Anonymous Goes After Miami Police Officer Who Doxed An Innocent Woman (softpedia.com) 174
An anonymous reader writes: After Miami resident Claudia Castillo noticed a cop speeding down the freeway without a siren, she pulled him over and told him to stop going so fast. The cop's police union chief, Javier Ortiz, decided to take the woman's private details and put them on his Facebook account, asking friends to call her and give her a piece of their mind. Of course, harassment ensued. Now, Anonymous hackers have decided to return the favor and dox the police union chief as payback. For once, these hacktivists did something useful.
Report + Judgment (Score:4, Insightful)
> For once, these hacktivists did something useful.
Up until that, the submission was good. Why the judgement in the summary? Is that trolling? Report - then let people discuss.
Re:Report + Judgment (Score:5, Funny)
But it was anonymous that made the submission. Come on dude, pay attention.
Re: Report + Judgment (Score:2, Interesting)
I don't know. The summary lost me at "she pulled him over".
Re: Vigilantism is bad. Always. No exceptions. (Score:1)
Extra judicial action is wrong... Except when it's done by a cop, right?
Re: (Score:1)
So surely you have a judicial method to resolve such issues?
I worked at a medical facility that handled checkups for most of our local cops. Almost every day a cop would be parked in a handicapped spot. We called in complaints with car numbers, badge numbers and the rest, and the result?
They started sending two cars to take up BOTH of the handicapped spots.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Report + Judgment (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Report + Judgment (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually what might be useful is figuring out whether the officer misused confidential information in a way that is either illegal or against department policy.
Re:Report + Judgment (Score:5, Insightful)
I was wondering the same thing. Either way, I don't think activity like this should be happening from a cop or any public official in response tto any public interactions from citizens regardless of any legalities. How can anyone be expected to peacefully assemble and petition the government for redress of grievances if they are harassed and menaced by that same government.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Why? Do you think their non peacful assemblage and petitioning of the government for redress of grievances was somehow trampled on by the government harassing and menacing them?
Ferguson has little to no bearing on this as far as I can tell. And as far as the real record is concerned, the cops didn't really overstep their bounds in the shooting either. But that is another topic altogether.
Re:Report + Judgment (Score:5, Insightful)
Cops can straight up murder someone and receive no punishment. I'm sure this guy will get the book thrown at him for misusing department computers.
Re:Report + Judgment (Score:4, Interesting)
Cops can straight up murder someone and receive no punishment.
Technically, that's not true. Murder requires intent to kill, and it cannot be a "justifiable" homicide.
If a police officer randomly targets someone and deliberately kills him/her with no provocation, they should be charged with murder -- and will be if the investigation is honest. (Yes, I know in practice that police are often corrupt and try to "protect their own," but legally, a cop is responsible in a situation like this.)
The problems tend to come in more in the ambiguous cases, where there's some provocation or threat, and police did not attempt a less lethal solution even where one could have handled the situation. These are arguments about "judgment calls" that unfortunately tend to usually favor the police.
Even more disconcerting, from my perspective, are cases that involve negligence or reckless disregard for safety. In most of those cases, police are generally granted straight-out immunity, even if their actions resulted in someone's death. Technically, these are NOT "murder," but usually some form of manslaughter or negligent homicide from a legal perspective. But police are rarely held accountable for such actions.
Actual murder, though, with proven intent? If you have that, even a cop can be convicted and punished accordingly.
Re: (Score:3)
You are responding as if you believe the police are being tried by an unbiased court. There is much evidence that cases doubt upon that assumption.
Re: (Score:3)
Murder requires intent to kill
A person is presumed to intend the reasonably foreseeable consequences of his voluntary act
[Technically,] cases that involve negligence or reckless disregard for safety [...] are NOT "murder"
Yes, they are. The line between manslaughter and murder is "behaves in a way that shows extreme, reckless disregard for life and results in the victim's death".
Re: (Score:2)
I was lead to believe that training and escalation of force rules basically say that once an American cop is using lethal force that their intention is supposed to be to kill.
