[ Facebook Feedback ]: Blocking People Isn't A Great Mental Health Solution 2 messages
Martin J. Driskill <inthemindway@gmail.com>
Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 5:37 AM
To:
Mike Bires <mike@mikebires.com>, info@lawenforcement.social,
info@knightcolumbia.org, Rick Mcminn - City of Azusa - Code Enforcement
<rmcminn@ci.azusa.ca.us>, bcooke@dbh.sbcounty.gov, Lieutenant
Nelson Carrington – Western District Commander
<sbpdwest@sbcity.org>, "Fools Said I : Sergeant Lanier Joseph
Rogers III" <ljrbabe@yahoo.com>, SupervisorGonzales@sbcounty.gov,
"Human First Male Second Deputy Sherrif 3rd Terry @Gruwup Klinkhart"
<tklinkhart@sbcsd.org>, Doctor Mirza
<smirza@dbh.sbcounty.gov>
Cc: TruthFinder Help
<help@truthfinder.com>, "Judge Wilfred John Schneider Jr (See
Truthfinder Report)" <wilfred_schneider@eee.org>, "This is BAR
BUSINESS [ Attorney-Dale-Lee-Henderson@FuckedUpHuman.Net & perhaps
the judge named too ]" <bar@sbcba.org>, LGBT Bar
<info@lgbtbar.org>
Startled-Bewilderment
Why We Are Allowing The Realm of Hate To Occupy Us
In Our Cold Bleeding Hearts -- #StopGangStalking and
#ConspiracyExposedTerminatesASAP and really really
#TechnoRealism #HumaneTech -- Fix The Social Media
Tools -- Our tools we have now are used to kill people!
**********************************************************
This page is dedicated to the education of relative perspectives
harm-reduction [ lesser social negative impact ] to the direct application
to "Social Media Expect / Security PRO Mike 'iSocialCop' Bires.
It is my perspective to have put into reference these materials,
and you must realise at this point, how I operate my web presence
is not the same as you. Any offense thst you could take based quickly
on a type of media or its message, or the style to which I am standing
is an unwarranted and unjustified reason to use the tool BLOCKING.
Now you could agree with me or you could disagree, but whatever your
state of mind, you quick to react and not go for discussion is really a
bit self-serving, which is ok ok too.
Please sign the comments here -- as my first
guest as the dedication gives...
A Quote I pulled for 'iSociaCop' Mike Bires
Embrace the trolls
When you have trolls coming onto your agency's platforms, it is your opportunity to make your agency look stellar. This is your moment in the spotlight to look beautiful in the response you give the trolls.
Make sure that you respond to the troll in a professional, empathetic and caring tone. Thank them for taking the time to stay connected to your presence on social media.
Let the troll know you’ve read their comment and that you would be happy to address any concerns or comments through a private message. Tell the troll you value what they have to say and you look forward to their message.
By taking the high road, you look like a consummate professional, and you leave the ball in their court. If your fans haven’t already stepped up to the plate to tell the troll to get lost, you may or may not get a response from the troll.
---------------------------- Note: This advise was never seen into my conversation screen.
The Key [ ]
BRUCE DAVID COOK
PO BOX 2913, LAKE ARROWHEAD, CA, 92352
Age
68
Birth Date
Sep 15, 1952
JOBS
Company (Industry)
Job Title
Dates
Alta Loma Psychological Associates
Domestic Violence Group Facilitator
Jan 1, 2011 - May 21, 2020
×Remove
County of San Bernardino
Clinical therapist
Jan 1, 2011 - May 21, 2020
×Remove
(Individual And Family Services)
Social Worker
Jan 1, 2008
×Remove
COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO (Counselors-Licensed Professional)
MANAGER
Sep 21, 2016
×Remove
Mr Cooke,
can you please answer this question , honestly. You and I exchanged a voice conversation because you were the one
who
was referred to me when I had my issue about your staff on facebook
blocking my account. We had a great conversation, with a little
bit of a hick-up, on a couple of contentious relatives. That
being the use of digital information society tools to enable sharing
between us -- for I have a definite need to share in our information
society in 2020,
2020? upon our crazy way we are seeing today -- not worthy of pasts -- but something wicked this way comes.
