Other Periscope viewers can't save the video they are viewing. The ACLU app has the important archiving function. If the iPhone is destroyed at least there is a copy kept in their cloud.
So if the Periscope creator can't get to their account within some time frame it would be eliminated.
How long is that window?
I understand the ACLU app is more secure but as a solution to other areas even if imperfect????
You are delusional... When trust is no longer present, the basis for sentient civilizations is in jeapordy. Living in the world that this technology creates will not be a world worth living in. This will erode freedom. This is a certainty.
The fear of molesters and child predators... Almost nobody walks to school anymore in our area. The odds of kidnapping are low but we changed our lives due to amber alerts and nonstop media coverage. All the while we end up with more sociopaths who don't know how to interact with people.
These apps are breeding the next generation of depression, murderers, etc.
Be careful what you wish for. We have way more prisoners, sociopaths, and violent crime compared to much of the third world. The things that make us happy and the things that we think make us happy are two very different things.
Trust but verify = mistrust in the long run. I understand what Reagan was trying to say, but the questions is, how much verification?
My original comment was restricted to icon design only. Not the app it launches, nor the article. (You also failed to read and comprehend my disclaimer in my very first post.)
And you're still assuming the worst in your fellow man. Please, take your pedantic and holier-than-thou attitude to the Political Outsider forum.
The fear of molesters and child predators... Almost nobody walks to school anymore in our area. The odds of kidnapping are low but we changed our lives due to amber alerts and nonstop media coverage. All the while we end up with more sociopaths who don't know how to interact with people.
These apps are breeding the next generation of depression, murderers, etc.
Be careful what you wish for. We have way more prisoners, sociopaths, and violent crime compared to much of the third world. The things that make us happy and the things that we think make us happy are two very different things.
Trust but verify = mistrust in the long run. I understand what Reagan was trying to say, but the questions is, how much verification?
It sounds like you suffer from an unrealistic view of the number of threats and predators out there relative to the general population.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. THAT is something that should concern Americans as much as these other imagined threats.
^ I'm pretty sure you're actually agreeing with the power you've quoted, but I'm curious as to how you think the ACLU has anything approaching "absolute power"
^ I'm pretty sure you're actually agreeing with the power you've quoted, but I'm curious as to how you think the ACLU has anything approaching "absolute power"
What? Who said anything about the ACLU possessing absolute power? That's a reference to unchecked political/governmental power. ...HEADSLAP!
What? Who said anything about the ACLU possessing absolute power? That's a reference to unchecked political/governmental power. ...HEADSLAP!
I thought that was your implication. So why are you bringing up absolute power in a thread about an ACLU app? Who has the absolute power that you're warning against?
I thought that was your implication. So why are you bringing up absolute power in a thread about an ACLU app? Who has the absolute power that you're warning against?
The unchecked power of armed police, naturally. The ACLU app puts some balance back in play.
I see, sorry for the misunderstanding, I found your OP a bit confusing.
I think it's a bit of a step to claim that the armed police are absolutely corrupt or that they are unchecked though. There may be issues, but they are not "absolute" issues.
But like you, I'm in favour of direct ways for the public to feedback abuses though, so this ACLU app is broadly a good thing. I think the other guy has a point, that big pushes for this and dissemination of unrepresentative information leads to a disproportionate mistrust, but the best way to fight that it with positive and publicly visible remedial action, not by sticking your fingers in your ears and humming.
Law enforcement, like the military, is overwhelming staffed by fellow citizens
Exactly. They are just like us. Warts and all. Which means they are not superhuman "good guys", but the fallible, weak, tempted heathens they claim to need to police. See a problem with that?
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewMe
who have decided to take on thankless jobs that few others have the physical or mental fortitude to take at the level of risk vs. reward involved
Once again, you're precisely on point. They took on the risk VOLUNTARILY. This does not make them gods, heroes, or even great men, and the last two only come when they act like the men they are expected to be. So when they sign up knowing full-well the risks, but then shoot unarmed men in the back, sick dogs on men with no weapons in a non-confrontational response, throw women to the ground, chokehold people to death, illegally detain, unlawfully search, immorally confiscate, and violently abuse the public, with their goto response being "I was afraid for my life", then I call bs and say these are not heroes but cowards. Policemen aren't even ranked in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US, not by a LONG shot. And if they are not comfortable with the expectation that we have of them, namely being MORE reserved, patient, subdued, non-confrontational, cautious, etc, even in the face of danger, then they should voluntarily seek another position in a different industry. There is nothing brave about "risking your life" when it's in direct violation of another's right to life, Liberty, or property.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewMe
Are there bad apples in the ranks, hell yeah, just like there are in any profession.
