211–220 of 326 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Afraid for your life if you were to confront the thief . That reasonably covers pretty much all cases, especially in a state where lots of people have guns.
In other words: don't be an idiot and call the cops instead. That's what they are supposed to be for!
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A catalytic converter can be replaced, a life cannot. So don't go around stealing catalytic converters. Same deal with states with "stand your ground laws". It's astonishingly easy to not get shot: don't invade someone's home. And on the "replacing" part- on whose dime? What if someone's only means of transportation is affected, and they lose wages or outright lose their job? Are you going to pay for it? Of course…
I agree with much more in your comment than I don't, but > It's astonishingly easy to not get shot: don't invade someone's home. Is pat to the point of naiveté. People get shot turning into the wrong driveway[1], or knocking on the wrong door[2]. If anything, it's astonishingly easy to get shot in the US of A. But, you probably meant something like that when you said > you don't want ordinary people shooting randomly…
Doesn't quite roll off the tongue, does it?
> If anything, it's astonishingly easy to get shot in the US of A.
No, not really. It's easier than other countries, but I'm afraid you've bought into media sensationalism. The country has a population of 349,000,000 people. There will be crazy incidents. And they won't happen to the vast majority of people, at least, people who aren't tempting fate by doing stupid things like home burglary. But the ones that do happen, can get televised around the world.
The way the news talks about life in the US is completely out of touch. I myself have pulled into random driveways perhaps dozens of times. It's not uncommon when navigating suburbia. The way the news discusses it, I should be dead probably a dozen times over. The problem is they never discuss all the other times people do that and nothing happens, which is nearly all of the time.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My comment may sound cliché, but I genuinely believe this, no material possession is worth more than a human life. A catalytic converter can be replaced, a life cannot.
> A catalytic converter can be replaced, a life cannot. So don't go around stealing catalytic converters. Same deal with states with "stand your ground laws". It's astonishingly easy to not get shot: don't invade someone's home. And on the "replacing" part- on whose dime? What if someone's only means of transportation is affected, and they lose wages or outright lose their job? Are you going to pay for it? Of course…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Right to privacy, is this not mega-obvious?
"Right to privacy" isn't a specific right in the US. Furthermore, being in the middle of a public roadway in a registered vehicle shouldn't confer the expectation of privacy, per Katz. Probably the closest case law is Carpenter, which only covers cell data and was specifically meant to apply narrowly to that type of info.
And this is where US caselaw and my personal beliefs about privacy start to differ. Why can't we expect some level of privacy in a public place? There are some countries that confer that, to certain levels.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, it's not called a "right", it's the fourth amendment, and federal statutes and state laws and whatnot. You got me there, pal ;) I didn't use the exact technical terms you expected, my argument is now void, nooo. I guess I should go and install one of those cameras right outside my house now.
"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" in case you forgot. I'm not saying you have to reply in a technical term - just explain how being seen and recorded driving down a public street, in a vehicle that's required to display an identifiable plate you've registered with the government, constitutes a search, seizure, or even an in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It also mentions: > theft during the nighttime, or criminal mischief during the nighttime. Seems like that qualifies
I think this even covers graffiti during the nighttime.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
All lives are not equal. The value of the life of a thief whose only impact on the society is negative, cannot be compared to e.g. a doctor.
Do you also define yourself according to the worst thing you've ever done?
For a country that staged a revolution over a tea tax modern Americans sure seem to love having their rights trampled.
What right does a Flock camera violate?
Such extensive surveillance is likely a necessary precondition for governments to be able to take any number of horribly authoritarian steps against their populace. Given the likelihood that this leads to violations of all other rights, I find it hard to argue that these cameras don't violate people's rights.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A catalytic converter can be replaced, a life cannot. So don't go around stealing catalytic converters. Same deal with states with "stand your ground laws". It's astonishingly easy to not get shot: don't invade someone's home. And on the "replacing" part- on whose dime? What if someone's only means of transportation is affected, and they lose wages or outright lose their job? Are you going to pay for it? Of course…
government / police should be able to handle this There's a classic saying: "When seconds count, the police are minutes away." ...and going back to the original topic, even the Flock cameras aren't going to stop criminals, if that's what you're implying.
The stolen goods have to be sold and bought somewhere. If they can't accomplish this with the vast resources available to them, (amongst other longstanding issues), then we should probably rethink the taxation process, the election process, or both.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That’s not a useful definition in a democracy. Who gets to define what’s justified if not the duly elected legislature? I bet if you put the current Texas law on the ballot today you’d get the same answer.
It is a useful definition, because it allows you to talk about places where the law might be unjust. You can't have a functioning democracy if it's impossible to criticise the current setup. This is the whole idea behind newspeak [1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newspeak
Unjust according to whom? Wouldn't it be better to just make our premises explicit?