Thursday, August 26, 2010

CA - Dozens arrested in massive L.A. parole sweep

Original Article

You will notice how the reporter boosted the numbers to over 100, why? That is false information, from the story and the rest of the article. Got to hype it up for shock value you know! And you also notice the public display of "look at us, see what we are doing!" The typical show and dance to "look tough" on crime.

08/26/2010

By Carlos Granda

CARSON (KABC) -- Multiple agencies in Los Angeles teamed up in overnight raids that ended in more than 77 arrests of parolees.

"Operation Disarm" is being called the largest parole sweep in the history of Los Angeles. Agents were spread out at around 4 a.m. Thursday morning to determine whether 300 people who went to prison for gun crimes were obeying their parole terms.

About 900 law enforcement personnel took part in the operation and recovered weapons, including a dozen guns, ammunition. They also recovered drugs, which are all violations of probation.

It took a month to organize the operation that took place across the county, from the South Bay all the way to the Antelope Valley.

Corrections officials said the operation is one of several big sweeps made possible because of funding increases.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger discussed the results of the sweep at a news conference.

"The state of California, I want you to know, has 108,000 parolees, one-third of them live right here in Los Angeles. This is why it is so important to do these sweeps and to stay on top of it," said Schwarzenegger. "We want to let them know that because of this parole reform, we can watch very closely, what each and every one of them does. And if they break the law, we're going to go after them. It's that simple."
- Yeah, if you believe this smoke and mirrors, then you are ignorant.  California is running out of money, so what better way to get more money, get the Gestapo out and throw people back into prison.  Mo Money, Mo Money, Mo Money!

Parole apprehension teams have been operating since January and they've already arrested about 2,600 parolees, not including Thursday's sweep.


CA - The Government Can Use GPS to Track Your Moves (1984 IS HERE!)

Original Article

08/25/2010

By Adam Cohen

Government agents can sneak onto your property in the middle of the night, put a GPS device on the bottom of your car and keep track of everywhere you go. This doesn't violate your Fourth Amendment rights, because you do not have any reasonable expectation of privacy in your own driveway — and no reasonable expectation that the government isn't tracking your movements.

That is the bizarre — and scary — rule that now applies in California and eight other Western states. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which covers this vast jurisdiction, recently decided the government can monitor you in this way virtually anytime it wants — with no need for a search warrant. (See a TIME photoessay on Cannabis Culture.)

It is a dangerous decision — one that, as the dissenting judges warned, could turn America into the sort of totalitarian state imagined by George Orwell. It is particularly offensive because the judges added insult to injury with some shocking class bias: the little personal privacy that still exists, the court suggested, should belong mainly to the rich.

This case began in 2007, when Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) agents decided to monitor Juan Pineda-Moreno, an Oregon resident who they suspected was growing marijuana. They snuck onto his property in the middle of the night and found his Jeep in his driveway, a few feet from his trailer home. Then they attached a GPS tracking device to the vehicle's underside.

After Pineda-Moreno challenged the DEA's actions, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit ruled in January that it was all perfectly legal. More disturbingly, a larger group of judges on the circuit, who were subsequently asked to reconsider the ruling, decided this month to let it stand. (Pineda-Moreno has pleaded guilty conditionally to conspiracy to manufacture marijuana and manufacturing marijuana while appealing the denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained with the help of GPS.)

In fact, the government violated Pineda-Moreno's privacy rights in two different ways. For starters, the invasion of his driveway was wrong. The courts have long held that people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in their homes and in the "curtilage," a fancy legal term for the area around the home. The government's intrusion on property just a few feet away was clearly in this zone of privacy.

The judges veered into offensiveness when they explained why Pineda-Moreno's driveway was not private. It was open to strangers, they said, such as delivery people and neighborhood children, who could wander across it uninvited. (See the misadventures of the CIA.)

Chief Judge Alex Kozinski, who dissented from this month's decision refusing to reconsider the case, pointed out whose homes are not open to strangers: rich people's. The court's ruling, he said, means that people who protect their homes with electric gates, fences and security booths have a large protected zone of privacy around their homes. People who cannot afford such barriers have to put up with the government sneaking around at night.

Judge Kozinski is a leading conservative, appointed by President Ronald Reagan, but in his dissent he came across as a raging liberal. "There's been much talk about diversity on the bench, but there's one kind of diversity that doesn't exist," he wrote. "No truly poor people are appointed as federal judges, or as state judges for that matter." The judges in the majority, he charged, were guilty of "cultural elitism." (Read about one man's efforts to escape the surveillance state.)

The court went on to make a second terrible decision about privacy: that once a GPS device has been planted, the government is free to use it to track people without getting a warrant. There is a major battle under way in the federal and state courts over this issue, and the stakes are high. After all, if government agents can track people with secretly planted GPS devices virtually anytime they want, without having to go to a court for a warrant, we are one step closer to a classic police state — with technology taking on the role of the KGB or the East German Stasi.

