I gave up airlines for train travel; now this. Time to stay home.:(

[+ bigjoey]

http://www.sfchronicle.com/crime/article/BART-takeover-robbery-50-to-60-teens-swarm-11094745.php

[Kevin Slater]

"The images (of the thieves) cannot be shared publicly, she said, because the attackers appear to be minors." What the fuck does that have to do with it?!

 

Kevin Slater

[+ Funguy]

If i had taken cell phone video it would be on line in 30 secs....minors or not!

[+ FreshFluff]

"The images (of the thieves) cannot be shared publicly, she said, because the attackers appear to be minors." What the fuck does that have to do with it?!

 

Kevin Slater

 

They probably mean that the police can't share security camera footage. Members of the public are free to share photos or video taken on BART or in any other public place.

[Kevin Slater]

They probably mean that the police can't share security camera footage.

 

Why the fuck not?

 

Kevin Slater

[+ José Soplanucas]

Why the fuck not?

 

Kevin Slater

 

It is not the first time I heard that reason to not publish pictures of somebody, pretty often in the press. Where are the lawyers in the forum to explain why? @bigjoey ? @quoththeraven ?

[caliguy]

I'll bet you don't have to look any further then their homes to find the cause of this ie shitty parents.

[+ bigjoey]

It is not the first time I heard that reason to not publish pictures of somebody, pretty often in the press. Where are the lawyers in the forum to explain why? @bigjoey ? @quoththeraven ?

 

Often it is not to prejudice potential jurors who are made up of the general public. If potential jurors see the footage before trial, they could have made up their minds before any court proceeding and be disqualified from serving as a juror. This makes it difficult to get an unbiased jury.

[Kevin Slater]

Often it is not to prejudice potential jurors who are made up of the general public. If potential jurors see the footage before trial, they could have made up their minds before any court proceeding and be disqualified from serving as a juror. This makes it difficult to get an unbiased jury.

 

That make sense, but doesn't explain the quote in question: "The images (of the thieves) cannot be shared publicly, she said, because the attackers appear to be minors."

 

Kevin Slater

[mike carey]

In Australia, minors involved in court cases cannot be identified, even if they are convicted. Often their adult relatives 'cannot be identified for legal reasons' and the same thing can occur in relation to victims, as identifying such people can enable the minor to be identified. If there is TV news coverage, faces and even car number plates are pixelated.

[+ José Soplanucas]

In Australia, minors involved in court cases cannot be identified, even if they are convicted. Often their adult relatives 'cannot be identified for legal reasons' and the same thing can occur in relation to victims, as identifying such people can enable the minor to be identified. If there is TV news coverage, faces and even car number plates are pixelated.

 

in Argentina is exactly like that.

[+ José Soplanucas]

Often it is not to prejudice potential jurors who are made up of the general public. If potential jurors see the footage before trial, they could have made up their minds before any court proceeding and be disqualified from serving as a juror. This makes it difficult to get an unbiased jury.

 

But why this is applied only to minors. Showing pictures of suspected adult criminals could also influence jurors, but the press show them wit no restrictions.

[+ sync]

It will be interesting to know what investigators uncover. The training of 40 to 60 teens into an organized, speedy, precision hit squad suggests a knowledgeable, experienced and capable infrastructure.

[+ bigjoey]

But why this is apply only to minors. Showing pictures of suspected adult criminals could also influence jurors, but the press show them wit no restrictions.

 

The legal rules, as developed by our political system, give special protections to minors. As noted in posts above, these protections are found in many countries.

 

I suppose the theory is that if convicted and sent to "camp," on their return to society they are not stigmatized by their past actions and are now reformed to lead a productive life. Note: I said "theory."

[+ sniper]

I am not a lawyer but I'm pretty sure in the US this is strictly a policy decision. I'd think it would be a violation of the First Amendment to punish a third party for talking about this stuff. Didn't Rudy Giuliani routinely disclose juvenile's names(assuming teenagers and not very young children) and records when he was NYC mayor?

