Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Anti-Game-Violence Legislator Arrested, Faces Gun Trafficking Charges

Soulskill posted about 4 months ago | from the should-have-stayed-home-and-played-GTA dept.

Crime 234

Several readers sent word that California State Senator Leland Yee was arrested today. He's accused of conspiring to traffic guns and commit wire fraud, to defraud citizens of honest services, and bribery. The complant (PDF) also names 25 other defendants. Yee is known for pushing legislation that would ban the sale of violent video games to minors. "Federal prosecutors also allege Yee agreed to perform official acts in exchange for the money, including one instance in which he introduced a businessman to state legislators who had significant influence over pending medical marijuana legislation. In exchange, the businessman -- who was actually an undercover FBI agent -- agreed to donate thousands to Yee's campaign fund, according to the indictment. The indictment also describes an August 2013 exchange in which [former school board president Keith Jackson] told an undercover officer that Yee had an arms trafficking contact. Jackson allegedly said Yee could facilitate a meeting for a donation."

cancel ×

234 comments

Makes Sense. (2)

zenlessyank (748553) | about 4 months ago | (#46590287)

Hypocrites rule!!!!

Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (5, Informative)

Noishkel (3464121) | about 4 months ago | (#46590297)

There for a while he was pushing for a ban on a bit of a work around that 'gun-nuts' in California came up with to get around it's ban on so called 'Assault Weapons' A weird little device called a bullet button that makes it so that the magazine in a firearm can't be easier removed. Pretty clever work around for a completely asinine law.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (5, Insightful)

NotQuiteReal (608241) | about 4 months ago | (#46590333)

Well, yeah... making stuff illegal makes it more profitable, e.g. See "drug trade".

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590365)

Could we please stop with the endless pro-drug commentary? Not all of us are drug addicts, and it's tiresome when people like yourself have to bring up drug issues in nearly every thread. I know it's important to you, but normal people don't care about such matters.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (5, Insightful)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#46590469)

Great, so you're not a drug addict. Congratulations. Neither am I. But I nonetheless have a serious problem with the ridiculous expenditures on police and prisons, not to mention the militarization of the police force and increasingly invasive anti-drug measures being taken around the country. All of which is a direct consequence of the asinine and completely ineffective "war on drugs". That money comes straight out of my taxes, and could be spent on so many more socially productive endeavors. And it's my rights that are being potentially trampled on when police in military assault gear march on peaceful protestors, or kick in the wrong door in the middle of the night and start shooting.

Maybe the right comment for this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590915)

Federal prosecutors also allege Yee agreed to perform official acts in exchange for the money, including one instance in which he introduced a businessman to state legislators who had significant influence over

Okay so you just explained the entire political system and yet your only going after one person because he profited!!! Oh wait the others do that too. Hmmm... [sarcasm]

I am aware of what he has done, but it's the oxymoron of it all!!!

The "war on drugs" isn't what caused a militarized police force, go back and look at the civil rights protests, you'll see that has been with us for years. It is about terrorism, Gang activity, protesters, you name it and the government uses it as a means to implement over reaching laws/rules, that give the police the power they have now.

Another oxymoron, the NSA being targeted by the very morons that gave them their power now want to limit it [aka, PR stunt]
but cops blatantly abusing their power, with more corruption, and right violations then ever, is okay? You know what the police need? Even more over reaching power!! In my state alone the corruption is rampant, from local to State, and all the Federal Agencies. We have DEA wanna b's, ATF wanna b's, all are "special forces to the Sate Attorney General/Prosecutors".

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (2)

Xest (935314) | about 4 months ago | (#46591075)

To be fair though that doesn't mean drug legalisation is the solution to the particular problem you're describing, the solution to the problem you take issue with is simply to end the war on drugs.

That doesn't have to imply legalisation, it's perfectly possible to keep drugs illegal but not militiarise the prohibition of them, that's what most countries do - America is exceptional in the extremes is goes to to police illegality.

The problem you're describing is more symptomatic of America's powerful military industrial complex being out of control than it is legality of drugs because the problems you describe have been seen in it's war on terror, anti-arms trafficking operations, and in fact in general - proliferation of SWAT units and their use for minor things that have nothing even to do with drugs for example.