You're either unaware of or ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room: no other profession is tasked with the dual right to force compliance and at the same time employ lethal force in virtually all of their interactions, including with a jaywalker, a driver with a bad taillight, or even a funny look about them. When cops can literally kill in any of these situations with no actual danger facing them, then perhaps there are deeper problems we're not discussing, but should be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewMe
...the bad ones actually represent a very tiny minority of the total rank and file of law enforcement professionals. When has this type of unreasonable and prejudicial classification system ever been justified?
Welcome to policing 101, where today's police use supposition, false reports, and vague premises to commit all types of injustice on they people they harass. Look up civil asset forfeiture, wherein the legal reasoning for taking your property without actually charging you with a crime is that (I kid you not) the property itself is guilty of being criminal. Cash, cars, homes, you name it, they've seized it under this abhorrent legal fiction, and they do it every day all across America. It is not the exact number — 1, 100, 1000, or 100% of cops who are tainted which is the issue, but rather the fact that ANY number of officers in ANY department can potentially engage in corrupt and abuse because there is room for it. With perverse profit incentives, unholy unions between the police and DA's/municipal prosecutors, and with nearly zero accountability or enforceability, abuse is to a police department like mold is to a dark, dank, abandoned basement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DewMe
If people really care deeply about this and want to take it upon themselves to personally influence the behavior of organizations like law enforcement they should try to do it from the inside.
Sadly, history has proven you wrong on this. Police who do their best to honestly expose corruption are targeted, harassed, threatened, and even endangered by the more seedy element within the department (and even other departments). And in pointing that out, I'm realizing the prison truism "snitches get stitches" extends to the ruling class (aka the police) in Prison State, USA.
Where is the evidence in support of the statements? The media focuses on a handful of cases to push forward a certain narrative that gets an emotional response from people. Killings are all documented:
As both a victim of police abuse and a witness of it, I can say that not everything gets documented and it's a lot more than is published. I'm not talking only about killing here, but about a number of other violations. I'm not going to get into the why or how. We can differ in opinion. In my opinion, one case is too many. Period. Unfortunately, the number is much higher than that, but you can check out the ACLU's website and learn a bit more as to the why of this.
Quote:
If you get in trouble and some criminal is attacking you, who are you going to be calling for help? The Youtubers with their smartphones? No, you'll be calling the exact same police and I bet your phone call won't consist of 'hey, f* the police'.
I'm not against the police, nor do I believe in as you say, "f* the police". In fact, I'm absurdly FOR the police. I'm in favor of the rule of law and that applies to everyone, especially to the police. It's that simple. If they don't want to be held to that higher standard, they're free to find some other, more appropriate work for them.
Quote:
Pushing forward the narrative that a huge majority of police use excessive force, are happy to steal from civilians, are racist and need to be filmed every minute of the day is not going to have a positive outcome. There is no way for the police to tell the opposite side of the story because they can't describe every one of millions of cases that were conducted appropriately and I guarantee no Youtubers are going to be filming appropriate arrests and no news organisation will cover them. The cases where they behaved inappropriately should be treated as individual cases and the people involved dealt with.
The exact case for the app is so those cases where they behaved inappropriately can actually be dealt with. If there's no document of it, it's the cop's word against yours. This is only so the ACLU can continue to defend people's rights, and bring the appropriate cases forward. Nothing else.
Quote:
There are going to be instances where a cop stepping outside the law is for the greater good. You see this portrayed in movies where the cop just turns off the camera to deliver some real justice where the courts would knowingly fail the victims and the audience feels good that justice has been done. That's the ultimate goal that everyone wants - a form of justice that makes people feel safe and protected and where criminals are punished. Every day there are criminals who have dozens of convictions going in and out of prison. Do people want drug lords or rapists getting multi-million dollar payouts because a cop went too hard on them during arrest? No and civilians don't want to be subjected to police brutality either but how often are police targeting innocent civilians?
I think we'll just agree to disagree here. A film is fiction. In reality, I personally don't accept or tolerate a cop stepping outside the law. "The greater good" is not for one person to decide, nor is justice without due process. I hope you're never on the other side of that coin. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not guilty according to a cop. I prefer to keep Judge Dredd in the realm of fiction, thanks.
Quote:
If police brutality was as out of control as the media likes to suggest then people wouldn't be talking on social media about a handful of cases, millions of people would be on social media saying 'this happened to me'.
