Be careful with the personal information you post here

[theater]

Do you know a software like this for Android? I'm lost, being trapped in a phone sucks...

Just take a screenshot of the image on you phone. Then check the data on the photo in the photos app. Then use it.

 

[Hojag]

Just take a screenshot of the image on you phone. Then check the data on the photo in the photos app. Then use it.

Photos, from Google? Or you mean gallery?

Also, thanks for answering. I was overcomplicating things!

 

[theater]

Photos, from Google? Or you mean gallery?

Also, thanks for answering. I was overcomplicating things!

Either application should be able to show you information about the photo like location, device used, date/time.

 

[cme-dme]

Do you know a software like this for Android? I'm lost, being trapped in a phone sucks...

Wondering the same thing. I purposefully ignore warnings like this bc I legit have no energy to do anything but I would like to.

Two things:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=app.grapheneos.camera.play
A free and open source camera app. Retains no metadata by default.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.jarsilio.android.scrambledeggsif
A simple open source metadata remover.

 

[Xabin]

Tenga MUCHO cuidado con la información personal que publica aquí. Sabemos que hay personas que se registran para intentar "salvar" a otros miembros, algunos incluso son agentes de la ley. No tienen ningún problema en registrarse si creen que lo que están haciendo es lo "correcto" y no dudarán en ponerse en contacto con las fuerzas del orden si creen que usted está en peligro. Asegúrese de priorizar su privacidad en línea en estas situaciones. He leído numerosos hilos de personas que han recibido visitas de la policía y los detectives y eso es algo que no quiero que suceda.

Hemos tenido discusiones antes sobre este tema y ahora nos damos cuenta de que las imágenes publicadas aquí todavía tienen datos EXIF adjuntos (antes de actualizar, no los tenían).

Si publica imágenes de cualquier tipo, utilice un eliminador de EXIF antes de cargarlas. Trabajaré para encontrar una solución que permita eliminar los datos EXIF de las imágenes a medida que se cargan, si es posible.

La siguiente sección de nuestras reglas describe lo que puede hacer para ayudar a proteger su privacidad en la mayor medida posible:

Mi privacidad es fundamental para mí. ¿Tienes algún consejo para mí?

• No publique información personal (nombre, dirección, teléfono, correo electrónico, fotografías, etc.).
• Utilice un nombre de usuario único para cada sitio web que utilice.
• Utilice un proxy/VPN una vez que esté registrado.
• Modifique sus preferencias y opciones de privacidad a su gusto aquí.
• Utilice un proveedor de correo electrónico seguro o desechable.

La privacidad es muy importante para mí. ¿Más consejos?

• Aprenda la diferencia entre ser cuidadoso y ser paranoico.
• Evita las redes sociales y elimina tus perfiles.
• Realiza una búsqueda tú mismo o realiza una búsqueda inversa de tus imágenes y elimina todo lo que aparezca.
• No utilices Google (DuckDuckGo y Startpage son buenas alternativas).
• Cambie su DNS a uno que priorice la privacidad. Cloudflare es una alternativa rápida y decente.
• Utilice Firefox, Waterfox, Brave u Opera. Nunca Chrome.
• Configure su navegador para eliminar los datos de navegación al cerrarlo o use Tor.
• Aprenda a crear una buena contraseña y nunca utilice la misma contraseña dos veces.
• ¿Los sitios web en los que registraste cuentas hace cinco años y ya no los usas? Inicia sesión y elimínalos.
• No pongas tu nombre en tu correo electrónico (por ejemplo, [email protected] ).
• Si es posible, evite usar Windows, especialmente Windows 10: es una pesadilla para la privacidad. Sabemos que es difícil evitarlo.
• Malwarebytes es un antivirus decente, ejecútelo manualmente cada semana o dos (tiene que pagar por las comprobaciones automáticas).
• Aprenda a administrar su firewall en el sistema operativo que elija.
• Aprenda sobre EXIF en imágenes, cómo almacenan información identificable y aprenda cómo borrarla.

Hoooo diossss!!!!..... Gracias por la información. No soy un experto en informática pero esto me habré los ojos. Soy realmente ignorante respecto a casi todo lo referente a la privacidad pero me pondré las pilas para poder ir haciendo cada una de las recomendaciones que habéis sugerido. Lo de que haya policías con cuentas falsas me parece asta algo normal dentro de la sociedad en donde vivimos y que se meta gente que solo quiere proyectar sus mierdas personales para no mirarse a si mismo/a también es algo que no me sorprende. Gracias por los consejos. Me doy cuenta de que tengo que hacer algunos cambios tanto técnicos como mentales y os lo agradezco de corazón.

 

[Hojag]

Two things:
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=app.grapheneos.camera.play
A free and open source camera app. Retains no metadata by default.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.jarsilio.android.scrambledeggsif
A simple open source metadata remover.

