Night Watchman State" – and is today usually associated with minarchism. His book is the opposite of an easy read, but if you really like to nerd-out or enjoy punishment, I definitely recommend it.

In any case, my point is that academic libertarians have largely answered your questions, either by describing how a stateless society could effectively provide protective services, or by making a case for a government that is limited to providing only basic protective services.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So is jaywalking, hypocrite.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three Felonies A Day

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

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

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

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

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

You're a fucking idiot.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is a great book for which you probably should read

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

Mark Levin's book Men in Black details this. A great read.

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


Fiction, to make you think:

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

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

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

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

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


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

Also a good book:

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

Yes, I have.

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

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

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

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

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

Three Felonies a day discusses this.

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

Three felonies a day.

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

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

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

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

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

> Well they shouldnt be committing felonies then.

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

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

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

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

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

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

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

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

> No offense taken.

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

> I see where they're coming from.

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

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

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

> I just don't care.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Then "maybe" we might start getting somewhere.

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

Sure thing. Study and WSJ Article

There is a whole book written about it:

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

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

1. The result in one of the rulings was 7-2 -- among the most lopsided Supreme Court cases ever decided. So no, that author is full of shit that "political affiliation" played a role. This is simply objectively wrong.
   
   
2. The outcome didn't change. Even if the Court had ruled for Gore, the recount that would have taken place would have resulted in a Bush victory.
   
   
3. Yes, both sides hate the SCOTUS. You have cited a book here about how the SCOTUS is a terrible right-wing group. There was also a book published (Men in Black: How the Supreme Court is Destroying America) full of cases of supposed liberal activism. Turns out, both sides get pissy that not every outcome of every Court case helps their party. Tough shit.
   
   
   It seems to me that if the Court were owned by big business they would have ruled to allow human genes to be patented just a few weeks ago, no?

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

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

That's an interesting read, I had only a chance to skim it, but it started off on a foot that I disagreed with. It’s obfuscating two entirely different concepts between “militarization” and “military” – though this might be clarified, and I’ll check out more when I get away from work today.

I think the entire militarization of the police is exclusively related to the drug war insofar as SWAT raids, military gear, and the erosion of civil liberties exercised in the name of public safety. The other side of “militarizing” is, for example, that my police department now hands out “campaign ribbons” that officers can wear as a part of their uniform, but they’ve long used military ranks, salutes, and military traditions – so new minor militarization is just a continuation of that history.

I think the link between the military and police goes back for eons, and still continues in many countries through Gendarmerie programs. The military was the police, and still is the police in most parts of the world. In the US we solve the dissolve of the standing army (coupled with a weak federal government) that gave rise to the Night Watch, Slave Patrols, and militia. My friend has a really crude joke, “Do you know why black folks don’t like the police? Because 150 years ago they were called the Slave Patrol.” It’s genuinely true, the police have long existed to go after specific classes of people, usually the poorest – and the “Slave Patrol” wasn’t just enforcing slavery or going after escaped slaves, they were providing general security and would enforce social standards.

Kristian Williams offers an excellent history of policing in his book “Our Enemies in Blue” that defines what makes contemporary policing separate from Gendarmerie programs. I think only in America can we even have such an absurd claim that “our police are becoming the military” because if you ask a Turkish or Chinese or French or Brazilian citizen, their military regularly supplements the police, and they’re basically indistinguishable except that the military is considered of higher rank and more elite. Our National Guard supplements the police too, and if anything, over the last 50 years we’ve used our National Guard substantially less, which is ironic to then complain about “militarizing” police. The alternative is to deploy the military on the front lines of places like Ferguson, which would probably cause a lot more social turbulence.

Thanks for the link though, I’ll check it out further when I have time.

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

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

How about piracy? Another example. Drug use?

Maybe read some of these comments

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

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

Here are a few examples:


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

Defensive driving is absolutely different in a manual. There are additional things you have to keep in mind and countries around the world with a majority of manual drivers put substantial effort into developing best practices. The best known of these is the Roadcraft "System of car control", originally developed for the UK police service and now much more widely used. If you want more information, look for Roadcraft, publications by the Institute of Advanced Motorists (especially the UK arm), RoSPA, or similar groups. Most of what I list here you would learn in many European driving programs.

Some basic tenets are:

Stay in gear until you have a better one to be in. Do not go to neutral while in motion. Do go to neutral when you are stationary and when movement could cause harm. Consider applying the handbrake if it makes sense to do so.

The clutch only needs to go down when you are shifting, or when not doing so would cause a stall. This is usually during the final part of braking to a stop.

Do keep both hands on the wheel except while shifting. Get your hand back on the wheel when done.

You can shift down several gears at once easily if you brake first in gear (foot off the clutch) and then shift.

> How can I maximize the amount of time I stay in gear so I can make an evasive maneuver if I need to? If I'm in 3rd, and the light in front of me turns red, do I shift to second immediately, slow down as much as possible, and finally shift to neutral right at the end? Do I fully depress the clutch once, move the gear selector to second in case I need it, and wait until I coast to a stop to shift to neutral and let out the clutch? Or do I just slow down in third as much as possible, then depress the clutch and shift to neutral?

When braking, what is important to prioritize is steering and braking control. A shift is not a "free" activity, it takes a degree of physical control away from operating other controls. This leads to a natural sequence of "position/speed/gear", where when dealing with a hazard, you should adjust position first, followed by speed, followed by gear. Once this is done, negotiate the hazard while on the throttle. It becomes pretty obvious how to drive with this in mind.

In this case, brake and remain in 3rd. If you are coming to a stop, declutch as you reach idle, stop, and then go into 1 (if setting off immediately) or N ("when a stop becomes a wait"). If instead of stopping, you need acceleration, go directly to the gear you need and accelerate.

The key here that is missed by many people is that while it's important for safety to keep the driveline engaged, it's not usually because of the need to "accelerate out of danger". It's rare that you can do that in traffic unless you're on a bike. You stay in gear because the inertia of the driveline has a stabilizing effect on the vehicle, because there is a natural and very powerful antilock effect, because even if you don't have enough power to accelerate much you still have enough power to affect vehicle balance, and because it's easier to shift from gear to gear than from neutral to gear.

The same applies if you are going faster. If you're going 50 in 5th and need to turn at 20, brake in gear until you are at 20-25, shift to 2nd, then complete the turn. You can make large block downshifts skipping several gears easily so long as you brake before you downshift.

> - If I'm in 3rd and I'm coming up to a perpendicular turn onto a new road, do I shift down to second and get fully in gear before I make the turn? Do I shift into second as I make the turn? Do I depress the clutch, coast through the turn, and shift to second as I drive away? Do I just stay in third (seems fast)?

Brake in 3rd until you are at the proper speed for the corner about one "big u-haul" worth of distance from the corner. Declutch, shift into 2nd, engage clutch, then negotiate the turn. It may take practice to brake to the right speed at the proper point. Ideally you have one phase of braking followed by one gear change followed by acceleration through the hazard.

> - I would love to read something about shifting from 1st to 2nd quickly in the context of pulling out into a busy intersection instead of taking off from the starting line.

If you're pulling into a busy intersection, there should be no real need to go to 2nd. 1st will usually take you to at least 20-25mph and if you need more speed than this to negotiate an intersection, you probably shouldn't be doing what you're doing.

I think it's worth emphasizing that when you need to take off quickly, a well executed handbrake start will always be faster than a foot hopping start. This is because you don't have to move your feet first as part of the launch. It's worth getting good at
them for this reason alone.

> - Stop-and-go traffic is actually the one thing that I can find a ton of info about online. All advice is welcome, but I'm really looking for other traffic topics.

Again, I think one thing that is often neglected by American drivers are handbrake starts. They are not inconvenient at all once you are fluid with them, but it takes time to learn the skill. In most of the world you must demonstrate them on your drivers test to get a license. They're not a beginners trick to be abandoned when you learn more, they remain useful and make urban driving easier.

> - I learned to drive in neighborhoods. Once I got in actual traffic, I realized I was spending way too much time coasting with the clutch depressed. In the event of an emergency situation, I can always slam the clutch with the break, but if I need to speed up instead of slow down I want to at least have the gear selector in the gear that will give me the most power so I can quickly evade trouble. I think ideally I should get faster at shifting and keep the car in gear as much as possible.

You don't need to get fast at shifting, most of the time, and you should not be shifting just to get the revs into an optimal need for acceleration unless you foresee the need for acceleration or control. Again, shifting is not a free action, and you should address position/speed/gear in series if possible.

It's good that you're trying to give up the habit of coasting on the clutch. There are times when it's appropriate for a short period of time but you absolutely want your default habit to be braking in gear. If you completely forget the clutch and you stall, you'll still have better stability under braking than if you had dove for the clutch.

> - I can't tell if there is something wrong with my clutch, or if I'm just driving around in parking lots / heavy traffic incorrectly. If I'm fully in 1st or 2nd and let off the gas, my car sort of surges instead smoothly crawling along. Passengers can definitely feel it, and it honestly feels like it's putting stress on some part of the drivetrain. If I leave the clutch fully depressed and tap the biting point of 1st or 2nd to sort of push it along, kind of like reverse, it feels better and more like driving around in my automatic did. When people say to not "ride the clutch", are they talking about doing this or are they talking about something else?

Pretty much. Bad motor mounts can make this much worse, so get those checked out too!

I hope this helps. If you want references, check out UK drivers training videos on youtube. Reg Local (a former UK police driving instructor) has done some really excellent ones.

edit:

The system of car control (Reg Local):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u5ksf29ylI

Block gear changing (Advance Driving School):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oI2kN1IvNnc

Roadcraft:

https://www.amazon.com/Roadcraft-Drivers-Handbook-Philip-Coyne/dp/0117081876

It’s incredibly easy to add citations to the “Pro-Colin” side of my argument.

I’ll go ahead and do so for the first line now, where I said:

>“African-Americans are shot by police at rates above 13%. But they’re 13% of the U.S. population. This implies discrimination.”

Here’s the ACLU providing its definition of “racial profiling:” “… the New York City Police Department's Street Crimes Unit used aggressive "stop and frisk" tactics against African Americans at a rate double that group's population percentage … A community coalition, the Cincinnati Black United Front and the ACLU of Ohio filed suit against the city and the Fraternal Order of Police, citing a pattern and practice of discrimination by police, including issuing the type of traffic citations Thomas received to African Americans at twice their population percentage. … Blacks comprise 25.6 percent of the City's population, yet 50.6 percent of all persons "stopped" during the period were black. …”

Here’s Vox reporting on another ACLU report: “The ACLU report found that 63 percent of Boston stop-and-frisk encounters involved black people between 2007 and 2010, when the city's black population was 24 percent.“

WBUR on the same report: “According to the analysis, between 2007 and 2010, more than 60 percent of those encounters were with African-Americans — in a city that's only 24 percent black.”

Not once do these sources ask if the percentage of crime committed by the black population of these cities is identical to the percentage of the population they comprised.

Not once do they acknowledge that it is the amount of crime committed by a group, and not simply its raw numbers, that determine how often we rightly ought to expect police to interact with members of that group.

They stop the argument at highlighting disparities between arrests, stops, etc., and population rates as if this is all the proof one would need to show that unjust racial bias was driving the entire gap between the two.

So … it’s clear that I don’t think that this side of the argument is correct, but that doesn’t mean I’m not characterizing the argument made by its proponents accurately. Sources no less academic than the ACLU (lawyers who want this to hold up in court!) make this exact argument in their professional reports.

If you need me to find examples of this argument being used outside the ACLU and on topics other than stop & frisk, I could easily keep supplying them all day, because this argument really is ubiquitous. If I was asked to EBS on the belief that evolution isn’t true or that the Earth is flat, I could summarize arguments that proponents of those views make, but I wouldn’t be able to offer sound arguments because the position just isn’t empirically true.

By the way, with stop and frisk in particular, we actually had a perfect control group to test empirically whether crime rates or unjustified racial bias was driving stop rates. Brownsville is a borough of Brooklyn that’s 76% black and <3% white. Kensington, a borough of Buffalo, was 82% black and 11% white.

Despite having nearly identical demographics, Kensington has the lowest crime rate in New York while Brownsville has the highest. So do Kensingtonians get stopped more because their city is slightly more black?

Actually, no. The stop and frisk rate in Kensington was 2%—Brownsville? 29%. So a city that was just 3% white and over three-quarters black had one of the lowest stop and frisk rates in all of New York—because it had the lowest crime rate. When majority-black parts of New York had low crime rates, they weren’t subjected to stop and frisk. That’s huge!

