Police To Scan Social Media For Violence Alerts

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
It's pretty damn sad that the police are resorting to stuff like this. Using algorithms to detect and identify "cyber-hate?" First of all, what the hell is cyber-hate? I'm pretty sure they just made that word up. Secondly, the US Department of Justice didn't have anything better to waste $800,000 on?

An algorithm will automatically identify cyber-hate on Twitter in specific regions of the US and look for a relationship between online hate speech and offline hate crime. Police in cities such as Los Angeles and Charlotte can then use the system to predict where hate crimes may be likely to take place in the wake of triggers, such as the Charlotte shooting, and intervene in a peaceful manner.
 
So who determines what is "hate" speech, and who determines when a plain, boring crime becomes a "hate" crime? Either crime is crime and speech is speech, or we might as well trash the Bill of Rights in this country.
 
jardows said:
So who determines what is "hate" speech, and who determines when a plain, boring crime becomes a "hate" crime? Either crime is crime and speech is speech, or we might as well trash the Bill of Rights in this country.
Click to expand...

Police piggies?
 
If it pleases the court, could someone explain how any violent crime is not a crime born of hate? And besides all these silly "we will build a computer to figure out where a crime will be committed that way we can not actually have to pay attention until a message pops up on our phones. "
 
azuza001 said:
If it pleases the court, could someone explain how any violent crime is not a crime born of hate? And besides all these silly "we will build a computer to figure out where a crime will be committed that way we can not actually have to pay attention until a message pops up on our phones. "
Click to expand...

When you accidentally slaughter a little kid crossing the road with your car on accident, this is a violent crime that doesn't involve hate.
 
azuza001 said:
If it pleases the court, could someone explain how any violent crime is not a crime born of hate?
Click to expand...
Robbing a bank for the love of money, then resorting to shooting the security guard trying to stop the robbery, wasn't because of an intense or passionate dislike for the security guard. It was merely a way of getting back out of the bank and an impulsive choice for violence was made.

Now compare that to chopping a gay dude up into little pieces in a bathtub because he made a move on you, grabbed your butt, and that hurt the feels. So you chopped his head off with an axe then took his corpse to the chop-tub.
 
Last edited:
If a guy kills another man for sleeping with his wife, it's a love crime, or is it now a hate crime. I'm so confused. *holds head in anguish*
 
CreatedTheMultiverse said:
Robbing a bank for the love of money, then resorting to shooting the security guard trying to stop the robbery, wasn't because of an intense or passionate dislike for the security guard. It was merely a way of getting back out of the bank and an impulsive choice for violence was made.

Now compare that to chopping a gay dude up into little pieces in a bathtub because he made a move on you, grabbed your butt, and that hurt the feels. So you chopped his head off with an axe then took his corpse to the chop-tub.
Click to expand...

I would argue that whether the guy I killed in your example was gay or not if I was crazy enough to go to that extreme on the situation then I am pretty sure it was a hate crime either way.

I understand what you guys are saying, I am saying that giving a harsher punishment because the victim is of a specific minority or of a diferent sexual orientation than someone else is the wrong here, the punishment should be harsh either way. If I get 4 years for shooting a straight man or 10 for shooting a gay man I say I should get 10 either way.

I hope I explained that right. Not that I am going to do anything to anyone. Full disclaimer.
 
jardows said:
So who determines what is "hate" speech, and who determines when a plain, boring crime becomes a "hate" crime? Either crime is crime and speech is speech, or we might as well trash the Bill of Rights in this country.
Click to expand...

Well, since it sounds like they intend to take preemptive actions before crimes are committed, then we aren't talking about arresting people or bringing charges against them unless of course crimes have been committed online already and it's too late to intervene.

I can see this in a way. A few people are raging at each other on twitter it's not much different then the same people yelling at each other on the street. If beat cops pick up on it or are called to respond and they can, they will try and get both sides to cool off before someone does something stupid. I can see taking this same approach online as a good thing as long as their emphasis is on trying to mitigate confrontations before they migrate from virtual to physical.
 
Last edited:
azuza001 said:
If I get 4 years for shooting a straight man or 10 for shooting a gay man I say I should get 10 either way.
Click to expand...
Circumstances Lives Matter. What if the straight man was trying to kill your daughter and the gay dude was merely walking by you and said "nice package"? I know of a guy in my city that got killed for stepping on a gangbangers shoes and not saying sorry. The killer got life. Then compare that to this.
 
CreatedTheMultiverse said:
Robbing a bank for the love of money, then resorting to shooting the security guard trying to stop the robbery, wasn't because of an intense or passionate dislike for the security guard. It was merely a way of getting back out of the bank and an impulsive choice for violence was made.