I asked for an email address, you said I could take what I needed to share to your office -- assumption by paper printout.
That being quite quaint [ a nice way of saying it ]. Then, I mentioned what Disqus is! tool that is applied onto the NPINO.COM
site -- and you freaked out to have actually stated that Was
threatening you -- and that you would have to disconnect this otherwise
well going on conversation. You would basically characterize that
56 minute conversation in that way? Do you refuse to answer
because of some kind of claim to the 5th Amendment? This is the
reality of the world.
So in 2020, it might be noteworthy that your email address is in your TruthFinder report. That is not a problem is it?
and
if it is a problem -- why is it that you have waited all of this time
to square yourself up with the informational date of our history -- why
did you wait so long to not be prepared for the quickening? Long
time ago, the presence of this kind of scope of our humanity was
predicted Sir. Why are you mad at me at first instead of being mad
as yourself?
My question here is -- exactly
why are you attempting to avoid having digital enabled communications
with a member of the community, such as I? I have nothing to
keep me up at night in view of my background. Help me understand
the level of impact this hate conspiracy has actually penetrated into
the county's policies in communications with its employees and
outside. Are you saying there are a bunch of patch work policies
that go to avoid these instead of enabling these communications?
What exactly am I supposed to think, logically and deductively when both
of these are a bit out of sequence with a standard response from us
all? What does that say of you sir? I would make sure that
whatever you are avoiding -- a secret or just wild mental working --
take the lead in your own life so that you can be free of the
bondage you must have to some outside bullshit -- take that away from
you -- drop it -- smash it if you must --- please
[
Note: This message HURLS you into a different way -- fall
on your sword right immediately --- read the screenshot, whom and to
what was shared -- and worried about -- what? You shouldn't be --
but then there is the issue right at the mouth of the garbage -- a
person who cannot see the irrational use of what they have just done. Am
I worried? Yeah, worried that people cannot use the tool of
Messenger without their ignorant bullshit blaring alarms -- What harm we
are doing to our society in all of this?
Facebook
--- you are too fucking big for your britches. Do you fucking know what
that means? For a man, your balls are being squeezed and they are
hanging out -- among other aspects of what is happening out here -- is
not too cool for our common human condition. I am really really
sick and tired of dealing with this problem. Do you realize how
many people in the "business or government" organizations improperly use
the Messenger tool? Do you really understand that there is
something seriously wrong in the way BLOCK is USED as a WEAPON against
another member?
There are articles after articles on that subject.
Blocking People Isn't A Great Mental Health Solution
I
will never understand the knee-jerk reaction to block people we know on
social media or various websites just because we get mad. I consider blocking as a last resort for people who will not listen to reason.
Every
time I write about somebody trolling on my work, or discuss an unsavory
interaction with a fellow writer, a few people ask why I don’t just block them and move on.
“Why not just block them and be done with it,” they ask me.
But
I don’t even understand the question. "Blocking people" is pretty much
only something you do online. In real life, cutting off from somebody
who disagrees with you isn’t lauded as a positive mental
health move. It’s more often volatile and reactionary.
We don’t need to sweep bad behavior under the rug.
“Making a scene” is supposedly so unsavory, that most women are professionals at sweeping bad behavior under the rug. We expect bad behavior from others--especially from men. And too many men expect us to let it all go without mention.
There’s something so pious about
pretending that shit didn’t happen, but that’s also letting abusive
behavior slide. When I call out bad behavior and say I am not going to
take it, I’m often amazed to see how many other women feel more
confident to speak up and tell their stories too.
It
pays to talk about individuals who behave like predators in any given
community. It makes a positive impact when you help more people avoid
getting hoodwinked themselves.
Some
abusers come across as trustworthy and encouraging. But they are wolves
in disguise. Blocking them doesn’t fix any of that. They just keep
doing their thing and other people keep
falling for the illusion.
Conflict resolution matters.
Back when the breakup with my daughter’s dad was still painful, we were both terribly immature.
