171–180 of 211 posts
Wow, NYPD is full of people who support Israel?
The article says he was suspected of hate crime assault. Then the police has a duty to act. Edit: While I said "duty" I meant that I really hope the that the police investigate all allegations of hate crime assault properly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is very bad to throw spears at people, despite the existence of nuclear weapons.
Yes, but throwing a spear and detonating a nuclear weapon are not equal levels of violating. They're both on the spectrum, but there is still a big difference
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I've noticed many right-leaning tech types give quite a lot of lip service to free speech when it's about someone getting banned from a mailing list for being an asshole, and not so much when it's the government quashing protest against genocide. I'll personally always defend the idea of free speech, no matter the side.
I've been pretty consistent in terms of supporting people saying things and even expressing views I find abhorrent. I don't consider throwing rocks/bricks at people "free speech". I also don't consider launching fireworks into crowded buildings "free speech" either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The cop emailed the Fire Marshal who technically does investigations for stuff like arson. Maybe that's the justification for it, not sure.
Same operating model of law enforcement laundering their data requests on the Flock Safety/Group ALPR platform through adjacent agencies who have access. My hot take is this should be a termination and criminal offense in public employment (as a cybersecurity/risk mgmt practitioner).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Same operating model of law enforcement laundering their data requests on the Flock Safety/Group ALPR platform through adjacent agencies who have access. My hot take is this should be a termination and criminal offense in public employment (as a cybersecurity/risk mgmt practitioner).
This sounds great. Have your clients or employers followed this advice?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Self defense isn't "you killed 1,200 people of our people so we're going to kill 60,000+ of your people (majority of which are children), destroy any all your hospitals and educational centers and prevent basics like food, water and medical supplies from getting to you." At what point do you listen to humanitarian organizations and the UN? Amazing that you think 24 people is a genocide but not 60,000+.
It is self-defense by any means. You might want to argue that it is unfair as a revenge or something?
Self defense usually implies a "reasonable" use of force, what's happening there hasn't been reasonable for more than a year now.
If someone points a gun at you you can kill them, that's self defense, if you burn their entire village down, track and kill their family members 3 generations up it's not self defense anymore
How many rights will we be asked to give up in order to squash anti-war sentiment?
[flagged]
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Indeed. The 2nd amendment and the notion that we have physical power over the government is going to be whittled away as facial recognition and omnipresent government spying via data brokers gives them all the info they need to spy on every citizen, all the time. AI means they don't only collect all the data they want for when they need it ala NSA 2008, but they can have a robot army of analysts transcribe photos and…
at least in government there are paths to discovery; corporate applications on the other hand..
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This guy was accused of hurling a rock at a protester, it seems we are trying to defend the right to peaceful protest? Like, this guy was identified off video of him throwing a rock at a protester that hit them in the face. By all accounts this is someone who is trying to violently suppress peoples rights. That he got off on police misconduct in the investigation is a loss to society, no matter how many waxing words…
That's a separate issue. The US is an exception where evidence that is collected illegally (see 'fruit of the poisonous tree' - https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree ) is not allowed in court. Thus, US law enforcements have come up with many creative means (like Parallel Construction - https://restorethe4th.com/our-new-brief-on-parallel-construc... ) to hide the fact that evidence was collected…
Saying that fruit of the poisonous tree is not admissible is a vast understatement of the complexity of this area of law.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but throwing a spear and detonating a nuclear weapon are not equal levels of violating. They're both on the spectrum, but there is still a big difference
I don't see how the spectrum is relevant. Murdering one person is not as bad as murdering 100. Still a murderer.
Like, is a victim of life threatening domestic violence who shoots their abuser during an attack a "murderer"? Or is an abuser who killed their spouse in a rage a "murderer"? Obviously these are different and the prosecution/defense hash that out over a very, very long time.
Details matter. Ask any public defender.