TexasCHLforum.com

seamusTX wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote:First, there should be no such thing as a "quasi-government agency", you're either from the government (with the powers and restriction associated with government actions), or you're not.

Welcome to the future. This kind of thing has been proliferating for decades. Privatized prisons probably are most obvious example. Also there are privately operated alternative schools, which are the functional equivalent of what used to be called juvie hall.

In the CHL world, we have seen CADs trying (successfully) to call themselves private organizations.

- Jim

Sorry, Jim -- What's a CAD?

A CAD is a central appraisal district. State laws allow one or more counties to use a CAD to replace the tax assessor's function. Some CAD offices are 30.06 posted, and they insist that their facilities are not public property.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:A CAD is a central appraisal district. State laws allow one or more counties to use a CAD to replace the tax assessor's function. Some CAD offices are 30.06 posted, and they insist that their facilities are not public property.

- Jim

Kind of like the ISD claim.

seamusTX wrote:A CAD is a central appraisal district. State laws allow one or more counties to use a CAD to replace the tax assessor's function. Some CAD offices are 30.06 posted, and they insist that their facilities are not public property.

- Jim

Ah, yes. All I could come up with was "Computer Aided Design".

Charles L. Cotton wrote: I know the Chief, I know how he runs his department, I know what he has done for Friendswood and I know how he feels about the Second Amendment. He's a retired Marine Corps. Col. and yes his "language" got rather salty. But he didn't publish his comments, that was done by a lowlife dirtbag that no one here seems to condemn. The Chief's comments were private emails to friends and colleagues. (Again, I'm not speaking in legal terms.) To those who want to end his career and cost Friendswood an excellent Chief, how about sending me an unaltered copy of your hard drive and I'll see if I can find something you would rather not be made public.

Chas.

I don't know that he should be fired but I do think this call's into question the possibility of him being able to be impartial. Yes, we all make statement's we shouldn't or don't want others to hear but were not all the chief of police in charge of running a police department. You have to wonder what would be going through his mind if he were a street officer and pulled over someone of middle eastern decent? Would this guy get the same treatment as a white guy? The chief should be held to a higher standard because of his position.

I'm sure he's a generally good person and he made a mistake but when things like this come out it causes doubt in those that are already leery of peace officers being fair and just.

Let's try this again:

No one posting in this thread knows anything about this situation. The e-mail messages that are under discussion were put on a web site by an anonymous group of self-admitted criminal hackers and anarchists. There is no chain or custody, no credibility.

Anyone on this forum could get the treatment that Joe Horn got, including demonstrations in front of your house, media pundits calling for your hide to be tanned after you no longer needed it, and having to move permanently to an undisclosed location.

This is a similar internet mob scene over a much less serious offense, if any offense at all was committed.

Here endeth the lesson.

- Jim

seamusTX wrote:Let's try this again:

No one posting in this thread knows anything about this situation. The e-mail messages that are under discussion were put on a web site by an anonymous group of self-admitted criminal hackers and anarchists. There is no chain or custody, no credibility.

Anyone on this forum could get the treatment that Joe Horn got, including demonstrations in front of your house, media pundits calling for your hide to be tanned after you no longer needed it, and having to move permanently to an undisclosed location.

This is a similar internet mob scene over a much less serious offense, if any offense at all was committed.

Here endeth the lesson.

- Jim

Hear, hear...

That's pretty much what I said... It's all alleged and the entity that committed the crime has no credibility until proven otherwise. We all have been so "conditioned" to be aghast at anything that may be perceived as non PC that there is an almost instant vitriolic response and the call for someone's head on a platter. This man has (by some of the previous and initial posts) been tried convicted and punishment offered up for something that hasn't even been proven. Hearsay at best ... This mob mentality was fast and brutal based on supposed correspondence from a man who by all accounts known publicly previous to this had been a upstanding member of society.

I would hope if someone accused me that I would at least be afforded the opportunity to give my say before I was tarred, feathered and run out of town on a rail.

Now, if he did in fact write those emails I still don't see where it is a crime ... Unprofessional and bias maybe but as much as I may not agree... it's not a crime to be prejudice... YET.

