Miami Dade Police Report Online: Fill & Download for Free

There are two fundamental problems with “Red Flag” laws — they are unconstitutional and they dangerously expand police power. They gut the very concept of due process by imposing serious consequences upon the subject of the order without giving that person a chance to defend himself.Broward County’s infamously incompetent Sheriff Scott Israel declared after the Parkland tragedy that his officers needed the authority to simply enter someone’s home and seize them, Constitution be damned, if they thought the person was a threat to the community. The demand for extraordinary police power was all the more outrageous coming from a man who repeatedly failed to diligently exercise ordinary police power.What Israel didn’t say is that Florida already has a mechanism for dealing with people who are thought to be a danger to the community — The Baker Act. The Baker Act allows a judge to order a person to be involuntarily committed so that they can be evaluated by mental health professionals. If the person is deemed to be unstable, other court procedures can be initiated. Israel also didn’t note that the school resource officer had asked his department to have the shooter evaluated under the Baker Act — but the department never followed up.Florida passed a Red Flag law a few weeks after Parkland. It’s language is both vague and far-reaching. It allows citizens to be seized by the state if the police estimate that they are somehow a threat to themselves or others, and offers no guidance on what constitutes a “a threat.” The law enables the person to be involuntarily institutionalized under a much lower standard of evidence, and allows police to immediately seize any weapons. The target must then appear in court and challenge the seizure to get the right to own weapons back.In Miami Dade alone, it has been used dozens of times in the past couple of months.Orlando police used it against Christian Velasquez, a UCF student who wrote comments on the website Reddit praising the Parkland shooter. Based on that and nothing more, Velasquez was institutionalized and his sanity evaluated. The psychologists said he was neither a threat to himself or to others, but police sought another order from the same judge to bar Velasquez from owning weapons for a year. Although the statute says the ban lasts for a year, it is essentially permanent. At the end of the year, you have to appear before a judge and give evidence that shows that you are no longer a threat and mentally sound — and you will be opposed by the prosecution.Velasquez didn’t own any weapons, and was deemed not to be a threat, but police wanted to permanently bar him from exercising a constitutional right anyway. The judge declined. The consequences of such an order go far beyond the right to own arms. It would bar you from getting certain jobs, expose you to other sorts of criminal liabilities — even though you never actually did anything wrong. In Velasquez’s case, the college immediately barred him from campus. No word on whether he has been readmitted.Take a step back and consider what happened in this case: A young man was forcibly institutionalized, kicked out of college, and police sought to have one of his constitutional rights erased because of reckless comments he made online that were unquestionably protected by the First Amendment.Does that really sound like a good idea to anyone?Red Flag laws are a byproduct of the “we have to do something!” mindset. But here’s the truth: We don’t have to do “something,” we have to do the right thing. Something effective that does not destroy the constitutional rights of all Americans. This is the kind of mindset that led to the NYPD’s unquestionably racist and unconstitutional “Stop and Frisk” policy. The policy was immensely popular— with everyone except those who were targeted by it. It made the lives of millions of young men a living hell, simply because they lived in bad neighborhood and had dark skin.BTW: Both of Florida’s U.S. Senators, Bill Nelson and Marco Rubio, are trying to push similar “Red Flag” legislation through Congress.

Wow, 42 collapsed answers to this question, as of this writing, many of which simply say, “They don’t.” Hat tip for not upvoting, but… really?Come on. Know thy enemy. Trump supporters do.They know all about the fact-checking services provided by PolitiFact, the Washington Post, and Snopes. They can tell you the political leanings of Jeff Bezos (Democrat), and they can tell you the political party that PolitiFact’s parent company, The Tampa Bay Times, has endorsed for president in every election since 1948 (Democrat).For good measure, they can tell you how the owner of Snopes likes to spend his embezzled money (on prostitutes) and the kind of porn their lead fact-checker likes to act in (dominatrix). Kinky…More importantly, they know how these fact-checkers operate.When Donald Trump says Sweden is “having problems they never thought possible,” they know fact-checkers will focus on the “last night” part of the statement, conveniently ignoring the legitimate concerns of increased crime due to an influx of migrants.PolitiFact: Trump’s claim of attack in Sweden earns ‘False’ ratingWhen Hillary Clinton mistakenly says, “We are going to raise taxes on the middle class,” they know fact-checkers will bend over backward to explain what she meant to say, pointing to the speech transcript as proof, giving no credence to the fact that many people who listen to the audio hear a flub.PolitiFact: ‘Pants on Fire’ rating for claim that Clinton says she will raise taxes on middle classThe bias is self-evident to conservatives. In the same way Fox News’ conservative bias is self-evident to liberals.It’s human nature, really. We give the benefit of the doubt to our side; we explain the spirit of statements when our teammate’s literal language falters, and then we go and nitpick the wording used by the other side. We note hyperbole and humor when it suits us. We offer or ignore additional context to strengthen our position in the debate.I know there are plenty of people who are convinced of the notion that fact-checkers deal only with certifiable facts, and thus bias is irrelevant to the discussion, and if that’s you, I’d welcome a comment to my post about fact-checker bias here: What evidence is there to support that fact-checker websites like Snopes and Politifact have a liberal bias?As for the actual question posed, to understand how “Trump supporters” fact-check, you have to understand the revolutionary concept that, once upon a time, it was the role of all journalists to fact-check.Crazy, right?But of course that’s still the role of the journalist. Fact-checking outlets are just a subset of the field of journalism. In some ways they’re doing the same thing journalists have always done, we’ve just now given a specific label to the practice.So: Fox News, Breitbart, National Review, The Daily Wire, and other conservative news outlets—yes, they fact-check. They are all the time setting the record straight about questionable claims made by the opposition. With the exception of Breitbart, they’ve called out suspect claims made by Trump, too.Now, the fun part. Here’s where I hope to give a little more insight into the minds of those supposedly stupid Trump supporters who stand by the man’s idiotic claims. To do that, I’ll address one of the most prominent “Pants on Fire” claims made by Trump and explain why many are sticking by their guy.*Claim: Illegals cost me the popular vote.*Now, if you followed the aftermath of this claim closely, you may remember that the opposition narrative shifted over the course of a week. It started with fact-checks that looked like this:No evidence of voter fraudWhich then turned to this:No evidence of large-scale voter fraudAnd, finally, became this:No credible evidence of large-scale voter fraudPerhaps you think the slightly altered language doesn’t matter. The overall message didn’t change, right? But it’s indicative of a common pattern. Step One: Immediately decry Trump’s claim as ridiculous. Step 2: As time passes—as readers move on to something else—become more nuanced in the language of the criticism.Headlines are retroactively changed all the time, by the way. Articles online are commonly edited and updated. Only sometimes is an editor note attached, and only sometimes is the exact edit made apparent. This sort of revisionist history makes a slightly more forceful narrative stick with readers while a more truthful narrative lives in the archives.As for why the fact-checks became more nuanced, well, one, because there is evidence of voter fraud. You have to go to local reporting to find the articles, but they exist, such as this 2012 investigation by NBC in Miami Dade County: Illegal voting investigation grows dramatically.Additionally, Jill Stein’s recount in Michigan turned up some dodginess that mainstream media was none too keen to talk about: Records: Too many votes in 37% of Detroit’s precincts. That’s blue territory with too many votes. Suspicious, no?Okay, but that’s not “large-scale” voter fraud. That’s no reason to spend tax payer