One case is a case too many, in my opinion. Period. It's too many cases as it is, and perhaps you don't see it as dire, and for you the amount isn't big enough. When it happens to you, then we'll see if that amount is too many. When a cop stops you for no reason and takes the cash you have on you, because the only reason you'd have that much money on you ($2000), according to him, must be to do something illegal, then we'll talk again about abuse and illegal seizure. I don't mind having a different opinion. I understand my experience and therefore perspective is much different than yours. I prefer to live in a world where one case is too many. You seem to feel differently and that's ok. Do check out the ACLU website though, and find out what the app is really for. Cheers.
The same is true of crime. The person killed by police in Baltimore was one case yet he was arrested 18 times for drug dealing and theft. Should the police have burned down the city for every one of the crimes the person committed? If not minor crimes, should they do it every time a criminal kills a cop or civilian? A single incident doesn't have to be tolerated, there can be a reasonable criticism of every case but expecting there to never be accidental deaths or that cops don't go too hard on career criminals is unrealistic.
not everything gets documented and it's a lot more than is published.
If it's not documented then you can't quantify it at all. It's like when people report bent iPhones, you get a handful of people who have the photos of their own problem and then they say it's widespread but there was no data. Without data you can reach any conclusion you want. The internet offers plenty opportunity for people to detail incidents and they aren't doing this.
The exact case for the app is so those cases where they behaved inappropriately can actually be dealt with. If there's no document of it, it's the cop's word against yours. This is only so the ACLU can continue to defend people's rights, and bring the appropriate cases forward. Nothing else.
You have to remember we have the social media generation now. Whenever there's an online campaign to be part of, people misuse it. Take this guy:
[VIDEO]
That cop was on his way to a call and that kid with the smartphone decided to annoy him. This is like the woman earlier who had no reason to be filming anything and was just being a nuisance. There's no problem with having an app to document encounters with police, the dangerous part is pushing a false narrative that coerces people into taking sides in a false war between police and civilians, especially if it's to get views or likes online. The ACLU app should be an app to see if there's a widespread problem and to deal with cases that happen, it shouldn't be promoted as a way to prove a conclusion people have already made because that pushes people into making facts fit the conclusion by annoying police officers.
In reality, I personally don't accept or tolerate a cop stepping outside the law. "The greater good" is not for one person to decide, nor is justice without due process. I hope you're never on the other side of that coin. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not guilty according to a cop. I prefer to keep Judge Dredd in the realm of fiction, thanks.
Deciding the greater good is a rational process and the same process the courts use. If someone has been abusing kids and been convicted numerous times then a stray bullet is for the greater good because the alternative is that more innocent people are hurt and possibly killed. The law fails repeatedly because of technicalities. There was a case where someone shot and ate his victim:
[VIDEO]
He was put into a mental institution and transferred to another country where he just checked himself out of the institution and went free after about 5 years. There's no question he did it and yet everybody can see the law failed the victim and legally they can't do anything.
Taking the law into your own hands is not something that should be done whenever people feel like it but there are blatantly obvious cases where the law fails to stop criminals. The Baltimore case was another example. 18 arrests for criminal activity and the person was still free to walk the streets. They didn't set out to kill the guy and 3/6 of the officers were black, including the driver but again because of the false narrative that the media presents, you get things like this:
"All black ppl should rise up and shoot every white cop in the nation starting NOW... death to all white cops nationwide"
When you spread lies to stupid people and there are lots of stupid people then you get what happened in Baltimore:
[VIDEO]
What are they burning the city down and looting for? Is it really about police brutality when it was a drug dealer involved? Is it about white cops when 3 of them were black? More likely, considering the above news article, it was people reacting to a false narrative being pushed forward by the media.
People recorded the Baltimore arrest without this app:
[VIDEO]
The video helps assess the situation but it's incomplete. What it certainly helped is creating the riot. Should this be the case for every incident? Every time a cop goes too hard during arrest, just put the video on Youtube, share it around and burn every city to the ground? Because that's what's happening so far.
When a cop stops you for no reason and takes the cash you have on you, because the only reason you'd have that much money on you ($2000), according to him, must be to do something illegal, then we'll talk again about abuse and illegal seizure.
If preventing the odd times asset seizures happen to people who aren't dealing drugs or running prostitution rings means that it would also prevent being able to seize hundreds of millions of dollars in assets from white collar criminals like Bernie Madoff then I don't think it's worth it. If asset seizures on innocent parties were widespread, I guarantee they'd be all over the internet by now and they aren't. The numbers don't add up.