We blocked each other on Facebook, Messenger, Google, SMS--all of it. We unblocked each other too.
Like, “Oh, I’m so angry, let me get this last word in… there!”
It was stupid, and it never made either of us feel better. It never helped resolve our conflicts.
Whether you do the blocking or somebody else blocks you, there can be no resolution at that point. Sometimes,
I see chronic blockers complain about the way people respond to being
blocked. Well, yeah. I’m wondering what they expected?
In many cases, blocking someone who disagrees with you starts a fire when there was nothing there to begin with--except for your own angry feelings.
Blocking
isn’t just a mental health break. Use the option after lecturing
someone and giving them no chance to respond and it’s a manipulative
move. It’s something narcissists often do online to control a narrative.
Are you in or are you out? This
is what narcissists and abusers want to know. And they will use
blocking as a method to curate their very own community of sheep who
only hear their voice.
A social media induced sickness.
Blocking
trolls might be good for our health, but employing blocks whenever
people don’t give you what you want is a disease. I’d say it’s the
natural extension of culling.
It’s complicated because social media has created this enormous “call out culture” where it’s cool to dis on--whomever you decide are--the cool kids. That’s what makes you one of the even cooler kids. Unlike them, you don’t give a fuck who you come after, right?
Look,
sometimes, call outs are necessary. Calling out injustice matters.
Racism, homophobia, transphobia, sexism, ageism--these are just some of
the issues that need to be called out.
Angry
rants about people who share too many cat videos on social media?
Stories berating writers who dare use copious adverbs? Entire articles
lamenting that nobody cares about or understands the truth like
you? Dude, that’s all just so damn… petty.
You can’t write full on rants about people misunderstanding free speech and censorship when you’re out there blocking anybody who
disagrees with you. I mean, clearly you can, and obviously it happens,
but it’s creating a toxic culture of grown ass men who can’t handle an
honest discussion.
This isn’t the playground and we’re not playing dodgeball. There’s no need to choose teams.
Why are we so angry, anyway?
Blocking people online is a tool. And the way you use it to avoid looking like a tool yourself? Don’t block somebody when you’re angry. And don’t write up some long explanation about why you’re blocking them.
Think really hard about blocking someone with whom you have any kind of friendship or working relationship. Don’t block them and unblock them to leave comments, only to block them again.
Before
blocking anybody who isn’t just a faceless troll, figure out what set
you off in the first place. Why can’t you resolve the
conflict instead?
Is there even
a conflict? Sometimes, when we don’t like what another person is
saying, it’s not their fault. It’s us. Sometimes it’s our own hangups or
jealousy telling us that this person is a world class jerk. They may
have done nothing wrong, yet something they said got under our skin
anyway.
You know what’s really good
for your mental health? Figuring out your own shit first.
Understanding why certain people rub you the wrong way… before going on a
blocking spree.
Of
course, what do I know? I’m just a single mom writing
online on one website. I’ve got my own issues. I’m far from
famous and I haven’t been “discovered.”
Not that I’m waiting on any of that. I’m happy to work every day on my writing and willing to see where it takes me. I’m happy to be a nobody who inspires somebody every day.
And I’m happy to talk about it all too. Lately, I’ve heard a lot of people quote Michelle Obama: “When they go low, we go high.”
It’s true.
We
don’t have to be kids in the schoolyard calling each other names and
telling our friends to pick a side so we know who to shun.
I
don’t need to shun anyone and I’m not afraid to have friends and
colleagues who disagree with me. Blocking is overrated and I much prefer
to write about these experiences anyways.
This is the question of the century!
How
in the hell did someone think it was ok to use BLOCK or UNFRIEND [
which there is no such concept in real life ] as a "fundamental" feature
process of almost every single application or user environment online
that has sharing capability? To keep the scum away from us,
right? That is why we have gated residential communities in our
more privileged cities, right? What does that cause especially in an
online environment? I think we as humans completely understand
what BLOCK was invented for -- sure shit probably was. The concept
of the process of BLOCK as FUNDAMENTAL function needs to be nullified
out of the standards of application user sharing operation. That
is an obvious conclusion of this argument -
I am in fact willing to seek this change more promptly -
I
am almost ready to claim this ---Facebook as a Public Nuisance with a
huge slew of evidence that support this -- You might take this as a joke
-- i am in no way shape or form kidding here -- that means you really
should take the time to respond -- because I am going to the FBI more
than likely to file a case complaint against several persons within the
scope view of my local law enforcement and social services in the County
of San Bernardino in violation of U.S. Code Title 18, Section 241 [
Conspiracy Against Rights ] and U.S. Code title 18, Section 242 [ Color
of Law ] and part of the problem that could be taken away from their
ability to use it -- you are enabling this condition of conspiracy by
the feature of BLOCKING being too simple coded to act against an
innocent person making no violation of terms of services or offense of
community culture. The blocking feature is used inappropriately to not
be a control of so-called spam. I would gather that when BLOCK or
UNFRIEND is used on Facebook, it is actually a majority that use it to
be conflict avoidant on matters where the truth is being subverted, or a
situation is being placed to be conflict avoidance and future
conversation is shunted into silence. No, humans don't have the
the ability to have an offense of any kind, to which then the whomever
is effected by that offense, cannot stand up, speak his mind, and
perhaps persuade a resolution and means to fucking shine!
Public Nuisance [ Against Facebook : Harming Society ]
I
guarantee my arguements will be solid and logically taken into view --
you have to fix this -- this insane paradigm -- if you do not yet have
the understanding of how -- perhaps we should talk - For your fucking
clue -- there must be an underhanded reason it has not been done yet?
As
was mentioned above, let us apply an entire fresh perspective layer of
involvements happening across our society. The term is
#Gangstalking. This entire category is a bewildering wonder.
Finally as of April 6th 2020, we have an National Institutes of Health
research finding, again on mental health issues.
Again,
there must be an underhanded reason that gangstalking has not been put
seriously into a perspective to control in our society. It has not
been done yet. Why oh why?
Because
as it is now BLOCKING OPEN AND ENABLED coupled with gangstalking --
what a potent pwoer of two -- dual weapontry to hold down that scum of
our earth -- and they don't even have a fucking clue --- how bad, really
bad, it is happing -- million oblivion, billion oblivion, trillion
obliion.
There without
civil society address, in law enforcement and in mental health condones [
enables ] and support these processes and those who are in the need of
them of backward acting, to immediately reach for the feature --just a
code routine in your overall platform --- as innocent the code is
-- nah nah nah.
[ This paper is written way before the problem of #gangstalking ]
In
this heady age of rapid technological change, we all struggle to
maintain our bearings. The developments that unfold each day in
communications and computing can be thrilling and disorienting. One
understandable reaction is to wonder: Are these changes good or bad?
Should we welcome or fear them?
The
answer is both. Technology is making life more convenient and
enjoyable, and many of us healthier, wealthier, and wiser. But it is
also affecting work, family, and the economy in unpredictable ways,
introducing new forms of tension and distraction, and posing new threats
to the cohesion of our physical communities.
Despite
the complicated and often contradictory implications of technology, the
conventional wisdom is woefully simplistic. Pundits, politicians, and
self-appointed visionaries do us a disservice when they try to reduce
these complexities to breathless tales of either high-tech doom or
cyber-elation. Such polarized thinking leads to dashed hopes and
unnecessary anxiety, and prevents us from understanding our own culture.
Over
the past few years, even as the debate over technology has been
dominated by the louder voices at the extremes, a new, more balanced
consensus has quietly taken shape. This document seeks to articulate
some of the shared beliefs behind that consensus, which we have come to
call technorealism.
Technorealism
demands that we think critically about the role that tools and
interfaces play in human evolution and everyday life. Integral to this
perspective is our understanding that the current tide of technological
transformation, while important and powerful, is actually a continuation
of waves of change that have taken place throughout history. Looking,
for example, at the history of the automobile, television, or the
telephone -- not just the devices but the institutions they became -- we
see profound benefits as well as substantial costs. Similarly, we
anticipate mixed blessings from today's emerging technologies, and
expect to forever be on guard for unexpected consequences -- which must
be addressed by thoughtful design and appropriate use.
