Florida Sheriff Plans To Use Hurricane Irma To Bump Up Arrest Numbers, Fill His Jail

from the fuck-this-guy dept

Sheriff Grady Judd of Polk County, Florida, spent most of Wednesday morning letting America know what an awful person he is. With Hurricane Irma bearing down on Florida, Judd helpfully suggested sex offenders or those with outstanding warrants would be better off lashing themselves to a nearby tree rather than seeking shelter.

If you go to a shelter for #Irma, be advised: sworn LEOs will be at every shelter, checking IDs. Sex offenders/predators will not be allowed

This part of it is awful enough, even as it’s lawful enough. Florida law bans sex offenders from hurricane shelters, even though lots of registered sex offenders pose no threat to anyone around them. Some sex offenders are unrepentant pedophiles and rapists. But many, many others have been rung up for things like statutory rape, sexting, and other violations that should have zero effect on their ability to find housing, seek shelter, become meaningfully employed, etc.

But Judd didn’t stop there. He probably should have. But Sheriff Grady Judd — like other infamous sheriffs (Joe Arpaio, David Clarke, Of Nottingham, etc…): — appears to thrive on hate and negative press coverage. So, Judd amped it up. Rather than make it appear his deputies would simply be enforcing the state’s ridiculous sex offender laws, he piled on, adding everyone who might have an outstanding warrant, something that covers stuff as innocuous as unpaid parking tickets.

If you go to a shelter for #Irma and you have a warrant, we’ll gladly escort you to the safe and secure shelter called the Polk County Jail

So, lots and lots of locals might consider possibly drowning, rather than being arrested, tossed into Judd’s jail… and possibly drowning there. After all, it’s not as though law enforcement officers feel obliged to ride out the storm while keeping an eye on people they barely consider to be people.

When Katrina hit, the Orleans Parish sheriff’s office abandoned one of its jails, leaving 600 inmates to fend for themselves. Cells flooded, toilets backed up, the power went out, and by the end of it, the sheriff’s department couldn’t account for 517 of those inmates. In the aftermath of Harvey, the same thing is happening in Houston’s jails, although officials there have been following through with better evacuation efforts. Still, prisoners are resorting to drinking contaminated toilet water as the water supplies have ceased functioning and inmates are reporting cells with standing water 4-6″ deep.

So, a jail is not a “safe and secure shelter” by any stretch of the imagination. It’s not even “safe and secure” outside of the hurricane context. Multiple inmates have died in Judd’s jailnone of them of old age. Polk County deputies also allegedly abused arrested children (yes, the state’s effed-up laws allow children to be jailed in adult prisons) and engaged in sexual misconduct with arrestees.

But this sort of thing is what one expects of Sheriff Judd. The man has built quite a reputation on destroying lives. Most of this comes through Judd’s bizarre obsession with sexual crimes. His office runs sting operations even prosecutors have backed away from because they border on entrapment. He has repeatedly engaged in extraterritorial arrests, sending his deputies all over the nation to arrest alleged pedophiles.

That’s what he engages in when not grandstanding around making statements like “I’m going to go lock the CEO of Apple up” if Apple won’t help him break into an encrypted iPhone or iPad. And now there’s this: Judd letting everyone know they’ll need to pass an impromptu background check to be allowed to escape the brunt of Hurricane Irma’s landfall.

But the last laugh may belong to everyone but Judd if he carries through on this threat. Those who don’t — or won’t — seek shelter may have to be rescued by members of his department. And several of those are going to include people he hates, like sex offenders and people who won’t pay their parking tickets. Because, unlike Judd, we’re not cruel: we legitimately hope that none of his deputies lose their lives rescuing people who might have been safely inside a shelter if not for Judd’s awful threats to lock people up.

Filed Under: , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Florida Sheriff Plans To Use Hurricane Irma To Bump Up Arrest Numbers, Fill His Jail”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
108 Comments
Jeremy Lymansays:

This is the kinda statement that makes sense in a context where police would rather shoot a suspect than let them escape pursuit. Authority is not paramount, we give police authority to protect the public good. I think most people would agree that public safety in a disaster is more important than cashing in a bunch of warrants that weren’t worth executing before the storm hit.

rk1Tsays:

Re: Re: police "authority"

…bigger picture is that county, city and municipal police departments in America have often become ‘mini-governments’ unto themselves … not really subordinate to the normal civilian leadership of the community (mayors, county commissioners, legislative bodies, etc).

Sheriffs and police chiefs with their gaudy 4-Star insignia …now see themselves as heroic General Patton’s fighting an evil enemy — rather than as peace officers fairly upholding just laws. Powerful police unions back them up and intimidate mayors and such. Judges and Prosecutors give great deference to police personnel and often put them above the law. Militarization of local police has further set them apart from effective civilian control. Local media usually fawns over cops.
A very bad situation, getting worse.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

??

If they were trying to “use a disaster” to catch people, they wouldn’t have issued a warning to STAY AWAY if you don’t want to be arrested. Would have let them show up and arrest them. How is telling them ahead of time that if they come in they will be arrested trying to trap or lure anyone into being caught. Plus, they are criminals. Waaah

This whole article is crap.

Jeremy Lymansays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Okay, fair point on warning people with warrants not to seek shelter. But then I have to ask, what actually WAS the point of the statement? To look tough on crime while actually doing nothing worthwhile about it? To dissuade “undesirable” people from using valuable emergency resources? To endanger entire classes of people who are justifiably scared of interactions with the police?

Regardless of your opinion of them, all people are still human beings with natural rights.

Advocatesays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

“Regardless of your opinion of them, all people are still human beings with natural rights.”

