Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by Woods on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:02PM   Printer-friendly
from the search-for-all-the-things! dept.

Automatic License Plate Readers (ALPRs) pose a multitude of threats to a free society. Most of the focus has been on long-term retention of ALPR readings along with location and timestamps. But Maryland has found a new way to abuse the data they pull concealed carry permit information from other states and then use that to target cars registered to CCW permit holders when they drive through Maryland.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by bziman on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:06PM

    by bziman (3577) on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:06PM (#35502)

    I've been fortunate enough to live in states where open carry is legal. If I ever find the need to carry concealed, it'll be because I'm protecting myself from the government. And in that case, the last thing I'd want is to be on a government list.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:36PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:36PM (#35555)

      The First Amendment acknowledges my right to say (while forbidding government from telling me I can't say it): IMNSHO, it is "legal" in every state as all laws regarding firearms, not related to their deliberate misuse, are unconstitutional under the Second Amendment and a violation of the inherent rights of mankind.

      Don't forget, many of our founding fathers opposed the inclusion of the Bill of Rights as they feared that regardless of the choice of words used that they would be creatively interpreted to violate those rights by law. All the fear mongering and laws created with the accompanying pressures created by them are but grains of sand in the wind eroding our rights.

      • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday April 24 2014, @05:40PM

        by frojack (1554) on Thursday April 24 2014, @05:40PM (#35689) Journal

        Most of the founding fathers opposed the bill of rights only mildly, and only because they feared that compiling a "list of rights" invariably relegated other rights to be subject to government usurpation.

        In the end, the bill of rights included the Tenth Amendment:

        The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

        Of the tenth, James Madison said " I admit they may be deemed unnecessary: but there can be no harm in making such a declaration, if gentlemen will allow that the fact is as stated. I am sure I understand it so, and do therefore propose it."

        The Tenth was part of the bill of rights, however, the Supreme Court has pretty much relegated the Tenth to the trash bin of history.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @06:05PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @06:05PM (#35699)

          But first they included the Ninth Amendment: [wikipedia.org] The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

          Of which James Madison said: It has been objected also against a Bill of Rights, that, by enumerating particular exceptions to the grant of power, it would disparage those rights which were not placed in that enumeration; and it might follow by implication, that those rights which were not singled out, were intended to be assigned into the hands of the General Government, and were consequently insecure. This is one of the most plausible arguments I have ever heard against the admission of a bill of rights into this system; but, I conceive, that it may be guarded against. I have attempted it, as gentlemen may see by turning to the last clause of the fourth resolution.

          And in his speech introducing the Bill of Rights: It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights....that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to the extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse.

          • (Score: 2) by frojack on Thursday April 24 2014, @06:47PM

            by frojack (1554) on Thursday April 24 2014, @06:47PM (#35721) Journal

            Madison's statements, both of those you quoted, were in full support of including both the 9th and 10th amendments, because he himself, ultimately became convinced that they were necessary.

            The Articles of Confederation included these provisions right in the body.

            The Constitution had to have them tacked on, because the people demanded them. People in that day were not as gullible as people today. Without those pesky amendments standing (however meekly) in the way, the US would be the Fourth Reich today. (Godwin be damned).

            --
            No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @07:22PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @07:22PM (#35733)

              Yes, they were his and others response to the opposition of their inclusion in relation to the interpretation and enumeration arguments. Both sides warnings have proved all too true since then as well. Both sides were right and both sides worked together to try and protect the future with mixed results.

              While the country hasn't been completely turned into something like the Fourth Reich, it is not entirely the Land of the Free and Home of the Brave anymore either. Too often ignoring the warnings of our forefathers to be "ever vigilant" or not "trading liberty for security" etc.

              Wonder if we shut up now the readers will say: "Godwin be Praised"? Of course many will ask you if the US's Fascist tendencies and self-appointment to policing the world would imply the Fourth Reich is in formation here? Of course, some say that about the European Union too.

              • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @07:34PM

                by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @07:34PM (#35739)

                ,,,the government representatives will hassle you in this case.

                Show me the firearm you have papers for please

    • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:49PM

      by Reziac (2489) on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:49PM (#35621) Homepage

      Something else that bothers me about the whole CCW thing:

      Say I'm wearing the holster on my belt. Open carry, no problem.

      Now I put on a coat which covers my belt. It is magically converted into concealed carry, and may need a permit.