Fortunately, other courts are coming to a different conclusion from the Ninth Circuit's — including the influential U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. That court ruled, also this month, that tracking for an extended period of time with GPS is an invasion of privacy that requires a warrant. The issue is likely to end up in the Supreme Court.

In these highly partisan times, GPS monitoring is a subject that has both conservatives and liberals worried. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit's pro-privacy ruling was unanimous — decided by judges appointed by Presidents Ronald Reagan, George W. Bush and Bill Clinton. (Comment on this story.)

Plenty of liberals have objected to this kind of spying, but it is the conservative Chief Judge Kozinski who has done so most passionately. "1984 may have come a bit later than predicted, but it's here at last," he lamented in his dissent. And invoking Orwell's totalitarian dystopia where privacy is essentially nonexistent, he warned: "Some day, soon, we may wake up and find we're living in Oceania."

Cohen, a lawyer, is a former TIME writer and a former member of the New York Times editorial board.


FL - Rich get off, literally!

Video Link


Google Real-Time Search for "Sex offender" issues

Click the image to view the real-time search results


Scientists Study the Ubiquitous 'Booty Call'

Original Article

Do we really need to waste money studying this? "Hooking up," as a teen, will land you on the sex offender registry!

08/26/2010

By SUSAN DONALDSON JAMES

Men Get Free Sex and Women Get Some Commitment, But Often Disappointment

Andrea, a 20-year-old from California Polytechnic State University, casually hooked up with a guy she met at a party, but rather than making the humiliating morning-after call, she waited until 1 a.m. one Saturday night.

Remembering the good time she'd had with the green-eyed young man, Andrea picked up her cell phone and texted, "Let's meet up" -- for sex, that is.

"A lot of girls see the booty call as a no-pressure way to have fun with someone you may be interested in," said Andrea, a future horticulturist at the San Luis Obispo campus. "I guess it was my way of saying I had a good time and I'd like to see him again."

"The call comes late at night and it's usually on the weekend," she said. "Your booty call is usually someone you know."

Availability of cell phones, texting and instant messaging have all shaped the mating rituals of late teens and 20-somethings, but none more so than the ubiquitous "booty call."

And now, its dynamics are getting a scientific look.

Just this month, South Alabama psychologist Peter K. Jonason published a study in the peer-reviewed Journal of Sex Research: "Positioning the Booty-Call Relationship on the Spectrum of Relationships: Sexual but More Emotional Than One-Night Stands."

The booty call is a "compromise" relationship, according to Jonason. For men, there's a "low-cost sexual component," and for women there's the "possibility of further commitment."

The booty call allows the man ongoing access to sex, although he must invest in some relationship building with the woman, according to the study. Most relationships last about three months.

"Women have needs just as men do," said Andrea, whose booty call was readily accepted. "They do it for different reasons. For some it's about attention and for some it's about satisfying [sexual] needs. It's pretty common."

A notch up from the older notion of "friends with benefits," the booty call involves "an underlying friendship, has some investment and longevity and may be characterized by emotionally intimate acts such as kissing," according to the study.

Jonason used the online tool, "Survey Monkey," to interview a total of 136 college students in two studies -- 60 percent of them women --- who were enrolled in psychology courses at the universities of Texas and New Mexico. The mean age of the participants was 19 1/2.

A 32-year-old social psychologist, Jonason isn't surprised that his study got wide press. "Some topics are, for lack of a better word, just sexy," he said.

What differentiates the booty call from the hook up or one-night stand, is that it is "characterized by equal amounts of sexual and emotional contact, which is unique," he said. "It's a placeholder until something better comes along."



FL - Hialeah shooter kills ex-girlfriend, her mom, then himself

Original Article

08/26/2010

By WALT MICHOT, ANDREA TORRES AND AMY SHERMAN

A man who shot a teenager and her mother to death Thursday morning in Hialeah has killed himself, police said.

[name withheld], the 21-year-old shooter, was the ex-boyfriend of 15-year-old [name withheld], said Carl Zogby, a Hialeah police spokesman.

[name withheld] killed [name withheld] and her mother, [name withheld], 39, about 6:20 a.m. outside the Water View Villa apartment complex at 495 W. 12th St., said Hialeah police spokesman Eddie Rodriguez.

A tarp covered the two bodies lying on the ground near a parked SUV and two cars in the parking lot outside the complex.

They "were shot in the parking lot as they were leaving for school this morning," Rodriguez said. There were several witnesses.

The couple had broken up about a week before and [name withheld] was prone to jealously, said Yaimarelys Roque, 23, who described herself as [name withheld]'s best friend.

Roque said [name withheld] saw [name withheld] walking around the apartment complex Wednesday night.

‘‘He was really jealous. He wouldn't let her talk to even my brother or my husband or my 2-year-old son," said Mayelin Vizcaya, a relative. "The best thing that ever happened to her was to break up with him, but at the same time, it got her killed."

[name withheld] lived with [name withheld] and her mother for about two years before the couple broke up, Zogby said. At this point, police believe there were no domestic violence calls to police.

