Even cops that are well intended, that most people would call good, are hopelessly under trained regarding civil rights. A lot of have them have delusions of being some kind of detective and being clever about deceiving you into giving up your rights. Then they become belligerent if you don't play along.

Being anti police is a bit of a wedge in US politics, it's privileged to say we don't need as much police because the poorest communities are often who need it most.

Abusing surveillance tools has nothing to do with legitimate policing, so "over-policing" is probably the wrong word.

Overpolicing is the term used by one side that claims that any disparities in crime rates along demographic lines are due to an excess of police activity rather than any other factors.

Malfeasance is the $10 word that's probably more appropriate here for the actions of officers intentionally abusing the systems their authority grants access to.

It’s a tweet from 10ish years ago

‘I never thought leopards would eat MY face,’ sobs woman who voted for the Leopards Eating People’s Faces Party

IIRC originally posted in reference to anti-trans women who voted Republican and were shocked to find out that women’s rights weren’t a priority

I think he's saying fishing for evidence is not "policing", since fishing for evidence is illegal, and therefore not within the bounds of the job.

Its a fair bit more than overpolicing. If you don't think it is hope that boot is tasty.

> The president's job is to be the dumb unthinking agent of Congress

Execution will never be as simple as the textual content of a bill, so I'm not sure 'mindless' is a useful term.

While the POTUS is expected to be a bureaucrat, functionally and conceptually that is only one aspect of their responsibilities. Military oversight and diplomatic coordination as head of state, comes to mind.

> If you feel there should be cuts to nsf, then congress should do so (as enshrined by law). Not executive fiat by the president. Per the constitution the congress has the power of the purse.

Yes, exactly, and if someone don't like what the Constitution says, then you either do the proper patriotic thing and gather enough folks who agree with you to change or amend it, or you (as the MAGA loons are so fond of telling folks) move to a different country with rules you can agree with.

Sadly, that's not the world we now live in. We've let psychotic narcissists overun our government to a dangerous degree, making it near impossible to change those things that need changed, because they have all the money, power, and weapons, and they're not afraid to use them against "We The People". At this rate, I half-expect I'll see Trump out on 5th Avenue one day soon, testing his theory about him shooting someone without consequence.

[flagged]

[flagged]

> Why don't you see how the lawsuit plays out?

Because these lawsuits all play out the same. The city pays out, the cop is maybe fired and they go get a job in the next city over as a cop.

> What do you think it should be?

At a minimum every cop involved should lose the right or ability to be a cop anywhere.

> I think on net cops are good. We grant them power and put in reasonable guards for them to not abuse that power.

I think cops are necessary, I wouldn't call them good. I don't think we have reasonable guards because cops abuse their power all the time and face few consequences. More than a few cops have gotten away with murder.

> And when they do there are remedies, like this guy is pursuing.

The remedy is that the city pays, not the cops. That's not accountability. The city doesn't even have to fire the cop, just pay out.

A lawsuit does not solve a systemic problem. This is not a "a few people abuse a tool" situation.

People suck. The tool shouldn't exist.

I genuinely do not understand the boot-licking. Bizarre. It show's a complete and utter lack of foresight.

Who pays for the lawsuit? When do cops actually have skin in the game?

Qualified immunity is a joke. They have absolute immunity with the exception of when it is too politically hot and the cops were stupid enough to leave a trail that worked to convict them.

Policing in America is effectively a state-sanctioned mob. I get the need for the law to have teeth in its enforcement, but when the law doesn't apply to those that enforce it then the system is inherently broken.

Until this current regime, my assumption was a simple hierarchy of oversight up to the federal level but the current regime itself has no oversight and is absolutely fine with the system as it is.

You are one of those people who will never learn unless this abuse happens to you.

An out of county police officer, in general, can't conduct a traffic stop? There's a few exceptions but none of those seem to apply?

It doesn't hold up? What the implication, then? That the recording was illegal and the post-arrest investigation yielded the wrong result?

> Yeah dog, "just didn't sit right" doesn't really hold up.

Can you cite the law that requires more than “it doesn’t sit right” to record police officers in public?

He didn't foia anything. The article is about discovery in a lawsuit.

What dog? There was no dog involved in the article or preceding conments. You seem to have a problem with reading comprehension and/or are suffering from some kind of delusion.

To quote your other post... where you wrote: "Its a camera bro"

Why citizens cannot record cops?

Well, doing the most immoral and reprehensible thing on the edge of what’s lawful is a guaranteed “blue ocean” strategy so it’s inevitable that the most sociopathic will take the opportunity

You are confused. Yes, lots of people say that here, but the intention is almost never to justify immoral behavior. Rather the goal is to delegitimize capitalism by blaming it for the immoral behavior.

They also fit startup logic in a peculiarly perverted way: try all the nasty stuff compartmentalized into a low stakes stealth mode start up, then become an acquisition target once you've got the perverted PMF of having a benign looking product that hides the evil within. Clean hands for the acquirer.

The law is properly a limit on behavior, not a grant for acceptable behavior. It defines in which situations the state will ultimately employ its monopoly on violence to compel compliance.

This is a vastly smaller set of situations compared to what a health society would consider acceptable.

You're right. People trying to make money should be held legally accountable for the impact of their investments.

> Change the law

There is a huge gulf between what the law allows, and what being a decent person requires, and that gulf is called "being a scumbag."

We should not alter the law to prohibit everything in that gulf, because it would create an authoritarian society ripe for abuse, relying on controls like mass surveillance and the erasure of civil liberties.

However, we can and should name, shame, and socially/commercially outcast people who gleefully engage in the art of being a scumbag.

> trying to make money

It is indeed possible to make money without funding evil things.

[dead]

They take pictures of cars in certain intersections and register their license plates and keep them between 0 and 30 days typically (usually 7). It can be queried and logged. So if someone gets kidnapped and they're looking for someone its easy to track them.

There have been 1m “cases supported” and helping to locate approximately 10k missing persons. If you don't believe that look at a few real cases. Every example of a bad case is basically cops keeping tabs on ex-girlfiends or wives. Yes, that's bad but I prefer to save kids from kidnapping.

Saying its "anti-American" isn't an argument. I think it's very pro-American in that it protects law abiding Americans from criminals.

https://www.flocksafety.com/blog/how-effective-is-flock

https://www.wbrc.com/2026/09/04/moody-police-woman-charged-w...

https://www.cbsnews.com/sacramento/news/galt-flock-kidnappin...

https://www.cbsnews.com/colorado/news/mitchell-weber-arrest-...