Pre-Crime: Man Arrested And Beaten For Being In "Computer Predicted Crime Hot Spot"

Apparently pre-crime software doesn't work at all.
Nobody in Congress or the White House was flagged.
Just some poor kid in the wrong place at the wrong time.
We have far more computing power than common sense, a dangerous combination if you ask me.

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

I am not using my opinion, I am using the law and facts.

Which you take to be absolute, therefore they are facts. To YOU. I don't take them to be facts because some of them run counter to how I live, and I certainly don't see them being absolute. Constant amendments to the constitution regarding some of these laws are proof of that.

Therefore, your facts are opinions to me, and this is not a case of me not liking something so I'll ignore. I won't ignore a law I don't like and then get arrested. I may be crazy but I'm not stupid. But I'm also not going to sit there and tell people it's ok because other people who are in charge made that law for my own good. If it's BS I'll call it as such.

What the cop did was more wrong more than what the kid did that was wrong. That's a given. The biggest thing I see wrong that the kid did, assuming his "alibi" was true, was that he was willing to pick up his niece in a parking lot known to be frequented by street level hookers. Really kid? You couldn't drive that extra block to help ensure the safety of your niece?

End of story.

originally posted by: Taupin Desciple

Which you take to be absolute, therefore they are facts. To YOU.

No, it is a fact that they did not detain him initially for suspicion of committing a crime, it was for being in a high crime area. Those are the actual facts, not something I invented.

a reply to: Hefficide

You are Hyperbole :p

Seriously, this is so scary! If we begin to arrest people on a hunch from a computer system, then all hope for humanity may truly be lost....

a reply to: Hefficide

Thats brutal and madness poor kid.. The world is becoming a scary place.

Prevention is better than cure.

originally posted by: TheInhumanCentipede
Prevention is better than cure.

Exactly. Especially since the system is set up to not give a cure because people would lose some rights.

Some people just haven't gotten sick of violence and other hurtful crimes yet to where they don't care anymore how it's fixed.....as long as it's fixed. I'm there and I'm not going back. I couldn't live with myself knowing that while I'm standing up for a few rights that don't even need to be in the constitution anymore, people are losing their lives, becoming addicted to drugs, having their children reaped or kidnapped........all because preventing these losers would violate their rights.

I don't know how people can live with themselves who put up with that sh*t.

a reply to: Taupin Desciple

A few rights that "don't even need to be in the constitution anymore"???

You do realize those "few rights" are what keeps us from descending into outright fascism and are the very core of everything we, as a nation, cherish and strive to pass onto our children?

In this case we are dealing with the "few rights" that prevent arbitrary or politically targeted harassment, detention, arrest and physical abuse - up to and including summary executions.

Maybe North Korea fits your notions more? Saudi Arabia?

a reply to: Taupin Desciple

Maybe there's a way to prevent crimes and follow the law at the same time? I don't understand how you think having rights (such as the kind that prevent the government from arresting and beating up people without justification) is incompatible with public protection. To me they seem to go hand in hand.

originally posted by: Hefficide
a reply to: Revolution9

The basis for the interaction was fully and totally the computer prediction. That was the catalyst for the entire interaction. In comparison to that fact, everything else is secondary.

Square peg, round hole? I do know that a kid was beaten and arrested based upon nothing more than being in a place that a computer supposedly deemed to be problematic. Such vapid and wholesale things are expressly forbidden by the Fourth and Fifth Amendments.

You don't need a computer to tell you that a car-park where overdosed druggies and prostitutes have been busted is likely to be a place where crimes occur. Any large dimly lit open space in a downtown area is somewhere that crimes are likely to occur. Then the cop sees someone sitting alone in a car. Given these two facts, it would be logical to see if that person was waiting for a hooker or getting high on drugs.

originally posted by: Taupin Desciple

originally posted by: TheInhumanCentipede
Prevention is better than cure.

Exactly. Especially since the system is set up to not give a cure because people would lose some rights.

Some people just haven't gotten sick of violence and other hurtful crimes yet to where they don't care anymore how it's fixed.....as long as it's fixed. I'm there and I'm not going back. I couldn't live with myself knowing that while I'm standing up for a few rights that don't even need to be in the constitution anymore, people are losing their lives, becoming addicted to drugs, having their children reaped or kidnapped........all because preventing these losers would violate their rights.

