Category Archives: Victimless Crimes

Financial crime is a trillion-dollar industry, and contrary to the popular belief that its a relatively victimless crime, it actually affects millions of lives on a daily basis. Despite remaining largely unseen, the proceeds from illicit activities such as child labor, drug running, prostitution, and human traffickinggo on to fund other equally heinous crimes, includingterrorist financing, bribery, and corruption.Making matters worse is the fact that criminals grow in sophistication at about the same rate asor much faster thanthe technology used to prevent their illegal activities. The United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime estimates that around 800 billion to 2 trillion US dollars, or about 2 to 5 percent of the global GDP, is laundered through legitimate banking systems annually. Only a very small percentage of these criminal fundsless than 1 percent of it, specificallyis accurately detected, frozen, and seized by law enforcement. The outlook is similarly bleak: experts from the World Economic Forum expect that the percentage will be just as low in six years as it is now.

Most of the worlds money flows through financial institutions like banks, who must exercise diligence to prevent themselves from becoming a party to money laundering and other crimes. However, many banks continue to insist on making use of outdated systems to detect these activities and perform AML reporting, rendering them significantly more vulnerable. Heres why your bank should consider upgrading to a more modern anti-money laundering solution today:

Legacy anti-money laundering detection systems are simply less effective against financial crime.

Despite having spent over USD180 billion on anti-money laundering compliance as a whole, the global financial industry continues to lag behind financial crime, as evidenced by the most recent statistics. Many banks still do not meet the minimum requirements set by regulatory bodies when it comes to anti-money laundering detection, investigation, and reporting, and therefore have been subjected to fines and sanctions totaling up to 36 billion US dollars in the last 10 years alone.

Its safe to say that the landscape of crime is constantly evolving, and most banks are stuck playing catch-up when they should ideally be more than a few steps ahead. The biggest weakness of a first-generation AML detection system is the fact that it is a product of a different era, and was designed to respond to threats of that era, not ones that present themselves now. The rules have changed. They are always changing, and legacy AML detection systems have trouble keeping up.

Maintaining a first-generation AML detection system is costly.

One of the biggest reasons why a financial institution might be hesitant to adopt a modern AML solution is the cost. When you already have something in place and it still functions reasonably well, it can be easy to think that youll save more money by simply patching up your existing system, allowing you to put the rest of your compliance budget towards other needs. What you may not realize is that this stopgap solution may be costing you morein the long run.

First-generation AML detection systems have to work harder, in a sense, to keep up with ever-changing regulatory requirements and standards. Theyre less ready to respond to changes, and it costs money to make them ready. These costs can add up. Theres also the distinct possibility that, in the future, the AML detection your bank is using right now simply wont be able to accommodate any new regulatory changes. Its original vendor may cease support for it at any time, and finding people who know how to maintain it will become more difficult. When that time comes, your financial institution wont have much of a choice but to perform a complete overhaul, anyway.

Most legacy AML detection systems require human intervention.

Compliance teams that make use of first-generation AML detection systems are limited by the tools available to them. In many cases, a legacy system can even be a major hindrance that could be actively keeping these specialized staff members from performing their actual responsibilities.Because theyre too busy covering the inefficiencies of the system theyre stuck using, they become unable to execute other tasks that might be more value-adding to their organization. This doesnt just create more cost for your bankyoull have to hire more people to perform the same tasksit can also result in frustration and burnout that can make employees less effective at their jobs, or worse, cause them to seek opportunities elsewhere.

First-generation AML compliance systems do not satisfy more aggressive regulatory requirements.

AML requirements are decidedly not new, but regulatory bodies are becoming more aggressive in both coming up with new standards and implementing them. They are now also taking a closer look at the systems and processes that financial institutions use in their AML monitoring and compliance efforts, as well as how well they are kept up to date and maintained.

Stricter requirements and higher standards for compliance are likely here to stay, and legacy AML detection systems may soon no longer be able to keep up with the complexities of adhering to these. A modern and scalable AML solution is the best way to continue satisfying these more stringent compliance regulations, now and in the future.

More here:

Here's why it's time for your bank to move on from your first-generation AML detection system - InfotechLead.com

(aijohn784/iStock/Getty Images)New research suggests it might be wise to cut back on prosecuting petty crimes. But we shouldnt overinterpret the findings.

Every year, something like 13 million misdemeanor charges are filed in the United States. These charges, ranging from traffic violations to serious assaults, may be less flashy than felonies, but they are the main way Americans experience the criminal-justice system.

We prosecute misdemeanors because, among other things, we want there to be fewer of them, and we believe prosecution deters reoffending. But a recent blockbuster paper makes a startling claim to the contrary: Prosecuting misdemeanants actually increases the likelihood that they will offend again.

The paper has been heralded by supporters of progressive district attorneys who have used their position to unilaterally impose reforms on the criminal-justice system, including refusing to prosecute many misdemeanants. Boston D.A. Rachael Rollins, who provided the data for the study, has claimed it confirms the wisdom of her approach. So have other reformers such as Chicago-area states attorney Kim Foxx and San Francisco district attorney Chesa Boudin.

Policy-makers, however, should exercise caution before reaching such expansive conclusions. The paper can just as easily be read to endorse more modest reforms especially keeping in mind long-established principles of criminal justice on which it is silent.

The paper is the work of three researchers: Rutgerss Amanda Agan, Texas A&Ms Jennifer Doleac, and NYUs Anna Harvey. Both Doleac and Agan have previously published research that challenges progressives policy preferences, so their new findings were probably not driven by a desire to achieve a politically convenient result.

To conduct their study, the three obtained data on every criminal case arraigned in Suffolk County (home to Boston) between 2004 and September 2018. They analyzed the relationship between whether a misdemeanant was prosecuted and whether he was subsequently rearraigned, indicating he reoffended.

The effects are startling: not being prosecuted for a misdemeanor reduces the probability of a future misdemeanor complaint by 60 percent, and of a future felony complaint by 47 percent. It also significantly reduces the probability of future violent, motor-vehicle, and disorder/theft offenses, although not of drug misdemeanors.

In other words, prosecution not only does not deter subsequent crimes, it increases the chance of reoffense. This, the papers authors suggest, is because any deterrent effect is outweighed by the effects on misdemeanants labor-market prospects. Unemployment can lead to crime, and being prosecuted can increase ones chances of becoming unemployed. It also creates a criminal record, making the offender less employable and therefore more crime-prone.

How did the researchers reach these conclusions? To understand how prosecution affects reoffending risk, we cant just compare prosecuted and unprosecuted offenders to see which commit more crimes. A person might not be prosecuted precisely because she is judged not a risk there are confounding variables determining both that we must control for.

To get around this problem, the paper uses an instrumental variable uncorrelated with those confounders. All misdemeanants charged in Suffolk County are arraigned by an assistant district attorney (ADA). Using each ADAs other cases, the authors construct a measure of their leniency, i.e., their propensity to prosecute a given offender. Mostly, the ADAs appear to agree about prosecutions they would typically prosecute about 70 percent of cases, and typically drop about 20 percent. But about 10 percent of the time, they vary in their inferred leniency. The assignment of these 10 percent of offenders to ADAs of varying leniency becomes the source of randomness.

What this means is that most of the papers results apply to those marginal offenders. Not prosecuting all misdemeanants wont cut everyones risk of offending in half, but declining to prosecute the marginal misdemeanant the one on the line between prosecution and non-prosecution reduces his chance of reoffending by a lot.

Toward the end of the paper, the authors generalize from these marginal offenders. They find non-prosecution has a large effect on all offenders, about a 15 percent reduction in reoffense risk on average. The effect is most concentrated among those who were typically prosecuted: Being prosecuted, the authors write, made them much more likely to reoffend. Strangely, the effect on those who are typically not prosecuted is indistinguishable from zero. If ADAs had prosecuted those they typically would not, there would have been no average effect on their future propensity to offend.