What you're talking about is merely an example of the symptoms of the problem, not the problem itself. Legalise drugs and that problem will still exist, legalisation will solve some different problems however, though it may also create others (e.g. increase in drug driving deaths). Neither the growth of the US' military industrial complex nor the legal status of drugs are a simple problem, and neither have simple solutions. Those claiming legalisation is a panacea that will end organised crime and remove all drug related health problems are as full of shit as those that claim legalisation will cause the downfall of society and turn a nation into a nation of addicts. Long story short, there are very few rational and sensible voices in that particular debate, but at least the discussion about the problem you cite - the strength of the military industrial complex is a much more clear cut problem that can be dealt with in itself.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590495)

All freedom should be important to everyone. I'm not a drug user either, not even alcohol, but the war on drugs is anything but. It is a war on victims and it is destroying our neighbor Mexico.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (5, Informative)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about 4 months ago | (#46590547)

Could we please stop with the endless pro-drug commentary? Not all of us are drug addicts, and it's tiresome when people like yourself have to bring up drug issues in nearly every thread. I know it's important to you, but normal people don't care about such matters.

You don't have to give a damn about drugs, pro or con, to admit that they are a useful example to bring up in the context of the effect of prohibition on the available margins in a given market.

If you prefer a classier example, from a (not actually more civilized; but definitely better dressed) age; we can talk about booze. Same effects were seen under the Volstead act.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591089)

Actually only the rich were better dressed (arguably). Most working class people (who can afford to go to a mall today) dressed in rags.

But you're right, and so many of the people endorsing the Volstead act or the Temperance movement were themselves involved in bootlegging. It's a great way of deflecting suspicion.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591401)

No, no they didn't dress in rags. Even bums wore a coat and tie. It might be a threadbare coat and tie, but rags were not worn by pretty much anyone in America in that time. Except for maybe a very few rural poor.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (2)

Mr.CRC (2330444) | about 4 months ago | (#46590583)

Well if the cops just happen to get the wild idea that you might have some illegal drugs on you, you may find yourself in a hospital getting fucked up the ass by all sorts of medical apparatus, with no option to decline. Like this: http://www.policestateusa.com/... [policestateusa.com]

This is the monster we have created, and now have to live with. And it's starting to eat us. And you are not exempt from having one of these "mistakes" happen to you.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (0, Troll)

Megol (3135005) | about 4 months ago | (#46591091)

The standard procedure if a person is suspected to carry drugs internally is to put them in a cell with a toilet that captures feces.

The other alternatives are used if the person is suspected not only to carry drugs but to carry drugs that have started to leak into their body.

And that, Mr Checksum, is done in order to save the suspects life.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590615)

but normal people don't care about such matters.

Normal, decent people should care about excessive and unjust incarceration as a result of irrational and corrupt drug policies.

And if decently and compassion don't compel you to care, you should at least care because drug laws cost you a boatload of money.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (5, Insightful)

Kirth (183) | about 4 months ago | (#46590801)

> Could we please stop with the endless pro-drug commentary?

It's not "pro-drug". It's "anti-prohibition".

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

khallow (566160) | about 4 months ago | (#46591067)

Could we please stop with the endless pro-drug commentary?

Sure, once it's at least partly legalized in a sensible way for most areas of the world. Else the issue won't go away.

normal people don't care about such matters.

I imagine they would start caring, if say their house or car were seized as part of a US drug raid. You don't have to care in order to get bit by the bizarre and rather nasty laws that have come about in order to fight the War on Drugs.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (2)

pantaril (1624521) | about 4 months ago | (#46591203)

Could we please stop with the endless pro-drug commentary? Not all of us are drug addicts, and it's tiresome when people like yourself have to bring up drug issues in nearly every thread. I know it's important to you, but normal people don't care about such matters.

If normal people realy don't care about such matters why are the drugs banned? Stop the ban on production and consumption of drugs and i'm sure the "drug addicts" will stop bothering you about it. If you realy don't care about it it should be no problem for you.

Prohibition keeps the competition down. (5, Insightful)

Ungrounded Lightning (62228) | about 4 months ago | (#46590361)

[Parent poster talks of ONE of his many anti-gun (i.e. anti-gun-in-private-hands) projects.]

Prohibition of something means the illegal providers of it have less competition and can thus sell for a higher price. So it's very convenient for those sellers. Thus, for instance, drug lords are just fine with keeping the drug laws strong and complex, and opposed to legalization of their product (which would put them in competition with efficient conglomerates who could compete the pants off them).

(Incidentially: I suspect Yee's opposition to video games was a spinoff of his antigun agenda.)