As
technorealists, we seek to expand the fertile middle ground between
techno-utopianism and neo-Luddism. We are technology "critics" in the
same way, and for the same reasons, that others are food critics, art
critics, or literary critics. We can be passionately optimistic about
some technologies, skeptical and disdainful of others. Still, our goal
is neither to champion nor dismiss technology, but rather to understand
it and apply it in a manner more consistent with basic human values.
Below are some evolving basic principles that help explain technorealism.
***
PRINCIPLES OF TECHNOREALISM
1. Technologies are not neutral. A
great misconception of our time is the idea that technologies are
completely free of bias -- that because they are inanimate artifacts,
they don't promote certain kinds of behaviors over others. In truth,
technologies come loaded with both intended and unintended social,
political, and economic leanings. Every tool provides its users with a
particular manner of seeing the world and specific ways of interacting
with others. It is important for each of us to consider the biases of
various technologies and to seek out those that reflect our values and
aspirations.
2. The Internet is revolutionary, but not Utopian. The
Net is an extraordinary communications tool that provides a range of
new opportunities for people, communities, businesses, and government.
Yet as cyberspace becomes more populated, it increasingly resembles
society at large, in all its complexity. For every empowering or
enlightening aspect of the wired life, there will also be dimensions
that are malicious, perverse, or rather ordinary.
3. Government has an important role to play on the electronic frontier. Contrary
to some claims, cyberspace is not formally a place or jurisdiction
separate from Earth. While governments should respect the rules and
customs that have arisen in cyberspace, and should not stifle this new
world with inefficient regulation or censorship, it is foolish to say
that the public has no sovereignty over what an errant citizen or
fraudulent corporation does online. As the representative of the people
and the guardian of democratic values, the state has the right and
responsibility to help integrate cyberspace and conventional society.
Technology
standards and privacy issues, for example, are too important to be
entrusted to the marketplace alone. Competing software firms have little
interest in preserving the open standards that are essential to a fully
functioning interactive network. Markets encourage innovation, but they
do not necessarily insure the public interest.
4. Information is not knowledge. All
around us, information is moving faster and becoming cheaper to
acquire, and the benefits are manifest. That said, the proliferation of
data is also a serious challenge, requiring new measures of human
discipline and skepticism. We must not confuse the thrill of acquiring
or distributing information quickly with the more daunting task of
converting it into knowledge and wisdom. Regardless of how advanced our
computers become, we should never use them as a substitute for our own
basic cognitive skills of awareness, perception, reasoning, and
judgment.
5. Wiring the schools will not save them. The
problems with America's public schools -- disparate funding, social
promotion, bloated class size, crumbling infrastructure, lack of
standards -- have almost nothing to do with technology. Consequently, no
amount of technology will lead to the educational revolution prophesied
by President Clinton and others. The art of teaching cannot be
replicated by computers, the Net, or by "distance learning." These tools
can, of course, augment an already high-quality educational experience.
But to rely on them as any sort of panacea would be a costly mistake.
6. Information wants to be protected. It's
true that cyberspace and other recent developments are challenging our
copyright laws and frameworks for protecting intellectual property. The
answer, though, is not to scrap existing statutes and principles.
Instead, we must update old laws and interpretations so that information
receives roughly the same protection it did in the context of old
media. The goal is the same: to give authors sufficient control over
their work so that they have an incentive to create, while maintaining
the right of the public to make fair use of that information. In neither
context does information want "to be free." Rather, it needs to be
protected.
7. The public owns the airwaves; the public should benefit from their use. The
recent digital spectrum giveaway to broadcasters underscores the
corrupt and inefficient misuse of public resources in the arena of
technology. The citizenry should benefit and profit from the use of
public frequencies, and should retain a portion of the spectrum for
educational, cultural, and public access uses. We should demand more for
private use of public property.
