• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Denver Police on Clairvoyants

How did the police do?

  • Acceptable. Belief systems are not their wheel house, and they stayed neutral.

    Votes: 8 24.2%

  • Meh. Maybe add something on the scientific efficacy of clairvoyance.

    Votes: 10 30.3%

  • Unacceptable. By not speaking against it, they sound like they support it.

    Votes: 14 42.4%

  • Not for me to judge. I trust they do their best in these situations.

    Votes: 1 3.0%

  • Planet X. Because i knew you’d vote Planet X.

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    33

Denver

Penultimate Amazing
Denver
Joined
Sep 8, 2007
Messages
10,015
I just read an account of another clairvoyant who milked their customer out of thousands of dollars.

In the story, the Denver Police gave the following advice:

Even if someone is clairvoyant, they can only see the future, they can’t shape it. And don’t pay for services up front -- get the product first and then provide payment.
Click to expand...


Personally I think that was ok (I voted 1). Their job is to protect the public and enforce the laws, not opine on belief systems. But I was wondering how others felt about that police statement?
 
Unacceptable as it supports the idea that people can see the future, therefore paying for such a service is also supported. It's just saying not to pay them before your reading.
 
Well, they did say "if". I would have preferred the use of subjunctive were, as in "Even if someone were clairvoyant...". But their statement can be read as a skeptical bit of advice that should be obvious.

I voted "meh".
 
It is not in the police's wheelhouse to declare belief systems valid or invalid. That would be "thoughtcrime"


It is not in the police's wheelhouse to prevent a person offering otherwise legal activities as a product, nor to set the price for any such services, nor tie such services to any expectation of actual future performance. Taken to a logical extreme that would outlaw higher education.

If the alleged clairvoyant crossed some other line of financial shenanigans the police and courts get involved, then it's an ordinary civic crime issue. That happens because scammers get into clairvoyance as a part of the craft of conning, not the other way around.
 
Last edited:
"Even if someone is clairvoyant, they can only see the future, they can’t shape it."

For example, a clairvoyant may see that you will die in a car accident tomorrow, and you will, but they can't actually stop you from driving tomorrow.


"And don’t pay for services up front -- get the product first and then provide payment."

For example, when it comes to vaccinating your children, you should not pay up front. Don't pay until you know that they didn't get diseased and also weren't harmed by the vaccine.
 
William Parcher said:
"Even if someone is clairvoyant, they can only see the future, they can’t shape it."

For example, a clairvoyant may see that you will die in a car accident tomorrow, and you will, but they can't actually stop you from driving tomorrow.


"And don’t pay for services up front -- get the product first and then provide payment."

For example, when it comes to vaccinating your children, you should not pay up front. Don't pay until you know that they didn't get diseased and also weren't harmed by the vaccine.
Click to expand...
You're working it too hard. I don't think this thread bends that far.
 
ddt said:
Wow. The "clairvoyant" wanted $55k for "candles and crystals", and their mark didn't smell a rat?

Methinks the Denver Police could have issued a stronger warning, and said at least that there's no scientific evidence of clairvoyance, not to say that all clairvoyance is a scam.
Click to expand...

"If" is the biggest word in the English language. You can hide just about anything behind one. In this case, "if" protects the police from trampling the rights or affecting the income of law abiding citizens offering legal business practices in the jurisdiction.
 
I can legally offer my services as a fortune teller, provided I operate my business in accordance with local practice: report income, pay taxes, register trade names as needed, pay employees and do withholding or whatever. Most of that's unneeded if it's me doing business under my own name and taking cash in trade for what is ultimately an exercise in free speech of an artistic nature.

I don't even need to conform to any trade licensing or approval. I can make up my own nonsense out of whole cloth, but that's harder to sell. It helps to have something known to market with. But if I sell "Jedi Secrets Fortune Telling" Disney gets to sue my ass.

And the police still don't get involved, even with unreported income and tax evasion added to the copyright infringement.

When it crosses into fraud or embezzlement complaints, then they come knocking.
 
Last edited:
I voted "Meh. Maybe add something on the scientific efficacy of clairvoyance" because in the general case I think that anyone working for the authorities should stick to objective facts, not their opinions either way. And 'something other scientific efficacy of clairvoyance' would be an unequivocable 'every piece of evidence produced with even a reasonable standard of scientific rigour'.

But I don't like the phrasing of the quote, it does imply that some people do have clairvoyant powers and in my opinion is not impartial.
 