dollars on an investigation. True. But a peer-reviewed study co-opted by Harvard of the 2008 and 2010 elections estimated that a pretty significant number of non-citizens cast votes.Here's the Washington Post reporting on this in 2014:More than 14 percent of non-citizens in both the 2008 and 2010 samples indicated that they were registered to vote. Furthermore, some of these non-citizens voted. Our best guess, based upon extrapolations from the portion of the sample with a verified vote, is that 6.4 percent of non-citizens voted in 2008 and 2.2 percent of non-citizens voted in 2010.Because non-citizens tended to favor Democrats (Obama won more than 80 percent of the votes of non-citizens in the 2008 CCES sample), we find that this participation was large enough to plausibly account for Democratic victories in a few close elections.Shit. Evidence of widespread voter fraud.Solution? Blast the study. Debunk it. Call it non-credible. And that’s exactly what happened. While the researchers stand by their work—see their defense, published in the Washington Post here: Do non-citizens vote in U.S. elections? A reply to our critics.—everyone else in the media discarded the results as invalid.You have to be able to see that from a Trump supporter’s point of view. Just as the 2016 Harvard study that concluded there is no racial bias in police shootings was downplayed and criticized, this study is cast aside, ostensibly for not aligning with the left’s set of agreed-upon facts. It looks shady as hell if you’re not on that team.Now, even if the study’s findings are valid, Trump’s claim can still be false. Using the figures from the study, it’s something like 800,000 non-citizens voting—around 85 percent of whom vote Democrat. So, not close to 3 million.To that, a Trump supporter might say, “He was shit-posting.” Meaning: He was being purposefully funny/hyperbolic for the purpose of triggering his overly-sensitive opponents. Should the president be doing this? Hell no, but that’s an entirely separate issue.Or, the Trump supporter might say, “Well, the main idea of his statement is valid. Voter fraud happens more than most people want to admit, and we should be taking a look at it.”In both cases, they’re explaining why the language isn’t literal or why the spirit of the statement is valid.Finally, there are some who take Trump’s claim at face value and believe it. These people are likely pointing to the findings of True the Vote, a conservative organization that compiles incidents of voting crimes, which backed Trump’s claim and said their evidence supports the assertion that millions of non-citizens voted.Fox News didn’t touch this finding. They deemed it not credible. Breitbart, on the other hand, did push a few articles citing True the Vote. The difference here is not dissimilar to the difference between CNN and Salon. The further you veer from the center, the less credible the information becomes.Are Trump supporters sometimes willing to believe a questionable report? Yes. Just as Trump’s detractors are. That's how you wind up with PissGate. That's how you wind up with stories based on anonymous sources dominating news cycles…But do Trump supporters care about facts?Of course they do.

1. Jonathan JamesKnown as “comrade” by many online, 15-year-old Jonathan James was the first juvenile convicted and jailed in the United States for hacking. James hacked into companies like Bell South, as well as the Miami-Dade school system and the Department of Defense in 1999. He gained access to information like the source code responsible for operating the International Space Station.Once NASA detected the breach, the space agency shut down their computers for three weeks, apparently losing an estimated $41,000. Arrested on January 26, 2000, James plea-bargained and was sentenced to house arrest and probation. He later served six months in an Alabama prison after failing a drug test and thus violating his probation. Boston Market, Barnes & Noble, Office Max and other companies were victims of a 2007 massive hack. James was investigated by law enforcement for the crimes despite his denying any involvement.James was found dead from a self-inflicted gunshot wound on May 18, 2008. In his suicide note he wrote he was troubled by the justice system and believed he would be prosecuted for newer crimes with which he had nothing to do.2. Vladimir LevinRussian hacker Vladimir Levin accessed Citibank computers in 1995 and re-routed $10 million into other bank accounts around the world.Interestingly, Levin did not use the Internet to gain access to the bank’s database. Instead, he tapped into telecommunications systems and listened to customers state their account information. All but $400,000 was recovered, and he pled guilty to one charge of making $3.7 million in unauthorized transfers, according to the Wall Street Journal. Levin received three years in prison and was ordered to pay back $240,000 to Citibank. As the Federal Bureau of Investigation writes in 2014:It was hardly the opening