      --
      And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:45PM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:45PM (#35650)

        I don't see the problem here. The whole idea is that with open-carry, everyone can easily see you're carrying a weapon. When you conceal it somehow, they can't.

        • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Thursday April 24 2014, @05:46PM

          by Reziac (2489) on Thursday April 24 2014, @05:46PM (#35694) Homepage

          The problem is that one could unintentionally (or in the judgment of a LEO bent on restricting carry) "conceal" a weapon where the intent was to carry openly. Does your jacket cover part of the weapon, or only when you move a certain way? does that make it 'concealed' ??

          --
          And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
          • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 24 2014, @06:13PM

            by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday April 24 2014, @06:13PM (#35703)

            This is really quite simple. If you're wearing a jacket, you can't have a gun on your hip and still be "open carrying". Jackets, by design, cover your hips. If the gun isn't visible from both the front and the rear and also the side (your arm might partially block it, but not entirely unless you have some gigantic forearms), then it's concealed.

            If you want to open-carry but it's too cold to go without a jacket, well, you have to choose one or the other.

          • (Score: 2, Insightful) by BasilBrush on Thursday April 24 2014, @07:22PM

            by BasilBrush (3994) on Thursday April 24 2014, @07:22PM (#35734)

            That's not a problem, that's a feature. If the law says that you can only openly carry, and not carry concealed then it is your duty to make sure that the gun remains visible. If you can't be trusted to fulfil your responsibilities then you shouldn't be carrying the gun at all.

            --
            Hurrah! Quoting works now!
          • (Score: 1) by mrchew1982 on Friday April 25 2014, @09:35PM

            by mrchew1982 (3565) on Friday April 25 2014, @09:35PM (#36360)

            All that you have to do is tuck your jacket in behind the firearm so that it remains visible. Takes a little minding, I know, but you should remain aware of your weapon at all times anyway if you don't want someone taking it from you.

            Honestly though, if you're carrying a weapon chances are because you don't feel safe, which probably means that there isn't any law enforcement present, which means that you probably won't be hassled.

            (yes, I know that some people are just as afraid of law enforcement as they are of street thugs, and this adage won't cover those people. I would rather not wade into the debate about law enforcement being thugs...)

            • (Score: 2) by Reziac on Friday April 25 2014, @10:15PM

              by Reziac (2489) on Friday April 25 2014, @10:15PM (#36380) Homepage

              I don't actually carry, because where I live, lots of people do carry, so I don't feel a need. (And we don't have much crime anyway.) Hmm, well, I guess you could count the big ugly knife I keep in the truck, tho it's mostly a utility tool for opening cans and such.

              But my point was that differentiating open and concealed borders on silly -- an artificial distinction. Someone up to no good is not going to give a damn about CCW permits, only whether his trench coat covers his weapon.

              --
              And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
        • (Score: 3, Funny) by frojack on Thursday April 24 2014, @05:47PM

          by frojack (1554) on Thursday April 24 2014, @05:47PM (#35695) Journal

          Was there an actual argument there?

          Because, basically I can't see your point.

          If you behave in one way when there is an armed person present, and another way when there is none, you, perhaps unwittingly, subscribe to the thug mentality, that you can do or say anything you wish as long as those around you are in no position to reign you in.

           

          --
          No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
          • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 24 2014, @06:18PM

            by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday April 24 2014, @06:18PM (#35706)

            I never tried to explain the logic behind open-carry vs. concealed-carry or the entire rationale behind laws distinguishing them. I only explained the technical aspects. If you want an authoritative answer on the psychological factors, you'll need to ask someone else. Obviously, whoever wrote these laws thought there was a reason to distinguish between the two modes. I don't really know that reason. Maybe it's the idea that if you saw someone was armed, you could prepare yourself mentally or physically. Maybe it's a leftover from Wild West times and carrying concealed was thought to be something that only someone with nefarious intent would do.

          • (Score: 1) by BasilBrush on Thursday April 24 2014, @07:25PM

            by BasilBrush (3994) on Thursday April 24 2014, @07:25PM (#35736)

            Most people behave differently when there is a stranger openly carrying a gun. Also when they are openly carrying a machete. Armed people whose mental state is unknown are scary. Rather like wild bears are.

            --
            Hurrah! Quoting works now!
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:17PM

    by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:17PM (#35509) Journal

    Someone who will go through the process of getting a CC license is obviously somebody intent on following the law. This dirtbag cop should be worried about those people who are concealed carrying _without_ a license, i.e., he should do the job the citizens pay him to do, rather than freeload.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by Scandiacus on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:08PM

      by Scandiacus (1956) on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:08PM (#35539)

      Except the really key part of this is that Maryland is trying to peg CC holders from other states. Maryland doesn't honor out-of-state CC licenses, so by identifying and pulling over known CC holders who aren't Maryland residents, they're hoping to catch and prosecute folks who are just passing through and didn't know or bother to disarm before crossing the state line. Still a scumbag move not allowing exercise of the Second Amendment and potentially a privacy violation, but it does have a more thought out reason than you suggest.

      As a Michigan resident with a CC license (we call it a CPL here), my state has excellent CC license reciprocity with other states, but Maryland is one of the few places I can't carry - it's a shame, as I have some close family there and don't like having to disarm when I visit them on holiday.

      • (Score: 2) by githaron on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:59PM

        by githaron (581) on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:59PM (#35574)

        Why does Maryland even have access to the CC databases of states that they don't reciprocate the licenses with?

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by Angry Jesus on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:49PM

          by Angry Jesus (182) on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:49PM (#35652)

          > Why does Maryland even have access to the CC databases of states that they don't reciprocate the licenses with?

          It is public information, remember the brouhaha about the newspaper publishing the addresses of all handgun licensees in NYC? [lohud.com] If they didn't get it through some federal system they probably got it from a commercial database that aggregates state license data.

      • (Score: 4, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:54PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:54PM (#35659)

        "it's a shame, as I have some close family there and don't like having to disarm when I visit them on holiday."

        classic

        • (Score: 2) by davester666 on Thursday April 24 2014, @06:10PM

          by davester666 (155) on Thursday April 24 2014, @06:10PM (#35702)

          because you never know when you might have to shoot somebody in your close family...

      • (Score: 2) by nitehawk214 on Thursday April 24 2014, @05:34PM

        by nitehawk214 (1304) on Thursday April 24 2014, @05:34PM (#35684)

        "I have some close family there and don't like having to disarm when I visit them on holiday."

        I hear you man, you gotta carry when around my family too. Never know when one of those assholes might pull a weapon on you.

        --
        "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
        • (Score: 1) by Scandiacus on Thursday April 24 2014, @08:21PM

          by Scandiacus (1956) on Thursday April 24 2014, @08:21PM (#35764)

          Ahahaha- Not my intended meaning, but I like the (accidental) humor in it. In fact, I carry as much to protect my family as to protect myself. And anyway, when driving down to Maryland there are generally several rest stops, and a lot of stuff tends to go down at rest areas....

      • (Score: 1) by BasilBrush on Thursday April 24 2014, @07:34PM

        by BasilBrush (3994) on Thursday April 24 2014, @07:34PM (#35740)

        The summary claims a few things that are not in TFA. One is that there is an official Maryland policy. The article is simply a one-sided account of an incident with one cop.

        The worst part of TFS is the claim of linking CCW to ALPR. This is not in TFA at all. And indeed the description of the cop car tailing for 10 minutes suggests the cop read the number plate with his eyes, and then radioed in for background on the driver.

        I suggest the submitter "Angry Jesus" is a gun rights loon making stuff up.

        --
        Hurrah! Quoting works now!
    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:34PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:34PM (#35554) Journal

      Exactly correct. This kind of thing infuriates me. Cops are sworn to uphold the law, not to interpret the law, then to pick and choose how they are going to apply the law. This is an abuse of authority, plain and simple. Few things get my goat than abusing authority.

      This is also a good reason to resist registration laws. In this case, it's one bad cop abusing his authority to correlate databases. In another case, it might be Mao Tse Tung's soul brother (or sister) correlating databases to round up a few million American citizens for "reeducation".

      • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:40PM

        by Angry Jesus (182) on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:40PM (#35559)

        Discretion is a two edged sword.

        > In this case, it's one bad cop abusing his authority to correlate databases.

        I doubt it. No way does a single cop do that sort of thing on his own, its got to be departmental at least if not statewide. Sure, he's got discretion on how to act on the information, but the fact that CCW owner plates trigger alerts on the ALPR in his car (rather than, a simple indicator after pulling someone over) is a policy decision.

        • (Score: 1) by BasilBrush on Thursday April 24 2014, @07:37PM

          by BasilBrush (3994) on Thursday April 24 2014, @07:37PM (#35741)

          Nothing in the article you linked to suggests that ALPR was used at all, let alone that it was linked to CCW. Indeed following the car for 10 minutes suggests reading the license plate with the Mark 1 Eyeball, and then radioing in for background on the driver.

          You're a fantasist.

          --
          Hurrah! Quoting works now!
      • (Score: 2) by Nerdfest on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:45PM

        by Nerdfest (80) on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:45PM (#35563)

        I'm in Ontario Canada, and the police in Quebec do the same sort of thing to Ontario drivers with plate stickers. It's purely a cash grab, and also makes them think they're effective.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:11PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:11PM (#35584)

      I'm trying to think of literally ANY way these cops could have been more douchebaggy about the whole thing...other than beating the guy and calling his wife a whore...

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:10PM

        by Nerdfest (80) on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:10PM (#35632)

        I just broke down ad read TFA. Holy police-state Batman. He wasn't even carrying his gun.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:34PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:34PM (#35641)

      This dirtbag cop should be worried about those people who are concealed carrying _without_ a license, i.e., he should do the job the citizens pay him to do, rather than freeload.

      It turns out he is looking for people carrying a weapon without permit. CC permits are state documents, so just because you have a permit in your home state does not grant you carry privileges in Maryland. In fact, if you're looking for illegally carried weapons, people with legal permission to carry are probably a good population to screen when they change jurisdictions: you can be pretty confident they own a gun, carry it regularly, and may forget to remove it when they cross the state line. It works for the TSA: most of the guns they confiscate are ones that someone "forgot" to remove from his carry-on luggage.

      • (Score: 2) by sjames on Friday April 25 2014, @04:39AM

        by sjames (2882) on Friday April 25 2014, @04:39AM (#35928) Journal

        It's great if you're looking to bust people on a technicality who probably weren't up to no good. It's a terrible way to find people looking for trouble. It's a really bed thing when you go so far as assuming they forgot to leave the gun at home because they have a permit.

  • (Score: 4, Interesting) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:27PM

    by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:27PM (#35513) Journal

    FTFA:

    >Despite having a clean record, owning a business and paying his taxes, the father of three ...

    Not going to comment on the legality / ethics of what the police have allegedly done here (simply because US gun laws & debates don't interest me), but I wonder why TFA felt it necessary to point out that the man owns a business, pays his taxes and is a father. Are people who fit these criteria somehow exempt from the scrutiny of law enforcement? Do they never commit crimes? Are non-business owning, tax-dodging unfathers subject to a different set of rights and responsibilities to everyone else? I'm just curious.

    I think the journalist should have gone further with the addition of completely irrelevant biographical facts:

    "Despite having a clean record, owning a business and paying his taxes, owning a car and being licensed to drive it, having $37.15 loose change in his pockets, wearing blue socks, having never been further North than Ontario nor further South than Darwin Australia, disliking yoghurt but not cheese, and having attached to the top of his neck a head with a face and some hair on it, the father of three..."

    • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:36PM

      by Angry Jesus (182) on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:36PM (#35517)

      Seriously? Lots of people rationalize abuse of authority by saying, "He might not be guilty of this particular crime, but he's a general scum bag so no big deal. It would never happen to me because I'm a good guy." The reason to point that out is to show that the cop didn't even have the faintest justification for pulling the guy over. That this kind of shit can happen to anyone, no matter how clean their nose.

      • (Score: 2) by snick on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:40PM

        by snick (1408) on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:40PM (#35523)

        So ... folks that don't own their own business are fair game?

        • (Score: 1, Troll) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:49PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:49PM (#35654)

          Violent criminals don't normally own their own businesses (at least legal ones, which are registered with the state).

          • (Score: 1) by BasilBrush on Thursday April 24 2014, @07:42PM

            by BasilBrush (3994) on Thursday April 24 2014, @07:42PM (#35744)

            You never heard of money laundering fronts? Ever see any retail/restaurant businesses that never seem to have any customers, yet have been there for years?

            --
            Hurrah! Quoting works now!
            • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 24 2014, @07:50PM

              by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday April 24 2014, @07:50PM (#35750)

              You've got a point there. I live in New Jersey, and there's a ton of those restaurants around here. I went into one once; it was some kind of mediterranean deli in the next town over. No customers, only two display cases; I bought a piece of baklava and it was the worst I'd ever had. Never went back, but I've walked by a few times. They're still there. I wonder what their real business is.