As in, they're not supposed to aim for shoulder or leg or wounding shots -- they're supposed to do center of mass body shots that will put the target down / kill them.
Most lethal force would still fall, arguably, under justifiable homicide but your "proven intent" argument seems poor.
I could buy an ignorant, untrained person shooting a
Re: Report + Judgment (Score:1, Informative)
By child you mean a hulking 6'+ teenager with a device deliberately modified to look like a real gun, who went to pull it from his pants when the cops went to make contact, then yes, a kid with a toy gun.
Re: Report + Judgment (Score:5, Informative)
You mean a 5' 7" 12-year-old who had a toy gun tucked into his belt while sitting on a swing, and which never left his belt in the 4 seconds it took the cops to fire on him after arriving on the scene nor the four minutes they allowed him to bleed out before the first officer attempted any sort of first aid? Who was shot by a rookie police officer whose weapons training was rated "dismal", was said to be unable to follow "basic functions as instructed", and showed a "dangerous loss of composure" in his previous assignment before being fired?
Let's at least get the facts straight.
Re: (Score:3)
And let's not forget the kid that got shot for having a candy bar in his hand. It isn't just pretend guts that get you shot by the above the law folks in blue!
My favorite is how the Superintendent (not sure on the actual title) of the Chicago police though that the officer that shot another person who was unarmed should not even be investigated. No need right! They are a cop, then the laws don't touch them, so why even charge them and investigate. Yeah, the higher-ups like that need to be taken out with a f
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It is virtually impossible for a police officer to do such a thing, as you can tell by the number of convictions, terminations or even suspensions of a police officer for doing something "wrong".
Re: (Score:2)
While what you say is true, it may not apply in this case. In general juries give a huge benefit of the doubt to police in doing things which are justified in certain situations. Sometimes it's legitimate for a cop to split someone's head open with a night stick, to tase someone, or to shoot someone dead. There's a strong presumption that a cop doing these things is justified, because jurors are afraid of crime and don't want cops to be hampered by doubts. It's an irrational position, but it's understan
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Report + Judgment (Score:2)
Either way I'm fairly sure it counts as police harassment, which is also illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
It seems likely she would be in a fairly good position to for a a colour of law prosecution by the FBI for infringement upon her rights as it is clear the intent is harassment this done in a conspiratorial fashion by the police union puts in into RICO territory and it's nature to alter the political stance of the individual with regards to their beliefs about police authority and accountability also counts as terrorist charges. The intent was to put the fear of death into the victim, taking into account th
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Even choice of article is something an agenda causes. Even if the userbase gets tired of it after The Year of the YouKnowWhat.
Re: (Score:2)
I felt there was a lot more of these trollish summary statements a while back. It would be nice to see this gone completely.
Sure, it starts discussion, but it starts a bad discussion and then heroic posts to get the discussion back on track again, but by then half the readers have skimmed, gagged, and moved along leaving behind a trail of short sentences from contributors with the poorest sense of smell.
Re: (Score:2)
Shall we mention, for a small example, a certain credit card company that didn't use sufficient security with their customers data and it got stolen, so then Anonymous goes and posts the customers personal information. Wow, talk about targeting the victim! I guess they couldn't get around to posting the companies financials, or the details about the company officers so they'd know what it feel
Re: (Score:2)
Anonymous has many factions. Sometimes they even target Anonymous.
Re: (Score:1)
Ah, so no incarceration, since holding people hostage is wrong, even if that person robbed a bank or maimed or killed someone.
Re: (Score:2)
No, not really. There are plenty of actions that are acceptable in some circumstances and not others. For example, it is not a crime to kill someone who is trying to kill you.
There is room to debate the ethics of doxing the cop who doxed a citizen. It is not OBVIOUSLY wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Or perhaps against it but knowing that the only way certain others will see the light is to experience the results of the it the same way as their victims did. In an ideal world, neither instance would have happened.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, eye for an eye punishments tend to be extremely effective deterrents, provided they're applied by someone who is immune to reprisal so that you don't end up in a multi-generational feud scenario. (Which is sort of the original point of a police force and judicial system)
Re: (Score:2)
So basically only effective in a theoretical world.