Even if someone is clairvoyant, they can only see the future, they can’t shape it. And don’t pay for services up front -- get the product first and then provide payment.
Click to expand...

I think, semantically, this is an interesting comment in that it does make a statement about the abilities of clairvoyants i.e. that they can't shape the future.

But this is, of course, only subject to the claims of specific practitioners. There are certainly those that claim the future is in flux and foreknowledge can affect outcome.

If a clairvoyant tells you you'll be in a car accident next Tuesday, so then you stay in bed all day, they will undoubtedly claim they "shaped the future" in that way.

So I thought the "meh" option was closest to my thoughts. It's not a bad statement, but it's not clear enough nor does it go quite far enough.
 
Why do you think the police busted the clairvoyant?

Probably not because it sounded like clairvoyance was a scam. There are plenty around operating 'legally'.

Was it because they did not provide the promised service? Possibly that pushed it more into the scam or rip-off category, so they could take action.

But I think it may have been that other quote:

...when the clairvoyant began telling the man that bad things were going to happen to him if he did not pay, he contacted police.
Click to expand...

So was it the threat that allowed the police to take action, and not the ridiculous amount of money being asked with (as yet) no service provided?

ETA: As I re-read, I'm not even sure the clairvoyant was busted at all.
 
Last edited:
Vortigern99 said:
Well, they did say "if". I would have preferred the use of subjunctive were, as in "Even if someone were clairvoyant...". But their statement can be read as a skeptical bit of advice that should be obvious.

I voted "meh".
Click to expand...

Agree. Or use wording something like: "Even if you believe that someone is clairvoyant, be skeptical/cautious and..."
 
So according to the police it's OK to give a clairvoyant $50K for predicting the sun will rise in the morning, as long as you wait until it's up there in the sky before going to the bank.

Perhaps a better wording would have been, "Clairvoyants who are not fraudulent are deluded, so don't give them your money."
 
Unacceptable.

Denver said:
I just read an account of another clairvoyant who milked their customer out of thousands of dollars.

In the story, the Denver Police gave the following advice:

“Even if someone is clairvoyant, they can only see the future, they can’t shape it,” DPD warned on Facebook. “And don’t pay for services up front -- get the product first and then provide payment.”
Click to expand...


Personally I think that was ok (I voted 1). Their job is to protect the public and enforce the laws, not opine on belief systems. But I was wondering how others felt about that police statement?
Click to expand...


Given what is known about "clairvoyants," "psychics," and gypsy scams, I find the Denver Police Department's statement to be inaccurate, incomplete, and therefore, unacceptable.

According to the Denver Police Department's facebook post, "IT’S FRAUDAY: CLAIRVOYANT SCAM" posted December 9 at 12:07pm, the situation is based on a report of fraud by computer, that was filed:
On November 15, 2016, officers responded to a report of fraud by computer.
Click to expand...


It would be interesting to have more details about this report, such as the "clairvoyant's" name, where the "clairvoyant's" physical location is/was, and more details about the (alleged) fraud.
 
People who claim to be clairvoyant, or who offer clairvoyant services, are citizens, just like any other. They are entitled to not have their beliefs or legal business dealings undermined or delegitimized by the pronouncements of government agents.
 
theprestige said:
People who claim to be clairvoyant, or who offer clairvoyant services, are citizens, just like any other. They are entitled to not have their beliefs or legal business dealings undermined or delegitimized by the pronouncements of government agents.
Click to expand...


I agree. That's what First Amendment, (protected) freedom of speech is for, and the protection of one's civil rights.

But free speech has limitations (in the United States), such as an illegal act or advocacy of an illegal act, fighting words, or incitement, commercial speech, False Statements of facts like in defamation/libel/slander, child pornography, and obscenity.

There is the harm principle and free speech that should not be protected free speech.

This instance cited in the OP of a Denver Police Department report may constitute an illegal act- not protected free speech- but that apparently has yet to been determined.

I find the wording of the Denver PD statement regarding "clairvoyants" troubling.

The Denver PD statement on facebook of: "Even if someone is clairvoyant" could lead someone to infer that someone is "clairvoyant" -- but there is no evidence that anyone possesses "clairvoyant" abilities.

And, when the Denver PD continued with, "get the product first and then provide payment." That could potentially be problematic because it could either delve into unprotected First Amendment free speech, and/or could be at a point where a crime has already occurred.

For me, the DPD wording could've been better.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom