Minority report (Pre Crime) arrests and detention to become a reality in the US.

Run_to_da_hills

In the wake of the recent false flag mass shootings we have seen a knee jerk response from the authorities. This would have been predicted. We had the exact same with 9/11 and various other so called underwear bombers.

Problem _Reaction _ solution.



The first response was evident, demonize guns and attacking the constitutional right to bear arms. We have also heard from US officials to advance NDAA indefinite Internment without trial. The latest to come out is the pre crime arrests of individuals that have not done anything wrong except blog or post on the internet.

This is a very dangerous move, it is and a possible indictment on your 1st amendment right of free speech. We can now understand why all these FEMA concentration camps are dotted all over the US, it will only be a matter of time before doors will be kicked down and mass arrests made for people that did not do anything other than blog on the internet.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/21/nyregion/police-dept-to-use-internet-to-try-to-stop-shootings.html?smid=tw-share&_r=4&

Rayne Wooney

I would think it common sense to investigate someone who's writing a blog/comments about how they're going to commit mass murder?

Run_to_da_hills

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

I would think it common sense to investigate someone who's writing a blog/comments about how they're going to commit mass murder?

According to this report the so called Sandy Hook mass killer did not have social networking accounts.

(One of the reasons I believe he had no social networking activity is because the guy was already dead several years ago.

Adam Lanza: No Facebook or Twitter, Newtown, Connecticut Shooter Described as 'Troubled Loner'

humanji

I'm giving you exactly one post to explain how this has anything to do with Minority Report, or I'm locking the thread as yet another one of your exaggerated propaganda threads.

Daithi 1

humanji wrote: »

I'm giving you exactly one post to explain how this has anything to do with Minority Report, or I'm locking the thread as yet another one of your exaggerated propaganda threads.

:D:pac:

stoneill

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

According to this report the so called Sandy Hook mass killer did not have social networking accounts.

(One of the reasons I believe he had no social networking activity is because the guy was already dead several years ago.

Adam Lanza: No Facebook or Twitter, Newtown, Connecticut Shooter Described as 'Troubled Loner'

I don't have facebook or twitter - am I a troubled loner? I must ask my wife and kids, then I'll ask my friends over the christmas period, also see what my family have to say.

Brown Bomber

humanji wrote: »

I'm giving you exactly one post to explain how this has anything to do with Minority Report, or I'm locking the thread as yet another one of your exaggerated propaganda threads.

It's not made clear in the OP but it is in the link.

Top intelligence officials in the New York Police Department met on Thursday to examine ways to search the Internet to identify potential “deranged” gunmen before they strike, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said.

“The techniques would include cyber-searches of language that mass-casualty shooters have used in e-mails and Internet postings,” Mr. Kelly said in a statement. “The goal would be to identify the shooter in cyberspace, engage him there and intervene, possibly using an undercover to get close, and take him into custody or otherwise disrupt his plans.”

The meeting came almost a week after a gunman killed 26 people, 20 of them children, inside Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
There are plans to send officers to Newtown and to scenes of other mass shootings to collect information, Paul. J. Browne, the department’s chief spokesman, said.
Mr. Browne said the potential tactics included creating an algorithm that would search online “for terms used by active shooters in the past that may be an indicator of future intentions.”

Mr. Kelly said the technique was similar to those being used to spot terrorists’ chatter online. The new searches would target “apolitical or deranged killers before they become active shooters,” he said.

shedweller

It could be interpreted as a kind of springboard to kick start a system where everything we post online will be analysed for potential "unsuitable" behaviour. And the term unsuitable could have a very broad meaning. At some point a person could be arrested for bitching about the govt. They might not, of course, but that doesn't mean we don't keep an eye on how this kind of thing develops. Especially at this time of year, when we are looking the other way, so to speak.

humanji

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's not made clear in the OP but it is in the link.

Top intelligence officials in the New York Police Department met on Thursday to examine ways to search the Internet to identify potential “deranged” gunmen before they strike, Police Commissioner Raymond W. Kelly said.

“The techniques would include cyber-searches of language that mass-casualty shooters have used in e-mails and Internet postings,” Mr. Kelly said in a statement. “The goal would be to identify the shooter in cyberspace, engage him there and intervene, possibly using an undercover to get close, and take him into custody or otherwise disrupt his plans.”