"He used to rough her up, but she never reported it," Zogby said.

Standing near the yellow crime scene tape, grandmother [name withheld] cried as she tried to comfort another granddaughter, [name withheld], who lost her mother and sister.

[name withheld] had just celebrated her "quinces'' on Tuesday.

[name withheld] shot himself in a Miami efficiency at 2721 SW 29th Ct. Police found his body about 9 a.m., said Napier Velazquez, a Miami police spokesman.


DC - Report: 90,000 inmates sexually victimized

Original Article
View the Prison Report here

08/26/2010

By PETE YOST

WASHINGTON — The government reported Thursday that 4.4 percent of inmates in prison and 3.1 percent of inmates in jail report being victimized sexually by another inmate or staff member in the past year.

Those percentages translate to the sexual victimization of 88,500 inmates behind bars nationwide from October 2008 to December 2009, according to a study by the Justice Department's Bureau of Justice Statistics.

The study found that:
  • Female inmates were more than twice as likely as male inmates to report experiencing sexual victimization by another inmate.
  • Among inmates who reported victimization by another inmate, 13 percent of male prison inmates and 19 percent of male jail inmates said they were victimized within the first 24 hours after being admitted to a corrections facility. In contrast, the figure for women was 4 percent for prison and jail.

Tens of thousands of rapes are occurring in America's prisons each year and the new study "finds the problem is even worse than we thought," Pat Nolan, vice president of Prison Fellowship, said in a statement.

In a letter earlier this month to Attorney General Eric Holder, a coalition of groups including the American Civil Liberties Union and the Southern Baptist Convention urged that he approve standards designed to eradicate sexual assault in prison. The standards were proposed by the bipartisan Prison Rape Elimination Commission (PDF), which was set up by 2003 law designed to end prison rape.

"We are working diligently to implement these standards as soon as possible" and expect to send the proposed rule to the White House Office of Management Budget in the fall, said Justice Department spokeswoman Hannah August.


UK - Mothers' group (Mommies on a Mission) outraged after their Facebook campaign to expose paedophiles is removed from the internet

Original Article

All these people were doing was posting links to other users profiles, which they said, had inappropriate images. Why would you do that? If the images are illegal, then you'd possibly be sending other people to jail or prison as well. You should be contacting Facebook and the police instead of being a vigilante harassing people.

08/26/2010

Six mothers who set up a campaign group on Facebook to track down and expose online paedophiles have been given a warning and had their page removed from the internet.

Leanne Moss, 33, set up the Mommies on a Mission group after claiming she stumbled across Facebook profile pages featuring images of child abuse.
- And instead of trying to get attention, you should have reported it to Facebook and the police.

The mother-of-four said she created the campaign page to raise awareness and to ensure the offensive profiles were reported.

But the group, which attracted more than 300 people in two days, was later removed by Facebook, who sent Mrs Moss a message saying the content violated their terms of use.

Mrs Moss, from Hull, who sells baby clothes using Facebook, said: 'It's ridiculous. We're the ones being made to feel like we've done something wrong.'

'In our eyes, all we are trying to do is protect our children. The group had 500 members but then I received a messaged from Facebook saying it was going against the rules."

'All we were doing was posting links of profiles which featured sick images.'
- And that is your problem.  You did it to get more people on your page, and should have contacted police.

Group member Joanne Bell, 32, from Carlisle, claimed it didn't make sense that Mommies on a Mission was removed when what they considered to be 'sick' profiles featuring child abuse were still on the site.

'How can they close the group for having sick content when these profiles are still there?"

'If they are monitoring us so closely, why can't they monitor these people?'

The group aimed to prevent a repeat of the murder of [name withheld], 17, who was groomed online by killer [name withheld] before she was lured to her death.

[name withheld], a convicted sex offender, was jailed for a minimum of 35 years in March.

[name withheld]'s mother [name withheld] said Facebook's decision to shut down Mommies on a Mission was 'shocking'.

'They are very quick to shut down people who are trying to do some good for a change."

'If these people can do something good and prevent paedophiles getting in touch with young people then I wish them luck."

'I agree about it taking Facebook too long to remove a profile. I've repeatedly reported people to Facebook that are still on there now, almost a year later.'

'Of all people, I know what it's like to lose a child to a paedophile, but you will never be able to find all the paedophiles on Facebook.'

The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, an organisation of police and child protection specialists, said anyone seeing suspicious content on Facebook should install and use the ClickCeop application to report it.

The safety button has already been installed by more than 55,000 people.

A spokeswoman for Ceop said: 'We are very interested to know about any concerns that people have around an individual suspected of grooming or anything like that."

'That is why we work with Facebook on the ClickCeop app that enables people to report concerns.'

A spokeswoman for Facebook said: 'Just as the people who use Facebook create all the content for the site, they also manage and regulate it.'

'We provide them with the tools to report any users or content they think is inappropriate, through reporting links on every page."

'Facebook prioritises the most serious reports, acting on most within 24 hours.'