Re: (Score:2)
Not really. That's kind of the original purpose behind courts, police, and executioners. You get society to agree to hold certain groups immune from reprisal so that you can inflict punishment on the guilty while also interrupting the the cycle of revenge.
Re: (Score:2)
Execpt that judges, prosecutors and even jury members have been murdered on numerous occasions for their involvement in the justice system. So again, only useful in a theoretical world.
Re: (Score:3)
The imperfection of the immunity doesn't negate the general usefulness of the technique any more than the slim possibility that a fair coin can land on it's edge negates it as a source of random boolean decisions.
Re: (Score:2)
In natural law ethics, it is called the 'law of forfeiture'. When you attack somebody's fundamental rights, you forfeit your own.
Wait a minute (Score:1)
One, how come the union haters are silent when it comes to the police union?
In the end, the whole story is even more ridiculous because Mrs. Castillo, as well as the cop she pulled over, Officer Fonticella, both have a history of bad driving....
The should know better an act professionally. Comparing Mrs. Castillo's driving to the cop's is asinine.
Re: (Score:2)
One, how come the union haters are silent when it comes to the police union?
Because they need the police to protect them from the pissed off Union members they've been antagonizing.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
Not in Florida. They can just stand their ground and relegate the police to a secretarial position.
It is likely because in a lot of areas the police ditched the "to protect and serve" moto for the newer "to harass and menace" as illustrated by this story.
Re: (Score:1)
Only if you believe the line of those harassing cops, such as the blatantly racist BLM.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If you think you're making a joke, the Colorado State Patrol literally carried the moto "We're your worst nightmare" for a while. Not their official moto, but they sure printed it on a lot of their official public communications. They were all posed around a Corvette trying to look as bad ass as possible, and clearly aimed at speeders, but even then, they're not supposed to be trying to be the speeders worst nightmare, they're supposed to try to keep the roads safe. A good police force should never want
The BLM isn't the police. (Score:1)
That's true only if you believe the line of those that harass cops, such as the blatantly racist BLM.
Re: (Score:2)
So you are saying this person is blatantly racist and harassing cops and deserves to have the head of the police union organize retaliation towards her/him?
The BLM isn't the police, racist modbombers. (Score:2)
That's true only if you are towing the line of those that harass cops, such as the blatantly racist BLM.
Neutrallity of the "press" (Score:1)
>For once, these hacktivists did something useful.
Cmon.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
You give Slashdot for too much credence.
So scary - publicly available real estate info (Score:1)
https://ghostbin.com/paste/v8gh8
How to use commas (Score:1)
After Miami resident, Claudia Castillo, noticed a cop speeding down the freeway
In cases like this, when you use commas to add further identification or distinction, you should be able to remove what's between the commas and still have it make sense:
After Miami resident noticed a cop speeding down the freeway
Nope.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Nope. (Score:2)
No, that title belongs to the soon-to-be-identified-and-convicted individual who harassed the cops.
Thankfully, despite Florida being a Southern state, you can't blackball unions.
Re:They wonder why they get no respect (Score:5, Insightful)
Many non-police don't understand police culture. As an inescapable consequence of how the brain adapts, cops understand non-cops as second-class citizens. Not only that, they largely see all non-cops as children; needing to be managed and disciplined because they are inherently immature (or just evil) people.
A civilian calling a cop out is not unlike a child trying to punish an adult for breaking a rule that only applies to children. Not only does the rule not apply (at least in the cop's mind), but the child is being sassy and uppity and disrespectful and is not allowed to punish an adult.
I am not saying this is right. Clearly it is not. I am just explaining why this sort of response is unavoidable. And cops don't start seeing the world like this just because they are jerks, but because the majority of their interaction with people fits neatly into either of two categories....person is a cop and is a decent person, person is not a cop and is a criminal. The brain cannot help but start seeing the world in these terms.