While on this subject, it’s worth keeping in mind who benefits from reducing minority crime: other minorities. That’s because most violence committed by whites is against other whites, and most violence committed by blacks is against other blacks. As Heather MacDonald notes, while blacks were 78% of all shooting suspects in New York City (despite being 23% of its population), they were also 74% of all shooting victims.

Whites committed just over 2% of the city’s shootings, but were also under 3% of the victims of shootings.

Taking a broad historical view, minorities make up nearly 80% of the drop in homicide in New York’s record-breaking crime decline from insane highs in the 1960’s down to today’s historical lows. Thus the point I make in my conclusion: minorities are the ones who benefit most from an active police presence in violent minority neighborhoods.

A white person who lives in Kensington really doesn’t have any sort of meaningful selfish interest to gain from paying taxes to police Brownsville. They’re paying in limited time and resources as well as police lives to benefit the primary victims of minority violence—other minorities themselves.

One final note: I did have the “Pro-Colin” side say: “Yeah, but that [the fact that cops are more likely to pursue when a white person commits a crime than they are when a black one does] is just because most victims of black violence are other blacks and most victims of white violence are other whites and cops care more when a white person is the victim.” I didn’t provide a specific counter-argument against this point, and I would indeed suspect this is the reason why cops pursue white suspects they’re alerted to at a higher rate than black ones.

However, to remedy this police would have to pursue and therefore arrest an even larger proportion of black suspects. See the Catch 22? If cops pursue fewer blacks, it’s because they don’t care about black victims. If they pursue more blacks, it’s because of racist bias and has nothing to do with actual crime rates at all. In some sense there is no way to win this because there literally is a way to spin the scenario into racism no matter what happens.

Some (like CCA and GEO) are public companies. You can research their cash monies and numbers here or here. There are also all kinds of scholarly readings on the subject (like The Culture of Control)...or pretty much anything by David Garland really...

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

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

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

Also, take some writing courses in undergrad.

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

Both Amazon Smile links (I choose the EFF):

• Fundamentals of American Law
  
• A History of American Law

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

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

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

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


I recommend:

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

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


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

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

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

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

Just gonna put this here.

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

Suggested reading:

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

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

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

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

The average person commits 3 felonies a day.

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

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


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


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


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

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

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

My estimate was a bit low.

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

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

Three felonies a day!

Three felonies a day.

we are literally all criminals

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

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

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

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

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Three Felonies a Day

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

> How about enforcing the Rule of Law...

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

It's definitely worth pursuing.

I can totally recommend investing in a copy of the Police Riders Handbook (not the new edition, it's terrible and a waste of money), and also the Police Drivers Handbook.

They are dry as hell to read, but it is definitely possible to teach yourself at least the basics of the system and begin to apply it, without ever needing to pay quantities of money to IAM or Rospa. Then, once you're back in the black so to speak, you'll have a baseline to work from and a decent knowledge of what is expected.

Bikesafe actually threw in a goodiebag for us that contained an IAM book that gives you a good foundation.

Beyond that, Nick Ienatsch's book is a great read too for sportier riding.

Law 101 basically does really short topic overviews of everything a 1L would learn

I highly recommend the book Law 101:

http://www.amazon.com/Law-101-Everything-American-System/dp/0195395131/ref=pd_sim_b_7

It's written in an easy to understand style. I used chapters as a review for my 1L exams to understand the big picture of what I had been studying.

There is nothing I could say here that couldn't be explained better and in far more detail in "The City That Became Safe: New York's Lessons for Urban Crime and Its Control (Studies in Crime and Public Policy)" by Franklin Zimring. Great book!

http://www.amazon.com/The-City-That-Became-Safe/dp/0199324166
https://tpav.org.au/_documents/Communications/Book%20Reviews/bb3972a7-6455-41cf-927c-ce3245196bfc/The_City_That_Became_Safe_Sep2012.pdf

https://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Philosophy-Law-Revised-Lectures/dp/0300001886

This is the book I was talking about by Roscoe Pound. It will be slightly outdated, because he published it in 1922, but it's a great starting point (written specifically for beginning law students)

https://www.amazon.com/History-American-Law-Third/dp/0684869888

This was the textbook we used in my 3L Legal Philosophy class, but I wouldn't be intimidated by that, it's very easy to understand.

Other than that, just googling "introduction to philosophy of law" will give you an array of options. Pick one, and go from there. Remember, it's going to take more than just one introductory text to get you comfortable with the subject.

(Chuckling) ... I happen to be reading Lawrence Friednman's History of American Law at the moment. There were laws in Massachusetts during the 17th century that called for any Quakers who were found in the colony to be flogged.

Most gun fights take place at conversational distance:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57746

http://www.amazon.com/Ayoob-Files-Book-Massad-F/dp/0936279168/ref=sr_1_12?ie=UTF8&qid=1342881151&sr=8-12&keywords=massad+ayoob

Sorry for the cut and paste below. I typed it in response to another person's question regarding the same issue, but that person deleted their post before I could post my reply:
**

There are many officers who get it right the first time, and put in the hard work to get through a marriage. I know know all three of them (joke).

There is a slightly higher prevalence of divorce statistically among officers. IIRC it's even higher among correctional officers. I'm now happily married, and I don't forsee that changing.

I think your desire to stay married has a far greater impact on your divorce potential than does a career in law enforcement. If you read through my response earlier, it certainly wasn't my ex-wife's fault that I changed. Does your current wife support you having a law enforcement career? Are you open with her about the very real changes that can occur in you?

Read and have her read Emotional Survival in Law Enforcement. I found it to be an excellent help, and addresses some of the psychological issues at hand.

If you haven't, read Emotional Survival for Law Enforcement. You can read it in just a few hours. I don't believe it is absolute gospel, but it is a good starting point.

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

If your dept. has an employee assistance program, speak to them.

LEO spouse here.

My advice to you: read " emotional survival for law enforcement." Get a good understanding of hypervigilance. Understand that even when he's off duty he'll still be eagle eyed and spot things you wouldn't have noticed. Get used to sitting with your back facing the room when you go out to eat. Also, you may have to stop eating at your favourite pub because he's arrested half the kitchen staff.

When my spouse was on shift (he's a detective now), he enjoyed bringing in my cooking and his shift reported enjoying eating it. Give him some time to get settled into his shift and become more familiar with the force's operating procedures and his shift mates.

You can't go wrong with communication and that may be hard for him. There are going to be times where he doesn't want to, or he simply can't talk about what happened on shift. Also, it isn't your responsibility to carry the burden of those things and he probably won't want to unburden himself to you. Seriously though, reading the book can help a lot.
http://www.amazon.com/Emotional-survival-law-enforcement-officers/dp/0971725403/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1421116153&sr=8-1&keywords=Emotional+intelligence+for+law+enforcement

My spouse says that is is important for him to maintain friendships outside of law enforcement. That gets more and more difficult as he becomes immersed in the "brotherhood." He won't work the same hours as other people and it might be difficult to schedule those social times. But those the importance of those friendships is that they remind him that he is not just a cop. If you don't work to maintain those friendships, pretty soon you'll find that the only friends you have are other LEO's and their spouses. While the LEO family ( and trust me, it will be your family) is great, it doesn't give your spouse a chance to put 'put down his badge.' He needs that kind of break for his own well being and your's too.

Wow, I tried Amazon.com and the cheapest copy I found was over $30 for a used paperback. :(

Edit: Found a link to it at Amazon where it is only $20 and ordered it. Thanks again. http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0971725403?ie=UTF8&condition=new&seller=AQYA5H2T7CWRJ

I bought the Barons book on amazon for about 12 dollars. Doesn't hurt to study, although a few friends have told me is isn't needed.

You mean this one?

http://www.amazon.ca/Armed-Gary-Kleck/dp/1573928836

Here are some facts:

Gun crime has steadily decreased in the US for the last 3 decades, while the number of guns on the street has increased.

I think that the better argument than alcohol is drugs - drugs have been illegal for a long time, but the supply is as strong, if not stronger, than ever, and drug violence is out of control South of the Border.

Instead of recounting a bunch of stuff here in a reddit post, I'll just refer you to an excellent book on the subject:
Armed

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

Harvey Silverglate told us all that we commit an average of Three Felonies A Day.

There's a book "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent"

Sometimes impossible. US law system is so out of wack almost everyone breaks multiple laws a day.

Read more about it if you like

He's right. Every fucking thing is a 'crime'.

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

Politicians create conditions where the government isn't functioning properly. They cut taxes and then say there's no money for schools, for example. There's no money for after school programs for kids. Then they tell the police to take care of any problems that arise from that.

They get paid by lobbyists to create these laws.

The voters say "look at all these problems, I'm not paying to fix them, fuck that, just hire more police. And let the police fund themselves by seizing people's cash."

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

For further reading on how everyone commits multiple felonies a day without realizing it, check out Three Felonies a Day.

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

Yeah. Have you read 3 Felonies a Day? Talks about we all break so many laws every day, the vast majority of us without meaning to. And the whole ' more prisoners per capita than any other nation' thing.

Excluding AnCap in the following (I thought this was obvious because I specifically called out weak government in my op, althought I quoted the "ideal ancap" part too, so I understnad the confusion.):

> It basically does, since it eliminates the apparatus that would enforce the laws.

Unfounded assumption. You're assuming a small government would have no way of enforcing its rulings, but that isn't the only scenario. State governments do the vast majority of regulating in the country and they somehow manage to enforce their rulings despite their relatively small size (when compared to federal government).

>It removes the legal basis for pursuing crimes, or for rendering appropriate remedies.

This seemed to be aimed at the ancap argument. Based on the other responses here, I cant make an argument that would convince you otherwise that isn't the same as many of the other posts.

>Small governments have small bodies of law, which is a problem.

This I definitely disagree with you on. We have far to many laws right now and they are more or less designed to put the government in a perpetual position of power above the citizens. Look at whats happening with Yates v United States right now. The case revolves around the criminal charges brought against a fisherman who had a catch with fish too small, threw the offending fish back into the water (presumeably expecting to just pay the fine as he had already been cited at the time) and wound up instead getting arrested and charged criminally for violation of Sarbanes-Oxley. Check out 3 Felonies a day (the title is a bit of a misnomer).

Tax law is another area where we have let the IRS engage in more or less unchecked mission creep to the point where even educated people need to resort to a paid resource to do it properly (or be liable to the most belligerent institution in the US government).

Edit: misplaced a parenthesis and it broke the whole second half of the post.

>And inconsistency: Realistically, as I am a law-abiding member of society, this kind of constructive possession would not be charged to me, because the police have better things to do. But at any point that could change. They could decide to enforce this against me on a whim. If I break any other laws, they could deploy this against me to get me a harder sentence. These things have happened, frequently. And so, my goal was clear: establish whether or not I can legally own firearms, and if not, how my at-the-time girlfriend could legally own them without me being guilty of constructive possession.

OP, you just described the U.S. legal system in a nutshell right here.

Lets say a gangbanger does a drive by.

That's ALREADY 40 counts of criminal activity, just for the one action.

Shooting at a residence.

Discharge of gun within city limits.

Discharge of gun within an incorporated area.

Discharge of gun from a moving vehicle.

Discharge of gun WITHIN a vehicle.

Discharge of a gun with intent to cause harm.

Etc, etc.

What these laws are, especially constructive possession you're alluding to, are called "rider charges", that is, they dont have any effect in your day to day life until you become accused of some crime, and then they all come out to play.

These charges, are designed to avoid the "No double Jeopardy" laws in the constitution, as well as avoid having a person be found not guilty of murder and attempted murder and then be perfectly free.

It goes like this:

---

Court case A without rider laws. The person shoots at the house to try to kill someone. They are only accused of that. If found not guilty, they go free completely.

Court case B with rider laws. The person shots at house, blah blah.

They are found not guilty of trying to murder someone, but they are found guilty of shooting in city limits and from a moving car.

Instant felon status, deprivation of gun rights, long prison sentence.

---

Did you know that over 80% of cases in the U.S. never make it to trial? Nearly all of them plead out. Even lawyers who are low-tier will tell you to "take the deal". Everyone makes bank off this system.

The justice system gets money in payment from the defendant as "reparation", which usually is the form of pulling it from friends/family of the defendant since they have no job and no income, and thus have to beg.

The lawyers make bank because of this revolving-door of clients who all take plea deals and thus lighten their case loads so they can take more clients and more quickly.

The DAs make bank because their rates of "successful cases" goes through the roof and that gets them tons of money from the state, as well as re-election into that position by the constituents. The rally cry of "im tough on crime!" is omnipresent for DAs, no "Im FAIR and REASONABLE" here.