8. Understanding technology should be an essential component of global citizenship. In
a world driven by the flow of information, the interfaces -- and the
underlying code -- that make information visible are becoming enormously
powerful social forces. Understanding their strengths and limitations,
and even participating in the creation of better tools, should be an
important part of being an involved citizen. These tools affect our
lives as much as laws do, and we should subject them to a similar
democratic scrutiny.
The Tools --- Where did those who held this document grand go?
I
tell you -- this is the point of reference in this document that has
been intentionally abandoned --ideals too high mighty whose shit does
not stink [ for them ] for the elitist corrupted class that can't get
their head out of their asses.
"it
is foolish to say that the public has no sovereignty over what an
errant citizen or fraudulent corporation does online. As the
representative of the people and the guardian of democratic values, the
state has the right and responsibility to help integrate cyberspace and
conventional society."
The
State Abandoned This Project -- we all just accept the conditions of
technology into our daily world without questioning its cause to effect
on our mental function and capacity. We are not doing it very well
-- this fucked up human way -- now are we?
This right here -- is why we have a conspiracy in all of this our civil society -- don't think it dude -- I know the truth.
That
code routine can be altered or at least taken to clay to mold a
different varried end point result -- don't tell me that is such a hard
fucking thing for your brains to not have already done thought
about? So where is the conflict of interest here? Who and
what do you hold the BLOCKING MODE to PRIORITIES THE USERS ON THIS SITE
TO WALL OUT those who APPROACH OTHERS who need to RECTIFY the TRUTH to
it's #Reckoning [ Current Tag for the Social Unrest Protest Happening --
Yep - they are DIRECTLY related to each other, and don't you claim
otherwise.
-------------------------------------------
Public Nuisance
While the tort of private nuisance
provides a remedy for interferences with the use and enjoyment of real
estate, the tort of public nuisance allows recovery for activities that
hurt a neighborhood or society. To be liable for public nuisance, the
defendant must have interfered with public property, or with a right
common to the public. Examples of public nuisance include pollution of
navigable waterways, interfering with the use of public parks and the
creation of public health hazards.
Like
private nuisance, public nuisance can be the result of negligence or
intentional activity. Courts will also scrutinize factors like the kind
of neighborhood, the nature of the harm and the proximity to those who
are injured. However, a major difference from private nuisance concerns
who may sue to recover damages. Since the impact of the nuisance is felt
by the public, the law limits the right to sue to:
1.Public
authorities who are responsible for protecting the rights of the
public. These include state and federal agencies such as parks
departments or environmental protection agencies; and
2.Those individuals who suffer a particularizedharm from the nuisance. This means a harm different in kind than that suffered by the public at large.[2]
------------------------------------------------
Public Health Hazard -- [ ?? ]
Do I need to cite some of these critical informational tool references?
Tech
platforms make billions of dollars keeping us clicking, scrolling, and
sharing. Just like a tree is worth more as lumber and a whale is worth
more dead than alive—in the attention extraction economy a human is
worth more when we are depressed, outraged, polarized, and addicted.
This
attention extraction economy is accelerating the mass degradation of
our collective capacity to solve global threats, from pandemics to
inequality to climate change. If we can’t make sense of the world while
making ever more consequential choices, a growing ledger of harms will destroy the futures of our children, democracy and truth itself.
We need radically reimagined technology infrastructure and business models that actually align with humanity’s best interests.
How do we guide tech toward protecting the public interest?
WHAT WE DO
Our
policy team provides innovative research, analysis, and ideas for
effective tech policies to policymakers, technologists, the media, and
the general public. We devise policy recommendations at the “sweet spot”
of supporting vibrant entrepreneurship while serving the public
interest. Our work is informed by policy experts, technologists, and
thought leaders as we endeavor to positively shape our digital future.
Section
241 of Title 18 is the civil rights conspiracy statute. Section 241
makes it unlawful for two or more persons to agree together to injure,
threaten, or intimidate a person in any state, territory or district in
the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to
him/her by the Constitution or the laws of the Unites States, (or
because of his/her having exercised the same). Unlike most conspiracy
statutes, Section 241 does not require that one of the conspirators
commit an overt act prior to the conspiracy becoming a crime.