            • (Score: 2) by unitron on Friday April 25 2014, @08:18AM

              by unitron (70) on Friday April 25 2014, @08:18AM (#35975) Journal

              If they're used for money laundering, they aren't really legal businesses.

              --
              something something Slashcott something something Beta something something
              • (Score: 1) by BasilBrush on Friday April 25 2014, @03:54PM

                by BasilBrush (3994) on Friday April 25 2014, @03:54PM (#36140)

                Sure they are. They are legal businesses if they are registered properly. They are legal businesses that commit crimes.

                --
                Hurrah! Quoting works now!
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:40PM

        by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:40PM (#35524) Journal

        I see where you're coming from. I guess it shows up a difference between me and the intended audience of this article: When I see that somebody owns a business, that does nothing to convince me that he is any more honest than anybody else. Plenty of business owners are scumbags in my experience. Same for parenthood - some of the biggest shits I've ever met have kids (and, almost inevitably, their kids turn out to be shits as well).

        As for paying taxes... well it's not like most people have a choice, is it?

        • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:42PM

          by Angry Jesus (182) on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:42PM (#35525)

          > As for paying taxes... well it's not like most people have a choice, is it?

          Lots of people have a choice. Anyone who does a cash business. Like drug dealers and other criminals.

          • (Score: 2) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:45PM

            by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:45PM (#35528) Journal

            Well yeah, but if the guy was a drug dealer I would expect the article to label him as such, rather than use "he doesn't pay taxes" as some kind of euphemism.

          • (Score: 1) by BasilBrush on Thursday April 24 2014, @07:46PM

            by BasilBrush (3994) on Thursday April 24 2014, @07:46PM (#35747)

            Two things.

            First is that most tax evasion is done by very rich white collar criminals.

            Second is that anyone doing a cash business has the opportunity to under-report their taxable earnings. But report zero, and they are going to get investigated. Not so much with the rich white collar criminals though.

            --
            Hurrah! Quoting works now!
        • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 24 2014, @05:03PM

          by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday April 24 2014, @05:03PM (#35665)

          Yes, lots of business owners are scumbags, just like anyone else. However, they're not usually violent criminals. If you're worried about gun crimes, you should be worried about violent criminals types, since they're the ones who usually commit gun crimes. Violent criminal types do not generally own legally-registered businesses or pay income taxes.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 25 2014, @04:54PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday April 25 2014, @04:54PM (#36183)

          It's to establish him as a "giver" not a "taker" in the political right wing taxonomy of people, like Clive Bundy for example.

      • (Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:19PM

        by Thexalon (636) on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:19PM (#35595)

        The reason to point that out is to show that the cop didn't even have the faintest justification for pulling the guy over. That this kind of shit can happen to anyone, no matter how clean their nose.

        In the US, this happens to pretty much all black guys on a regular basis, regardless of whether they have CCW or not. For example, one of my coworkers (a clean-cut software developer, who's also black) was late one day because he got pulled over for what was officially an "unsafe lane change" and a conversation with the cop that went something like this:
        "Where are you going?"
        "I'm headed to work."
        "What do you do for work?"
        "I'm a software developer."
        "Where do you work?"
        "$COMPANY, in $MUNICIPALITY"
        a few more questions along these lines ...
        "OK, go about your business."

        Another thing I started noticing in my area is that for black people, the speed limit really is the speed limit, because they are regularly pulled over and hassled for going 62mph in a 60mph zone.

        This kind of thing only tends to get white people up in arms when it starts happening to them too. The TSA searches are bad, but for years before that it was perfectly legal for the cops to pick someone up on a bogus charge, put them in jail and have them strip-searched (in full view of everyone else in jail). It took years and a mayoral election in New York City before anyone put a stop to police grabbing random black and Hispanic guys on the street, throwing them up against the wall, and searching them for weapons.

        --
        The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
        • (Score: 2) by Angry Jesus on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:01PM

          by Angry Jesus (182) on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:01PM (#35626)

          Yep, that's the kind of shit that people who aren't black or obviously brown don't even know goes on. Ignorance is bliss.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by BigJ on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:39PM

      by BigJ (3685) on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:39PM (#35521)

      It is meant to "humanize" the story. By calling out that the cops targeted an "average Joe" law abiding citizen, it gives the readership an opportunity to place themselves into the story and feel concerned that the government is overreaching. If the line read "...Ponzi scheme mastermind...", then the readership is likely to be a bit less sympathetic.

