Careful what you post

[panther10758]

Recently one LPS was fired and another (from different company) faces possible termination for post put on message boards like this one (not here though) Now there any many opinions on who caused this and why point is please use caution when posting. I know th epost of both person and did not see where any information was given that was for "eyes only" in fact it was a general post. None the less its cost one person a job and quite likely two! Please exercise caution when posting and I would suggest you "never" disclose who you work for. I personally find it difficult to believe that these persons higher ups just randomly saw these post and knew that the ID's were said persons. Therefore its my belief that someone who had these persons info gave both info and names to these higher ups. What ever their reason for harming these persons I cannot say but regardless its quite apparent that its best to use extreme caution when posting on these boards!

End editorial

The views expressed in this post are soley my own and in no way reflect the opinions of others I know or other boards I belong to.

[SIW Editor]

Message boards and operational security can be a tough fit, so you've got to be smart (and I think you all have been smart when it comes to this).

However, for the folks who haven't thought about this issue, here's what I suggest:

1. Do not disclose any security vulnerabilities if they can be identified to your site/store/business/agency/etc.
2. Do not give complete details of security operations -- provide enough to move the discussion along, but don't weaken opsec.
3. If you think you've overstepped your details, go back and tweak/edit your post to remove unsavory details that might breach your operational security
4. Detailed information (rather than simple "best practices" and "theoretical situations") should be passed over IM or email; don't post it unless you're willing for everyone here to see it. Even on PMs and direct email, ask yourself, would I give this information to this person if I met them face-to-face?
5. Keep in mind that this is a community, and although we are set up to limit membership now to people in security, electronic alarm design/sales, LEO and defense, we are not set up as a background check agency for verification -- you need to do your own investigative work before you disclose private details of sec.ops to anyone.
6. Ask this question before you post to our "on-topic" sections: Am I rasing the level of professional discussion without weakening the strength of my employer's security?

Of course, also be aware that SIW is not going to give up your privacy without a court order or very clear indication of highly illegal activity (that clears all you guys, because I must say, this board is filled with very professional people (and the boneheads WILL CONTINUE to be dealt with -- thanks to all of you who bring them to my attention)).

I think everyone here has been pretty smart about this, and this point has been raised before, but it's always worthwhile to raise. Thanks for being such pros, and these kind of issues don't mean you should stop being active on any forums, but it does mean that you have to apply a little thought to what you're doing.

Incidentally, I always try to give myself a 5-second rule before I post anything -- Instead of hitting submit, I pause for a few seconds, review my message, and then if appropriate, I'll re-edit and/or post it.

Good day,
Geoff Kohl
SecurityInfoWatch.com

[SIW Editor]

Incidentally, this is perfect (from one of our recent "introductions"):

"I'm from Central Ohio and currently work as a Security Officer in a major metropolitan hospital. I also work part time as a Security Officer in a mid size mall."

You know all you need to know to welcome this person into the group but he/she has NOT yielded the details that could compromise themselves. Again, everyone IMHO has done a good job of this. People who are identifying themselves I've noticed also do a great job at making sure that even though you "know" who they are, they aren't giving up operation details that compromise them/their employer.

Keep up the good work.

Geoff

[LPCap]

I like how this site continues to raise the bar and not condone illegal and unethical behavior in the industry. I also like how posters who talk about abusing the system, breaking the rules and doing illegal activities are dealt with in a swift and quiet manner. This is the sign of a professional site. The moderators, while different and unique in their opinions and professions are respectful in presenting ideas.

I cannot say the same for other sites and they are silent, allow abusive posters to remain and do not confront abusers in a timely manner. The moderators also ignore problems and there silence condones it.

If anyone did not know, I am one of the members being targeted. I did not reveal any confidential information or even my name (besides my first) or even my workplace. In fact, the only people who knew my full name, work email, work phone, company and my level with the company are "esteemed professionals" in the loss prevention industry. My meeting with my regional manager is tomorrow and it is a good possibility that I will not have a job due to my post about Organized Retail Theft. While I did not even make the original post (merely copied and pasted from another site to start a discussion) I was targeted because my company is VERY pro ORT and the VP of LP is a member in an NRF sponsored ORT database. Coincidence? I think not.

That being said, I agree with the Editor and thank you for all the work you do keeping this board the best Security/Loss Prevention Board on the internet!

[Bill Warnock]

I like how this site continues to raise the bar and not condone illegal and unethical behavior in the industry. I also like how posters who talk about abusing the system, breaking the rules and doing illegal activities are dealt with in a swift and quiet manner. This is the sign of a professional site. The moderators, while different and unique in their opinions and professions are respectful in presenting ideas.

I cannot say the same for other sites and they are silent, allow abusive posters to remain and do not confront abusers in a timely manner. The moderators also ignore problems and there silence condones it.

If anyone did not know, I am one of the members being targeted. I did not reveal any confidential information or even my name (besides my first) or even my workplace. In fact, the only people who knew my full name, work email, work phone, company and my level with the company are "esteemed professionals" in the loss prevention industry. My meeting with my regional manager is tomorrow and it is a good possibility that I will not have a job due to my post about Organized Retail Theft. While I did not even make the original post (merely copied and pasted from another site to start a discussion) I was targeted because my company is VERY pro ORT and the VP of LP is a member in an NRF sponsored ORT database. Coincidence? I think not.

That being said, I agree with the Editor and thank you for all the work you do keeping this board the best Security/Loss Prevention Board on the internet!
How on earth could you lose your job for posting something that came from the New York Times, Washington Post and Kansas City Star?
We had one network working the I-95 corridor.
The FBI was sending out notices to law enforcement, retail and wholesale industries.
Security has always been proactive; local, state and federal law enforcement have jumped on the bandwagon through crime prevention initiatives.
You were only trying to warn us slow learners as to the pitfalls out there.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[panther10758]

LPCap and other person appear to be victims in a attempt to extract vengence for unknown incident. IMHO

[N. A. Corbier]

Only thing I can add to this is that each poster, on both sets of sub-forums, should review OPSEC and practice it.