But that’s just it. The authorities in FL don’t consider people to have rights any longer from the instant of accusation, and their laws are not intended to clear the innocent, but to punish as many and as harshly as possible. Human rights are no part of their calculus.

stderricsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

If they were trying to "use a disaster" to catch people, they wouldn’t have issued a warning to STAY AWAY if you don’t want to be arrested.

I think the point is to keep all the social ‘undesirables’ away from the shelters, hoping that as many of them as possible (from sex offenders to parking-meter scofflaws to those who don’t like Sheriff Judd) are among those killed in the storm.

Why? Because Judd doesn’t understand the law, the justice system, or the Constitution, and he gets really excited when he gets to play judge, jury & executioner instead of being stuck serving and protecting.

Uriel-238says:

Re: Re: Another way of looking at it

…Is that he hopes his warranted and blacklisted quarry stay out in the storm and perish in the elements. It’s probably a lot easier on the system if his outstanding warrants and alleged sex offenders wash up as cadavers, or just disappear than if he has to process them alive at a later day.

Remember also that our legal system does not make efforts to vindicate the innocent, rather makes minimal efforts to appear as if they’re doing so, but ultimately scoring themselves positively on securing convictions (rather than assuring correct adjudications). Witness our grand juries notoriously capable of indicting a ham sandwich (but not a ham sandwich with a badge). And witness our 90% conviction rate and impacted prisons (and the highest inmate population rate of all nations, worldwide). Our DAs get about ten times the budget (and staff) as our public defenders, who we leave grossly impacted and understaffed. We also implement policy to make sure the defense doesn’t get all the evidence that prosecutors do, to assure they can’t adequately represent their clients.

It’s likely the wrongfully-convicted outnumber those who are actually criminal, but since we only have a single, biased system cross-examining cases, who’s to tell?

So don’t be so sure they are criminals. No, many, many folk just end up on the wrong side of a corrupt and perversely-incentivized legal system that is way more interested in consuming more bodies than preserving peace and order. Any American is one bad day — or one officer with a grudge (or an eye for loot) — away from being on the wrong side of the law.

Anonymoussays:

Florida law bans sex offenders from hurricane shelters

Stuff like this are why I’ve been saying for a while Sex offenders have basically become the new Communists of the 1950’s.

In the 1950’s people were so paranoid of what ‘bad’ people communists were that the mere accusation of being a communist (with zero evidence to back it up) was enough to destroy lives, such as Joseph McCarthy’s communist witch hunting of countless innocent Americans. This despite the fact that it was unconstitutional under the 1st amendment for the government to jail or punish someone simply for being a communist.

Now that kind of paranoia and bad treatment has been passed onto sex offenders. If someone proposes restricting rights of a sex offender (like banning them from hurricane shelters) and you don’t support it then you must be a bad horrible person for siding with the sex offenders!

(Note: Before I get lynch mobbed for saying this. Yes I know actual rapists and child molesters are bad people who deserve to be punished for their actions. But for most other crimes you serve your time and that’s it, but not for anyone under the broad label of ‘sex offender’. We don’t make convicted murderers who served their time register themselves like we do convicted sexual predators for example, yet I think we’d all agree murder is worse then rape)

TheResidentSkepticsays:

I am *so* proud...

… of being a life-long Floridian.

Time to move. Is there anywhere left where the police aren’t totally against the citizens? Somewhere without robbery at badge point, without stops for the hell of it, without seizing everything because they can, without the “papers please” mentality, without 24*7 total surveillance???

Hmm… maybe Germany.

Anonymoussays:

He responded and asked this question (paraphrased): If you were at a shelter with your 9 year old daughter would you want a pedophile or a violent criminal sleeping in the bunk next to hers? He then went on to say that his statement was intended to assure that people at shelters would be safe. I applaud his comments on all criminals (not just pedophiles). If a person can’t obey the laws of the land that the other 99.93% of the population does (only .07% of US population is in prison), there needs to be longlasting consequences. You reap what you sow. Let churches, relatives, and other non-state organizations shelter them.

Bamboo Harvestersays:

Re: Re:

Both statements were politically good moves.

He gets to either arrest those with outstanding Warrants or they leave the State to avoid the hurricane. Either way Florida “wins” – looks good stated that way when he runs for a higher political office.

As to RSO’s, they are specifically banned from those shelters by State Law.

In both cases, this Sheriff may be a jerk, but to excoriate him for actually doing his job is rather foolish.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

You can’t say that 99.93% of the population are all law abiding citizens just because .07% of people are in prison. What about those that took plea bargins and avioded jail time, still criminals, but not in prison. People that served thier sentence and were released, still criminals, but not in prison. Escapees, parole, work release, and many more people that are criminals, but not in prison. Most criminals don’t even get caught. I bet you yourself are a criminal. Have you ever exceeded the speed limit or jaywalked? Those are crimes, and that makes you a criminal. I think you ment to say that 99.93% of the population are actually criminals, but are still “good” people.

Wolfie0827says:

Re: Re:

Sorry, but your 99% doesn’t hold up according to a number of studies, Now if you had qualified it with “Criminal” being one who has been caught then maybe.

Numerous studies have shown that every adult here in the US has committed at least one felony each year (Maybe not the same one each year). There might be 1% that hasn’t some years.

So that makes everyone of us criminals.

Uriel-238says:

Re: Re: heh. Three felonies a day

According to numerous Techdirt articles and discussions, we average three felonies a day. That may specifically be violations of the CFAA and Espionage Acts, for which numerous whistleblowers who exposed administrative wrongdoing are now serving decades plus.