There are so many laws in the U.S. lawyers don't know them all. There are so many laws that to be even modestly competent you have to educate yourself in a quasi-lawyer format.

And you know the saying, the more laws you make, the more criminals you create.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229?SubscriptionId=AKIAILSHYYTFIVPWUY6Q&tag=duckduckgo-d-20&linkCode=xm2&camp=2025&creative=165953&creativeASIN=1594035229

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

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwsLAqjqnxo


Now watch this video below. It details what you do and don't do. Only give information to police that they need. Think about Nazi interrogations of british soldiers "you can have my name, rank, and number". That's fucking it. Every other question they ask, don't lie, don't tell the truth. Say nothing. If you're not under arrest, you have no reason to respond. If you're under arrest, you have the right not to respond. The worst clients are the babblers.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-7o9xYp7eE

In this video you'll note the Dunning-Kruger effect at work on that fat asshole who calls himself a detective. He somehow always has a guilty party in his presence 100% of the time. Given that we know www.innocenceproject.org has released thousands of convicted-but-innocent people through evidence or better lawyers, given that we know people WILL PLEAD TO LESSER CRIMES AS GUILTY TO AVOID LONG JAIL SENTENCES, he's likely full of shit.

Yes, people who are INNOCENT will take plea deals for lesser crimes to avoid the threat of going to trial and receiving a full 20 years, both for the original crime and all the "rider charges" it may come with.

This is how DAs gets their high conviction rates and look good. Its how 80%+ of cases never make it to trial. Its how innocents are COERCED daily into taking plea deals.

All those crimes in the book of law become a weight which threatens to crush even the innocent, who will admit to things they've never done in order to have a fraction of their life back when released early.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIghbrn5yfI

>Debtors' Prisons: Life Inside America's For-Profit Justice ...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TGomdoO368g

>Inside America's For-Profit Bail System

Dont make the mistake of thinking this is uniquely U.S.ian. Canada is moving towards this already, especially in the realm of digital communications. harassment, and "causing offence".

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ex-georgia-deputy-acquitted-after-flash-bang-grenade-hurts-toddler-n479361

Rather, after it melts and blows apart the toddlers face.

Their defense? "the toddler should've known to get out of the crib when we threw that in there". Seriously.

https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20170108/14383136439/court-says-tossing-flashbang-grenade-into-room-with-toddler-is-unreasonable-police-behavior.shtml

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=60dvqenKASg

>STOSSEL: Too Many SWAT Raids - YouTube

To justify their equipment and costs, SWAT raids are being perpetrated for anything from being accused of selling weed to being a mass murderer. And they get the wrong house frequently.

Lots of dead dogs in their wake, including dead military veterans who grab their AR15 to defend their house/life from invading people with guns.

---

On your subject of hunting, OP, you can get your SoT and FFL07 I beleive it is, in order to have "dealer samples" of legitimate machine guns made after 1986. But that's ONLY if you can prove that you're a legitimate business.

For instance, with that hunting license, the students would've had to have bagged a few deer, and should've bought/owned some "legitimate hunting rifles" first. That is, a rifle which holds 3-5 rounds of 30.06 or .308, e.g. rounds used in the military since WW1 but also for hunting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW_mTW_p5yQ
After that, they could buy their AK variants and whatnot, because they have a "good faith" show that they owned the "correct" hunting gear before grabbing these others.

The system is literally a game.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VW_mTW_p5yQ

LLet mike schmidt regale you with the gamey nature.

---

Right now a California Sheriff is being investigated for "pay for play" concealed carry permits. That is, in this location they have sole discretion over whether you can obtain one, and as such they are ostensibly to make a judgment on whether you have need/good faith to own it. Again, this is a law where "if you carry concealed you're a criminal... UNLESS you pay money to the state then its okay". Just like your hunting exemption.

The notable part of this issue is the Sheriff basically being accused of only giving out CCWs to people who contributed to the sheriff's campaign with money.

In other words "you help me get elected, I give you CCW".

In San Francisco its largely similar since only about 3-5 CCWs are given out a year, and that's to wealthy people or friends of the department.

That article is based on this book about how everyone unintentionally commits several felonies every day. When everyone is an accidental criminal the state has free reign to oppress people arbitrarily. Enforcing all laws is literally impossible and if it were possible it would cause society to collapse because everyone would go to jail.

You've probably committed a felony today. Do you have a complete disregard for humanity?

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

That's the attitude I'm talking about. "I'm perfect and everybody else is a dirty sinner." Great way to be.

The average American supposedly commits Three felonies a day, so sure, they are.

(I'm not too sympathetic to the case in question, but I am extremely afraid of "If you don't have something to hide, the police should be able to look at everything." That way lies a police state, including police using blackmail to run the politicians.)

Thanks.

People might get used to surveillance, but that just means that they will adapt their behaviors to fit a society under total surveillance, instead of feeling as free as under a society without surveillance. It encourages groupthink and conformity: no one wants to stand out. With everything you do, you have to think about how this could potentially be perceived (or misunderstood) by others. Especially since most of us aren't even aware of the full range of things that are potentially illegal.

In the book Three felonies a day, the author makes the case that it is impossible to live your life without doing many otherwise innocuous, but technically illegal things. Everyone becomes a target for selective law enforcement/prosecution.

Edit: a word

Kind of like how most people technically commit ~3 Felonies a Day just going about their daily life.

No person can confidently say they don't violate any federal law.

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

A lot of people drive over the speed limit, 'because its the most practical and effective thing to do.

And in fact, laws today are so complex and strange that people arguably commit roughly three felonies a day.

> So, if I understand you correctly, in theory, the government could pass a law that exempts itself from all laws and making everything the government does "legal" but still requiring citizens to obey the law and breaking the law by citizens would still be punishable.

I don't know how such a law could stand up in court, but as Teri Shavio taught us, Congress can author and pass pretty much anything it wants.

> Ive said before and Ill say it again: If the government does it, its legal.

Functionally speaking, if you do a thing and you are not apprehended, prosecuted, and convicted, it is legal. What the legislature writes is only a small part of "making a thing illegal". If, for instance, Congress defunded the IRS and removed any form of enforcement of the tax code then failure to report and pay taxes would be as illegal as invisible jaywalking. Ain't no one gonna catch you, so you're free to do the thing.

And there are a lot of laws that go - functionally - unenforced. There's even a book Titled Three Felonies a Day which explores all the laws that non-government officials violate every day, with the vast majority of us failing to undergo prosecution.

So it's a much more complex problem than just "Government officials are unaccountable". There is a general question of how to identify violations of law and enforce those violations. The topic is easily as controversial as the passage of laws, themselves, as most people won't support a law if they think they'll be marked as violators but may well be ok with a law if they believe they are functionally exempt.

> I have nothing to hide.

That doesn't end well. Have a look at "Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent". Whether you know it or not, you do have something to hide.

Three Felonies a Day

By expanding what constitutes a felony or misdemeanor domestic abuse. By making criminal defense unaffordable. By making laws so vague, only the wealthy or powerful can defend against spurious accusation. By making criminal many activities which should not be. Here’s a great primer to start on the subject:

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

And btw, many states have misdemeanors which carry possible sentences long enough that the 4473 considers them felonies.

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

Archives for the links in comments:

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

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

Older book but very interesting read.

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

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

unless you have deep pockets for good lawyers

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

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

I mean, heck, you were in this thread about the king of Thailand. So you know that under Thai law, it's illegal to insult the king of Thailand, and you can get up to 15 years in prison. Did you know that the US has an extradition treaty with Thailand? Did you research how it might apply to reddit posts? Do you refrain from insulting the king of Thailand on reddit for fear of being extradited, or did you assess the risk as low?

Because once we've established that risk assessment has to be considered, then it's entirely appropriate to consider evidence that someone's ability to assess risk is impaired.

>And I don't think folks should not be subject to going to jail because they have a depression.

Even if expert witnesses testified that the person is likely to commit suicide? Then you're advocating for the death penalty even though the judge didn't impose it.

> there is no point on having laws,

Laws should exist. unethical laws should be subverted. There is no uptopian future, war is eternal, new laws will always be created and old laws always be subverted.

>if anyone can decide which laws are unethical and should not to be obeyed

Every individual can choose to decide to subvert the laws if they believe they are unethical and deal with the consequences in doing so.

> It only provides a way to make illegal payments

Bitcoin , like physical fiat , is very fungible , so it can be used for whitemarket purchases as well .

>including ransom, trading stolen cards and identities, laundering stolen money, running all sort of scams, corruption, sabotage, murder, ...

Like popular fiat currencies, yes.

>people were staking their lives, the two sides had to hide or fight,

Agorism and Counter-economics is a form of war too , with a lot at stake.

>You cannot expect to live within a society in peacetime while ignoring its laws

If you don't believe that everyone ignores laws all the time and this is the status quo we currently live in, with or without bitcoin, than you are delusional .

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

>expecting the government to protect you "right" to break its laws

no one is suggesting this. i expect states to try and regulate and eventually attack bitcoin more directly.

Technically speaking, you're a criminal too. Whether you've been convicted or not, you've committed crimes, so you're a criminal.

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

The system is designed for this. Border crossing is not a felony and we don't take children away from people convicted of misdemeanors. Even felons almost always keep their kids.

Yeah, as the other guy said. This book is about how many felonies the average person commits daily.

That quote of "3 felonies a day" is from a book with a misleading title where examples are never even given of these "common felonies". The book is about high profile politicians.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1382543575&sr=8-1&keywords=three+felonies+a+day

There is a great book on this subject, highly recommend it:
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

I don't know how true it is, but this book covers the idea for the federal government.

So you looked up pictures of dud 12 gauge shells, fired .270 brass cases, and muzzleloader bullets... only the box of Winchester .40 cal rounds are ammunition.

>Dude broke the law. He's not innocent. Not saying that the raid wasn't overkill, but he did break the law.

People break the law all the time, in fact, you broke several laws today. Guess you deserve to be bent over and have a broom handle shoved up your ass. What they did to this man is ridiculously disgusting. They swat raided a family expressly to terrorize them. They significantly damaged his house and possessions. They are prosecuting him for having a few rounds of miscellaneous "ammunition". Do you have any idea of how many Americans have at this moment a loose round of ammo unknowingly wedged in their ass crack? Don't bother contemplating on the number of car trunks with a loose round rolling around, it's a shitload. Oh he broke the law alright, a petty infraction of an immoral and unjust law.

>Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier reserves such harsh tactics for ordinary citizens. When NBC News anchor David Gregory violated the gun-registration law last year by wielding an illegal 30-round magazine on live television, he was not arrested.

Notice that David Gregory didn't get bent over and swat-teamed. He too broke one of your precious laws, but apparently they don't apply to a house organ of the authoritarians.

There's a great book on this subject called "Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent."

The fact that the NSA is being governed by a court appointed by an unelected official is disturbing in and of itself. The fact that they are legally violating the 4th amendment is terrifying. I fully understand the NSA.

As for what you could be doing wrong, take a look at this book called three felonies a day.

It is unbelievable to me that a (I'm assuming) United States citizen would be unconcerned about an unauthorized secret organization that scoops up all of the worlds data and does unknown things with it. At the very least you should be concerned that your data could be acquired by a hacker and used to manipulate your entire life from top to bottom. With the profiles that NSA is reportedly building, anyone with sufficient social engineering skills could rip your life apart and destroy any semblance of sanity you currently have.

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

I think 3 felonies a day is probably a bit of an exaggeration but I think it's absolutely true that every adult in the country unknowingly commits felonies regularly.

Again though, when entire categories of crime are being created for expressly political reasons, and when daily life is so overcriminalized in general that practically anybody can be jailed at cops' and prosecutors' discretion, focusing on whether or not any specific person is being jailed "for political reasons" is already missing the forest for the trees. The broad scope of political repression in the US as enforced by agencies like the FBI is impossible to gauge in real time, except to the extent that information about programs like COINTELPRO has been leaked or declassified — after all, we only know the scale of Soviet repression because of similar leaks and declassifications by the USSR — but even on a more immediate level, despite my right to free speech I'd be genuinely terrified of what might happen to me if I were to put a "fuck the police" or "cops are gangsters" bumper sticker on my car, not just at the hands of cops themselves but also at the hands of cop-sympathizing civilians.

The genius of the US system as a matter of PR is that my formal "freedom" to express political views like that in theory can coexist perfectly well with my actual unfreedom to express them in practice, and plenty of US nationalist ideologues (maybe even the same ones who'd gladly smash my taillight for an anti-police bumper sticker) would still gladly argue that the formal freedom is what defines the US as a society, and the actual unfreedom is irrelevant.

