Its just about time to plant a chip in every one of these alias-assing motherfuckers. Just sayin.
amirite?
Portland - No more gang designations, because minorities.
-
- Posts: 15157
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 9:47 am
-
- Posts: 12950
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 10:27 pm
- Location: The Great Place
Re: Portland - No more gang designations, because minorities.
Should we tell google to pull those images, as they represent an archive of aliases?
GrumpyCatFace wrote:Dumb slut partied too hard and woke up in a weird house. Ran out the door, weeping for her failed life choices, concerned townsfolk notes her appearance and alerted the fuzz.
viewtopic.php?p=60751#p60751
-
- Posts: 2528
- Joined: Wed Nov 30, 2016 11:09 am
Re: Portland - No more gang designations, because minorities.
I'm talking about a police arrest & criminal conviction record. Surely we can agree that the public has the right to maintain such records for some period of time.Fife wrote:Meh. You want to get hyper-technical? I can do that, but I doubt that more than about 5 members would understand what we would be talking about, much less give a shit.de officiis wrote:Fruit of the Poisonous Tree is a search & seizure doctrine which has no bearing on the topic at hand. The onous is in you to put forth a rational argument on what data law enforcement may or may not reasonably collect about private citizens, and why. I assume you're down with a rap sheet, for starters?Fife wrote:
I read it, and thought about it. I didn't want to get into a "fruit of the poisonous tree" discussion in this forum, but since you asked . . . the mere existence of this type of database by the state is problematic.
Just because John Q. Public can see something and take a picture of it doesn't mean that the government can do the same, IMNSHO.
As far as what "onus" is on me, I'll rely upon the constitution.
I suppose a "rap sheet" (depending on the definition) would be inside the ambit of allowed state power under a mosaic theory. I'm not sure about that yet, though.
What about, for example, the situation where the police are pursuing an active criminal investigation about a gang-related murder? No one's been convicted, but they have suspects--some of whom may have clean records, but are affiliated with the gang. Why shouldn't the police be allowed to learn of and retain such data if it helps solve a crime? What is RICO if not dependent on this type of data?
-
- Posts: 12241
- Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 7:04 pm
Re: Portland - No more gang designations, because minorities.
Without wading out of my depth (into the legal territory of you and Fife), the compromise seems perfectly acceptable to me.de officiis wrote:A reasonable compromise would be to maintain the data for a set period of time (choose a reasonable number) and then delete it unless the person is convicted of a crime, in which case the data would be retained for another period of time.
You don't want a gang affiliation to haunt you for life? Ok. Give it a decade, we'll purge it.
Not that purging it matters, since it's an internal database anyway, but if it makes it more palatable to the masses, whatever.
"Hey varmints, don't mess with a guy that's riding a buffalo"