Its impossible to not be a criminal in the US. Every single day.

ryuugamisays:

Re: Re:

So you’re OK with condemning people to die because they took a piss by the road, or received naked photos from their same-age girlfriend when they were 17? Because those are just a couple out of many reasons you can end up on a sex offender list.

I guess you’ve been born a few dozen millennia too late, since even the Code of Hammurabi seems to be too civilized for you.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re:

He then went on to say that his statement was intended to assure that people at shelters would be safe.

I don’t feel any safer knowing that during a category 5 storm that there’s going to be some dipshit with a badge checking ID’s like a shelter is a fucking night club.

Those that do feel safer? I’d say you better hope you don’t lose your ID.

JoeCoolsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

It gets worse the smaller the town is. When Uncle Bob, Sheriff Bob, Mayor Bob, and Judge Bob are all the same person, you can pretty much discount any rights you are entitled to. I lived in a town like that for four years, and it ain’t a place for anyone not related to Bob, and even then, if you get on Bob’s bad side, then your murder will be swept under the carpet. That’s how you get “suicides” where the person shot himself in the chest with a single shot, bolt action rifle, six times. In the four years I lived in hell-hole, Virginia, there were three such murders that were swept under the carpet. In one, the next door neighbor “shot herself in the head, then burned down her trailer” (in that order!). Her (common law) husband, had an alibi… off drinking with his buddies.

Anonymoussays:

You’d almost think being a criminal was ok and threatening to arrest them was bad by reading the article.

If you were a registered sex offender and needed shelter, you’d go to the police, tell them your status and demand equal access to an official shelter. It would be the police’s responsibility to provide such, or get sued.

Pretty simple. Not as dramatic and tear-jerking as the scenario presented above, but pretty thoroughly straight forward and free of unnecessary drama.

Paul Brinkersays:

Re: Re:

Its easier then this, show up at the shelter, tell them your status, IF the local area is not flooded ask for the shelter that will take you, if the area IS flooded or the storm is currently on top of the area demand to stay and tell them they can arrest you after the storm is over.

The only reason this law is on the books is that no one has challenged it yet in court. You need someone to go through the steps of presenting themselves in an emergency situation and:
A) Being pushed out of the shelter
B) Being let in under humanitarian reasons and arrested
C) Given a safe place that is equal but separate

Assuming A or B you can now sue over the law.

Paul Brinkersays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Sure, in public schools when your dealing with programs that last years.

Using a different room in the same shelter for everyone who’s an RSO for a storm is a reasonable solution for the states said goal of keeping RSO’s away from children. (The purpose of the law)

Its not a great solution, and I am not sure what you do when a child is an RSO, or an RSO is also a parent, so I agree the reality of the solution is stupid, but it could pass muster when an equal protection case comes up.

ryuugamisays:

Re: Re:

You’d almost think being a criminal was ok and threatening to arrest them was bad by reading the article.

Using a crisis for that is pretty despicable. I also assume you skipped the entire section about prison guards leaving the prisoners to drown or starve. I’m sure you think they deserve that. After all, jaywalking should be punishable by horrific death, right?

If you were a registered sex offender and needed shelter, you’d go to the police, tell them your status and demand equal access to an official shelter. It would be the police’s responsibility to provide such, or get sued.

Difficult to sue after you drown.

Paul Brinkersays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

My personal feeling is the law is crazy stupid, BUT like all laws you have to show real harm in order to sue. AKA you need to be refused a safe place OR be allowed in and then arrested / charged under the law.

Also, its a state law, so New Orleans doing something awful to its prisoners does not apply in this situation other then to say its really a stupid idea to be in jail when a flood is coming.

Christophersays:

Consequences of your warrant

Your warrant forces you to deal with the situation; you’re not entitled to some benefits if you have this open issue.

It’s legal, and it’s proper.

As for the argument about putting deputies at risk for rescuing people with warrants… let’s have some statistics on that risk, otherwise your thought experiment is a bag of hot air.

-C

Paul Brinkersays:

Re: Re: Consequences of your warrant

States of Emergency override things like Warrants. Do you present yourself to the cops for a traffic ticket when a storm is about to hit the state?

Hint: The cops DO NOT have time for you, at worst you will be tossed in a cell, a best you will be told to come back after the storm.

Florida has a huge backlog of Warrants, 100k felony’s and many county’s report 200k active ones, some going back 20 years. (Stats are from 2011). Some Warrants have a name only so guess what, being “James Smith” is enough to get you arrested.

This is just as stupid as highway citizen checkpoints open when Houston was evacuating.

My advice, no one will be checking RSO, no one will be checking warrants.

Frio H2Osays:

I Thirst

Reminds me of the so-called police officer in New Orleans who confiscated water from refugees crossing a bridge leaving New Orleans in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

Such actions makes the likes of him a criminal and killer and not fit to be called human, let alone an office holder.

Others were trying to prevent pedestrian movement away from N.O., stating, “Where would they go?”

Answer. ANYWHERE.else, but being prevented by klowns pretending to be officials of one sort or another.

What a world we live in.

Anonymoussays:

This entire article is a fuckin joke. We’re talking about criminals with outstanding warrants and registered sex offenders. The job of an LEO in the United States is to uphold the laws of the community.

As for what constitutes a sex offender, are you willing to gamble with your family member’s safety because they MIGHT not be a rapist and only someone who pissed on the side of the road? How good are you at Russian Roulette? Or maybe you just ask the person why they are on the list and trust their answer as honest?

I see all kinds of talk about humanitarianism, but where was that talk when the rapist was doing his thing to get placed on that list?

It’s really easy to see things from only a single point of view. No need to ponder the complexity of society or what should be done with those that choose to ignore our agreed-upon laws. How many righteous assholes on here can even see the other side, I wonder.