Huge thanks!

 

[Johnzaga23]

is it bad to use chrome and no vpn?

 

[Winterreise]

I say we fix bayonets and take it to them

 

[cme-dme]

is it bad to use chrome and no vpn?

Google Chrome is inherently privacy violating. This is why it's not recommended. Everything you do with Chrome is sent to Google. If you want to browse this forum discreetly, use something else. Something like Brave browser or Librewolf would be better.
There is nothing inherently wrong with not using a VPN. It's an improvement to privacy but all it does is hide your real IP address. Somebody online knowing your IP is not that big of a deal in most situations.

 

[oneeyed]

A nice little tool I like using is a raspberry pi computer running "pi hole" connected to my router. Changes your dns to a more secure one for anything connected to the network. It also helps stop trackers and ads.

 

[ClownWorld2023]

Do you know a software like this for Android? I'm lost, being trapped in a phone sucks...

I don't know. I only browse this website on the computer and barely use my smartphone.

 

[NZkiwi]

I will be working to find a solution where EXIF data can be stripped from images as they are uploaded if that's possible.

Curious if this has been implemented, or if I am just bad at using the search

Many thanks

 

[EmptyBottle]

Curious if this has been implemented, or if I am just bad at using the search

Many thanks

possibly not, over a year after that post, I checked and my pics have EXIF (but no geotags, I have them disabled, so the only EXIF data available was basic camera info)

imo, disabling geotags goes a long way, because relying on manual effort = higher risk of mistakes.

 

[notthatclever]

Yeah that figures.. cops want all up in here but can't do their job to help out when it's really needed.. that's about right.. being suicidal isn't against the law.. so I'm not sure where they have any jurisdiction.. anyways if somebody comes by for a "wellness check".. just tell them you feel fine and you don't know what they're talking about and if they have further questions ask a lawyer.. they can't do anything.. all they can do is get in their car and leave.. don't answer any questions they have.. just say I have no idea what you're talking about.. and of course they're in here trying to "save us".. they're trying to save their own ass from liability.. they don't give a single shit about us.. trust me.. they think we're all "out of their league".. but they want the story to say.. well muffy muff diver.. I went on this website once and saved some people from killing themselves ahahahaa.. pass the tar tar.. aren't I such a gooood person.. they're like that dude from wedding crashers talking about fake saving deals.. everything about outsiders here would be agenda filled.. and any lawyer worth their salt would tell anybody with that vigilante mindset they're in a minefield and on very shaky ground.. and same for any psych doc worth their salt..

Listen.. a psych doc in here.. and I'm sure a few are.. I'd gather they'd just be sitting back and reading not saying much.. because they've spent their entire lives studying this very thing precisely.. they know they're in a minefield.. I'd say they're getting blown up left and right being quiet.. so yeah.. any vigilante messing around is just that.. messing around..

With some of the images of failed attempts and the rest and what people let their guards down to talk about for real here.. I'd say they're probably feeling like the twilight zone.. as they should..

But you're right.. tighten up on info that could be too revealing.. and it's always some Christian crazy that's all Yee haw Trump and I need more privacy being their nose all in yours.. sending cops your way..

Head scratcher as to why anybody might feel more violated and even further down the rabbit hole of suicide..

They all deserve their tightrope walk..

Fuck them..

 

[fadedghost]

Yeah that figures.. cops want all up in here but can't do their job to help out when it's really needed.. that's about right.. being suicidal isn't against the law.. so I'm not sure where they have any jurisdiction.. anyways if somebody comes by for a "wellness check".. just tell them you feel fine and you don't know what they're talking about and if they have further questions ask a lawyer.. they can't do anything.. all they can do is get in their car and leave.. don't answer any questions they have.. just say I have no idea what you're talking about..

This is almost certainly factually inaccurate.

A cop usually in the USA needs a warrant to break into a place to see you unless there's evidence of a severe emergency. So you can just choose to not open the door or speak with them. However, a cop can most likely use their good judgment to detain you if they think you are suicidal and many cops lie (especially undercover ones) so your statement "they can't do anything just tell them you're fine" may or may not be right.

Since cops can easily lie, and often do, as soon as you open the door, unless they have a camera on or you have a camera rolling, they can write down and make up anything. A cop can also say they heard you talking to yourself before they approached the door and say you seemed disheveled. Cops aren't like a computer program or math problem where the legal standard is X and so that's what they follow.

And with breaking down a door, that leaves visible damage that can't be denied and if no one is there or if there isn't an emergency, that can be a hassle for them potentially. Someone can complain about that and the department could potentially get sued, even though it's hard to sue police and win. On the other hand, if a police officer lies and writes down in a report "the person answered the door and said 'I have a plan to kill myself'" then there's not an easy way to prove they are lying when you are locked in involuntary care... and they had access and contact with you, and who knows what you said? Even if a cop is lying in that situation, what remedy would you have? By then you are locked up in involuntary care, multiple doctors will say you have some disorder, they always justify their expensive fees with a diagnosis, no one leaves with absolute nothing wrong... so... what then? There's no way to get back your time, your rights as a person who hasn't been involuntarily hospitalized, or the money you'll owe.