By the way: Pro-gunners are celebrating tonight. (The call from a friend a few hours ago with the news made both my wife my own day. B-) )

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590479)

This is actually extremely important. I hope this opens the eyes of at least a couple people that these politicians have no interest in making us safer by banning guns.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (5, Insightful)

jcr (53032) | about 4 months ago | (#46590593)

It makes perfect sense that a smuggler wants to outlaw whatever he's smuggling. The cocaine cartels don't want drug legalization either.

-jcr

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

RivenAleem (1590553) | about 4 months ago | (#46591429)

But then why is he anti-violence in games? Surely if he is trying to ban guns to increase his profits, why isn't he lobbying for violent games so people are more interested in buying his product? Is it possible that deep down he knows that violent games don't lead to an increase in real-world violence?

Re: Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590697)

He is a gun runner. How can you possibly call him Antigun? Besides have you ever met a Republican that wasn't. All of them are pro violence.

Re: Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too (4, Informative)

reboot246 (623534) | about 4 months ago | (#46590967)

He's actually a Democrat. It's not mentioned in the article, but he's definitely a Democrat.

Re: Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun to (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591341)

Of course he is. If he were a Republican, it would have been in the summary in all capital letters, bold, italic, and blinking.

Re: Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too (4, Insightful)

Talderas (1212466) | about 4 months ago | (#46591431)

The summary didn't mention party affiliation. Therefore it was safe to assume he is a Democrat.

Re:Well actually he's pretty solidly anti-gun too. (1)

nyet (19118) | about 4 months ago | (#46590775)

“My thoughts and prayers go out to the victims of this horrific tragedy and their families. These events are shocking to all of us and sadly remind us of the carnage that is possible when assault weapons get into the wrong hands. It is imperative that we take every step possible to eliminate the types of senseless killings witnessed in Aurora, Colorado. We must limit access to weapons that can carry massive rounds of bullets or that can be easily reloaded. SB 249 is a step in that direction and should be approved by the Legislature as soon as possible.” - Leland Yee

Smells rotten (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591447)

The story that is. Seems as if he was set up.

corruption knows no party (1)

Ol Olsoc (1175323) | about 4 months ago | (#46590299)

What a pieve of work this crook is.

Glad they nabbed him.

He'll probably get a month's probation.

Re:corruption knows no party (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590523)

Supervisor Ed Jew not so long ago got over six years for arguably lesser crimes.

What party was that again... (5, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 4 months ago | (#46590305)

Rule of thumb:

If it don't have a letter,
It's a Democrat matter

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590351)

Is it my imagination, or is there also a dearth of "racial" descriptions? Seems to me, back in the day there would be reports like "a 5 foot 8 Caucasian, male, slight build, black hair, brown eyes, wearing jeans and a red t-shirt" should be given.

Now, it's just "a 5 foot 8, male, slight build, black hair, brown eyes, wearing jeans and a red t-shirt". Sheesh, what's next? "a 5 foot 8, person, black hair, brown eyes, wearing jeans and a red t-shirt"?

Re:What party was that again... (0, Troll)

artor3 (1344997) | about 4 months ago | (#46590407)

ahem [wikipedia.org]

Here's the blurb in the New York Times on this topic. [nytimes.com] Party affiliation is in the second sentence.

Stop lying.

Re:What party was that again... (3, Insightful)

shizzle (686334) | about 4 months ago | (#46590483)

Let's see... the summary above doesn't mention party affiliation, and neither does the LA Times article it links to. How many other newspapers did you have to look at to find one where the affiliation is mentioned near the top? How many articles did you find where a Republican was accused of something negative but the affiliation wasn't mentioned?

Just because someone points out evidence for their case doesn't automatically mean they're engaging in confirmation bias. Finding one contrary piece of evidence to bolster your side doesn't mean you're not.

I'd say "lying" is a pretty over-the-top accusation.

Re:What party was that again... (4, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | about 4 months ago | (#46590515)

How many other newspapers did you have to look at to find one where the affiliation is mentioned near the top?

It was the very first one. NY Times is my go-to news source. But I can do some more.

Next up is the Washington Post. I can't find this subject there, but here's their top article on corruption. [washingtonpost.com] Again it's a Democrat, and again that fact is in the second sentence.

Now let's check the first corruption-related article in the Seattle Times. Another story on the mayor from the WaPo article. [seattletimes.com] This time you have to read all the way to the fourth sentence to find his party affiliation.

Get the point yet?

