Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[scriver]

Not the Swedish jails (I think that's the word. Where you put people pending trial, right, or before they're moved to a prison, right?), though - they've received criticism from international human rights organisations. Want to know the reason? Because it is - at least in the practical sense - allowed to put non-judged suspects in solitary confinement (because it's torture. Whowuddathought?) if it's suspected they will try to interfere with an investigation. I'm not certain what the maximum time is, but from what little I remember about it it was at least a month, which is already too much seeming as people start suffering from irrepairable psychological damage after as little as 1-2 weeks.

Oh, and our court system sucks too. But that's for another time, because I would have to spend some time typing it up and right now I want to go back to Pripyat and kill some mercenaries before I have to make dinner.

[Truean]

http://fox8.com/2012/01/30/lawsuit-claims-men-were-beaten-humiliated-because-they-were-gay/

So, there are a few cops in Cleveland who really don't like the gays and arrested a couple for nothing in completely unnecessarily violent and humiliating ways....Lovely.... Who watches the watchers? See, the funny thing is, they have witnesses. Also, they don't let you go (without going for bail at least) when you've "assaulted a police officer." That just doesn't happen; they do not just let you go if you allegedly hit a cop. There was no bail hearing and no charges were filed. They were set free after the initial incident. Then a few days later, they suddenly have an arrest warrant for that? The fucking swat team/warrant sweep guys, go after them in their home for it....

Let's examine this bullshit. A.) Even if the officer isn't lying, and he is, both of them didn't allegedly participate in the "assault" on him, so why would there be a warrant for both of them? There "should" only be a warrant for the one who, I dunno, committed the crime? So let's arrest one guy and just for the hell of it, let's also take in his significant other.... B.) The assault consisted of brushing past the officer, who was off duty and out of uniform. He didn't like being ignored. Bruised ego does not give the right to beat the hell out of someone. C.) Subject it to the bullshit test: those two are skinny little guys and who thinks they're really the type to just fucking go nuts and just try to beat up a cop? This particular officer is a huge guy. Really? It wouldn't have been a fight, it would've been a slaughter. Two gay guys having an argument does not equal police assault. D.)  No pants? Why? Why the fuck? Watch the video, a relative offered to get them pants. They weren't allowed to do so. You made someone go to jail without pants for no reason, because they're gay. The relative was told he could give them shoes, but not pants.... Other people in the jail very clearly saw them without pants on.... E.) So, officers, you allegedly have just had the swat team/warrant sweep guys arrest two violent criminals who have allegedly assaulted a police officer.... You're gonna  have them stand out in the open (in their underwear) outside for 5 or 10 minutes? Why? Wait wait wait, if these are allegedly dangerous criminals who seem to have no problem fighting police shouldn't you... restrict them and keep them in a confined space so as to prevent any problems that might happen? Perhaps the back of a squad car? You're the fucking warrant team/swat officers, you're going out on arrest sweeps and you have places to put people you arrest. "Their own front lawn practically naked," is not one of those places you put those dangerous violent criminals you're arresting. F.)  Of course they were found not guilty of assaulting the police officer and everything else, because it was all bullshit.

Isn't that just great? [sigh] There is so much bullshit going on here that it can't be some accident; this was an intention. For those of you who might not know, the far west side of Cleveland/Lakewood is the gay area here. Funny how that works out that they're tracking a few more similar arrests to see if there is a pattern. Guess where they're focusing? Guess....

http://news.yahoo.com/wa-senate-approves-bill-legalize-gay-marriage-040807187.html

This quote from a republican state senator perplexes the hell out of me:

"It's ironic how a bill which purports to be about ending discrimination leaves the door open so far for discrimination going in the other direction," he said. "I'm extremely concerned that without additional protections, this legislation will create a hostile environment for those of us who believe in traditional marriage."

Because people being able to marry those of the same sex... somehow discriminates against those who want to marry those of the opposite sex? How does that work?

Everybody knows that straight guys want to marry lesbians.