This isn't a suggestion on what someone should do in that situation. If a cop is doing a welfare check, it might be better to open the door and use it as an opportunity to get treatment (if you can afford the bills from involuntary hospitalization, which can be tens of thousands of dollars or more for a several week stay; if you have health insurance and a job, they can't easily fire you from your work usually and health insurance could pay?).

I'm not a cop and could be wrong on all of this. Where's @COP2CON when we need him?

Also being suicidal isn't against the law, but civil commitments are functionally the same as being locked up in jail but there's this weird divide between how "the system" views a civil commitment. The system believes they are doing you a favor, which is why they can collect money from you after, like potentially a huge sum.

 

[COP2CON]

This is almost certainly factually inaccurate.

A cop usually in the USA needs a warrant to break into a place to see you unless there's evidence of a severe emergency. So you can just choose to not open the door or speak with them. However, a cop can most likely use their good judgment to detain you if they think you are suicidal and many cops lie (especially undercover ones) so your statement "they can't do anything just tell them you're fine" may or may not be right.

Since cops can easily lie, and often do, as soon as you open the door, unless they have a camera on or you have a camera rolling, they can write down and make up anything. A cop can also say they heard you talking to yourself before they approached the door and say you seemed disheveled. Cops aren't like a computer program or math problem where the legal standard is X and so that's what they follow.

And with breaking down a door, that leaves visible damage that can't be denied and if no one is there or if there isn't an emergency, that can be a hassle for them potentially. Someone can complain about that and the department could potentially get sued, even though it's hard to sue police and win. On the other hand, if a police officer lies and writes down in a report "the person answered the door and said 'I have a plan to kill myself'" then there's not an easy way to prove they are lying when you are locked in involuntary care... and they had access and contact with you, and who knows what you said? Even if a cop is lying in that situation, what remedy would you have? By then you are locked up in involuntary care, multiple doctors will say you have some disorder, they always justify their expensive fees with a diagnosis, no one leaves with absolute nothing wrong... so... what then? There's no way to get back your time, your rights as a person who hasn't been involuntarily hospitalized, or the money you'll owe.

This isn't a suggestion on what someone should do in that situation. If a cop is doing a welfare check, it might be better to open the door and use it as an opportunity to get treatment (if you can afford the bills from involuntary hospitalization, which can be tens of thousands of dollars or more for a several week stay; if you have health insurance and a job, they can't easily fire you from your work usually and health insurance could pay?).

I'm not a cop and could be wrong on all of this. Where's @COP2CON when we need him?

Also being suicidal isn't against the law, but civil commitments are functionally the same as being locked up in jail but there's this weird divide between how "the system" views a civil commitment. The system believes they are doing you a favor, which is why they can collect money from you after, like potentially a huge sum.

*A wild COP2CON appears*

Soooooooo yeah. I glanced over the thread and I think it would be better for me to just do my own thread regarding this. There's more to say than a simple response to this would cover. A quick answer is that while yes you can shut the door in LE's face, there are legal vehicles they can employ to take you in for treatment regardless. Like I said, a lot can be said here so Ill do my best to have a thread shortly covering the basics.

 

[fadedghost]

*A wild COP2CON appears*

Soooooooo yeah. I glanced over the thread and I think it would be better for me to just do my own thread regarding this. There's more to say than a simple response to this would cover. A quick answer is that while yes you can shut the door in LE's face, there are legal vehicles they can employ to take you in for treatment regardless. Like I said, a lot can be said here so Ill do my best to have a thread shortly covering the basics.

And if you don't shut the door but merely refuse to answer and they can't even determine if someone is there? I'm interested in reading this thread...

 

[COP2CON]

And if you don't shut the door but merely refuse to answer and they can't even determine if someone is there? I'm interested in reading this thread...

I'll put it in there but just so you won't have to be super curious....it would depend on jurisdiction/agency. Ultimately there MIGHT be an exigent circumstance warranting an entry without a search warrant. Some places will try it, others may try to secure a search warrant, or in the case of the places I worked we simply did a report and left. I can say how it can be done but ultimately it would be up to responding LE how they would handle it. Most of the time as long as its articulated right, qualified immunity applies so LE is covered if it goes south.