This is a regular lie that Republicans trot out. They just love to play the victim. See also: "white Christian men are the most oppressed group in America".

Re:What party was that again... (5, Insightful)

shizzle (686334) | about 4 months ago | (#46590569)

Try again. The summary says nothing about party affiliation. The linked article in the LA Times says nothing about party affiliation. I looked at the top seven articles from a google search on "senator yee", and none mention his affiliation in the headline, while only three mention it within the first two paragraphs. Three others mention it near the bottom of the article (interestingly, all in the form of a transition sentence like "Yee's arrest would make him the third Democratic state senator fighting charges this year", leading into a discussion of other Democrats in trouble), and one (from CBS, not the LA Times one again) doesn't mention it at all.

Show me a similar sampling of articles on a Republican corruption case where the party affiliation is not mentioned at or near the top of the article in anything approaching half the examples, and then we can talk.

Again, you throw around the term "lie" pretty loosely. Ahem indeed. [wikipedia.org]

Re:What party was that again... (3, Insightful)

Rockoon (1252108) | about 4 months ago | (#46590627)

Again, you throw around the term "lie" pretty loosely. [Psychological projection link]

Indeed. The Democrats do fall into psychological projection quite easily, and in fact this Yee guy is a case study. He pushed for heavy gun regulations precisely because he was right in the middle of easy gun trafficking. After all, if he is right in the middle of it, so must everyone else.. and something must be done if everyone has such easy access to gun traffickers.

Republicans arent saints, but this projection syndrome isnt one of their flaws. Its all Democrats, When a Democrat politician calls their opponent something negative, its fairly likely that the Democrat making the claim is a closer fit to that negative than anybody opposed to him.

"Racist!" Said by someone who pander to people based on the color of their skin. Isnt that pretty racist? So why they calling other folks racist? Projection.
"Greedy!" Said by someone that demands that certain folk give more money to bloated government budgets. Isnt that pretty greedy? So why they calling other folk greedy? Projection.
....

Re:What party was that again... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590683)

Republicans arent saints, but this projection syndrome isnt one of their flaws. Its all Democrats, When a Democrat politician calls their opponent something negative, its fairly likely that the Democrat making the claim is a closer fit to that negative than anybody opposed to him.

Yeah, like presidential candidates who abused their position to avoid combat slandering opposing war heroes as cowards.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590843)

What in the Hell are you even talking about? Did you watch too much Jon Stewart and Colbert during the Bush admin?

Re:What party was that again... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590969)

Oh, I don't know. Maybe the controversies surrounding Bush Jr's service record? Or maybe how ol' G.W. decided to bash John Kerry, who earned three purple hearts, a bronze star, and a silver star in active service in Vietnam, because Kerry came home and took part in anti-war protests?

Nah, it couldn't be those things. Nope.

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590829)

Odd, in my experience it's always been Democrats accusing people of projection. You are of course very much correct in this comment (and actually used the term "projection" correctly, which is rare) but it's just interesting that this is the first time I've ever seen them called out on this particular trait.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

Talderas (1212466) | about 4 months ago | (#46591449)

So you're saying Democrats accuse people of projecting because they project? So they're projecting their projecting bias?

Re:What party was that again... (2, Interesting)

artor3 (1344997) | about 4 months ago | (#46590865)

Republicans arent saints, but this projection syndrome isnt one of their flaws.

Hahaha, holy shit, you can't possibly be that blind. Rush Limbaugh himself is an addict that rails against drug users. And how many homophobic Republicans have been caught in gay sex scandals? How many complain about wasteful spending, while throwing away trillions on pointless wars?

Yet somehow you didn't think of any of that. They really have got you, haven't they? It's amazing what a steady diet of propaganda can do to a man.

Only Dems? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591113)

Only Dems do this? WTF, did you forget Senator Larry Craig? You know, the guy who railed against homosexuality while making a habit out of nailing dudes in airport bathrooms. Or Ted Haggard, the leader of the country's biggest "Christian" ministry who was actually a meth addict who would hire men to suck him off? At least when Dems do something like this, they are essentially banned from the limelight. Haggard has started a new mega-church.

Re:What party was that again... (4, Informative)

artor3 (1344997) | about 4 months ago | (#46590855)

I looked at the top seven articles from a google search on "senator yee"

Let's go into detail on that then. Ignoring the Wikipedia page, we have:

#1: Fox News - Waits all the way till sentence 18 to identify him as a Democrat. Are you prepared to argue that Fox is biased in favor of Democrats?
#2: CBS - No mention. That's one.
#3: ABC - Mentioned in the first sentence.
#4: NBC - Mentioned, but several paragraphs down.
#5: Mercury News: Mentioned in the first sentence.
#6: Mentioned in the second sentence.
#7: Mentioned in the 13th sentence.