I wonder if there is a way to address the root cause...how does one keep a cop busy doing police work but also mitigate the psychological damage police work does to a person?
Re:They wonder why they get no respect (Score:5, Interesting)
Doesn't seem like it should be too hard. Keep the police under constant surveillance (or at least protect public recording of their actions), and then, with 100% consistency, punish criminals in uniform to the maximum extent permitted by law. Plus further punishment for the violation of public trust. And that includes conspirators and accessories like the cop that stands by and does nothing while their partner commits a crime. Perhaps have something like a three strikes law - after your third violation you get a lifetime ban from ever serving any role within the legal system.
The problem I think is largely not that they get extra power and privilege, but that they are not held accountable for their crimes. You get the same effect in a classroom where cheating has no consequences, it doesn't take long for cheating to go from an exception to the norm.
Re: (Score:1)
The sad thing is that, from the video I saw, the cop who got pulled over by the woman handled it in a reasonably professional manner. The head crybaby over at the union started the "We'll show her" nonsense. All that aside though, I agree with you about what police work seems to do the mind.
Re:They wonder why they get no respect (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.policestateusa.com/... [policestateusa.com]
In 2011 a Florida Highway Patrol officer pulled over and cuffed a miami police officer for going 120 mph to a second job.
The FHP officer was harassed by other cops.
"After filing a public records request with the Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, Watts discovered that her personal information had been pulled up by scores of officers from 25 different jurisdictions. Her data had been accessed more than 200 times total."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
No one likes people who rock the boat.
It doesn't matter if the boat is sinking, don't be the one to point it out or the other passengers will turn on you.
Re: (Score:2)
It used to be managed by the cop walking a beat. In that setup, most of the non-cops he would meet (and it was always he at that time) would be regular decent citizens.
Outside of the urban environment, the communities tended to be small enough that he would see the rest of the people in his jurisdiction at church, the store, etc. If he screwed someone over, there was nowhere he could go where people didn't know it and his victim.
Sheepdog (Score:2)
I recently heard a young man claim that he had become a sheepdog when he joined a local police department. That attitude really scares me. I tend to think of most of them as scarecrows.
Re: (Score:1)
Something being easily predictable is not the same as something being deserved.
Re:They wonder why they get no respect (Score:4, Interesting)
"cops versus bad guys"
Why go with a generic statement when there is a direct quote from Ortiz, "It doesn't matter what color your uniform is. If you bleed blue, we have to back each other up." That doesn't sound nefarious, not at all. As you noted he has an extensive and public history of racism, abuse, lying and intimidation. He even goes after other cops who don't keep to the blue wall or show "enough patriotism".
What do you mean "for once"? (Score:1)
Just because they did some things you don't agree with doesn't mean that was ALL they did. But it's a lot easier to pretend this is the case than to reassess your pique against Anonymous. Isn't it.
Phew. (Score:3)
At least the cop didn't shoot her.
Then put up a reward for capture and conviction (Score:2)
So far, "Anonymous" has a very poor track record of not being caught. They'll be found soon enough.