The meeting came almost a week after a gunman killed 26 people, 20 of them children, inside Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
There are plans to send officers to Newtown and to scenes of other mass shootings to collect information, Paul. J. Browne, the department’s chief spokesman, said.
Mr. Browne said the potential tactics included creating an algorithm that would search online “for terms used by active shooters in the past that may be an indicator of future intentions.”

Mr. Kelly said the technique was similar to those being used to spot terrorists’ chatter online. The new searches would target “apolitical or deranged killers before they become active shooters,” he said.

Which has nothing to do with Minority Report.

DB21

humanji wrote: »

I'm giving you exactly one post to explain how this has anything to do with Minority Report, or I'm locking the thread as yet another one of your exaggerated propaganda threads.

Pwnt

Corkfeen

humanji wrote: »

Which has nothing to do with Minority Report.

I opened this thread with the expectation of a government lab that has precogs... :pac:

Brown Bomber

humanji wrote: »

Which has nothing to do with Minority Report.

Perhaps I am mistaken then. I've never seen/read Minority Report but I was under the impression that one of the elements the futuristic dystopia where it is set is that the Police State can identify and punish criminals before they commit the crime.

This is what the NYPD are talking about in light of the school shooting.

But maybe I have misunderstood the pre-crime aspect in Minority Report. Could someone clarify?

Torakx

Yep.
Minority Report is a well known example movie in the "CT world", of government arresting citizens before they know they will even commit a crime.
Using fictional technology.
But since the thread title has (pre crime), the movie reference should be easily understood by most from the thread title alone I had thought.

Quatermain

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Perhaps I am mistaken then. I've never seen/read Minority Report but I was under the impression that one of the elements the futuristic dystopia where it is set is that the Police State can identify and punish criminals before they commit the crime.

This is what the NYPD are talking about in light of the school shooting.

But maybe I have misunderstood the pre-crime aspect in Minority Report. Could someone clarify?

You are correct in that the fictional state does organise their police force to apprehend criminals before they can act, but their main weapon in this regard is a trio of precognitive sisters. They can essentially see the future through visions, and pass the images they see on to the police. Needless to say, it's not quite practical in the real world.

Brown Bomber

Cheers That's what I'd thought. Sounds interesting but I couldn't sit through 90 mins of Tom Cruise.

Tzar Chasm

even worse, its 146 minutes of utter shtie

Sulla Felix

Read the book. As usual with philip k dick the movie adaptation is poor. Cept a scanner darkly , that rocked.

Cookie_Monster

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

In the wake of the recent false flag mass shootings we have seen a knee jerk response from the authorities.

but if all of these shootings are false flag govenment driven anyway why would they need the whole pre-crime bit?

DB21

Cookie_Monster wrote: »

but if all of these shootings are false flag govenment driven anyway why would they need the whole pre-crime bit?

Because then they'll be able to predict what crimes they are going to commit. It's so obvious. Of course, these predictions of self will be slipped into blockbuster movies that everyone will see, and intrepid heroes like RtdH will decode them just in.... time.... to say they knew it was going to happen after the event.

gnfnrhead

Trying to prevent something from happening before it happens is now bad? I'd have thought it was a good thing assuming it is done correctly.

born2bwild

Sulla Felix wrote: »

Read the book. As usual with philip k dick the movie adaptation is poor. Cept a scanner darkly , that rocked.

Blade Runner was class.

Run_to_da_hills

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Trying to prevent something from happening before it happens is now bad? I'd have thought it was a good thing assuming it is done correctly.

Where I could see it being abused.

Demonizing and chasing after certain categories of people that the government would treat as a "threats to society" eg peppers, Christians and war veterans. I mentioned about this not too long ago.

In the recent Sandy Hook incident Adam Lanza Mother was supposedly a prepper. A typical prepper is one that tries to be self sufficient and prepares for what could possibly lie ahead, disasters, financial collapse or what ever else may happen.

They would stock up with food, generators, stoves, firewood, provisions and protection. Most peppers have little faith in the Government helping them out and they don't want to have anything to do with FEMA.

