Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday July 21 2017, @01:17AM   Printer-friendly
from the Alexa-don't-watch-me-do-crime dept.

A Baltimore cop, identified as Richard Pinheiro, was recorded on video planting drugs then "finding" them moments later - in front of two other unnamed cops. The video was made possible due to Pinheiro's body camera being designed to keep the 30 seconds of video prior to it being "switched on".

Charges against the civilian suspect have been dropped; no word yet on any criminal charges against any of the three cops.

Also at Ars Technica, The Baltimore Sun, USA Today and vox.com.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived.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, Interesting) by martyb on Friday July 21 2017, @02:45AM (21 children)

    by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 21 2017, @02:45AM (#542153) Journal

    This is why objects should not be illegal... only actions can be good or bad.

    It is too easy to frame someone by planting any kind of contraband.

    <mode class="devils_advocate> So, it should be okay for everyone to have bio-weapons and nuclear explosives? </mode>

    I don't entirely disagree with the concept, but proliferation of massively lethal items that could be engaged by accident or human error does not sound like a great idea to me.

    --
    Wit is intellect, dancing.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @02:59AM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @02:59AM (#542156)

    I don't think those laws are what's preventing you from owning a nuke. A string of illegal acts involving theft and transport would have to come first.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @03:04AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @03:04AM (#542158)

      Possession is 9/10 of the law.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @03:06AM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @03:06AM (#542159)

      Stuxnet is believed to be designed to prevent a nation state from building their own nuclear weapons.

      Nuclear weapons are believed to be dangerous enough that nobody should have them.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @09:15AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday July 21 2017, @09:15AM (#542276)

        Except for those who already have them, in which case it is ok.

      • (Score: 2) by Osamabobama on Friday July 21 2017, @05:04PM

        by Osamabobama (5842) on Friday July 21 2017, @05:04PM (#542460)

        Nuclear weapons are believed to be dangerous enough that nobody should have them.

        ...which is why the Hard Rock Café specifically prohibits their customers from bringing them on the premises. But, it's the 'bringing' that is the problem, not the 'having.'

        --
        Appended to the end of comments you post. Max: 120 chars.
    • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday July 21 2017, @01:52PM

      by Immerman (3985) on Friday July 21 2017, @01:52PM (#542352)

      Not really - you can buy all the necessary components on the open market, including the uranium or plutonium. Building the thing is a *bit* more involved, but nothing inherently illegal there either.

  • (Score: 5, Funny) by darnkitten on Friday July 21 2017, @05:11AM (1 child)

    by darnkitten (1912) on Friday July 21 2017, @05:11AM (#542196)

    Why not?

    Bio-weapons and nuclear explosives don't kill people, people kill people! When bio-weapons and nuclear explosives are outlawed, only outlaws will have bio-weapons and nuclear explosives--I need to be able to defend my home, which is my castle, and my family from criminals carrying bio-weapons and nuclear explosives! And Red Ruskies! And Rabbits! [amazon.com] And maybe even Red Ruskie Rabbits! :P

    -

    (Sorry about the Amazon link--only it's Shaun Tan)

    • (Score: 3, Funny) by DeathMonkey on Friday July 21 2017, @07:51PM

      by DeathMonkey (1380) on Friday July 21 2017, @07:51PM (#542528) Journal

      And Rabbits!

      I'll give you my Holy Hand Grenade when you pry it from my cold, dead hands!

  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by irtza on Friday July 21 2017, @10:55AM (4 children)

    by irtza (4833) on Friday July 21 2017, @10:55AM (#542296) Homepage

    His notion is that possession itself should not be a crime - not that the contraband itself should be allowed. Sale, transfer, and manufacturing are within scope of his definition of a crime. You can have law enforcement confiscate the contraband and inquire as to the source.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Friday July 21 2017, @02:02PM (3 children)

      by Immerman (3985) on Friday July 21 2017, @02:02PM (#542359)

      If possession is not illegal, then what grounds would they have to confiscate? Unless of course you've got sufficient quantity that you're "clearly planning" to distribute - which has already shown itself to been a rather slippery slope when distribution faces higher penalties.

      • (Score: 2) by Taibhsear on Friday July 21 2017, @02:54PM

        by Taibhsear (1464) on Friday July 21 2017, @02:54PM (#542387)

        If possession is not illegal, then what grounds would they have to confiscate?

        "Although you will likely not be charged with a crime, if you unknowingly bought stolen goods, you will probably have to return them to the rightful owner. The thief (or thieves) will then owe you the purchase price in restitution."
        http://blogs.findlaw.com/blotter/2014/08/can-you-get-arrested-for-buying-stolen-goods.html [findlaw.com]
        I'd say that if possession is not illegal, the selling of it to you was illegal, in this situation. Thus either the rightful owner would need it back or it would need to be confiscated as evidence.

      • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday July 21 2017, @09:49PM (1 child)

        by urza9814 (3954) on Friday July 21 2017, @09:49PM (#542591) Journal

        If sale, manufacture, and distribution are all illegal, then the substance is still evidence of a crime, and could be seized on those grounds. And in fact it might make prosecution easier -- if possession is banned, they can't compel you to testify about where you got the drugs, because that would incriminate you for possession which violates the fifth amendment. But if you only ban distribution and manufacture, they CAN compel you to testify, then they can go bust your dealer.

        • (Score: 2) by Immerman on Saturday July 22 2017, @12:33PM

          by Immerman (3985) on Saturday July 22 2017, @12:33PM (#542874)

          Okay, I suppose that could work. So long as we're not talking about the most popular of illegal drugs, which literally grows as a weed in a wide range of conditions.

  • (Score: 2) by bziman on Friday July 21 2017, @01:56PM

    by bziman (3577) on Friday July 21 2017, @01:56PM (#542355)

    Do you really believe that the sort of people who would collect and use those sorts of weapons are deterred by laws against their possession? The reality is that most individuals have no interest in them, and even fewer have the means to acquire them. But the ones who do, get them anyway. Laws against the possession of a thing is entirely stupid.

  • (Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday July 21 2017, @02:02PM (6 children)

    by Runaway1956 (2926) Subscriber Badge on Friday July 21 2017, @02:02PM (#542358) Journal

    I think everyone should own a bolo. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolo_(tank) [wikipedia.org] I'd be happy with anything from a Mark 25 on up.

    • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Friday July 21 2017, @03:07PM (4 children)

      by tangomargarine (667) on Friday July 21 2017, @03:07PM (#542396)

      This is the most ridiculous fan-wank I've ever read. Where to start... :P

      their overly large size: the Bolo Mark I is described as weighing 150 tons, the Mark II 300 tons while the much more advanced Mark XXXIII, considered a standard model in the series, weighs 32,000 tons. In comparison, the largest superheavy tanks of the real world weighed around 100 tons and were never tested in combat. The only real-world analogue would be the P-1000 Ratte project, a 1000-tonne tank with a battleship turret designed by Nazi Germany that never left the drawing board. The enormous Bolos are even described as tank-carriers themselves.

      the more futuristic settings of the novels describes them carrying advanced nuclear weapons. The main tank gun of a Bolo is thus usually a variant of the Hellbore system which is described in the Bolo story-universe as a long-range deuterium-initiated fusion pulse main guns. Hellbores were meant as weapons for interstellar vessels, and the versions mounted on Bolos were modified to fit.

      The armor of a Bolo unit is designed to withstand direct hits from all weapons, including in some of the stories nuclear weapons.

      --
      "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) by darnkitten on Saturday July 22 2017, @04:26AM

        by darnkitten (1912) on Saturday July 22 2017, @04:26AM (#542735)

        Yeah, it is over the top--but the Bolo series is a fun read if you like pulp milskiff -- sort of Hammer's Slammers meets I, Robot (Asimov's book, not the movie, and I'm sickened that I felt I had to clarify).

      • (Score: 1) by Sabriel on Saturday July 22 2017, @07:29AM (2 children)

        by Sabriel (6522) on Saturday July 22 2017, @07:29AM (#542798)

        And yet they fit the scale of their setting - the Mark 33 Bolo was deployed in in an escalating war between two technologically-advanced interstellar civilizations, and it wasn't a wanked one-side battle; both sides badly misunderstood and underestimated each other and both sides suffered MAD as a consequence, with only a few lost colonies on either side surviving out on the fringes of thousands of lifeless radioactive worlds.

        Think less "Humanity Fuck Yeah" and more "Heroism Involves Sacrifice". The Bolos were technologically superior but the Enemy were close enough that they made up for the disparity in weight of numbers, and after enough nukes get thrown nobody wins because the battlefield is where you live.

        Good stories - the action hooks you in, the moral is taught during the ride.

        • (Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Monday July 24 2017, @04:29PM (1 child)

          by tangomargarine (667) on Monday July 24 2017, @04:29PM (#543753)

          Is there a particular reason why Earth is using tanks on the ground instead of spacecraft? Or is it just handwaved with "they got blown up."

          --
          "Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
          • (Score: 1) by Sabriel on Wednesday July 26 2017, @10:45AM

            by Sabriel (6522) on Wednesday July 26 2017, @10:45AM (#544575)

            The author focused almost entirely on Bolos on the ground in his stories (the whole "last stand" thing), but there were spacecraft (with Bolo AI) as well. Though "on the ground" gets a little hazy as the technology advances and antigrav becomes a thing. Towards the end of the war the most advanced Bolos basically used the planets they were "on" as concealment/cover and were quite capable of reaching space / engaging approaching spacecraft, and had the war continued I suspect eventually there might not have been a distinction between "ground" and "space" Bolos.

            But yes, mostly the space forces got blown up.

    • (Score: 2) by DutchUncle on Friday July 21 2017, @08:16PM

      by DutchUncle (5370) on Friday July 21 2017, @08:16PM (#542542)

      I should have some interesting conclusions to communicate to my human superiors, when the time comes. At peace, I await the arrival of the relief column.