Now compare that to chopping a gay dude up into little pieces in a bathtub because he made a move on you, grabbed your butt, and that hurt the feels. So you chopped his head off with an axe then took his corpse to the chop-tub.
Click to expand...
Why is that any more heinous a crime than, for example, chopping your wife up because she cheated on you?
 
spinach_chin said:
Why is that any more heinous a crime than, for example, chopping your wife up because she cheated on you?
Click to expand...

Hate = feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone).

Crime of passion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those are actually very similar kinds of violent crimes. They'll both get the same sentence = life. Hate crimes still have great value though, when the end result isn't life imprisonment, no matter what. There is a difference between two gay dudes beating each other up in mutual combat and a straight dude beating up a gay dude just for being gay, to within inches of his life, and when the gay dude didn't even want to fight to begin with.

Edit: I'm not a lawyer, so maybe someone else here can explain this better, I was just trying to elaborate on it...lol.
 
Last edited:
azuza001 said:
If it pleases the court, could someone explain how any violent crime is not a crime born of hate? And besides all these silly "we will build a computer to figure out where a crime will be committed that way we can not actually have to pay attention until a message pops up on our phones. "
Click to expand...

Most crimes are not born from hate,but from greed/necessity. Do you really think criminal people were just born evil and just hate the "good guys"?

I don't think it coincidence that the countries with the least amount of effort into providing people the most of opportunities are also the same countries that has an extreme high criminal rate.
Whereas countries with free education and free healthcare. free reeducation. and a prison system based on reeducation instead of punishment... has the lowest amount of crimes.
 
CreatedTheMultiverse said:
Hate = feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone).

Crime of passion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those are actually very similar kinds of violent crimes. They'll both get the same sentence = life. Hate crimes still have great value though, when the end result isn't life imprisonment, no matter what. There is a difference between two gay dudes beating each other up in mutual combat and a straight dude beating up a gay dude just for being gay, to within inches of his life, and when the gay dude didn't even want to fight to begin with.

Edit: I'm not a lawyer, so maybe someone else here can explain this better, I was just trying to elaborate on it...lol.
Click to expand...


If I get killed by somebody, I kinda hope it's because they guy hates me enough to kill me and not just some random assed bullshit. I suppose I can deal with a serial killer as well as someone who has a hate on for me. And I also hope the guy that hates me has some reason for hating me that makes sense, like maybe I did something that cost him his family or something like that.

Now unreasoning hatred, hatred of race or something along those lines. That's foreign to me. I know it exists, I understand the "mechanics" of it. It's just foreign cause I don't get how anyone could hate someone else for such a reason enough to hurt them for it.

So I guess I just have trouble understanding how someone who killed me just because they "felt like it" is somehow better than someone who did it because they hate me for who or what I am.
 
SvenBent said:
Most crimes are not born from hate,but from greed/necessity. Do you really think criminal people were just born evil and just hate the "good guys"?

I don't think it coincidence that the countries with the least amount of effort into providing people the most of opportunities are also the same countries that has an extreme high criminal rate.
Whereas countries with free education and free healthcare. free reeducation. and a prison system based on reeducation instead of punishment... has the lowest amount of crimes.
Click to expand...

Ain't nobody ever teached you ain't nuthin' free in dis world ?

It's never free. Just because it comes from your taxes and everyone is eligible it doesn't make it free.
 
Is suicide a hate crime? "I hate myself and want to die. BANG!"


This thread and some of the explanations have helped a bit (for me, anyway). I think "Hate Crime" is used a bit too often at times and not enough on others (all white on black is not hate crimes and all black on white isn't non-hate crime). But, it's explained a bit better throughout the thread. I think the overuse of the term has diluted it's meaning and caused some misunderstanding.
 
lcpiper said:
So I guess I just have trouble understanding how someone who killed me just because they "felt like it" is somehow better than someone who did it because they hate me for who or what I am.
Click to expand...
The guy that "just felt like it" actually just accidentally ran you over in a street sweeper while sniffing a gram line worth of coc because he hated his job/life. The guy that hated you specifically, well, he drugged and kidnapped you, then released you into the woods for a little game of human hunting. The catch is that when you woke up, you were naked, had a chastity belt on with a 12" dildo stuck up your butt, there was a heretic's fork installed on your neck, and you had snowshoes super glued and nailed to your feet. He gave you a head start of five minutes though with the promise of death by impalement when caught.
 
I'm not so sure that the entire premise of a hate crime was ever such a good thing to begin with.

