[HN Gopher] Wizards of the Coast Raids YouTuber's House to Take ...
___________________________________________________________________
Wizards of the Coast Raids YouTuber's House to Take Back Magic
Cards
Author : doener
Score : 228 points
Date : 2023-05-17 15:19 UTC (7 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (kotaku.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (kotaku.com)
| rdl wrote:
| So many problems are avoided by just never answering the door
| (and figuring out some way to receive packages). If it's a
| uniformed police officer, "COME BACK WITH A WARRANT" or "CONTACT
| MY ATTORNEY AT X".
| bastard_op wrote:
| Wow, so much for treating your biggest fans with any respect. Not
| like he stole them, it would have been interesting had he stood
| his ground to see what they did. Shame he didn't have video of
| the encounter like Afroman did when raided.
|
| If I were a fan, this would have sobered me out of it
| immediately.
|
| Now I wonder what happened to the guy selling Zelda Tears of the
| Kingdom two weeks early that "fell off the back of the truck".
| Nintendo probably read this and put these thugs on retainer for
| the next major release, if they don't already.
| alexander-wilms wrote:
| fuck kotaku
| ilyt wrote:
| Well if anyone else was still wondering whether WotC is scum on
| earth...
| digdugdirk wrote:
| Huh. I didn't realize the Pinkerton's were still a thing. Its
| interesting to see an example of how they operate nowadays when
| they aren't able to roll in armed and ready like the good ol'
| days.
|
| That being said, I suppose them threatening to call in the police
| does that for them.
| morelisp wrote:
| Not only are they still around, they're not happy that everyone
| knows they're the baddies.
|
| https://slate.com/human-interest/2019/02/pinkerton-red-dead-...
| pmoriarty wrote:
| Yes, the Pinkertons are still a thing. There was an interesting
| post about them here: [1]
|
| Some choice quotes from that thread:
|
| They became famous when Lincoln used them as spies during the
| Civil War. They became infamous when American industrialists
| started employing them as union/labor strikebreakers & private
| police forces who weren't held accountable by the US
| government.
|
| For some of their most egregious examples of strike-breaking,
| check out their part in Carnegie's Homestead Mill Strike & how
| they turned a peaceful assembly of strikers into Chicago's
| Haymarket Riot.
|
| From the US Library of Congress
|
| _What began as a detective agency in Chicago grew into a
| national private police force. *The Pinkertons stood against
| organized labor at nearly every turn* from Haymarket to
| Homestead and famously took down the Molly Maguires, while
| instilling fear in the hearts of fugitives across the country._
|
| ...
|
| Ironically, the Pinkerton Detective Agency was a remarkably
| progressive organization under Allan Pinkerton. Pinkerton
| himself only escaped dying with John Brown at Harper's Ferry
| due to coming down with Pneumonia just before leaving Chicago
| (a significant number of Brown's 19 men were Pinkerton Agents);
| and was a staunch, radical abolitionist and supporter of the
| Union throughout the Civil War. Allan Pinkerton was a fantastic
| detective and analyst - he was one of the the primary
| inspirations for both Sherlock and Mycroft Holmes - Doyle
| didn't think one person with all those skillsets was believable
| (ironically, the other primary inspiration - Eugene Vidocq in
| France - had similar dual skillset). Under Lincoln, the
| Pinkertons became the prototype of the CIA, FBI, and modern
| Secret Service - and were fantastically good at all of them, as
| Pinkerton held little to traditional ideas about the capability
| of minorities and women, employing both enthusiastically and
| creating a large pool of talent as a result.
|
| However, after the Civil War, the power of the Pinkertons in
| the Federal Government was a big issue for former Southern
| States. One of the first "Reconciliation" points was extracting
| the Pinkertons from their functions in the federal government.
| Those agents interested in investigation (including Pinkerton
| himself) ended up in the Justice Department and would
| eventually become the FBI, those in intelligence wound up under
| the Military as MI (later OSS and then CIA), those interested
| in protection joined the actual Secret Service.
|
| . . . And those primarily interested in busting heads, became
| the private entity known as Pinkerton. Alan Pinkerton had
| mostly retired by then, and they became a sort of private army
| for strike-breaking and strong-arming citizens out of the way
| of the railroads. That's the "Pinkertons" most know, they of
| Western storybook bad guys and the villains of labour
| movements. Allan Pinkerton himself wasn't a big fan of labor
| unions, but only because most unions of the time were
| segregated, which he could not stand - but otherwise the later
| actions of the "Pinkertons" had little to do with his
| influence.
|
| [1] -
| https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/136zayf/whats...
| carlmr wrote:
| There was no evidence of wrongdoing on his part. Even if they
| had evidence that he stole something, a private militia
| shouldn't be called to enforce this, but a police
| investigation.
|
| Somebody at WotC should be held liable for this.
|
| Are there no laws in America against this?
| Reubachi wrote:
| why would this necessitate a police investigation? Even
| greater waste of time, now affecting the taxpayer.
|
| Guy bought item, company sent item. That's it. Company can
| ask for it back citing an internal misrelease, or not. Guy
| can ignore, or not. No breach, theft at all.
|
| Quite Literally a non story I feel silly even commenting
| about. Why did OP share this a month later? Not HN material.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| Yes, but it requires people to know their legal rights, and
| engage with them
|
| Had the police been called most likely the police would have
| said "this is a civil matter" not done nothing, at most taken
| a report for a detective to investigate the alleged theft.
|
| Also had the homeowner just said "leave my property", and
| then the police called, the private militia would then be
| trespassing and the police would remove them.
|
| Here however the homeowner basically consented to the
| actions, the search, and the seizure while under threat of
| additional legal action they still consented.
|
| Know your rights.
| mindslight wrote:
| That is a good description of _what is_ , but not what
| _ought to be_.
|
| It's very easy to discuss this after the fact, detached
| from the situation with a calm head, and be confident that
| this victim would have been legally in the clear. But
| rational analysis is sorely absent when an armed gang shows
| up at your door demanding something and threatening more
| violence if you don't comply.
|
| The legal dynamic in the US has basically evolved to
| justify shakedown behavior, where it's technically possible
| to "stand up" for your rights if you know the exact song
| and dance at the right time, but practically most people
| don't and can't. Whereas what really needs to happen is for
| various aggressor parties to be legally _restrained_ from
| using coercion to begin with.
|
| And that's not even touching the dynamic where various
| types of aggressors end up shooting first despite being in
| the wrong, cry "self defense", and then successfully avoid
| getting charged with second degree murder.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >>But rational analysis is sorely absent when an armed
| gang shows up at your door demanding something and
| threatening more violence if you don't comply.
|
| That is why my standing policy is to never answer the
| door unless I am expecting someone. Even for package
| delivery I have a table for them to leave the package on.
|
| >>Whereas what really needs to happen is for various
| aggressor parties to be legally restrained from using
| coercion to begin with.
|
| Examples of laws where this happens would be great.
|
| >>And that's not even touching the dynamic where various
| types of aggressors end up shooting first despite being
| in the wrong, cry "self defense", and then successfully
| avoid getting charged with second degree murder.
|
| Examples please.
| mindslight wrote:
| > _That is why my standing policy is to never answer the
| door unless_
|
| Sure. "Standing policy" implies that you've spent a bunch
| of time thinking it out, presumably thinking about the
| corner cases (police are there and they aren't leaving),
| and also concluding that you're willing to forgo
| answering the door in times it would have been
| beneficial. That's all work and preparation that you're
| taking for granted, that frankly most people don't have
| time for.