 

[fadedghost]

I'll put it in there but just so you won't have to be super curious....it would depend on jurisdiction/agency. Ultimately there MIGHT be an exigent circumstance warranting an entry without a search warrant. Some places will try it, others may try to secure a search warrant, or in the case of the places I worked we simply did a report and left. I can say how it can be done but ultimately it would be up to responding LE how they would handle it. Most of the time as long as its articulated right, qualified immunity applies so LE is covered if it goes south.

it's true, but in a welfare check with no report of imminent harm, just concern, does law enforcement usually break down doors? no.

but if they hear you talking and you refuse to answer the door, then it's different, or if you yell from the door "i'm not talking to you!" it's different and if you open up and talk to a cop, it's very different.

how many times did you go to do a welfare check and no one responded at all, whatsoever, and then you broke down the door? unless a cop suspects someone is dead, like family reporting that they haven't seen a person in weeks as expected or a neighbor complaining about a bad smell and worried about an elderly person being dead, does it happen?

most cops are adrenaline junkies and hate paperwork. what happens if it's silent and a door is broken: lots of paperwork explaining why a cop broke down a perfectly good door. what cop wants to do that? plus immunity covers almost everything... but does a cop want to risk the exceptions? without a warrant?

 

[COP2CON]

it's true, but in a welfare check with no report of imminent harm, just concern, does law enforcement usually break down doors? no.

but if they hear you talking and you refuse to answer the door, then it's different, or if you yell from the door "i'm not talking to you!" it's different and if you open up and talk to a cop, it's very different.

how many times did you go to do a welfare check and no one responded at all, whatsoever, and then you broke down the door? unless a cop suspects someone is dead, like family reporting that they haven't seen a person in weeks as expected or a neighbor complaining about a bad smell and worried about an elderly person being dead, does it happen?

most cops are adrenaline junkies and hate paperwork. what happens if it's silent and a door is broken: lots of paperwork explaining why a cop broke down a perfectly good door. what cop wants to do that? plus immunity covers almost everything... but does a cop want to risk the exceptions? without a warrant?

This is why I'm working on a thread. There's a lot of info regarding this and its hard to explain because of all the "one offs" that can be present.

The simple answer for now is if there is no response and no credible information someone is inside a residence and there is no involuntary commitment paperwork and there is no independently substantiated information someone has come or is about to come to harm then no, entry will not be made.

Your 100% correct that most don't want to do the paperwork but the difference between a report for a welfare check and a welfare check where you kicked down a door is one sentence in the narrative saying you forced entry for whatever reason and usually a photo is taken of the door. Its almost no additional paperwork unless the agency is stupid and considers it a use of force but even then, that's like 5 extra minutes of paperwork.

Its simply easier (even just alittle bit) to just document you tried to make contact and you couldn't. Again, I'm actively working on a thread. The internet is coming in burst for me tonight but I'm hoping to post it by tomorrow if everything goes ok.

 

[fadedghost]

This is why I'm working on a thread. There's a lot of info regarding this and its hard to explain because of all the "one offs" that can be present.

The simple answer for now is if there is no response and no credible information someone is inside a residence and there is no involuntary commitment paperwork and there is no independently substantiated information someone has come or is about to come to harm then no, entry will not be made.

Your 100% correct that most don't want to do the paperwork but the difference between a report for a welfare check and a welfare check where you kicked down a door is one sentence in the narrative saying you forced entry for whatever reason and usually a photo is taken of the door. Its almost no additional paperwork unless the agency is stupid and considers it a use of force but even then, that's like 5 extra minutes of paperwork.

Its simply easier (even just alittle bit) to just document you tried to make contact and you couldn't. Again, I'm actively working on a thread. The internet is coming in burst for me tonight but I'm hoping to post it by tomorrow if everything goes ok.

if cops liked an extra 1-3 minutes of paperwork, they would have become accountants or gone into insurance billing. 1-3 minutes of extra paperwork is a huge disincentive for a cop.

most cops take the path of least resistance. beyond that, if no one is at home, breaking down a door is a genuinely shitty thing to do, so between the moral ambiguity and 1-3 minutes of extra paperwork, my guess is less than 1/1000 welfare checks with no answer results in a broken door, unless someone is suspected of being already dead.

unless a cop actually has cause, it's technically also a violation of someone's rights... so put that all together, it's pretty hard to nab a suicidal person who isn't coming to the door. plus, does a cop really want to break down the door with a possibly unstable person inside who is being quiet? seems risky.

no, cops do not break down doors in that situation except in very unusual circumstances, or at least that's my guess.

 

[notthatclever]

This is almost certainly factually inaccurate.

A cop usually in the USA needs a warrant to break into a place to see you unless there's evidence of a severe emergency. So you can just choose to not open the door or speak with them. However, a cop can most likely use their good judgment to detain you if they think you are suicidal and many cops lie (especially undercover ones) so your statement "they can't do anything just tell them you're fine" may or may not be right.