Our law in the US already differentiated between several types of homicide for instance. There was a category for a;

Premeditated murder, someone who makes a reasoned determination to kill someone and carries out the act.
Aggravated, as in two guys got into a fight over something and one get's carried away and just can't control his anger and kills the other.
And there is negligent where someone is killed because someone else failed to do something expected of them, like properly mark a container that has poison in it.
And slightly lesser forms like manslaughter often used when dealing with homicides that are related to accidents.
And we have homicides in which the killing is deemed justified as in self defense.

For a very long time we thought we had all the bases covered and then we decided to add some form of overlay across the entire existing spectrum, is it hate related or not. And now the hate definition is being stretched to cover a very broad spectrum. All in all I think it's just a lawyer's dream come true. Another set of parameters that they can argue for in court and bill for when it's done.
 
SvenBent said:
Most crimes are not born from hate,but from greed/necessity. Do you really think criminal people were just born evil and just hate the "good guys"?

I don't think it coincidence that the countries with the least amount of effort into providing people the most of opportunities are also the same countries that has an extreme high criminal rate.
Whereas countries with free education and free healthcare. free reeducation. and a prison system based on reeducation instead of punishment... has the lowest amount of crimes.
Click to expand...
How does "the government giving you free stuff" = opportunity?
 
CreatedTheMultiverse said:
Hate = feel intense or passionate dislike for (someone).

Crime of passion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Those are actually very similar kinds of violent crimes. They'll both get the same sentence = life. Hate crimes still have great value though, when the end result isn't life imprisonment, no matter what. There is a difference between two gay dudes beating each other up in mutual combat and a straight dude beating up a gay dude just for being gay, to within inches of his life, and when the gay dude didn't even want to fight to begin with.

Edit: I'm not a lawyer, so maybe someone else here can explain this better, I was just trying to elaborate on it...lol.
Click to expand...
I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with putting a higher "value" (for lack of a better term) on one vs the other.

It's a half step away from punishing people for crimes of pure thought... which was, of course, the reason for codifying "hate crimes" in the first place.
 
spinach_chin said:
I understand what you're saying, I just don't agree with putting a higher "value" (for lack of a better term) on one vs the other.
Click to expand...
So you wouldn't put a higher value on a violent crime like this?
"I cut her because she was white," Alfred told the authorities. Police sources also told the New York Post that Alfred had "set out to slash white people because he blamed them and 'the system' for preventing him from freely smoking weed." source
Click to expand...
spinach_chin said:
It's a half step away from punishing people for crimes of pure thought... which was, of course, the reason for codifying "hate crimes" in the first place.
Click to expand...
Thinking absurd things and acting on those thoughts are two completely different things.
 
CreatedTheMultiverse said:
Those that you mentioned are all just about killing someone. Hate crimes (and scaring people based on who they are) is much deeper than that.
Click to expand...


I think it still applies.

Say someone is threatening you. Does it matter all that much why they are threatening you?

I guess where I am going is that when it comes to sentencing there is usually a range from relatively light sentencing to "throwing the book" sentencing.

I believe for decades it was generally up to the Judge presiding the case to determine the sentencing if a Jury found the accused guilty. If somehow we find ourselves in a position that "hate crimes" demand tougher sentences, why did we not just increase the maximums to give Judges greater latitude to adjust for particularly heinous crimes.

Adding new levels of criminal definition just give the lawyers more to argue over and bargain with. That's my take on it.
 
Last edited:
lcpiper said:
Say someone is threatening you. Does it matter all that much why they are threatening you?
Click to expand...
Yes, absolutely. I need to determine the credibility and seriousness of a potential threat. I've had silly people threaten to kill me before, yet I'm still here (low risk). Now if some CIA agent came up to me tomorrow and mentioned something bad about my activity, I'd think about visiting another country, and stay there (severe risk).
 
spinach_chin said:
How does "the government giving you free stuff" = opportunity?
Click to expand...
Higher education availability despite richness you are born into = more job opportunities. higher payment = less interest in crime.
Less chance of having to get out of school to have to support your parents due to extra medical bills etc etc = better education - see above

basically removing money obstacles when people are supposed to grow and improve, gives better chance of being prepared to do their best. in short the government are investing in improving people to be better assets in the society and better tax payers.
Instead of just cutting them out and having them to find their own ways that might not be that legal.

just try to look into the statistics
 
CreatedTheMultiverse said:
Circumstances Lives Matter. What if the straight man was trying to kill your daughter and the gay dude was merely walking by you and said "nice package"? I know of a guy in my city that got killed for stepping on a gangbangers shoes and not saying sorry. The killer got life. Then compare that to this.
Click to expand...
I am sorry I am not trying to make this into a debate or a right /wrong pov. I was / am merely trying to put forth if all the other circumstances are the same, that the idea that one's color or sexual preference should not be taken into account. That the law shouldn't need the extra time added on, if they think a black man's or lesbian woman's life should get a criminal extra time then that extra time should just be the normal amount of time.

