Hacker News Reader

Comment by xp84 | Hacker News Reader

> excuses to turn normal citizens into prison feed

What felonies are those normal citizens being convicted of that's landed them in prison?

I get the basic 'not wanting everyone's comms to be monitored' part. I think there's an important conversation to be had because indeed, that can't be the answer.

But it sounds like you're saying most people who are convicted of felonies based on a jury unanimously being convinced by the electronic evidence against them... those people are unjustly in prison?

View on HN

Unironically yes, we convict people of felonies for the dumbest fucking reasons and working a jury is literally a science.

The issues with the justice system are well documented. Please do not try to straw man what I am getting at.

Certain people are arrested and detained far often than others, because of who they are and not what they did.

Many positions in the justice system prioritize conviction rate above all else.

There are many problematic relationships between legislators, law enforcement and the for-profit prison systems.

Our position in this list should make anyone afraid:

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

If LE decides you should be "taken off the streets", regardless of if you did the crime you are accused of, you are likely going to prison for something unless you are wealthy. If you are wealthy, they may not bother. All very interesting.

You might want to try reading something other than leftist attacks on law enforcement. Yes there abuses here and there. But for the most part law enforcement works s in the constitutional rights of defendants are respected. And if they are not they are subject to appeal. The system is flawed but it works.

It may surprise you to learn that I lurk the comments section at Breitbart. The subtext of the articles is made clear there.

There is plenty of distrust in LE and the legal system on the right. There is also plenty of people who believe it all is OK because "those people" are ending up in prison. You will never reach the people who do not care until it happens to someone they know, or someone like them.

Maybe try reading more leftist attacks on law enforcement?

Like, yes, the system works at the level you're assessing it. The problem is that it's based on a mountain of flawed premises and so we've ultimately created a literal torment nexus with a smiley face taped on top of it and everyone gets to wash their hands of it and go home: justice served.

So if someone critiques LE they’re leftist? That’s pretty lazy and definitely indicative of someone in a silo.

The one who threw a ham sandwich at a Nazi at a protest?

You mean the guy who assaulted a federal officer and got off scot-free? Woe is him.

That's selective enforcement though. It's only "assault" because it was done against a cop. It's "just being a dick" when done against anyone else.

The danger of constant surveillance is that a lot more of these "being a dick" incidents will be prosecuted when politically convenient (because equal, fair prosecution of all incidents would not happen as that would quickly cause the law to be changed, preventing its future use selective enforcement).

I think that throwing a submarine sandwich at anybody would be considered assault or battery (unwanted, offensive physical contact), although I do think selective enforcement could be a real problem in the future.

You think if someone threw a sandwich at you and then just walked off, you'd be able to get in contact will law enforcement and get them to arrest the guy?

You've nailed the issue in the justice system. When the recipient of harassment has power, or the recipient is favored by those in power for whatever reason, the response is disproportionate.

It shouldn't be so, but it is. It's human nature; the powerful use that power to defend their interests, unless prevented from doing so. The people without power or favor get watered down justice, if at all. The system isn't architected around this, but it's not architected to prevent it either.

Assault is doing some heavy lifting here for the sensitive crowd.

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

Everyone is legally entitled to this protection.

How come when you use extreme, beyond-the-pale rhetoric, that stays up; but when I politely point out that your rhetoric is extreme and beyond the pale, that gets flagged?

Just to be clear, by "Nazi" you mean a CBP officer?

And you consider this to be definitionally true; or do you have specific evidence of Greg Lairmore doing something that merits comparison to that regime?

Or do you actually believe that "people who entered a country without authorization and remained there long term with the intent of defying all local immigration law, should be extradited, by force if necessary" is comparable to killing a significant fraction of an entire ethnic demographic, worldwide, while simultaneously waging expansionist land wars?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com