Since cops can easily lie, and often do, as soon as you open the door, unless they have a camera on or you have a camera rolling, they can write down and make up anything. A cop can also say they heard you talking to yourself before they approached the door and say you seemed disheveled. Cops aren't like a computer program or math problem where the legal standard is X and so that's what they follow.

And with breaking down a door, that leaves visible damage that can't be denied and if no one is there or if there isn't an emergency, that can be a hassle for them potentially. Someone can complain about that and the department could potentially get sued, even though it's hard to sue police and win. On the other hand, if a police officer lies and writes down in a report "the person answered the door and said 'I have a plan to kill myself'" then there's not an easy way to prove they are lying when you are locked in involuntary care... and they had access and contact with you, and who knows what you said? Even if a cop is lying in that situation, what remedy would you have? By then you are locked up in involuntary care, multiple doctors will say you have some disorder, they always justify their expensive fees with a diagnosis, no one leaves with absolute nothing wrong... so... what then? There's no way to get back your time, your rights as a person who hasn't been involuntarily hospitalized, or the money you'll owe.

This isn't a suggestion on what someone should do in that situation. If a cop is doing a welfare check, it might be better to open the door and use it as an opportunity to get treatment (if you can afford the bills from involuntary hospitalization, which can be tens of thousands of dollars or more for a several week stay; if you have health insurance and a job, they can't easily fire you from your work usually and health insurance could pay?).

I'm not a cop and could be wrong on all of this. Where's @COP2CON when we need him?

Also being suicidal isn't against the law, but civil commitments are functionally the same as being locked up in jail but there's this weird divide between how "the system" views a civil commitment. The system believes they are doing you a favor, which is why they can collect money from you after, like potentially a huge sum.

I was being general and I know what scum cops are.. I felt as though as that was implied.. most cops are made to wear recording devices because of all the past issues with cops lying.. and you aren't thrown into civil commitment.. if they think you're suicidal.. they take you straight to the mental hospital sometimes.. you'll be put on a 5150.. they can't hold you for more than 72 hours.. the only people that can collect money from you is the hospital. What country are you in.. have you even been through it for real.. they take you straight to the hospital.. and trust me.. you can fully sue whoever if you don't think that hospital stay was valid.. and yeah.. they aren't going to detain a potentially suicidal person.. if they come by for what they call a wellness check.. and you say you're fine. There is nothing they can do about that.. because the reason why they're there for a wellness check is because somebody tipped them off.. but people lie.. so they have to take the person at their word.. so unless you show up at the door with a knife in your hand cutting yourself.. and you look relatively normal.. they can't do anything.. do you know how hard it is for a cop to justify coming onto your property without a warrant and trying to pretend a bunch of shit.. because the court would throw it out as hearsay.. I felt like all of this was implied.. but nothing you're saying makes any sense.. I feel like you're in here trying to scare people.. they would need one hell of a probable cause.. I mean yeah if you're pulling a Perez Hilton.. they have that.. but that's very rare..

So I don't know.. maybe not go on TikTok live and cut yourself and stand there naked covered in blood.. before you try to hide from the cops..

And save for maybe a few tiny towns that are podunk.. most cops wear recording devices.. that way nobody can play he said she said in court.. that's a pretty fairly standard part of their uniform these days.. and they will pull the footage..

And if somebody answers the door half way normal looking and says they're fine.. there isn't much they can do about that..

I know.. because I've had the cops called on me before about that..

And what's laughable is I wasn't even suicidal.. I was just pissed off at coworkers harassing me at work and nobody doing shit about it..

But yeah I was real pissed off about that one..

But it's not a competition.. we all hate the cops.. they're all little bitches nobody can trust..

Yeah for real.. fuck the police..

Ain't worth a shit.. trust me I know what lazy incompetent morons lying ones at that the fucking cops are.. I know I don't want my kid being raised to trust cops..

 

[fadedghost]

because the court would throw it out as hearsay

this isn't correct

 

[notthatclever]

this isn't correct

They can.. that is absolutely correct.. if a cop can't prove they saw something.. it's hearsay.. you act like there is some big conspiracy.. and sure in some place or sometimes there is but cops can be faulted by a court and quickly.. if a cop tries to say a potential person had a gun.. but there are no records of that person ever owning one, nobody ever knew the person the be a gun owner.. or user.. and they can't provide a weapon.. that's hearsay.. you've never worked in law and you're acting like some lawyer.. you have no idea what you're talking about.. are you in maga or something.. and if a cop doesn't have a recording of somebody.. and somebody is vigilante about the cop said something other than they said.. that can be thrown out as hearsay.. it becomes he said she said.. just like in any other matter in court.. if you can't provide proof somebody said something.. the judge has to act like it may have never been said at all.. that's literally what hearsay is.. you not being able to prove somebody said or did what you alleged they said or did.. and cops are just as liable for that as anybody else.. even more so.. they can't make cases without solid evidence.. you're just spreading propaganda.. so stop..

