• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

NFL team owner Robert Kraft was swept up in a bust of a sex-trafficking day spa

How come when some police officer shoots an unarmed civilian,
"Unarmed civilian" does not mean he (or she) is not a threat or that the shooting is unjustified.
Way to miss the point.
Making a mistake is one thing. Persisting in it is quite another. When they realized the mistake, they should have destroyed all the evidence obtained under the "trafficking" warrant and they should not have tried to bribe the sex workers into lying that they were "trafficked" just to avoid having to admit that they made a mistake.
You are using hindsight to assume they knew they had made a mistake. The very same sort of hindsight you claim those who criticize the people in shootings of unarmed civilians who posed no threat.

How come you and other prohibitionists have much more empathy for violent thugs than for people getting a massage with a happy ending?
One think that any normal human being would have much more empathy for nonviolent and passive victims (like Tamir Rice ) who end up dead i then thosewho end up embarrassed.

Nice to see you back using "violent thugs" to depict people like Tamir Rice or Philandro Castile. Really classy.
 
Way to miss the point.
No I am not. You deliberately confuse the issue of suspect being "unarmed" with whether there was a threat from the suspect that justified the shooting.

You are using hindsight to assume they knew they had made a mistake.
By the time they were offering bribes to salvage their case they obviously knew.

One think that any normal human being would have much more empathy for nonviolent and passive victims (Tamir Rice ) who end up dead i then thosw who end up embarrassed.
I was thinking more of people like Michael Brown or Jamar Clark or Mario Woods. All of whom received much support both on the streets and on this forum.
Compared to the support these thugs got, response to the Tamir Rice shooting was rather muted.

Anyway, police shootings are off topic here, so let's stop with rehashing them!
 
No I am not. You deliberately confuse the issue of suspect being "unarmed" with whether there was a threat from the suspect that justified the shooting.
I see, you no longer read in context.

By the time they were offering bribes to salvage their case they obviously knew.
You are using hindsight. You have not offered any evidence that they knew they had no case. From your posting history, we can gather it is ok to use hindsight to criticize the police when they arrest sex workers and a white man, but it is not ok when they kill an unarmed and nonthreatening black victim.

I was thinking more of people like Michael Brown or Jamar Clark or Mario Woods. All of whom received much support both on the streets and on this forum.
Compared to the support these thugs got, response to the Tamir Rice shooting was rather muted.
Nonsense, but good to see you still see black males as "violent thugs".
Anyway, police shootings are off topic here, so let's stop with rehashing them!
No one is rehashing police shootings. I used them to point out your double standard for police criticism.
 
How come when some police officer shoots an unarmed civilian,
"Unarmed civilian" does not mean he (or she) is not a threat or that the shooting is unjustified.
That said, when police officer makes a mistake he (or she) usually does get charged and the city pays out millions. Hell, often the city pays millions even when police made no mistake at all.
So why shouldn't the county be paying up for this fuck-up by its sheriff?

it is you cannot use hindsight, you must judge the situation with the information the officer had on hand but when it involves prostitution and possible sex trafficking, hindsight and "they must have known" is perfectly appropriate?
Making a mistake is one thing. Persisting in it is quite another. When they realized the mistake, they should have destroyed all the evidence obtained under the "trafficking" warrant and they should not have tried to bribe the sex workers into lying that they were "trafficked" just to avoid having to admit that they made a mistake.

How come you and other prohibitionists have much more empathy for violent thugs than for people getting a massage with a happy ending?

Evidence should NEVER be destroyed.

My sympathies lie with sex workers who are forced to provide those 'happy endings.' In order to be able to eat and have a roof over their heads. And maybe not to have their families murdered back home.
 
How come when some police officer shoots an unarmed civilian, it is you cannot use hindsight, you must judge the situation with the information the officer had on hand but when it involves prostitution and possible sex trafficking, hindsight and "they must have known" is perfectly appropriate?

1) Self-defense is a sudden situation, there's no time to obtain more information.

2) Going on the information they had at the time is only relevant for criminal liability. A reasonable but wrong decision generally does not protect you from civil liability. (Although if it's something like mistaking a replica weapon for real a jury very well might decide the victim brought it upon themselves.)
 
How come when some police officer shoots an unarmed civilian, it is you cannot use hindsight, you must judge the situation with the information the officer had on hand but when it involves prostitution and possible sex trafficking, hindsight and "they must have known" is perfectly appropriate?

1) Self-defense is a sudden situation, there's no time to obtain more information.
BS


2) Going on the information they had at the time is only relevant for criminal liability. A reasonable but wrong decision generally does not protect you from civil liability. (Although if it's something like mistaking a replica weapon for real a jury very well might decide the victim brought it upon themselves.)
Irrelevant to the actual discussion about criticizing actions.
 
BS


2) Going on the information they had at the time is only relevant for criminal liability. A reasonable but wrong decision generally does not protect you from civil liability. (Although if it's something like mistaking a replica weapon for real a jury very well might decide the victim brought it upon themselves.)
Irrelevant to the actual discussion about criticizing actions.

You're not addressing the point.
 
BS


2) Going on the information they had at the time is only relevant for criminal liability. A reasonable but wrong decision generally does not protect you from civil liability. (Although if it's something like mistaking a replica weapon for real a jury very well might decide the victim brought it upon themselves.)
Irrelevant to the actual discussion about criticizing actions.

You're not addressing the point.
You made no relevant points.
 
What I have been saying in many discussions with Toni and other prohibitionists is that the criteria used to classify a sex work situation as "trafficking" tend to be very lose.
Look at this article about the Orchids of Asia case:
Police in Robert Kraft case cited spa's full refrigerator as human trafficking evidence, per report
WEEI said:
Last October, Jupiter police opened an investigation into Robert Kraft’s day spa of choice, after a tip from the Martin County Sheriff’s Office. Online reviews indicated sexual services were offered at the spa.

In addition to parking lot surveillance, Florida authorities contracted a state department health inspector to inspect the spa. In the warrant application, Detective Andrew Sharp said the state employee found two rooms with two beds, leading her to believe the spa’s female employees were sleeping there. It also said she found a full refrigerator, stuffed with food and condiments. In court, the inspector said it was more food than she had at home for her two adolescent sons, making her suspicious.

But the actual inspection report only references the refrigerator, in the form of two pictures, which are published on Deadspin. The fridges, while full, do not seem unordinary.

Despite the flimsy evidence –– detectives did uncover semen-filled napkins in the trash, but that doesn’t necessarily lead to human trafficking –– a warrant for surveillance was granted. Kraft was one of several patrons stopped for identification, though a judge has ruled neither video of Kraft in the spa nor the traffic stop can be used in the case. In other words, Kraft is well on his way to winning this.

It really doesn't take much for Prohibitionists to declare "human trafficking" going on ...
 
Back
Top Bottom