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

Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

404media.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 214 posts

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#71

Post by hereme888 »

ck2 wrote: post #32

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…

Um, what? Have you seen any cop tasing videos? I've never seen it abused in every video I've seen (hundreds).

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#72

Post by ux266478 »

TZubiri wrote: post #25

I don't quite get the thesis of the author here. Regardless of the view that one may have on Cannabis laws, they are illegal, if the system is correctly detaining people that break those laws, and you have a problem with that, is the problem with the enforcement system or the law? If you don't like some aspect of this, should you be campaigning for removal of flock cameras? Or campaigning for cannabis rights and Cont…

I think the problem is that you're implicitly assuming a mutual exclusion, but it doesn't exist. IE you can have a problem with the law's existence, and also have a problem with an enforcement system that selectively enforces laws out of malice and/or as a false pretense. These are pretty synergistic values, as a matter of fact.

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#73

Post by natebc »

bko wrote: post #63
contagiousflow wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> terrorize large cities Oh I wonder what kind of terror he's talking about > Illegal blocking of sidewalk selling fake handbags Jesus Christ. If this is what brings you to a surveillance state with open arms maybe you should talk to people outside of your bubble.

It doesn't have to be like this. Why do you accept it? Serious question. You don't need a surveillance state. How many indignities do you stomach for what exactly? Some false sense of freedom? Freedom to buy illegal unlicensed untaxed weed? Freedom to get run over by a delivery ebike?

[dead]

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#74

Post by mannanj »

MSFT_Edging wrote: post #11

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…

Maybe the goal isn't really to protect the public's interests, but to protect a privileged class of people.

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#75

Post by blamecanada69 »

cmrdporcupine wrote: post #28
cucumber3732842 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This will ruin lives, even if they're eventually let go. Jobs lost, evicted from homes, cars towed, pets surrendered and put down. Yes. That's exactly the point. Comply with every little thing, no matter how absurd, or else your life will unravel. Look through a historical comment (especially from back when "big data" was the buzzword) thread on any subject where HN is pro regulation and pro government. This is EXAC…

All very terrifying but you're building a "Hollow Man" by using an "Appeal to Extremes". Instead of arguing against actual regulatory policy, you are mind-reading malicious intent into hypothetical scenarios (and people) you just invented. Or real examples that you're broadstroking against a "they" which is somehow "HN." I am not sure how you can justify trying to paint so broad a stroke across an entire community, o…

We don't need Canadians telling Americans that we're wrong to worry about American police, or that we need to be more specific with our concerns.

American police kill over 1,000 civilians and 10,000 dogs per year.

They routinely wrongly arrest people, and create life-ruining situations, especially as American workers do not enjoy as much job protection as Canadian workers.

I get that you want to be offended by his post, but maybe you should question why exactly you're offended at a post that has, at its heart, a lot of actual reality about life in America.

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#76

Post by cmrdporcupine »

blamecanada69 wrote: post #75
cmrdporcupine wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All very terrifying but you're building a "Hollow Man" by using an "Appeal to Extremes". Instead of arguing against actual regulatory policy, you are mind-reading malicious intent into hypothetical scenarios (and people) you just invented. Or real examples that you're broadstroking against a "they" which is somehow "HN." I am not sure how you can justify trying to paint so broad a stroke across an entire community, o…

We don't need Canadians telling Americans that we're wrong to worry about American police, or that we need to be more specific with our concerns. American police kill over 1,000 civilians and 10,000 dogs per year. They routinely wrongly arrest people, and create life-ruining situations, especially as American workers do not enjoy as much job protection as Canadian workers. I get that you want to be offended by his po…

Because said person is sitting here saying "HN is stupid", it has nothing to do with the police, but the audience he's going after.

Read what he wrote and I wrote again. Nobody is excusing American police. I'm griping about his attempts to smear random people on this forum.

Nowhere did I tell you you're wrong to worry about American police. FFS, I worry about American police and I don't live there. Hence why I won't even go there.

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#77

Post by git-nebulous »

giantg2 wrote: post #22
MSFT_Edging wrote: post #11

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…

"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.

If you survive to get in front of a jury. That's a big if. Plus, even if you were falsely arrested and wounded by police and your rights clearly violated... were they violated in that EXACT same way in the past establishing precedent that it isn't ok to stalk/injure people? No? Qualified Immunity. FTP.

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#78

Post by Der_Einzige »

insanitybit wrote: post #41
giantg2 wrote: post #22

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.

As I rudely learned when I was preparing to use the "I'm gonna do jury nullification" thing during a jury selection, there are a few states, including mine, where jury nullification is explicitly "not-stated" but not a uniquely acceptable reason to strike a juror, despite what our juror handbook might claim about violating an "oath" (you cannot be punished for "violating an oath" if you are selected).

I was lucky that for unrelated reasons the trial didn't happen and none of the jury selection stuff went through, but in a few states you cannot just rely on this as an easy out. This is awesome, because for true believers, you can actually do jury nullification. This was actually somewhat recently and notably used: https://www.eenews.net/articles/bundys-acquitted-in-huge-set...

Re: Cops Used Flock to Track a Man Across State Lines for a Pretextual Weed Search

#80

Post by sylos »

segmondy wrote: post #31
MSFT_Edging wrote: post #11

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…

Someone that is innocent is going to get killed soon because flock flagged them incorrectly. I recall reading the auto journalist that got flagged for a stolen car while test driving a car. We have seen how often pull over/arrests can derail when a stupid cop that is aggressive pulls out their weapon first, fires fast and then investigates last. An innocent person that reacts wrongly is eventually going to make the n…

They have already destroyed at least one life. There was that woman arrest
Post reply on HN