 

Or maybe I'm thinking it was some newspapers and not others that would disclose this information.

 

At any rate the fact there might be SOME minors in the picture isn't grounds for making it illegal to show, but it's the policy of the authorities in question.

[+ sniper]

This has taken some absurd stretches in recent years. When your kid gets hit or bitten or whatever in daycare or school, the school will not tell the parents who did it. WTF?

[whipped guy]

In a somewhat related situation, privacy laws designed to protect individuals are in my opinion taken to far when minors are involved. I know of a situation where a surgeon did a procedure that was unsuccessful. Long story, but the ultimate reason was do to the fact that the 16 year old was taking anabolic steroids to enhance his athletic performance in high school sports. The kid privately admitted what he had been doing to the surgeon after the fact. Knowing both the surgeon and the minor's mother, I told the surgeon that he should inform the parents because they were of the option that he (the surgeon) had done something wrong. The surgeon said he could not do so due to privacy laws. He didn't and the parents to this day have no clue that their child's illegal activities were the actual reason for the mishap.

 

Such an incident did not enhance the surgeon's reputation and certainly did not help the parents be better parents.

[+ bigjoey]

In a somewhat related situation, privacy laws designed to protect individuals are in my opinion taken to far when minors are involved. I know of a situation where a surgeon did a procedure that was unsuccessful. Long story, but the ultimate reason was do to the fact that the 16 year old was taking anabolic steroids to enhance his athletic performance in high school sports. The kid privately admitted what he had been doing to the surgeon after the fact. Knowing both the surgeon and the minor's mother, I told the surgeon that he should inform the parents because they were of the option that he (the surgeon) had done something wrong. The surgeon said he could not do so due to privacy laws. He didn't and the parents to this day have no clue what their child's illegal activities were the actual reason for the mishap.

 

Such an incident did not enhance the surgeon's reputation and certainly did not help the parents be better parents.

 

I have a friend who is a "retired" doctor. She kept her license after leaving her practice and volunteers at Planned Parenthood. As I understand it, she has preformed abortions on minors and the parents are not aware that their daughters were pregnant. In a couple of cases, she has preformed more than one abortion on the same underaged girl and she can not inform the parents about the daughter's sexual behavior to try to get the daughter to take the proper "precautions."

[+ glutes]

wilding

a slang term that refers to the practice of marauding in bands to terroize strangers and to swagger and bully

We were bored, all six of us, so we decided to go out wilding

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=wilding

[+ glutes]

1984 New York City Subway shooting

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

1984 New York City Subway shooting

Location New York City, United States

Date December 22, 1984

Attack type

Self Defense

Weapons Smith & Wesson Model 38

Non-fatal injuries

4

Perpetrator Bernhard Goetz

Bernhard Goetz shot four alleged muggers[1][2][3][4] on a New York City Subway train in Manhattan on December 22, 1984. He fired five shots, seriously wounding all four men.

 

Goetz surrendered to police nine days after the shooting and was eventually charged with attempted murder, assault, reckless endangerment, and several firearms offenses. A jury found him not guilty of all charges except for one count of carrying an unlicensed firearm, for which he served eight months of a one-year sentence. In 1996, one of the shot men, who had been left paraplegic and brain damaged as a result of his injuries, obtained a civil judgment of $43 million against Goetz.[5]

 

The incident sparked a nationwide debate on race and crime in major cities, the legal limits of self-defense, and the extent to which the citizenry could rely on the police to secure their safety.[3] Goetz, dubbed the "Subway Vigilante" by New York City's press, came to symbolize New Yorkers' frustrations with the high crime rates of the 1980s. He was both praised and vilified in the media and public opinion. The incident has also been cited as a contributing factor to the groundswell movement against urban crime and disorder,[6] and the successful National Rifle Association campaigns to loosen restrictions on the concealed carrying of firearms.[7]