      • (Score: 1) by BasilBrush on Thursday April 24 2014, @07:49PM

        by BasilBrush (3994) on Thursday April 24 2014, @07:49PM (#35749)

        AKA the Joe The Plumber effect. Joe might know nothing about the economy, but he's an ordinary person that people can identify with. No useful reason for seeking his opinion at all. But the news media think people are stupid. And to be fair a lot of them are.

        --
        Hurrah! Quoting works now!
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:21PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:21PM (#35548)

      Cops are middle class and usually leave other middle class folks alone.

      • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:42PM

        by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:42PM (#35561) Journal

        Usually - unless they are trying to make some kind of a political point, as is the case here.

    • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:39PM

      by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:39PM (#35558) Journal

      I think that the purpose of that description is to show that the man is an upstanding member of his community. We may contrast that description with that of another man who has served a half dozen jail sentences for various crimes, is a deadbeat dad, and lives on welfare and handouts.

      No one is above the scrutiny of the law - but the law has no business scrutinizing law abiding citizens. A law man is supposed to have "probable cause" at the least, before he even approaches you to question you about anything. Some vague suspicion, at the very least. The fact that you are legally registered to carry a weapon should elicit no suspicion of any wrongdoing.

      • (Score: 2) by emg on Thursday April 24 2014, @05:29PM

        by emg (3464) on Thursday April 24 2014, @05:29PM (#35679)

        "The fact that you are legally registered to carry a weapon should elicit no suspicion of any wrongdoing."

        Quite the opposite, in fact, given how few crimes are committed by those who've jumped through the hoops required to do that.

        • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by BasilBrush on Thursday April 24 2014, @07:52PM

          by BasilBrush (3994) on Thursday April 24 2014, @07:52PM (#35753)

          Yeah right. Like George Zimmerman. Oh yeah, I forgot, he shot an unarmed black guy in a southern state so he was declared not guilty. Even though he's a murderer.

          --
          Hurrah! Quoting works now!
          • (Score: 2) by unitron on Friday April 25 2014, @08:27AM

            by unitron (70) on Friday April 25 2014, @08:27AM (#35981) Journal

            The jury ruled not guilty because the prosecution was too busy "pounding the table"* to meet its burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

             

            *If the law is on your side, pound the law. If the facts are on your side, pound the facts. If neither are on your side, pound the table.

            --
            something something Slashcott something something Beta something something
            • (Score: 1) by BasilBrush on Friday April 25 2014, @03:57PM

              by BasilBrush (3994) on Friday April 25 2014, @03:57PM (#36142)

              There was no reasonable doubt. Rarely is there a case with so little doubt. There is no doubt Zimmerman was armed, accosted an unarmed man, and then shot him dead.

              If it was a black guy who'd done the shooting he'd be in prison now.

              --
              Hurrah! Quoting works now!
              • (Score: 2) by unitron on Friday April 25 2014, @11:59PM

                by unitron (70) on Friday April 25 2014, @11:59PM (#36427) Journal

                The ear witness (Rachel Jenteal) agrees with Zimmerman that Martin spoke first, so how exactly did Zimmerman "accost" Martin?

                The sound that followed their exchange of words, just before Martin's phone apparently fell to the ground, could have been from either one of them pushing, shoving, or striking the other, so it's conclusive of nothing more than possible physical contact of undetermined origin.

                --
                something something Slashcott something something Beta something something
  • (Score: 1) by middlemen on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:50PM

    by middlemen (504) on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:50PM (#35531) Homepage

    I know what BBW is, what is CCW ?

    • (Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:58PM

      by hemocyanin (186) on Thursday April 24 2014, @01:58PM (#35536) Journal

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CCW [wikipedia.org]

      Pick one of the options that you think makes the most sense in this context.

      • (Score: 2) by WizardFusion on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:16PM

        by WizardFusion (498) Subscriber Badge on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:16PM (#35544) Journal

        I am gonna go with "Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons"

        • (Score: 4, Funny) by lx on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:31PM

          by lx (1915) on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:31PM (#35551)

          It's counter clockwise
            Obviously you need a special license in the US to make a left turn In a car.

          • (Score: 3, Funny) by Geezer on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:25PM

            by Geezer (511) on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:25PM (#35603)

            That's "Widdershins" for all you Hogwarts alums.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:03PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @02:03PM (#35538)

    1. Figure who has a CCP via cross reference of license plate data.
    2. Ransack their car looking for the weapon.
    3. Congratulations, in some cases, you now have a weapon and can go commit further crimes.
    4. ???
    5. Profit.

