The data set IJ is providing here is situations where stalking was reported/suspected, investigated, discovered, and prosecuted. Other stalking cases could fail any one of those stages and be invisible to the public.

▲

cucumber3732842 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

This. They almost certainly use it for parallel construction 99% of the time. Just get lucky and "show up" when your spouse has someone over.

These 14 just were sloppy and left such an egregious fact pattern in their wake that a public record was created (firing, charges filed, etc)

▲

busterarm 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Other stalking cases could fail any one of those stages and be invisible to the public.

"could" is doing a lot of work here...

> where stalking was reported/suspected, investigated, discovered, and prosecuted.

No, that's not what IJ said. From the article: "Nearly all of these officers were criminally charged and lost their jobs, either by resigning or getting fired."

So not all 14 of these were "reported/suspected, investigated, discovered, and prosecuted".

If you're trying to make significant social change, make the strongest argument that you are capable of.

▲

stickfigure 11 hours ago | parent | next [-]

You're asking us to believe that, absent evidence to the contrary, 100% of stalking cases were publicized enough to make this list.

Your Bayesian priors desperately need an update.

▲

fitblipper 11 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I don't think "could" is doing a lot of work here at all. It seems logical that if cases where the misuse of flock systems were discovered only when the same officers misbehaved in other, more visible situations then there are officers that avoid the more visible situations and continue to use the system that does not expose their bad behavior (flock).

	▲	busterarm 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Logical as in fits your world view or as in can be backed up by observable evidence? The IJ (which I financially support) is a very serious organization that understands datasets, rules-based evidence and also public relations. If there was a stronger case that they could have made with the data that they had available, they would have. I've already stated that I agree with the premise suggested, but I'm making the point that if you actually want to do anything about it, you need the evidence to back it up. I can't go to my boss with a proposal to do something significant without measurable evidence to back up my reasoning and neither can you. I have personally had a traffic ticket thrown out because the officer had a DV case brought by his spouse, who worked in the court. This caused the officer to be fired. I'm VERY aware of problems with LEO, but if you want to do something with a high administrative or human resources cost like any change to the status quo would obviously have -- you need real hard proof. Not "oh isn't it obvious"?

▲

jasonlotito 11 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

For those following along, this was the original comment:

> Other stalking cases could fail any one of those stages and be invisible to the public. > "could" is doing a lot of work here...

I'd be careful replying to someone commenting and editing with such large diffs without calling it out. Fairly deceptive.

	▲	busterarm 7 hours ago \| parent [-]
		There's no deception. I added to my comment before anybody replied. I didn't change a word of the original text. You're throwing unnecessary shade.