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

Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 223 posts

Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car

#131

Post by Spooky23 »

Broken_Hippo wrote: post #98
wodenokoto wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So police and firefighters shouldn’t be allowed to run red lights?

Well, this depends. On the way to an emergency? Of course they should. And people should pull over. And only sometimes while on the job. For example, if they catch someone for speeding and happen to go through a red light, I don't find that to be a grave thing. Speeding is easily a public hazard. Going off to investigate a theft where the thief has left the property, though? No need to run the light as the delay won'…

They have protocols for that and generally follow them.

Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car

#133

Post by [deleted] »

tsimionescu wrote: post #57
giancarlostoro wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Worse is the whole guilty until proven innocent scenario the media (and our society) has created. All it takes is being a suspect once to have your life turned inside out. For years people will suspect you of whatever horrors were committed by someone else. The founding fathers are rolling over as they say if they heard where this country has gone.

You can't say that media and public shame are worse than the abuses of the criminal justice system. Your life may get turned upside down if you are simply accused of some crimes (especially sexual crimes), but you may very well bounce back. Getting rightly accused of possession of light drugs and ending up in prison is a much worse outcome, and it happens to many, many times more people. And unlike the celebrities th…

[deleted]

Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car

#134

Post by giancarlostoro »

manigandham wrote: post #99
tsimionescu wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't say that media and public shame are worse than the abuses of the criminal justice system. Your life may get turned upside down if you are simply accused of some crimes (especially sexual crimes), but you may very well bounce back. Getting rightly accused of possession of light drugs and ending up in prison is a much worse outcome, and it happens to many, many times more people. And unlike the celebrities th…

How is actually committing a crime and going to prison somehow worse than being wrongfully accused and affected for life?

Agreed. People who willfully commit crimes know what they are doing is wrong and can get them in jail or worse. Those around them and before them have likely been caught before.

Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car

#135

Post by JustSomeNobody »

brobdingnagians wrote: post #115

This is the interesting statement to me: > “But something is left on your car — even if you know it’s the police that are tracking you, you have an obligation to leave it there and let them track you?” If you can compel someone to leave surveillance on private property, where does this precedent make a distinction. Could they leave surveillance cameras in your home and compel you to leave them there?

At this point how does the 5th not play into this?

Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car

#136

Post by caf »

amelius wrote: post #109
cm2187 wrote: post #95

That part doesn’t sound right: > trackers placed by the government under a warrant are distinct from those placed by private citizens. Removing a device from a car where it has a legal basis to be “deprives the police of its use,” he claimed, and constitutes a crime. You have no way to tell a police tracker from a stawker’s one. How can removing it possibly constitute a crime?

He should have mailed the device to the police. Then again, even if he disposed the device, the police should have been able to track it down.

Or just stuck it on a cop car.

Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car

#138

Post by dsfyu404ed »

caf wrote: post #136
amelius wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He should have mailed the device to the police. Then again, even if he disposed the device, the police should have been able to track it down.

Or just stuck it on a cop car.

Random semi trailer would have definitely thrown them for a loop when it drives 8hr straight out of their jurisdiction.

Shipped to Mexico would have been a good one as well.

Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car

#139

Post by nothrabannosir »

thomasfedb wrote: post #112
nothrabannosir wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not OP, but: not per se , no. Only in the pursuit of some specific task which requires them to do that. Just like a citizen can run a red light if they have to rush someone to a hospital. Or at least I’d hope they can.

It's probably a defence rather than being directly permissable.

Sure, but in the context of an ethics exploring thought experiment, those are the same. This is about what the law should be (if I understand the game correctly).

Re: Indiana man charged with theft for removing police tracking device from car

#140

Post by roenxi »

Aloha wrote: post #86
x220 wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Police de facto have more rights because they can expect lenient punishment (or no punishment) for crimes they commit even when out of uniform. You can argue until you're blue in the face about de jure rights but those don't matter very much when a cop pulls you over and fears for his life.

Not by intention however, but I'd mostly agree they do in practice.

Linking cause and effect in the big picture is too slow to stop and worry about intent. History is replete with horrific injustices that didn't happen because anyone intended it to turn out that way.

Intent is a reasonable yardstick to assess who goes to jail and who doesn't. It is a terrible way to deal with systems and processes. There isn't time and it isn't productive to defend a system with bad incentives and outcomes because it wasn't intended to be that way.

Post reply on HN