Just sayin'

seamusTX wrote:Let's try this again:

No one posting in this thread knows anything about this situation. The e-mail messages that are under discussion were put on a web site by an anonymous group of self-admitted criminal hackers and anarchists. There is no chain or custody, no credibility.

Anyone on this forum could get the treatment that Joe Horn got, including demonstrations in front of your house, media pundits calling for your hide to be tanned after you no longer needed it, and having to move permanently to an undisclosed location.

This is a similar internet mob scene over a much less serious offense, if any offense at all was committed.

Here endeth the lesson.

- Jim

Mr. Cotton said the Friendswood Chief is a former Marine Colonel. So maybe he said this stuff utilizing the colorful language that military folks are noted for and maybe he didn't. What if he had badmouthed a couple of white meth-head thieves in the next email (just an example)? But, of course, the hackers and those aligned with them politically are going to put out and scream about whatever they think will make the most political hay, true or not. That is how propaganda works...so I hope those that read this can at least envision how folks of a certain political stripe might want to use (dis)information of this sort. Once again, some folks want to ACT as if a crime was committed here, and from my IANAL/YMMV knuckle-busting flyover country mechanic seat here, I simply don't see it.
I've said my piece and I am done.

I hate a hacker as much as I hate a thief or any other low-life.

I don't completely disagree with the sentiment, but I just wonder if the founding fathers wouldn't have done some hacking into the Brits, if they could. Obviously, a FIA request or other legal recourse would be better, than an illegal act.

If it's an act of civil disobedience, then they have to pay the price of that act, which is part of the deal.

The founders of the United States (Jefferson, Adams, Madison, Hamilton, and the rest) were elected representatives of American states that had been in existence and functioned fairly well for over a century, in some cases.

They declared their independence from the U.K. so that they could continue to manage their own affairs.

These hackers are simply throwing a protracted post-adolescent temper tantrum. They have no charter or popular backing. They have no record of positive achievement. They have no plan for the future. They are vandals.

- Jim

sjfcontrol wrote: Also, none of this is intended as any kind of attack against you. But the situation you describe is frightening.

First, there should be no such thing as a "quasi-government agency", you're either from the government (with the powers and restriction associated with government actions), or you're not. The "quasi-govt." part is just a method to use public money and governmental power, while walking around the governmental limits and oversights. Then to operate in secret makes it even worse.

Yes, and yes --these proxies are created to avoid all kinds of limitations. You would like the other aspects of this even less, for instance: you're assumed guilty and have to prove you're in compliance rather than the regulators having to prove you're not in compliance; and they won't tell you what the rules mean or what you have to do to be in compliance --that's all up to you to determine, but if you interpret the requirements incorrectly you're subject to being fined. So far, while the compliance regime is extraordinarily burdensome and pointless, actual enforcement isn't unreasonable. And you'll like this --we were told early on that complaining about the requirements could lead to punishment (in other words, enforcement might become unreasonable).

VMI77 wrote:

sjfcontrol wrote: Also, none of this is intended as any kind of attack against you. But the situation you describe is frightening.

First, there should be no such thing as a "quasi-government agency", you're either from the government (with the powers and restriction associated with government actions), or you're not. The "quasi-govt." part is just a method to use public money and governmental power, while walking around the governmental limits and oversights. Then to operate in secret makes it even worse.

Yes, and yes --these proxies are created to avoid all kinds of limitations. You would like the other aspects of this even less, for instance: you're assumed guilty and have to prove you're in compliance rather than the regulators having to prove you're not in compliance; and they won't tell you what the rules mean or what you have to do to be in compliance --that's all up to you to determine, but if you interpret the requirements incorrectly you're subject to being fined. So far, while the compliance regime is extraordinarily burdensome and pointless, actual enforcement isn't unreasonable. And you'll like this --we were told early on that complaining about the requirements could lead to punishment (in other words, enforcement might become unreasonable).

Man, I think 1984 has finally come to pass.

Don't do anything on a work computer that you don't want on the front page of the newspaper.

I have heard that saying ever since the Arthur Andersen scandal ten years ago. Maybe earlier.