quote:

Originally posted by Minnow:
We have reached the digital version of "show me your papers, please"

Here is a thought:
If you wouldn't accept being stopped and asked to prove where you've been, why accept a system that records it automatically?

I would have to track it down. But I saw a video of another person, a woman, who was accused of stealing packages and the evidence was Flock camera's had pinged her as the thief.

She had her own dash cam video as well as multiple witnesses that proved that she could not have been the thief.

The police were insistent that it was her and refused to look at her evidence.

It was quickly thrown out at trial. After she incurred the expense and the major life disrupting hassle that all entailed.


Police deal with so many 'frequent fliers'. People who frequently have warrants, who have no jobs, who are in and out of jail.

It is readily apparent that they lose track of how severely it can impact the life of a productive citizen to be falsely accused of a crime. In many cases, the process is the punishment.

quote:

Originally posted by IndianaBoy:
Here is the video.

Just imagine what very likely could have happened if she didn't have her own video evidence.

This went to trial? If so, it seems like there are some prosecutors and LEO who deserve to be out of a job.

quote:

Originally posted by IndianaBoy:
video of another person, a woman, who was accused of stealing packages and the evidence was Flock camera's had pinged her as the thief.

She had her own dash cam video as well as multiple witnesses that proved that she could not have been the thief.

What's the root of the mistake on this one? Camera didn't read the plate correctly?
I'm way curious.

quote:

Originally posted by vthoky:

quote:

Originally posted by IndianaBoy:
video of another person, a woman, who was accused of stealing packages and the evidence was Flock camera's had pinged her as the thief.

She had her own dash cam video as well as multiple witnesses that proved that she could not have been the thief.

What's the root of the mistake on this one? Camera didn't read the plate correctly?
I'm way curious.

More info.

Another article.

Everyone should watch the video on this link to X. They were absolutely disinterested in hearing her side of the story.


Turns out she didn't actually wind up in court. They dismissed the charges after she went to great lengths where she was forced to prove her own innocence.

quote:

Originally posted by vthoky:

quote:

Originally posted by IndianaBoy:
video of another person, a woman, who was accused of stealing packages and the evidence was Flock camera's had pinged her as the thief.

She had her own dash cam video as well as multiple witnesses that proved that she could not have been the thief.

What's the root of the mistake on this one? Camera didn't read the plate correctly?
I'm way curious.

From what I can glean. Some really shoddy/lazy police work. She did drive through that area, but not right by the house. And the person who actually stole the package ran away, there was no footage of them getting in a vehicle.

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:

quote:

Originally posted by IndianaBoy:
Here is the video.

Just imagine what very likely could have happened if she didn't have her own video evidence.

At the very least, she would have been out tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees. Not counting time off work and damage to her reputation. Also, I'm guessing, immense amounts of stress.

quote:

Originally posted by IndianaBoy:
Some really shoddy/lazy police work. She did drive through that area, but not right by the house.

[Charlie Brown] Good grief. [/Charlie Brown]

quote:

Originally posted by IndianaBoy:

quote:

Originally posted by Jupiter:

quote:

Originally posted by IndianaBoy:
Here is the video.

Just imagine what very likely could have happened if she didn't have her own video evidence.

At the very least, she would have been out tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees. Not counting time off work and damage to her reputation. Also, I'm guessing, immense amounts of stress.

The sergeant said he had video footage of this woman taking the package from the victim's porch. If he was just "fishing" for what he hoped would be an incriminating admission and no such evidence existed, there's no way this case (alleging the theft of $25.00 in property) would make it to trial assuming she didn't admit to the act. If she corroborated her admission of guilt? Even then, your belief that this case would cost her "...tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees", is baseless.

"Besides the data from the surveillance cameras, the sergeant also said he had footage from the theft victim’s own security camera, which he claimed showed Elser in the act."

https://denverite.com/2025/10/...-cameras-accusation/

Simply being in the area wouldn't be sufficient evidence to even file a case, to say nothing about trying it in court and having to pay "tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees", taking time off of work, etc...