[panther10758]

Problem is that the post in question (on other sites not here) did not violate OPSEC nor did it misrepresent any of the companies taking the actions. That is case with these two person

[Bill Warnock]

Problem is that the post in question (on other sites not here) did not violate OPSEC nor did it misrepresent any of the companies taking the actions. That is case with these two person
Panther, Nathan is right about OPSEC. In the process known as item analysis, folks can piece together a lot of information to form an opinion as to what the targets intentions.
In this particular case, our young friend and his immediate supervisor brought to their leadership the things their leadership did not want to hear or be put on notice about. Once leadership has been put on notice they must take action to remedy the situation. Some leadership elements love to bask in blissful ignorance. "Who sir, me sir?" "Yes sir, you sir!"
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[N. A. Corbier]

Bill, it may of been that the posts in question were used as trumps to remove unpopular people from an organization. I think this is what people are getting at. In that case, no amount of preparation other than preparing for finding the next job is going to help.

[panther10758]

I'm afraid its not that either I believe. Based on what some of us have put together.

[Chucky]

If you used a client computer to make your post it may be deemed as personal use and many companies do review all out going messages. It may not be the content as much as the personal use issue. You didn't mention that you posted at work but many folks do. Could that be it?

[panther10758]

If you used a client computer to make your post it may be deemed as personal use and many companies do review all out going messages. It may not be the content as much as the personal use issue. You didn't mention that you posted at work but many folks do. Could that be it?


Based on my knowledge of incidents for both parties that does not appear to be the case

[Lynch Mob]

I just wanted to get some thoughts from everyone regarding this type of issue. Obviously, the issue at hand is regarding a store level person who posted info on a bulletin board. What about a little different scenario?

There is a department head in your company who has a confidentiality agreement in place with specific requirements on when it is acceptable to release information. He obtains information from within the organization about an individual that works for another company that he feels the company that individual works for should know about. However, releasing the information would violate the confidentiality agreement. He happens to know the VP of the similar industry department for that company, so he calls him and tells him. As a result of the report, the individual gets fired, but was all based upon completely true and accurate information.

Do you think this action is appropriate by the department head or should he have honored his confidentiality agreement? Is there an integrity concern about this individual? If you were in a position to have authority over the department head, what action would you take with that person?

[panther10758]

Do you think this action is appropriate

No it is not




should he have honored his confidentiality agreement

Absolutely thats why its there. If it violated in this case which I see no just cause then where is line drawn?

[Bill Warnock]

No it is not





Absolutely thats why its there. If it violated in this case which I see no just cause then where is line drawn?
Confidential agreements do not protect anyone with knowledge of criminality. If there is a federal violation, the person with such knowledge is required by federal statute to report such activity or be prosecuted, the minimum sentence upon conviction is a fine or imprisoned not more than three years or both. If you have knowledge that an offense has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent apprehension, trial or puishment, is an accessory after the fact. Many state statutes include such language or call it facilitation.
People whose defense is, "I signed a confidential agreement," found that door slammed shut and were fined or imprisoned or both in both federal and state courts.
Having been in that boat and having the judge tell defense counsel, a confidential agreement does not preclude Mr. Warnock from testifying before this court. To do otherwise would make Mr. Warnock subject of criminal contempt of court charges. "Mr. Warnock, please be sworn and be seated."
Confidential agreements are not "stay out of jail or fine free cards." My friends to think otherwise implies you are not a reasonably prudent person. You following the law is not a sign of cowardice.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[panther10758]

No law of anykind was broken!

[Lynch Mob]

Confidential agreements do not protect anyone with knowledge of criminality. If there is a federal violation, the person with such knowledge is required by federal statute to report such activity or be prosecuted, the minimum sentence upon conviction is a fine or imprisoned not more than three years or both. If you have knowledge that an offense has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent apprehension, trial or puishment, is an accessory after the fact. Many state statutes include such language or call it facilitation.
People whose defense is, "I signed a confidential agreement," found that door slammed shut and were fined or imprisoned or both in both federal and state courts.
Having been in that boat and having the judge tell defense counsel, a confidential agreement does not preclude Mr. Warnock from testifying before this court. To do otherwise would make Mr. Warnock subject of criminal contempt of court charges. "Mr. Warnock, please be sworn and be seated."
Confidential agreements are not "stay out of jail or fine free cards." My friends to think otherwise implies you are not a reasonably prudent person. You following the law is not a sign of cowardice.
Enjoy the day,
Bill
What are you rambling about? Who said anything about violating laws? And what federal law are you citing that requires anyone to report a crime they have knowledge of?

Yes, a confidentiality agreement is not a free pass to do whatever you want without retribution, and someone could defend their actions in breaking confidentiality when reporting criminal activity, but it will not automatically protect the individual from civil liability either. Considering one is considered innocent until proven guilty, breaking a confidentiality agreement to report a crime is not completely clear cut and simple to resolve.

Hey Bill, why not tell everyone about your private message to me where you supported the concept of breaking confidentiality agreements, as long as the end justified the means. It seemed clear to me that you supported ideas of governmental corruption as long as the greater good was served. Why won't you share those same views here?

[Bill Warnock]

What are you rambling about? Who said anything about violating laws? And what federal law are you citing that requires anyone to report a crime they have knowledge of?

Yes, a confidentiality agreement is not a free pass to do whatever you want without retribution, and someone could defend their actions in breaking confidentiality when reporting criminal activity, but it will not automatically protect the individual from civil liability either. Considering one is considered innocent until proven guilty, breaking a confidentiality agreement to report a crime is not completely clear cut and simple to resolve.

