@newtboy If you've heard "most Teabaggers" advocating such things, why haven't you reported them to the "authorities" for conspiring to commit a crime?

Leaving lies and absurdities aside, "advocating" something is legally different from specifically inciting someone to commit a crime, knowing that they will in fact go through with it. I guess Manson could've claimed that he was joking or something, but the court didn't think so any more that they would think that Bin Laden and the other 9-11 "masterminds" were just "advocating" without expecting anything to happen. Manson was charged with conspiracy to commit murder, not with actually murdering anyone. "Most" Teabaggers aren't conspiring to kill anyone.
Like the head of a criminal organization "conspiring"* or ordering a subordinate to go take someone out, a lot depends on the relationship between the instigator and the one who does the deed -- which is not the same as "advocating" generally or to random people to do some criminal activity in the abstract. So, yeah.. why, indeed, would they get such a "bad rep?"
As for Manson getting a "bad rep?"
It's a mystery dude, a total mystery.


*The charge does not require actually committing any crime (other than conspiring) of going through with it. That's why law enforcement likes entrapment so much: because they can make arrests by instigating people to plot a crime. It's like hiring an undercover cop pretending to be a prostitute. No actual crime was committed, but the intention to commit a crime itself is considered a crime. But, to be sure, there's some degree of "mind reading" involved in the charge of conspiracy, as the law implies the assumption of intent. The charge, then, lends itself to false accusations (and convictions) too. (Apparently social media is inundated with agents trying to get people to agree to crimes so that they can get arrested and prosecuted for conspiring. Of course, nobody trolls videosift for legal advice.)

The guy in a suit (1:07) was staring AT HER FACE. Why'd he get the slo-mo treatment and tagged as a creep?

His internal monologue could have been, "Ok so, power lunch with the boss at 1230, head over to the squash court for a couple rounds, swim a couple laps... HOLY SHIT! Is that Megan from Legal? Her hair looks amaz... oh wait, that's not Megan. Shit. Totally stared. Glad some undercover videographer didn't catch that and make me look like a total perv."

What I don't feel is fair is if the guy is hot, staring is sexy, if he isn't, it's harassment. It's only bad if it's not wanted. How the fuck is a guy supposed to know?

Most of the video's examples are SOLIDLY in the harassment borders. I just don't like how looking is bad unless the woman is attracted to the guy. That's just not fair.

I thought the same thing then read that they are doing it in multiple places around the city.

"Somerville police are using undercover crosswalkers to set up questionable traps at crosswalks throughout the town."
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/fishing-cops-setup-revenue-collection-trap/

Never seen her... Plus, you should also count the enormous amount of undercover cops roaming the subways and ramblas

Not even Greenwald wants that. There are genuine reasons for some information to be kept secret, both moral and practical.

On the moral side, everyone involved has said there is information in there that could lead directly to people being killed.

On the practical side, the second they do that and someone is killed, they instantly lose all credibility.

I don't give a shit if Joe Bloggs is a CIA agent undercover with Spectre. It's not relevant to me. I DO care that the NSA are spying on everyone. Snowden is doing the right thing.

"Are officers exempt from the drug, gun and alcohol laws?"

Yes, they are.

Cops can entered restricted buildings with weapons. They can carry drugs for evidence, or undercover. They can carry open containers of alcohol while driving if it's evidence.

How could they skip the Undercover Brother fight?

I was taught the definition of 'entrapment' as "The police can't sell you drugs, and then arrest you for buying drugs.' I don't see how the middle-man really makes much of a difference. You're arrested for doing something a police officer told you to do (undercover or not).

Also, if I went to some teenager, asked them to go get me some drugs, they did, and then we got arrested, I'm pretty sure I'd be charged with something akin to corrupting a minor.

Anyways, if we legalize the ganja, we won't have these problems.

I'm conflicted. I see both sides to this.

I want to see corruption exposed, but I don't think leaking classified information that does not expose wrongdoing is necessarily a good thing.

He definitely violated his contract, but he is clearly no traitor. His defense is claiming he was naive, but well intentioned. He even made a guilty plea for a lesser charge. I wish they'd just taken that charge and given him a greatly reduced sentence.

I think just about everyone can agree that certain things should be kept secret, such as private information about citizens, names of undercover agents, information about witness relocation, sensitive international negotiations, nuclear codes, strategic military information, etc. so the question is:; where do you draw the line?

Indeed, the inescapable irony.


These tactics are time-honored, cameras and tech simply gives them new tools:
These thugs still use covert operations, undercover agents, and perlustration (now made simple with facebook/twitter/etc) and agent provocateurs.

How 'bout we all call this techy cunt being used by these other cunts and let him know how much safer the world is for the assholes in charge now that Billy is working for the secret police??.....MEH!-"Crowd-sourced policing": A euphemism for creating a police state, one-citizen-at-a-time.


Email:
James@kingston.ac.uk

Phone:
+44 (0) 208 417 2858

Location:
PRSB113

How are you sure it's not an undercover cop pulling over a speeder.

Kids these days and their X-box gizmos, thinking need for speed gives them right to overdrive their prams.

Your video, Zero Punctuation: Lego City Undercover, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

No one said you can't criticize Islam. But you might want to get your facts straight before you do: female genital mutilation is a tribal custom that predates Islam but has been integrated into the religion in some regions of the world (predominately Africa) and is practiced by both Muslims and non-Muslims alike (look it up on wiki page, it's extremely well documented).

Also, you asked for evidence of Islamophobia? You need look no further than the hysteria in the U.S. over building new mosques or the NYPD's unwarranted surveillance (including wiretapping and undercover agents) for years of the entire Muslim community across the NY/NJ area. They caught zero terrorists during their investigation, BTW, while wasting untold millions in taxpaper dollars in the process.

http://publicintelligence.net/ules-lulzsec-release-arizona-fusion-center-undercover-officer-safety-guide/

http://www.constitutionproject.org/pdf/fusioncenterreport.pdf

Here's one form policemag.com (3rd hit on googly for fusion center after the above 2)....

"Anarchists Planned Bombing of Cleveland-Area Bridge, 2 LE Centers
May 1, 2012
FBI agents arrested five members of an anarchist group Monday who are charged with planning to bomb an Ohio bridge and identifying other targets including a justice center, FUSION center, second bridge, Federal Reserve Bank, and Ku Klux Klan location."

Some might imagine that at least 4 on that list sound reasonable as potential targets...


Until this report I had never heard of fusion centers-TYDN

all i see is failure of the staff to inform the people of the issue... i don't see them actively seeking/promoting it



especially in the first case presented in the video

if anything i see a protocol issue, that could be solved by a 15min meeting
a vast, left-wing conspiracy? no evidence of that
any proof that this doesn't occur at all with Republican supporters? no evidence of that
any proof that this is any thing other than isolated incidents with staged actors (we know the first lady undercover is... why not any of the other examples?)

A major study by the Justice Department between 2002 and 2007 showed of the 300 million votes cast in that period, federal prosecutors convicted only 86 people for voter fraud – and of those few cases, most involved persons who were simply unaware of their ineligibility.

because when elections are decided by 0.00000286% of the the voters, its an issue

wto make a different comparison... whats a bigger concern... the 1% or the 0.00000286%? which of those two groups do you think has more money to influence politics? yeah...

poor job at propoganda

Now I have no reason to distrust the Justice Department findings. But this seems like a non-issue, until you realize the actual tactic here is voter surpression.