221–230 of 248 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Perfekt enforcement never existed and our current laws were written for a reality where that was an impossibility. Not considering second order effects is reckless IMHO.
Turns out if you let private company do it, then its totally possible and constitutional.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I used to know some govvies who were FBI analysts. There are more foiled terrorism plots than get reported for sure. That is the word at least at the FBI as of maybe 15 years ago.
Equally likely is that your friends were trying to make themselves sound more important and made unverifiable statements and let your existing trust relationship do the lifting. That kid in middle school didn't have a girlfriend in Canada, and the FBI (documented on multiple occasions to have fabricated and entrapped people into "terror plots") didn't quietly stop a ton of terrorist plots.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
When I was younger, in the summer, when I had a (very dark) tan and worked a night job which involved my driving around at odd hours I would get pulled over once or twice each summer for pretty flimsy reasons which equated to me matching the profile of the sort of person the police officer in question felt should be stopped/questioned. It should be a quick bit of data work for records to be made of such stops based o…
The arrest/conviction generally follow the pulled over stopped rates. It's pretty hard to arrest/convict people you aren't stopping. These types of biases and stereo types are often pervasive within certain groups of people, including law enforcement, prosecutors, judges, and often the subset of the local community in power. If you've ever been to court (even traffic court) you'll find the word of the officer is give…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is not an issue with bad policing, but bad policy.
If your notion of good/bad policing is predicated on perfect policy, your notion of good/bad policing does not survive contact with the real world. I expect this argument is actually a poison pill for some anarchist or libertarian fantasy of “if the laws fit onto a single sheet of paper all these problems would just go away”.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
More police are shot and killed every year than people who were accidentally shot by police. Imagine if they didn't approach every high-risk situation with guns drawn. There would be orders of magnitude more officers killed.
This is not correct. to the best of my memory, no year since the 90s has had more than 100 or 200 total officer fatalities in the line of duty. Police routinely kill 3 people a day. it's a pretty high bar to say that all three people the police kill every day were warranted. most line of duty deaths involve not wearing a seatbelt.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is obviously true... but also a fairy tale hypothetical, and we are in the real world. So the question is, what's the solution, right now? Not 200 years ago.
A fairy tale? The UK, Australia, and Brazil all have something to say about that claim. In developed countries, the United States is an extreme outlier so why pretend this is a completely unapproachable problem? Our constitution itself gives us a blueprint because it states, in no uncertain terms, a "well-regulated militia"; not "each individual citizen".
Why did they need to have guns drawn and that many cops, even if the flag had been correct? A car involved in a homicide investigation doesn't mean it's even being driven by the suspect. It's not a positive ID at all
We don't the details of the flag. In general cops err on the side of protecting themselves from danger and I can't fault them for that. How would you approach a car whose driver is suspected of homicide? Obviously someone made a mistake here but I'm not sure this has anything to do with Flock. The car had an "APB" out. We want cops to pull over "wanted" cars, right?
don't?
wait until they are out of the car and you can tell that they arent armed and also arent wieldign a deadly weapon -the car itself.
flock is adding a false urgency
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If police treat every situation as a potentially dangerous engagement, they're actually actually increasing the likelihood that dangerous engagements occur.
I agree, but "this car was used in a homicide" is pretty unambiguously a high-risk stop.
We shouldn't be wasting time figuring out how to make these tools usable. A healthy society requires privacy and a healthy society leads to long term safety trends. Mass surveillance as a tool, fundamentally, even if perfectly implemented and used, is fundamentally flawed and unfixable since it destroys the long term health of society. That is why I am against Flock and similar technologies.