Yeah, part of me thinks felons being banned should only apply to violent crime, especially when you account for the 3 felonies a day theory.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/1594035229?pc_redir=1406792637&robot_redir=1

Ironically, Three Felonies a Day is mostly about how unfairly broad the law is to white collar defendants. A sample review from the Amazon page:

> Thought this book would be about the common person getting rolled by the feds. Instead, it's a bunch of stories about Wall Streeters and politicians that get nailed; people I couldn't care less about. Couldn't relate.

What's a "trumpkin excuse"?

Anyways, educate yourself, it doesn't require a fancy degree and $200k in student loans debt:

http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/test-9

http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/26/black-suspects-more-likely-to-be-shot-by-black-cop/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/07/13/why-a-massive-new-study-on-police-shootings-of-whites-and-blacks-is-so-controversial/

https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/why-are-so-many-black-americans-killed-by-police/

https://www.amazon.com/War-Cops-Attack-Order-Everyone/dp/1594038759

https://www.amazon.com/War-Cops-Attack-Order-Everyone/dp/1594038759/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1481293424&sr=1-1&keywords=heather+macdonald+war+on+cops

I am sorry to hear that you are so misinformed. You need to either read Clay Conrad's authoritative work on jury nullification or listen to this interview with him.

http://www.amazon.com/Jury-Nullification-The-Evolution-Doctrine/dp/1939709008/

http://youtu.be/B-9jH1ZWDaY

No, I am not a sovereign citizen. My political views are entirely irrelevant here and to attempt to confuse the historical fact that is jury nullification with the fact that you dislike my political views (you don't actually know what they are) is a dirty tactic.

What are my political views? I'm a left libertarian. If you think that's "batshit crazy," that's your problem. I could not actually care less.

> If it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant committed the crime, can you set your opinions aside and vote guilty? (Yes, I can.) As trial lawyer and jury nullification expert Clay Conrad notes in response to this question, of course you can. You can also shove your arm down a garbage disposal! That does not mean you are committed to doing so.

> TL;DR: Stick to 2D, and you won't have any legal issues. In the absolute worst case you'll be hit with an obscenity charge, but even if you are, you can contact the Comic Book Legal Defense Fund and they will defend you for free.

This isn't a very sane analysis of those cases. Nothing you've posted doesn't prove it's not illegal. It clearly is and has survived scrutiny) under several cases. It's just that, similar to piracy and myriad other stupid laws, you are very unlikely to be prosecuted unless you are already being targeted. The same way you aren't going to get a ticket for not wearing a seat belt unless you are caught doing something else too.

However, and this is the important part, companies and very public entities don't have the luxury of fading into obscurity the way citizens do, and they already have leverage on them in the form of business licences. If they're big enough they might be able to bribe themselves out of it but they can't exactly afford a public media blitz that they distribute child pornography. That's why you are going to see this stuff being banned on platforms and censored by translation companies, because even if it's likely that the private citizen isn't going to get nabbed for this sort of thing that's not a risk anyone is willing to take with their company and investor's money.

*Also you are sorely misrepresenting the ruling in the Christopher Hadley Case. What happened in that case was the court re-affirmed that Hadley could be charged under the PROTECT Act of 2003 as long as the material was deemed obscene. That's why he plea bargained after that determination, because he knew full well his material would be deemed obscene and he'd be convicted anyway. Here's a quote from the case that makes it very clear. It's not a separate obscenity charge. It's another provision under the same law which has the same penalty, and you still get put on the sex offender registry as well.

>This conclusion has minimal impact on this case given the almost complete redundancy of the conduct criminalized by subsections 1466A(a)(1) and (b)(1) with that of subsections 1466A(a)(2) and (b)(2). The observable differences between these subsections are (1) subsections 1466A(a)(1) and (b)(1) incorporate the Miller test as essential elements, whereas subsections 1466A(a)(2) and (b)(2) do not; (2) subsections 1466A(a)(2) and (b)(2) include the “appears to be” language in relation to “a minor;” and (3) subsections 1466A(a)(1) and (b)(1) encompass a broader list of sexually explicit conduct.
>
...
>
>The indictment in this case simply charges Defendant with violations of subsections 1466A(a) and (b). There is no reference to whether Defendant is being charged under subsections 1466A(a)(1) or (a)(2), or (b)(1) or (b)(2). The conduct outlined in count one states sufficient facts to allege a violation of § 1466A(a)(1), and the conduct outlined in counts two through four state sufficient facts to allege violations of § 1466A(b)(1). Because subsections 1466A(a)(1) and (b)(1) incorporate the three-prong Miller test for obscenity, these portions of the statute are not overbroad in violation of the Due Process Clause. The conduct alleged in the superseding indictment delineates violations of those constitutional portions of the statute; therefore, Defendant’s argument that the entire superseding indictment must be dismissed based on overbreadth must fail.

It also follows in line with the Whorley case's finding.

>But in making his argument, Whorley ignores the language of § 1466A(a)(1), which prohibits visual depictions of minors only when they are obscene. See 18 U.S.C. § 1466A(a)(1)(B). Ashcroft itself noted that obscenity in any form is not protected by the First Amendment. See Ashcroft, 535 U.S. at 245- 46; see also Miller, 413 U.S. at 24; Kaplan, 413 U.S. at 119. Thus, regardless of whether § 1466A(a)(1) requires an actual minor, it is nonetheless a valid restriction on obscene speech under Miller, not a restriction on non-obscene pornography of the type permitted by Ferber. We thus find Whorley’s as applied constitutional challenge to § 1466A(a)(1) to be without merit.

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent-ebook/dp/B00505UZ4G

These terms are not new. Yes, these terms can be applied to deck trackers. Yes, under these terms Blizzard could ban you for using a deck tracker the same as they always could. No, informal statements from Blizzard employees don't provide any kind of defense should Blizzard decide to ban people for using deck trackers.

Blizzard probably won't ban players en masse for using deck trackers, but it is very handy for them to have bannable offenses be common-place; Any time they want to ban someone for whatever reason they can just ban them for common-place ToS violations. It's like Three Felonies A Day: there are so many federal laws that everyone is routinely and unknowingly breaking them, so any time the feds want to target someone they can always find an excuse.

Im not a libertarian actually, I just don't believe in strong IP laws because they've been shown to stifle innovation and having all techies scared shitless of copying some CSS is unhealthy. Thankfully, webdevs have no such issue.

Defending the IP system in the USA is asinine and you know it. Wait until a patent troll comes for you and tell me how wonderful it is. Or how copyright is never ending because congress just moves up the dates.

Also:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00505UZ4G/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1

and Lessig's famous essay:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122367645363324303

Have my up-vote for a thoughtful articulate response. I honestly wish your last statement was true, but not all laws these day are moral. There does exist an overlap between illegal and moral on the truth tables. This is an interesting (but slightly off-topic) read:

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

The government may not be looking to arrest you for downloading the latest tomb raider game, but it IS a crime.

So some day when they want something from you, they can use their knowledge about that to blackmail you.

The average American commits three felonies a day. Do you honestly think that any agency is sufficiently incorruptible that, with the knowledge needed to go after anyone they want, they will refrain from doing so?

Worse yet, what happens when these agencies start blackmailing the legislators into doing what the agencies want? Mass surveillance gives them the means, how much do you trust them not to develop the desire? Even if they're not doing it now, eventually they will. And once they do, democracy is dead.

Thats ok, most dads are criminals, nearly everyone in the US is without even knowing it.https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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.

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

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

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

> I have nothing to hide.

You do and just don't know it yet.

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 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.

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.

Indeed we are:

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

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

>Re: It takes a lot of bad behavior to get to prison,

Three felonies a day

3 Felonies a Day.

The Average Person Commits Three Felonies a Day

Some would agree.

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

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

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.

Easy for you to say, mister lawyer.

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

or autistic... Also, everyone regularly breaks the law whether they know it or not. Ever hear of the book 3 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.

Multiple federal felonies a day.

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.

It's probably a very good approximation:


The average American inadvertently commits three felonies a day.

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.

Read this book..

The FBI statistics show that Blacks, although they only constitute 13% of the population are responsible for almost 50% of homicides. Other official statistics you can read more about in this book https://www.amazon.com/War-Cops-Attack-Order-Everyone/dp/1594038759 suggests that victims of violent crime report a disproportionate number of assailants being Black or Latino.

And much of BLM while histerically lashing against the entire police based on a few clear examples of racial basis. Their community meanwhile is decimiated by the gang warfare. And where are the black protests against gang violence ?

This is quite similar to the left lashing out to a few clear examples of hate crime against Muslims, white ignoring the plight of millions of Muslims under the tryanical Islamic theocracies.

So yes both are forms of pernicious regressive left that are ethically despicable and intellectually dishonest!

Regarding the Hitler bit, I was talking about the late 1920s and early 1930s violent clashes between Nazi and Communists within the Germany (not the much later pact between Soviets and Nazi Germany). And I am not saying the history repeats itself, but as the quip said it certainly rhymes!

It's already on my reading list. I'd recommend this one for you, if you haven't read it. I agree it's not something that will be solved over Reddit, that's for sure.

I'll end saying that making excuses for crime isn't the way out, in my opinion. You're stomping on ambition when you talk about vague systemic problems with no answer. The way out is to demand more, to be honest and to not condescend (lower the bar). Pumping money into education isn't solving this problem (bad performance). Bad culture is the problem.

https://www.amazon.com/War-Cops-Attack-Order-Everyone/dp/1594038759

> https://www.vox.com

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/vox/ - "publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes."

www.politifact.com - "The study is more than a decade old, published July 2003." But again,

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/punditfact-lies-again/article/2555481

I think you need to do better than that. None of these website you have linked are creadible and been known to push their own agenda.

What proof? Something that is done by credible sources will be nice.

As for the aclu link about the sentencing. Can you show me where in the report states if these black had a rap sheet or are repeat offenders as that WILL affect their sentencing time.

You should pick up this book and have a read, hopfully, it might change your mind.

https://www.amazon.com/War-Cops-Attack-Order-Everyone/dp/1594038759/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1460412778&sr=8-1&keywords=The+war+on+cops

One other thing:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/36/301
https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/granule/USCODE-2011-title36/USCODE-2011-title36-subtitleI-partA-chap3-sec301/content-detail.html

So what they are doing is essentially, against and law and they could all have the books thrown at them. Should they - I don't think so but it is nice to know when it suits their purpose, they can just ignore the law.

Here is the mobile version of your link

This isn't 1640. Communities aren't as small or tight knit as they were. People don't just commit crimes against their community or the the people in them.

I read Vitale's book - The End of Policing and he does a great job of explaining how terrible polices forces are, how they are used I correctly, and their history of being used incorrectly. What he does not explain very well is how to actually end policing, and what that looks like in a modern society. A society with multiple communities whose problems spill over to the next.

The whole time a read that book, I found myself agreeing with him until getting to the end of his point and thinking about how we could legitimately apply that in real life. The answer is not very well, if at all.

The whole time, repeating in my head: "That's a great point, but I'm not sure his suggested solution would work because reasons. How could we make it work... Oh yeah we solved that problem already... That's how we got here."

I did like spending a portion of the money you would have used to incarcerate a population back into the community they come from. I am eager, though skeptical, to see that happen more often.

I would like to see a reduction in "active policing" where police are looking for people to arrest. I would rather move to more if not exclusively reactive - It's not a problem until someone else has a problem. Let the community attempt to handle it if they can.

The overriding theme is that we should have the police force we want. Unfortunately we get what we deserve. We deserve it because we do get to determine policing policy by the politicians we elect (and sheriffs are directly elected). People don't though. They start change.org petitions and at best get out and protest. I would bet my last dollar that half the people protesting don't vote even if they could.

As a snarky aside - I do not trust a community of any sort to truly police itself. We could go through the ages finding hundreds of instances where this did not go well. Just ask Salem how it worked out.

>I'm interested in this subject. Direct me to some good reads about it if you don't mind.

Sure, the historical beginnings of this are with the Lippmann Colloquium that met before WWII broke out, where a new kind of liberalism, and political strategy was discussed. For a good overview over the meeting this is the work to consult.

https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-319-65885-8

After the War these groups got together and organized the Mont Pelerin society, and begin implementing neoliberal political projects.

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

Philip Mirowski is the scholar to go to in order to get a good account of how this functions.

A book on Mont Pelerin society:

http://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674033184

An overview of this movement and ideology, again from Mirowski (PDF)

"The Political Movement that Dared not Speak its own Name:
The Neoliberal Thought Collective Under Erasure"

https://www.ineteconomics.org/uploads/papers/WP23-Mirowski.pdf

Here you will find how regular people were transformed from rational agents in neoclassical economic theory, to irrational agents that are ultimately epistemically flawed subjects, and the market is transformed from an allocation device to an epistemic agent.

