quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:



I'm not a lawyer or "a cop" now (I retired in 2008), but I've been a subject matter expert (mostly for indigent defendants) on police practices for more than a decade. There's a difference between acting in good faith to properly investigate a crime, doing due diligence, and "falsely" vs wrongly accusing someone of a crime. I'm as much of a citizen as you are and because I worked in law enforcement, doesn't mean I'm immune to being victimized by criminals (just like you). Your answer: Stop the police from investigating, because they might do something wrong!

"...the financial realities of a trial would destroy the life of a person who is not wealthy." Please! You don't even know if this case (for a $25.00 loss) would even go to trial! In all probability the prosecutor and certainly the judge (if he/she is any kind of real judge) would dismiss the matter due to insufficient evidence. You make a lot of ridiculous assumptions based on your ignorance of the law (especially burden of proof matters), and leaps concerning what the government can do and what private entities have a right to do with publicly available information. Don't want companies recording things that happen in public? Are you going to prohibit your neighbors from having a Ring camera system, because it will record people and vehicles passing by on the sidewalk and street?

You, I, and our communities get the kind of public services WE deserve, and that includes the quality of police work. If the officer used a ruse to see if this woman would admit to (and provide corroboration/return the missing items) the theft, that kind of a "lie" is permissible for a reason. Suggesting evidence exists can and does can and DOES lead to believable, credible, and RELIABLE admissions of guilt, IF done properly. What you ignore is the fact that this $25.00 theft required investigation regardless of the fact that it was in and of itself a minor crime. Small towns don't frequently have the serious crimes that you claim to be concerned about (ie: rapes, abductions, and murders), so learning how to do investigations, PROPER interviews and interrogations, and using court approved tactics. There IS a difference between being "falsely" accused and merely being asked accusatory questions as part of an investigative process. If the officer here went over the line and received discipline because of it, I don't have a problem with that. Saying that the police should be denied the ability to review publicly available information (such as recordings of people and things in the public space), ignores reality: If any of us walk or drive in public, we're SEEN by those that share the space with us, INCLUDING THE POLICE.

quote:

Originally posted by pulicords:


You, I, and our communities get the kind of public services WE deserve, and that includes the quality of police work. If the officer used a ruse to see if this woman would admit to (and provide corroboration/return the missing items) the theft, that kind of a "lie" is permissible for a reason. Suggesting evidence exists can and does can and DOES lead to believable, credible, and RELIABLE admissions of guilt, IF done properly.

quote:

Originally posted by P-220:
Late to the game, as I have been away for a while.

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:


While a great tool for law enforcement, the potential downsides of this type of widespread monitoring/data collection, the product of which could be sold to any entity willing to pay for it are significant! IMO the potential for bad FAR outweighs the good here!

quote:

Originally posted by 2BobTanner:
The KY-4 (R?) a-hole who hated Trump is going out in a blaze of glory to ally with the Dems.

https://www.wdrb.com/news/poli...70-8e0603571f1a.html

Massie plans to file bill to withhold money from cities, police departments that use Flock cameras

LOUISVILLE, Ky. (WDRB) — Kentucky Republican U.S. Rep. Thomas Massie said he'll sponsor a bill in Washington aimed at defunding Flock cameras.

He posted on X saying he'll sponsor a bill to withhold federal money from cities and police departments that use flock cameras.

(More at the link; hard to cut-n-paste)

quote:

Originally posted by nhracecraft:

quote:

Originally posted by P-220:
Late to the game, as I have been away for a while.

Late to the game...Here's some food for thought then.

Imagine if your car insurance, health insurance, and life insurance rates (perhaps umbrella policy rates?) were 'adjusted' because your insurance companies were able to know everywhere you went, any place you ate or consumed anything, what activities you participated in, how you got there, at what speed and how often you engaged in ANY of these activities! Further, imagine the potential for those rates to be 'adjusted' based on who you engaged in these activities with as well.

What about being de-banked or having the interest rates you pay 'adjusted' as these institutions see fit. With all that data, it's also conceivable that your rates could be adjusted because of the things that you either do, OR don't do based on what such institutions deem either desirable, or undesirable. Do you ever go to the range, or gun store? Maybe you never go to the gym or engage in exercise/outdoor activities? Do you participate in some corporate or gov't entity's definition of 'risky' behavior(s)? All this data would be great for developing a new 'social credit score' system, potentially affecting virtually every aspect of your life/lifestyle.

While a great tool for law enforcement, the potential downsides of this type of widespread monitoring/data collection, the product of which could be sold to any entity willing to pay for it are significant! IMO the potential for bad FAR outweighs the good here!