The
offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term or
the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and
the resulting injury, if any.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 241
If
two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession,
or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege
secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or
because of his having so exercised the same;...
They
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years,
or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of
this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap,
aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual
abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined under this title or
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be
sentenced to death.
Section
242 of Title 18 makes it a crime for a person acting under color of any
law to willfully deprive a person of a right or privilege protected by
the Constitution or laws of the United States.
For
the purpose of Section 242, acts under "color of law" include acts not
only done by federal, state, or local officials within their lawful
authority, but also acts done beyond the bounds of that official's
lawful authority, if the acts are done while the official is purporting
to or pretending to act in the performance of his/her official duties.
Persons acting under color of law within the meaning of this statute
include police officers, prisons guards and other law enforcement
officials, as well as judges, care providers in public health
facilities, and others who are acting as public officials. It is not
necessary that the crime be motivated by animus toward the race, color,
religion, sex, handicap, familial status or national origin of the
victim.
The
offense is punishable by a range of imprisonment up to a life term, or
the death penalty, depending upon the circumstances of the crime, and
the resulting injury, if any.
TITLE 18, U.S.C., SECTION 242
Whoever,
under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom,
willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,
Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the
United States, ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not
more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts
committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use,
attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or
fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in
violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an
attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under
this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or
may be sentenced to death
Mail Delivery Subsystem <mailer-daemon@googlemail.com>
Mon, Sep 14, 2020 at 5:37 AM
To: inthemindway@gmail.com
Message blocked
Your message to info@lawenforcement.social has been blocked. See technical details below for more information.
The response was:
550 5.7.1 Your email has been submitted to your internet service
provider (ISP) as evidence of your continued harassing online conduct.
Any account you create, use of a VPN, or other subversive measures you
use are being logged through your ISP. Your continued harassment will
eventually lead to your internet service being cancelled, and your
websites taken offline. - gcdp q10sor4367417iog.58 - gsmtp
Final-Recipient: rfc822; info@lawenforcement.social
Action: failed
Status: 5.7.1
Diagnostic-Code: smtp; 550-5.7.1 Your email has been submitted to your internet service provider (ISP)
550-5.7.1 as evidence of your continued harassing online conduct. Any account
550-5.7.1 you create, use of a VPN, or other subversive measures you use are
550-5.7.1 being logged through your ISP. Your continued harassment will
550-5.7.1 eventually lead to your internet service being cancelled, and your
550 5.7.1 websites taken offline. - gcdp q10sor4367417iog.58 - gsmtp
Last-Attempt-Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 02:37:57 -0700 (PDT)
---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Martin J. Driskill" <inthemindway@gmail.com> To: Mike
Bires <mike@mikebires.com>, info@lawenforcement.social,
info@knightcolumbia.org, Rick Mcminn - City of Azusa - Code Enforcement
<rmcminn@ci.azusa.ca.us>, bcooke@dbh.sbcounty.gov, "Lieutenant
Nelson Carrington – Western District Commander"
<sbpdwest@sbcity.org>, "Fools Said I : Sergeant Lanier Joseph
Rogers III" <ljrbabe@yahoo.com>, SupervisorGonzales@sbcounty.gov,
"Human First Male Second Deputy Sherrif 3rd Terry @Gruwup Klinkhart"
<tklinkhart@sbcsd.org>, Doctor Mirza
<smirza@dbh.sbcounty.gov> Cc: TruthFinder Help
<help@truthfinder.com>, "Judge Wilfred John Schneider Jr (See
Truthfinder Report)" <wilfred_schneider@eee.org>, "This is BAR
BUSINESS [ Attorney-Dale-Lee-Henderson@FuckedUpHuman.Net & perhaps
the judge named too ]" <bar@sbcba.org>, LGBT Bar
<info@lgbtbar.org> Bcc: Date: Mon, 14 Sep 2020 02:37:27 -0700 Subject: [ Facebook Feedback ]: Blocking People Isn't A Great Mental Health Solution ----- Message truncated -----
]
