61–70 of 211 posts
[flagged]
“It is better, so the Fourth Amendment teaches us, that the guilty sometimes go free than the citizens be subject to easy arrest.” - Former Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Cause israel. The fire marshal probably is pro-israel or israel has dirt on him. All because of a protest against a foreign country committing acts of genocide. It's unbelievable when you think about it.
[flagged]
And? Do you think the authorities would go to such extremes over a rock throwing incident if it didn't involve israel? Better yet, if it was the pro-israel counter-protestor throwing the rock, do you think the authorities would have wasted a second investigating the matter? Let alone breaking the law to get the suspect?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I remember a case (in Eastern Europe) where someone who took a video of their colleagues sleeping during a night shift got in trouble for the usage of phone (which is known to be used BTW), and nothing happened to the ones sleeping through the night shift. We are talking about a facility full of people with dementia and are known to go back and forth the hospital for serious falls and all that (at night, too). So bac…
Which is in some ways similar to the case in this article. The police violated department policy to identify the student who hurled a rock at another student . And the article is somehow painting the rock-throwing attacker as a victim, even talking about the attacker's complaints that they were identified and are now receiving hate mail.
Allegedly. The article doesn't mention any evidence that he actually did.
> "Per the record before this court, there is no additional evidence connecting the defendant to the alleged incident — no surveillance video to and from his home, no independent identification by others in attendance."
No evidence.
> "This case is premised on the complainant's word that he was the target of criminal actions by another person, and that other person was the defendant."
Weak evidence (with potential bias.)
> "The NYPD digitally altered the defendant's DMV photograph [...] never sought the metadata which would clearly indicate how, when, and perhaps by whom the photo was doctored."
Manufactured evidence.
> "That statement alone renders these medical records discoverable as possible impeachment material, necessitating their disclosure [...] Yet the People [...] have articulated no efforts to obtain these records"
Withholding evidence from the defence.
All in all, utter bullshit from the prosecution.
How many rights will we be asked to give up in order to squash anti-war sentiment?
Quite a lot. The #1 right, for instance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_t... Curious why this is downvoted?
[flagged]
If you read the judgement, there's no evidence that he did.
This seems to be a mixed bag for privacy. You have the judge coming down on the side of privacy, which is good; but the circumstances of the particular case are troubling (allegations of someone throwing a rock at someone else). I'd be happier gaining ground for privacy rights with cases about, e.g., blanket surveillance, using surveillance for political purposes, surveillance capitalism, etc. Then we figure out wher…
How many rights will we be asked to give up in order to squash anti-war sentiment?
How many rights will we be asked to give up in order to squash anti-war sentiment?
Quite a lot. The #1 right, for instance: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shouting_fire_in_a_crowded_t... Curious why this is downvoted?
This seems to be a mixed bag for privacy. You have the judge coming down on the side of privacy, which is good; but the circumstances of the particular case are troubling (allegations of someone throwing a rock at someone else). I'd be happier gaining ground for privacy rights with cases about, e.g., blanket surveillance, using surveillance for political purposes, surveillance capitalism, etc. Then we figure out wher…