Hey Bill, why not tell everyone about your private message to me where you supported the concept of breaking confidentiality agreements, as long as the end justified the means. It seemed clear to me that you supported ideas of governmental corruption as long as the greater good was served. Why won't you share those same views here?
First, log onto the office of the revision counsel, U.S. House of Representatives and look under Title 18 and read sections 3 and 4. Also you will find similar laws in your state that may be called the same for as I previously wrote, facilitation.
It is not necessarily using the end justifying the means rather what the law requires you to do. Sometimes to get to the really big fish in a criminal organization, you let the little fish and with the help of the little fish bring down the whole scheme. Are there bad aspects to this, sure there are. Sometimes USA's and DA's have to make a pact with the devil to accomplish the greater good.
The essence of what I wrote is if misconduct is observed, you can use the back door approach and just get rid of the offender. That is done, but I prefer to expose wrong doing just as Pepsi did when Coke employees offered to sell company secret information to Pepsi for a price. Coke took that information and together with Pepsi went to the FBI.
Are all cases treated the same? No they are not. Does it leave a bad taste in your mouth? Yes it does.
Government corruption is always distasteful. Must it be stopped? Of course it must. What type of snare to be used will be up to investigators and government attorneys with final adjudication left to the courts.
I am sorry you feel it is a rant. It was not meant to be such.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Lynch Mob]

First, log onto the office of the revision counsel, U.S. House of Representatives and look under Title 18 and read sections 3 and 4. Also you will find similar laws in your state that may be called the same for as I previously wrote, facilitation.
It is not necessarily using the end justifying the means rather what the law requires you to do. Sometimes to get to the really big fish in a criminal organization, you let the little fish and with the help of the little fish bring down the whole scheme. Are there bad aspects to this, sure there are. Sometimes USA's and DA's have to make a pact with the devil to accomplish the greater good.
The essence of what I wrote is if misconduct is observed, you can use the back door approach and just get rid of the offender. That is done, but I prefer to expose wrong doing just as Pepsi did when Coke employees offered to sell company secret information to Pepsi for a price. Coke took that information and together with Pepsi went to the FBI.
Are all cases treated the same? No they are not. Does it leave a bad taste in your mouth? Yes it does.
Government corruption is always distasteful. Must it be stopped? Of course it must. What type of snare to be used will be up to investigators and government attorneys with final adjudication left to the courts.
I am sorry you feel it is a rant. It was not meant to be such.
Enjoy the day,
Bill
Title 18 has nothing to do with what you are talking about. Here is the link.
http://uscode.house.gov/download/title_18.shtml

Please provide a better source.

As for your example of Pepsi and Coke, it does not match what you are saying. Pepsi reported the incident. They did not have a confidentiality agreement in place with Coke. They were free to disclose anythng they wanted to. The Coke employees signed the confidentiality agreement and were nailed for violating that agreement. This only serves to support the idea that you should NOT be disclosing information if you have a confidentiality agreement in place.

You can never justfy violating a law to catch a law breaker. There is no logic to it. The basis of our Constitutional law is all about law enforcement acting within the guidelines of the law to apprehend criminals. When you break laws, you are no better than the people you may be trying to catch. That is why the Bush administration is facing such heat, because they have felt their end results are more important than the laws being broken. Time and again, they are being told by the courts that it is not okay. Think Scooter Libby and wire-tapping.

As a security professional you should be preaching a message to act within the law, not trying to subvert the laws if your end result is important enough.

[SecTrainer]

You can never justfy violating a law to catch a law breaker.

This is certainly a broad statement that deserves some further thought, which would reveal that there are some obvious exceptions and distinctions in the real world. In fact, such exceptions and distinctions are made all the time when a choice must be made between enforcing a lesser offense (e.g., drug possession) versus a greater one (e.g., the selling of drugs). There were many involved in the Enron debacle, for instance, who were neither granted immunity nor were they prosecuted, as much for reasons of public policy as for reasons of prosecutorial resources.

Public policy and practical considerations, primarily involving resources and time, play an enormous role in deciding which cases will be pursued. This happens on both the criminal and the civil side of "enforcement". The EEOC, for instance, picks and chooses which cases it will pursue very carefully because it simply does not have the resources to pursue every case. It even publicizes the criteria by which it chooses what cases to pursue.

Cops on the street exercise discretion all the time when dealing with their informants, often overlooking certain of their "activities" because arresting them would be of less real value to society than the value of preserving their flow of information.

Can there be times when overlooking or failure to disclose knowledge of a crime can itself constitute criminal facilitation? Absolutely, but if we followed that to the strict letter of the law, how many family members, girlfriends and other associates of almost EVERY criminal defendant would we have to be charging with those crimes? Obviously, we do not do so except in (some) cases where they have affirmatively attempted to help the criminal, and for very good reasons. We threaten them with arrest all the time, of course, in order to get information from them, but the implication is: "Tell me what you know, and I won't charge you". Is that not permitting one law to be violated in order to gain enforcement of another?

However, there is one sense in which I would view your statement above to hold true in all instances - and that is with respect to violating Constitutional protections in order to enforce the law.

The law is a stern master, yes, but not one without reason, judgment and even a degree of common sense when it comes to making the inevitable hard choices about enforcement and prosecution.

[Lynch Mob]

This is certainly a broad statement that deserves some further thought, which would reveal that there are some obvious exceptions and distinctions in the real world. In fact, such exceptions and distinctions are made all the time when a choice must be made between enforcing a lesser offense (e.g., drug possession) versus a greater one (e.g., the selling of drugs). There were many involved in the Enron debacle, for instance, who were neither granted immunity nor were they prosecuted, as much for reasons of public policy as for reasons of prosecutorial resources.