 

[fadedghost]

They can.. that is absolutely correct.. if a cop can't prove they saw something.. it's hearsay.. you act like there is some big conspiracy.. and sure in some place or sometimes there is but cops can be faulted by a court and quickly.. if a cop tries to say a potential person had a gun.. but there are no records of that person ever owning one, nobody ever knew the person the be a gun owner.. or user.. and they can't provide a weapon.. that's hearsay.. you've never worked in law and you're acting like some lawyer.. you have no idea what you're talking about.. are you in maga or something.. and if a cop doesn't have a recording of somebody.. and somebody is vigilante about the cop said something other than they said.. that can be thrown out as hearsay.. it becomes he said she said.. just like in any other matter in court.. if you can't provide proof somebody said something.. the judge has to act like it may have never been said at all.. that's literally what hearsay is.. you not being able to prove somebody said or did what you alleged they said or did.. and cops are just as liable for that as anybody else.. even more so.. they can't make cases without solid evidence.. you're just spreading propaganda.. so stop..

where the fuck is @COP2CON when we need him?

hey cop2con, in a civil case that doesn't involve anything criminal, like a hearing to contest a commitment extension, would a police report be automatically thrown out by a judge for being hearsay? or would there be some reason that might not happen? i genuinely don't know, i'm just a maga spreading propaganda!

also is this true?

if a cop tries to say a potential person had a gun.. but there are no records of that person ever owning one, nobody ever knew the person the be a gun owner.. or user.. and they can't provide a weapon.. that's hearsay..

apparently, i'm some dumb yokel maga hick, unlike the scholar who responded to my post...

so i don't know... enlighten us...
so... is what that person said true? if a cop testified to that, "but there are no records of that person ever owning one, nobody ever knew the person the be a gun owner.. or user.. and they can't provide a weapon" is that hearsay?

i just don't know! my truck nuts are huge, but my brain is so small, and i just can't understand. please! who wins? am i spreading propaganda with my truck nuts again?

 

[COP2CON]

where the fuck is @COP2CON when we need him?

hey cop2con, in a civil case that doesn't involve anything criminal, like a hearing to contest a commitment extension, would a police report be automatically thrown out by a judge for being hearsay? or would there be some reason that might not happen? i genuinely don't know, i'm just a maga spreading propaganda!

also is this true?


apparently, i'm some dumb yokel maga hick, unlike the scholar who responded to my post...

so i don't know... enlighten us...
so... is what that person said true? if a cop testified to that, "but there are no records of that person ever owning one, nobody ever knew the person the be a gun owner.. or user.. and they can't provide a weapon" is that hearsay?

i just don't know! my truck nuts are huge, but my brain is so small, and i just can't understand. please! who wins? am i spreading propaganda with my truck nuts again?

Answer to first question.....no. Nothing a law enforcement officer says is hearsay. Everything gatherered during an investigation is put into a report and can be used in court. Now a judge can throw out various parts or even the whole thing for various reasons, this is called suppression. If the facts/evidence gathered during an investigation and put into a report prove later to be unfounded or inaccurate, it can be suppressed for various reasons like being prejudicial against a defendant. Evidence can also be suppressed for other reasons such as Miranda violations, chain of custody issues, and 1000 other reasons. Hearsay is only a thing with the general public. A witness who heard something from someone else can be hearsay. A cop who writes in a report that said person heard something from someone else, can 100% testify to it because they may have used it to establish PC or ARS but again, a judge may be able to suppress it if later the information was proved to be untrue or inaccurate and would prejudicial to the defendant.

Sorta related, the supreme court ruled that a LEO's word is considered fact unless suppressed or proven otherwise. A cop can show up to a scene where another cop can tell him or her to arrest someone because they observed said person commit a crime. The second cops word is treat as fact so the first cop can affect the arrest without any investigation whatsoever because of it. Now the second cop had better add all the necessary evidence/testimony to the report or it will be thrown out but the first cop is not held liable at all if he acted in good faith on the word of another LEO. I had this happen once to me and got to court and requested the charges dropped because the cop who told me to make the arrest had recently been fired for lying. No way I was going to bat for someone like that. I got a high 5 from the defendant :-) .

I'll be honest, for a commitment hearing or extension hearing, a judge is 100% going to let in the full report BUT will take any non-direct evidence or facts with a grain of salt. But what was said by notthatclever is 100% true. If you don't present to LE as being suicidal and there's no evidence other than third party testimony, then there's no evidence to extend past the mandatory observation period. Again, the investigation and cops testimony is treated as fact for the time of the incident but may be subject to suppression later for various reasons.