I don't know how people can live with themselves who put up with that sh*t.

I wonder if you would feel this way if say, your Mother didn't make enough money to afford to live in a 'good' area of town and was beaten up by the police for 'being in the wrong area at the wrong time' as she tried to go shopping.

After all, she can surely afford to give up some of her rights for the good of society, right?

why would he park a block away to pick someone up get real,so i think the dad is lying.
maybe he was looking for a lady of the night i see no crime in that but
he obviously got lippy ,and refusing a search is going to land you in hotwater.
i do not think he deserved a beating but should have been arrested .

This will be accepted because police "are people too and have families to go home to."

It's pathetic how far we have allowed things to go.

a reply to: stuthealien

Only one problem. He committed no crime.......

I used to live only a block away from a Harvey's restaurant known informally as "hooker Harvey's". Often on my way home from work, I was solicited by prostitutes. So, if I parked my car near my place, or loitered in the park behind my building complex, I would be in a high crime area.

If you've ever tried to park a car in a downtown area of a major city, you might know that it's not always possible to find a parking spot close to your destination. Sometimes, you have to park as much as two blocks away, or circle the area for 15 minutes trying to find a place to park.

I was once searched illegally because I had unwittingly decided to play my guitar in a doorway that was often used for selling dime bags. I was then arrested for a parole violation because i owned a cell phone, in breach of my parole. Of course, I was also required to look for work, which meant I needed a number I could be reached at...

If it is a reasonable option for you to avoid high crime areas, you are very fortunate indeed. Some people live or work in these areas, or need to pass through them to get to other places.

yes....refuse the search and in the same sentence tell the officers to bring their supervisor....as both will named for the lawsuit.......and immediately record the names and badge numbers, roll video or record audio.....get the law office on the phone no matter what time of day.......

I am honestly baffled to see a few people advocating AGAINST someone's right to refuse a search. Do some of you think everyone should be able to be searched at any time for no reason?

a reply to: Hefficide

i just did a short paper on this for class(got a B)


it was based on ted talks presentation ann milgram

she is paving the way for pre crime divisions, i dont trust her many falliceys within her presentaion

originally posted by: ChaoticOrder
a reply to: Hefficide

“You have to prove that you are in an area for a legitimate reason? Since when?” wrote Laura Levasseur on UnionLeader.com.

This is a very good point, maybe he was "loitering" or something? And why would they claim he was trespassing? It seems unlikely they would just jump him as soon as he entered the area just because a computer told them to. There must be more to it than that.

The bolder part...That's the problem right there. The "well, he must've done SOMETHINGVto deserve this..." type of thinking is why things like this keep happening and it just gets worse.

This is 1984, not 2015.

originally posted by: Taupin Desciple
Um.......it kind of is. Perjury is legal speak for lying, and it can land you jail. And common sense is used to determine a lie without proof. Do we even remember what common sense is in society anymore, or have we lost sight of that as well in favor of our constitutional rights? (Something that politicians wrote up BTW)

You can only perjure yourself if you lie under oath, and then the lie has to be proven which usually requires a completely separate trial. You are not under oath when talking to a police officer. There is no law that says you have to tell them the truth as to why you are in a location. You don't even have to attempt to answer the question, "go f# yourself" is a 100% legal response, albeit one the police will likely illegally harass you for giving... which is the whole point.

Not really, I'm standing firm. The problem stated in the OP was predictive policing. You are correct. Being used in the context that it was, is redundant, it's stupid and it is not what those algorithms were initially intended for. I brought up proactive policing so people could see the difference. IF IT WERE USED MORE, we would have less crime. Proactive policing is predictive policing without the software. Software designed by people experienced in creating algorithms and statistical analyses......... not less victims.

Proactive policing is about removing the motivations on the street that lead to crimes taking place. That is not what happened here, in this case they tried to proactively charge someone for a crime that hadn't yet been committed. There is a very big difference between those two concepts. I can make laws or take actions that encourage you to not murder your wife. That is being proactive. I cannot arrest you to stop you from potentially murdering her in the future.