I am not naive enough to believe this will ever happen, people feel strongly about race/religion/sexual preference/ and now sexual identity here in the US. To me the only cure for these issues is speech, but some people don't want to listen and others only wish to hear themselves talk, so it will be a very slow process. But it will be worth it in the end I hope.

Back to the topic, this is not a solution to the problem. If anything having a computer tell you where an issue will happen could be a good thing but if the police end up relying on it too much which I can see happening, then it's going to be a big problem. Assuming it works at all and isn't just a big waist of money.
 
jardows said:
So who determines what is "hate" speech
Click to expand...
The same people that invented the concept
and who determines when a plain, boring crime becomes a "hate" crime?
Click to expand...
You have to use identity politics, where people are no longer individuals, but either designated as oppressed or oppressor groups.
 
azuza001 said:
I am sorry I am not trying to make this into a debate or a right /wrong pov. I was / am merely trying to put forth if all the other circumstances are the same
Click to expand...
That's the thing, for a lot of what they now call hate crimes, they're not, which was the point.

If a white man dragged another white man down the asphalt road for 3 miles (which I've never heard of happening), it would be because he really (really) deserved it. Like he raped his kid, killed his wife, or kicked his dog. However those evil whites dragged that black guy down the road merely because they just didn't like the color of his skin. It's not just about doing something, it's about why did you even do it!

How so many people here fail to see this is beyond me.
 
You are all misunderstanding what they're talking about here. They will be looking for people who are talking about shooting police.
 
A) the sheer VOLUME is beyond their resources.

B ) There is a govt agency already doing this, restricted allegedly to terrorism only, called the NSA

C) This is really just a ruse to cover the fact they've been using NSA total-observance for some time now, so why not try and use fear mongering to make it official.

D) The US Constitution is a little chirping bird who's song smells bad.

E) Do you trust any of these frigging PSYCHO murdering, raping whacko's in America's Police forces to have this kind of power?

F) Above all, they are looking for anyone who will call them on their lawlessness and pose a threat to exposing and ending their illegal activities.

POLICE STATE
 
ZodaEX said:
When you accidentally slaughter a little kid crossing the road with your car on accident, this is a violent crime that doesn't involve hate.
Click to expand...

Well technically it's not a crime nor violence. It's an accident. It only becomes a crime if the driver broke the law in a fashion that caused the accident. Even then it's not violence. Violence means deliberately assaulting or hurting someone.

So Big Brother is happening now. Orwells book 1984 was off by a couple of decades only.
 
CreatedTheMultiverse said:
If a white man dragged another white man down the asphalt road for 3 miles (which I've never heard of happening), it would be because he really (really) deserved it. Like he raped his kid, killed his wife, or kicked his dog. However those evil whites dragged that black guy down the road merely because they just didn't like the color of his skin. It's not just about doing something, it's about why did you even do it!

How so many people here fail to see this is beyond me.
Click to expand...
For starters, the crimes that you are exposed to by the MSM have to fit a spicy agenda. You probably know who Michael Brown is, because the shooting involved a black guy and a white cop, but I bet you don't know any of the names of the hundreds of other black guys killed by black guys during that period of interest.

And explain why a single black person hasn't been convicted of a hate crime for a racially motivated attack to date against a white victim in Texas? We have BLM gangs on video vocally targeting whites to assault, a popular "knock out game" among black youth targeting random white victims, and in fact the assault rate of blacks on whites is 200x higher than the assault rate of whites on blacks (which to me indicates that if there is a systematic problem, it certainly isn't white on black violence).

Now black people have been convicted of hate crimes, but only when the assault was against a "protected group", thanks to identity politics. So a BLM gang can grab a random white guy and drag him down the road just because they didn't like the color of his skin, unless he was homosexual and it can be argued they did it because he was gay. That's the problem with hate crime legislation, and also the ridiculous of it considering that the offense for dragging someone down the street with your car should be the same no matter what color, gender, sexual orientation, or religion of the victim is.

Identity politics is the most toxic thing the Democrats have done to the US as a nation recently IMO, and the reason for the current culture war:
nLAMzBd.gif
 
Last edited:
Some law enforcement agencies already use software from companies like Geofeedia to do just this.
 
Azphira said:
If a guy kills another man for sleeping with his wife, it's a love crime, or is it now a hate crime. I'm so confused. *holds head in anguish*
Click to expand...

If it happened in Texas (before 1972), and he also killed his wife at the same time, then it's not considered a crime at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top