51–60 of 216 posts
This is the big problem with mass surveillance as a whole. With enough time, they'll find some pretext to bring you in, even if the original crime they want you for is weak. This will ruin lives, even if they're eventually let go. Jobs lost, evicted from homes, cars towed, pets surrendered and put down. Lives will be completely derailed, police and judges will not be held accountable. The wrongful arrestees will stil…
is anyone else old enough to remember when cops first got tasers suddenly EVERYONE was getting tased it's like that give them a new "toy" to combat violent crime and instead it's used on everything else because zero repercussions I am starting to see Flock on the side of the road at every major shopping center unfortunately like "kavanaugh stops" I suspect the supreme court is going to put their permission into concr…
Indeed. Like, no shit strapping a camera and microphone and sending it to an all knowing AI to analyze it all is going to reduce crime. But it's a violation of our human rights.
It's clear these people do not understand the importance of privacy or rights. Crime is already decreasing. The bigger improvements would come from improving society, not restricting people's rights for more "safety".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The article is wrong on this point: the fact that he was crossing state lines was not a pretext for the stop. They actually wanted to add another charge. The cameras helped them find the right opportunity to do that. If they just picked him up driving around, they would only be able to charge those existing crimes. By waiting for him to cross state lines, they have a chance to add on another charge. They already had…
Unless I'm misreading this is all covered explicitly in the article.
Unless this jurisdiction is an outlier, the pretext wasn't needed for the search. As the parent comment says, the cops used the interstate travel as a timing strategy to increase the charges.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think using technology to capture alleged criminals is a good thing.
does this work for any allegation? if it was a serious one surely they could get a warrant. if it's not enough for that it might as well be gossip imo.
If I asked a random person about this, they'd probably just say - "but they found weed, right?"
I am misunderstanding the article, if "The searches came to light in a Wisconsin criminal complaint against Edward Abrams-Phillips, who was wanted for bail jumping on domestic violence charges." he was wanted, why do they need a pretext for the stop?
Ok, the article is confusing but the complaint is a little better. > The vehicle was registered to Edward 12-01-1993. Edward had an active Brown County felony warrant with nationwide extradition. so he wasn't just wanted but also had an active warrant. > Multiple Deputies checked the area but were unable to locate the vehicle at that time Police tried arresting him before, but couldn't find him. The police then used…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
"Even if they're wrong, you can't shoot back." Depends on the situation. You'd absolutely be arrested. Get in front of a jury of 12 people and you might have a chance if you have enough evidence for a self-defense claim and the cop acting outside of the law.
Only if the jury believes in nullification, which isn't common. The jury is instructed to follow the law. The selection process asks "even if you think they were right, if it's against the law and they were guilty would you issue a guilty verdict?" and people answer "yes" consistently.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Maybe they can start enforcing the law when it comes to blatant offenders that terrorize large cities. Illegal blocking of sidewalk selling fake handbags, selling untaxed marijuana on street corners, violating traffic laws on e-bikes. A lot of wood to chop before they get to my jay walking so I think I’m safe for the time being. But I welcome more enforcement
Brother, you want mass surveillance because of bikes, handbags, and weed. I guarantee there is _some_ group that finds some aspect of you, your life, or that of some of your loved ones at least as annoying as you find those things.