8 ms·
From the article: State Sen. Kyle Loveless, R-Oklahoma City, said that removes due process and the belief that a suspect is presumed innocent until
by linkregister 10y ago
From the article:
State Sen. Kyle Loveless, R-Oklahoma City, said that
removes due process and the belief that a suspect is
presumed innocent until proven guilty. He said we've
already seen cases in Oklahoma where police are abusing
the system.
"We've seen single mom's stuff be taken, a cancer
survivor his drugs taken, we saw a Christian band being
taken. We've seen innocent people's stuff being taken.
We've seen where the money goes and how it's been
misspent," Loveless said.
If State Sen. Loveless's statement is accurate, it appears that these victims were unable to get the charges reversed by their banks' fraud departments.
So what would this device look like? Is it performing ACH or wire transfer transactions? Or is this just sending card information to the company, which then automates the state government's garnishment process?
I'll be interested to get the full story when details are available.
I'm glad there's some pushback from the state legislature!
- protomyth 10y agoLooks, like it might be a bit problematic or something deeper given his wife's arrest http://kfor.com/2015/10/07/oklahoma-senators-wife-arrested-claims-she-was-abused-at-county-jail/ http://kfor.com/2015/10/07/oklahoma-senators-wife-arrested-c... Not from OK, so I get the feeling this affects things, but not sure how.
- linkregister 10y agoThanks for the added context!
- protomyth 10y agoI'm not sure I provided any real context. It is data, but I have no real clue what it means. Thanks though.
- dsfyu404ed 10y agoOr a well off white guy had to deal with the police in a negative context for the first time in his life and that changed his opinion of them and the power they do or don't deserve
- protomyth 10y agoI think calling someone racist just because of their skin color and economic position is wrong and adds to the level of hate in society.
- deciplex 10y agoFirst of all, he didn't call him racist. Secondly, pointing out that for some reason long-standing problems suddenly seem to get a lot more attention once they start negatively affecting white people is not promoting hate - it is calling attention to racism.
- protomyth 10y agoFirst of all, he didn't call him racist. When you start a comment with "well off white guy", you are indicating the person is a racist since they are ignoring problems of their fellow humans because of the person's race. If you substitute any other race in that statement, people would find it to be an accusation of racism. I suppose there is another interpretation of that line, but I am trying very hard to be charitable to posters (I do fail quite a bit). pointing out that for some reason long-standing problems suddenly seem to get a lot more attention once they start negatively affecting white people is not promoting hate from the article: ''It's called an ERAD, or Electronic Recovery and Access to Data machine, and state police began using 16 of them last month.'' I would submit his current problem is not long standing since it started last month. Also, we do not know his history of speaking out about civil forfeiture. Why, the incident with his wife could have been a "shutup" warning from the police. I said I provided a piece of data, and I have not really had time to look at the context. As to the second half, pointing out some issue is racial and the participant only started noticing because of their race is informing your reader that you believe that person to be racist. it is calling attention to racism Which implies that a belief that someone is being racist. Thus calling him a racist as he is the only protagonist mentioned. You know, I grew up in the grey between two different groups, and I sometime wish I could have been raised in a suburb or had a little more blood to qualify as the other group. Being able to say "I am..." in a clear voice is an amazing powerful thing. I've gotten to see what absolute shits groups going too far can be on each other when one believes they can say and do things with minimum risk. Assumptions about people based on their race are just wrong. Judge a person by their word and deed with a kind eye and hopeful heart. I fail at this quite a lot, but I think I'm ok with what I wrote. // as a side note, I love hnreplies and if I had cash I would suggest adding a blackout time feature
- molecule 10y agoHe's referring to plain-old civil asset forfeiture.
- brerlapn 10y agoRight, the legislator is referring to civil asset forfeiture, which is what the devices in the OP's article does too--just now they will steal money from your bank account if you happen to have your debit card with you instead of just being able to steal the cash you have in the car.
- knodi123 10y agonot bank accounts, not debit cards. I'm sure the police would like to plunder that too, but that's not what this technology does.
- mangeletti 10y agoEdit: After feedback, I deleted my snarky comment, which I wrote based on misunderstanding the use of "plain-old".
- opo 10y ago>99.999% of everyone who knows what asset forfeiture is knows it because of John Oliver. Asset forfeiture has been controversial since it started being used much more frequently in the 1980s. I really doubt most of the people commenting on it here first heard of it on John Oliver's show.
- eric_h 10y agoHaha, indeed. I think I'd heard of it many years ago, but I didn't really understand how fucking absurd it is until a story about it appeared here on HN. A year (~ish/maybe, my memory of timelines is fucking terrible) later I saw the John Oliver episode.