salvo in a new era of virtual crime, but it was certainly a shot across the bow.Two decades ago, a group of enterprising criminals on multiple continents—led by a young computer programmer in St. Petersburg, Russia—hacked into the electronic systems of a major U.S. bank and secretly started stealing money. No mask, no note, no gun—this was bank robbery for the technological age.Our case began in July 1994, when several corporate bank customers discovered that a total of $400,000 was missing from their accounts.Once bank officials realized the problem, they immediately contacted the FBI. Hackers had apparently targeted the institution’s cash management computer system—which allowed corporate clients to move funds from their own accounts into other banks around the world. The criminals gained access by exploiting the telecommunications network and compromising valid user IDs and passwords.3. Gary McKinnonBetween 2001 and 2002, Scottish computer hacker Gary McKinnon gained access to 97 American military networks between 2001 and 2002, even leaving the military a message on its website: “Your security is crap.” McKinnon’s goal was to prove the existence of UFOs. The US failed to extradite him.His hack has been called the “biggest military computer hack of all time.” Today the former hacker has re-invented himself as a SEO wizard, charging 40 pounds per hour to help firms rank.4. John McAfeeWhen John McAfee lived in Belize, he planned to study plants. Probably some psycho-active plants. He had a lab for this. Authorities seized his property for creating drugs in this lab, claims McAfee, after an official came seeking political bribes from the gringo. To get back at the Belize government and prove their corruption, he hacked every major computer from Belize government bureaucracies. He found evidence implicating officials in corruption, laundering, drug running and murder. He had to organize his own escape out of Belize to avoid arrest. He did this by faking a heart attack.Today McAfee lays low, believing he is routinely being tracked by law enforcement. He recently posted on social media he got into a shootout with police after having been arrested.5. AstraAstra, a pseudonym, stands for a Greek hacker who gained access to French aviation company Dassault Group computers, stealing weapons technology data for more than five years. Astra sold information about jet fighters and military aircrafts to countries during the period spanning the hacks. Astra’s infiltration of Dassault computers apparently cost the company more than $360 million. Astra’s identity, never identified, is described by authorities as a 58-year old mathematician. Caught in January 2008, Astra was sentenced to six years in jail.Stephen Wozniak // Viappy / Shutterstock6. Stephen WozniakCo-founder of Apple Stephen Wozniak’s first white-hathacking involved “phone-phreaking.” He bypassed the phone system and, while studying at the University of California, made devices for friends called “blue boxes” which enabled free long-distance phone calls. Wozniak reportedly used one of these devices to try and call the Pope. He later formed Apple Computer with pal Steve Jobs.7. James KostaJames Kosta and partners hacked big business and military computers, including major banks, General Electric and IBM. He was 14-year-old. Convicted of 45 counts of technical burglary and 45 years in prison, he instead joined the Navy at 18 years-old as intelligence analyst. At 20 he joined the CIA to track warlords in Africa and Middle East, and at 24 he sold his first dotcom company for millions of dollars. Today he mentors “troubled youth” to tap their full potential.“When you look a little deeper, as people did with me, you’re able to get kids focused on their potential,” he once said.8. Kevin MitnickKevin Mitnick has had a long lasting impact on the security industry. In early adulthood, he made free calls on hacked cellphones and stole code from companies such as Sun Microsystems and Novell, according to The New York Times. He told the times he evenhacked into NSA phone calls. After pleading guilty to numerous fraud charges, he served five years in prison and now works as a professional security consultant. He remains active today, especially on Twitter.9. Adrian LamoChelsea ManningThe “homeless hacker”, Adriam Lamo, is also one of the world’s most hated hackers after turning in Chelsea Manning for leaking classified US Army documents.Before that, he hacked the computer of The New York Times in 2002 gaining access to private databases including information of all 3,000 authors of op-eds at the paper. Sentenced two years probation and fined nearly $65,000, Lamo went on to bigger fame later in life.10. David L. SmithDavid Smith authored the Melissa worm virus; that is, the first successful email-aware virus distributed in the Usenet discussion group alt. sex. Arrested and sentenced for causing more than $80 million in damage, David Smith remains one of the world’s original notorious hackers after serving 20 months in jail.