When I asked Doleac about this finding, she suggested that it may reflect ADA judgment about culpability: The people most likely to reoffend may also be those whom ADAs are most lenient toward the young, the mentally ill, etc. Those least likely to reoffend well-adjusted adults who made a mistake are those for whom ADAs have the least sympathy, but for whom prosecution could have a big, negative impact. This suggests, in Doleacs view, that there is a fundamental difference between culpability and risk. To me, it also indicates that ADAs are not great judges of the effects of their prosecution choices.

Theres a second key detail that the authors attend to, but that has been missed in some commentary on the paper: Most of the non-prosecution effect they measure is the result of first-time offenders, who become much more likely to commit crime if prosecuted. By contrast, prosecuting repeat offenders of any sort has little discernible effect on the likelihood they will offend again in the future.

This is not surprising, given that most offenses are committed by a handful of offenders criminological research consistently finds that a small, offense-prone population drives most crime. For those outside of that population including many first-time offenders prosecution is unlikely to deter them from doing something they wouldnt do anyway, but could have adverse effects that push them toward crime.

So should we prosecute misdemeanants less? We cant draw too dramatic a conclusion from one study of one county, no matter how well-designed. And while this one relies on the latest in statistical techniques, we should always be wary of findings that can only be arrived at through extensive statistical interrogation. The sheer complexity of the instrument the paper uses, combined with the very large effects it finds, should temper enthusiasm there are simply too many researcher degrees of freedom not to.

That said, we can cautiously conclude that the best evidence says the marginal misdemeanant should be prosecuted less often. But if ADAs are bad at judging the effects of their prosecution, then we shouldnt assume theyre good at telling the marginal misdemeanant from the future serial offender. So whether the studys results are wrong or ADAs are poor judges of how prosecution will relate to future offending, we should be wary of giving them too much leeway in deciding who is and isnt a marginal case.

We can instead offer a rule of thumb: When in doubt, err on the side of not prosecuting first-time misdemeanants. Diverting these offenders, with the threat of more serious punishment if they reoffend, could help clear dockets while minimizing crime. It would also free ADAs to focus on repeat misdemeanants.

Targeting repeat offenders would mitigate the risk of abuse of first-time diversion, by making clear that a second chance wont be followed by a third, a fourth, a fifth, and so on. Research on Californias three-strikes law, for example, indicates that increasing punishment for repeat offenders can have a powerful deterrent effect.

The above approach is different from the idea that we should in general prosecute misdemeanants a lot less a valid interpretation of the papers findings, but not necessarily the right one, for two reasons.

First, deterrence is not the only reason to prosecute an offender. Advocates of not prosecuting misdemeanors tend to invoke victimless crimes such as drug possession and prostitution. But misdemeanors can also include offenses such as simple assault and auto theft crimes that harm others. Such crimes reasonably elicit a demand for retributive justice. It offends our moral sensibilities to think that a person who commits a serious but not felonious assault could get off scot-free.

Second, systematic reductions in leniency may affect all criminals decision-making, increasing their propensity to offend in the long-run. The paper shows that Rollinss move toward non-prosecution of misdemeanors did not in the aggregate increase misdemeanor offenses, but the data it uses account only for the period between her election in January 2019 and March 2020, when the coronavirus crisis began. Its entirely possible that criminals will adapt, and misdemeanor offending will increase, in the long run.

Blanket policy changes can induce increases in offending. Californias 2014 increase to the threshold for felony theft, for example, predictably led to an increase in theft at the city level, indicating that offenders change their behavior in response to such shifts.

Coming face to face with the justice system can be time-consuming and exhausting, and may, at the margins, increase rather than reduce a persons propensity to offend. Even those of us highly concerned with public safety should be interested in creative solutions that minimize crime and disorder.

At the same time, policy-makers should not get ahead of themselves as some have in the rush to defund police departments and decrease the use of more serious charges. Good research is the basis of good policy, and this research makes a valuable contribution to public-safety policy. But we should be cautious in how far we go with it careful changes around the edges are always safer than blanket transformations.

Here is the original post:

Progressives Are Overreacting to a Startling Crime Study - National Review

Breadcrumb Trail Links

'It is not a victimless crime and actually has far-reaching effects in the community as others see the hateful message and can also feel targeted'

Author of the article:

Police say racist graffiti sprayed on a home in the northwest Royal Oak community is being investigated as a possible hate-motivated crime.

On Tuesday morning, a woman noticed the letters KKK and the word rat had been spray-painted on the garage door and side of her home on Royal Birch Mount N.W.

Graffiti of this nature can really harm someones sense of safety, especially when it targets their home, said Senior Const. Craig Collins, Hate Crimes Coordinator with the Calgary Police Service.

It is not a victimless crime and actually has far-reaching effects in the community as others see the hateful message and can also feel targeted.

No other homes in the area were vandalized, said police, and the graffiti had been erased as of Wednesday.

The letters KKK denote the Ku Klux Klan, a white supremacist terrorist group that has menaced and murdered Black people in the U.S. South.

In recent weeks, residents of the community also say theyve noticed the name of a white supremacist website scrawled on park benches and mailboxes.

Follow this link:

'KKK' graffiti on home in northwest investigated as possible hate crime - Calgary Herald

Screenshot: YouTube/Brooklyn Police Department

On Sunday, April 11, 20-year-old Daunte Wright was driving with his girlfriend in Brooklyn Center, Minn., when an armed posse, under the color and authority of the law, recognized the fact that he hadnt paid for a sticker on his license plate.

After stopping Wright for not having the decal that permitted him to drive down their streets, the weapon-wielding money extraction team discovered that Wright also owed $128 for a victimless crime in 2019, and another $188 for a 2020 victimless crime that caused no harm to a single soul. But, because the gun-toters had sworn an oath to imprison anyone who owed money for not paying money, the officers attempted to place him in chains until he paid more money.

Less than a year earlier, a similar gang killed a man over $20 after placing him in the same kinds of chains. This happened 10 miles from where Daunte Wright was being handcuffed. According to Minneapolis police data, Black drivers like Daunte are five times more likely to be stopped for moving violations or vehicle equipment infractions, a crime that can only be solved by paying money to the poverty enforcement street team.

Daunte, clearly not wanting to die, jumped back in the car. During an ensuing struggle, Kim Potter, one of the debt collectors posse, pulled out a device she carries that is specifically designed to kill people. Potter, who was professionally trained to use the instrument of death, didnt need it. She also carried a substance that poisoned a persons skin and another device that sent enough voltage through a persons body to power 400 refrigerators. Although she had the option of poisoning or electrocuting Wright for owing money because he owed money when they stopped him for owing money, Potter used the machine meant to kill people.

It worked.

Potter would later claim that she only meant to electrocute Wright, drive him to the gangs headquarters and lock him in a cage until he dished out a weeks pay for the victimless crimes. Potters superiors confirmed that she didnt mean to use the killing machine. According to them, it was just an accident that anyone could make who had 26 years of experience of using the deadliest weapons every day.

G/O Media may get a commission

As a dead person, the 20-year-old debt defaulter no longer has a past due bill with the armed money collection squad protecting the fair residents of Brooklyn Center, Minn. from the loss of $314.

But he is not free to go.

This is how the story of Daunte Wright should be told.

Daunte Wrights story is not an outlier. Every day, the people who are paid to protect us from crime engage in the practice of debt collection. Furthermore, the majority of this money extraction scheme falls on the backs of Black and brown Americans. While it is impossible to prove how many cops are racist, it is quite simple to prove that the system of policing results in the disproportionate deaths and brutality inflicted upon Black bodies.

I think theres a word for a system thats racist.

The Stanford Open Policing Project, the largest police stop data collection study ever, found that Black drivers were about 20 percent more likely to be stopped than white drivers relative to their share of the residential population and 1.5 to 2 times more likely to be searched. This nationwide phenomenon persists, despite the fact that white drivers are more likely to be carrying drugs, guns, or other illegal contraband. And those increased interactions with police by Black and brown citizens, account for higher rates of police brutality. It is entirely possible that police dont intend to kill more Black people. Maybe they truly just intend to stop, search, and arrest more Black people and the shooting-Black-people-in-the-face-part is just an unintended side-effect.

Perhaps the police arent just violent. Maybe theyre violent and lazy. And since they already have Black people lined up on the side of the road...why not?