The reason that these people are so well armed up is because they will need them to protect themselves, their provisions and property from intruders should a disaster situation ever arise and those that didn't prepare come charging at their door steps looking for stuff.

The Government do not like these people I can see the reason why they are being demonized in these shooting incidents. They want to portray them as freaks or weirdos that don't conform to mainstream society. These will probably be one of the first groups of people that will be carted off to indefinite detention .

Brown Bomber

gnfnrhead wrote: »

Trying to prevent something from happening before it happens is now bad? I'd have thought it was a good thing assuming it is done correctly.

Why would you assume the highly corrupt NYPD would do anything correctly? Is there even any way that the state can detain you correctly, (indefinitely now, and without trial) if you haven't committed any crime? I certainly don't think so.

Would you ever get to stand before a judge and a jury of your peers to state your innocence? Isn't this a fundamental aspect of justice? Will we need to set up Gitmo prisons/torrture centres in NY for people who haven't committed crimes? Peaceful Occupy protestors, for example.

Can these "terrorists" be added to the Presidents kill list for crimes they haven't committed YET?

If not, why not?

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Would you ever get to stand before a judge and a jury of your peers to state your innocence? Isn't this a fundamental aspect of justice? Will we need to set up Gitmo prisons/torrture centres in NY for people who haven't committed crimes? Peaceful Occupy protestors, for example.

Planning to commit a crime is a crime.
We call it a conspiracy in fact...

Sonics2k

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Why would you assume the highly corrupt NYPD would do anything correctly? Is there even any way that the state can detain you correctly, (indefinitely now, and without trial) if you haven't committed any crime? I certainly don't think so.

Would you ever get to stand before a judge and a jury of your peers to state your innocence? Isn't this a fundamental aspect of justice? Will we need to set up Gitmo prisons/torrture centres in NY for people who haven't committed crimes? Peaceful Occupy protestors, for example.

Can these "terrorists" be added to the Presidents kill list for crimes they haven't committed YET?

If not, why not?

You do know that planning to commit a crime is illegal too, right?

Like, illegal everywhere. Not just the US.

hooradiation

King Mob wrote: »

Planning to commit a crime is a crime.
We call it a conspiracy in fact...

unsurprisingly, there is a dearth of base knowledge here.

Daithi 1

When does it become a chargeable offense tho ?. Thinking it, or planning a crime ? Or when you do it.

Daithi 1

Daithi 1 wrote: »

When does it become a chargeable offense tho ?. Thinking it, or planning a crime ? Or when you do it.

They need to prove that either people had agreed to commit a crime or actively engaged in the planning of a crime.

But of course you guys are no doubt going to accuse them of making up these charges in the first place, begging the questions of why these new measures are needed for them in the first place, and then why they would advertise the fact.

gnfnrhead

Daithi 1 wrote: »

When does it become a chargeable offense tho ?. Thinking it, or planning a crime ? Or when you do it.

Once you start planning. I'm sure a lot of people think of killing their boss or mother in law or whatever, but hardly any go past that. That's a natural way to think about someone you don't like. When you start planning to actually do something, then it becomes a crime.

Brown Bomber

Planning to commit a crime is a crime.
We call it a conspiracy in fact...

You do know that planning to commit a crime is illegal too, right?

Like, illegal everywhere. Not just the US.

unsurprisingly, there is a dearth of base knowledge here.

You¨ve all missed the point.

The NYPD aren't talking about bringing charges against people who are suspected of the criminal charge of conspiracy. Where the suspect is innocent until proven guilty.

They are talking about detaining people who they have targetted who they merely suspect of potentially carrying out an illegal act.

Massive difference. With massive potential for abuse, especially given the corrupt nature of the NYPD and their "damn right felonious activity".

Assumed confidential e-mail from "Senior FBI official" who was a Stratfor source to Fred Burton, Stratfor’s Vice President for Intelligence

I keep .telling you, you and I are going to laugh and raise a beer one day, when everything Intel (NYPD Intelligence) has been involved in during the last 10 years comes out – it always eventually comes out. They are going to make Hoover, COINTEL, Red Squads, etc look like rank amatures compared to some of the damn right felonious activity, and violations of U.S. citizen’s rights they have been engaged in. As Rush Limbaugh likes to say, “don’t doubt me on this.”