So it's only omitted once, and only really buried one other time. In every other case, you need to read 20 or fewer sentences. And the third "worst" is Fox News, who you can't possibly claim to be biased against Republicans. Do you really believe there's malice there? And not just reporters figuring that his affiliation doesn't have anything to do with his crime?

I can't pull up a Republican, because I don't know of any who have recently been arrested. And if I Google "Republican arrested", I'm obviously going to get articles mentioning party affiliation. That's the brilliant thing about this lie that right-wing media outlets have been pushing. It won't be on your mind next time a Republican gets arrested, so you won't look for it. But whenever a Democrat gets arrested, you'll have some more fuel for your hatred.

Re:What party was that again... (4, Informative)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about 4 months ago | (#46590609)

If it was an (R), his party affiliation would be mentioned in the headline, not the body of the story.

And honestly, there is a lot of hatred towards white Christian men. You really don't see it? It's like the entire left wing decided that the problem wasn't bigotry, it was that bigotry was being directed at the wrong group. I know you don't believe me, so here's some science:

A lack of political diversity in psychology is said to lead to a number of pernicious outcomes, including biased research and active discrimination against conservatives. The authors of this study surveyed a large number (combined N = 800) of social and personality psychologists and discovered several interesting facts. First, although only 6% described themselves as conservative âoeoverall,â there was more diversity of political opinion on economic issues and foreign policy. Second, respondents significantly underestimated the proportion of conservatives among their colleagues. Third, conservatives fear negative consequences of revealing their political beliefs to their colleagues. Finally, they are right to do so: In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists said that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues. The more liberal respondents were, the more they said they would discriminate.

Composite scores of perceived hostile climate for conservatives (! = .85) were significantly correlated with political orientation, r(263) = .28, p At the end of our surveys, we gave room for comments. Many respondents wrote that they could not believe that anyone in the field would ever deliberately discriminate against conservatives. Yet at the same time we found clear examples of discrimination. One participant described how a colleague was denied tenure because of his political beliefs. Another wrote that if the department "could figure out who was a conservative they would be sure not to hire them."

-- Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers, "Political Diversity in Social and Personality Psychology" http://yoelinbar.net/papers/political_diversity.pdf [yoelinbar.net]

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Kirth (183) | about 4 months ago | (#46590817)

Conservatism isn’t http://seegras.discordia.ch/Bl... [discordia.ch]

But I actually don't see why the party has anything to do with it, besides, the Democrats and the Republicans are both right-wing authoritarians. http://politicalcompass.org/us... [politicalcompass.org] So there's no difference anyway.

Re:What party was that again... (2, Interesting)

cpm99352 (939350) | about 4 months ago | (#46590849)

Imagine how NPR would cover the ongoing (Executive branch) changes to the ACA if Bush were President.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591073)

Imagine how Fox News would cover the ACA if it had been passed under a Republican President.

And we know that the Republican House wouldn't waste a single vote on it but would praise it to the skies.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

artor3 (1344997) | about 4 months ago | (#46590877)

I am a white Christian man, and no, I don't see any significant hatred towards me. A few obnoxious atheists who are either passing through, or never grew out of, the I've-got-it-all-figured-out phase, but that's really about it. And even those are pretty much only on the internet.

Also, your copy-pasted science is talking about discriminating against people based on their political stance, not because they are white or Christian or male. If someone starts ranting about how Obama is gonna set up death panels, which was not at all uncommon among Republicans just a few years ago, then yeah, I'm gonna think they're an idiot and treat them accordingly. But that's on the basis of their personal actions, not because of a group that they belong to.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

strack (1051390) | about 4 months ago | (#46590939)

So thats a study that says that psychologists discriminate against colleagues with conservative views. I dont understand how that translates into "hatred against white Christian men". Seems they just dont like collegues with a political view that supports creationism over evolution in schools, ignorance of climate change research, and a general anti-science bent in their policies. Sounds like scientists being rational actors.

Re:What party was that again... (1)

erikkemperman (252014) | about 4 months ago | (#46590995)

there is a lot of hatred towards white Christian men

But how much of that has anything to do with them being white, or christian, or men?