On second thought, No I don’t wonder. You guys have proven by your idiotic opining that only one point of view is needed?

All your pontificating can be boiled down to “Think of the poor little rapists and how hard they have it, you inhumane bastards! Why should they suffer? All they did was destroy another human being’s life. That’s no reason to treat them with any kind of disdain.” or “What about those few on the list that had their junk out in public? We should allow all the rapists and murderers in so we can ensure that the one guy out of 30 who showed his dick in public can be safe!”

I’m sure you’d all be as forgiving if your loved one has been raped or murdered. I bet you’d all invite them in on a rainy day so they can feel safe and secure. Maybe give them some warm milk and read them a story?

Until you’ve had a loved one raped or killed by one of these assholes, you have no point of reference to form anything other than a large turd.

Paul Brinkersays:

Re: Re:

Did you know that everyone is a criminal?

AC your a criminal, you just have not been caught yet.

In fact, like most people you commit 3 felony’s a day. You should report to your cell now because your just a serial criminal who is guilty of something and just not caught yet.

Our system of laws is so awful that I am fairly sure just thinking about something that happens to be illegal could be enough to get you a warrant for your arrest.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Prove it. Prove that I committed a crime today. Please expound on the oh so many studies that tell me I’m a criminal. Even though I have never been asked to participate in a single one of these polls or studies.

Overly broad statements about criminality and anecdotal evidence won’t even get you in the door at Starbucks, let alone a courtroom.

This LEO spelled out, in very specific detail, who was at risk of arrest based on their very specific crimes.

You…. not so much.

JoeCoolsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

You are a moron. It’s impossible to follow every law since no one even knows every law. It’s also possible to twist existing laws to cover things “everyone” does – for example, ever take a sick day when you weren’t sick? That’s technically fraud, and you could go to prison. Ever gone biking and gotten lost? If you wind up somewhere bikes aren’t allowed, you’ve just broken the law. Bobby Unser actually got six months in PRISON for that (snowmobile, not a bike, but same situation). Just be glad the cops aren’t following you around WAITING for you to put a toe over the line because you insulted the police chief’s wife over the internet.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Re: Re:

All I said was prove I broke a law, and you can’t. Creating straw man arguments isn’t helping you.

Here, I’ll help you out. If I am caught and convicted of a crime, I will do the time and accept the results, IF I AM TRULY GULITY OF THAT CRIME.

Holding up what-if’s and might-be’s as evidence of some proof your feeble argument holds water is not very smart for someone calling another person a moron.

As for the article above, these people were convicted of violent crimes, not jay-walking or lost on a bike. Get some perspective before you wake up one day and find out the difference the hard way.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re:3 Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

Perhaps you are unaware of all the possible ways in which one can find themselves with a warrant for their arrest.

Hint: it does not need to be a violent crime – but you knew that.

In fact, jaywalking can result in your arrest and if you miss the court date …. guess what – you get a warrant – surprise!

OAsays:

Re: Re:

This is manipulation by fear (stoking anger) masquerading as reasoning. Here I just read about criminals, rapists, sex offenders, Russian Roulette, murder, your loved ones that are in danger!, “assholes” and destroying life. THESE ARE ALL THE WORST THINGS! Invoking these bad things means that ANY response is righteous! Its easy! Its like playing Rock-Paper-Scissors and putting out Dynamite! OVERPOWERING WIN! BOOM!

Ultimately this is about doing what is EASY and PLEASURABLE not right or moral. I wonder about the use of this technique. Specifically, the zeal and, at times, the joy in which it is used. Can people like this truly hate people whose actions (or supposed actions) allow such stimulating, unrestrained and justifiably moral-less responses?! If there are no ‘deplorables’ then where can aggression, seething anger and hatred get an outlet? <Answer: make new ‘deplorables’>

I have a personal rule: Lets say I engage in certain actions (ex: an expression of anger) that can be effectively and reasonably justified. If the action was not actually triggered or caused by the justification then the action is not proper. Among other things it helps suppress self-righteous reactions but requires honest self-awareness.

Anonymoussays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

I experience no joy in the suffering of others, no matter their race, economic background, child abuse history, etc. likewise, I brook no excuse when one of these criminals is set upon as a result of their actions.

Using your very argument about fear mongering, let’s look at examples in this thread using the same tactic.

Let’s start with the title, “Florida Sheriff Plans To Use Hurricane Irma To Bump Up Arrest Numbers, Fill His Jail.”

No, that’s not fear mongering in any way. Couldn’t be.

How about Joe Cool and, “It gets worse the smaller the town is. When Uncle Bob, Sheriff Bob, Mayor Bob, and Judge Bob are all the same person, you can pretty much discount any rights you are entitled to.”

or this little pearl, “Stuff like this are why I’ve been saying for a while Sex offenders have basically become the new Communists of the 1950’s.” As if a political belief is on par with pedophilia.

I merely point out that there’s a little more to this argument than “Police are bad, mkay.”

I’m a fairly liberal person, believe it or not. Voted both Dem and Repub in the past. Didn’t vote for the clown in office, but accept the result of the legal process as defined in our system. I am a person that is capable of seeing things from both sides, no matter the ugliness I find. What is evident is that many cannot see the truth because they are so blinded by their emotions that reason fails them.

Bad people doing bad things don’t deserve my sympathy. They had the opportunity, just we all do, to refrain from these heinous acts. That they didn’t is their own fault and any treatment they experience as a result is their own fault, not anyone else’s.

OAsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:

I experience no joy in the suffering of others, no matter their race, economic background, child abuse history, etc.

I will take you at your word.

brook no excuse when one of these criminals is set upon as a result of their actions.