And as I've said the state treats peaceful resistance as terrorism. As recent documents have shown.
http://www.justiceonline.org/commentary/fbi-files-ows.html

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Massive difference. With massive potential for abuse, especially given the corrupt nature of the NYPD and their "damn right felonious activity".

And you've missed my point. If they are just going to invent stuff as you accuse them of, why do they need new laws or powers? Why not just invent the evidence to have their targets convicted of conspiracy or attempted whatever?

Why come up with and advertise new laws that you guys can use against them and to scare people?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

And you've missed my point. If they are just going to invent stuff as you accuse them of, why do they need new laws or powers? Why not just invent the evidence to have their targets convicted of conspiracy or attempted whatever?

Who said anything about "new laws or powers" ??? Not I. What's mooted is an abuse of existing powers and a clear violation of the 5th amendment.

It's detention without committing any crime. I had assumed that most people would be against such a thing. What is your actual position here?Is it acceptable? Is it unnaceptable? Is it okay as long as it's happening to someone else such as Muslims and poor black kids (aka "known gang member")?

King Mob wrote: »

Why come up with and advertise new laws that you guys can use against them and to scare people?

Can we discuss the topic without references to "you guys" and and false claims about what "we" are supposedly doing? I am giving my opinion just the same as you.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Who said anything about "new laws or powers" ??? Not I. What's mooted is an abuse of existing powers and a clear violation of the 5th amendment.

Rtdhs is in the first post.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It's detention without committing any crime. I had assumed that most people would be against such a thing.

Again, planing to commit a crime, is a crime.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

What is your actual position here?Is it acceptable? Is it unnaceptable?

An abuse of power is unacceptable, but I don't buy into the conspiracies you swallow, so I do not see this as one.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Is it okay as long as it's happening to someone else such as Muslims and poor black kids (aka "known gang member")?

Lol.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Can we discuss the topic without references to "you guys" and and false claims about what "we" are supposedly doing? I am giving my opinion just the same as you.

Kind of empty whining here BB when you've just underhandedly accused me of racism... :rolleyes:

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Rtdhs is in the first post.

I'm not sure about that but regardless you can discuss what he says with him and what I say with me - and I've never mentioned anything about any new laws.

King Mob wrote: »

Again, planing to commit a crime, is a crime.

And AGAIN I'm not talking about any "planning". What I am talking about is a corrupt organisation, the NYPD, detaining people who they perceive as being POTENTIAL criminals by simply fitting a profile. A profile which is defined by them.

King Mob wrote: »

An abuse of power is unacceptable, but I don't buy into the conspiracies you swallow, so I do not see this as one.

Look harder then. Kelly is clearly talking about detaining people that haven't committed any crime. Is this acceptable to you? Yes or no? And if it's not why are you defending it?

King Mob wrote: »

Lol.

Kind of empty whining here BB when you've just underhandedly accused me of racism...

I did nothing of the sort. These authoritarian abuses of Police powers primarily target minorities. Why should we expect any different if they begin to detain people who haven't committed any crimes?

We can stay with Ray Kelly, the man who wants to detain people without them committing any crime.

His is the unconstitutional "stop and frisk" programme which utilises racial profiling and is racist.


http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/13/nypd-stop-and-frisks-15-shocking-facts_n_1513362.html

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvIBIn5Xp7s

He also authorised the illegal spying on Muslims simply because they are Muslims.
http://www.salon.com/2012/02/28/the_nypd_spying_controversy_a_microcosm_for_the_911_era/

Ray Kelly's NYPD trained officers using an anti-Muslim propaganda film "The Third Jihad" , which he appeared in, which played on a continous loop for new recruits.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/25/ray-kelly-the-third-jihad_n_1230801.html

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I'm not sure about that but regardless you can discuss what he says with him and what I say with me - and I've never mentioned anything about any new laws.

Again, that's what he was referring to. that's what the links he posted are referring to.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

And AGAIN I'm not talking about any "planning". What I am talking about is a corrupt organisation, the NYPD, detaining people who they perceive as being POTENTIAL criminals by simply fitting a profile. A profile which is defined by them.