Given that this group has historically been -- and to considerable extent still is -- disproportionately represented in positions of power, it is hardly surprising that those who are underrepresented or feel disenfranchised would develop some animosity. But I would guess this has much more to do with the factual inbalances than traits such as skin color, or religion, or gender.

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590619)

The fact that the summary and the LA times don't mention his party affiliation is outrageous by itself, no matter what other newspapers do mention it.

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590517)

Ahem indeed. [wikipedia.org]

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Microlith (54737) | about 4 months ago | (#46590553)

That's an idiotic "rule of thumb."

Re:What party was that again... (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 4 months ago | (#46590875)

That's an idiotic "rule of thumb."

It's a factual rule of thumb. If you wander back though all of the media in the last decade, or even the last 20 years you'll quickly see that if it's any democrat related scandal/gaffe/offending comment/etc it in the vast majority of cases from municipal all the way up to the senate, that they won't list that they belong to the democrat party. However, if it's a republican/tea partier/libertarian/etc, you can bet that it'll be listed, and that the media will be hot on the heels to dig up anything else they can on them.

You want to play ignorant on politics, fine by me. But as an outsider in Canadaland, I've seen the US media do this plenty of times. And it's only gotten worse since Obama has gotten into office, and when hardcore liberals in the media say that, perhaps...just perhaps, there's something to it.

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590587)

Rule of thumb:

If it has a (D),
And it's on Fox News
It's a Republican matter

Re:What party was that again... (0)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 4 months ago | (#46590661)

I thought I had a horrible rhyme that was really reaching, but I have to hand it to the AC to going a step further and making incomprehensible gibberish to try and suit his own political leanings.

I'm just pointing out a truth of the matter.

Re:What party was that again... (4, Insightful)

Anubis IV (1279820) | about 4 months ago | (#46590603)

Most people's first thought when a politician does something they disagree with: "Isn't this just typical of $political_party? Always doing $stereotypical_action."

Between confirmation bias, the No True Scotsman fallacy, and the polarizing messages coming from the American political camps that are reshaping nearly every American's world views, the everyday Joe has an inordinate number of tools at his disposal to think exactly what I said above. They'll forget the good while making a point of remembering every wrong done by the other side, dismiss every wrong done by their own as someone who never really belonged, have those ideas reinforced by their preferred "news" sources, and get sucked into unproductive back-and-forth "debates" with the other side that only serve to divert attention and keep us from working together.

I'm a Republican (or at least that's what the card says), and I have no idea what party this politician happens to be, nor do I care. I'd encourage you to stop making it a source of division. Because even if the media favors one side or the other, what I care about is that he's doing something reprehensible and sounds like he deserves some serious jail time. Anyone on either side of the aisle engaged in the same is also a scumbag that deserves jail time. Neither side supports the sort of thing he's doing, so blaming it on either party makes no sense, and focusing on his party does nothing to address the issue.

We should all care a great deal (2, Insightful)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 4 months ago | (#46590701)

I'm a Republican (or at least that's what the card says), and I have no idea what party this politician happens to be, nor do I care.

I myself am a Libertarian, and I DO care. I care very much that the press tries to harm as much as possible one major party and tarnish every member with the brush of a few lunatics, while shielding the Democrats as much as possible from any negative behavior by members and making sure that each and any infraction is isolated from any and every other Democrat.

The reason I care is because the press is supposed to be the watchdog that keeps people honest. Instead it's busy rigging the game in conjunction with politicians, and if you don't care about that then all is lost.

I'm not making it a source of division, I'm pointing out a major flaw with an institution that's supposed to keep politicians in check.

Re:What party was that again... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590605)

Rule of dumb:

If you don't see corruption on both sides,
you're probably a f**king moron who cares only if shit rhymes.

Both sides have corruption (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 4 months ago | (#46590679)

But the press trumpets party when a Republican, and hides or omits it when Democrat.

There's really not much difference between the parties. The reason to vote Republican is that the press pays FAR more attention to Republican corruption, and sweeps Democrat-branded corruption under the run as long as possible. The Democrat in this story would not have been able to run a gun-smuggling operation for nearly so long had he been a Republican, he would have had the press sniffing all around him much earlier.

Both sides having corruption is also a great argument for smaller government, which by its nature reduces corruption.

Re:Both sides have corruption (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590773)

You're one of those idiots who fears "a liberal media conspiracy" obviously. What's it like inventing fake victimstance to avoid realizing you're equally if not more culpable?