how does one pull a cop over? (Score:3)
A little help (Score:5, Informative)
Full Name: Ivan Javier Ortiz Also Known As Ivan Javier Ortiz Javier Javi Ortiz Age: 50 Born in, Miami, FL ZodiacSign: Sagittarius Email: Ortiz@FOPmiami.com connected to: http://klout.com/JavierOrtizFO... [klout.com] (USN: JavierOrtizFOP) stsmp@gmail.com javiero@cinci.rr.com javior1@hotmail.com stsmp@hotmail.com Work Summary: President at Fraternal Order of Police Title: Sergeant Work: City Of Miami Location: 1000 NW 62nd St, Miami, FL 33150 Numbers: 305-854-5019 COMMON LANGUAGE Location Identifier Code: MIAMFLBA85E Operating Company Number: 9417 305-795-2300 Previous Jobs: Sergeant Of Police Vice President MiamiFOP President Miami Beach FOP Webmaster Miami Beach FOP President Fraternal Order Of Police Spokesman Fraternal Order Of Police Union President Fraternal Order Of Police ; President Of FOP City: Miami Zip/Postal: 33184-2467 State/Province: Florida Country: US Home Address: 12195 SW 10th ST Miami, FL 33184-2467 APT3 25Â45'32.8"N 80Â23'31.2"W Property Value: $107, 220.00 Taxes: $323.00 Other Listed Address: 1021 SW 88th CT Miami, FL 33174-3269 --- 131 SW 18th AVE Miami, FL 33135-2097 -- 2075 SW 122nd AVE Miami, FL 33175 -- 13509 SW 27th ST Miami, FL 33175-6624 - 400 NW 2nd ST Miami, FL 33129 Phone Numbers: (305) 219-4729 (305) 225-1340 (786) 290-1183(AT&T/MetroPCS) Tiffany Zwick AKA Tiffany Calderon Age: 32 Girlfriend of Javier Ortiz from Miami FOP(Officer who DOX'd innocent civilian for pulling over a Miami FL officer.) Home Address: 7331 63 Rd Miami, FL 33143 786-268-7272 786-715-4008(cell) Relatives Laura Suhanov 63yo Alexandria Zwick 36yo Barbara Labrador 43yo Works at: BeachFront Realty Inc 18205 Biscayne BLVD Ste 2205 North Miami Beach, Florida 33160 Work Phone: 305-405-0615 Fax: 305-305-9331
Javier Ortiz Dox (Score:5, Informative)
https://ghostbin.com/paste/v8g... [ghostbin.com]
Re: (Score:1)
For once? (Score:1)
For once, these hacktivists did something useful
So when they fought child pornography, animal abuse, religious harassment, exposed war crimes and private espionage against people (global intelligence files [wikileaks.org]), they were not doing anything useful?
Impressive.
Re: (Score:2)
For once, these hacktivists did something useful
So when they fought child pornography, animal abuse, religious harassment, exposed war crimes and private espionage against people (global intelligence files [wikileaks.org]), they were not doing anything useful?
Impressive.
For those that cannot tell, #zedaroca was using sarcasm in his/her post.
I totally agree with the point. The bastards who are PAID BY OUR OWN TAX DOLLARS to uphold the law are routinely breaking it with impunity. These small-scale doxxes should be a daily occurrence, in addition to the periodic large-scale releases that fight greater evils.
Remind me... (Score:2)
why most people hate and distrust most cops?
Two wrongs don't make a right. (Score:2)
Re:No - it wasnt useful (Score:5, Informative)
Unfortunately, police who screw up usually can't be fired, and are insulated from any consequences by the legal system. In Los Angeles a cop, driving wile texting, plowed into a cyclist and killed him. The country prosecutor declined to indict because police privilege. Fortunately the cyclist was a Silicon Valley executive whose family had the resources to sue.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately, police who screw up usually can't be fired, and are insulated from any consequences by the legal system. In Los Angeles a cop, driving wile texting, plowed into a cyclist and killed him. The country prosecutor declined to indict because police privilege. Fortunately the cyclist was a Silicon Valley executive whose family had the resources to sue.
As a cyclist, this is very upsetting to hear, especially in the aftermath of no prosecution and even a change.org petition failing to amass requisite attention.
And unfortunately, simply because you have the resources to sue does not mean it will end in justice. Sounds like in this case the LA sheriffs office is hell-bent in labeling texting while driving completely legal as long as you're texting in the course of your law enforcement duties, even if you kill someone as a result.
Not quite sure how much more
Re:No - it wasnt useful (Score:4, Funny)
A more accurate version of that motto might be "Protect Ourselves, Bend Over So We Can Serve You."
Re: (Score:2)
What you don't understand is who they are supposed to protect and serve. The police exist to protect and serve the state. All other matters are optional. And it is my belief that I'm not being hyperbolic here, but that this is a precise statement of their legal purpose.