>Same with all this. Fascinating.

Well Bassner's work was already referenced, but this is a good book, that provides an overview.

http://www.cornellpress.cornell.edu/book/?GCOI=80140104396220

On the CIA, OSS and its connection to Wall-Street, I suppose the best entry would be David Talbot's work on the Dulles brothers.

https://www.harpercollins.com/9780062276162/the-devils-chessboard

On the real history of the CIA, Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA by Weiner.

Domhoff is a sociologist that has been working on this type of stuff for a long time, and has a website. He is a great resource to untangle modern corporate power. Check out his work on business think-thanks like Council on Foreign Relations.

https://whorulesamerica.ucsc.edu/power/postwar_foreign_policy.html

On state repression of democratic movements, start with the first red scare. Howard Zinn's book on history is still the best all around account of this subject.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/2767.A_People_s_History_of_the_United_States

To see what I am arguing, it can be done through a particular state function, like policing. This is a good book that provides a history and function of policing, (it might surprise you) and advocates for its end.

https://www.amazon.com/End-Policing-Alex-S-Vitale/dp/1784782890

>I can't deny that these are things the state does, but I still don't agree that this is a necessary function of the state, but rather the manner in which it is used, by corporations which make use of it for their own gain.

The state does not have a necessary function, other than to mitigate the problems of class relations, and to expand the processes of capital accumulation. I am in total agreement that it can be used and political victories won. Obviously, for example, a limit on the working day is political victory, and the state was used to achieve it. But it was the underlying struggle, and militancy that translated into a state victory. As soon as that militancy dissipated, the working day was under attack. If the state was a neutral instrument, this would not matter.

>I'd maintain the actions of Capitalists, sure, but I'd argue these are not necessary consequences of Capitalism, but rather what people have chosen to do with Capitalism historically.

It is a consequence of pursuing most profit, and engineering a landscape where most profit is generated. This is an internal drive to capital accumulation. So if the object is maximum economic growth, then the object is going to be individual purchasing units, purchasing the most stuff. This has been well documented by sociologists, and commented on by philosophers and political theorists. It entails an apparatus that cultivates desire, instead rational contemplation, or spiritual and ethical values. If you don't have this type of subjectivity... then people buy just what they need in a very narrow sense, and you end up with a crisis of overproduction. Obviously a population entertained by commodity consumption in the form of the base generates more profits, this is an empirical matter.

> Fundamentally these are consequences of human actions and decisions, which have occured within a Capitalist system, merely because Capitalism allows for these behaviors, and yes, perhaps in some sense, in the absence of certain roles of the state, rewards these behaviors, but it is the human that is perceiving reward and value from the material gains permitted by Capitalism.

I fundamentally agree, that ultimately capitalism is just a generalized system of human relations. It is just that those relations don't appear to us as such, they appear as things and forces outside of our control... and they are. They push us to exist in a certain manner, independent of our will. It structures our lives, and we fill those structures.

>Operative word there being power. The most fundamental power is capacity for violence.

In a way we all have a capacity for violence, but that does not bend another will to your own. Power does that, even with absence of violence.

>It's an important distinction that implies something entirely other than "the military". Who has controlling interest in those military contractors?

That is the military in the concrete. I don't know what you mean by controlling interest. If the contractor is private corporation, then it would be the board of directors, that is attempting to keep shareholders happy.

>Be safe out there, the world is fucked XD

Same to you. Cheers!

Relevant link to buy: https://www.amazon.com/Our-Enemies-Blue-Police-America-dp-1849352151/dp/1849352151/ref=mt_paperback?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=1563344728

Our Enemies in Blue: Police and Power in America

I am not really sure what you're trying to say here. I completed my thesis on this topic and I encourage some of these readings:

Lockdown America: Police and Prisons in the Age of Crisis

Our Enemies in Blue: Police and Power in America

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

In his 1968 run for President, Richard Nixon and fellow conservatives seized the tumultuous events at the time as an opportunity to gain political points--you are spot on.


Nixon dedicated seventeen speeches solely to the topic of law and order. The liberal Democratic establishment was characterized as out-of- touch and weak on crime. In one of his television ads Nixon called upon American voters to reject the lawlessness of civil rights activists and embrace “order.” At the end of the ad, a caption reads: “This time . . . vote like your whole world depended on it . . . NIXON.”

After viewing the campaign ad, Nixon remarked that the ad “hits right on the nose. It’s all about those damn Negro-Puerto Rican groups out there.”

Before Nixon’s inauguration—Krogh and Ehrlichman held strategy sessions with ranking members of the House Judiciary Committee. Their meetings were an attempt to test nationwide federalist crime policy in Washington DC, increasing preventative detention and no-knock raid provisions left out of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act passed six months earlier. The new administration held two strategy sessions on crime, just before Nixon took office, and another shortly after his inauguration. Nixon surrounded himself with some of the most notable conservative crime experts at the time. In addition to Krogh and Ehrlichman, were GOP chief House counsel John Dean, and future Democratic senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, then a domestic policy adviser.

Fast forward to the Texas Tower shooter and you have the creation of SWAT. Though SWAT’s original motives were to handle
extreme emergencies, their first official mission is indicative of what the State constitutes
as an emergency. In 1969, in its first mission, SWAT raided an alleged headquarters of
the Black Panther Party.

I could go on and on, but I'll leave you with one final article that I think you should take a look at: How White Users Made Heroin a Public-Health Problem and the 1985 Philidelphia MOVE Bombing. where police literally bombed--as in C4 explosive from a helicopter--a neighborhood because it was rumored to be home of black activists.

I'd like to recommend Boston's Gun Bible. It has a lot of valuable information for new and experienced firearm owners.

Boston's Gun Bible https://www.amazon.com/dp/1888766069/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_U3nWub1D9XQM4
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1888766069/ref=cm_sw_r_awd_U3nWub1D9XQM4

Boston's Gun Bible. I've read this one cover to cover...the info on battle rifles is invaluable, even if much of the legal discussion and AR15 info is about 10 years out of date. About 1/4 of the book is a love letter to the M14 and FAL platforms, but the Garand and HK G3 are not left out either.

and this http://www.amazon.com/The-Gun-C-J-Chivers/dp/0743270762

and this http://www.amazon.com/Bostons-Gun-Bible-Boston-Party/dp/1888766069

http://thefiringline.com

http://www.ar15.com/

http://www.glocktalk.com/

http://www.thehighroad.org/

boston's gun bible: http://www.amazon.com/Bostons-Gun-Bible-Boston-Party/dp/1888766069

the magpul dynamics training dvds

You should read Boston's Gun Bible.

And using force for political means is beyond stupid.

Saw Our Enemies in Blue mentioned in another thread today. Relevant.

using something "society" wants as enough impetuous to force everyone to pay for it is dangerous.

For example, the USA seems to be at war all over the world, for very bad reasons.

I wish I could opt out of paying for the military. If the government had no funds to make payroll, we'd make very different foreign policy decisions, very quickly.

Re: the justice system - it DOES serve those with money already. Just instead of paying for the courts directly, people with money pay a lawyer who can usually get them a tolerable outcome.

If you don't have money (and sometimes if you do) you still get ground under the heavy hand of "justice".

Very, very little criminal justice activity is regular small-crimes prosecution (like robbery). It's not lucrative enough to justify the police spending their time on it.

I recommend Three Felonies A Day for a better dig into courts.

Another good read is Rise of the Warrior Cop.

Also, full disclosure, the way the courts should function is great! I love what their goal is. But the way they do function is often such a gross perversion of justice it makes me think that a private courts system would do it better, if no other reason then it couldn't be so over-the-top predatory.

If you want an even stranger read, check out Market for Liberty. The authors sketch out what a private courts and police system might look like.

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

Doesnt that indicate we may have a problem with our legal system?

Theres a reason books like Three Felonies A Day exists.

Yes, we need more nanny state rules for the paranoid. You can never be to sure of what to fear! Did you hear about the paranoid legislature in Michigan that passes a law of computer access that was so restrictive a crazy police chief charged a wifi user with a felony for not buying a coffee first?

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2007/05/michigan-man-arrested-for-using-cafes-free-wifi-from-his-car/

It really has become the book 1984;

https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent-ebook/dp/B00505UZ4G

>Anyone entity that breaks the law should be punished, period

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00505UZ4G/ref=nosim/0sil8 please read this

>Oh yes, I'm sure the RT article is credible, the others make no such claims.

Uhm, yes they do, and the last is a video recording of the statement by an NSA official to Congress which the other articles are referring to. Now you are either illiterate or a liar.

>According to facebook, what?

That most people online are separated by about 4.7 degrees of separation. It is a logical extension that if the NSA uses 3, that this would include most of the Internet.

>Where did you find this claim?

There are many books written on the subject, and many examples in the mainstream media.

Apparently OP spends too much time calling people "cucks" and reading Trump memes and he hasn't had time to sit down with Three Felonies A Day.

You are being obtuse.

Do you realize you are critiquing one of the most respected and used manuals on driving? roadcraft Most of the text on my post was taken directly from it.

As a medic not only have I taken the course the text is for, in addition I also hold EVOC (emergency vehicle operator course) certifications. So i feel I have better understanding than most when it comes to driving.

What are your credentials to so pompously say the authors and the many research that has gone into it is simply wrong?

You need to stop being obtuse and realize that as a driver of a motor vehicle you are directly responsible to ensure the safe operation of it.
When you hit a kid in the street, your "It is up to parents to teach their kids to pay attention of their surroundings and not run in front of cars or out onto a roadway before looking." means absolutely nothing. You are solely, like i said, the one responsible, even if the kid is being an idiot.

I really suggest you give the book a read you can find the ebook here reading the full text will probably give you a better understanding of the fragments I used on my original comment and will help you understand why your rebuttals are erroneous.

If you want a less boring one I suggest this book by Ben Collins but it is not nearly as comprehensive.

I will begrudgingly take this bait and respond. Better late than never I suppose. Your argument, as I understand it, is that a political system is strengthened when it rebuffs attempts by outsiders to come into it, and that most importantly, that system should not allow these outsiders to bring their influence to bear, so as to avoid distraction from what you call the "actual political issues."

However, there seem to be two flawed premises in your argument. The first involves the reality and desirability of an isolated nation-state. In today's global economy, strict isolationism will only lead to death of the nation-state. Even isolationism limited to immigration bans would be devastating to a national economy. Just last fall, Alabama farmers faced significant crop spoilage when the state passed a very harsh immigration bill (mirrored on SB 1070 but reaching even farther). On the desirability front, you say that our acquiescence to assimilation is based on the "modern religion of equality and tolerance" which leads me to believe that you reject both. The problem with cultures that similarly reject these notions is that historically, this had led to violent conflict and war (i.e., WWII or Rwanda) that inevitably destabilizes the nation-state far more than the disruption caused by a struggle for tolerance through equality. Indeed, this often causes the end of that manifestation of the nation-state.

Your second premise involves what you call "actual political issues." The problem is that what constitutes an "actual political issue" very much depends on whom you ask. I consider a state's treatment of its prisoners and the rights restored to them upon release to be an incredibly important political issue, but others may say that this is not something politicians should debate while our national economy is in the midst of a recession. You state that one such issue is, "Why is there a class of people who, generally speaking, is likely to remain impoverished in our current system, even with such social milestones as affirmative action..." But, in proposing this as an actual issue, you've already answered both of the questions you think are superfluous--"The white man holding the black man down" and "The black man taking welfare handouts from the white man." These three questions cannot be separated so simply. For example, Michelle Alexander recently wrote a book, The New Jim Crow, in which she argues that the nation's drug laws were instituted as a way to replace Jim Crow. She explores all three questions through her book, including offering thoughts about how to solve our current prison population crisis and its effects on largely inner-city minority groups.

The real reason that American politics exist the way they do is a multi-faceted answer with several components (many of which I don't even understand). One component involves the state of lobbying in Washington (Jack Abramoff, one of Washington's most famous lobbyist, just wrote a book about it); another component involves the 24-hour news cycle that give politicians an outlet to quibble things that would not be given space in a daily/weekly periodical. Yet another component has very much to do with the focus of modern American politics on ruling through fear (see David Garland's book, The Culture of Control). There is no single factor that leads to modern American politics, and no single step that will magically transform our democracy toward something resembling Spartan government.

You both may want to give this a read, it doesn't specifically address the problem you're facing now, but does address some that may come up later.

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

Read this

Just search it on Amazon.. Should be there.

