Police can’t demand you reveal your phone passcode then tell a jury you refused

Paid $15,000. I have a huge ankle monitor like 4000 others in the city. I'm technically confined to my bedroom at all times now instead of a jail cell, thus I can hang out on HN.

> tough policing

This phrase omits the key issue: Crime, physical abuse, and political suppression by the legal system (including law enforcement officers), unrelated to reducing crime. When police arrest or shoot, DAs prosecute, and courts jail innocent people, it doesn't reduce crime. And criminalizing harmless activity, such as using marijuana, increases crime (including by creating a black market) and does nothing for public safety.

If we're going to be 'tough on crime', why aren't we tough on people in power or on ethnicities with power. How is that related to reducing crime?

> One option is to accept that hey, the government can't really stop all this crime, so let's not investigate or prosecute that much. This is the approach taken by the latest crop of liberal DAs.

That's not the approach, only the false characterization by political enemies. The approach is that the behavior I described above has nothing to do with reducing crime; it is criminal and should stop (this seems so obvious that it doesn't bear explanation). And that mass incarceration hasn't worked - the war on drugs was ineffective (and arguably a means of political oppression of minorities) - damages communities socially and economically (when large segments lose parents and felons are unable to work productively), and of course is harmful to its victims. let's find out what works and implement it.

Some things that work to reduce drug crime are sites where people can obtain and use drugs safely, decriminalization of drugs (especially harmless ones such as marijuana), and treatment of drug addiction as illness (which is what is already done to drugs for wealthy people). Also, providing services to young people, including activities, quality schooling, mental healthcare and counseling, as well as means for a hopeful future, do a lot to reduce crime.

> And it's been a disaster for local communities.

Do you have evidence of that? Crime is generally at generational lows, though shootings have been up during the pandemic. Can you show a correlation between these new approaches and increased crime?

Critically, people in those communities don't agree: They've long asked for these approaches and vote in large numbers for these DAs. It's people outside those communities that, bizarrely, try to overrule them and impose these things on them. That looks like political oppression to me; what other business do these outsiders have?

It seems you are assuming I respond this way no matter what and slare simply pushing your understanding/interpretation as truth. Instead of saying that it's just one side and that if I don't see it now, then I never will, maybe you could give detailed examples? I did ask before if there was any evidence that only one side proposed legislation, yet there was no response. So it should not be that there is a free pass by eliminating opposition, but rather ensuring that any opposition is well based in facts and proven beyond a reasonable doubt (which can vary substantially).

You mention things like bullying, political violence, etc. Yet I see that sort of thing with both sides on a variety of issues. It's also important to note that in many cases the troublemakers are a very small minority and do not represent the true virtues of any movement. Yet we see the media portray the "other" side using those worst aspects rather than having a meaningful discussion.

> You're saying that inalienable rights might exist, depending on US policy?

Yes, in practice if not in principle or statute. American citizens and their citizen children have been murdered by drones without a jury trial or public hearing, or much of any due process which may be examined by the public openly. We take the US at their word when we say inalienable rights exist, but their behavior suggests that the US doesn’t respect inalienable rights or view them as an impediment to implementing unconstitutional US policy or performing acts contravening said inalienable rights.

> If the US doesn't respect inalienable rights, then non-citizens should have them?

Extradition to US has been blocked on a case-by-case basis by foreign courts due to observable effects of American courts not even meeting their own regulatory bar of speedy, fair, public trials, trials where you may confront your accuser in open court, with a jury of your peers. Parallel construction makes a mockery of the investigatory chain of evidence. Fruit of the poison tree doctrine is DOA. Secret grand juries are lied to in order to force unjustifiable, indefensible charges. Secret evidence and secret trials. Are secret convictions and secret imprisonment next? Indefinite detention without charge already gets US government 90% of the way there.

> I don't see any connection, and you seem to also be saying you believe in inalienable rights which are alienable.

I believe in inalienable rights, in that the concept is an unequivocal social good, but rights are not only what are claimed, but that which can be exercised freely and without undue restraint; I also believe that the government doesn’t act as if it has a good faith belief in ensuring that inalienable rights exist to begin with, nor does the US seem intent on defending them in all cases. In practice, inalienable rights don’t exist. This should change in my view.

Having a cop point a gun at you because he thinks you are possibly in the process of committing a felony is reason enough for suspension in many European countries like Germany and Switzerland, for example.

I know that this discussion is about US law, but I want to add this here to put in perspective how skewed law enforcement regulation is in the US.

Much of what's perfectly acceptable in the US would be considered abuse of power in Europe. Such as pointing a gun at someone just because that someone could possibly be in the process of committing a felony.