Public policy and practical considerations, primarily involving resources and time, play an enormous role in deciding which cases will be pursued. This happens on both the criminal and the civil side of "enforcement". The EEOC, for instance, picks and chooses which cases it will pursue very carefully because it simply does not have the resources to pursue every case. It even publicizes the criteria by which it chooses what cases to pursue.

Cops on the street exercise discretion all the time in whether or not they will make arrests, ranging from that little "rolling stop" at a stop sign to looking the other way regarding some minor offense committed by one of their informants, or simply cutting some slack to someone because they believe that an arrest is not warranted.

I suppose we could probably throw every prosecutor and every cop - and perhaps even many judges - in jail for "failure to enforce the law" if we made too much of your statement...and most criminal defense lawyers would be in jail with them.

...and there are states where you could technically be prosecuted for failure to precede your horseless carriage with a person on foot warning others of your approach, because those laws have never been repealed!

I was involved in an interesting incident shortly after leaving law enforcement. I still had my scanner installed in my private vehicle and heard the description of a car wanted in an armed robbery just about 2 minutes before it zoomed past me at an intersection where I was stopped on red. I jumped the light and followed the car at speeds considerably over the legal limits (although I had to be extremely cautious in doing so and so I really couldn't keep up very well). It happened that we soon passed a city unit and I then followed along at slower speeds in case I could be of assistance, but there's no doubt that I had "violated the law in order to catch a law breaker", as I had no official authority whatsoever to speed after these people, even under the laws that "permit" citizen arrests.

Fortunately, you weren't there to write me tickets for the traffic laws I violated, but had you been there I doubt very seriously that any court would have enforced your citations.

Can there be times when overlooking or failure to disclose knowledge of a crime can itself constitute criminal facilitation? Absolutely. However, there is only one sense in which I would view your statement above to hold true in all instances - and that is with respect to violating Constitutional protections in order to enforce the law. The law is a stern master, but not one without reason or judgment.
Well, most of what you said has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. I have never made any reference to prosecuting all law breakers. Selective prosecution is not criminal, and it is a basic foundation of our criminal justice system. It is appropriate and logical to use a selective prosecution strategy.

I said that you should never break the law as a means of catching a law breaker. The only reference you made towards that was when you sped after a criminal. In your case, it worked out okay, but that does not mean you made the right choice, or your actions were appropriate. You acted improperly and created a hazardous situation for every citizen in the area. It was unecessary to do so and if anyone had been injured, I can guarantee that you would have surely spent time in jail for your actions. So, in your example, you created hazards, endangered people, and potential could have even interfered with the police's response to the situation. Just because it worked out okay does not mean your actions were just or appropriate, they were not. No more than when a shoplifter gets away without getting caught are his actions now just or appropriate.

However, I will make a concession that there may be times that are appropriate to break the law. These should only be limited to when lives are in danger. It would be appropriate to park in a red zone to tackle a guy trying to kidnap a kid. It would be appropriate to intentionally ram your car into a guy shooting up a campus with an AK-47. So, I will modify my original statement that saving lives is more important than obeying laws. Short of that, I don't see justification in breaking the law.

[HotelSecurity]

Well, most of what you said has absolutely nothing to do with anything I said. I have never made any reference to prosecuting all law breakers. Selective prosecution is not criminal, and it is a basic foundation of our criminal justice system. It is appropriate and logical to use a selective prosecution strategy.

I said that you should never break the law as a means of catching a law breaker. The only reference you made towards that was when you sped after a criminal. In your case, it worked out okay, but that does not mean you made the right choice, or your actions were appropriate. You acted improperly and created a hazardous situation for every citizen in the area. It was unecessary to do so and if anyone had been injured, I can guarantee that you would have surely spent time in jail for your actions. So, in your example, you created hazards, endangered people, and potential could have even interfered with the police's response to the situation. Just because it worked out okay does not mean your actions were just or appropriate, they were not. No more than when a shoplifter gets away without getting caught are his actions now just or appropriate.

However, I will make a concession that there may be times that are appropriate to break the law. These should only be limited to when lives are in danger. It would be appropriate to park in a red zone to tackle a guy trying to kidnap a kid. It would be appropriate to intentionally ram your car into a guy shooting up a campus with an AK-47. So, I will modify my original statement that saving lives is more important than obeying laws. Short of that, I don't see justification in breaking the law.

As the title of this thread says: Careful what you post. Your last statement could be interpreted as giving the ok to anti aborotionists (sp? sorry) to bomb abortion clinics.

[Christopherstjo]

You can never justfy violating a law to catch a law breaker.

Some states permit a citizen to commit a lessor crime in order to prevent a more serious crime from being committed without being prosecuted for the misdemeanor committed. This typically pertains to committing a low class misdemeanor to prevent a felony


Selective prosecution is not criminal

Under Title 18 U.S.C., Sec., 242 a person can be held criminally liable for violating the civil rights of another. This includes selective prosecution because such acts are done "under color of law" and that is the disinguishing factor for this law to apply.

See http://www.usdoj.gov/crt/crim/242fin.htm which states:

"Section 242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States."

Hence, your argument as quoted above is that "selective prosecution is not criminal" and as such, it most certainly can be criminal.

However, try getting a prosecutor charged and prosecuted for this violation of law - people in hell stand a better chance of getting a glass of ice water than anyone will have getting a prosecutor prosecuted for such criminal acts.

[SecTrainer]

Under Title 18 U.S.C., Sec., 242 a person can be held criminally liable for violating the civil rights of another. This includes selective prosecution because such acts are done "under color of law" and that is the disinguishing factor for this law to apply.