Edit: here's the link on Canadian Amazon:

https://www.amazon.ca/Emotional-Survival-Law-Enforcement-Officers/dp/0971725403

>My LEO lives to work, and he's drinking away his anxieties.

This is bad. You have to have outside activities and step away from the job from time to time. This is a great book that helped me get through some rough times. I highly recommend it to all officers:

http://emotionalsurvival.com/

You can also buy it on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0971725403/ref=dp_olp_all_mbc?ie=UTF8&condition=all

>Why is it an extreme view to see "racism and white supremacy as the foundation of all of the systems in the country"?

The "foundation" suggests that the people creating those systems were actively designing them for the express purpose of keeping whites ahead and blacks behind. "All" of the systems, all of them. Really? I think the idea behind policing is to enforce the law, and any racism that has occurred along the way is a secondary effect. I think the idea behind voting is to elect politicians, and any racist voter suppression along the way has been a secondary effect. I think the idea behind capitalism and the free market is for businesses and individuals to be able to produce for the economy and earn money to support their needs, and any racism that has occurred along the way has been a secondary effect. It sounds like the staffer believes that the founding fathers were sitting around saying "Yeah, police, capitalism, these things will keep our race ahead of everyone else!"

>What facts do you have that suggest that racism is not a major factor in how people live in our country? Where are the statistics that prove our nation is equitable?

I like the PublicFreakouts subreddit for some reason, and on there I've seen more than enough videos of white people calling black people the N word to know that there are still racists out there in the world, but to convert that into an actual worldview or a perspective about how people live in our country, we need data. A lot of discrepancies can be explained by single motherhood rates. According to this source black single mothers have a 47.7% poverty rate while white single mothers have a 33% poverty rate. Black married mothers have a 12.2% poverty rate, while white married mothers have a 5.2% poverty rate. There's still a discrepancy there between the races, which we'd need to dig deeper into the variables to decide how much of that is racism, but as you can see the vast majority of poverty is explainable by single motherhood regardless of race. And single motherhood bleeds into pretty much everything else in society, such as crime rates, drugs, continued poverty, etc. More than half of black children live with single mothers. When you find a disparate outcome in the world, look for disparate inputs before assuming that the inputs must be equal, and therefore racism.

>Why is the onus on black people to prove it anew or to justify their frustration every time we hear about something that looks like racial injustice?

Because just because something looks like a racial injustice at face value doesn't mean it is. Both legally and scientifically speaking we operate on the assumption of innocence until proven guilty. You know something I'd be very interested in seeing is what percentage of instances of a white cop arresting a black person does the black person accuse the white cop of arresting them because they are black. If that percentage is very high, then it would confirm that a lot of people feel like they are experiencing racism even when they probably aren't. And if the solution you're suggesting to historical problems is things like reparations paid for by modern whites who never owned slaves, is the onus on the whites to prove that they shouldn't have to pay reparations?

>The idea that we need to fact check every allegation of racism before we'll acknowledge it shows a fundamental mistrust of black people, and I think it's one of the things that holds us back from actually making progress.

I would hold the same standard to anyone who claims to be a victim of any sort. If you accuse someone of raping you, I can feel bad for you, but before we put the accused in prison we need proof. If a white person were to accuse a black cop of racist policing, I think we would need evidence or data to support a change in policy based on that accusation as well.

>We have the statistics to prove that race plays a major role in criminal justice involvement. Here are a bunch of examples for you:
>
>https://www.google.com/amp/s/beta.washingtonpost.com/news/opinions/wp/2018/09/18/theres-overwhelming-evidence-that-the-criminal-justice-system-is-racist-heres-the-proof/%3foutputType=amp

I don't have time to go through the whole list right now, but I am confident that if you want to create a statistical argument that racism is taking place, just ignore important variables as I've been mentioning. For example, starting from the top:

• In their book “Suspect Citizens,” Frank R. Baumgartner, Derek A. Epp and Kelsey Shoub reviewed 20 million traffic stops. In an interview with The Post, they shared what they found: “Blacks are almost twice as likely to be pulled over as whites — even though whites drive more on average,” “blacks are more likely to be searched following a stop,” and “just by getting in a car, a black driver has about twice the odds of being pulled over, and about four times the odds of being searched.” They found that blacks were more likely to be searched despite the fact they’re less likely to be found with contraband as a result of those searches.
  
  In this summary they only mention the rates at which blacks are being pulled over compared to whites in absolute terms. I don't see any mention of them attempting to control for the possibility that blacks and whites may actually drive differently, which would impact the rates at which they are pulled over. This is exactly what I was talking about earlier when I said "When you find a disparate outcome in the world, look for disparate inputs before assuming that the inputs must be equal, and therefore racism."
  
  
• A 2013 Justice Department study found that black and Latino drivers are more likely to be searched once they have been pulled over. About 2 percent of white motorists were searched, vs. 6 percent of black drivers and 7 percent of Latinos.
  
  The last study said that blacks were four times more likely to be searched than whites, but now we see that in the case of both whites and blacks we're talking about rather small numbers. 2 percent of whites being searched and 6 percent of blacks being searched leaves 98% of whites being pulled over and not searched while 94% of blacks being pulled over and not searched. See it sounds really bad when you say "three times more" or "four times more", but in real terms the discrepancy isn't all that big. It's still possible that some of this is racism, but if 4 percent more blacks are searched than whites is your big argument for "racism and white supremacy as the foundation of all of the systems in the country", let's just say I'm not convinced.

I dont have any information on the PA exam. But I do know a good study guide https://www.amazon.com/Barrons-Police-Officer-Exam-9th/dp/1438001339

basically just study grammar/spelling/comprehension :) Good luck

This the one?

If you want to be surprised even further.

They just have not caught you yet.

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

The average American commits several felonies a day. Virtually everything has been criminalized.

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

Apparently we commit an average of https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229.

I mean

Read Three Felonies a Day and get back to us about 'worthless humans'.

Whether you believe it or not, our legal code is so complex that it is childishly easy to charge you with a felony. In Virginia that stays on your record, even though you are not convicted, until you get it expunged by the Governor.

Yes, some people are fakakta, but the system is totally fuxored.

You are misrepresenting my advice. I never suggested it as a first resort or the best choice for everyone in all situations. As you can see from my advice, posted hours ago, I agree with your first instincts, but don't just dismiss firearms outright: https://www.reddit.com/r/sanfrancisco/comments/cqc5xv/video_man_violently_attacks_woman_outside_san/eww4duk/

You probably commit multiple felonies a day without realizing it, the laws are so convoluted: https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

If they want to get you, they get you.
Just because something is illegal doesn't make it wrong. Protecting yourself + others should be more important to you than legality. I think most victims of violent crime would rather be in court defending themselves than dead or in the hospital.

I'm pretty sure I commit 3 felonies a day.


That being said any law I find personally morally objectionable I will not follow.

Now you can be even more paranoid

> I just basically mean I don't want to live in a world/country where my every movement and location is tracked and recorded. I was trying to apply your view on internet tracking to location tracking citizens.

I can understand your view here, however we are living in a tech advanced world and this is going to change things. The internet is a world wide place, it's big and I believe there is no real expectation of privacy. You and I right now are discussing our ideas publicly, someone can come in and read everything we typed and can even respond to it. I will draw the line when it comes to personal emails but most of the internet is public. Even the websites you connect to require a entire network between you and the server that hosts the website. No conversation on the internet is a truly private one due to this, nor are your actions.

Now, I will say I don't have the right to view it, but law enforcement with a probable cause should be able to and they should be able to with ease. This reasons for this should be written clearly, it's not a spy program and the law should make that clear as well.

> The average person commits multiple felonies on an average day. http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

This is the fault of a over-bloated and unclear law system. I would agree that changes are drastically needed within our law system and this is why I would advocate my idea to be a international law that is written very clearly and ensures privacy rights unless there is probable causes for law enforcement to investigate.

> I know there are certain topics that interest me that I have not researched because I don't want them to show up in my search history.

Seeking knowledge is no a crime. I love the Roman history but that doesn't mean I wish to reinstate the Roman Empire. The only way your search records would be used against you is if you were researching something harmful and actually went and did the crime that you researched. I think you would agree that if someone researches how to make a bomb, and does so and uses the bomb their previous research would certainly be relevant evidence within the case.

> Surveillance changes behavior. As a result I believe this will also stifle progress and creativity.

Which is not entirely a bad thing. If you know that stop lights now have cameras that take pictures of the car and plates upon it. Which will lead to less people running red lights and causing accidents. Reasonable surveillance is a good thing. You can go two routes here, either the internet is a private place leaving you at the terms and mercy of the corporations which will gladly share the information with the government , or the internet is a public place, which in turn means there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Just like at that stop light.

Also I hear the claim of it effecting progress and creativity but it always ends there. So, please offer me one example on how my idea would. I want to be clear and say specifically my idea, not involving any other ideas. Why do you believe this? If you are correct I am willing to examine and adapt my idea to best avoid such.

> I think the intentions behind your opinion is certainly noble, but I think freedom is more important.

I agree freedom is more important, which is why this would not step on
it. I'm not asking to install a government run camera into your bedroom. I'm not asking for you to stop going to your preferred websites. But what you, myself, and no one else has the right to do is commit a crime. A simple identification method is not stepping on your freedom.

> A little off topic, but it seems your original position comes from a desire to reduce harm. A plan that would reduce harm drastically more than total removal of internet anonymity would be to make refined sugar illegal/prescription only, not to mention cigarettes.

Certainly it's to reduce harm done, and I will gladly admit it's also a law enforcement tool as well. Law enforcement isn't a dirty thing as long as it's done right. I think our government has the responsibility of trying to ensure our safety and well being. Whether it be in a time where we need medical assistance to when we need law enforcement to protect us from those that wish us harm. I think my positions are reasonable but I am most certainly open to discussion.

I just basically mean I don't want to live in a world/country where my every movement and location is tracked and recorded. I was trying to apply your view on internet tracking to location tracking citizens.

The average person commits multiple felonies on an average day. http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

I know there are certain topics that interest me that I have not researched because I don't want them to show up in my search history.

Surveillance changes behavior. As a result I believe this will also stifle progress and creativity.

I think the intentions behind your opinion is certainly noble, but I think freedom is more important.

A little off topic, but it seems your original position comes from a desire to reduce harm. A plan that would reduce harm drastically more than total removal of internet anonymity would be to make refined sugar illegal/prescription only, not to mention cigarettes.

(Sorry if this is unclear or disjointed I was under general anesthesia earlier today, and am on painkillers.)

There are a lot of felonies on the books.

So many that most average people commit a few felonies a day.

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

Of course if you piss off the wrong person that means there's little problem finding something you actually did that's a felony. Congratulations on forever more beige listed as a felon. Employers could be thoughtful and take into account the felony but it's easier to just throw those applications in the bin. Even if some are no more likely than non felons to steal from the company eventually someone will and then your boss will say "you hired a felon? How could you be so stupid, that's why we got stolen from"

> If you were looking for someone to prosecute...

... you wouldn't have to look past the next human being you encountered.

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

Weil man ja nichts schlimmes tut?

[siehe auch dieses Buch](http://www.amazon.de/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229 "falls ihr mutig seid, der Link zeigt auf Amazon :P")

You almost went to Juvie? I've had a friend sent to military school because his friend smoked a little weed. He didn't do shit, but he spent 2 years in military school. The internet's not really the place to talk about how you were abused as a child. There are tons of groups like DEFACS.

If you're into video game design, then check this out: http://www.kongregate.com/shootorial-games I just pirated the appropriate Adobe software and I'll make a "China Spa Business Simulator" this year.

Don't worry about the law, do whatever you want. You probably break the law every day. Stop stressing about it.

When I was still trying to figure out what the hell I was doing in China, I wrote a children's book and had it illustrated for just one kid. You could make and sell homeschooling materials online, make an informative website, do something related to what your major should be. Just don't be fucking stagnant. Don't let next year come around and you say "Well, I did earn 80,000rmb last year teaching English... so that's something"

You're a young adult, you should start developing.

Probably three of them a day.

It's not actually hyperbolic. The problem with federal law is that there are so many(10,000+ no accurate count) along with government organizations(FDA/FAA/ATF/EPA/ect) regulations and edicts and many of them are intertwined and can increase the severity of a state misdemeanor or even something entirely legal by just fulfilling certain criteria. That coupled with laws hundreds of years old(most inherited from English Common Law) compounds the issue. The problem is that you don't even know you're committing a felony, nor do law enforcement or even most attorneys as the laws are so obscure. No one is actually arrested for these felonies because of this, but the entire fact that they are committing them is what makes the entire system so farcical and prone to extremely selective enforcement. If "they" for some reason want to find something to arrest you with, it would be extremely easy to do so with all of the unknown laws and statues.