Take Caron Nazariofor instance. The Army veteran had a license tag when he was stopped by Windsor, Va., police for the egregious crime of not having a license tag. While pepper-spraying a man who posed no threat seems outrageous to some, what about the part where cops are so worried about license tags? Forget about the resisting part, Eric Garner was choked to death over loosie cigarettes. Regardless of whether he had drugs in his system, George Floyd still had the change from the $20 bill in his pocket when Derek Chauvin knelt on his neck.

Thankfully, Rocky Rudolph lived when he was shot for having his windows tinted.Kenneth Jones didnt have his hazard lights on. Oshae Terry had an expired tag. Then, there are these names:

I could name others, such as Breonna Taylor, who was not selling drugs, or Rashard Brooks who was asleep in his car. But those people dont qualify for because the previous list is just some of the unarmed Black people who were killed during a stop for a minor traffic infraction in the past 365 days.

In a recent editorial, a retired Birmingham, Ala., police captain concluded that his departments policy of ticketing and arrests was, in effect creating criminals out of people whose only crime was that they were poor, adding:

Those officers are expected to show productivity by making arrests and writing citations. Because of this, we have created an environment where officers are almost forced to make a lot of arrests or write numerous citations.

As one officer told me upon being transferred from another precinct to mine, Dont worry Captain .... I go after a lot of the low hanging fruit.

...This low hanging fruit mentality is created when officers feel pressure to produce enforcement actions.

Also, it doesnt work. An NYU study shows that increased revenue collection actually decreases the percentage of crimes that police departments solve. When WBEZ and ProPublica Illinois looked at more than 50 million tickets issued in Chicago, they found that Chicagoans paid $2.8 billion in fines and citations, but had $1.8 billion in outstanding debt to the city.

There is no possible way that all of the above researchers, reporters and random people know this is going on and police dont. Instead of resisting, complying, accidents or all of the other excuses we whisper over dead bodies, when we are pulled over, maybe we should ask about the systemic issue right in front of us:

How much would it cost for you to let me live?

I might be able to scrounge up $314.

See the original post here:

Daunte and the Debt Collectors: How the Cops Became Robbers - The Root

Consider the following. You're sitting there, minding your own business at the five-and-dime, when a shady character approaches you with promises of a good time. "How good," you ask? "Really good," he responds. You're intrigued. Against your better judgment, you follow him tepidly as he escorts you through town into a dark building that leads to an even darker basement. Down, down, down you descend as the air becomes increasingly shriek- and skunk-ridden. You've arrived.

He holds out his hand and in it reveals a promise fulfilled: It's that smelly green flower, the key to a wild ride. It's the reefer.

"Why me?" you wonder. You, so unassuming in that blue bow-tie, those pleated khaki pants, those brown brogues! This isn't supposed to happen to people who wear light blue argyle sweater vests. You have limited time to mull your fate before a group of scantily-clad people slink out from the smoky billowsthe screaming now makes sense. You're suddenly surrounded, mostly by shirtless men in Speedos. How strange, you think.

"Smoke the marijuana," says the token bottle blonde, her lips red and her lingerie green, the latter a fitting homage to Mary Jane. "Sail the sea of sin."

You oblige. You trade in that bow-tie for a bare neck, take a deep inhale, and the rest is history: You black out, lose your mind, accidentally kill a pedestrian while driving your car, and grapple with the fact that your dream of becoming a wholesome swing dance instructor is now over. You don a disguise and get out of dodge.

If that story arc sounds familiar, it might be because it's the plot, loosely rendered, of Reefer Madnessthe 1936 propaganda film meant to scare kids away from smoking weedwhich was later spoofed into a 2005 musical of the same name. It also might be because Newsmax host Greg Kelly allegedly went through a very similar experience and lived to tell the tale.

"SMOKING WEED (aka GRASS) is NOT a good idea," he tweeted late last month. "I've tried it (back in the day) and it was WORSE than anything that happened to HUNTER BIDEN. I 'toked up' with some buddies in Kentucky and woke up 4 days later in Nairobi, Kenya. With no idea what happened. DON'T DO DRUGS."

Relatable. Was that where our main character went into hiding?

Kelly's tweet does not appear to be facetious. That leads this writer to two possible conclusions. The first option: He was given something other than weed and hopefully ditched that crowd after returning from his African voyage. The second: He's drumming up another Reefer Madness-y panic to scare his followers away from weed.

Pot panic is experiencing a sort of resurgence these days, not just with Kelly, but also among somewhat mainstream politicians. Yet this gambit requires a whole lot of imagination, particularly at a time when people are waking up to the deleterious effects posed by the drug war and an overburdened criminal justice system.

"We have a drug problem in Virginia, and legalizing marijuana will only lead to more marijuana overdoses and deaths," said state Sen. Amanda Chase (RAmelia County), who is running for the state's highest office. "Democrats want more marijuana deaths. As your governor I would never allow marijuana to be legalized."

Exactly which deaths Chase was referencing remains unclear. In May 2019, a coroner in LaPlace, Louisiana, reported that a woman died from too much THCthe psychoactive compound found in the cannabis plant. It was deemed what could have been the first marijuana overdose death in the history of the U.S., even though some experts refuted that as the cause.

"We know from really good survey data that Americans use cannabis products billions of times a year, collectively. Not millions of times, but billions of times a year," Keith Humphreys, formerly a senior policy adviser at the White House Office of National Drug Control Policy, told Nola.com. He noted that coroners sometimes blame a death on a drug found in the system when there is no other obviously apparent reason. "If the risk of death was one in a million, we would have a couple thousand cannabis overdose deaths a year."

We don't. Contrast that with alcohol use, which is responsible for hundreds of deaths per day.

Nebraska Gov. Pete Ricketts, a Republican, upped the ante in March: "If you legalize marijuana, you're gonna kill your kids," he said at an event for Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM), a group that does not deserve its name. "That's what the data shows from around the country." Ricketts may have lifted his data from Reefer Madness.

More clear, however, is that the drug war incentivizes actual violence, with sellers unable to litigate anything in court. Black markets encourage the proliferation of more dangerous drugs being passed off as things they're not, and give law enforcement the excuse to seize assets from people for no discernible purpose (with little recourse available to those people). Police also possess wide latitude to exercise deadly force against individualswrapped up in such victimless crimes.

For the skeptic: Remember how well Prohibitionwhich outlawed a much more statistically lethal substanceworked out? Violent crime in Baltimore decreased 20 percent between March 2020 and March 2021 after the city decriminalized drug use and prostitution. During the same period, crime skyrocketed nationwide.

No one is asking that Chase, Ricketts, and Kelly endorse the morality or prudence of drug use (that's for us to do). But they should still contend with real information in the real world, as opposed to tugging constituents back to a fictional one complete with more paranoia than you could ever have from lighting up a blunt.

Go here to see the original:

The Return of Reefer Madness in the GOP - Reason

Lots of talk about sanctuary cities at the Legislature last week. Lots of very incorrect, uninformed talk, I should say. Sanctuary is a funny word; one that people assign all kinds of concepts to, all kinds of ideologies. Its dictionary definition is simple enough: a sanctuary is a holy or sacred place, one that provides safety, security, and protection. The concept of sanctuary dates back thousands of years, appearing even in biblical stories that reference cities of refuge, where fugitives could seek protection from the law. So I guess its not entirely off base or surprising that in todays anti-immigrant America, the concept of a sanctuary city would be misconstrued as a place that shelters non-citizens from criminal prosecution or even as a place that welcomes. That place, ladies and gentlemen, does not in fact exist.

First of all, sanctuary cities do not protect anyone from law enforcement. Police can still detain or question anyone they please. They can still arrest anyone if they have probable cause (or not) to believe a crime has been committed. In fact, our modern sanctuary policies dont refer or interfere with any criminal laws or procedures. At all. What they do, and the only thing they do, is prevent local police from taking on the role of federal immigration enforcement. And, honestly, why should they?