No no, see, it's simpler than that. The "hostile environment" it creates for "[those] who believe in traditional marriage" is people finally realizing what damn bigots these jerks are. They hide behind religion and laws banning gays. They're pissed off, because it's becoming harder and harder not to like gays without looking like an asshole. When I was growing up, it was a self evident thing that if someone was gay then it was just totally expected that you'd rip on them, at least. The fuck was the guy's problem? "Clearly," the gay people deserved/needed to be messed with, 'cause, you know... they're gay and what the fuck is up with that? Ewww.... Right? Before long the people who have a problem with gays might look like the people who have a problem with black people and be called on it.... Can't have that now can we...?

In short, they might be called out for being total bigots if gay people stop being considered a disease/a perversion/ a problem and start being considered people.... You know, ones with actual rights....

[Andir]

The longest I've gone without seeing or talking to another person is seven days. Even with all of my possessions and freedoms not granted to those in solitary confinement, I most definitely began to experience a looming change in my thought process near the end of that week. I would see things out of the corner of my eyes, and they wouldn't be there when I turned to look. Granted, that happens to most people all the time, but it was far more pronounced. One night, I found the back door unlocked and couldn't remember if I had locked it or not earlier, so I made the decision to run around my house in attack mode with a hammer in my hand as I slammed all the doors open. More than one person commented that I seemed even more strange than usual for a few days after that week. That isn't all very extreme, but it's the effect of a very comfortable week without human contact

Seriously?  If I'm home sick or just take a vacation week, I've gone from a week to several weeks (routinely) without talking to/interacting with people.  I wouldn't make a blanket statement like, "people need socialization" as easily as you would apparently.  There are times I quite frankly enjoy the quiet.  I've even gone camping for periods of time alone.  It's nice to get away.

Also, "Hell is other people." - No Exit

[sluissa]

I don't know about Swedish jails, but given what I've seen personally of American jails, and heard second hand from people who've actually spent significant time there. Solitary sounds like the better choice.

I do admit, I get lonely after a while without social contact, but, well, with one example I was given, I'd rather that social contact not be waking up at all hours of the night with my cellmate masturbating onto my face. Much less all of the more violent scenarios which could play out.

[Nadaka]

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/01/146144078/monsanto-accused-in-suit-tied-to-agent-orange?sc=fb&cc=fp

Monsanto poisons town, but doesn't have to clean it up, only monitor the health of the people who are poisoned.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/01/house-republicans-order-j_n_1246971.html

Documentary filmmaker and journalist arrested for filming a public senate hearing.

[Dr.Feelgood]

Here are some links for those of you who want to learn more about U.S prisons:

http://www.hrw.org/legacy/reports/2001/prison/report.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IWxpQ87C4t4
http://rethinkamerica.net/category/prisons/
http://combatingglobalization.com/articles/globalization_and_the_incarceration_of_the_black_working_class.html
http://www.justdetention.org/en/survivortestimony/portraits_of_courage.aspx
http://www.drugwarfacts.org/cms/Prisons_and_Drugs

[GlyphGryph]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2012/01/29/she-dialed-911-the-cop-who-came-to-help-raped-her.print.html
http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/federal-case-against-fired-officer-goes-to-jury-d73p0jt-137110398.html

Summary:
Cop pretty blatantly rapes woman after she calls 911, woman tries to get help from other officer, is thrown in jail for four days without being charged. Officer has apparently done stuff like this before.

Woman, EVENTUALLY, fights her way through and gets the feds to prosecute the guy. Justice is... kind of... served. Eventually. The whole situation is pretty much incredibly fucked up, though.

[Nadaka]

Today is an all around bad day.