It is not about an excuse. The sheriff’s apparent attitude is not the default, self-evident position.

Using your very argument about fear mongering…title, "Florida Sheriff Plans To Use Hurricane Irma To Bump Up Arrest Numbers, Fill His Jail."

That title is implying an opinion on the the Sheriff’s motive. Neither the title nor the article uses fear to encourage any conclusion. "I don’t like that" != "fear mongering".

Joe Cool and, "It gets worse the smaller the town is. When Uncle Bob, Sheriff Bob, Mayor Bob, and Judge Bob are all the same person, you can pretty much discount any rights you are entitled to."

I take Joe Cool at his word about his personal experience. His statement risks being a bit stereotypical, at worst. I don’t recall that any of his comment was irrational or suspiciously hostile. "He used his innate human power of personal testimony to support an idea I don’t want to be considered true" != "fear mongering".

or this little pearl, "Stuff like this are why I’ve been saying for a while Sex offenders have basically become the new Communists of the 1950’s."

I don’t know who said this but I’m guessing you missed the point. The kind of stuff that can get you labelled a sex offender does not match the extremely negative connotation that the phrase "sex offender" carries.

I merely point out that there’s a little more to this argument than "Police are bad, mkay."

Irrelevant. You seem to be importing a different fight into this one.

What is evident is that many cannot see the truth because they are so blinded by their emotions that reason fails them.

Nonsense. This clich? doesn’t do you any favors. Your comments are dripping with subtle and overt appeals to emotion.

Bad people doing bad things don’t deserve my sympathy.

Ignoring your godly "Bad people" judgment, your sympathy is not a relevant or even rational decision criteria. Abuse also harms the abuser and risks importing cancerous attitudes into the wider social fabric.

They had the opportunity, just we all do, to refrain from these heinous acts.

You seem to be highly invested in this logic, for reasons you clearly have not stated. Regardless of what others do, adults are not released from their responsibility to make sound decisions.

…is their own fault and any treatment they experience as a result is their own fault, not anyone else’s.

Some people love chaos. Find it useful. Like looting or riots or… disasters.

Disaster scenarios can be opportunities to settle scores by the vengeful; or get richer by disaster capitalists; or redefine the social order by zealots. Power on a large scale ready to harnessed. Who will be available to judge these people "for these heinous acts".

;TLDR

Judge not lest ye be judged.

noliberalbullshitsays:

Re: Re:

Spot ON
liberals have utter contempt for the enforcement of the laws. They have contempt for law enforcement, the courts, the jails and everyone in between.

They believe that just about every law out there is unjust, unfair, racist, biased, and whatever other liberal adjective you can put out there. The jails/prison systems are nothing more than cruel/inhumane treatment.

They would like nothing more than to neuter the entire system and put just about everyone from rapists, to drug dealers, and thugs/thieves out there with the rest of us.

But they surely will support any law that attempts to limit and/or challenge the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 5th amendment rights in a heartbeat. Freedom of speech – hell no.

its about time this shit is taken seriously and yep. you’re a court date dodger – got a warrant.. too fn bad for you. Being somewhere your not supposed to be.. too fn bad for you.

Uriel-238says:

Re: Re: Liberals...

Liberals have utter contempt for cruelty.

And we have contempt for a legal system that serves not justice but the pleasure of cruel lords.

When I went to American History in primary school (I know. They lied a lot.) And I remember the whole point of the United States was to keep bad people from taking power, and to keep everyone equal under law.

And they are and they aren’t. And we liberals have contempt for a system that fell apart like that.

rapists, to drug dealers, and thugs/thieves

noliberalbullshit you sound like a Beer For My Horses kinda guy. Are you still interested in the law when it comes to matters like due process or proof beyond reasonable doubt or protection against unreasonable search and seizure? Will you need to find yourself on the wrong side of a civil war before you get perspective?

Rog S.says:

Re: Re: hoardes of murdering rapists?

Many/most rapists etc. are themselves victims of horrific abuse, in a society that encourages such things, and especially, a society that turns a blind eye on the abuse that boys endure.

And, many/most rapists report acts of horrific child abuse by women that never got punished for what they did.

Further, some 70% or more are not actual rapists or pedophiles, but rather, guts who got ensnared by predatory, for profit policing, after peeing in public, or some other minor offense, guilty o annly of being easily accessile to predatory legal structures based in moral panic, and semantics.

Lastly, America has enough land so that these ?offenders? could be locked away in offenders only communities, given a cottage, a tv and some land to farm, and never ever cause more harm.

But the larger problem that we see here is that sick American society prefers to manufacture and keep scapegoats instead of solving the problem of its religion based hysterias, and closted sexual deviance dressed in a badge and high heels.

JoeCoolsays:

Re: Re:

Because quite often the law is an ass. It should be mandatory that every five or ten years, EVERY SINGLE LAW is reexamined by an independent panel of various groups to ensure laws are fair and timely and non-discriminatory, among other things, and not stupid. Too many stupid laws on the books that will never go away as it is.

noliberalbullshitsays:

Re: Re: Re: Re:

see you validated my point.. “the law is an ass”

ah that nice little line there – Independent review.. yes I’m sure it would be really independent. Stacked with liberals that will kill just about every one of the laws that really do anything.
I’m sorry you feel that any punishment for breaking the law is just too severe. we are constantly reminded today that all the liberals are a bunch of pansies and that just about anything is considered too harsh. too demanding.. too unfair.

Get a grip – if you do the crime – you do the time..

suck it up buttercup

That One Guysays:

Re: Re:

Careful there, others can play that game too.

Being refused entry to a shelter or thrown in jail during a hurricane has a good chance to result in serious harm or death.

