CAREN act, starting in San Francisco

[shortylickens]

I did a search, could not find it.

San Francisco official proposes 'CAREN Act,' making racially biased 911 calls illegal | CNN

It may soon be illegal to make discriminatory, racially biased 911 calls in San Francisco.

www.cnn.com

Obvious SHIELD joke here.

 

[woolfe9998]

They already have laws against making a false police report. Which BTW are rarely enforced.

Caution Against Racially Exploitative Non-Emergencies = CAREN. LOL

 

[sandorski]

Seems necessary these days.

 

[Jaskalas]

And who decides if the call was legit?
Probably why the existing law is rarely enforced.
This smells like Title IX and the Guilty having to prove their Innocence at the discretion of others. Otherwise, how would it be any different / more enforceable than existing law? Someone has to make that call, and I bet it will be inherently subjective and biased as to when it is enforced.

 

[Greenman]

I'll be interested to see how this one plays out.

 

[Starbuck1975]

I'll be interested to see how this one plays out.

Law of unintended consequences perhaps

 

[Greenman]

Law of unintended consequences perhaps

Perhaps. Though proving malicious intent is going to be tough in any but the most egregious cases. My hunch is it's little more than posturing, something they can all point to come election time to prove their political virtue.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Meh, seems warranted. Gotta love the acronym tho

 

[shortylickens]

And who decides if the call was legit?
Probably why the existing law is rarely enforced.
This smells like Title IX and the Guilty having to prove their Innocence at the discretion of others. Otherwise, how would it be any different / more enforceable than existing law? Someone has to make that call, and I bet it will be inherently subjective and biased as to when it is enforced.

Well, its san francisco so if you are white they will probably assume you're racist.

 

[GoodRevrnd]

Didn't read, but this seems unnecessary and/or inadequate. We already have false reports crimes and if that needs strengthening add statute for weaponizing emergency services, for which racial motivations would serve as strong evidence.

 

[Viper1j]

I have the answer..

 

[HomerJS]

And who decides if the call was legit?
Probably why the existing law is rarely enforced.
This smells like Title IX and the Guilty having to prove their Innocence at the discretion of others. Otherwise, how would it be any different / more enforceable than existing law? Someone has to make that call, and I bet it will be inherently subjective and biased as to when it is enforced.

There are cases when it is obvious. Central Park Karen walking the dog. Also the hotel employee who called police on a black family staying at the hotel using the pool when she didn't question the white family.

It can be subjective but if you question the person calling the police on black people if they can't give a reasonable explanation then they pay the penalty.

 

[interchange]

And who decides if the call was legit?
Probably why the existing law is rarely enforced.
This smells like Title IX and the Guilty having to prove their Innocence at the discretion of others. Otherwise, how would it be any different / more enforceable than existing law? Someone has to make that call, and I bet it will be inherently subjective and biased as to when it is enforced.

The burden of proof in criminal court is beyond reasonable doubt. If something about the state of mind of the person making the report is part of the law, it must be proven. Which is where I'm having trouble with this being different from existing law. Possibly for different penalties. I wonder if the effort is more to raise visibility of it being criminal as a deterrent, but I don't think that would do much, and the problem with the attempt is that unless it passes and that knowledge spreads, reporting on this makes it seem that it is currently legal to make a fake 911 call in order to harass someone.

Re: Title IX, the standard is preponderance of evidence (more likely than not). It is also not "presumed guilty" by any stretch. It is certainly reasonable that a case of he said-she said may work out meeting that burden with out any other evidence. Technically, beyond reasonable doubt can also be demonstrated based on single eyewitness testimony, but it is much more rare.