|
| It would be akin to me railing against people for using
| GMail, as I run my own mail server. The world is too big
| to micromanage everything. If physical security is one of
| your hobbies that is fantastic. But it's wrong to assert
| that it's universal.
|
| > _Examples of laws where this happens would be great._
|
| The point is that we're sorely lacking those laws, or at
| least enforcement of them. This particular situation
| should result in charges of _armed robbery_ , but I doubt
| it will. But even my saying that is wrong, as it buys
| into this high stakes paradigm. Rather, how about a
| simple misdemeanor law that prohibits the bringing
| firearms onto someone else's residential real estate,
| unless a sign is posted that explicitly allowed it?
|
| > _Examples please_
|
| I feel bad for coming back to this example so often, but
| I don't stay up on the latest unjustified murder of the
| week and its details are beyond reproach - Breonna
| Taylor. That was perpetrated by "police" rather than
| corporate thugs, but it's exactly the dynamic of someone
| acting exactly as the legal system implies they should to
| preserve their rights, ending up with their girlfriend
| being murdered, and still no justice being served.
| phpisthebest wrote:
| >> the corner cases (police are there and they aren't
| leaving),
|
| That would imply they have a warrant which most likely
| means they have already busted down the door negating my
| policy in the first place.
|
| >>and also concluding that you're willing to forgo
| answering the door in times it would have been beneficial
|
| Such as? I have been doing this avoidance for 20 years in
| multiple locations, never been an issue so far.
|
| >> If physical security is one of your hobbies that is
| fantastic. But it's wrong to assert that it's universal.
|
| I dont think I asserted anything of the sort, pretty sure
| I implicitly said "I have a policy" not that others do or
| should.
|
| That said outsourcing your personal security is the path
| to becoming a victim, when seconds count the police are
| minutes away
|
| >Rather, how about a simple misdemeanor law that
| prohibits the bringing firearms onto someone else's
| residential real estate, unless a sign is posted that
| explicitly allowed it?
|
| I am not sure what your antigun stance has to do with
| this story? There is no indication that the persons were
| armed, brandished any firearms or threaten the use of
| violence at all. They knocked on the door, said there
| were there to collect stolen property and if the home
| owner did not comply they would alert the police which
| could result in the homeowner being arrested. That threat
| of using state violence violence is a problem, but
| nothing you have stated here would prevent that.
|
| Nor am I clear how your proposes law would even be
| enforced, or is applicable to this situation. It is clear
| you just anti-gun and likely anti-self defense in general
| and instead believes only the state should have that
| power... which is ironic as you likely are anti-police
| and pro "defund the police"
|
| >>Breonna Taylor.
|
| I was betting it was going to be that or Rittenhouse.
| Both of which have soo much disinformation spread about
| the cases that is hard to have a rational conversation
| about those events online.
|
| The real solution to Breonna Taylor type situations is
| reform warrant policies and require the police to use the
| least confrontational means to effect the warrant,
| instead today police purposefully make the situations
| more dangerous IMO as a form a "street justice" but again
| that is not relevant to this situation as nothing even
| remotely like the events in Breonna Taylor happened here
| mindslight wrote:
| > _It is clear you just anti-gun and likely anti-self
| defense in general and instead believes only the state
| should have that power_
|
| Bad guess. I'm a gun owner who believes in the natural
| right of self defense. But guns are not a strong hobby,
| and taking a basic gun class is actually what made me
| realize I am not the type of person who wants to carry.
| I'm staunchy DIY to a fault on most everything, and yet
| dealing with a break-in made me realize that clearing a
| building is a job I do not want to do myself. (I will, of
| course, do these things if I have to because society
| devolves to that point).
|
| > _soo much disinformation spread_
|
| Walker was sleeping on a couch. Police executed a 2nd-
| amendment-incompatible "no knock" warrant, got pissy when
| Walker defended himself, and so rather than retreating
| they retaliated by using the place as a shooting gallery.
| What do I have wrong here?
|
| The relevance to the situation is that Walker's self
| defense was exactly what the law indicates he should have
| done to preserve his rights, in light of rulings that
| have found the police have no duty to defend and as such
| that responsibility falls entirely on the individual.
|
| > _That would imply [the police] have a warrant which
| most likely means they have already busted down the door
| negating my policy in the first place._
|
| The police can have an arrest warrant, and not just
| immediately bust down your door. This might be one of the
| reasons you'd want to preemptively answer your door,
| rather than getting your home unnecessarily damaged. Or
| maybe they're coming to notify you about a family member.
| Or maybe someone is looking for a lost dog and you want
| to be a good neighbor. Or maybe you were about to go out
| and do some yard work and don't want to wait 10 minutes
| for the Jehovah's Witnesses to give up. Or maybe girl
| scout cookies.
|
| > _There is no indication that the persons were armed_
|
| I took a guess at the likely equipment of private
| security that would be part of their imposing image, to
| make an example of something that would be pretty clear
| cut and relatively easy to enforce.
|
| > _Nor am I clear how your proposes law would even be
| enforced_
|
| You make a police report, give them video evidence of
| someone coming to your house armed, and they get a $500
| fine or whatever, and it doesn't turn into a high stakes
| criminal trial extravaganza because it's a misdemeanor.
|
| But yes one could certainly write a better tailored law
| to criminalize extortion by private "security" forces
| than the simplistic bit I threw out as an example. My
| point wasn't a fully fledged legal proposal, but to point
| out the difference between technically having rights that
| you can protect if you do everything right, and proactive
| enforcement against attempts to strip you of your rights
| through implied coercion.
|
| The fundamentalist "just do everything right" approach
| doesn't scale. It's like C and manual memory management.
| Sure, it's fine if you write bug free code (ie you're
| DJB). But moving most of the drudgery to a compiler frees
| you up to do more worthwhile higher level things.
| digging wrote:
| > Whereas what really needs to happen is for various
| aggressor parties to be legally restrained from using
| coercion to begin with.
|
| Agreed, but good luck. The police, the "actual"
| enforcement arm of the legal system, can pick you up
| without evidence, steal your money, lie to you until
| you're tricked into confessing to something you didn't
| do, and call it a successful mission.
|
| The legal system is _not_ intended to protect innocent
| people, it is only designed to provide enough protections
| so that more privileged people _feel_ like it is, and don
| 't side with the victims in trying to destroy/reform it.
| mindslight wrote:
| The "intent" of the legal system was to enable
| distributed dispensing of the King's justice, at least
| from what I understand. In the modern day and age, we can
| say that there are many types of mal-intents behind
| various laws, but the legal system itself is what we make
| it. And describing a problem is the first step towards
| fixing it.
| colpabar wrote:
| lol. Using money to skip legal processes is extremely
| american. I'm surprised they didn't shoot his dog.
| api_or_ipa wrote:
| Huh, if Pinkerton thugs showed up at my door, I would have
| demanded a warrant + actual law enforcement to even start the
| conversation. It's not like they have any more privileges than
| regular people. On the other hand, if they showed up with regular
| employees and pleaded their case to me I would probably help them
| out.
|
| Showing up with private heat is the best way ensure I'll think
| twice about being helpful.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Showing up with private heat is the best way ensure I'll
| think twice about being helpful.
|
| This. If you want me to be cooperative, set the tone by being
| cooperative yourself.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Ideally with fists full of cash.
| duxup wrote:
| I wonder if they just offered this guy a few grand how it
| would have gone?
|
| Maybe really well?
| newsclues wrote:
| He could have been placated with the cards he ordered
| some extras or merch.
|
| Hiring security was the more expensive option, in short
| and long term.
| Verdex wrote:
| Yeah, this is sort of a case of tearing defeat out of the
| jaws of victory.
|
| Show up with some money, a bunch of magic swag + cards,
| and offer to create a card making them some sort of in
| game knight or king or something. Photograph everything
| and have them sign a non-disparage and suddenly you've
| got some PR that's worth it's weight in gold. And the
| next time a little card mishap goes down you'll get
| people volunteering to give them back in hopes of a tenth
| of what you gave out the first time.
|
| Or you could just do nothing because almost definitely
| nobody actually cares or will notice.
|
| Jumping to sending private security to someone else's
| private residence feels like an absolute last resort to a
| much more serious issue.
| dpedu wrote:
| By law, unsolicited merchandise received via mail is yours to
| keep. I wonder how this will play out in court, if the YouTuber
| chooses to go that route. I don't see any reason why WOTC
| wouldn't lose, and lose badly?
|
| https://about.usps.com/publications/pub300a/pub300a_v04_revi...
| rootsudo wrote:
| 1. No legal cause or case. 2. They were basically trespassing, if
| only the owner asked them to leave. 3. Person invited them in and
| let them take their property.
|
| Geez people really just create the drama they want. Easily
| should've told them to pound dirt and slam the door in their
| face.
|
| Instead the article goes on about one agent being apologetic, and
| the others not caring.
|
| People really are not aware of their rights.
|
| Remember, if someone has to _ASK_ you or have you _CONSENT_ you
| can say no. But it seems people don 't know they can refuse
| anymore.
| [deleted]
| f0e4c2f7 wrote:
| Wizards of the Coast seems to be on a rampage to do as much
| damage to their brand as possible. Weren't they pretty beloved by
| fans before some of these more recent actions?
|
| It's like they've turned into the Comcast of table top games.
|
| What do they really have beyond their brand? People can play
| other games.
| dgb23 wrote:
| It's a shit show and plenty of people are not OK with it,
| including prominent content creators (for both DnD and MTG)
| that have a huge draw.
| permo-w wrote:
| the DnD movie was very good. maybe they're getting
| overconfident
| nickthegreek wrote:
| Apparently not good enough for a sequel though. Kinda sad how
| good something has to do to be considered successful these
| days.
| danjoredd wrote:
| They said before the movie released that it was not their
| intention to make a franchise out of the movie. They were
| open to making a franchise, but the movie was designed to
| stand alone. In the age of cinematic universes making a D&D
| cinematic universe makes a lot of sense, but thats not what
| the authors wanted.
|
| "It was never our intention when we came on board this film
| to make a franchise . . . I think that would cloud our
| ability to focus entirely on the film at hand. The cardinal
| mistake many studios make is to put the cart before the
| horse, where they start crafting a cinematic universe
| before they even make a good single film. So first and
| foremost for us was getting this right."
|
| https://www.polygon.com/23665427/dungeons-and-dragons-
| honor-...
| permo-w wrote:
| I find it more sad that something being good necessitates
| sequels
| esharte wrote:
| >"Weren't they pretty beloved by fans before some of these more
| recent actions?"
|
| No definitely not
| digging wrote:
| > What do they really have beyond their brand? People can play
| other games.
|
| Certainly Dungeons and Dragons has tons of competition from
| other systems and I won't be playing it anymore, but it does
| have the network effect and weekly hosted games and name
| recognition.
|
| MTG, I think, doesn't have serious competition. It is a unique
| juggernaut. Playing a 5e D&D game today has no relation to old
| 2e adventures, but many forms of Magic make use of ancient
| cards with serious monetary value.
|
| Magic is also such an intricate and surprisingly balanced game
| and has something that other games somehow always struggle
| with: _exactness_. There is, technically, no room for
| interpretation on any Magic card (please correct me if I 'm
| wrong here, I haven't played in 5+ years). Every possible
| interaction has a precise outcome that can be derived from the
| rules, or at worst from card-specific errata which are
| available freely and easily online.
|
| The combination of amazing art, historic value, well-known
| lore, a massive library, and exact gameplay makes MTG difficult
| to buck. I'm certainly not buying any more cards, but I don't
| know where I would start looking if I got the itch for a card
| game again.
| jsmith45 wrote:
| Right, assuming players have access to the oracle text (the
| canonical post errata text for the card), and a copy of the
| comprehensive magic rules, it should be possible to
| deterministically determine the result of any interaction
| (modulo any specified randomness or opportunities for human
| choice).
|
| The comprehensive rules are intended to be fully
| comprehensive, with only simply logic needed to connect the
| parts. If this has failed anywhere leaving something without
| a clear resolution this would be considered a defect in the
| comprehensive rules or the card's canonical text.
|
| Such defects are not especially common, as they tend to get
| noticed before new cards or mechanics are released. This is
| especially true since WOTC ends up programming these
| mechanics into software not once but at least twice. (First
| for MTGO, and then again for MTG Arena's backend, and
| sometimes needing to program it again for the Arena's front
| end code.)
|
| The need to program it into the software gives makes it much
| more likely than any remaining ambiguity in the Card's Oracle
| text or the comprehensive rules gets noticed and addressed.
| Spooky23 wrote:
| I'd laugh in their faces as I slammed the door.
| rationalist wrote:
| As would I, but the average person does not have that kind of
| wherewithal. It is still something we should be concerned about
| it, as I do not want to live in a world where this is
| commonplace, and I imagine you wouldn't want to either.
| Firmwarrior wrote:
| Yeah, people need to start teaching kids about their rights.
| Otherwise, kids who don't know about the 4th amendment (that
| you can tell actual police to go away and that's doubly true
| for rent-a-cops) are going to grow up and keep voting in
| politicians who'll keep chipping away at our rights more and
| more
| delecti wrote:
| Note that this was about a month ago. If you see the title and
| think "again?!", no, this is the same incident where they sent
| Pinkertons.
|
| Not that it's not worth discussing, just that I'm sure someone
| might otherwise wonder.
| rjbwork wrote:
| Lucky they didn't get shot. A private entity has no right to raid
| your house. That is some extremely ballsy behavior for a non-
| state actor in the US.
| standardUser wrote:
| Did they threaten violence? Do you consider if reasonable or
| likely that a private citizen would shoot an unarmed,
| nonviolent person at their door?
| [deleted]
| dragonwriter wrote:
| > Do you consider if reasonable or likely that a private
| citizen would shoot an unarmed, nonviolent person at their
| door?
|
| Reasonable? No.
|
| But its a kind of unreasonable that is far from unheard of
| (even when it is "in their driveway" rather than "at their
| door".)
| the_only_law wrote:
| Perhaps maybe not likely, but there were some big stories
| about this happening recently, so I wouldn't be shocked.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > Did they threaten violence?
|
| It sure sounds like it to me, even if only implicitly. They
| were certainly being intimidating, and intimidation rests on
| the foundation of the threat of violence.
| last_responder wrote:
| There was no raid
| Throw73849 wrote:
| You ask them to leave, they do not... Unless the "security"
| recorded and streamed everything into cloud, very difficult
| to prove.
| stale2002 wrote:
| No, actually.
|
| You cannot just shoot someone who is standing outside your
| doorway, And claim that they were trying to break in.
|
| You would go to jail.
| r00fus wrote:
| Have you heard of the castle doctrine [1]? It's resulted
| in some really crazy (and imho horrible) situations where
| private citizens are allowed to use deadly force and
| literally murder people in cold blood.
|
| [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine
| stale2002 wrote:
| No actually. Thats not what the castle doctine does.
|
| It does not allow you to just shoot someone, who is
| standing outside your door.
|
| If they broke into your house, then yes it might apply.
|
| But it absolutely does not allow you to just shoot
| someone, who knocked on your door.
| r00fus wrote:
| This has happened - of course, this is Florida, but
| still: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2012/03/why-
| george-zimme...
|
| This guy wasn't even on his porch. Stand your ground laws
| essentially allow gun owners to claim they were
| frightened for their lives so that becomes "their
| castle". Wouldn't be very hard to repurpose this kind of
| weaponized law to actually defend your household.
|
| btw - castle doctrine was intended to apply within
| property lines. If someone is on your doorstep, they are
| likely already clearly on your property.
|
| All of this is theoretical but honestly I wouldn't be
| surprised if this is used for exactly what you said it
| shouldn't allow.
| midjji wrote:
| More importantly, they are armed, and will shoot you
| first.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| >You would go to jail.
|
| You _could_ go to jail. In some state 's in the US, it is
| by no way guaranteed.
| Throw73849 wrote:
| Whatever. Coming into someones house to make threats is
| very stupid idea.
|
| One day I came into my kitchen, there is my wife crying,
| and three big threating guys I do not know. I ask them to
| leave, instead of heading to door, they are aggressive
| and surround me. What do you thing is going to happen?
| rightbyte wrote:
| > I ask them to leave, instead of heading to door, they
| are aggressive and surround me. What do you thing is
| going to happen?
|
| You better hope they are not actually aggressive? How are
| you getting out of this scenario other than being
| submissive or hoping they are "nice".
|
| There are so many Clint Eastwoods in this thread.
| Throw73849 wrote:
| Do you expect some tactical masterplan? I have no idea
| what I would do. I would have like 1 second to decide.
|
| That is why it is very stupid idea, to threaten people at
| their property!
| rightbyte wrote:
| Ok no I am sorry. I agree.
|
| I had the impression you were one of these guys that
| daydream about their (unrealistic) home defense plans.
| ivalm wrote:
| If you try anything violent they will kill you and claim
| self defence. Maybe they win the court case maybe they
| won't but you will be dead.
| [deleted]
| George83728 wrote:
| So, is this guy done with Magic, or will he keep buying and
| promoting their products? WoC have been known assholes for years
| now, I would think people would figure it out by now.
| rationalist wrote:
| I used to play MTG 20-15 years ago. I do not play anymore
| because of the constantly evolving playset, mechanics, and
| rules that I could not keep up with. I'm even more put off
| lately by the seemingly-cash-grab of incorporating other
| games/words such as Dungeons and Dragons and I think Lord of
| the Rings.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| > I do not play anymore because of the constantly evolving
| playset, mechanics, and rules that I could not keep up with.
|
| Yep. I took a couple of years off in the late 90s and there
| was no going back.
| gnicholas wrote:
| I'd be curious to know what exactly these Pinkerton agents said,
| and if they flashed badges (as other commenters have suggested).
| My general rule is not to let anyone in who doesn't have a
| warrant, and I think that still works in light of this kind of
| tactic. But I hadn't considered the possibility that non-LEOs
| might fool me/my family into thinking they are LEOs, and that
| they might not be bound by the same rules regarding tricking
| someone into letting them enter their home.
| ldoughty wrote:
| Sounds like the buyer should have ASKED for the sheriff....
| Private police threatening fines and jail time? Let them say that
| with law enforcement around for any follow up lawsuit.
|
| A purchase was made and the wrong product arrived at his door..
| the seller had legitimate reason to have the product, but broke a
| street date... The customer did not ask for unreleased product...
|
| Sounds like the dealer is at fault, but not "stolen property"...
| Do card dealers not own their inventory before a street date?
| (And, therefore, sold product that was not his?) (Vs. breach of
| contract)
| PointA2B wrote:
| He could've closed the door in their faces and there would be
| nothing they could do about it. The company relied on theatrics
| and false threats to get back a legitimately purchased product.
| JohnFen wrote:
| That's exactly what I would have done. "Tell the cops to come
| with a warrant, and I'll open the door for them."
| olyjohn wrote:
| Yep, would have told those dummy mall cops to fuck right
| off.
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| Could've, but theatrics are used because it's effective. A
| surprise morning visit by professional intimidators arguing
| that you "do what we say or you might spend the next decade
| in jail" can override a lot of logical reasoning.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| That's why it needs to be a crime to impersonate law
| enforcement.
|
| I thought it was already, but here we are.
| lotsofpulp wrote:
| Is there any indication or evidence anyone impersonated
| law enforcement?
| [deleted]
| CobrastanJorji wrote:
| I guess it depends what you mean by "impersonate." Are
| you asking whether they literally claimed to be a police
| officer? If so, they almost certainly did not. But they
| probably showed up with a uniform and a brass badge with
| words like "sergeant" and "national" and "service" on it
| next to maybe an eagle and a flag, and they probably
| talked about how the homeowner was in trouble with the
| law.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| Intimidation tactics like that should count as
| impersonation. If they don't, there's your problem.
| ipaddr wrote:
| That would still be under impersonated law enforcement
| jstarfish wrote:
| Detectives wear plainclothes.
|
| These types flash a badge, mumble the words "detective"
| and "agency" in the same sentence, then immediately pivot
| to babbling about fines and jailtime before you have a
| chance to question their authority. It's a high-pressure
| sales tactic masquerading as law enforcement, without
| crossing the line of impersonation.
|
| To those ends, they back down quickly when you poke back
| with childish questions like "wait, so you're _not_ the
| police? " (If they say yes, they're in trouble.)
| gabereiser wrote:
| It is but we also have PI's. Usually ex-cops or ex-
| military members with an intelligence angle. These are
| intimidating people by design. If you had a squad of
| paramilitary at your door, and you were the typical magic
| player, you'd give them the keys if they asked.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| "By design?" Let's dig into that. Their CV, or non-LEO
| uniform, or physical size does not give them license to
| walk into peoples' houses or to threaten to do so.
| Everyone knows that. Which means they probably made a
| threat, and if that threat in any way suggested that they
| represented law enforcement, it should absolutely be
| illegal and they should be locked up for impersonation.
| gabereiser wrote:
| I'm not saying it does, but agencies have typically hired
| a certain type of physique and mentality that comes from
| military service.
| jjoonathan wrote:
| If they used their physique and mentality to suggest that
| that they were affiliated with law enforcement, that's a
| problem. If they used their physique and mentality to
| threaten extrajudicial violence, that's a problem. If
| they were crystal clear that they didn't represent law
| enforcement and that they weren't threatening
| extrajudicial violence, cool.
|
| Society has an interest in ensuring that goons can't
| bluff their way into LEO privileges, so if that's what
| they did, we have a problem.
| philsnow wrote:
| > If you had a squad of paramilitary at your door, and
| you were the typical magic player, you'd give them the
| keys if they asked
|
| I haven't played MtG since the 90s, so I'm maybe not
| clued in on what a "typical magic player" is, but I would
| expect them to be pretty rules-lawyer-y (both on and off
| the table) and would stand their ground on principle.
| setr wrote:
| I think most rules-lawyers tend to lose their confidence
| in the power of those rules when you flip the table and
| leave... or when you threaten to hit them with a wrench.
| gabereiser wrote:
| Or threaten a 13 year old girl who happens to beat you in
| round 1 of FNM with her black deck. It's all fun and
| games until someone flips a table or punches a child or
| says some really awful things that make said 13 year old
| give all her magic cards away.
|
| If real law enforcement (or Pinkertons) showed any sense
| of legitimacy, the typical MtG player would bow to the
| authority. Whether it's in the rule book or "unspoken
| rules by the venue".
|
| _edit_ this occurred to my daughter in 2012 at FNM.
| George83728 wrote:
| Particularly when your SO is becoming upset about it.
| What's more important, some cards that you hadn't intended
| to purchase in the first place, or the mental well-being of
| your wife?
| psychlops wrote:
| It can, but it's probably a good reminder that people
| should know their rights. Those who don't will follow
| along.
| Workaccount2 wrote:
| *Closed the door and then called the police to report
| trespassing.
| midjji wrote:
| Perhaps, but they could have broken it down, assaulted them,
| then claimed that they were violent. They get away with that
| kind of crap all the time, because mostly, they do this to
| criminals, and are friends with the local police. Sometimes
| they get caught, usually for things like shooting a dog that
| was chained and far out of reach, or because someone had it
| on video, but these thugs are the kind of people who got
| rejected from or fired from the police, so however
| incompetent, cowardly, and violent the cops are, these thugs
| are worse.
| oliwarner wrote:
| > then claimed that they were violent
|
| If you're assaulted at somebody's house but you overpower
| them, you don't get to loot them. This isn't D&D.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| >> but they could have broken it down
|
| In the US, that would be an exceedingly bad idea on the
| part of the Pinkertons. They don't have the same
| protections law enforcement has: they are treated legally
| the same as anybody else, which means that in 38 US states
| they'd be justifying the homeowners use of deadly force.
| hinkley wrote:
| I'm shocked the Pinkertons still exist. None of the
| bigger unions tried to pull strings to get them destroyed
| for past atrocities against the labor movement?
| djbusby wrote:
| Unions are big, but Corporate Money is bigger.
| dontlaugh wrote:
| Unions sadly have little power, especially in the US.
|
| That may be starting to change, though.
| midjji wrote:
| They dont really, they are just an offbrand for securitas
| who bought up the trademark and brand after they went
| under.
| WillPostForFood wrote:
| _They get away with that kind of crap all the time_
|
| That's a big claim, can you cite an example or two of
| Pinkerton kicking down doors an assaulting the residents?
| hinkley wrote:
| If you want to go back to the Labor movement, the
| Pinkertons practically committed war crimes. When people
| say the police evolved from a misanthropic idea of
| keeping the peace, they are specifically thinking of the
| Pinkertons as an example. Hired thugs meant to keep those
| in power in power, not to protect the citizenry.
| mikestew wrote:
| _If you want to go back to the Labor movement..._
|
| I do not. I would like an example from within the last,
| say, 75 years. Regardless, you didn't even cite an
| example.
| hinkley wrote:
| I don't know if the Pinkertons directly, but their
| competitors have caused a lot of problems during our
| eternal war in the Middle East. That's a problem of using
| a private police force like an army, and while the US
| government and military paid the bills and made requests,
| the triggermen bear their share of the blame.
|
| You're trying to make an extraordinary claims play to
| deflect this part of the conversation and I'm not biting.
| If you don't know the sordid history of private armies go
| do your own research. Don't imply other people are wrong
| because they aren't spoon feeding you facts that people
| who employ tactics like you won't hear even if offered in
| earnest. As many people I'm the civil rights and LGBT
| community are now saying, it's not my job to educate you
| for free.
| mikestew wrote:
| _I don't know if the Pinkertons directly..._
|
| Then you probably should not have responded to a question
| specifically asking for an example of Pinkerton kicking
| down doors. As you've clearly stated that you can't
| answer the question, but rather prefer to go off on some
| vaguely related tangent, then I will go on about my day.
| hinkley wrote:
| Dude, your whole energy is trying to shut down
| conversation and I already told you that's not going to
| work.
|
| I only knew the Pinkertons still existed reading about
| problems in the second gulf war, in which they were
| listed amongst the problem children. I thought that name
| was retired a century ago, turns out not. What I don't
| know is any role they played in Afghanistan. Bracketing
| your base of knowledge is not weakness, it's disclosure.
|
| Also they all hire the same kind of people. Just because
| BP had the Deep Water fiasco doesn't mean we forget about
| Exxon Valdez. There are no "good ones" just short
| memories and willful lack of imagination.
|
| This is not high school debate class. Act like a grownup.
| cfeduke wrote:
| > I would like an example from within the last, say, 75
| years. Regardless, you didn't even cite an example.
|
| From Wikipedia[0]:
|
| "In 2020, Matthew Dolloff, an unlicensed security guard
| contracted through Pinkerton, shot and killed Lee
| Keltner, a conservative protestor in Denver, Colorado."
|
| Not exactly kicking down doors and assaulting the
| residents, I know, but hopefully we can agree that its
| adjacent.
|
| Of course the premise is that "they get away with it all
| of the time." If such examples existed, citing them would
| be contrary to the act of getting away with it. I'm not
| saying that I know for a fact that the Pinkertons or
| other such similar organizations "get away with it." But
| I know the United States has produced numerous examples
| of police officers getting away with it, and in my mind
| it's very possible that detective agencies do all manner
| of reprehensible things, especially to people in poverty,
| and get away with it.
|
| We're hearing about it in the case of a YouTuber because
| they have a platform.
|
| 0. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_(detective_age
| ncy)
| midjji wrote:
| Nothing that isn't stories by friends working for
| securitas (the main company for which pinkerton is a
| brand), or anecdotes. I am certain I could find a story
| like that just by googling for it, but real statistics
| are what are interesting, and I cant be bothered to
| research it. So let me instead ask, what evidence do you
| have that they are better than the police? because that
| is what you are arguing. In general you can become a
| security guard in a tiny fraction of the time it takes to
| become a police, and they have much lower requirements
| compared to becoming a police. Oh and by the way, most of
| them believe themselves to have the same powers and
| protections as police, that they do not does not matter
| much. The real shitheads get pruned pretty quickly, but
| the middling level assholes instead sometimes get shifted
| into one of the offbrands.
| pc86 wrote:
| They're not arguing that they're better than police,
| they're saying that police have protections other people
| don't, and those protections are the only reason they
| feel comfortable kicking doors down. You're very, _very_
| unlikely to find some private security guy willing to
| kick a door down for some trading cards, because pretty
| much the first time they 're wrong about it they're going
| to jail. You don't get qualified immunity as private
| security.
|
| And that's an awfully long paragraph when "no" would have
| sufficed just fine.
| hinkley wrote:
| You're trying to assert that people making claims based
| on some knowledge are wrong because they don't have every
| fact, while claiming that you have _no facts whatsoever_.
|
| Do you not see how completely fucked up that is?
|
| We don't talk to each other this way here. We shouldn't
| talk to each other this way at all. The "gotcha"
| structure of debate will be the death of public discourse
| and with it, democracy, and with that the rule of law.
| When we live in Idiocracy it will substantially be
| because of people trolling "prove it" because it gets
| them out of thinking about uncomfortable things.
|
| But this response isn't about you. Not even a little.
| It's for the other people reading this tree of replies,
| for the next time someone is trying to shut down
| conversation.
| danesparza wrote:
| Please please PLEASE call 911 the next time this happens. This
| is an extra-judicial shakedown. There are consequences for
| idiots who pretend to be police like this.
|
| They would be the ones going to jail if this person had called
| 911.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| Your advice is to add cops to the Pinkertons?
| kbelder wrote:
| Yes, it's good advice. They would escort the Pinkertons off
| your property if you asked.
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| I would simply not let the Pinkertons in.
| philsnow wrote:
| > Do card dealers not own their inventory before a street date?
| (And, therefore, sold product that was not his?) (Vs. breach of
| contract)
|
| This is the key question. Almost all the comments in this story
| are on 1) WotC are jerks for sending Pinks, 2a) the guy
| shouldn't have given them the product, 2b) if Pinks showed up
| at your door you'd do it too,
|
| ... but if it is indeed the case that dealers don't own pre-
| release WotC products before the release date, then it goes
| from open-and-shut "he was within his rights to keep the cards
| forever" to something more messy.
| Root_Denied wrote:
| If the dealers don't own pre-release products then it becomes
| messy for the courts, police, and lawyers.
|
| There's no world in which Pinkertons (or anyone acting
| similarly in a private-enterprise fashion) should have ever
| been involved regardless of the legal owners of the product.
| bugglebeetle wrote:
| I've got some news for you about America if you think the cops
| are going to side with the buyer over the Pinkertons. The best
| thing to do in this scenario is a. have a good lawyer on
| retainer and b. slam the door on these thugs and tell them to
| contact said lawyer.
| torstenvl wrote:
| American law enforcement would overwhelmingly "side" with the
| buyer here, by virtue solely of siding with the status quo.
|
| The moment they said "contract," Deputy Notmyjob will hold up
| a hand and say, "Sounds like a civil matter. Mr. Smith has
| advised you not to trespass on his property. Small claims
| office is at 1234 Fuckoff Street downtown. We'll be leaving
| now, and you will too, unless you'd like to take a trip to
| the station with us for booking."
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| ceejayoz wrote:
| > American law enforcement would overwhelmingly "side" with
| the buyer here
|
| Not if the private security are off-duty or former cops
| with a strong relationship with local departments.
| zamalek wrote:
| Which would be great. Now we're rapidly travelling down
| the hundreds of thousands of dollars lawsuit path.
| Anything the cops do, apart from siding with the land
| owner (never mind buyer), would have an extremely high
| chance of being a constitutional violation.
| ceejayoz wrote:
| lol
|
| The courts will decide there's "no clearly established
| law".
|
| https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/micah-
| jessop-br...
|
| > After local police officers searched the homes and
| business of Micah Jessop and Brittan Ashjian, more than
| $100,000 in cash and $125,000 in rare coins went missing.
| Jessop and Ashjian sued the officers and the City of
| Fresno under 42 U.S.C. SS 1983, a statute that authorizes
| damages actions against state and local officials for
| constitutional violations, arguing that the officers'
| alleged theft violated their Fourth Amendment right to be
| free from "unreasonable searches and seizures." The Ninth
| Circuit Court of Appeals held that under the doctrine of
| qualified immunity the officers cannot be sued because,
| according to the court, it is not "clearly established"
| that this type of theft violates the Fourth Amendment.
|
| https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2020/05/30/police-
| geo...
|
| > For instance, last November the 6th Circuit U.S. Court
| of Appeals held that Tennessee cops who allowed their
| police dog to bite a surrendered suspect did not violate
| clearly established law. There, the victim cited a case
| where the same court earlier held that it was
| unconstitutional for officers to sic their dog on a
| suspect who had surrendered by lying on the ground with
| his hands to the side. That was not sufficient, the court
| reasoned, because the victim had not surrendered by lying
| down: He had surrendered by sitting on the ground and
| raising his hands.
| zajio1am wrote:
| Just sue the police department and not individual cops.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| It depends. If Dealer's lawyers decided they wanted to go
| after some transgression which may or may not have
| occurred, that can cause a lot of difficulty for Buyer.
| Individual officers are pretty likely to point them to
| small claims but not if a prosecutor is in the picture.
| torstenvl wrote:
| I've served as a prosecutor both in a state jurisdiction
| and within the military justice system. I am immensely
| skeptical that any competent lawyer would want to spend
| resources on pursuing charges based on a third party's
| NDA.
| lcnPylGDnU4H9OF wrote:
| Fair enough. Recent disputes around copyright are likely
| distorting my view on the matter. That feels very much
| like a corporation going to a prosecutor to tattle on
| someone.
|
| To your point, law enforcement would likely side with the
| buyer here but the buyer isn't necessarily going to be in
| a position to understand that (in fact, likely the other
| way).
| wahnfrieden wrote:
| You're downvoted but police have prolific recorded history of
| this vs the reverse. It's not ideology it's material reality
| [deleted]
| phyllistine wrote:
| I love HN but the demographics of the users makes them more
| likely to assume the cops will do the correct action, when
| that does not always play out.
| bugglebeetle wrote:
| This scenario already happened with Jason Chen/Gizmodo
| and the iPhone 4G prototype that was left at a bar, and
| what happened is the cops raided his house and seized his
| stuff. You would think HN folks would at least remember
| that...
| joecool1029 wrote:
| Not remotely the same thing, that was cops executing a
| search warrant signed by a judge.
| https://www.businessinsider.com/a-san-mateo-court-has-
| withdr...
| bugglebeetle wrote:
| You think WOTC couldn't have found a friendly judge if
| the guy didn't comply with their thugs? The judiciary in
| the US is just as corrupt as the police.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _think WOTC couldn't have found a friendly judge if the
| guy didn't comply with their thugs_
|
| To randomly authorize a private search? No.
| bugglebeetle wrote:
| Oh please, they're not going to present it like that but
| use the same spiel the Pinkertons used on this YouTuber
| about being part of a criminal conspiracy etc. Judges in
| the US issue spurious warrants all the time, not the
| least at the behest of corporations. The iPhone prototype
| was no less ridiculous.
| [deleted]
| nullc wrote:
| I get that the youtuber just wanted no trouble, but he may have
| really screwed himself by not insisting on a waver of liability,
| agreement that the existing videos can stay up (or,
| alternatively, compensation to replace the lost income from
| them), and compensation for his costs at a minimum.
|
| Handing WOTC's paid thugs the material probably didn't do
| anything to reduce his risk and took away the little leverage he
| had -- they could even try to spin his willingness to hand it
| over as an admission that his possession was unlawful.
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| They could try, but all he has to do is mention the
| intimidation factor of Pinkertons at the door while under oath
| and I doubt a jury would find him liable for anything.
|
| Plus, at that point, he could probably afford a _really_ good
| lawyer from crowdfunded donations.
|
| Wizards already has a PR issue from this happening in the first
| place. They'd be civilly negligent toward the Hasbro
| shareholders to push it any further.
| nullc wrote:
| From the comments it sounds like their "threats" were threats
| of legal action-- that isn't likely to count as
| intimidation... and if he's gone far enough in court to end
| up in front of a jury he would probably _already_ be
| financially ruined. Now, if he asked them to leave and they
| didn 't that would be something else.
|
| Unfortunately when you're not very wealthy the question if
| you'd ultimately win or not isn't very important. That's why
| it's important to get bright line clarity such that if they
| brought any claims your odds of getting a summary dismissal
| would be very good.
|
| Your point about the threat being limited by the specter of
| damage to their brand is a good one except if that were the
| motivation they wouldn't have opened with an in personal
| physical confrontation against a party with a highly visible
| public platform.
|
| > he could probably afford a really good lawyer from
| crowdfunded donations
|
| I doubt it. Sometimes that happens, but often people just
| blame the victim because there is always a never ending list
| of nitpicks ("Why didn't he tell the pinkertons they were
| tresspassing, ask them to leave and send a letter", "why
| didn't he insist on a release from the company", "he had to
| know this would happen when he put the video up in the first
| place!"). And even when the lawyers paid for, nothing can
| compensate you for the time, disruption in your life, and
| stress of being targeted.
| 0cf8612b2e1e wrote:
| Easy to say from your armchair and not when the gestapo are at
| your door. If thugs appear at my door demanding a $50 item _or
| else_ , yeah....I will probably just give it to them. See if I
| can claw it back later. The Pinkerton employees
| on the other hand, were less cordial to the YouTuber. Cannon
| told Kotaku over email that they had threatened to get the
| county sheriff involved if he did not return the MtG cards.
| They cited statures with punishments such as a $200,000 fine
| and up to a decade of jail time.
| JohnFen wrote:
| > If thugs appear at my door demanding a $50 item or else
|
| If thugs appear at my door for any reason, that door gets
| slammed shut and I'll be on the phone to get the actual
| police.
| Firmwarrior wrote:
| Yeah, man, I wish that YouTuber had been you or an "Am I
| free to go?" style Libertarian
|
| I would have loved to see a video of him slamming the door
| in some Pinkertons' faces and possibly calling the actual
| cops
| nullc wrote:
| > Easy to say from your armchair and not when the gestapo are
| at your door. If thugs appear at my door demanding a $50 item
| or else, yeah....I will probably just give it to them.
|
| Close the door and call the police if they don't go away.
|
| I didn't intend it as a criticism but more of a "if you ever
| find yourself in a similar situation, you may want to
| consider!".
|
| The YTer had this dropped in his lap, he didn't have a chance
| to get advice or even consider it fully-- presumably
| strategic on the part of WotC. Any remotely reasonable
| response would be blameless in my eyes.
|
| (and if I were determined to find fault, clearly the fault
| would be answering the door in the first place! :) )
| last_responder wrote:
| >that his possession was unlawful.
|
| There is no law being broken so it does not matter what he said
| or did.
| t-writescode wrote:
| While that may or may not be true, it's very easy to say
| things like that and much much harder to deal with the
| situation in a "rights above safety, to eternal ends" and
| "perfect world" perspective when in the situation as a flesh-
| and-blood version of ones self.
| magic_hamster wrote:
| Do not let anyone in your house unless it's a police officer with
| a warrant, and even then, verify their identity and the
| documents. You can easily do this by calling your police
| department. We have rights.
| shepardrtc wrote:
| Whoever at WotC decided to send them should be fired. It's just a
| trading card game. Contact the guy through normal means and ask
| him to return them.
| prepend wrote:
| There's a massive list of bonehead decisions made by WotC and
| none have resulted in firing. It's an interesting hobby where
| fans have played no matter what the company does and the
| company knows that.
| nickthegreek wrote:
| >It's an interesting hobby where fans have played no matter
| what the company does and the company knows that.
|
| I don't think thats true. They walked back their license BS
| over fan outrage.
| prepend wrote:
| That was d&d, I'm talking about magic stuff. Just off the
| top of my head, they just seem generally incompetent and
| people keep buying.
|
| Here's some stuff I remember: -underprinting (legends) and
| overprinting (fallen empires)
|
| -saying they wouldn't reprint things (reserved list) then
| reprinting some, and monkeying around with it for 5 years
|
| -original magic online in early 00s was completely poorly
| built at the time of lots of other MOOCs and a super lively
| IRC open source client, Apprentice, that they could have
| just cloned
|
| -launching their new digital game, arena, as desktop only
| for its first three years
|
| -killing their tournament play
|
| -cutting out local stores with direct to consumer sales
| (and massive distribution through Amazon)
|
| -$100 "vip" booster packs
|
| -poor quality control that makes cards look like pringles
|
| -multiple versions of each card with different foiling
| techniques
|
| -firing artists over liking tweets
|
| -new product every two months instead of 3-4 times per year
|
| -freaking out over leaked spoilers
|
| -telling some people what cards would be reprinted
| beforehand to have them purchase or sell accordingly
|
| -not putting shandalar on steam/ never making sequels
| nickthegreek wrote:
| So true, mtg players are kinda locked in and get roughed
| up way more than the d&D players by corporate bullshit. I
| normally only view WoTC through the d&d lens as thats
| where my hobby lies.
| t-writescode wrote:
| Because every single major DnD player promised to:
| * stop using DnD; and/or, * create the own RPG
| ruleset and license
|
| The alternatives to MtG are fewer and further between and
| usually of greatly reduced quality relative MtG.
|
| There is a meaningful difference here.
| mercutio2 wrote:
| Private security appearing at your door may be intimidating, but
| it's not a raid.
|
| Threatening someone with fines or jail time, who took receipt of
| distributed but embargoed product, i.e. by no stretch of the
| imagination illegal to possess, is the sort of thing you might
| want to look into legal options for, though.
| klyrs wrote:
| [flagged]
| ars wrote:
| Try not to get your news from social media. What you wrote
| isn't actually true.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| I get my views on the police from the news and from
| observing them and hearing stories about them from
| relatives and friends, some of whom have worked with police
| or in other parts of the justice system.
|
| My conclusion, after years and years of all that, is that
| you should only call them if you'd rather end up beaten and
| cuffed and facing charges, with a bunch of your shit broken
| and/or stolen, than let whatever's happening now keep
| happening. Bringing them into a situation comes with a
| serious risk of "now you have two problems". For lesser
| non-emergency stuff, they're not gonna do jack-shit except
| give you a report for insurance (and charge you money for
| it), so, do get in touch if you need that, but don't expect
| anything more from them, because you won't get it.
|
| I also treat them as the most dangerous drivers on the
| road. From what I've seen of their driving, they're up
| there with a teenager in a sportscar who's simultaneously
| applying makeup and texting. Except that sometimes when
| _they_ do something dangerous and stupid, _you_ get a
| ticket (seen it happen).
| InitialLastName wrote:
| Notoriety is in the eye of the beholder. It doesn't matter
| whether the police are _actually_ trigger-happy; as long as
| they have a reputation for excessive use of violence, a
| threat to involve them is a perceived threat of violence.
| klyrs wrote:
| I get my news from quite a few sources. But you're here on
| a social media site devoted to sharing news, commenting on
| a news article. Are you _not_ getting your news from social
| media right here, right now?
|
| What I wrote is entirely true, I didn't say that a threat
| to call the cops is %100 guarantee to shoot somebody. I
| said that there's a nonzero probability. SWATting, for
| example, has killed several people who did nothing wrong.
|
| Personal experience: I've had a gun pulled on me a couple
| times while un-armed and non-threatening. Most amusing one:
| got pulled over for expired tabs and had a boffer sword
| (not even remotely realistic looking, mostly red duct tape)
| in my back seat.
| slowmovintarget wrote:
| This is a forum, not social media. There's no network
| nonsense and algorithm pushes here.
| klyrs wrote:
| Agree to disagree; forums are social media. Traditional
| forum software is purely temporal ranking (latest-
| comment-first) plus pinned posts. HN uses a ranking
| algorithm based on engagement, plus ads.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| I think if you expand it that much, the term's useless.
| HN lacks a couple things that I'd consider necessary for
| something to for-sure qualify as "social media": a
| personalized queue/feed, and some sort of prominent and
| heavily-used "follow" action. Those are two
| distinguishing features of the first things I recall the
| term ever being applied to--as far as I'm aware, the term
| was coined _for_ that kind of thing. If the "social
| network" and actions related to it aren't present or
| aren't central to the experience, I wouldn't call
| something social media.
| klyrs wrote:
| Well, if you define it that way, @ars's assumption is a
| complete miss, as HN is the only social media that I use.
| ghostpepper wrote:
| I'm surprised these private security goons don't get guns
| pointed at them more often. As I understand American law it
| would be legal to shoot them if they refused to leave your
| property in some states.
| JohnFen wrote:
| When I was in my teens, I spent a few months doing door-to-
| door canvassing. I had guns pointed at me on three separate
| occasions, just for knocking on the front door.
| wongarsu wrote:
| > raid: noun
|
| > 1a: a hostile or predatory incursion
|
| > 1b: a surprise attack by a small force
|
| https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/raid
|
| alternatively wiktionary:
|
| > raid (plural raids)
|
| > (military) A quick hostile or predatory incursion or invasion
| in a battle.
|
| > An attack or invasion for the purpose of making arrests,
| seizing property, or plundering.
|
| https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/raid
|
| Raid seems like the perfect word for this. Though the headline
| could make it a bit more clear that no police were involved
| jdm2212 wrote:
| How is knocking on someone's door an "incursion" or a
| "surprise attack"?
| wongarsu wrote:
| "sending heavy duty lawmen" that "made his wife cry first
| thing in the morning" talking about "stolen products and
| jailtime" who then "took everything, even the empty boxes
| and bags" seems like a surprise attack to me.
|
| That the attack depended on surprise and intimidation
| doesn't invalidate the use of attack or raid imho, that's
| the preferred outcome of any police raid too (and websters
| definition of attack is "to set upon or work against
| forcefully", no mention of physical violence).
| jdm2212 wrote:
| A police raid involves the express threat of violence if
| you don't comply -- that's what the guns and battering
| rams are for.
|
| A PI who's even vaguely trying to obey the law DEFINITELY
| does not expressly threaten you with violence, and won't
| allow any more than the barest implication either.
| cfeduke wrote:
| It's this definition of raid: "quickly and illicitly take
| something from (a place)" (versus the law enforcement
| version, where illicit is used instead to describe the
| goods which are taken by the police).
| jdm2212 wrote:
| If a PI knocks on your door and says "I represent X, you
| have in your possession property of theirs, you can turn
| it over to me now or you will face legal action" and then
| you turn the thing over... that is not them illicitly
| taking the thing. That is you and them resolving a
| dispute out of court.
|
| If the PI brings a bunch of big goons with guns and they
| imply that they'll kill you if you don't turn the thing
| over, then sure, that's a raid. But also you'd presumably
| call 911 immediately and file a police report stating
| that you were robbed.
| Reubachi wrote:
| This really doesn't belong on HN. Old story, editorialized, and
| ultimatley a non-story with no impact beyond WOTC looking
| foolish, which is not newsworthy.
| Freedom2 wrote:
| What's more important than all those factors is if it generates
| "curious" discussion. Reading through the comments, I indeed
| say it does!
| northernskys30 wrote:
| Feels like Inscryption
| (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inscryption).
| scrollaway wrote:
| Spoilers! But I vividly recommend this game to everyone. Do go
| in blind, though.
| BiteCode_dev wrote:
| Can confirm, this is a wonderful game that will do wonder if
| you avoid any kind of information before playing it.
|
| It has amazing creativity, novel and fun gameplay, a very
| strong personality and an opinionated design.
| tedunangst wrote:
| How many agents and how heavily armed? People are saying he was
| raided by a militia, but the available details don't seem to
| support that conclusion.
| OskarS wrote:
| I always wonder about stories like this what the internal process
| that lead to this insane overreaction was. At some point, did
| someone really make the decision "lets send Pinkertons to this
| guy's house, risking an enormous publicity backlash"? It's easy
| to blame "the legal department" for stuff like this, but it seems
| extreme even for the most zealous attorney.
|
| My hunch is that they probably have some kind of security
| contract with the Pinkertons to safeguard secrets, and the
| Pinkertons acted on their own. Hasbro/WotC has done some sketchy
| stuff recently, but this seems extreme even for them.
| lmkg wrote:
| > and the Pinkertons acted on their own
|
| Play Pinkerton games, win Pinkerton prizes.
|
| Or, less flippantly: _everyone knows_ who the Pinkertons are
| and what they do. And the fact that _everyone knows_ is, quite
| literally, the actual service that they offer. They will do
| such things without you have to explicitly tell them.
| philsnow wrote:
| I have literally never heard of this group. "Pinkerton" is
| the name of a Weezer album as far as I'm concerned.
| yamtaddle wrote:
| I doubt most people _do_ know the name. If you 're not into
| westerns and haven't read about the history of the labor
| movement or of US law enforcement (and they sure as shit
| don't teach those things in most schools, so you'd have to
| find it out on your own) you could easily go through life
| without ever learning who they were/are.
| phyllistine wrote:
| https://xkcd.com/1053/
|
| Aside from the xkcd, this 'everybody knows' effect can be
| domain specific. The people who hired the pinkertons, and
| any party interested in stealing corporate secrets, know
| who they are.
| orange_joe wrote:
| They have an outright ominous reputation from their
| historical involvement in violently suppressing the labor
| movement in the US. Because they're still corporate
| security, they've kept this reputation as corporate goons
| for hire.
| OkayPhysicist wrote:
| You should probably read up on some history. They have
| played a pivotal role (as the antagonists) in the labor
| movement in the United States. They were involved in some
| of the largest insurrections after the Civil War. Their
| name is scattered throughout American history, and not for
| their good deeds.
| jeffwask wrote:
| 100%
|
| Movies and TV often sow them as a policing the West in
| the early days of the US but what they should be known
| for is as thugs and strike breakers for hire who
| intimidate and threaten whoever you ask while providing
| distance and cover.
| jldugger wrote:
| > Hasbro/WotC has done some sketchy stuff recently, but this
| seems extreme even for them.
|
| I'm told their security executive used to be a pinkerton.
| duxup wrote:
| I feel bad for the possible guy in the room who said "Guys this
| seems like a bit much...." and then had to hear the response...
| JohnFen wrote:
| > My hunch is that they probably have some kind of security
| contract with the Pinkertons to safeguard secrets, and the
| Pinkertons acted on their own
|
| This is almost certainly the case, but Pinkerton was acting as
| agents of WotC here, so WotC are the ones ultimately
| responsible.
| OskarS wrote:
| For sure. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. I was just saying
| I'm always curious about what the processes are in companies
| that lead to these disastrous results.
| jmyeet wrote:
| The most interesting part of this (other than the completely
| unnecesary, tone-deaf corporate thuggery) is the involvement of
| the Pinkertons because many people don't know the history of the
| Pinkerton National Detective Agency, which was really prominent
| in the mid to late 19th century.
|
| At this time, the US had no real Federal law enforcement to speak
| of. That came later, modeled after the Pinkertons. Fun fact: the
| FBI evolved as a result of the Mann Act [1], which was aimed at
| stopped at white women being "trafficked" across state lines by
| black men so really it was misagenation.
|
| Anyway, the Pinkertons evolved as corporate muslce in the robber
| baron era. Strike-breaking, intimidation, sabotage, that sort of
| thing. At one point the Pinkertons were larger than the US Army.
| Thier downfall really began with with embarrassing incidents like
| the Homestead Strike [2].
|
| Honestly two of the better depictions of the Pinkertons come from
| fiction: HBO's excellent Deadwood series and Rockstar's Red Dead
| Redemption 2.
|
| The most important lesson here is that law enforcement in the US
| historically, culturally and actually exists to protect the
| interests of the wealthy, first and foremost.
|
| as for WotC, they could've made good PR out of this by asking
| nicely for the cards back and giving the person something for
| their troubles since ultimately the mistake was WotC's. But no,
| let's choose violence.
|
| [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mann_Act
|
| [2]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homestead_strike
| anonymouskimmer wrote:
| "miscegenation"
|
| Interestingly enough, the Mann Act was used to prosecute a
| high-and-mighty in the KKK:
| https://archives.fbi.gov/archives/news/stories/2004/march/kk...
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-05-17 23:02 UTC)