This is appropriate, under the assuption of accountability; right now, three letter agencies aren't subject to it.
> "We" also have nothing to hide.
This is disingenous or naive (and it's a worringly widespread idea). Literally (as in literal-literal) anybody can be accused and charged, it's just a matter of legal power¹. Giving up privacy makes it dangerously easier.
¹=There's even a book on this subject (although the angle is not precisely this): https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp...
By expanding what constitutes a felony or misdemeanor domestic abuse. By making criminal defense unaffordable. By making laws so vague, only the wealthy or powerful can defend against spurious accusation. By making criminal many activities which should not be. Here’s a great primer to start on the subject:
Three Felonies A Day: How the Feds Target the Innocent https://www.amazon.com/dp/1594035229/
And btw, many states have misdemeanors which carry possible sentences long enough that the 4473 considers them felonies.
> Well they shouldnt be committing felonies then.
Thats ok, most dads are criminals, nearly everyone in the US is without even knowing it.https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
> innocent people lie to the FBI and engage in witness tampering
You should read Three Felonies a Day.
It's the title of a decent book.
Here's a random article found at Google about this phenomenon.
It's most troubling because laws are enforced unevenly: everyone commits felonies but some groups within the population are much more likely to be targeted by law enforcement. It's an effective way to give a clothing of legality to glaring abuse of the criminal system. (an example of such corrupt behavior is the kids for cash scandal, in which for-profit detention centers bribed judges to sentence minors)
I see you have read some Harvey Silver in your past.
Of course, every sitting president since WWII has done something indictable.
And even the average person commits three felonies a day. https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp/1594035229
So this is really just giving carte blanche to the FBI to commit a coup against any President they don't like based on selective prosecution.
And now we know that in Trump's case there was never any Russia collusion, the whole thing was just a smokescreen to find "crimes" by targeting an individual, which, yes, is a Stalinist practice.
I did not vote for Trump and golly gee he's repugnant in many ways, but having seen many modern Democrats' strange intolerance of Democracy, I'm kinda/sorta/maybe glad Trump won, just to show me the tribal rot on the other side.
There's this idea that if the feds want to convict you of something, they can, unless you are speaking through an experienced lawyer.
The flip side of this is that you are giving one person (or a small group) nearly unlimited power to investigate and remove democratically elected legislators and executives for slight misdeeds.
In our government there are so many laws that the average person commits three felonies a day mostly without knowing it. All you need is one partisan to take office with a mandate to remove or actually jail a significant number of the other side's representatives and you have a "reign of terror" type scenario where one person acts as kingmaker for the entire Federal government.
If anything, this list indicates that the legal system in the US is in need of an overhaul. That officers would be swept up in the same net we all are, should not be unexpected. Given their daily proximity to law enforcement, having a higher number than the average population should not necessarily come as a surprise.
The way to tell if they really are more 'criminal' than the rest of the population would be to look at the felony rates of judges, para-legals, lawyers, court-recorders, bailiffs, wardens, people who live/work close to precincts, etc. If your physical proximity to an officer is related to the felony rate, then this should come fall out of the data.
In essence, based on your napkin-math, further research is very much required for the sake of public safety.
Minimum wage is about $1300/mo, good luck paying rent and health insurance with that and not starving. Good luck paying rent and food and power on double that income and still being able to afford even remotely decent health insurance.
As for incarceration...
When everything is a crime, everyone is a criminal. Famous lawyers are writing books about that. https://www.amazon.com/Three-Felonies-Day-Target-Innocent/dp...
If you don't think just about everything is a crime, then you're uninformed. You probably committed a felony when you violated a website TOS today.
I have no problem with taxation as a concept.
Everyone says "if you don't like it leave", but that's a bluff -- until 2010, it was free to renounce your citizenship, and in 2010 it became $450. Four years later, it became $2350. If more people leave, it'll go up again. We say it, but we're afraid of people actually doing it.
I won't renounce my citizenship, but I do think it's silly for us to pretend we want people to do it when we provably don't.
If you really want to get technical, the average American commits 3 felonies a day due to some ridiculously vague laws (like CFAA, which for example is so broadly written it allows federal prosecutors to criminally prosecute you merely for violating the TOS on a website). But the thing is those ridiculously vague and broad laws that everyone violates on a daily basis are almost never enforced, except as a way to prosecutors extra leverage in plea bargains.
But I highly doubt that this was what the person quoted was referring to. They sounded like they were talking about serious crimes, not stuff that shouldn't even be illegal.
Well, laws are made to be broken, so that the authorities always have something on you when they want (https://toptalkedbooks.com/amzn/1594035229) .
The Germans, loving rules, also love enforcing them I guess, even the most insignificant ones.
Of course, all I'm saying here comes mostly from stereotype and is tongue in cheek and shouldn't be taken seriously.
He might be partisan but he's not entirely wrong: https://toptalkedbooks.com/amzn/1594035229
It is in their eyes.
"Just lock'em up away and throw away the key" was the whole point of the Drug War. It didn't go well, as you probably know.
Some crimes are malum per se, and need to be punished in all cases; murder is one example. Others are malum prohibitium, and then your argument is "let's punish people simply because there's a law on the books". If you were to strictly enforce all exiting laws, you'll end up arresting majority of the U.S. population
You may well know that heroin is quite addictive, and simply throwing people in prison isn't exactly the best solution to the societal issues that heroin is causing. Otherwise, why even have a needle exchange? Just arrest all drug users and give him the twenty-year prison sentences they deserve according to the laws on the books.
Do you have any idea how many local, state, and federal laws and regulations there are that can wind up putting you behind bars?!
You've probably committed more crimes than you know and you're just one ambitious prosecutor away from fighting fires with the bad boys!