Despite what they would have you believe, Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers are not cops. Not even a little bit. Their jurisdiction begins and ends with the enforcement of immigration laws. So when they puff up and start claiming theyre protecting us from criminals, arresting all these evil traffickers and drug dealers, well thats actually a big fat lie. Sure they can and do sometimes arrest bad guys, but when they claim that 92 percent of the people they worked so hard to deport last year had criminal convictions or pending charges, thats at best a distortion of reality. In fact, 60 percent of the criminal charges and convictions they speak of are for victimless crimes things like traffic violations or non-violent drug offenses, hardly the stuff of our boogeyman nightmares. And more importantly ICE did not, and cannot in fact, pick up all those people based on whatever crimes they may have committed. So, their little Dirty Harry/John McClane fantasies are entirely in their heads. The one and only reason ICE can pick someone up is if theyve run afoul of immigration law, a civil (not criminal) offense.

The other thing to keep in mind, and the thing that people most often get wrong, is that undocumented immigrants have constitutional rights. Let me repeat that because this is important. Immigrants, undocumented or otherwise, have constitutional rights. That means that just like you and me, immigrants are protected by the 4th and 5th Amendments, the dont-tread-on-me amendments, the ones that protect the government infringing upon our lives. So contrary to what seems to be popular belief, a cop cannot, or at least should not, arrest any immigrant without probable cause that a crime has been committed. And again, immigration violations are not criminal offenses, so a cop cannot arrest someone solely based on immigration status. When police do arrest someone based on a criminal violation, but then drop the charges for whatever reason, they must then let that person go, regardless of their status. Anything else is a violation of that persons civil rights and that person, again, regardless of immigration status, can sue and can win.

Which brings us back to sanctuary policies and how they work. The only difference between a so-called sanctuary city and a decidedly non-sanctuary one, is that the former requires that local police release all people who they cannot constitutionally continue to hold, while the latter allows police to hold someone on ICEs behalf in spite of the constitutional violation. In that case, it is the state or local authorities doing the job of the feds, committing legal and ethical violations in the process. From a legal perspective, non-sanctuary cities are a multimillion-dollar lawsuit waiting to happen. Because again, and this is important, immigrants (yes, all of them) have constitutional rights.

I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that whether police choose to honor ICE holds or not, is a completely voluntary act. It is a choice. The federal government cannot compel a state or its agents to do any part of their work; they can entice them, they can provide incentives, but they cannot impose the weight of the U.S. government to force any state agency to do anything it doesnt otherwise choose to do. This is called federalism and that is also in the constitution. Without it, were essentially allowing Big Brother to commandeer one big, national police force, with no checks and balances. Where are my federalists at? Is this not your cause clbre, the very danger yall warn against? Or does it not apply when theyre coming for the non-whites?

To recap, heres what sanctuary policies do and do not do: they DO prevent constitutional violations; they DO prevent federal overreach; they DO NOT shield immigrants from criminal prosecution; they DO NOT shield immigrants from ICE enforcement or deportation; they DO NOT put states at odds with federal law. Meanwhile, cops are still free to help their ICE buddies in other ways. For example, they can still share fingerprints and other identifying information from people theyve detained with the feds and ICE can still rent jail space from them. So no need to cry for them; were not forcing them to break up, just to take it a tad slower.

So you see, there is not one single place in America that actually grants protection, nowhere that offers a sense of real safety; not for immigrants, not for Black folks, or indigenous folks, or any people of color, really. Unless we change the definition to mean a place where no additional harm can be inflicted in violation of constitutional protections then this sanctuary designation will continue to be a misnomer. In the meantime, sanctuary cities do not exist.

Martha E. Menendez, Esq. is the Bernstein Senior Fellow at the UNLV Immigration Clinic.

Read more:

Sanctuary that's anything but - The Nevada Independent

People made unemployed and looking for work as a result of the coronavirus pandemic have been increasingly turning to cyber crimeto make money easily and quickly, according to recent findings from cyber security researchers at Check Point.

After studying a range of dark web and hacking forums, the researchers discovered that many people are offering to work for cyber crime organisations in return for prompt cash payments. In fact, the researchers estimate that between 10 and 16 posts from desperate job seekers are posted on these forums every month.

In these posts, budding cyber criminals are asking for everything from $200,000 one-time cyber crime contracts to paid monthly roles. But why are people going to these lengths, what risks are they taking, and is there a way to solve this problem?

Due to the devastating economic challenges caused by the coronavirus pandemic, millions of people have been placed on furlough or left unemployed. And with no choice but to look for new ways to make money, some have turned to cyber crime.

Unfortunately, many people have fallen on hard times, with many unable to find employment, says Sean Wright, application security lead at software firm Immersive Labs. While not an excuse, its understandable that some may turn to cyber crime to make some money to survive.

Wright says there are many reasons why people may be drawn to cyber crime in the pandemic.

Given some of the lenient sentences given for cyber crime, it does make it one of the lower-risk crimes to commit, and sometimes has a suitable payout as well, he says. Theres also the disconnect from the victim, making it easier on a personal level to commit the crime for some. Some may even view it as victimless, when in reality its not.

But he credits the dramatic rise in cyber crime during the coronavirus pandemic to experienced cyber criminals and cyber crime organisations, rather than people without any prior experience. Wright tells Computer Weekly: In terms of how widespread the issue is, weve seen an increase in cyber crime since the start of the pandemic, but I think thats largely organised criminal groups.

In the West, I think we are still yet to see the full impact of the restrictions which have been in place since the start of the pandemic. We will likely start seeing more and more once government support ends and people are left with very few options.

Jake Moore, a security specialist at cyber security firm ESET, agrees that the financial difficulties brought about by the pandemic may give some people no option but to commit cyber crime.

Difficult times have generated desperate measures and when services such as ransomware as a service [RaaS] are so widely and easily available, it is understandable that numbers have increased and becoming more difficult to manage, he says.

Cyber crime has never been so easy to experiment with especially when services advertise openly on Instagram and other social networks. It is often marketed as low risk and sold with ways of avoiding being caught which simply amplifies the temptation. The risks, however, are still there.

Nicola Whiting, co-owner and chief strategy officer at configuration analysis specialists Titania, describes the Check Point findings as unsurprising. The risk of future criminal conviction is perceived as low, whereas the ease a quick download, and the reward instant money, means the risk/reward ratio could be enticing, she says.

People feeling financially vulnerable or marginalised or that they're falling through the cracks of society are more likely to focus on their immediate needs rather than future consequences. Its Maslows Hierarchy of Needs in action.

While cyber crime might seem like a quick and easy way to earn money during tough times, there are many risks involved.Taking a job in cyber crime is a huge risk. It could be a scam in which you receive no payment. You could end up facing charges in court, saysPaul Bischoff, privacy advocate at Comparitech.

You could be unfairly treated or overworked with no recourse. You could end up stuck in a situation where your employer threatens to publicise your illegal activity or report you to the police if you quit.

Joshua Burch, head of cyber security for the Europe, Middle East, India, and Africa region at FTI Consulting, says the biggest risk is that people cannot simply turn back after performing an act of cyber crime. Once they have committed a crime and are engaged in the networks, other cyber criminals can use this as leverage over them, he says. Suddenly they can be blackmailed to be kept compliant. Its a slippery slope.

Terry Greer-King, EMEA vice-president at SonicWall, says inexperienced cyber criminals will struggle to avoid detection by the authorities and risk lengthy prison sentences when they are eventually caught.

Cyber criminals can hide their tracks easily and launch attacks that go unnoticed until its too late, he says. Yet while this is easy enough for a seasoned professional, your Average Joe hacker may not have the necessary skills [and] if caught, cyber criminals face up to 10 years in prison for unauthorised access.

Yet, its not prison sentences alone that people risk. Its also the risk to reputation, future job prospects, impact on family, loss of additional money and, most importantly, the risk of becoming associated with an undesirable crowd.

James Pleger, manager of special operations services at Sumo Logic, says risks involved with pursuing a cyber crime career include prison time, asset forfeiture, blackmail, being targeted by other cyber criminals, and even physical violence.