Second question......this one is a little more difficult for a yes or no but I'll explain. So in this scenerio where someone is believe to have a gun is somewhat different in different places. There is no registry of firearms in many states and when you buy a gun, LE cannot just run a serial number or a persons name to verify ownership of a firearm. Some states have their own registry like IL, CA, NY, etc but the majority don't. When your run a name through NCIC, only license information, warrant information, parole and probation information, missing person information, and any special alerts (like terrorism related) comes up. If you run a firearm through NCIC nothing comes back unless it was reported stolen. I'll put it here again, this is how it is in the majority of the States where there is no registration. If you want to find ownership, you have to fill out paperwork and send it to the ATF (a trace). They take the number, check it with the manufacturer, find out what distributor it went to, contact the distributor and find out what gun store got it, contact the gun store and have them pull the original 4473 paperwork, and boom there's your original first owner. In a lot of states private transactions are also not illegal so every time I went to talk to the original purchaser, like 99% of the time the had sold it and didn't remember to who.

In states with registries obviously it just shows up if you run a name, no need to be more elaborate than that.

Going back to the question.... If a cop put in the report you had a gun or were reported to have a gun, it is not hearsay like I stated above. It is considered facts and evidence gathered and obtained at the time of incident which were used to justify whatever action was or was not taken. It is all viewed under the perspective of said LEO at the incident time. It can be suppressed like I said above but it is not hearsay. Now if an officer said someone told him someone had a gun then later the witness testimony of being told by someone else that someone had a gun, that can be hearsay but not a LEO who is reporting/testifying because everything is considered evidence.

Even in states where there is a registry, its so easy to get a gun that whether someone shows up in the system as owning one or not, the allegation is still added to the report because it will be used to establish ARS or PC for a crime or to justify actions for something like a commitment and can be used by a cop on the stand.

To make it all a bit easier, pretty much no where in law does LE, the courts, anyone have to be 100%. Articulable Reasonable Suspicion (ARS) which is enough to detain and cuff someone is only like 25% on a scale of 1-100. Probable cause which is enough to effect an arrest, take you to jail, and prosecute you, is only like 51% on that scale. Going to court and being found guilty bond a reasonable doubt is only like 75% on said scale. In civil stuff, the standard is much lower and even though a commitment hearing is taking away someones freedom, a much lower standard is usually used and a person is not entitled to a public defender because its not a criminal matter. Its super messed up.

I sat in court and saw a few commitment extensions and in all of them, only the testimony of the doctor was used and the person committed wasn't even there. No lawyer, just a judge looking at the paperwork and making a ruling based on it. Like I couldn't believe it. For initial commitments (from a judgr) everywhere I worked, there was no formal hearing. 2 or more people walked into the courthouse, filled out an application to commit said person, met with a judge in his or hers office(not a courtroom), gave brief statements, and the judge signed the order right there. The person being committed was not there, not notified, and given no chance to counter the claims. Fucked up doesn't even begin to describe it and it needs to be fixed.

Here's why I can't say yes or no or who's right or wrong. Nottoclever mentioned a 5150. That's California's designation for commitment stuff. Its different elsewhere. While the hearsay thing is sorta wrong(like I said, direct from LE its not hearsay but can be hearsay from the original witness) when it comes to the level of what the courts will allow, California has its own case laws and is in the 9th circuit. They may have different standards for some stuff. Unless the Supreme Court of the US rules on it, then it can be different than say how Florida would handle it. There are a few exceptions to that but not worth going down the rabbit hole. This is why in my other thread I urge people to look at their individual state code books and case laws. While general processes and stuff can be the same, sometimes curve balls get thrown by individual states.

So the answer is yes and no. For this second question while its not hearsay, California may find a way to suppress but Kentucky wouldn't. That's why I like reading case law because stuff is so different from place to place. While I believe case law would say its all legal and admissible, somewhere like California might have a law or case law on the books that would limit it. The law is a fascinating thing, really messed up, but fascinating.

Also here is where I say.....I'm not looking to pick a fight or take sides or anything. What I said is based on my knowledge, training, and experience because I have a lot of direct experience with the law from my prior job to legal stuff now. All I ever want is for the information to be out there in case it can help someone. I never liked civil commitments and personally believe the entire process needs to be reformed. Also LE should have nothing to do with it if no arrest was made or charges sought.

I hope at least some of what I said made sense....I've been typing for a long time and I ate some iffy mayo earlier and am not at my best right now.
I should also add the " totality of circumstances" is what comes into play here. Merely being told someone has a firearm (or other weapons) or hell even being suicidal is not enough to do something. Now being told that can be used as facts or evidence a,long with anything else observed or gathered so in the totality if circumstances, whatever action was justified or not.

 

[UserFromNowhere]

I never liked civil commitments and personally believe the entire process needs to be reformed. Also LE should have nothing to do with it if no arrest was made or charges sought.