The same is true of crime. The person killed by police in Baltimore was one case yet he was arrested 18 times for drug dealing and theft. Should the police have burned down the city for every one of the crimes the person committed? If not minor crimes, should they do it every time a criminal kills a cop or civilian? A single incident doesn't have to be tolerated, there can be a reasonable criticism of every case but expecting there to never be accidental deaths or that cops don't go too hard on career criminals is unrealistic.
If it's not documented then you can't quantify it at all. It's like when people report bent iPhones, you get a handful of people who have the photos of their own problem and then they say it's widespread but there was no data. Without data you can reach any conclusion you want. The internet offers plenty opportunity for people to detail incidents and they aren't doing this.
You have to remember we have the social media generation now. Whenever there's an online campaign to be part of, people misuse it. Take this guy:
That cop was on his way to a call and that kid with the smartphone decided to annoy him. This is like the woman earlier who had no reason to be filming anything and was just being a nuisance. There's no problem with having an app to document encounters with police, the dangerous part is pushing a false narrative that coerces people into taking sides in a false war between police and civilians, especially if it's to get views or likes online. The ACLU app should be an app to see if there's a widespread problem and to deal with cases that happen, it shouldn't be promoted as a way to prove a conclusion people have already made because that pushes people into making facts fit the conclusion by annoying police officers.
Deciding the greater good is a rational process and the same process the courts use. If someone has been abusing kids and been convicted numerous times then a stray bullet is for the greater good because the alternative is that more innocent people are hurt and possibly killed. The law fails repeatedly because of technicalities. There was a case where someone shot and ate his victim:
He was put into a mental institution and transferred to another country where he just checked himself out of the institution and went free after about 5 years. There's no question he did it and yet everybody can see the law failed the victim and legally they can't do anything.
Taking the law into your own hands is not something that should be done whenever people feel like it but there are blatantly obvious cases where the law fails to stop criminals. The Baltimore case was another example. 18 arrests for criminal activity and the person was still free to walk the streets. They didn't set out to kill the guy and 3/6 of the officers were black, including the driver but again because of the false narrative that the media presents, you get things like this:
"All black ppl should rise up and shoot every white cop in the nation starting NOW... death to all white cops nationwide"
When you spread lies to stupid people and there are lots of stupid people then you get what happened in Baltimore:
What are they burning the city down and looting for? Is it really about police brutality when it was a drug dealer involved? Is it about white cops when 3 of them were black? More likely, considering the above news article, it was people reacting to a false narrative being pushed forward by the media.
People recorded the Baltimore arrest without this app:
The video helps assess the situation but it's incomplete. What it certainly helped is creating the riot. Should this be the case for every incident? Every time a cop goes too hard during arrest, just put the video on Youtube, share it around and burn every city to the ground? Because that's what's happening so far.
Though I agree with you on a couple of points, it's obvious we disagree on most of it. Our experiences are simply different and therefore our points of view will be as well.
Quote:
If preventing the odd times asset seizures happen to people who aren't dealing drugs or running prostitution rings means that it would also prevent being able to seize hundreds of millions of dollars in assets from white collar criminals like Bernie Madoff then I don't think it's worth it. If asset seizures on innocent parties were widespread, I guarantee they'd be all over the internet by now and they aren't. The numbers don't add up.
When it's your money or your house, then we can start a conversation about asset forfeiture. It's too easy to see it your way when it's not your 2850 dollars that's "guilty of a crime" even though you have committed no crime whatsoever yourself. And yes, there have been plenty of cases documented and I personally have experienced it once, thank you very f*kg much. But check out the ACLU website. You'll see plenty of it.
The media is sensationalist, and I agree about that, but there's more occurring in reality than the media or the country is aware of. If you look, you'll find. That's all I'm saying. Cheers.
Comments
Other Periscope viewers can't save the video they are viewing. The ACLU app has the important archiving function. If the iPhone is destroyed at least there is a copy kept in their cloud.
So if the Periscope creator can't get to their account within some time frame it would be eliminated.
How long is that window?
I understand the ACLU app is more secure but as a solution to other areas even if imperfect????
You are delusional... When trust is no longer present, the basis for sentient civilizations is in jeapordy. Living in the world that this technology creates will not be a world worth living in. This will erode freedom. This is a certainty.
Sentient... civilizations?
Sentient... civilizations?
The British launched, and activated, SkyNet a number of years back.....
http://gizmodo.com/5016312/britain-launches-final-real-life-skynet-satellite-dubs-it-skynet-with-no-sense-of-irony
These apps are breeding the next generation of depression, murderers, etc.
