Anonymous is a criminal organization than must be taken down

[Mycroft]

Granted, but this is a minor distinction.

The distinction is not minor.

You make the case that the media and, by extension, the police do the same thing that Anonymous did. I'm saying it's not the same at all because the police officer has not been accused of a crime.

 

[Jerry]

I suspect people already knew where this cop lived. Cellphone numbers and e-mail addresses can be easily changed.

I don't necessarily agree with the pepper-spray incident, but generally if you are going to assume authority over the public then you should live among the community you "serve". Let the fear of backlash temper your actions.

 

[radcen]

The distinction is not minor.

You make the case that the media and, by extension, the police do the same thing that Anonymous did. I'm saying it's not the same at all because the police officer has not been accused of a crime.

If the officer is eventually formally accused, would you consider the distinction gone?

 

[Jerry]

The distinction is not minor.

You make the case that the media and, by extension, the police do the same thing that Anonymous did. I'm saying it's not the same at all because the police officer has not been accused of a crime.

Everything a police offer does should be a matter of public record anyway.

 

[Kal'Stang]

I do not approve of the idea of publishing address and such of people accused of crimes, but here's why I'm having a hard time feeling sympathy for the officer...

In many areas, such as the area in which I currently live, people who are arrested have their addresses published in the local newspaper every day. The paper gets the information from public records, obtained from the local police. There is no consideration whatsoever for the alleged criminal's family nor for the possibility that they might indeed be innocent. The only time you will ever see any follow-up regarding innocence is if it is a high-profile case and is being followed by the media anyway. If it's not high-profile, readers are just left to assume guilt.

It has always bothered me that the so-called legitimate media publishes addresses. I see no valid point to it. Plus, it can foster vigilantism as well. You could say it is the media and not the police, and I would agree to a point, but they do work together on this and I believe the police see publication as a form of public shaming that works to their benefit. So, while I don't approve of the publishing, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

This is actually a very good point. /like

The problem here is that no one has been accused of a crime...except, maybe, the OWS guys.

Actually the cop has been accused of a crime. That is why he has been suspended. Whether or not the charge sticks is what is at question.

 

[Jerry]

Hey if the hall monitor wants to try and bully kids around, he shouldn't be surprised when they all follow him home after school one day and beat him up.

Maybe not being a dick in the first place is the right move.

 

[PeteEU]

Hacker group Anonymous targets UC-Davis pepper-spray cop | The Cutline - Yahoo! News

The rogue hacker group known as Anonymous posted a YouTube video disclosing the cellphone number, email and home address of Lt. John Pike, the University of California Davis police officer who sparked worldwide outrage when he pepper-sprayed a group of student protesters over the weekend.

We have no problem targeting police and releasing their information even if it puts them at risk," the group said, "because we want them to experience just a taste of the brutality and misery they serve us on an everyday basis."

What a digusting thing they have done, and their statement is twice as disgusting as their action.

Good for anonymous! That moron deserves any hell he is going through because of his Gestapo actions. Has he been arrested for assault yet?

 

[spud_meister]

Good for anonymous! That moron deserves any hell he is going through because of his Gestapo actions. Has he been arrested for assault yet?

Yay! Vigilantism! What could go wrong? :roll:

 

[Omgitsme]

Good for anonymous! That moron deserves any hell he is going through because of his Gestapo actions. Has he been arrested for assault yet?

Guilty until proven innocent?

 

[samsmart]

The problem here is that no one has been accused of a crime...except, maybe, the OWS guys.

What we have here is Anonymous enabling crazy people who object to a police officer who did his job. If anything happens to this officer, his family or his property...it falls on the perpetrators and Anonymous. They should all be punished.

Except there are a lot of people who do not approve of that police officer's actions against those peaceful protesters. There are many people who think that what he did was far too heavy handed.

 

[samsmart]

I suspect people already knew where this cop lived. Cellphone numbers and e-mail addresses can be easily changed.

I don't necessarily agree with the pepper-spray incident, but generally if you are going to assume authority over the public then you should live among the community you "serve". Let the fear of backlash temper your actions.

Holy ****. Me and Jerry seem to agree on something.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I think a better articulation is that there should be checks and balances between authority figures and those they hold authority over. And law enforcement officers may think twice about abusing their powers of authority if they understood such repercussions.

While law enforcement officers do have powers of authority over people, that is not a license to abuse the people they have authority over. So such activities could be seen as a method for the people to protect themselves.

 

[Mycroft]

If the officer is eventually formally accused, would you consider the distinction gone?

Sure.

Except I don't think, given the state of public opinion, that any responsible media would reveal his address, phone number and email address if he were charged with a crime.

Do you?

 

[Mycroft]

This is actually a very good point. /like



Actually the cop has been accused of a crime. That is why he has been suspended. Whether or not the charge sticks is what is at question.

Oh?

What crime has he been accused of? Got a link?

 

[Mycroft]

Except there are a lot of people who do not approve of that police officer's actions against those peaceful protesters. There are many people who think that what he did was far too heavy handed.

So what?

Do you think...if he, his family or his property are damaged...that Anonymous was doing a good thing by revealing his personal information? Or do you think they should be held as accessories to the damage?

Or...on the other hand...do you think that police officer...his family...and his property deserve whatever crazy people might do to him? For doing his job?

 

[HonestJoe]

Their lack of structure isn't in any way, I think, an excuse for their actions. Rather I mean that you can hold one member of Anonymous responsible for what another member of Anonymous does. So because anyone can claim membership to Anonymous it's difficult to hold that entire membership responsible for what one or a few of that membership does.

That's just a get-out clause for the petty criminals hiding behind the organised ones, all hiding behind the name Anonymous.