Not that I like it, but in this regard, I don't even know how civil commitment could be reformed. Even assuming that it was mandated the individual facing commitment be brought/allowed to show at their commitment hearing, this would still require the individual being placed under direct observation for a period of time (even if such a period of time happened to be less than the typical 72-hour hold). Likewise, they would probably similarly be forced to undergo the same psychological evaluation that they would be forced into during an otherwise involuntary civil commitment, just without necessarily being confined in a institution or hospital of some sort while they're being interviewed. Maybe this would be better than the whole process being involuntary and without the subject having a say in it at all, but it seems like it'd be pretty similar.

 

[COP2CON]

Not that I like it, but in this regard, I don't even know how civil commitment could be reformed. Even assuming that it was mandated the individual facing commitment be brought/allowed to show at their commitment hearing, this would still require the individual being placed under direct observation for a period of time (even if such a period of time happened to be less than the typical 72-hour hold). Likewise, they would probably similarly be forced to undergo the same psychological evaluation that they would be forced into during an otherwise involuntary civil commitment, just without necessarily being confined in a institution or hospital of some sort while they're being interviewed. Maybe this would be better than the whole process being involuntary and without the subject having a say in it at all, but it seems like it'd be pretty similar.

I have thought about this for many years. Without seeing all the governing case law its hard for me to know how to fix it but it is definitely broken. One thing that I would change is for doctors to commit someone, it would take 2 professional opinions and at least one would have to have a speciality in mental health. Currently most places, a simple general practitioner can sign out an order themselves if they felt so inclined. It sounds more difficult but you can even just have a tele doc that is on call as a second opinion. That way if you are in a medical setting, you can plead your case and circumstances to two people instead of one. Some places already refer patients to mental health doctors or professionals to determine if a commitment will be done but a lot of places dont. Both my involuntary commitments were by regular doctors, no mental health specialties or anything.

Second, for commitments sought through a judge, in every other facet of law the defendant is allowes and usually required to be in court for whatever proceedings. Since a commitment can take away/restrict someone's freedom, regardless if its a civil proceeding or not, I consider the person its sought against as a defendant. No 2 people should be able to sit before a judge, plead a 100% testimonial case with no other evidence, and someone's freedom be taken away because of it without them being present to defend the allegations. I was a officer and a deputy, I served paperwork as a deputy including emergency subpoenas where I took it from the judges hand, found the person, and brought them to court right then. It can be done and if someone is not actively sitting there with a gun to their head then they should have a chance to plead their case. Commitments by judges are not super common in most places so its not like your putting LE out by adding some sort of method to have them bring the person to court. Now, just like real court it could be voluntary but if you don't show up you would waive your right to defend against the allegations.

Third, some places can initially do extensions for a length of time before having to go to court for a longer/permanent order. For example, the initial might be 72 hours but legally they may be able to extend it to 30 days without a court order but may have to get one for anything after that. I believe that all extensions need to be court ordered and a judge should travel to the facility to have a hearing to approve any extensions. This sounds complicated but its not. Judges already travel for many things and the courtroom is only a formality. I've sought and received arrest and search warrants from judges over facetime while they are at Walmart or camping, at their homes at all hours of the night, at restaurants, etc. A lot of judges actually travel back and forth to jails to set bonds for prisoners daily or have video court. It would not be overly complicated to implicate something where there would be judicial oversight instead of just doctor testimony but also any decision denied can be appealed.

Personally I believe civil commitments are unconstitutional because as I said, you are removing/restricting someone's freedom if only for 3 days. Many people also lose second amendment rights because of it as well so yet another right is taken away. This can all be done based on the opinion of one doctor of any field (in a lot of places), mental health professions that in some areas only have to complete 3 months of school to have this power(social workers), or judges who have zero psychological or medical backgrounds on the testimony of literally any 2 people that want to say whatever about you. Even in other civil proceedings where one is being stripped of certain rights like custody hearings, everyone is allowed to come and give their testimony, evidence, etc. to at least try and not lose those rights.

I would seriously be interested if someone has successfully challenged a involuntary commitment within the initial 72 hour hold because like I said in my thread, I don't think its possible. Maybe you can challenge it after the fact but it shouldnt be this easy to lose your constitutional rights and have to fight to get them back all without you being allowed any sort of defense for it.

I'm off my soap box now....

So I'm not going to respond to anymore comments about commitments here. If you want to debate or add/ask for information, come on over to my thread. I don't want to derail this thread any further. Everyone just please be cautious, responsible, and discrete with what you post here. That should be true anywhere online but still. Research and use any tools you feel necessary to protect your self such as VPN's, various browsers, and other things I probably know nothing about. This is a unique forum and there is a lot of opportunity for someone to try to take advantage of someone, many of us, who are vulnerable. I've met a lot of good people here, helpful and caring, but there are a lot of wolves lurking as well so stay safe and if you ever dont feel comfortable, trust your instincts and if necessary notify a mod.