Not quite, as you'd have known if you bothered to read the law. THIS is the distinguishing factor: Deprivation of rights under color of law "...on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race". Once again, your half-baked "legal analysis" sucks.

As for people in hell getting ice water first, I believe you'll find that lots of people, from cops all the way up to and including judges, have indeed been charged and convicted under this law...when appropriate. You don't even need your limited legal research skills (and they are limited, Mr. Cross) - just Google the search term "Title 18" 242 convicted for as many examples as you'd care to look at.

"Selective prosecution", as it is commonly done, i.e. for reasons of public policy, reasons of limited public resources, etc., in no way constitutes any form of crime. Period.

[Lynch Mob]

Selective prosecution is not a crime, and the Title 18 law would not apply even if it was. Choosing to NOT prosecute someone is not using the color of law to violate their civil rights. In fact, if you believed that all people who are charged with a crime should be vigorously pursued for prosecution, then you WOULD be violating their civil rights under the color of law. Just look at the Duke rape case as an example of this.

In a system of innocent until proven guilty, you have to be selective in your prosecution efforts. Police have to know what evidence they need to pursue prosecution and prosecutors need to determine if the evidence will be able to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If either of these are not there, prosecution should not be pursued. Otherwise, our courts would have triple or quadruple the cases they have now, and many, many more people would be found not guilty, resulting in a rash of civil liability against city, state, and federal governments costing taxpayers billions of dollars each year.

Our entire system is based on the concept of selective prosecution. It is not illegal in any way, shape or form.

[SecTrainer]

Selective prosecution is not a crime, and the Title 18 law would not apply even if it was. Choosing to NOT prosecute someone is not using the color of law to violate their civil rights. In fact, if you believed that all people who are charged with a crime should be vigorously pursued for prosecution, then you WOULD be violating their civil rights under the color of law. Just look at the Duke rape case as an example of this.

In a system of innocent until proven guilty, you have to be selective in your prosecution efforts. Police have to know what evidence they need to pursue prosecution and prosecutors need to determine if the evidence will be able to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt. If either of these are not there, prosecution should not be pursued. Otherwise, our courts would have triple or quadruple the cases they have now, and many, many more people would be found not guilty, resulting in a rash of civil liability against city, state, and federal governments costing taxpayers billions of dollars each year.

Our entire system is based on the concept of selective prosecution. It is not illegal in any way, shape or form.

Technically, I believe that Title 18-242 could apply to a nonprosecution if, say, a white man was not prosecuted for a crime he committed against a black person merely because of their respective races. In that case, it would be the rights of the victim, not the perp, that were being violated because all people have a presumptive right to the equal protection (and prosecutorial retribution) of the state without respect to their race.

However, you're absolutely right that our entire system is based on the concept of selective prosecution, just as long as the "selection" isn't done for reasons of race or the alien status of individuals involved in the crime, whether as victim or perp. In fact, the whole practice of plea-bargaining (which we don't like but has its purposes) would be a "crime" as well because you're wouldn't be adjudicating the actual crime committed but some other lesser offense. Police, prosecutors and judges are all understood to have legal discretion in performing their duties.

There has been an interesting sidelight to this in recent years, with a number of cities ordering their police officers to ignore Federal immigration laws. I haven't heard of any Federal charges being brought against officials or the police under Title 18-242, although this would seem precisely to be acting selectively on the basis of alien status unless you told your police not to enforce any Federal laws.

[Bill Warnock]

SecTrainer, you put your finger on an area the younger security or just new to law enforcement find amazing, selective prosecution, plea bargaining, Alfred Plea, out on probation, probation revoked, two nights confinement, placed on probation again and again. Remember the days when the arrested were back at the same place where you first arrested them before you had all the paperwork completed and accepted?
Child molesters picked up time and time again, then one of the old timers for some strange reason races down the hall with service weapon drawn, trips and falls, weapon discharges and molester struck and killed. Individual cautioned by supervisor, no annotations in service record and some of us pumping our fists in delight. Horrible in the extreme, agreed.
Probation officers still carrying case loads in the hundreds for a single individual. They call you to assist in an arrest, and one or two of you go to the hospital for patch work. Arrested warned and re-released.
Puts a bad taste in your mouth. No officers nick-named the brute, the gun fighter, the smiling cobra and on and on. Huge turnover rate and gaps in patrol coverage cannot be believed by those new to the craft. Officers with so many part-time jobs they burned out being able to feed their families and do the job they loved. Were stop sign or speeders stopped and talked to for 15 or so minutes and then let go? The average citizen saw us do our job and were satisfied. Were those runners or speeders observed repeating the same behavior, only on rare occasions. Did judges look the other way in certain cases of abuse, of course they did? Did other jurisdictions complain because your bad people suddenly wound up on their doorstep? More than once!
Some of our forum members will say this is fiction or how callous. Not fiction, callous of necessity. Was it right, never right, but what else at the time could be done?
What we did 40-45 years ago were the only tools at hand. When the only solution you have is a hammer, you tend to see every problem as a nail, some knowing psychologist once said.
The older of us are out of that business for many years now and are dying off at a pretty good clip.
Today, better education, better equipment, better pay and better science.
This particular thread has been interesting.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Christopherstjo]

Not quite, as you'd have known if you bothered to read the law. THIS is the distinguishing factor: Deprivation of rights under color of law "...on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race". Once again, your half-baked "legal analysis" sucks.

I realize SecTrainer that you believe you are an expert in just about every subject known to mankind...but the fact remains that my statement of:


Under Title 18 U.S.C., Sec., 242 a person can be held criminally liable for violating the civil rights of another. This includes selective prosecution because such acts are done "under color of law" and that is the disinguishing factor for this law to apply.

Is a factually and legally true statement...