It's not only absurd to believe flock camera data alone (showing a person or vehicle in the neighborhood) is sufficient evidence to convict someone accused of a serious crime, it's equally ignorant to believe flock cameras can't be as important to disprove wrongful allegations as they are to provide evidence of having committed a crime. Unprofessional police work will always exist, with or without the presence of video evidence, BUT flock cameras combined with well trained police officers can provide an overall benefit that any informed community can appreciate.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
BUT flock cameras combined with well trained police officers can provide an overall benefit that any informed community can appreciate.

Nice dig there. I am a simple uninformed rube.

"Location: The Free State of Arizona "



You sure about that?



Flock cameras are statist bullshit just absolutely ripe for abuse. A surveillance state is anti-American.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
The sergeant said he had video footage of this woman taking the package from the victim's porch. If he was just "fishing" for what he hoped would be an incriminating admission and no such evidence existed, there's no way this case (alleging the theft of $25.00 in property) would make it to trial assuming she didn't admit to the act. If she corroborated her admission of guilt? Even then, your belief that this case would cost her "...tens of thousands of dollars in attorney fees", is baseless.

Are you a lawyer or a cop?

Dealing with being falsely accused of a crime is a nightmare scenario in today's America.

The only people not harmed, are the cops who have immunity, and the lawyers who profit from it regardless.

quote:

If he was just "fishing" for what he hoped would be an incriminating admission and no such evidence existed, there's no way this case (alleging the theft of $25.00 in property) would make it to trial

You are absolutely correct about that. Because they would have offered her a plea deal which she would have been compelled to take. Because the financial realities of a trial would destroy the life of a person who is not wealthy.

quote:

BUT flock cameras combined with well trained police officers can provide an overall benefit that any informed community can appreciate.

Yes the "they exist for your safety" argument, completely ignoring the overwhelming evidence that they are violating peoples right to move freely by tracking them without a warrant and providing that data to governments.

Might as well toss in the "your "insert device" tracks you everywhere" argument.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:
Simply being in the area wouldn't be sufficient evidence to even file a case.

"She also included the dashboard videos that her Rivian, an electric truck, automatically recorded. The video shows her making two trips through Bow Mar without stopping. She also gathered the truck’s GPS records.

“So as I was collecting evidence, I just was spending night and day trying to go over in my head — there’s got to be something that’s tracking me and it’s got to be something that’s watching me,” Elser said.

She later watched footage from the victim’s doorbell camera, which was posted on NextDoor, showing the package thief.

“The person’s running away, but they’re not even getting into a truck,” Elser said.

She called the police chief every day for a week straight and several other administrators, looking to present her evidence, she said. She feared the impact a theft charge, though small, would have on her financial career.

“I work for a financial institution. They don’t exactly enjoy the word theft,” Elser said. “So I wanted to nip it in the bud because I do have friends. I do have people that we work with and would know me and my career.”

But she wasn’t getting anywhere. On Oct. 11, she sent a letter, with her trove of evidence, to the police chief.

Then on Oct. 15, more than two weeks after Milliman showed up at her door, she got an email from Chief Bret Cottrell, congratulating her on her detective work and announcing that Columbine police had dismissed the charges against her."


Weird......

quote:

The sergeant said he had video footage of this woman taking the package from the victim's porch.

"Besides the data from the surveillance cameras, the sergeant also said he had footage from the theft victim’s own security camera, which he claimed showed Elser in the act."

So did he lie? Or was he just too lazy to review closely to see if he could make an actual positive identification from the RING camera?

I'm sure we will be updated on the training the officer in question will undergo to make sure this never happens again.



What you seem to be skipping right past, is that yes, this was all over a $25 stolen package.

What if the crime in question was a rape, or a murder, or an abduction? So now, if you are anywhere in the proximity of a crime being committed, your chances of being falsely accused have apparently increased substantially.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: IndianaBoy,