Re: Both sides have corruption (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591355)

Truth hurt, dipshit?

Re:What party was that again... (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46590897)

As an European, I find it hilarious that you bicker about what edge of The Party someone came from instead of realizing that it just doesn't matter what letter is next to someone's name.

It's absolutely amazing to watch that fight. It's like watching two religious nuts fighting over who has the cooler imaginary friend, not realizing that they're both being bullshitted by the system behind it.

Of course marijuana is involved. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590327)

Like it or not, marijuana and crime go hand in hand. Drug advocates pretend the two are unrelated, but time after time we get situations like this.

Re:Of course marijuana is involved. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590381)

Okay, you can stop trolling now... Nobody cares about your bullshit

Re:Of course marijuana is involved. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590389)

Then legalise it. Presto, problem solved.

Re:Of course marijuana is involved. (5, Interesting)

Applehu Akbar (2968043) | about 4 months ago | (#46590411)

If you want to make anything and crime go hand in hand, make that thing illegal. This has worked more times than there are rivets on the underside of your bridge.

Re:Of course marijuana is involved. (1)

epyT-R (613989) | about 4 months ago | (#46590475)

only because people like you drive up the cost of drugs for a chance at finger wagging and sanctimonious preaching.

Btw, I bet I'm cleaner than you are.

Re:Of course marijuana is involved. (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 4 months ago | (#46591443)

Replace marijuana with alcohol and you could have made exactly the same argument during prohibition.

I'm mildly allergic to marijuana (its only effect on my brain is to make it hurt, a lot), so I have no personal stake in legalisation. But I do want to see people who smoke it taxed at the same rate that I am when I buy a beer.

Figures... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590331)

... too much GTA on this one :P

The Usual Shenanigans (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590349)

I used to read these things and go "Hahaha! Get 'im!" but now I know that there's a really good chance that the FBI just made up about 98% of the whole thing.

Oh (1)

i58 (886024) | about 4 months ago | (#46590363)

the irony.

Re:Oh (1)

Immerman (2627577) | about 4 months ago | (#46590481)

Irony implies that something is contrary to the expected meaning/outcome - I don't think hypocrisy from a politician qualifies.

Re:Oh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590735)

In fact it would be irony if he is innocent.

He wouldn't want competition (1)

gnoshi (314933) | about 4 months ago | (#46590397)

It makes complete sense. If those kids can play GTA, some of them might be inspired to go into competition with him.

Re:He wouldn't want competition (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46590903)

Or simply go "why should I be nuts and go out and shoot people when I can do it from the safety of my home?"

Any actual police work? (1)

Lodlaiden (2767969) | about 4 months ago | (#46590409)

From the summary:

in which [former school board president Keith Jackson] told an undercover officer that Yee had an arms trafficking contact. Jackson allegedly said Yee could facilitate a meeting for a donation."

Didn't catch the guy with a cache of weapons...
Didn't catch the guy with a known weapons trafficker...
All they have is hearsay from a guy kicked out of public office, probably with an axe (non-assault weapon) to grind...

Re:Any actual police work? (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590461)

Read the articles, the undercover officer met with Yee multiple times and gave him cash for a small initial shipment.

Re:Any actual police work? (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 4 months ago | (#46590501)

But was there an arms shipment? Were there ever any arms or a trafficker? Or was that all a fiction created by the FBI?

Re:Any actual police work? (1)

tsotha (720379) | about 4 months ago | (#46590559)

Is anything real? Are you?

Re:Any actual police work? (1)

TechyImmigrant (175943) | about 4 months ago | (#46590631)

I'm real.

What is not clear is if there was an actual arms deal being done or the feds were leading him down a path. It wouldn't be a reasonable thing to ask except that this is in keeping with a pattern the FBI is known for. For example a local (to me) case was Mohamed Osman Mohamud, who engaged in a spot of attempted mass murder, but it transpired that he was led down that path by the FBI and only the FBI. They providing the schooling, the materials and the motivation. Left alone he probably would not have done anything. Instead of waiting to see if he did anything, they helped him right along so they could prosecute him and claim a victory.

Re:Any actual police work? (3, Insightful)

tsotha (720379) | about 4 months ago | (#46590709)

Can you imagine a scenario where an FBI informant would be able to lead a principled gun control advocate down the path of importing machine guns and rocket launchers? Can you imagine a scenario where a clean politician is even associating with the head of the SF Chinese mafia?