Because 18 U.S.C. Sec., 242 is the sister of 42 U.S.C. Sec., 1983, the powers of Sec, 242 of Title 18 U.S.C. is much broader, in matters of federal criminal law, than you obviously and apparently are capable of understanding

See for example, footnote # 5 in the case of Dennis v. Sparks, 449 U.S. 24 (1980) at:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=449&invol=24

To-wit, states that:


Title 18 U.S.C. 242, the criminal analog of 1983, also contains a color-of-state-law requirement and we have interpreted the color-of-state-law requirement in these sections coextensively. Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., supra, at 152, n. 7. A state judge can be found criminally liable under 242 although that judge may be immune from damages under 1983. See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U.S. 409, 429 (1976); O'Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 503 (1974). In either case, the judge has acted under color of state law.

What the Court is saying here is that while the Judge may be immune from civil damages under Section 1983, he can still be criminally charged under Section 242 because he violated Section 1983.

Title 42 U.S.C. § 1983 states:


Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of ANY rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.” (emphasis added)

See http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001983----000-.html

Hence, to violate 42 U.S.C., Sec 1983 opens the door for federal criminal charges to be filed under Section 242 of Title 18 of the United States Code and as Sec., 1983 plainly states -- for "the deprivation of [ANY] rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws"

Thus, your legal analysis (sic) that:


THIS is the distinguishing factor: Deprivation of rights under color of law "...on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race".

is factually and legally incorrect to what the law actually permits in terms of the range Section 242 of Title 18 U.S.C. can be applied and is clearly supported by U.S. Supreme Court case law.

[SecTrainer]

Unfortunately, your interpretation of the sources you cite is incorrect and WAY overbroad (a failing that I've noticed fairly consistently in your "analysis", by the way). What the court is addressing in the case/footnotes you cite is very specific and very narrow. Section 1983 extends an exception to (or "immunity" from) its civil liability provisions to certain judicial officers under certain circumstances, and the argument was made in this case by the defendant in the lower court that, the judge having established such immunity, he should not then also be criminally liable under 242. Does immunity under 1983 relieve the party of criminal liability under 242? That is the question, not whether violation of 1983 will be considered to be a violation of 242.

The court here made a very specific finding that an individual can be immune under 1983, but still prosecuted under 242. In other words, the same act by a judicial officer might fall under the immunity provisions of 1983, but may still violate 242. By no means is this anywhere near saying that the elements of liability under 1983, if established, *would* create liability under 242. This is not even a fine distinction from what you suggest the court is saying. Indeed, the court does not even address your point whatsoever.

EACH SECTION (242 and 1983) HAS ITS OWN ELEMENTS for establishing liability, and the court does NOT "fold the elements of liability" of these two sections together, NOR COULD IT HAVE DONE SO UNDER ANY OF OUR PRINCIPLES OF LAW, AND ESPECIALLY OUR PRINCIPLES OF CRIMINAL LAW. To have ruled that Section 242 should now be considered to be "modified" in terms of its elements by 1983, or to now subsume the foundations for liability specified under 1983, would simply have been laughable on its face. Criminal law, Cross, CANNOT BE MODIFIED IN THIS WAY (by ex post facto reference to other laws, and particularly civil laws). Only an amendment to 242 passed by Congress could do what you suggest the court can do by its decisions. Of course, this arises from your misinterpretation of the court's decision and its effect.

Can the same act by a judge be "permissible" under 1983, yet not have immunity for the same act under 242? Yes, and that is ALL the court found. Both sections do, in their own terms, address potentially similar facts. However, the elements of criminal liability under 242 are NOT MODIFIED by this finding and 242 remains entirely intact AS IT STANDS. INDEED, IT COULD NOT BE OTHERWISE UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF CRIMINAL LAW because doing so would ITSELF be a violation of rights (due process), and a violation of the most egregious sort.

Thus, the answer to the question of whether a prosecution can go forward under the terms of Section 242 despite a party having immunity under 1983 is "yes" and there really isn't anything particularly ground-breaking (a shift in law) in this decision, because such questions have been arisen before where there has been "overlap" of civil/criminal law. Immunity from liability under a civil law never, to my knowledge, extinguishes liability under the "sister" criminal law, and vice versa. However, this has never meant that the coexistence of liability under the civil law implies that the elements of the civil law will be subsumed within the elements of the related criminal law. NEVER.

Thus, in going forward with its prosecution under 242, the government will still have to prove, not that the individual violated 1983, but THAT HE VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 242. There is absolutely NOTHING in these cases that even remotely suggest that it would be sufficient for a prosecutor to show that the individual violated 1983 in order to prevail on 242. Section 242 would have to be prosecuted on its own merits, and I'm positively ROTFL at the very notion that you would think otherwise.

The ONLY question here was whether 1983 immunity also provided 242 immunity, and the answer was "NO". However, the court did NOT relieve the government of its obligation to prosecute the judge under the specific provisions and elements established by 242, and NOWHERE DOES IT SAY THAT NOW VIOLATION OF 1983 SHALL CONSTITUTE VIOLATION OF 242...merely that immunity under 1983 DOES NOT, PER SE, RELIEVE THE PARTY OF ITS LIABILITY UNDER 242.. Indeed, for the court to have decided that the elements of 1983 were now subsumed within 242 IS NOT POSSIBLE UNDER OUR SYSTEM OF LAW.

Now, violation of 1983 *CAN* be such that it violates 242, because 1983 includes ALL RIGHTS, etc, while 242 makes more narrow (alien status, race, etc.) reference to those same rights - call them a "subset" of the rights referenced by 1983. However, in order to prosecute under 242, such violations CAN ONLY be of the type that 242 SPECIFIES and nowhere does the court say otherwise. The court does not take 1983 and modify 242 by the terms of 1983. Indeed, Cross, had they made such a ridiculous ruling, not only would it have been entirely off-point with respect to the case they were hearing, it would have literally undermined our entire legal system, and particularly our principles of criminal law. You don't know much about these, do you?

I hope I've explained to you simply enough where your "analysis" goes off track. You completely misunderstand these cases. What I love about your "legal analysis" is, as I told you before, that you don't really how to read or interpret case law - the first principle of which is that courts decide specifically what they decide and not something else, so you need to understand SPECIFICALLY what they decided, which cannot be whatever you want it to be. The second principle of analysis is that if your analysis puts the court in a position of violating fundamental principles of Western law, it's probably not good analysis.

You typically commit both analytical sins, I notice, in that your "analyses" do not remain within the scope of the questions addressed by the courts (they say whatever you want them to say), and they are not grounded in fundamental Western principles of law. You seem to believe that case law can modify the statutory elements of criminal law, (for instance, that the court can find that the elements of Section 1983 are subsumed within Section 242), when courts can do no such thing. In fact, you exhibit no understanding whatsoever of the notion of "scope" or the basic inviolable principles of Western law.

Thus, it is always possible to destroy your very sloppy (and rather juvenile) "analyses" internally - i.e., simply by reference to your own cases. (God, do I wish you'd been my opponent in moot court in law school...I'd have probably tried to scrape up the money to stay in school if I'd thought law practice would be so easy, or so much fun.)

Now, we realize that you're probably accustomed to offering these pseudo-analyses to lay people on different forums, and to be admired on these forums for your legal "erudition" because the members really aren't trained to identify the flaws in your arguments. You spout a bunch of legal garbage (shall we test your knowledge of legal terms...hmmm?), citing "cases" that don't say what you claim they say, and it just bowls people over with the avalanche of your "almighty genius".

Well, that avalanche does not bowl me over, so I'll just say this as someone who does have some formal education in legal analysis (although even I do not claim "expertise" because I know what "expertise" really is): You, sir, don't know the first thing about the subject, the methods or the practice of legal analysis. As such, it would be very wise for you to skip along to another forum where the paper-thin veneer of your "legal expertise" won't be in such danger of being scraped away to reveal what lies beneath it - which is nothing at all. It is in grave danger of such exposure here, sir, and I will see that it happens every time, because I consider you to be a menace to our profession, and your misstatements of "law" to be a grave disservice to the members of this forum.

[Christopherstjo]

My point is simple enough...

You originally argued that 18 U.S.C. Sec., 242 is only applicable in cases involving selective prosecution based upon race, color and national origin. And that is exactly what you originally argued.

The U.S. Supreme Court has clearly pointed out that "Title 18 U.S.C. 242, is the criminal analog of 1983" And there is nothing you can argue that will deter from this fact in the manner the laws are applied.

Section 1983, makes it a [civil] violation of law to deprive someone of [ANY] right, liberty or privilege secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States. The key word being [ANY] and as such, it is not confined only to issues involving race, color and national origin.

Section 242, makes it a [criminal] violation of law to violate Section 1983.

Hence, this means that your interpretation of law (sic) (stated above) is both factually and legally incorrect.

In the case involving the Judge, the Court was again clear in that while the Judge could evade [civil liability] for violating Section 1983, he could still be held [criminally liable] under Section 242 for violating Section 1983.

So argue all you want, but considering that you did not finish law school, it is suffice to say that you are not a learned professional in matters of constitutional law, which in and of itself is a very complex area of law.

This is not an insult, just a statement of fact based upon your telling me in a private message, which I posted in a thread, that you did not finish law school and as such, leaves room for you to be incorrect in your legal interpretations of law, despite your belief to the contrary.

[Bill Warnock]

Chris consider the abtract versus instantiation. I think that is the point trying to be made.
Enjoy the day,
Bill

[Christopherstjo]

Chris consider the abtract versus instantiation. I think that is the point trying to be made.

I appreciate your input...but the fact remains that SecTrainer's originial arguement to seemingly support his [frivolous] effort to once again personally insult me is that....18 U.S.C. Sec 242 is ONLY applied in issues involving selective prosecution of cases based on race, color and national orgin.

And as I wrote above... My point is simple enough in that because 18 U.S.C. Sec., 242 is the criminal analog of 1983, Sec 242 is NOT confined only to issues involving selective prosecution based upon race, color and national origin as SecTrainer wants others to believe.

Now, I know it would take nothing short of an act of God for SecTrainer to lower himself so as to actually admit he is wrong and Lord forbid anyone to dare to disagree with him. But the fact remains that his orginal arguement is both factually and legally wrong.

[SecTrainer]

My point is simple enough in that because 18 U.S.C. Sec., 242 is the criminal analog of 1983, Sec 242 is NOT confined only to issues involving selective prosecution based upon race, color and national origin as SecTrainer wants others to believe.

Now, I know it would take nothing short of an act of God for SecTrainer to lower himself so as to actually admit he is wrong and Lord forbid anyone to dare to disagree with him. But the fact remains that his orginal arguement is both factually and legally wrong.

I am sorry, but Section 242 is not modified by Section 1983, nor could it ever be so modified. That is not how the law works, nor was that what the court meant by calling Section 242 the "criminal analog of Section 1983". You might begin your understanding of your error by apprehending the meaning of the words "analog", "analagous" and "analogy", all of which connote two or more things that are similar in some respects, but not in others - they do NOT and have never suggested two or more things being "identical". Section 242 is not identical to Section 1983 in its terms or its elements, NOR CAN IT BE SO MODIFIED BY ANY COURT RULING, DECISION OR DICTUM under the principles of Western law.