My area of study is Criminal Justice, I learn about this kind of stuff every day, it would be funny how bad it's gotten if it wasn't so sickening because of the larger ramifications.

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

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704471504574438900830760842.html

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

If it was not the trees, she could have said he abused her. Or she could have claimed rape. Or she could have turned him in for any number of crimes real or made up. Downloaded any movies? Any songs? Ever? Had sex outside of marriage (illegal in some states)? The list is literally so long that there are libraries dedicated to storing and cataloging them (go visit your local law library to see what I am talking about).

Laws create criminals, not the other way around. The fewer the laws means the fewer the criminals. The reverse is also true. That is why America has the most criminals because we have the most laws.

It is one of my favorite things to do is show people how they are breaking the law. Within 24 hours of knowing anyone I can point out a number of things that they could go to prison for. My mother, who has never even had a speeding ticket, challenged me on this once. Within 15 minutes I pointed out so many things that I had her concerned that the FBI was going to come and bust in her door. Read the book Three Felonies A Day to get a better understanding of how the American legal system is so screwed up they have made criminals out of everyone. All anyone needs is a motive and it is easy to get someone thrown in jail.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse, as any judge will gladly tell you. To say that he decided to take the risk is no different than me saying that you are taking the risk for all the crimes you are committing every day whether you know about them or not.

Three felonies a day

Too late.

> But if you actually read the book, Silverglate (a white collar defense lawyer) isn't making the argument that normal people routinely commit felonies accidentally, much less argue that we commit three of them a day.

Umm... here's a quote from the introduction of Mr. Silverglate's book (ETA: which you can apparently read on Amazon! yay!):

>Today, in spite of Jackson's warning, it is only a slight exaggeration to say that the average professional in this country wakes up in the morning, goes to work, comes home, eats dinner, and then goes to sleep, unaware that he or she has likely committed several federal crimes that day.

Leading up to that thesis statement, Silberglate tells, in the opening pages of his book, of a trucker who was out deer hunting with his son when he found some apparently abandoned shell casings, sold them for scrap (for $84), and then was sentenced to two months in prison for stealing from the federal government -- quite by accident. His argument is precisely that normal people routinely commit felonies without realizing it. The link I gave (the one citation in my post!) listed several more such cases.

You have wildly mischaracterized Mr. Silberglate's thesis. You then accused me of doing it instead. Perhaps you disagree with the thesis, but you are wrong to say that the book made an entirely different argument. Where did you get that notion?

This sounds like a great opportunity for everyone to read "Three Felonies a Day" (Amazon link, sorry, also available at libraries and used bookstores) by Harvey Silverglate, describing how much of our daily lives is actually criminal and how severe the punishment can be for No Big Deal crimes like, dunno, sharing your password to an online account.

It's one of those It Could Never Happen To Me things until you or someone you love is arrested and charged, and you can't pay the bail and the lawyer says fighting it will cost more than you earn in a year and now you're looking to plead out just so you can go home to see your kids.

> I fully support an individuals right to smoke so long as it does not interfere with my right to clean, unpolluted (by cigarette smoke) air.

I see. I misread your original comment. I thought you were saying risk to themselves.

But going back to your original comment:

> If there is a risk to those not choosing to assemble then their right is trumped.

What if it isn't a "risk", but a mere inconvenience?

> do not break the law

Easier said than done

> If I do not break the law then a police officer has no power over me whatsoever.

I think that's tragically naive, but even assuming you were right, what if they assert their power anyway? Or if their assertion of power is out of proportion with the crime/infringement? I submit that there is an insufficient framework for holding police accountable in the event of them wrongfully or excessively asserting their power.

Given that the average American commits 3 felonies per day, I guess you agree that everybody belongs in jail? Maybe even you do.

Like, say, non violent felony convictions which have been repeatedly proven to disproportionately target minorities and strip them of their legal rights to vote?

Closing polling locations in minority population centers, perpetrated organized campaigns of voter suppression against minorities (such as banning bringing anyone as a passenger to their local polling station) are another tactic, but mostly the fact that our criminal justice system is organized so basically everyone commits 3 felonies a day and felonies remove your right to vote and, surprise surprise, this is basically entirely enforced against minorities is the bigger deal since it's ACTIVELY RESTRICTING THE FREEDOM OF PEOPLE that means calling the US "the free world" is completely wrong.

And that's without even addressing the concentration camps full of refugees currently along the southern border. Because nothing says "freedom" like forcing people to drink out of a toilet for following the proper legal procedures to enter this country.

There's a great book on this topic called Three Felonies a Day

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

YUH! Great idea!11!!1 https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

Fucking shill

-mercurymarinatedbeef, parent

This subreddit and bot are not in any way affiliated with the moderators of /r/The_Donald. Direct questions about removal to them.

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

Yea. It's a thing. You're guilty, even if you don't believe it. Tyranny isn't locking EVERYBODY up, it's being able to lock ANYBODY up any time you want.

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

probably more than you know - https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

It's actually quite difficult to not commit a felony. Every person reading this today has (due to the extreme volume of laws, regulations, codes, court cases about all of those, etc.) likely committed 3 felonies, completely unknowingly, this very day.

I suppose this has to do with how much faith you have in the US Court System. At present, after looking into this and other things, I have absolutely none.

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

Just responding to your steel man case: If its true (or anywhere close to true) that the average American commits 3 felonies a day, then punishing people just because they don't respect our laws isn't something we do, or want to do. That's probably for the same utilitarian reasons you articulate in your pro case.

Actually, almost every charge against me had been dropped by the prosecutor; the one that was pursued ultimately became "disorderly conduct" which was granted "time served"… but if you want to get technical then pretty much everybody is a criminal. I at least don't have a single speeding ticket / moving violation (on my record); but there again, I guess you're right that we're all criminals in this regard, too.

To your question, it involved confined spaces; I asked my boss for an attendant, as OSHA stipulations AND common sense demand… boss told me we were "understaffed all week - just do it anways."
Stupidly, I just "did it, anyways."

His demeanor and year of passive aggressive abuse was what my lawyer said I "had no chance of winning being a young white male."

Thanks for your intrigue.

Esse problema não é só nosso, recomendo o livro
'Three Felonies a Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent'.

What laws have you broken lately?

> You can eliminate the vast majority pretty easily by reading the headings.

Or, we could get rid of laws that are never enforced.

> I would love to see a citation to that

There's a great book on the topic.

> Therefore, crimes are not created through the CFR; that would only come through the US Code.

But increasingly, federal regulations ARE being enforced with criminal penalties. Congress passes broad laws, but each of those laws bring regulations. Often, congress will not confront a difficult issue in their lawmaking, leaving it up to a regulator to do as they please. And as noted here, the SCOTUS defers to regulators when congress is vague frequently.

Worse, many of these regulations don't require intent. If you simply did the prohibited act without knowing, you could be looking at jail.

Related...don't you ever wonder why the EPA carries guns?

> If it's your address, you're the person to whom it's directed,

Not if it's not your name. See the book.

> You can look at the headings and see which ones apply to you.

There are, in all, 200 books of federal regulations--80K pages. What you advise is just not practical. At all.

> Or you could do ten minutes of googling if it's a simple business

How about you spend the 10 minutes and find out all the implications for me to import a 100W laser cutting machine from China? Or, spend 10 minutes googling and tell me all the implications of selling a bottle of whisky I distilled out of state? And then I'll tell you if you missed anything.

These are both extremely simple issues. And each will take $2000 of consultation. And even then, the lawyer will tell you he cannot give comprehensive guidance on the topic.

> I'd love to see an example of that because the way you've described it would be an ethical violation for the attorney.

You don't read the news much, do you? Source Source

Google has pages and pages of these types of stories.

> I would love to see a citation to that.

Here you go

> action of breaking the law is a violent act

Wait, so, anytime you break the law, you consider it a violent act?

According to this book, the average American commits 3 felonies every day. Would that mean all Americans are violent if they commit so many violent acts?

Oh, he won't, because the message won't really get out and change anyone's minds. If it had a chance though, they'd find a reason.

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent

As the title suggests, it's a book about how Americans commit an average of three felonies a day. The federal government gave up on just counting the federal level laws, said it couldn't be done because it changes faster than they can figure it out.

If there's more laws than you can count, you definitely can't know the laws, and if you don't know them, you can't avoid breaking them.

So anyone causing trouble can be targeted and prosecuted for something even if they're a saint.

"Show me the man, I'll show you the crime." Lavrentiy Beria

Not really

do you have any earthly idea how many crimes you "do" on a daily basis?
http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

shut the fuck up and read it

Was the pace of legislation really so slow that it was reasonable to expect Athenians to know and comprehend the law, or was there a point similar to the modern "most adults commit three felonies a day"?

The root of my question is whether ancient legislators were any more honorable or sensible than modern-day ones, and if not whether they understood the risk they were posing to their fellow citizens.

"committing a felony" on its own hold very, very, little weight with me. Considering you probably committed Three felonies yesterday, I think most would prefer if you were judged by the circumstances and intent of the felony over the simple fact that is was committed.

Relevant book?

Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent - Harvey Silverglate

Our laws are becoming less and less definitive; more vague in order to ensnare the smartest criminals while entrapping the innocent.

Just on the subject of a criminal broken justice system.

Your argument as for this being criminal activity is debatable. After all, everyone is a felon these days, so it would be up to a judge to decide. So my point about them being sued about it stands as before; if they aren't, then it's irrelevant.

People aren't losing money unfairly unless they can't read, but that's their responsibility.

Valve, or "the vulnerable" as you refer to the "victims" of their "criminal activity", do not need a random Reddit post to come to their rescue. Again, if someone feels negatively affected by Valve's activities then they are free to sue, which is something very popular in certain parts of the world, and is where a lawyer would be necessary.

 

If you want to help Valve, send them an e-mail and forget about it; it's their responsibility if they ignore it. You can already rest peacefully knowing you did everything in your power to help poor Valve survive the onslaught of criminal charges coming their way.

If you want to help people harmed by Valve's practices, contact them and help them sue, or start a class action lawsuit.

If you want to just randomly bring "awareness" to the issue (which everyone likes to do for every pointless thing ever) then rest assured that everyone who cares is aware, and that everyone else is just going to keep ignoring it.

If you don't fall in either of these three points then what you're doing qualifies as shitposting. Which is usually fine around here, but in your case it's just repetitive.

 

Well, arguing was fun, but I'm gonna do something else with my time now. Have fun on your future shitposting!

 

 

Edit:

> lawyers become lawyers (to safeguard) the vulnerable

Good jokes mate, et cetera.

> You can't even understand or make the simplest of syllogistic expressions.

This is demonstrably false, but we'll ignore that for the moment.

> I never said it would! lol @ bunk.

> > I would feel a lot safer knowing there was constant documentation attesting to the fact that I am innocent of whatever crazy shit someone dreams up to accuse me of.

The problem here is that you're presupposing that documentation is honest. Which it can't be in a systematically compromised infrastructure with sufficient mass surveillance. Let's see if we can break this apart.

1. There was constant documentation (we agree here)
   
   
2. That the documentation attests to the facts (we disagree here)
   
   
3. That the documentation facts include that you are innocent (though in fact, they can create crimes to charge you with especially post C-51 but that's neither here nor there and not particularly relevant)
   
   
4. That if someone accuses you of something (as something we probably agree has some chance of happening)
   
   
5. that the facts will be accessible by you (doubtful on my part, but we may as well agree)
   
   
6. and that the truth contained within them will therefor be accessible by you (probably agree contingent upon 5)
   
   
   
7. and that your innocence as ascertained by the truth contained within them will be accessible by you (agreed contingent upon 6)
   
   So what we are really disagreeing about is whether or not the constant documentation will actually, in fact, 'attest' "to the fact".
   
   There is no syllogism here even worth considering because we disagree on the premises of your argument. The reason that the documentation is not honest is the kinds of things that mass surveillance allows: control of the infrastructure that is used to secure said documents.
   
   By the way it is not up to me to offer a syllogism/argument. It's up to you to justify yours.

The average person commits 3 felonies a day and doesn't even know it https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229

Three Mortal Sins a Day

> Incorrect, I understand cryptography and how it is used in Bitcoin very well. You would be served well by stopping to assume things.

I've read your history, this is flatly false. I encourage anyone else reading this conversation on the sidelines to do the same, this person has no idea how cryptography works and has continuously stated that the state has the power to pass laws that will in some way warp the material of reality such that those who wish to perform cryptographic operations are somehow no longer able to, because they're now "criminals" in having done so. As if this matters, and as if [all his countrymen are not already at any rate] (https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229).

