The LEO thread

[neoplacebo]

Zimmerman will die in prison by the hand of another. I got more info from the blogs at the end of the story than from the story itself. The fact remains that had Zimmerman not approached Martin (as he was instructed not to do by authority) he would not be facing murder charges and Martin would not have been killed that night. And, then, there's also the fact that Zimmerman lied to the court with regard to his finances. I sort of think a person who would lie about how much money they have may also be inclined to lie when their own life is at stake. But I could be wrong......

[O Really]

You did notice that "update" was from a year ago, right? Maybe they should have sent the article to the prosecutor, who would surely have found it compelling and released Zimmerman immediately. Yeah, right. That's the ticket.

[neoplacebo]

You did notice that "update" was from a year ago, right? Maybe they should have sent the article to the prosecutor, who would surely have found it compelling and released Zimmerman immediately. Yeah, right. That's the ticket.

Yep, I noticed. I just figured it was another regurgitation of the same tripe and wishful thinking the defenders of Zimmerman have been chanting since the event. I said it a year ago and say again; Zimmerman will die in prison.

[O Really]

Yeah, what his defenders (not necessarily his lawyers) forget or conveniently ignore is that even in gun-happy Florida, you can't start a fight and then claim self-defense. No matter how scary a black guy in a hoodie in the rain looks, or how big he is, or what he may have done on any other day of his life, the idiots just can't make the fact go away that an armed Zimmerman got out of his car and confronted Martin. They can't claim he was acting in his role of community guardian angel because two fundamental parts of the training they give you when you start a community watch in Florida is (1) if you see something suspicious, call the cops; don't confront; (2) don't walk around armed. Opps.

[O Really]

Update on Trayvon Martin Case

5/21/2012 is an "Update"?

Let us know who wins the POTUS election, okay?

Here's a real update... http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/05 ... snhp&pos=2

Defense by innuendo is apparently not going to work.

[Leo Lyons]

Woman charged with prostitution after calling police to complain of treatment by her pimp
By Associated Press, Published: May 30

WEST HAVEN, Conn. — A woman has been charged with prostitution in Connecticut after calling police
to complain about how she was being treated by a pimp.

Police say they did not find the pimp when they arrived at a Super 8 Motel in West Haven on Sunday,
but they did find 35-year-old Jennifer Lowery with a man they describe as a customer.

Police charged Lowery with prostitution and 60-year-old Richard Burford of New Haven with patronizing a prostitute.

Police say Lowery told them she thought it would take police longer to show up, so she decided to conduct some business while waiting. ( )

Attempts to reach the pair for comment Thursday morning were unsuccessful.

There was no answer at a phone number listed for Burford, and no phone listing for Lowery.

To Protect and Serve.....

[O Really]

I'm shocked! LA "investigation" finds Dormer firing to be "justified." Now, did anyone really expect the city to say "opps, maybe we did railroad him just a little bit"?
http://www.islandpacket.com/2013/06/04/ ... orner.html

[O Really]

True that. And just because something was seriously off doesn't mean they didn't make matters worse.

[Stinger]

Connie Rice (2nd cousin of Condi Rice) is no shrinking violet and no establishment apologist. She's tangled with LAPD many times. She kicks ass and takes names.

It's her complete exoneration of the LAPD, along with stating that Dorner claimed racism because he knew it would get a rise, that convinces me LAPD was in the right on this one.

I also appreciated her statement that the fact that LAPD was right on this one didn't make LAPD some interracial nirvana. She'll keep an eye on them.

[O Really]

Connie Rice (2nd cousin of Condi Rice) is no shrinking violet and no establishment apologist. She's tangled with LAPD many times. She kicks ass and takes names.

It's her complete exoneration of the LAPD, along with stating that Dorner claimed racism because he knew it would get a rise, that convinces me LAPD was in the right on this one.

I also appreciated her statement that the fact that LAPD was right on this one didn't make LAPD some interracial nirvana. She'll keep an eye on them.

Good point, and probably right. I'm no defender of people who take Dormer's path, but the comments from LAPD are so stereotypical of people justifying a railroading that I've encountered in the past. For example, they think it's significant that Dormer never complained until his supervisor was going to give him an unsatisfactory evaluation. It's not at all unusual for employees to "suck it up" to try to avoid problems until things start to look bleak. When it looks like their paranoia is justified, they bring up complaints. I still say if LAPD had handled the entire situation better, they wouldn't have loaded up a time bomb.

[Ombudsman]

(CNN) -- You've been in an accident. The police officer goes through the normal drill, asking for your license and registration.
Then she goes a step further. "Could I have your cellphone, please?" she says.
New legislation proposed by a New Jersey state Sen. James Holzapfel would let cops confiscate cellphones if they have "reasonable grounds" to believe that the driver was talking or texting when the wreck occurred.

http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/12/tech/new- ... index.html

[Stinger]

That's a tough one. I'm against giving cops one's entire cell history and phone book. However, if the seizure could be fashioned so that only the time of the accident could be searched, I'm not necessarily opposed. I yell, "Hang up," at folks on the roads my family travels on.

But if you're putting dates in your calendar or checking appointments or whatever, it won't show up as texting. I heard one report today on NPR that a study showed that using hands-free devices with the phone was still worse than just talking on the phone.

[O Really]

That's a tough one. I'm against giving cops one's entire cell history and phone book. However, if the seizure could be fashioned so that only the time of the accident could be searched, I'm not necessarily opposed. I yell, "Hang up," at folks on the roads my family travels on.

But if you're putting dates in your calendar or checking appointments or whatever, it won't show up as texting. I heard one report today on NPR that a study showed that using hands-free devices with the phone was still worse than just talking on the phone.

Yeah, that's part of the problem with the slippery slope. It's not illegal to check appointments; some places it's illegal to text. You can be distracted by your phone - or by your radio, or by your kid, or by a bug, or by being generally stressed or distressed or tired, yada. Of those, it's only illegal to text. So while the cop might have a reasonable justification to see if you were texting at the time of the accident, any other information gained by that peek should not be admissible for any other use.

[O Really]

I'd go beyond "admissible", O Really. I'd prefer controls in place, if at all possible, to prevent viewing anything other than the time of the accident unless accident evidence indicates other crimes. .

Me too, in an ideal world, but how could you enforce that? Cop picks up a phone he's not familiar with, looks for texts, it's pretty easy to see something else. Maybe we say he can't look at it at all, but has to turn it in to some CSI tech who knows what he can look for and what he has to avoid?

I'm not arguing that cell use isn't distracting, but maybe the reason it's been documented so well is because it's been studied more than any other distraction. But if you look at the data, who is most likely to get into accidents because of texting? It's the teenagers and slightly older, who coincidentally are in the group that is most likely to get into accidents for other reasons.

[Stinger]

I don't know, Stinger, doesn't any phone activity have a time stamp? No, I have plenty of apps that have no time stamp. I was thinking about time management apps, project apps, things a working person might need to check on his or her way to work.

I knew that hands-free was as bad, didn't know it was worse. Why? I don't know why. They were looking at voice-activated technology, which is advertised as being safer, but they said it was more distracting than just talking on the phone. I heard it on NPR, but found THIS ON THE WAY TO SAN JOSE.

[O Really]

I have a guess. SYNC, for example, doesn't work quite like you see in the ads. Maybe if one takes the time to be totally familiar with it, set it up properly, etc. it might, but I'm pretty sure my wife distracts herself more by yelling at the car than she would if she just used the phone. "I said 'phone' dammit, P H O N E! "Call Heather, you idiot" "Play Coldplay - how hard is that?" (OK, so score one for SYNC)

[Ombudsman]

Maybe the car just has better taste in music.

[O Really]

Maybe the car just has better taste in music.

[O Really]

Or maybe a classic case of unintended consequences arising from half-baked ideas. Lawmakers rushed to prohibit hands-on, thus endorsing hands-free. People bought headsets, auto makers started putting in voice-activation. Matters got worse. Opps. Maybe they ought to lay off of cell use until they've mastered getting everyone to use turn signals.

[Stinger]

Stinger's link:

...The AAA study, conducted by researchers at the University of Utah, says speech-to-text systems require greater concentration by drivers than other potentially distracting activities like talking on the phone, talking to a passenger, listening to a book on tape or listening to the radio...

So, is that an argument for cops not doing a limited search of cell phones, or one for including a limited search of speech-to-text systems in the legislation?

Just a comment on the topic.

Another comment. Those searches simply won't work for a lot of distractions. Futzing with your iPod that's plugged into your stereo is more distracting than simply using the stereo. People use smart phones for many more things than talking to someone or texting. Voice memos, although I don't know how distracting that would be. Adding events to time management apps or calendars. Adding items to the grocery list. Jotting something on a To Do list. And my texts don't always include the time. Perhaps the NSA would provide phone records somewhere down the road.