One of your many disadvantages in carrying out legal research, Mr. Cross, is that legal scholars, and particularly those in our higher courts, are inclined to use words precisely and in the fullness of their meanings, which is a characteristic that I have frequently noted you lack. I've no idea how anyone ever earned a master's degree (from where, and in what discipline, Mr. Cross?) with your spelling, grammar and linguistic imprecision. Your instructors must not have been exquisitely particular about the papers you presumably submitted.

Nor, Mr. Cross, will I ever "admit that I am wrong" when I am right, and I'm very sorry if you entertain that faint hope among your other innumerable delusions. You hoped to burst upon the board as a "legal scholar", a "criminologist", a "mental health professional" and Lord knows what else, but you have been unmasked. In this claim of legal scholarship, as in your others, we recognize you to be a fraud (and not a particularly good one) - the mere shadow of substance rather than the form. We have met your kind before, and we know you all too well.

It was, perhaps, too much to hope that we had seen the last of you when Mr. Marchetti betook himself to sunnier climes. Now, we pray that you, too, will have the decency to go away as there is surely another like you waiting to take the stage, Mr. Cross, and we crave a new dog-and-pony show. You know how fickle audiences are; we become bored quickly, and this act is stale.

Think of this as the "hook" on the Gong Show. The audience is walking out, hissing, while the curtain drops, mercifully bringing your performance to its whimpering conclusion. Sadly, you did not bring down the house, Mr. Cross; instead, the house has brought you down.

You should be grateful that technology has not yet found a way to let an Internet forum crowd vent its displeasure in some more tangible way than merely by hissing at you. In the old days of vaudeville, it was so much more satisfying to the audience to express their criticisms by heaving bricks, bottles, overripe tomatoes and rotten eggs in the direction of the stage, and this had the added benefit of providing much-needed exercise while bringing a lousy act to an abrupt halt. Where you are concerned, Mr. Cross, I predict there would be a brisk market in all of those commodities, and a nice profit waiting for anyone having the commercial foresight to bring a few carloads of them to one of your performances.

I can see rotten eggs selling to a Cross audience during the intermission for upwards of $5 ($55 per dozen), bricks for $10 ($18 for two), and tomatoes going through the roof at $80 per box. Beer bottles would probably be on a par with shares of Microsoft stock, and just as popular.

[Christopherstjo]

You should be grateful that technology has not yet found a way to let an Internet forum crowd vent its displeasure in some more tangible way than merely by hissing at you.

Grow up and stop acting like a two year old

[SecTrainer]

Grow up and stop acting like a two year old

I'm sorry. Did I miss your answer to my question somewhere in this witty repartee? It was a very easy question to answer...even for a 2-year-old.

[Christopherstjo]

I'm sorry. Did I miss your answer to my question somewhere in this witty repartee? It was a very easy question to answer...even for a 2-year-old.

Well now, since I did not answer your question then I guess you did not miss it... I guess your questoin is pretty stupid, now isn't it.

Maybe if you'd stop acting like a 2 year old throwing tantrums it might be worth conversing with you...send me a private message when you get around to growing up because you are boring the heck out of me otherwise.

[SecTrainer]

Well now, since I did not answer your question then I guess you did not miss it... I guess your questoin is pretty stupid, now isn't it.

Maybe if you'd stop acting like a 2 year old throwing tantrums it might be worth conversing with you...send me a private message when you get around to growing up because you are boring the heck out of me otherwise.

I confess that I don't comprehend how my question was stupid, but you'd know best about stupid, I'm sure. Yessir, I recommend that all members of the board henceforth consider Mr. Cross to be the ultimate standard when it comes to stupid.

As for sending you private messages, Mr. Cross, you don't respect their privacy, so I won't be sending you any. Besides, I find the prospect of whispering in your ear revolting. No, I am content to let it all hang out, as we once did amongst the flowers during the Summer of Love. Do you have a posey for my gun barrel?

[Christopherstjo]

Here's the bottom line...

It is one thing to try to personally insult me and to personally attack me... It is an entirely different thing to make threats of violence and don't give me this crap on how you didn't make such threats...


You should be grateful that technology has not yet found a way to let an Internet forum crowd vent its displeasure in some more tangible way than merely by hissing at you.

End of story and end of conversing with you. Do NOT bother me any futher... GOT IT.

[SecTrainer]

Here's the bottom line...

It is one thing to try to personally insult me and to personally attack me... It is an entirely different thing to make threats of violence and don't give me this crap on how you didn't make such threats...



End of story and end of conversing with you. Do NOT bother me any futher... GOT IT.

Threats of violence? Oh, dear me, Mr. Cross - my sides are positively splitting. Can you possibly be that concrete? Can ANYONE possibly be that concrete? I don't even think Rain Man was that concrete.

I didn't think you had another joke left in you, but it seems you did.

As far as not conversing with you, I'm completely agreeable - it's an agreement I tried to reach with you long ago, if you'll remember. Apparently, it's okay as long as you think it's your idea. Whatever...I'll take what I can get. It's a deal! Goodbye, Mr. Chips, you lovable old fraud.

[Bern Wheaton]

I know I am far behind on this forum, and on this post. And see post sides of this argument. It is sad that you can't post what you feel ,but very rise not to post the company name or do it on there PC. If so done. I don't know what the real post was about. But...

As long as you work for the company and you sign the agreement not to disclose anything about the company as long as you work for them. But once you quit get fired or retire that agreement is ended

Bring it to the post which I have seen a few here talking about your job if your boss is reading the post also ,he already knows who you are and what your telling everyone even if your not saying the company name your taking your job in your own hands as is!

Now you could read of a section to me of the law and I might get lost and I might not,but I am from the old school of security. And that is you cover yourself as much as you can!

Make sure your one step ahead of what everyone else is doing.And you can get out of any scrape you get into or someone put to you.

I have enough threats ,being frame by the company's I work for to know you aways cover yourself in anything you do. Even when you post it in a forum.