<Jeff Foxworthy voice>Do you like privacy? Do you use encryption, vpn's or don't want people looking over your shoulder while using a computer?
...
You might be a terrorist.</Jeff Foxworthy voice>

http://publicintelligence.net/do-you-like-online-privacy-you-may-be-a-terrorist/

The actual document the FBI is distributing: http://info.publicintelligence.net/FBI-SuspiciousActivity/Internet_Cafe.pdf

This is the new Mcarthyism, the new face of the informant and surveillance culture of Stalin and Hitler. This is how the end of liberty always begins.

[GlyphGryph]

The strange thing is, I don't even give a shit about privacy. Its seriously a non-issue for me.

What I do give a shit about, though, is information disparity - I don't mind so much, for example, that so many people now have so much public information out there that can be gone through. I mind the fact that stuff like ACTA proves the lack of privacy is most definitely one way; Every day, those in power know more about us than we can learn about them and their activities, and the gap is only growing.

[Truean]

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/trending-now/florida-polo-tycoon-legally-adopts-42-old-girlfriend-164729415.html

So it seems some rich people really will do anything to shelter their money.... Adopting your girlfriend, with whom you have sex, is somehow a legal way of sheltering your assets. No, really? I haven't looked into it because ew, but really? I imagine it uses a system of trusts for "children," and offspring, which somehow she ... now... is...? 

So, Creepy McCreeperson over here was totally drunk off his ass (over twice the legal limit) and killed someone while driving his car. He is up on criminal manslaughter charges and is getting sued by the dead victim's family. In typical rich slimeball fashion, his primary concern is making sure no one gets his assets even though he might end up in jail. He is, of course, trying to avoid that jail thing too.

I've actually heard of this sleaze maneuver in estate planning before, but I just.... Wow. Really? So you're then technically dating and sleeping with your "daughter," biological or not?

It seems the aristocracy has gotten too depraved again....

[Shinziril]

I'm not getting a huge skeeze factor from the "sleeping with your adopted daughter" thing given that she's pretty obviously not really his daughter in any significant sense . . . but that just shifts the irritation to "why are benefits intended to help with childrearing applying to this idiot".

[Andir]

Adopting your girlfriend, with whom you have sex, is somehow a legal way of sheltering your assets. No, really? I haven't looked into it because ew, but really? I imagine it uses a system of trusts for "children," and offspring, which somehow she ... now... is...? 

I think you're confusing legal with "incestual" issues?  How is legally calling someone something other than wife (in this case, adopted child) make it different?  I'm mainly hung up on your "ew" part.  A name is a name.  [The only thing I "ew" about is if you are related and/or grow up with each other as brother/sister/mother/father/child and engage in the act of sex...]

If the law allows it, then the law needs to be changed.  (ie: Adoption should only be possible for minors ... I figured it already was.)  Otherwise, we are a country of laws and if you find a loophole, someone's going to use it until it's patched.  I mean, you work in legal, you know how laws can be interpreted... finagled.

I'm not getting a huge skeeze factor from the "sleeping with your adopted daughter" thing given that she's pretty obviously not really his daughter in any significant sense . . . but that just shifts the irritation to "why are benefits intended to help with childrearing applying to this idiot".

This.

[Truean]

I'm not getting a huge skeeze factor from the "sleeping with your adopted daughter" thing given that she's pretty obviously not really his daughter in any significant sense . . . but that just shifts the irritation to "why are benefits intended to help with childrearing applying to this idiot".

Because then he's technically sleeping with his kid. Rather he's saying he wants this person to be his kid, biologically or not, and also to have sex with them. No really....  Yeah, the benefits intended for kids shouldn't be used here, and that's a valid point that I should've made clearer. He's abusing the system, which I would think would be rather clear. Biological or not, the idea of "someone to have sex with," should always be distinct from the idea of "someone who is in any capacity your kid."

[Andir]

(ie: Adoption should only be possible for minors ... I figured it already was.)  Otherwise, we are a country of laws and if you find a loophole, someone's going to use it until it's patched.

Otherwise the only other recourse you have is to have a judge rule on the intent.  And that requires that someone raise a lawsuit... but you already know this.

[Vector]

So, this is pretty awesome.