And this is corruption, not any application of the law.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Look harder then. Kelly is clearly talking about detaining people that haven't committed any crime. Is this acceptable to you? Yes or no? And if it's not why are you defending it?

I never said it was, nor am I defending the actions of what you are accusing him of. I just don't believe your typically biased interpretation and twist of facts.

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I did nothing of the sort.

Then explain why you asked me whether I thought it was acceptable because it was supposedly occurring to minorities?
What was the purpose of that question other than a silly childish attempt at a smear using emotive and manipulative language?

Brown Bomber

King Mob wrote: »

Again, that's what he was referring to. that's what the links he posted are referring to.

Please listen, I am not in a position to speak for RTDH nor are his views mine.

And this is corruption, not any application of the law.

I never said it was, nor am I defending the actions of what you are accusing him of. I just don't believe your typically biased interpretation and twist of facts.

Ah FFS...I'm not asking for you to "believe" me, though never miss a opportunity to get a dig in.

These are Kelly's own words:

“The goal would be to identify the shooter in cyberspace, engage him there and intervene, possibly using an undercover to get close, and take him into custody or otherwise disrupt his plans.”

This is a definition of custody:

The care, possession, and control of a thing or person. The retention, inspection, guarding, maintenance, or security of a thing within the immediate care and control of the person to whom it is committed. The detention of a person by lawful authority or process.

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/custody

Now could you please get off the fence and say whether you object or not to people being potentially placed in "custody", without being charged for a crime, without the presumption of innocence and without a trial by jury.

King Mob wrote: »

Then explain why you asked me whether I thought it was acceptable because it was supposedly occurring to minorities?
What was the purpose of that question other than a silly childish attempt at a smear using emotive and manipulative language?

It is not "supposedly" happening to minorites. It is primarily targetting minorities,
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/10/481589/nypd-stop-and-frisk-young-black-men/?mobile=nc

From what I can gather, as you refuse to give any kind of personal opinion, you don't seem to care about "other" peoples personal freedoms and rights - you dress it up as a kooky conspiracy theory so you can dismiss it.

I was speculating on your position as you won't stray from vague generalities. I asked you a simple question whether you were for or against something. I added the third option because it is a common position. People often don't care about injustices as long as it's not happening to them or the group that they identify with.

Brown Bomber

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Please listen, I am not in a position to speak for RTDH nor are his views mine.

That's great, but the topic of the thread is supposedly new powers and laws that allow the police to target certain people.
If this wasn't what you were talking about, it's off topic...

Brown Bomber wrote: »

Ah FFS...I'm not asking for you to "believe" me, though never miss a opportunity to get a dig in.

These are Kelly's own words:

This is a definition of custody:


http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/custody

Now could you please get off the fence and say whether you object or not to people being potentially placed in "custody", without being charged for a crime, without the presumption of innocence and without a trial by jury.

Yes, I am against that, obviously. But that's not what is being suggested save for sensationalists like Run.

“The goal would be to identify the shooter in cyberspace, engage him there and intervene, possibly using an undercover to get close, and take him into custody or otherwise disrupt his plans.”

Now, wouldn't planning a crime, be a crime?

Brown Bomber wrote: »

It is not "supposedly" happening to minorites. It is primarily targetting minorities,
http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/05/10/481589/nypd-stop-and-frisk-young-black-men/?mobile=nc

From what I can gather, as you refuse to give any kind of personal opinion, you don't seem to care about "other" peoples personal freedoms and rights - you dress it up as a kooky conspiracy theory so you can dismiss it.

I was speculating on your position as you won't stray from vague generalities. I asked you a simple question whether you were for or against something. I added the third option because it is a common position. People often don't care about injustices as long as it's not happening to them or the group that they identify with.

And the answer, as I have made abundantly clear and is glaringly obvious is: yes I object to such practices if they are happening in the way you describe.
But in reality they probably aren't as you are prone to biased and emotive spin on situations.
Like accusing me of racism...

Had any of us mean old skeptics tried this tactic you'd no doubt be throwing another hissy about it. :rolleyes: