101–110 of 116 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They can already do that. They've always been able to do that. Consent circumvents nearly all legal protections.
Sure! But it's not a warrant-like system.
That's the part I was referring to. Anyone can provide footage from their cameras if they want.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Car thefts really are up across the country. This is unsurprising given the surging price of used cars & car parts.
I'd say it's unsurprising in Minneapolis since they've been actively curbing their police force https://alphanews.org/minneapolis-city-council-now-wants-mor...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this is the standard right-wing Seattleite bemoaning. Of course, what's always left unsaid is that the implied solution to the existence of homeless people is newly-hired & appropriately-worshipped cops kicking them out of their temporary shelter and trashing their meagre possessions. All so you don't have to look at and deal with the externalities of your nicely-appreciating property prices.
I have yet to hear a good answer to what people expect non federal governments to do, other than to keep people on the move and make it someone else’s problem. For the same reason no single city, county, or state can offer taxpayer funded healthcare, they also cannot offer taxpayer funded mental healthcare and/or universal basic income (or whatever other welfare scheme), and still be part of a country that has freedo…
With regard to homelessness, the solution is to build socialized housing with integrated health services. This will never happen at the federal level until some states (or counties, or cities) take the lead. In line with how a great many people believe federal politics should be.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is it about the program you don't agree with, if you don't mind elaborating?
I don't agree with the close ties between private residential camera systems and the police. This program, allows police to ask for footage from any camera without a warrant. Granted, its voluntary, there need to be checks within the program that prevent police from mass requesting camera footage without a legitimate reason. And I don't want that check to be individual private citizens who, given the least amount of…
I don't think the police started requesting camera footage of crimes from private citizens recently. It's just that they turned to businesses with security cameras.
I think realistically many people who own property cooperate with the police out of a definite sense of self-interest with no coercion required.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What is it about the program you don't agree with, if you don't mind elaborating?
Maybe close cooperation with the deeply corrupt and unjust police makes you complicit in the outcomes.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don’t know. On the one hand I get what you’re saying, that CHAZ was “peaceful” during the day in that it resembled a sort of low-tier art fair. On the other hand, it was an incredibly lawless hijacking of public property. Daily, thousands of people who use those roads or surrounding amenities (parks, businesses) were forced to find alternatives that took longer and were more crowded, right in the middle of the pand…
Yes, this is the standard right-wing Seattleite bemoaning. Of course, what's always left unsaid is that the implied solution to the existence of homeless people is newly-hired & appropriately-worshipped cops kicking them out of their temporary shelter and trashing their meagre possessions. All so you don't have to look at and deal with the externalities of your nicely-appreciating property prices.
Personal responsibility is a thing still, and people can live anywhere in America instead of trying to do so in an expensive location. And yes I expect not to have to look at open drug dens or bike chops shops, not experience property crime, not have parking spaces occupied by trashy RVs, and not see taxpayer funded amenities like parks taken over.
It has nothing to do with appreciating property prices and nothing to do with right wing politics. That’s just your inaccurate editorialization. Most people have a common sense expectation that a city be clean, lawful, and operated for the benefits of its legitimate tax paying residents, not drug addicted vagrants or irresponsible nomads.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, this is the standard right-wing Seattleite bemoaning. Of course, what's always left unsaid is that the implied solution to the existence of homeless people is newly-hired & appropriately-worshipped cops kicking them out of their temporary shelter and trashing their meagre possessions. All so you don't have to look at and deal with the externalities of your nicely-appreciating property prices.
The majority of homeless people in Seattle are not from Seattle. The point in time surveys aren’t real data because they rely on unverified self reported claims. The reality is that homeless are coached by activists to respond falsely on these surveys as former locals, to generate sympathy. Personal responsibility is a thing still, and people can live anywhere in America instead of trying to do so in an expensive loc…
You have no solutions to the problem. Your only recourse is to push the problem somewhere else. Utterly pathetic. No vision whatsoever.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> " The police have always done this " Assuming police in the 1840s couldn't find citizens with cameras watching the street, how long is your "always"? ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_... )
Since the advent of surveillance cameras I suppose. So, 1927? https://www.asecurelife.com/history-of-security-cameras/
Given that link, I would be very surprised if the Minnesota Police heard of Leo Theremin connecting a camera to a TV in the Kremlin in 1927 and immediately organised a map of citizens with cameras they could "ask if they have footage and are willing to share it"; the link says CCTV was a military thing until 1950, was expensive and uncommon until the 1960s because it needed someone always watching the feed, so ther ewouldn't have been any recordings for the police to view for over 40 years. Then "it wasn’t until the late 1990s that it started appearing in mainstream camera products like security cameras for the average business or home."
I'm guessing the time the police would routinely ask if anyone had footage of the crimes would be sometime after that, after CCTV recordings became popular enough in businesses that there was a good chance of a camera seeing a crime in enough cases to make it worth organising. Maybe mid to late 1990s for businesses? Then, individuals with things like Nest Doorbells ("homeowner surveillance camera program") wouldn't be a thing until maybe 2010s?
Which makes me think it's an odd thing to say the police "always did this".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Since the advent of surveillance cameras I suppose. So, 1927? https://www.asecurelife.com/history-of-security-cameras/
I was genuinely asking what you meant by "always" when the police have been around 180 years and the ability for individual homeowners to be recording footage of whatever they want in common usage has been around maybe 10 years. Given that link, I would be very surprised if the Minnesota Police heard of Leo Theremin connecting a camera to a TV in the Kremlin in 1927 and immediately organised a map of citizens with ca…
That's fair. My statement of 'always' referred to what's typical and standard prior to the change. I.e., what is the actual net change as a result of this program?
So far as I can tell, nothing really. Other than citizens voluntarily deciding to fill out a spreadsheet vs police needing to drive around and do it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The majority of homeless people in Seattle are not from Seattle. The point in time surveys aren’t real data because they rely on unverified self reported claims. The reality is that homeless are coached by activists to respond falsely on these surveys as former locals, to generate sympathy. Personal responsibility is a thing still, and people can live anywhere in America instead of trying to do so in an expensive loc…
Your bullshit assertion that homeless people aren’t from here can’t even stand up to the data, not even from any right-wing news source you can find, so you come up with an idiotic story about activists coaching the homeless to respond inaccurately to surveys. You have no solutions to the problem. Your only recourse is to push the problem somewhere else. Utterly pathetic. No vision whatsoever.
My “recourse”, which is to not let the homeless steal from legitimate residents, is the only reasonable solution. I certainly have no sympathy for the large number of drug addicted homeless taking advantage of the naivety of Seattle’s policies. But even for the rest - people need to figure out their own lives like the rest of us. No one is entitled to live in Seattle or New York City or Hawaii or other high demand, desirable, expensive location. Deterring the problem via enforcement and legal consequences doesn’t shift the problem - it addresses it by forcing people to be responsible, as long as other locations don’t try to accommodate them in the same broken ways.