What I will say is that as an industry and from a legislative point of view we as a society have not made it more difficult, more costly or riskier for cyber criminals to engage in illegal activity, he says. If anything, over the past 10 years, it has become easier, more anonymous and lucrative for criminals to carry out cyber crime.

I think that going forward, the industry has to remind people that short term gains might not be worth the risk, since if you are caught doing cyber crime, you will essentially become unemployable in any technology role, says Pleger.

Sure, there are specific examples of people who have broken the mould, but for every one of those people there are hundreds more who have had to find new careers.

With the demand for cyber security professionals constantly increasing, some unemployed people have a chance to re-skill and find legitimate opportunities in the high-growth cyber sector. But is the cyber security industry doing enough to support and encourage them to take up cyber careers?

The industry has complained about the lack of cyber talent, yet in less than 12 months cyber criminals have recruited from all industries, saysFTIs Burch. Although we have seen an uplift in experienced hires into the industry, we must provide a pipeline in parallel to bring in talented people with no prior cyber security experience.

Shlomie Liberow, principal solutions architect at bug bounty platform HackerOne, points out that ethical hackers can also make lots of money. Ethical hacking can be just as lucrative or even more so than cyber crime, but with the risks removed hackers earned over $40m in bounties last year with 10 hackers reaching over $1m in total earnings on the HackerOne platform. This presents a more realistic career choice, he says.

However, he says the motivation to hack also goes beyond financial gain. We see many hackers actively participating in vulnerability disclosure programs for businesses with no monetary reward. Nearly half of hackers on the platform (47%) say that they are motivated by the desire to protect and defend businesses and individuals from increased cyber threats, says Liberow.

Hackers are also keen to develop their skill sets 85% hack with the desire to learn and 62% hack to advance their career. Its clear that many would rather enjoy a long, prosperous career in ethical hacking than risking it all for cyber crime.

Greer-King at SonicWall says the industry has an essential role in helping channel latent security talent into ethical hacking roles. With the rise of cyber risks, global ransomware attacks rose by 62%, with 304.6 million attacks worldwide and IoT devices became the backdoor for hackers, with attacks skyrocketing 66%; security teams are thin on the ground, he says.

In 2021, recruitment is the key to tackling cyber crime. The industry needs to invest in hiring security professionals and reduce the number of people turning to cyber crime. Additional hires will also help reduce burnout across security teams and enable organisations to protect against attacks.

Oded Vanunu, head of product vulnerabilities research at Check Point whose team conducted the initial research says there are many ways that cyber security suppliers can convince people to choose ethical hacking over cyber crime. He explains that firms can provide talented people with opportunities to deal with cyber attacks, host ethical hacking conferences to showcase different challenges, and offer bug bounty programmes that reward ethical hackers who find and report vulnerabilities.

Companies who work on the defence side of cyber security hire people who think like hackers to provide security from them and so we do invest large sums of money every year in education and training of people that have a passion for this to further expand their credentials in the cyber defence world, he says.

Immersive Labs Wright believes that the cyber security industry should encourage people to put their skills and energy to good use instead of committing cyber crime. One way is to encourage them to look to things such as bug bounties where they can earn a legitimate income, he says.

Another option is to get them to start applying for jobs, cyber security is perhaps one of the few industries which has seen limited impact from the pandemic and in some cases even seen growth, says Wright.

There is plenty of free training available as well, encouraging people to take it and obtain a full-time job. Communities are a great way to accomplish this, helping others with information and guidance while helping to ensure people stay on the right side of the law.

Covid-19 has resulted in financial hardship for many people across the world. While its understandable that people are desperate to make money, cyber crime is not the answer. Instead, those affected by unemployment should turn their attention to legitimate job opportunities in cyber.

View post:

Why some jobseekers have turned to cyber crime during the pandemic - ComputerWeekly.com

A crime gang who stole high value items in a campaign of thefts from Asda supermarkets across the Lancashire have been jailed.

The offenders were captured on CCTV footage shamelessly plundering supermarket shelves after distracting store security staff by intentionally activating the security alarms.

They struck at least 81 times across stores in Blackpool, Accrington, Fleetwood, Rawtenstall and further afield across England, Scotland and Wales and made off with goods worth more than 160,000.

The gang specifically targeted high value items such as printer cartridges, razor blades, cosmetics and thousands of nappies which they would then sell on.

Alin Mahai, 27, of Belvidere Road, Dingle, Nicolea Ilea, 36, of Whitehall Road, Handsworth, Birmingham, Stefan Florin, 31, of HMP Risley, Florin Costea, 51, of Darwin Street, Oldham, Marius Meiosu, 25, of Darwin Street, Oldham and Gabriel Mocanu, 36, Darwin Street, Oldham were jailed for 42 months in prison each during a hearing at Chester Crown Court. They had all pleaded guilty to conspiracy to steal.

Cheshire Police, describing the men as a 'Romanian crime gang', said they had come to the UK 'with the sole intention of committing crime'.

Asda stores were primarily targeted by the thieves and their first crime was committed in April last year, at an Asda store in the West Midlands.

Between April and September in 2019 the group went on to commit at least 81 separate offences at stores as far afield as Fleetwood, Newcastle upon Tyne, Cardiff, Bridgend and Alloa in Scotland.

On each occasion the gang worked together as a team to distract the stores security staff by intentionally activating the security alarms.

This enabled other members of the gang to escape the store with the stolen items without being spotted.

Their downfall began after they targeted the Asda Barons Quay store in Northwich in June 2019 and stole approximately 1,000 worth of items.

Following the theft, Asdas asset protection team contacted Cheshire Constabulary to report the incident, which they believed was part of a nationwide series.

Over the next two months detectives from the Northwich Beat Initiative Team worked closely with Asdas Asset Protection team and the National Business Crime Centre.

Using CCTV footage, ANPR camera's and credit card data they were able to identify the gang members and link them to at least 80 other incidents across the country.

After the detectives had gathered extensive evidence, Meiosu, Costea and Mocanu were all arrested on September 10 following a raid conducted by officers from Northwich Local Policing Unit at an address in Darwin Street, Oldham.

During the warrant officers recovered a number of stolen items including perfume, alcohol, more than 50 razors and thousands of childrens nappies.

They also seized three cars which the gang had been using to commit their crimes.

Following their sentencing, Detective Constable Paul Matchett from Cheshire Police said: It is clear that this gang travelled to the UK with the sole intention of committing crime.

They set up their base in Oldham and from there they travelled to stores across the UK and stole hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of items.

They believed that they could evade justice by spreading their crimes across the country in a bid to keep a low profile.

While their plan worked initially, they underestimated the partnership work between the police and the business community and they are now behind bars facing the consequences of their actions.

Senior Crown Prosecutor Daryl Pollard of the CPS said: These serial criminals targeted various ASDA stores throughout the UK hoping to operate under the radar, stealing 160,000 of goods from supermarkets to sell on.

We were able to unravel their crimes by carefully evaluating CCTV footage and analysing credit card transactions. We worked very closely with the police and stores to bring these criminals to justice.

DC Matchett added: I would like to recognise the work that Asdas Asset Protection team has undertaken and I have no doubt that without their support this gang would still be targeting stores across the country.

Its important to remember that shoplifting is not a victimless crime, and its the general public who end up footing the bill through increased prices.

I hope that the sentences handed to this gang provide reassurance to the public and business community and act as a warning for other offenders who think that retail outlets are easy targets.

Download the LancsLive app for free on iPhone here and Android here.

You can sign up for free daily updates with the LancsLive newsletter here

Go here to see the original:

Asda nappy gang targeted stores across Lancashire in 160k theft spree - Lancs Live

Five Gun Law Myths That Can Land You In Jail ~ Listen Now

New Jersey -(AmmoLand.com)- In gun Lawyer, Evan Nappens most recent podcast he breaks down five gun law Myths that if you fall victim to can land you in jail. Listen now!

Gun Lawyer S1 Episode 25

SPEAKERS

Evan Nappen

Evan Nappen00:19

Im Evan Nappen and welcome to Gun Lawyer. So today I was thinking about this, and I have got to make sure that my listeners are protected. Lately Ive been seeing so many cases of law-abiding gun owners being turned into law-abiding criminals, and Ive noticed that theres a belief in a number of gun law myths. I want to talk to you today about the five top myths about guns and gun laws that you need to know. Theres so much absolute garbage out there, particularly on the internet. You can see all kinds of things, and its just not true. There are people that believe it, and end up getting themselves in trouble. When they are put in that situation of having to deal with a stop or with police, they became vulnerable when they thought they were doing the right thing. Those are the most frustrating things, not just for me to defend, but its just sad, because the folks that do this are kicking themselves in the butt for doing it. They are beating themselves up because they cant believe what they thought was wrong and because theyve been doing it the whole time.

Evan Nappen01:56

Let me give you a good example of such a thing. You may have heard that when you transport a firearm, you put your firearm in the trunk and your ammunition in the glove box. They separate it. I had a case just this week, where thats exactly what my client did. He was coming from a southern state, and he said thats what his father always told him. Keep the ammunition separate. Well, heres my advice. Dont keep your ammunition in your glove box despite what you may have heard. If you keep it in the glove box, what happens? Well, you get pulled over for a minor traffic violation like what happened to my client. Whats the first thing that the police say? Your license, registration, and insurance. And what do you do? You open the glove box to get out your paperwork. As soon as you do that, the officer sees ammunition or a magazine. Or a magazine with ammunition. Im talking about a gun magazine, not Life magazine. A gun mag, a firearm component, a holster. Anything like that in your glove box, they now are going to have arguably probable cause to search your vehicle for other weapons. This is common, particularly in New Jersey.

Evan Nappen03:35

It now can escalate the whole thing, and before you know it, in New Jersey, youll be facing charges for your cased, unloaded handgun that you had in the trunk. You are looking at a Second Degree charge, up to 10 years and State Prison, a minimum mandatory three and a half years, no chance of parole, because you left your magazine or your ammunition or your holster in the glove box. Whereas, if you had simply kept the gun unloaded and not had the ammunition in the glove box, guess what? You most likely wouldnt have any of this trouble. Its something that simple. That simple yet it can ruin your life. It can throw you into the judicial system. Where, if its New Jersey, your entire life can be ruined. Your career, your family, your hopes and dreams, no joke ruined, imprisoned. Three and a half years, no chance of parole. The Judge has no discretion in Jersey on that. All that, youre going to face and have to fight. Think of the anxiety, the stress, the cost, all because you put those things in the glove box. You thought it was the right thing to do because you followed the myth. Whereas, if you hadnt done that, most likely you wouldnt even have a problem.

Evan Nappen05:18

Now look, you might live in a jurisdiction where they have some law that says to put it in the glove box, but Ive never heard of that. Federal law does not say that, even to transport under Title 18 926a. The ammunition should not be in the same lockbox as your gun. As long as its in a separate container and your gun is unloaded, youre fine under Federal law. It does not ever say in the glove box. Now its true, if you had it in the glove box and it was locked, we would argue two separate containers but you dont want to do that. Put it in its own little locking box and your gun in a locking case. Put it in the trunk or the back of your vehicle, cover it up, and make sure its locked. Now your gun is unloaded. The ammunition is separate. Part of being a gun owner today because of the enhanced scrutiny, media bias, narrative, agenda, hatred toward us, and fear mongering by the media, we have to be discreet with our guns. We have to be smart about our guns. You dont want to become the next law-abiding criminal. So, myth number one is putting those things in the glove box.

Evan Nappen06:39

I have heard a variation of this myth. I had a client who was driving around Jersey, and he had his Buck knife on top of the dash. Full size Buck knife. I asked him, why were you driving around with it up there? Well, he was told that as long as you have it in the open exposed on your car, youre okay. And Im like, thats just an invite to be arrested. They look and see my big knife. Now, please arrest me. Its a myth. Just the opposite. Granted, no one should be arrested for these things. They are victimless crimes, but it doesnt matter. Its not how it runs. Its not how it operates. Youll get dragged into the system on this. You do not want to have that happen.

Evan Nappen07:24

Speaking of knives, heres another myth, and it is one of my favorite myths. How many of you heard someone ask, hey, whats the blade limit size on a knife? Whats the blade limit size? And let me tell you right now, the blade limit size of a knife is not the width of a fat cops palm. Okay? Not the width. No. How many times have you seen them say, Let me put it against my palm and see. There is no palm knife law. No such thing. Its a myth. This palm stuff. How many times have you seen that? Oh, look, its bigger than my palm. Well, thats nice. Either youve got a small palm, or Ive got a big knife. It doesnt mean crap under the law. Nothing. So, please, this myth of blade length is wrong. Some jurisdictions do have blade length laws. Some jurisdictions do. I get that. But if they do, it is a measurement in inches. A measurement in a specific quantity that we recognize and can establish. Thats the amazing part about it.

Evan Nappen08:52

Maybe your jurisdiction has a three and a half-inch blade length. Maybe it does, and you need to know that if you are in that jurisdiction. But it is not this weird palm thing that you see or hear all the time. Not at all. Interestingly, in New Jersey, as bad as they are, they do not have a blade length limit. Its not about blade length at all. Length doesnt matter in Jersey. No, it doesnt because its not about that with knives. Know the jurisdiction that youre in and what matters. But know for a fact that these other stories and weird things like palming your blade and all these are just nonsense. No basis whatsoever for that. You want to know the facts because if you have the screwed up information, you can end up in trouble. Maybe your jurisdiction does have a blade length, and maybe your palm is bigger than the blade length list. If you are doing this palm thing, all you are doing cities is setting yourself up for a problem. So, dont do that. Be smart, be smart.

Evan Nappen10:08

Take another myth, and its a myth that I understand. It is common in a lot of people believe it, but its not true. Im sure most of you probably recognize this, but you would be surprised how many people dont. I get case after case of people who didnt know this. There is no national reciprocity for a carry license. I think there should be. Of course, you know, drivers licenses are recognized in every state. It is not an illogical step to think that my gun license is recognized in all the states. It is a state that made it legal for me. In fact, they have given me this license after they ran a criminal background check and done things that never happen to get a drivers license. You were not given a criminal background check and fingerprinted to get your drivers license. But you were for your carry license if you live in a jurisdiction that issues carry licenses. So, its not a far leap to think that well, why wouldnt all the states recognize my carry license? But they dont. They dont.

Evan Nappen11:17

For example, New Jersey recognizes no other states license whatsoever. If you come to Jersey and you are transporting your handgun, thinking that youre covered by a carry license from another state, you are not. Many people have suffered terrible consequences because they believed in the myth of reciprocity. It does not exist. That was Shaneen Allens mistake. She didnt understand why her Pennsylvania license was not recognized. Ive had case after case where individuals who come from another jurisdiction, believe that Jersey would be fair and reasonable and would, of course, respect a license from another state. But they dont, and the charges are incredibly serious. Again, Second Degree, up to 10 years in State Prison, minimum mandatory three and a half years, no chance of parole. If you get convicted of that handgun, even though you have a carry license from another state, the judge has no discretion. Period. You are getting three and a half years as a minimum in State Prison. Think about how draconian and insane New Jerseys law is, and how many folks unwittingly fall for this trap. In New Jersey, it is really bad news. So, you do not want to fall for the myth of reciprocity.

Evan Nappen12:52

I will tell you another myth. This is one that youll hear at times when you talk with folks about self-defense. Some guy will say, Oh, well, if I shoot some guy outside my house, Im dragging them back in. Like what is he now a houseguest? Or, if I shoot some guy, Im gonna plant a kitchen knife in his hand or a weapon. I got a throw away, and Im gonna put it right in his hand. Listen, it is a myth. Never, never mess with the scene. Dont do it. Its that simple. Because it will get discovered. It will get figured out. They are going to see the drag. They are going to see the blood. They are going to find prints, and they are going to do DNA. I mean, come on. When they determine that you screwed around with that, you have lost all credibility. You have really screwed yourself. Never do that.

Evan Nappen13:52

Instead, have good counsel. We will deal with what the truth is, how you defended yourself properly under the law, and why you were threatened with serious bodily injury or death. And were in fear of those things. Establishing it and defending on the truth. Not trying to change the scene. Because then you wont be able to effectively defend yourself. You will be cut down at the knees when the prosecutor is nailing you on messing with the evidence and the scene in front of the jury. Not good. Plus, you could even be charged with doing such things. So, no, dont do that. It doesnt matter. If they fall outside, they fall outside the house. If they had a weapon or not but if you thought they did, we are going to make that clear. You do not plant one.

Evan Nappen14:52

These kind of myths can cost you dearly. So, dont believe any of that stuff you see and hear. Stick to what Im telling you here. I dont want you making these mistakes. When we come back, Im going to tell you about what happens when you have that police encounter and one of the biggest myths about how to deal with that encounter, should you need to.

Evan Nappen15:22

For over 30 years, Attorney Evan Nappen has seen what rotten laws do to good people. Thats why hes dedicated his life to fighting for the rights of Americas gun owners. A fearsome courtroom litigator. Fighting for rights, justice, and freedom. An unrelenting gun rights spokesman, tearing away at anti-gun propaganda to expose the truth. Author of six best-selling books on gun rights, including Nappen on Gun Law, a bright orange gun law Bible that sits atop the desk of virtually every lawyer, police chief, firearms dealer, and savvy gun owner. Thats what made Evan Nappen Americas Gun Lawyer. Gun laws are designed to make you a criminal. Dont become the innocent victim of a vicious anti-gun legal system. This is the guy you want on your side. Keep his name and number in your wallet and hope you never have to use it. But if you live, work, or travel with a firearm, that deck is already stacked against you. You can find him on the web at EvanNappen.com or follow the link on the Gun Lawyer resource page. Evan Nappen Americas Gun Lawyer.

Evan Nappen16:13

Youre listening to Gun Lawyer with Attorney Evan Nappen. Available wherever you get your favorite podcast.

Evan Nappen16:43

As many of you know, my favorite holster is Mitch Rosens Extraordinary Gun Leather. Im just going to tell you, this is not a paid advertisement. This is because I love what Mitch Rosen does. He is a friend of mine, and I am proud to be his friend. Ill tell you right now his stuff is just amazing. Im wearing one now, and you need to try it and see it. His rig and his leather just holds your gun perfectly. Theres no keeper strap unless you want to get one, but you dont need it. It just holds it. Yet you can draw your gun beautifully, and you can put it back easily. It stays open because each holster is molded to each specific firearm. It literally fits like a glove. Then you get the belt thats made to carry the holster and that forms the full rig. It gives you the support, and you wont want anything else. I am telling you. Check out Mitch Rosens line of gun leather and holsters. And youll say man, Im sure glad you told me about it. Youll see why I love them so much.

Evan Nappen18:12

I want to tell you. These times are very challenging, and Im sure you are seeing the issues that we have to face. A lot of things are going against us, and there is a lot of movement against our rights, a lot of action. Ill even use the word conspiracy. I am not talking black helicopters. But plainly, the media is not our friend, and they are trying to suppress us. So look, help keep a fellow gunner from becoming a law-abiding criminal. Tell them to listen to Gun Lawyer, visit my website at Gun.Lawyer. We have .com but Ive got lawyer and its Gun.Lawyer. What I would really love for you to do is take a look at our Inner Circle. Its right on the website. Sign up for the Inner Circle. That is my way of communicating with you, and you are going to get the inside for me. I will give tips and tricks and insight and fun. Sign up. Its free. That way I still have the ability to communicate with you as it gets tougher and tougher to do so.

Evan Nappen19:15

This microphone and this podcast are important. Its a way for us to communicate with one another to protect our Second Amendment rights and fellow gun owners. It helps me communicate with you to touch base so you know whats going on. Big tech doesnt care about our rights. They dont like us and want to shut us down. The Inner Circle is how we can stay in contact despite their efforts. These big issues, executive orders and this clarion call to take away our rights are real. Its just amazing how these mass shootings happen right now when there is a big push for gun laws. You know, its like you could set your watch by it. It is so predictable. But there it is. So, we really have to deal with this. Please subscribe to the podcast. Join my Inner Circle, and get the word out. I am depending on you.

Evan Nappen20:21

Now, we are talking here about what kinds of things you need to know to protect yourself. As a criminal defense attorney for over 30 years, defending folks that I lovingly call law-abiding criminals, because they are law-abiding citizens who have been turned into criminals by these ridiculous gun laws, I have seen our rights play out and the reality of these rights. So, what Im going to tell you is a myth that I see frequently. I want to tell you what you need to know so you dont ever have this problem.

Evan Nappen21:01

Some folks actually believe that if you have a problem and the police want to talk to you about it, that you can lie your way out of the situation. Let me just say, thats a heavy duty risk, and frankly, its a myth. Generally speaking, youre not going to succeed. In fact, they would love for you to try because lying to the police is a crime. So, you cannot lie to the police. If you do, you can be prosecuted simply for lying to the police, even if the underlying reason they were investigating you proves to be nothing. Zero, doesnt matter. Your lying to the police is now a separate criminal act. You cannot lie to the police, but, and this is not a myth, the police are allowed to lie to you. You may say, hey, thats not fair. Well, doesnt matter, fair or not. It is how it works. The police have a license to lie. They can lie about things in their investigation to try to glean information out of you. I have seen this happen, and the surest way to not have a problem is by not lying. Because you cannot lie to the police does not mean that theres nothing you can do. Oh, there is something very, very important that you can do. What you can do is keep your mouth shut. Thats right. You have a Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and you have a right to counsel. So, you have a right to say nothing. So many people seem to have a hard time doing that. But thats what you need to do.

Evan Nappen23:13

You need to say, Ive nothing to say and I want to talk to my lawyer first. Always invoke that you want to talk to your lawyer. By asking to speak with your lawyer and not saying anything. Guess what? You are not going to fall for the myth of lying to the police. You are not going to incriminate yourself over some offense that you dont even know youre incriminating yourself over because you didnt even know it was an offense. I get those cases, too. I cannot tell you how many times people say, I didnt know that was illegal. I thought I was grandfathered. I thought it was okay. I thought I was doing the right thing. I understand all those things. I do. I get it. But talking is what becomes the biggest problem in your case. Police have a right to lie to you, but you do not have a right to lie to them.

Evan Nappen24:13

You need to keep your mouth shut and not inadvertently say anything that can be twisted against you. Because you are innocent, and I have seen that its the innocent person, which makes it incredibly tragic, because they said things that are now being used against them, even though it really wasnt them. I have had those cases. If they just kept their mouth shut. So many times through so many cases that Ive had over 30 years of criminal defense. I look back, and I say where was the persons mistake? They couldnt shut their mouth and just ask for their attorney.

Evan Nappen25:00

Many times in these criminal cases, your future hinges on one choice. Whether youre choosing to put that ammunition in your glove box. Whether you have chosen to speak to the police. Whether you have chosen to think that a knife shorter than your palm is okay, and youve never even looked at the actual laws in your jurisdiction. When you choose to bring your gun and carry it into New Jersey, assuming that your license is going to be respected and honored. Those choices and that myth believed, if you will, ends up making people miserable, and put into a world of problems that they never thought they would end up in.

Evan Nappen26:00

Remember, you cannot and should never lie to the police. You should not talk to the police either. Because you always have that right to say, hey, I want to talk to my lawyer first. Thats what smart people do. Because by talking to your lawyer, your lawyer cannot incriminate you. Your lawyer can speak for you and find out whats going on. What you say to your lawyer is confidential, attorney-client protected speech between you and your attorney. This is the smart thing that folks do. You need to be smart and not fall into these traps.

Evan Nappen26:40

The belief about law enforcements job and what their responsibility is, is distorted by way of television. So many times Im watching a TV show, you know that my family was watching, and theyre investigating this suspect. He is there talking across the metal table, yackety Yak, and I am like shut up. Get a lawyer. Shut up. Oh, my God. Its frustrating because if youre ever read your rights, thats not a myth. If you are read your rights, fireworks should be going off and the flag should be flying. The alarm bells should be ringing. If you are ever read your rights, and that you have the right to remain silent. Remain freakin silent. Okay, you just got hit with a train by these rights in your face, and youre like, Hey, can I buy a ticket on that train? No. No, you were read your rights. Thats it.