    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by tangomargarine on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:15PM

      by tangomargarine (667) on Thursday April 24 2014, @03:15PM (#35590)

      I kind of wonder how long it'll be--assuming this is a statewide policy--until some cop pulls over a guy who takes offense at being searched and just shoots him.

      --
      "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:19PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:19PM (#35634)

      Once they can obtain access to the license check databases it will more then just permit holders that get their lives and property in danger of theft or worse. Out of state vehicles generally imply luggage etc too. Increases the odds their homes are not currently occupied as well. Other relevant facts can be troublesome too.

      Many times in the past the mere act of a middle class home owner registering with the police that they would be out of town on vacation for a while has gotten their homes burglarized. Too often by a policeman or those associated with them. Or just a clerk with access to the lists.

      People have their identities stolen via information kept in government records too. Or simply get added to marketing databases of marketing companies and other less "legal" con artists.

      "That which governs the best, governs the least." That line is relevant in systems reliability too as the more complex the system is the less statistically reliable it is.

      All databases you are in, can and will be used against you. Sort of a 5th Amendment bypass on not testifying against oneself? But was it really you that "created" the evidence?

      • (Score: 2) by Grishnakh on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:54PM

        by Grishnakh (2831) on Thursday April 24 2014, @04:54PM (#35658)

        Many times in the past the mere act of a middle class home owner registering with the police that they would be out of town on vacation for a while has gotten their homes burglarized. Too often by a policeman or those associated with them.

        I seriously doubt this is a problem in any advanced, civilized country. In shitty, corrupt, backwards countries where all the cops are corrupt and violent thugs, yes, I can see this being a big problem.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by emg on Thursday April 24 2014, @05:32PM

          by emg (3464) on Thursday April 24 2014, @05:32PM (#35681)

          Well, yes, we are talking about America here.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @05:33PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 24 2014, @05:33PM (#35682)

          In shitty, corrupt, backwards countries where all the cops are corrupt and violent thugs, yes, I can see this being a big problem.

          Minus the word all and it pretty much sounds like a description of the United States, in a historic sense at least. Some of those corrupt cops have even had parolees and probationers signed up for Neighborhood Watch groups as part of their claimed rehabilitation. Taxpayers, in some cases, even provided them with a nice heavy duty van to transport them to various areas that err, needed watching... AFAIK it is not overly common, but it has happened many times around the US with varying levels of involvement of corrupt officers and higher or lower officials and government employees. Heard about it all too often during the 80s.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by nitehawk214 on Thursday April 24 2014, @05:39PM

    by nitehawk214 (1304) on Thursday April 24 2014, @05:39PM (#35688)

    To me this just looks like a way to generate revenue by confiscating weapons. Same as a speed trap town that has a tiny strip of highway and an needlessly lowered speed limit.

    My guess would be that this is specifically targeting residents of Virginia and Pennsylvania, as Maryland is little more than a strip of land to cross between the two much larger states that both have reciprocating carry agreements with one another.

    --
    "Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
  • (Score: 2) by cmn32480 on Friday April 25 2014, @02:47AM

    by cmn32480 (443) <reversethis-{moc.liamg} {ta} {08423nmc}> on Friday April 25 2014, @02:47AM (#35905) Journal

    They MIGHT issue you a CCW. You ahve to know somebody, have what they deem to be a good reason, significant cash, and be able to click your heels together three times and say "There's no ideaology like the left... there's no ideology like the left... there's no ideology like the left!"

    They have basically banned anything that the ignorant consider an "assault rifle" because it is built on the same chassis, or looks like it might be used by the military as a weapon, even though they are all semi-automatic.

    Before the asshats in the statehouse changed the law last year there was a HUGE increase of guns being purchased and people applying for the permits for a CCW. At one point there was a nearly 6 month wait on the background checks for an "assault rifle" because so many people were putting in for them. To their credit, they did say that any applications that had been sent in before the ban went into effect on 10/1/13 would be processed under pre-ban laws.

    This state is a nanny state. Our current governor's initials are even MOM.

    --
    "It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 28 2014, @02:41PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 28 2014, @02:41PM (#37182)

      Fixed that for you. Maryland politicians and police have no respect for the Bill of Rights.