If someone claims membership of Anonymous, they're choosing to associate themselves with the actions of other members. They can speak out against the actions they disagree with and argue for the organisation as a whole not to support them but if they fail to do that, they can't completely distance themselves from those actions.

If I claimed membership of Al Qaeda, you could legitimately ask me to explain the terrorism and violence committed by members of that organisation. I don't think you'd accept me saying "Well, I don't know who they are so it's nothing to do with me.".

 

[HonestJoe]

It has always bothered me that the so-called legitimate media publishes addresses. I see no valid point to it. Plus, it can foster vigilantism as well. You could say it is the media and not the police, and I would agree to a point, but they do work together on this

Surely the police only publish names. The other details are, as you say, in the public domain so the police couldn't stop the media getting them even if they wanted to.

Would you prefer people who are arrested to remain anonymous (no pun intended)?

I personally put the responsibility for this pretty much entirely on the media. After all, even if they obtain the information (legitimately or otherwise), nobody forces them to publish it.

 

[HonestJoe]

I don't necessarily agree with the pepper-spray incident, but generally if you are going to assume authority over the public then you should live among the community you "serve". Let the fear of backlash temper your actions.

So the people who are willing and able to threaten police officers should decide what they do (regardless of silly things like the law or democratically elected politicians)? Have you heard of the Mafia?

 

[samsmart]

That's just a get-out clause for the petty criminals hiding behind the organised ones, all hiding behind the name Anonymous.

If someone claims membership of Anonymous, they're choosing to associate themselves with the actions of other members. They can speak out against the actions they disagree with and argue for the organisation as a whole not to support them but if they fail to do that, they can't completely distance themselves from those actions.

If I claimed membership of Al Qaeda, you could legitimately ask me to explain the terrorism and violence committed by members of that organisation. I don't think you'd accept me saying "Well, I don't know who they are so it's nothing to do with me.".

And we should also hold all the Catholics in the world responsible for the crimes of a minority of priests do as well then?

 

[samsmart]

So the people who are willing and able to threaten police officers should decide what they do (regardless of silly things like the law or democratically elected politicians)? Have you heard of the Mafia?

People have the duty to act out against the agents of authority when that authority abuses its powers over the people.

 

[Mycroft]

People have the duty to act out against the agents of authority when that authority abuses its powers over the people.

Are you saying this police officer abused his power? And, if so, do you think vigilante action is justified? Or do you think our system of justice should prevail?

In other words...how far are you willing to allow the people to go in regard to your stated "duty to act out"?

 

[samsmart]

Are you saying this police officer abused his power?

I do.

And, if so, do you think vigilante action is justified?

I think that in a representative democracy if the establishment will not protect the rights and liberties of the people they are supposed to represent then alternative means of protecting those rights and liberties become justified.

Or do you think our system of justice should prevail?

A system of justice should prevail. However, I do not think our legal system is based on justice.

In other words...how far are you willing to allow the people to go in regard to your stated "duty to act out"?

As far as is necessary to prevent further abuses of the people by the establishment of authority.

 

[jimbo]

Except there are a lot of people who do not approve of that police officer's actions against those peaceful protesters. There are many people who think that what he did was far too heavy handed.

Which changes nothing. So far, the cop has been placed on paid administrative leave, not charged. Time and the justice system will sort this out. Publishing information clearly to incite violence and/or harassment is going too far, even if the information is public, and cell phone and email information to the best of my knowledge is not public.

 

[PeteEU]

Guilty until proven innocent?

The man sprayed pepper spray in the faces of sitting protesters ON CAMERA! Unless you are claming that sitting protesters were a threat to said police officer, or that the video footage is faked, then this guy is guilty and proven such in every area but in a court of law, which seems to be the only place this case of assault is not heading...

 

[ThePlayDrive]

Hacker group Anonymous targets UC-Davis pepper-spray cop | The Cutline - Yahoo! News

The rogue hacker group known as Anonymous posted a YouTube video disclosing the cellphone number, email and home address of Lt. John Pike, the University of California Davis police officer who sparked worldwide outrage when he pepper-sprayed a group of student protesters over the weekend.

We have no problem targeting police and releasing their information even if it puts them at risk," the group said, "because we want them to experience just a taste of the brutality and misery they serve us on an everyday basis."

What a digusting thing they have done, and their statement is twice as disgusting as their action.

I have mixed feelings on Anonymous. On the one hand, they 9/10 target people who deserve to be targeted. On the other hand, I think releasing personal information is taking it too far as it could lead to effects disproportional to the actions being committed by the fools in question (the police officer in this case).

Like others, I'm not a supporter, but I don't feel sorry for the guy (or most of their other targets). In addition, I think they should focus on more non-personal methods of attacks like taking down servers, etc.

 

[MaggieD]

I do not approve of the idea of publishing address and such of people accused of crimes, but here's why I'm having a hard time feeling sympathy for the officer...

In many areas, such as the area in which I currently live, people who are arrested have their addresses published in the local newspaper every day. The paper gets the information from public records, obtained from the local police. There is no consideration whatsoever for the alleged criminal's family nor for the possibility that they might indeed be innocent. The only time you will ever see any follow-up regarding innocence is if it is a high-profile case and is being followed by the media anyway. If it's not high-profile, readers are just left to assume guilt.

It has always bothered me that the so-called legitimate media publishes addresses. I see no valid point to it. Plus, it can foster vigilantism as well. You could say it is the media and not the police, and I would agree to a point, but they do work together on this and I believe the police see publication as a form of public shaming that works to their benefit. So, while I don't approve of the publishing, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Yeah, one problem with your logic. (I agree with your concern, btw.) This man hasn't been accused of any crime; nor has he been arrested. He has been tried and convicted in the court of whacko public opinion.

What will ya'll say if someone puts a bullet in this guy's brain? Good riddance?

This is terrorism. What will they target next?