Evan Nappen27:56

If you are ever read your rights, theres no more excuse. It just boggles me. The police read you your rights, and then the person says, Oh, fine. Now Ill talk to you, and I dont need a lawyer. Why do you think they read you your rights? Because you do need a lawyer, and you do need to shut up. It could not be more blatant. But you know what? Television conditions you. Oh, you dont have to worry about those little rights things. Everybody just talks. If you dont talk, you must have something to hide. You must. No, that is not how it works. Not how it works at all. Not at all. If you are ever read your rights, that is absolutely the last stop sign before the cliff. Okay, thats it. If you go through that stop sign, you are going down, down, down into that gully, and you are going to crash and burn. That is your final warning right there. The guardrail at the end of the road, and you just went right through it. No problem. Oh, la dee, da dee da. No. I cannot emphasize it enough. The bottom line myth is that you can ignore when your rights are read to you. Do that and you will pay the price. Absolutely.

Evan Nappen29:32

Never waive your rights. Demand your attorney. Then and only then, if your attorney advises you after thorough consideration and that defense counsel that knows criminal law and your situation tells you that you can waive your rights and do this or that, fine. But short of that. No way. You have nothing to say, and I want my lawyer.

Evan Nappen29:59

This is Evan Nappen reminding you that gun laws do not protect honest citizens from criminals. They protect criminals from honest citizens.

Speaker 330:08

Gun Lawyer is a CounterThink Media production. The music used in this broadcast was managed by Cosmo Music, New York, New York. Reach us by emailing [emailprotected] The information and opinions in this broadcast do not constitute legal advice. Consult a licensed attorney in your state.

About Evan Nappen

Known as Americas Gun Lawyer, Evan Nappen is above all a tireless defender of justice. Host of the praised Gun Lawyer Podcast, author of eight bestselling books and countless articles on firearms, knives, weapons history, and the law, a certified Firearms Instructor, and avid weapons collector and historian with a vast collection that spans almost five decades, its no wonder hes become the trusted, go-to expert for local, industry, and national media outlets. Called on regularly by radio, television, and online news media for his commentary and expertise on breaking news, Evan has appeared on countless shows including Fox, CNN, Court TV, WOR-New York. As a creative arts consultant, he also lends his weapons law and historical expertise to an elite, discerning cadre of movie and television producers and directors, and novelists. He also provides expert testimony and consultations for defense attorneys across America.

View post:

Five Gun Law Myths That Can Land You In Jail ~ Listen Now - AmmoLand Shooting Sports News

Four decades ago, Mahmood Ansari immigrated to the United States from Pakistan, determined to make a good living in this country. Like many immigrants, he put his nose to the grindstone, building a business from the ground up while caring for his family. He started the store City Souvenirs along the Boardwalk in Atlantic City, New Jersey, working day and night to grow the business, which has now been in operation for more than 30 years.

In early April, Ansari was working late one night when a 12-year-old boy with a knife and 14-year-old girl decided to rob his store. After some sort of brief altercation, Ansari collapsed. Onlookers as well as police and medical personnel performed CPR on him, but when he was transported to the hospital, he was pronounced dead.

"He was friendly. He was always smiling, everybody loved him," Asif Ansari, one of his surviving sons, told the local press. "We all miss him. We just wish he'd come back."

At a rally held by local merchants calling for greater security along the Boardwalk, Mayor Marty Small Sr. offered words of support. "Senseless violence has no place in our community," he said. "I'm sure that the police are going to bring the perpetrators to justice."

In this case, he was right: Both of the suspects in the case have been arrested. But some of those familiar with the situation on the Boardwalk describe a wave of rising crime and little support from the city.

I spoke to Rizwan Malik, a good friend of Ansari's, who like Ansari immigrated to the United States from Pakistan. Malik was the first Pakistani-American and Asian-American to be elected to Atlantic City's city hall. He served from 2012 to 2016. Today, he's a private citizen who owns several businesses along the Boardwalk. His family has four stores on the Boardwalk. And they, too, have recently been hit by robberies.

"There were four robberies I would say within three weeks right on top of each other in our stores," he told me.

For weeks before Ansari's death, Malik and other merchants had been begging the city for more policing to help secure their businesses. Again and again, they were told that the city simply does not have enough police to meet their demands.

"If they were doing something about it, [Ansari] would maybe be alive by now," Malik told me.

More than anything else, he just wants to feel safe running a business along the Boardwalk. "I'm asking the city, the police department, the city officials to open their eyes and do something about it," he pleaded. "I don't want more people dying."

Over the past year, we've lost so many people like Mahmood Ansari. Perhaps you've heard of the tragic death of Mohammad Anwar, yet another Pakistani immigrant who came to the United States seeking a better life, who met his death at the hands of criminal violence during a carjacking in Washington, D.C.

While federal lawmakers mobilized enormous resourcesincluding thousands of National Guard unitsto protect themselves following the riot on Capitol Hill on Jan. 6th, there has been less attention paid to last year's wider surge of criminal violence in Washington, D.C., where there has been a 350 percent increase in carjackings.

Over the past year, America had one of the largest increases in homicides in its modern history. This could mean as many as 4,000 extra murders over the previous year.

Criminologists are still puzzled as to what exactly caused this huge increase in violence; possible explanations include the onset of the pandemic, reduced legitimacy of the government, or a decline in proactive policing. What we do know is that many other types of crime, like larceny, for example, actually went down, while violent crime like shootings and homicides went up.

In other words, this is not an explosion of victimless crimes; it is an explosion of violence.

New York City, for instance, saw a 97 percent increase in shooting incidents from 2019. And as in every other year, 2020's violent crime wave was not equally distributed. Low-income, minority areas tended to suffer the most; the city's official data shows that around 74 percent of shooting victims were African-American and 22 percent were Latino.

These statistics aren't just numbers on a page; they represent real people whose lives were suddenly and abruptly upended by terrifying acts of violence.

Sadly, there is little evidence that 2020's national violent crime wave is letting up. A New York Times analysis of FBI data found that "a sample of 37 cities with data available for the first three months of this year shows murder up 18 percent relative to the same period last year."

We've been accustomed to living in a country where violent crime was plummeting. Through a combination of factors, ranging from more effective policing to the mass removal of lead, by the early 2000s we had successfully lowered murders to their lowest levels in decades, with murders generally declining year after year.

But it's time to face the facts: This trend is now reversing.

Some cities, like St. Louis, saw their highest homicide rate in 50 years in 2020. In D.C., a Special Victims Unit is tackling an increasing number of children being killed in gunfire.

Yet our current political moment is focused not so much on crime as it is on police abuse. The news media, the universities, the corporate sector, and our governing officials seem to agree that reducing incarceration and reining in over-policing is the most pressing objective, as opposed to addressing the waves of violence saturating American cities.

Of course, police and prison reform are important. There's a reason I reported this story about police racially profiling a county commissioner back in 2015 and worked on the campaign to elect the most progressive prosecutor in Northern Virginia's history.

But too many of our nation's politicians, particularly the Democratic ones, are in danger of endorsing a libertarian view of the world where the only threat to our life and liberties is the state.

Ansari's story demonstrates that the absence of an effective state equipped to protect the lives of its most vulnerable citizens can be just as deadly. The victims of homicide tend to be poor people; they don't have the resources to hire private security and wall themselves off behind gated communities.

There's nothing progressive about leaving these people to fend for themselves. Nobody has the silver bullet to ending this crime wave, but you can't solve a problem you can't even bring yourself to acknowledge.

Zaid Jilani is a journalist who hails from Atlanta, Georgia. He has previously worked as a reporter-blogger for ThinkProgress, United Republic, the Progressive Change Campaign Committee, and Alternet. He is the cohost of the podcast "Extremely Offline."

The views in this article are the author's own.

See the article here:

Denying the Crime Wave, Progressives Are Abandoning the Most Vulnerable | Opinion - Newsweek