Re:Any actual police work? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46590921)

If someone takes money in exchange for doing something illegal, he is a criminal. Whether he delivers or whether he just promises to do it does not matter. When you take money for the promise to deliver dope, you're going to do time. Ask your local police department, it works for them quite well.

Re:Any actual police work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591009)

I did some skimming of the affidavit, and it certainly seems like Yee had contacts well before the FBI got involved. I think it ran from around pages 90-105 for most of it, with a few bits around page 84-85, but Yee and Jackson were talking to the undercover agent about how Yee knew at least two arms dealers who were sourcing shipments through the Philippines. One they tried to set a deal up with and it seemed to fall through, and the other they were working on a replacement deal with.

We won't know exactly how true this stuff is until everything actually goes through court, but from what's in there it's looking like Yee knew what he was doing beforehand. Especially if his connections to the Tongs turn out to be more than incidental.

Re:Any actual police work? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590491)

You're right. This is probably some rookie cop trying to make a name for himself by arresting a sitting state senator with no evidence. It's not like there's a 137 page affidavit that lists out all the details of the case. The four-sentence summary above is all we have to go on.

Politicians are generally the bad guys now (4, Interesting)

GoodNewsJimDotCom (2244874) | about 4 months ago | (#46590487)

Politicians like to keep pointing fingers at other people at being the bad guys so less people points fingers at them.

As long as the law says it is legal to bribe politicians with campaign contributions, the only way someone will get in a significant office is if they're willing to take bribes. The system is designed to get crooks in office and keep honest folk out. Mandatory corruption is generally unsustainable in the long run.

Re:Politicians are generally the bad guys now (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46590927)

Should for some odd reason corruption become a criminal offense at some point in time, most parliaments will be very empty places...

Did anyone read the idictment? (1)

tsotha (720379) | about 4 months ago | (#46590555)

it's wild. Apparently the guy running the show was the "Dragonhead" of a tong in San Francisco. Seriously? They still have titles like that? It's like a freakin' Bruce Lee movie.

Re:Did anyone read the idictment? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590591)

No different than the euphemisms the mafia used when they thought they were being spied on by the FBI. Only they have more colorful imaginations.

forbid (1)

conveyor1 (3586409) | about 4 months ago | (#46590651)

This kind of behavior should be banned, will hurt others!

All politics are local (1)

Biff Stu (654099) | about 4 months ago | (#46590659)

This is nothing more than a 160+ year continuation of San Francisco Chinatown corruption and bizarre happenings. It has nothing to do with party.

Re:All politics are local (1)

llamahunter (830343) | about 4 months ago | (#46590783)

Dunno... but as a San Francisco voter, I'm pretty pissed off that my Senator is a gun runner and influence peddler. Isn't this the third California Senate Democrat to be indicted for some sort of fraud in the last 30 days? Sounds like there's a serious problem in Sacramento.

Re:All politics are local (2)

Biff Stu (654099) | about 4 months ago | (#46590861)

In California, if there's a scandal, it's likely to be a Democrat, just based on the statistics. There are far more Democrats than Republicans in office. Furthermore, if you're in San Francisco, you're going to have a Democrat in office. It's the way the city votes. It's your job to pick a good one.

Re:All politics are local (2)

Biff Stu (654099) | about 4 months ago | (#46590889)

In recent news, a state senator from Montana (R) [billingsgazette.com] was arrested, and a tea-party-republican-congressman from Florida [ibtimes.com] was also arrested. A Republican from Montana and a Republican from Florida. Who would have guessed that. It has nothing to do with Sacramento or party. Like I said, all politics are local. Especially corrupt politics.

Re:All politics are local (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about 4 months ago | (#46590931)

A politician being corrupt and feeling like he's above the law is really surprising you? You must have a very sheltered life...

People like this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46590913)

People like this are against those games because ever since games like GTA, gun crime in many urban area's in the US has actually gone down.
and if you're in the gun trade, less gun crime = less guns sold...

These kinds of people are the real rats of society and should get jailed for life...

Once again another politician doesn't understand.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591017)

Once again another politician doesn't understand that most minors receive the violent games as gifts from their family, so passing law to restrict the game purchases wouldn't change much.

This kind of behavior should be banned (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 4 months ago | (#46591381)

Really very useful information.
Thanks a lot for sharing it with us. I will look forward to read more from you.
  Could I share this information on my site.
Web Designing in Chennai [slashdot.org]

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...