> the rest would simply be criminals

Like this.

Please, baghold those government bonds right into the dirt, your misery will amuse me when the turn comes.

> Stopping Bitcoin use does not require cracking cryptography at all, only identifying users.

Which requires breaking cryptography to those that do not wish to identify themselves.

Have you read Three Felonies a Day by any chance?

You shouldn't be so sure

Well, that's one felony for the day. What will be your other two?

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

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/331

> I don't commit crimes and out myself in situations like that so I don't have to worry.

I bet you commit far more crimes than you realize.

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

> I wouldn't want them using my google history from today against me...though I'm not sure we'd have to worry about something like that, but who knows.

This article from the Salt Lake Tribune list some figures on the NSA data center in Utah. The quote that jumps at me follows

> "That is far more storage than you would need to store what’s on every hard drive owned by every American, much less any database anywhere,’’ said Allan Friedman, a technology-policy specialist and fellow at the Brookings Institution in Washington, D.C.

If the feds have the ability to store every datapoint they ever collect, why wouldn't they? They already have enough storage for everything today, and physical storage will only get cheaper moving forward. On to the crux or your argument.

> Maybe not surveillance on a single place or individual person, but we have constant police surveillance throughout our towns. 99% of the population will never commit a serious crime, yet they're constantly observing the actions of all of the public just in case that one "boogeyman" happens to show up. You may not be the one dealing drugs, but the policeman is still driving down the street you're walking on and sees what stores you go into. Thats the way I see this, your actions may be noticed, but if you've got nothing to hide then the information they gather on you will be completely irrelevant and useless to their cause.

I respectfully disagree with these points. It is impossible for a police force to have constant surveillance everywhere in meatspace, the logistics of that would be ridiculous. With regards to the second point, there are so many laws on the books that it is impossible to not break them, as Harvey Silverglate details in his book. In the real world, this is no big deal, precisely due to the lack of constant surveillance by the authorities. In the digital world, however, the authorities have enough data to reconstruct every move you make, and keep this data forever. Further, this data is much more precise than what a police officer would see driving down the street, more like what a detective assigned to follow 3 feet behind you at all times would see. And now we know that this huge network of "3 foot behind detectives" (PRISM) has, for all intents and purposes, infinite notebook space (data centers) to write record your actions. Practically, this means that the executive branch can arrest whoever they want by selectively enforcing some laws and not others.

This story from Wired summarizes many of these points more eloquently than I just did.

> police there are used to is pressing charges

So where do you live that the DA doesn't press charges and the police do instead? Is it a wonderful fantasy land of someone who has no understanding of the justice system of the US?

I think you need this.

That or you could try shutting the fuck up about things you don't know. But that might be too much to ask from self righteous idiots.

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.

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

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

Three then...

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

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.

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.

> innocent people lie to the FBI and engage in witness tampering

You should read Three Felonies a Day.

> 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.

Your comment is, like, fractally wrong. I would have to quote sentence fragments to straighten it out.

1. We are talking about legal immigrants. The argument is over whether we should remove existing legal ways to immigrate. Children of illegal immigrants born in the US are legal immigrants.
   
2. Breaking the law is not a slippery slope. Our legal system is designed so that most people break the law most of the time. That way, when cops would like to arrest someone, they have lots of options. Consider Three Felonies A Day. Immigration is a good example of a totally normal activity (moving somewhere to improve your prospects) being made illegal despite its myriad benefits.
   
3. Note how nobody is talking about making our borders more or less permeable here.
   
4. Drug cartels already move easily. Restricting border crossings actually just gives cartels MORE leverage, because they can overcome our restrictions and their competitors may not be able to.
   
5. I'm pretty sure by granting citizenship to people born in the US, we have come across a perfect solution for granting citizenship exclusively to non-criminals. They may become criminals later, just like everybody else.

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.

Three Felonies A Day

I'd say they're reasonable given that the premise of the """movement""" is flawed. What is BLM even protesting?

That cops kill twice as many whites as blacks?

That black and hispanic officers are more likely to fire at blacks than white officers?

That blacks kill more cops than cops kill blacks?

That blacks are 23.8% less likely to be shot at by police than whites?

This "'"'"'"'"movement"'"'"'"'" is evidence of what happens when you allow your worldview to be governed by hysteria rather than data.

Theres a lot of things that can be done, depending on the specific issue.

If I had the infinity gauntlet, I'd abolish capital and property rights which is largely what police exist to serve and protect. But with some basic electoral reform; I'd make having a gun something thats a pain in the ass to do, like the police in the UK for example, their guns are in a locked room somewhere and they need to go through a bit of a hassle to actually arm themselves. Thats first and foremost.

Secondly, ending the "war on drugs" would be huge in dealing with our policing problem. It was a war that was started to target Black radical groups and their white allies. Don't take my word for it, its all perfectly public and googable (I like that word, lets make it a thing)

Speaking broadly, just fire all existing police officers, give them severance and make sure they all have a living wage while they go do other things to make the world a better place. And replace the police as we know them, with people who are elected by their communities to keep the peace, settle disputes and so on.

These are broad strokes, when your instinct kicks in to defend the system as it exists, just remember how awful it is for so many humans and rethink it.

This system isn't working for poor people, black people, mentally disabled people, women, largely anyone thats not in the middle and upper class. So if your solutions don't deal with how police act as an occupying force using leftover weapons from the military, then its not a real solution. I'd love to hear your thoughts though, what do you think should be done to stop police murdering innocent people, stealing more from citizens than burglars, and in general terrorizing impoverished neighborhoods?

https://www.cnn.com/2016/03/23/politics/john-ehrlichman-richard-nixon-drug-war-blacks-hippie/index.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/11/23/cops-took-more-stuff-from-people-than-burglars-did-last-year/

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/jun/09/the-counted-police-killings-us-vs-other-countries


EDIT- I'm not an expert, not that I should need to be to comment on the gaping problem here, but I have read what the experts think, and I'm going to link some books that I have read and some that I'm going to read when I have the time and money, and you can get the solutions straight from the horses mouth. Now you've gone through my posts so you already know the books I'm about to link:

https://www.versobooks.com/books/2530-police

https://www.versobooks.com/books/2426-the-end-of-policing

https://www.amazon.com/Our-Enemies-Blue-Police-America/dp/1849352151

https://www.amazon.com/Police-Power-Patriarchy-Foundations-Government/dp/0231132077

This is gonna turn into another we gotcha cases. He isn't charged with campaign finance law violations or any political corruption. He probably made a mistake on some form and the government is charging him with a violation of the law. There is an excellent book on how the federal government can investigate anyone to find some obscure law the person violated. http://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent-ebook/dp/B00505UZ4G/ref=sr_1_1

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00505UZ4G/ref=dp-kindle-redirect?ie=UTF8&btkr=1

I do not want a fully autonomous car. I want to own my car. I want to be 100% in control of where my car goes (and by extension, where I go) at all times. I do not want to put my destination in the hands of google and/or whomever else may be watching.

The argument for them, of course, is 'safety'. If just 11% of cars were autonomous, driving would be much safer! It's safer for everyone if we take away your control of the steering wheel! It's the same argument that gave us the TSA, that compels us to give up Facebook & phone passwords at the border, that the US, Australia, and the UK are using to curtail encryption. Sometimes 'more safety' is not really a good thing.

Every single one of us is a criminal in the eyes of the law. (This particular author asserts that we commit, on average, 3 felonies per day.) Have you exceeded the speed limit? Criminal. Accidentally blown through a red light or rolled a little too quickly through a stop sign because you were distracted? Criminal. Yeah but driverless cars will prevent that! you say. OK, have you ever picked up a feather off the sidewalk? You may be a felon if it came from the wrong kind of bird, whether you know it or not. Did you buy orchids off the internet? You're probably a smuggler.

Hell, nobody even knows for sure how many laws exist, let alone how many of them you may have violated. There's a high probability that you are breaking some law right now while you're reading this.

Once the initial suspicion about driverless cars passes, governments will start looking for the ability to track exactly who is in them, and exactly where. Governments will start pressing companies for an override to command the car to lock it's passengers in and deliver them to a destination against their will (ie - a police station). They will try to sell you on this being a good idea because 'safety'. It is not a good idea because they've made every single one of us criminals, and most of us don't even know it.

I will happily shift my own gears and hope that I die before they make "driving your own car on a public road" illegal.

Consider it affirmed. (Warning: do not read Silverglate's book if you have high blood pressure.)

Go read this book, and see if you still feel the same way: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B00505UZ4G?btkr=1

>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

Uh, sure. Everyone who believes that, stand on your head.

Hint: Be scared

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

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.

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

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.

Three Felonies a Day.

So, yeah, don't do that. I'd never do that.

Not attacking you, but the ACLU is a joke of an organization. Suggesting that white privelidge is everywhere, Christian Conservatives are a threat to our country more than radical Islam is some of their stories.

The police can't do their job if they are under public scrutiny for every arrest/crime they come in contact with. The decline in policing is helping give rise to gun violence. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/gun-violence-spiked-and-arrests-declined-in-chicago-right-after-the-laquan-mcdonald-video-release/

On your link, the police are not bothered on people smoking pot, they have bigger fish to fry, particularly with distribution of drugs, which statistically says according to the Brookings Institute that is generally done in the black community.

That said, there's an interesting book I'm finishing up called The War on Cops,. If you have the time I'd read is because they cite Chicago violence/crime in roughly every chapter. It's well sourced and is a good insight to the other side if your interested
https://www.amazon.com/War-Cops-Attack-Order-Everyone/dp/1594038759/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1460412778&sr=8-1&keywords=The+war+on+cops

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.

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

And yet you repeat what I said, as if it was new... You obviously did not actually read it. You might have skimmed it, but you certainly did not read it.

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

No... Just... no... Tell that to the guy jailed for almost 90 months for it... Without having sold a single copy. That's simply not how it works. It's a crime even if you do not profit and even if you do not sell anything. It's simply not investigated because of proportionality. It takes too much resources to investigate for a very minor crime. Just as if you have your bike stolen, that also isn't investigated, but if 50 bikes are stolen in the same area, it is.

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

I love how you ask a question, that is answered by the sentence directly following your quote... It's so cute.

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

How is it that you quote a paragraph, but don't actually read it? I explain it extensively exactly why we have courts and court rulings and why the training and so on. Courts don't rule on if rape is criminal or not. The law is clear that rape is criminal, period. What IS looked at in a court, is if it's proven that the accused actually did that act, and if so, what is the appropriate correction of that behavior.

> And that's the problem.

It's actually not, due to the proportionality principle, which I explained extensively in the first comment which you claim to have read.

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

If I burn trash on my property, then yes I will look up the relevant laws and statutes for doing so. Ignorance of the law, is not a defense. Just as the maximum allowed tinting allowed is something I learned when I took my drivers lessons. You don't have to know all laws at all times. You just need to know all RELEVANT laws to whatever you're doing, and those laws, normal people LOOK UP when they do things if they don't already know them.

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

Even if the road is unmarked, you are required to know the speed limit of the road since the speed limit is dictated by the area. They are not completely arbitrary. As are you required to know the class of your vehicle in order to drive it, and yes, normal people do know if they're driving a car or a truck. Don't be daft...

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

No. That's not what I said. The quote is relevant because of that, but that's not the same as it meaning that.

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

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

> Written by:
Harvey A. Silverglate

Yea you need better reading skills. That blurb, is from the foreword, written by Alan M. Dershowitz. Don't get me wrong here, he's also a Harvard law graduate, but you're obviously not very good at reading what you quote.

That text, is also not contradictory to what I said. First of all, that people knowingly commit crimes, does not preclude that we also unknowingly might commit even more. Secondly, If you actually read the text, you'll quickly see that this is about prosecution, not convictions. That you've done acts that prosecutors will try to bully a confession from you for having done, is completely different from you actually having committed any crimes and this is further explained VERY extensively in that book (you might want to actually read it some time. It's quite interesting if you're interested in law).

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?

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

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.

When we are talking about violent crime and drug distribution rather than misdemeanor offenses or drug possession charges (both of which are usually pleaded down), this is not true at all. These are serious crimes without much subjectivity or room for profiling in the prosecution.

As for the enforcement side, police deploy in higher crime areas where they are needed the most. These communities are often poor black/hispanic/white communities. This is not racism, it is good police work.

If you are interested in the topic I would recommend this book. It essentially breaks down sentencing disparities and shows they are directly correlated to the severity of individual charges rather than a systemic bias. It also goes over enforcement, the war on drugs and the black community, and police shootings. Very good book.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1594038759/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_xKHBDbETE1KV8