- rconti 10y agoSlow down there. First of all, the parent didn't claim to be a genius who had some pre-existing knowledge. Secondly, even if (s)he learned it from John Oliver, how does that make it less a part of parent's knowledge? Furthermore, the use of "plain-old" was a way of indicating that this is a new method but an old process; eg, it's not legally any different from normal asset seizure. Finally, and most importantly, I don't see any bias or why you even call it that.
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- sangfroid 10y agoIf you have not been charged with a crime, can you just refuse to hand over your cards?
- dpc59 10y agoThen they charge you for obstruction (or whatever it's called in oklahoma, in french it's called "entrave à un agent de la paix")
- ihsw 10y agoIt is obstruction of justice and it's very unpleasant. If they're so inclined they can take your things by force and you will have no reasonable means of recourse.
- orbitingpluto 10y agoIsn't the question, "obstructing what?"
- CobrastanJorji 10y agoAnd the answer, of course, is "Justice." It's like being charged solely with resisting arrest.
- orbitingpluto 10y agoOr destruction of government property when you bleed on them during a beating? Ferguson: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/15/the-day-ferguson-cops-were-caught-in-a-bloody-lie.html http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/08/15/the-day-fer...
- cehrnrooth 10y agoThat seems questionable, how can they charge you with obstruction when you can just not answer any questions you're not legally obligated to answer.
- tn13 10y ago> If State Sen. Loveless's statement is accurate As someone who is closely following the topic I would say he is pretty accurate. Most of these laws are passed claiming it is meant to target hardened criminals. Good people like us think it is okay to take away any rights of people who we consider as bad. Given the choice cops will not knock down the door of Drug dealer known to have automatic rifles at his home but some poor old cancer patient who is unlikely to resist or cry. These problems are not a creation of police. These are created by good people like us who do not empathize with criminals, minorities and other groups which by default consider "less human".
- honua 10y ago> These problems are not a creation of police. These are created by good people like us who do not empathize with criminals, minorities and other groups which by default consider "less human". I agree that the problem is considering others as "less human" but I wouldn't exclude the police from that!
- tn13 10y agoI understand your sentiment. But I think as a society we have allowed the legal system to evolve in a way that only Bullies will become and thrive as cops and narcissist jerks will become public prosecutors. They are problem but they are more of a side-effect of we not standing up for other people's liberty.
- meric 10y agoSome of us think there are good people, who have rights, and bad people, who deserve to have rights taken from them. Some of us think there are people with power we need to impress and then there are people without power we can take from them whatever we want. Some of us think we are all human beings and everyone deserves to be a part of society, to be seen as human beings with human wants, needs and human emotions, even when they do things that harm other people. And whether they even do that, is not for us to judge. The first group needed people who were willing to take things from the bad guys, and picked the second group as police and prosecutors. That's how we're in this situation today. Your child ask you if they can go to your donald-trump-loving-women-should-stay-in-kitchen neighbour's house to play with friends. Do you: 1. Change your child's school so they don't mix with the 'wrong sort'. You're afraid what your social circle think if your children mix with children of people like that. 2. Your neighbours are racists and sexists. Petition their kids to be kicked out from your kids' school. They don't deserve an education. 3. Let your child go play with them, then if your child has a positive experience, let him go again next time. If not, protect the child from the consequences of not going next time.
- hackaflocka 10y agoInteresting choice of examples: Single moms, Christian band. (By the way, I know lots of Christian bands that are pro medical-marijuana). (Edited to change "marijuana" to "medical-marijuana".)
- dragonwriter 10y agoIts not a particularly surprising choice of examples for a Republican politician upset about the practice that wants to highlight targeted groups to whom his constituency is likely to be sympathetic.
- hackaflocka 10y agoI agree 100%. Still, one group (single moms) is generally despised by them, and the other is favored.
- rconti 10y agoNot despised. I think they're likely sympathetic to their plight, at least on the surface.
- gohrt 10y agoThe politically-correct sympathetic "single mom" is referring to widows and abandoned women, not a pregnant single woman.
- jboles 10y agoExactly. Republicans do not have a problem with single women per se, only unchecked promiscuity out of wedlock.
- djrogers 10y ago> generally despised by them That's a ridiculous statement. My church (both as an organization and the people in it) gives tons of money to single moms for everything from subsistence to fully paid Disneyland vacations. We run a volunteer group that does things like yard work, handyman work, and moving for single moms. The most visible charity outside a church in my city is for single moms. There are single moms who work in important positions at my church. The bible specifically points out on many occasions that those who follow Christ should show love and compassion to people such as single moms as Christ would.