In a well run civilization they protect and serve the state by causing the citizens to trust that the state has their welfare in mind and by maintaining order. But their purpose is to protect the state.
Re:No - it wasnt useful (Score:5, Interesting)
One of the news stations in Columbus Ohio did a story on something similar. They framed it as electronic distractions but highlighted an enormous amount of cop cars involved in accidents showing dashcam footage of cops plowing through crosswalks hitting people and such. There is a law about texting and driving but the chief said that the cops were exempt because they are trained professionals.
What it boils down to is there are laws for us and law for them.
Re:No - it wasnt useful (Score:5, Insightful)
There is a law about texting and driving but the chief said that the cops were exempt because they are trained professionals.
That's interesting. I would counter to the chief that because they are allowed to do something the general public is not allowed to do (as a result of being "trained professionals"), the consequences to them should be higher than the general public rather than being exempt.
The same way that we hold licensed engineer professionals to higher standards, law enforcement should be held to a higher standard with higher rewards for demonstrated competence and higher punishments for demonstrated failure.
On a related note, what exactly is it that makes these "trained professionals" better at texting while driving than the general public? Do they go through specialized training where they learn techniques of scanning the road while manipulating the phone? Do they go through a practical exercise and exam that involves a closed course with obstacles and are graded to a time standard and number of cones that can be hit? I am really curious about this.
Re: (Score:2)
On a related note, what exactly is it that makes these "trained professionals" better at texting while driving than the general public? Do they go through specialized training where they learn techniques of scanning the road while manipulating the phone?
In my readings on the case it was not texting per se, he was actually communicating using his laptop's messaging application with another officer, though it was not duty-related. They are probably actually trained on acceptable use while driving, and acceptable use does allow operation while driving. I would agree with the idea that due to whatever level of training they get, they are at least somewhat less of a risk than your average texter, but that might be cancelled out by frequency of use. Only stats w
Re: (Score:2)
There is a law about texting and driving but the chief said that the cops were exempt because they are trained professionals.
I seriously doubt there is a training program police go to called "how to text and drive"
I also doubt there's an exemption written into the law for them.
Re: (Score:3)
(A) No person shall drive a motor vehicle, trackless trolley, or streetcar on any street, highway, or property open to the public for vehicular traffic while using a handheld electronic wireless communications device to write, send, or read a text-based communication.
(B) Division (A) of this section does not apply to any of the following:
[...]
(2) A person driving a public safety vehicle who uses a handheld electronic wireless communications device in that manner in
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
In California, you'd be wrong. There is an explicit exemption for police to text and drive. http://laist.com/2014/08/27/da_wont_charge_deputy_who_hit_napst.php [laist.com]
CA Vehicle Code section 23123.5:
Not sure about FL, but it's difficult to believe that CA cops get an exemptio
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
>An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind.
Not if the punishment is applied by someone granted immunity for their actions - like say the police/judiciary acting in their approved legal capacity who were originally created in large part to interrupt the cycle of reprisals you get otherwise. In that case only the victims and perpetrators end up blind, and why should the perpetrators get off easier than their victims?
And if the police/judiciary exceed their legal authority, then they're criminals and
Re: (Score:2)
Citation needed. As the ACAB crowd is relatively strong on this site I would like confirmation. In short:
. Did the police (which is the proper name of the profession) text while driving? Were there evidence of that?
. Did the prosecutor make a decision based on "police privilege"? I find that very unlikely, not having enough evidence is another thing and many people avoid criminal persecution because of weak evidence.
Having the ability to sue and even settle isn't an indication if the prosecutor could have d
Re: (Score:2)
The victim's name was Milton Olin. Lots of news about this case is available:
http://www.dailynews.com/gener... [dailynews.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Unfortunately, police who screw up usually can't be fired, and are insulated from any consequences by the legal system.
Yes, this is really problematic. I really can't understand why police are often granted general immunity from negligence, etc. in a democratic form of government.
I can understand that exemptions should be made in case of emergencies. Sometimes police responding to or dealing with an emergency need to be granted immunity from negligence that comes about by accident in a tense situation. Otherwise, you'll have cops hesitating to do what is necessary to protect public safety in emergencies, etc.
But that
Re: (Score:2)
Though I honestly wonder how useful it is to send people to prison for stuff like that.
Maybe if prison were some form of profitable conscripted labor where the profits went to the victims.
I'd say that justice for negligent vehicular homicide might be a lifetime ban from getting a driver's license, a term of public service of some sort as penance, and financial restitution to the victims.
In the event that the person doesn't reasonably follow through on that then I'd send them to prison -- primarily to protec
Re: (Score:2)
Ideally, we could count on the police department to punish it's own when they break the law, but in this case, it's extremely unlikely without the publicity that can only be created by doxing the cop.
Re:No - it wasnt useful (Score:4, Insightful)
No, "an eye for an eye" doesn't leave the whole world blind.
"An eye for an eye" is a naturally accepted form of justice. If I slap someone for no reason, I won't be shocked if I'm slapped back with the same level of force. "An eye for an eye" is a concept so natural that being slapped back is a possibility I will always consider. I may have a feeling of frustration if I'm slapped back, but I won't have a feeling of injustice. This means I won't have a desire for revenge if I'm slapped back.
Of course, I never slap someone for no reason. If I slap someone, it's because I want to take control and partially submit the other person to my will. If I'm slapped back, it obviously means my attempt to take control failed. Because of that, I may be tempted to increase the level of violence in order to accomplish my initial goal of taking control. But this new violence I will initiate won't be the results of a feeling of injustice, it won't be the result of a desire for revenge, it will be only the consequence of having failed the first time. I may feel frustration after a failed attempt, but frustration is a lot less powerful a feeling of injustice.
Second, initiating violence is generally a rational action. If I slapped someone with the goal of taking control, it's because I believe my action might be successful. If I'm slapped back (if my first attempt fail), I might decide to increase the level of violence, but again this behavior is rational. The moment I will judge my actions have no chance of success, the moment I believe the price I might pay because of my action is superior to what I might gain, I will stop initiating violence. I won't continue violence until the whole world is blind, I will stop violence when I see no gain.
The justice system works not because it avoids using the concept of "an eye for an eye", it works because the justice system is extremely powerful and the "victim" of the justice system can't do anything about it. Any form of violence against the justice system is doomed to fail. The justice system could use the "an eye for an eye" system and it will work as well.
The main reason society dropped the concept of an eye for an eye because "justice" is not the goal of the justice system. The goal of the justice system is to do what is best for the system we call "society". The justice system is about order, it is not about justice. This means that if we want justice, we have to do it ourselves. And that's what a lot of people do.
Re: (Score:2)
This is a pretty well thought out post, and on the most part I would agree - to the extent that you are dealing with rational people.
I would point out though that it does fall apart completely once sociopaths come into the picture - and a single sociopath can lead and convince normally rational to do abnormal and entirely irrational things - which most definitely include doing violence where there is no chance of success, and where the price paid is superior to what is gained.
Food for thought.
"Eye for an eye" was a LIMIT (Score:2)
"An eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind."
As I understand it, the biblical "eye for an eye" was intended as a limit: ~no MORE than an eye for an eye~
This was to substitute for a common practice of the time, of taking disproportionate revenge, leading to escalation: You poke out my eye, I poke out both of yours, your brother cuts off my hand, my brother kills your brother, your brother's son kills my brother, my brother's son kills your brother's son and wounds HIS brother, and so on.
An eye for an ey
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is this even "private information" (Score:2)
The officer received her name and other public record identification.
Re: (Score:2)
So then can I assume you endorse the complete absence of justice in cases where vigilantism is the only realistic option?
Re: (Score:2)
Well, the real problem is thinking of it as a unified group. But if you consider them as if they were a unified group a case can be made from many different points of view that they have done negatively useful things more often than useful things.
"For once" seems stupid hyperbole, but understandable. Though still stupid...or possibly bigoted. (Without more information one can't tell why they said that.)