Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Texas police invested in phone-tracking software and won’t say how it’s used

texasobserver.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 135 posts

Re: Texas police invested in phone-tracking software and won’t say how it’s used

#81

Post by a123b456c »

aeonik wrote: post #51
collingreen wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't the muskets version of that argument I have heard. The version I've heard is that the firearm technology when the second amendment was ratified was very different than today and that makes it worth evaluating if we want to amend it again. Similarly the military landscape looks very different as well such that there's a very different risk of foreign armies taking ground and citizens everywhere needing to b…

When the second amendment was ratified, privately owned warships were a regular thing for the wealthy. They would absolutely not have a problem with modern weapons. They would probably have allowed private ownership of missiles launchers with the right authorization. They were pretty clear that the average person should have the same capability as the state. They were a different breed. I think nuclear weapons would…

claims like these require a source

Re: Texas police invested in phone-tracking software and won’t say how it’s used

#82

Post by aeonik »

a123b456c wrote: post #81
aeonik wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When the second amendment was ratified, privately owned warships were a regular thing for the wealthy. They would absolutely not have a problem with modern weapons. They would probably have allowed private ownership of missiles launchers with the right authorization. They were pretty clear that the average person should have the same capability as the state. They were a different breed. I think nuclear weapons would…

claims like these require a source

Source for what?

That Thomas Jefferson would be cagey around nukes?

Or sources that Privateers were a thing?

Re: Texas police invested in phone-tracking software and won’t say how it’s used

#84

Post by wbobeirne »

codezero wrote: post #75
thesmtsolver2 wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_police_offic...

you link to a page with convicted police numbering in the tens in a nation of 340 million people, with a police force on the order of a million. I wouldn't believe you in a second if you said that the police commit crimes at a rate of 0.0001 per capita. That's absurd. You're basically verifying the claim that the police are not held accountable for breaking the law. Great work. If that was your intent, please do more…

Those are the ones that were high profile enough to warrant a Wikipedia page, it's not exhaustive. Here's a more comprehensive database: https://policecrime.bgsu.edu/

Re: Texas police invested in phone-tracking software and won’t say how it’s used

#85

Post by qingcharles »

thesmtsolver2 wrote: post #69
sneak wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They’re comfortable saying this because the US doesn’t have the rule of law, as evidenced by laws not applying to police.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_police_offic...

OK, now do prosecutors :)

Re: Texas police invested in phone-tracking software and won’t say how it’s used

#86

Post by xethos »

wbobeirne wrote: post #84
codezero wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

you link to a page with convicted police numbering in the tens in a nation of 340 million people, with a police force on the order of a million. I wouldn't believe you in a second if you said that the police commit crimes at a rate of 0.0001 per capita. That's absurd. You're basically verifying the claim that the police are not held accountable for breaking the law. Great work. If that was your intent, please do more…

Those are the ones that were high profile enough to warrant a Wikipedia page, it's not exhaustive. Here's a more comprehensive database: https://policecrime.bgsu.edu/

You're still citing arrested, not charged and convicted though. Those are all different, with no guarantee of the officers facing repercussions beyond a brief arrest. While those are still consequences, they have to be consistently applied (which they don't seem to be for police officers in America) or have consequences for consistently poorly behaved officers

Re: Texas police invested in phone-tracking software and won’t say how it’s used

#89

Post by parineum »

OGEnthusiast wrote: post #28
therobots927 wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You get it. I’m also concerned that we’re past the point of no return.

We're already past the point of no return IMO. It's why people are having fewer kids.

They do surveys where they ask these questions. That's not a common answer.

Re: Texas police invested in phone-tracking software and won’t say how it’s used

#90

Post by Terr_ »

15155 wrote: post #71
Terr_ wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd argue the modern equivalent would be anything you can mount/move with a pick up or a trailer. So a machine-gun, but not a howitzer. Either way, those "field pieces" were the property of the state, that it was expected to supply by the AoC treaty, rather than something individuals were expected to bring along.

The Constitution explicitly states the government may grant "Letters of Marque and Reprisal" to private citizens. What are those private citizens attacking enemy ships with exactly - strong words?

Was... was that nonsense supposed to be some kind of "gotcha"?

Giving the federal government the option to deputize individuals as international agents does not even remotely suggest that States were agreeing to completely abolish all their local gun-laws for all time.

That's like claiming the permission to establish a national postal service somehow bars States from having DUI laws, because any drunkard could maybe suddenly be hired as a postman.

Post reply on HN