Why do you want people to die?

(Mostly) sarcasm aside, because ‘It’s the law’ does not automatically equal ‘It’s good’.

Unless someone wants to honestly admit that they feel that death is what sex offenders or those with warrants on them deserve, and they are willing to refuse them shelter in order to see it happen, then the idea of keeping someone from shelter simply for falling into one of those categories is an abhorrent position to take(if someone does want to admit to holding that position it’s still terrible, but at least it’s consistent with the terrible person making it).

Uriel-238says:

Re: Re: Authority

Some people love authority even more than they love reciprocity, and would seek to punish lawbreakers than they would seek to prevent harm.

I suspect it’s really Fuck those guys because they’re not *my guys. but I’m willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, that Anonymous Coward would happily leave his mother / brother / bestie / son to the shelter guards once their name showed up on the list, yes?

Well, kid, the law’s the law. Rot in jail.

Uriel-238says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Re: Re: Authority

A lot of people like to venerate the law or officers in authority above all other considerations. But this presumes laws are fair and reasonable. It presumes that laws are evenly enforced regardless of social strata, race, gender, whether or not the officer is having a bad day, etc. It presumes the officers who enforce the law and the attorneys who prosecute have no perverse incentives to fabricate guilt.

In the United States, none of these presumptions are true. And that makes holding the law as sacrosanct a dubious position. We already are in a position where we can’t assume our inmates were fairly convicted. Why would we assume that those on the Sexual Offenders list or with outstanding warrants deserve to drown, in jail or out?

I have a brother in Jail. I put him there.

I’m sure there’s a story to that, but without context your revelation is meaningless. For all I know you framed him to take his stuff.

(And no, I don’t presume that’s the case, but it’s not outside the range of possibilities.)

Anonymoussays:

Speaking as a water rescue volunteer...

…who may be deployed to Florida in the day or so:

I’m not a civil servant. I’ve taken no oath. I have no obligations. Which means that every action that I take is voluntary: I can say “no” to anything at any time.

And of course I can’t take any action against this sheriff: that would be illegal. I’d never do such a thing anyway.

But if he’s drowning…I don’t have to save him.

Personanongratasays:

Priorities, Priorities, Priorities.....

If you go to a shelter for #Irma, be advised: sworn LEOs will be at every shelter, checking IDs. Sex offenders/predators will not be allowed

? Polk County Sheriff (@PolkCoSheriff) September 6, 2017

What would happen to The Cretin of Polk County Florida (ie Sheriff Grady Judd) if a person was killed/injured as a result of his inane Gestapo ID check points at emergency storm shelters during a natural disaster?

Would a federal/state court jester (ie judge) bestow upon The Cretin of Polk County Florida a nice warm/comfy and specious blanket of qualified immunity?

Anonymoussays:

Good grief. Nobody is being denied shelter – criminals and sexual predators are being informed that they will be arrested if they show up at government operated ones. The criminals with active warrants would be arrested if caught anywhere, and the sex offenders are legally prohibited from being in proximity to children. The police chief only said he would be enforcing the law.

You can disagree with his terminology and get butt hurt about it, but he’s not wrong. How would you feel about being stuck in a shelter with your family and being exposed (no pun intended) to such company?

Or do you think that criminals and convicted sex offenders would be good company? Because, you know, hurricane? It’s not like they would take advantage of the chaos… right?

They can go to private shelters or turn themselves in if they decide drowning isn’t their preferred option. You guys make it seem like it’s unfair that they get caught and held responsible for the crimes they committed. What kind of stupidity is that?

That One Guysays:

Re: Re:

The police chief only said he would be enforcing the law.

Is that the new incarnation of ‘I was just following orders’?

How would you feel about being stuck in a shelter with your family and being exposed (no pun intended) to such company?

I imagine I would have bigger concerns like the hurricane to worry about what someone might do, and would feel safe enough knowing that if anyone started something in a crowded building there would be plenty of people on hand(including in their number several LEO’s which should have bigger concerns than checking ID’s) to stop them.

Or do you think that criminals and convicted sex offenders would be good company? Because, you know, hurricane? It’s not like they would take advantage of the chaos… right?

Yes indeed, because a crowded building with police literally within ear-shot, where there is no escape is the perfect place for someone to engage in a little criminal activity.

People without records and/or warrants can do stupid things during a crisis as well, do you suggest being leery of them ‘just in case’ too?

They can go to private shelters or turn themselves in if they decide drowning isn’t their preferred option.

Oh absolutely, they can just turn themselves in for the duration, I’m sure the police have the time and resources to properly process them, and the jail is certainly a safe place to ride out a hurricane.

When Katrina hit, the Orleans Parish sheriff’s office abandoned one of its jails, leaving 600 inmates to fend for themselves. Cells flooded, toilets backed up, the power went out, and by the end of it, the sheriff’s department couldn’t account for 517 of those inmates. In the aftermath of Harvey, the same thing is happening in Houston’s jails, although officials there have been following through with better evacuation efforts. Still, prisoners are resorting to drinking contaminated toilet water as the water supplies have ceased functioning and inmates are reporting cells with standing water 4-6" deep.

Well… I mean… I’m sure they’d get it right this time.

You guys make it seem like it’s unfair that they get caught and held responsible for the crimes they committed. What kind of stupidity is that?

The kind of ‘stupidity’ that says there are bigger problems to worry about than someone who skipped court and has a warrant, or peed in the wrong place and was slapped on the sex-offender registry for it.

The kind of ‘stupidity’ that holds that just because someone may be a criminal they don’t deserve to be left to die just because I or someone else might have completely shot priorities and worry more about the people sharing a building than the natural disaster ripping the area apart.

Refusing someone shelter from a natural disaster is not in any way ‘holding them responsible for the crimes they committed’, that’s very nearly(and quite possibly literally in some cases) a death sentence.

Uriel-238says:

Re: There's your problem right there.

People in disaster shelters don’t get to choose the company they keep. Which is a good thing, otherwise we’d have shelters throwing people out for their religion or the color of their skin.

You seem to believe that all warrants are for convicted criminals, and all convicted sex offenders were fairly judged by a functional court of law, and that their position on a blacklist is warranted.

In the United States all of these are pretty dubious presumptions.

Anonymoussays:

Ok, your overly dramatic rhetoric aside – they are NOT being “left to die”. They are being held accountable for their crimes. If they have outstanding warrants, they are already breaking the law. If they are stupid enough to place their desire to avoid the consequences of their actions over their life – well that’s their decision.

As for the “cops everywhere” in the shelter statement – you proposed that all of them are going to run away like they did before, didn’t you? So pick one – either they are going to do their job and stick around or the criminals will be unsupervised during a hurricane in the shelters. Can’t argue both.

That One Guysays:

Re: Re:

Ok, your overly dramatic rhetoric aside – they are NOT being "left to die".

Yeah, they really are. Refused shelter from a natural disaster that is highly dangerous, such that people without shelter have very high chances for injury or death is most certainly leaving them to die. It is holding to the idea that their actions, or even inactions means they deserve to be left to fend for themselves in highly dangerous if not outright lethal situations.

They are being held accountable for their crimes.

Imprisonment(in some cases, as demonstrated by history it doesn’t work so well in these ones) is ‘being held accountable for your crime’.

Fines are ‘being held accountable for your crime’.

Being refused shelter during a natural disaster is not ‘being held accountable for your crime’, that is quite possible a death sentence, and if someone deserves death that much I rather doubt they’d be walking around free beforehand.

Being on the sex-offender registry or having an outstanding warrant does not warrant death, and to argue otherwise, or pretend that those doing so are ‘just enforcing the law'(again, is that the new ‘I was just following orders’?) is in my opinion abhorrent and inhumane.

As for the "cops everywhere" in the shelter statement – you proposed that all of them are going to run away like they did before, didn’t you? So pick one – either they are going to do their job and stick around or the criminals will be unsupervised during a hurricane in the shelters. Can’t argue both.

Which is fine, because I’m not. As the two examples demonstrate when it comes to sticking around the jail police apparently have other things to do, other places to be, leaving the inmates to fend for themselves. When it comes to a safe building with supplies they can ride out the storm in on the other hand I expect they’d be perfectly fine staying put.

Rog S.says:

RE: Pinellas County gang stalking

The most widely publicized account of how Fusion Centers in that area work with police and sherrifs, contorting the first amendment v. pornography v. community standards is probably that of former attorney Richard Griesinger, a former Pinellas Cty insider who was gang stalked by those pigs:

https://www.quora.com/Does-the-FBI-investigate-gang-stalking

Onlune activity was monitored, slander was waged, and like we see now, those pugs blur lines between public/private/first amendment/community standards/entrapment/etc, only AFTER using Fusion Centers to monitor political and personal adversaries.

Richard Griesingersays:

Re: Re: RE: Pinellas County gang stalking

On March 30, 2019, a ?Rog S? posted a hyperbolic, anonymous comment about me (Richard Griesinger) under his/her/their heading ?RE Pinellas County gang stalking.? I contend that corrupt persons associated with the U.S. law enforcement/intelligence/private contractor community (including ?Rog S?) have flooded the internet with hyperbolic posts, websites, and online articles about organized harassment, including gangstalking, to confuse the public about the actual harassment which they, and other people and entities on their behalf, have committed. Edward Snowden released top secret PowerPoint slides, prepared by the British equivalent of the NSA, showing that Western intelligence agencies have tools to flood the internet with disinformation.

Below is ?Rog S??s post about me (in << >>?s, with my comments in brackets). The post was typical of the online writings about me and about organized harassment generally – mixing true facts about harassment (which I know of firsthand) with exaggerated and false facts —

<< Rog S., 30 Mar 2019 @ 12:03pm [my comment – The identity of ?Rog S? – the person, persons, and/or agency which created the post – was anonymous, of course]. RE: Pinellas County gang stalking. The most widely publicized account [my comment – I don?t know if my websites about the harassment campaign in Pinellas County, Florida and in the two foreign cities where I have lived (Chiang Mai, Thailand and Phnom Penh, Cambodia), are ?widely publicized.? The traffic of my websites may be reduced or blocked, I don?t know.] of how Fusion Centers [my comment – My websites do not focus on ?Fusion Centers? and, in fact, barely discuss them.] in that area work with police and sherrifs [my comment – Disinformation posts and articles online about me and about gangstalking typically have included several obvious misspellings (e.g., ?sherrifs?)] is that of former attorney Richard Griesinger, a former Pinellas Cty insider [my comment – The use of the term ?insider? was odd] who was gangstalked [[my comment – The extensive campaign against me in Pinellas County, Florida from 2008/2009 through 2014) included – (1) systematic harassment by corrupt members of local law enforcement, and later by members of other local agencies; (2) the hacking of my law office’s internet access, and other financial disruption requiring me to close my established law office in 2012; (3) the hacking of my personal internet access, e.g., my iphone, laptop, and my email accounts, to harass me (which continues); (4) the secret smear of my being a pedophile and child molester (discussed in my websites, which continues); (5) subtle psychological harassment (gangstalking) by people in public places, which I referred to as ?psychological lynching? in my FBI complaint (filed with the FBI?s Clearwater, Florida office in May 2013) before I researched gangstalking (which continues); (6) junk email ads, somehow sent to me, which were relevant to my situation, to subtly harass me (which continues. Dr. Michelle Zetoony of Pinellas County agreed in my secret recording of her. Also, businessman Philip Kerr wrote of identical harassment by England?s intelligence agency MI5); and (7) threats of selective enforcement and disability (which continues)] by those pigs [my comment – My websites do not use language such as ?pigs? to refer to law enforcement officers. Rather, I have used the phrase ?corrupt members of law enforcement.?] : https://www.quora.com/Does-the-FBI-investigate-gang-stalking. [my comment – ?Rog S? did not correctly state my website?s url which is http://www.fbi-gangstalking-richardgriesinger. com. The title of my website is ?Does the FBI Investigate Gangstalking (Organized Harassment)?? The answer is no. As expected, neither the FBI or the Justice Department investigated my detailed, documented 2013 FBI complaint]. Onlune activity was monitored, [my comment – I knowingly authorized law enforcement to monitor my computer when I signed up to be a Big Brother], slander was waged, [my comment – Yes. Secret ?slander was waged? (and continues to be waged) against me that I am a pedophile. I have never been able to confront my secret accusers.] and like we see now, those pugs blur lines between public/private/first amendment/community standards/entrapment/etc, [my comment – The above words, separated by forward slashes, may have been used to mimic my use of the phrase ?U.S. law enforcement/intelligence/private contractor community,? I don?t know. The use of the term ?community standards? was misplaced. The term has nothing to do with one?s private viewing of pornography or private chats online. The use of the term ?entrapment? was also misplaced. I was not entrapped into anything]. only AFTER using Fusion Centers to monitor political and personal adversaries. >> [my comment – Yes. I was a ?personal adversary? of a top police officer in Pinellas County, Florida. ?Rog S??s community/agency knew full well that I dated the divorcing, later ex-wife (Jennifer Brunner), of the fourth highest member of the Pinellas County Sheriff?s Office (Major Kirk Brunner, now retired) for years from 2003 until 2011. I was her original divorce attorney and a neighbor].

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Report this ad??|??Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
12:25 Australian Privacy Commissioner Says 7-Eleven Broke Privacy Laws By Scanning Customers' Faces At Survey Kiosks (6)
10:50 Missouri Governor Doubles Down On 'View Source' Hacking Claim; PAC Now Fundraising Over This Bizarrely Stupid Claim (45)
10:45 Daily Deal: The All-in-One Microsoft, Cybersecurity, And Python Exam Prep Training Bundle (0)
09:43 Want To Understand Why U.S. Broadband Sucks? Look At Frontier Communications In Wisconsin, West Virginia (8)
05:36 Massachusetts College Decides Criticizing The Chinese Government Is Hate Speech, Suspends Conservative Student Group (71)
19:57 Le Tigre Sues Barry Mann To Stop Copyright Threats Over Song, Lights Barry Mann On Fire As Well (21)
16:07 Court Says City Of Baltimore's 'Heckler's Veto' Of An Anti-Catholic Rally Violates The First Amendment (15)
13:37 Two Years Later, Judge Finally Realizes That A CDN Provider Is Not Liable For Copyright Infringement On Websites (21)
12:19 Chicago Court Gets Its Prior Restraint On, Tells Police Union Head To STFU About City's Vaccine Mandate (158)
10:55 Verizon 'Visible' Wireless Accounts Hacked, Exploited To Buy New iPhones (8)
10:50 Daily Deal: The MacOS 11 Course (0)
07:55 Suing Social Media Sites Over Acts Of Terrorism Continues To Be A Losing Bet, As 11th Circuit Dumps Another Flawed Lawsuit (11)
02:51 Trump Announces His Own Social Network, 'Truth Social,' Which Says It Can Kick Off Users For Any Reason (And Already Is) (100)
19:51 Facebook AI Moderation Continues To Suck Because Moderation At Scale Is Impossible (26)
16:12 Content Moderation Case Studies: Snapchat Disables GIPHY Integration After Racist 'Sticker' Is Discovered (2018) (11)
13:54 Arlo Makes Live Customer Service A Luxury Option (8)
12:05 Delta Proudly Announces Its Participation In The DHS's Expanded Biometric Collection Program (5)
11:03 LinkedIn (Mostly) Exits China, Citing Escalating Demands For Censorship (14)
10:57 Daily Deal: The Python, Git, And YAML Bundle (0)
09:37 British Telecom Wants Netflix To Pay A Tax Simply Because Squid Game Is Popular (32)
06:41 Report: Client-Side Scanning Is An Insecure Nightmare Just Waiting To Be Exploited By Governments (35)
20:38 MLB In Talks To Offer Streaming For All Teams' Home Games In-Market Even Without A Cable Subscription (10)
15:55 Appeals Court Says Couple's Lawsuit Over Bogus Vehicle Forfeiture Can Continue (15)
13:30 Techdirt Podcast Episode 301: Scarcity, Abundance & NFTs (0)
12:03 Hollywood Is Betting On Filtering Mandates, But Working Copyright Algorithms Simply Don't Exist (66)
10:45 Introducing The Techdirt Insider Discord (4)
10:40 Daily Deal: The Dynamic 2021 DevOps Training Bundle (0)
09:29 Criminalizing Teens' Google Searches Is Just How The UK's Anti-Cybercrime Programs Roll (19)
06:29 Canon Sued For Disabling Printer Scanners When Devices Run Out Of Ink (41)
20:51 Copyright Law Discriminating Against The Blind Finally Struck Down By Court In South Africa (7)
More arrow