Be careful what you wish for. We have way more prisoners, sociopaths, and violent crime compared to much of the third world. The things that make us happy and the things that we think make us happy are two very different things.
Trust but verify = mistrust in the long run. I understand what Reagan was trying to say, but the questions is, how much verification?
Well, the article is about...
My original comment was restricted to icon design only. Not the app it launches, nor the article. (You also failed to read and comprehend my disclaimer in my very first post.)
And you're still assuming the worst in your fellow man. Please, take your pedantic and holier-than-thou attitude to the Political Outsider forum.
The fear of molesters and child predators... Almost nobody walks to school anymore in our area. The odds of kidnapping are low but we changed our lives due to amber alerts and nonstop media coverage. All the while we end up with more sociopaths who don't know how to interact with people.
These apps are breeding the next generation of depression, murderers, etc.
Be careful what you wish for. We have way more prisoners, sociopaths, and violent crime compared to much of the third world. The things that make us happy and the things that we think make us happy are two very different things.
Trust but verify = mistrust in the long run. I understand what Reagan was trying to say, but the questions is, how much verification?
It sounds like you suffer from an unrealistic view of the number of threats and predators out there relative to the general population.
Absolute power corrupts absolutely. THAT is something that should concern Americans as much as these other imagined threats.
^ I'm pretty sure you're actually agreeing with the power you've quoted, but I'm curious as to how you think the ACLU has anything approaching "absolute power"
What? Who said anything about the ACLU possessing absolute power? That's a reference to unchecked political/governmental power. ...HEADSLAP!
What? Who said anything about the ACLU possessing absolute power? That's a reference to unchecked political/governmental power. ...HEADSLAP!
I thought that was your implication. So why are you bringing up absolute power in a thread about an ACLU app? Who has the absolute power that you're warning against?
The unchecked power of armed police, naturally. The ACLU app puts some balance back in play.
I see, sorry for the misunderstanding, I found your OP a bit confusing.
I think it's a bit of a step to claim that the armed police are absolutely corrupt or that they are unchecked though. There may be issues, but they are not "absolute" issues.
But like you, I'm in favour of direct ways for the public to feedback abuses though, so this ACLU app is broadly a good thing. I think the other guy has a point, that big pushes for this and dissemination of unrepresentative information leads to a disproportionate mistrust, but the best way to fight that it with positive and publicly visible remedial action, not by sticking your fingers in your ears and humming.
Law enforcement, like the military, is overwhelming staffed by fellow citizens
Exactly. They are just like us. Warts and all. Which means they are not superhuman "good guys", but the fallible, weak, tempted heathens they claim to need to police. See a problem with that?
who have decided to take on thankless jobs that few others have the physical or mental fortitude to take at the level of risk vs. reward involved
Once again, you're precisely on point. They took on the risk VOLUNTARILY. This does not make them gods, heroes, or even great men, and the last two only come when they act like the men they are expected to be. So when they sign up knowing full-well the risks, but then shoot unarmed men in the back, sick dogs on men with no weapons in a non-confrontational response, throw women to the ground, chokehold people to death, illegally detain, unlawfully search, immorally confiscate, and violently abuse the public, with their goto response being "I was afraid for my life", then I call bs and say these are not heroes but cowards. Policemen aren't even ranked in the top 10 most dangerous jobs in the US, not by a LONG shot. And if they are not comfortable with the expectation that we have of them, namely being MORE reserved, patient, subdued, non-confrontational, cautious, etc, even in the face of danger, then they should voluntarily seek another position in a different industry. There is nothing brave about "risking your life" when it's in direct violation of another's right to life, Liberty, or property.
Are there bad apples in the ranks, hell yeah, just like there are in any profession.
You're either unaware of or ignoring the 800 pound gorilla in the room: no other profession is tasked with the dual right to force compliance and at the same time employ lethal force in virtually all of their interactions, including with a jaywalker, a driver with a bad taillight, or even a funny look about them. When cops can literally kill in any of these situations with no actual danger facing them, then perhaps there are deeper problems we're not discussing, but should be.
...the bad ones actually represent a very tiny minority of the total rank and file of law enforcement professionals. When has this type of unreasonable and prejudicial classification system ever been justified?
Welcome to policing 101, where today's police use supposition, false reports, and vague premises to commit all types of injustice on they people they harass. Look up civil asset forfeiture, wherein the legal reasoning for taking your property without actually charging you with a crime is that (I kid you not) the property itself is guilty of being criminal. Cash, cars, homes, you name it, they've seized it under this abhorrent legal fiction, and they do it every day all across America. It is not the exact number — 1, 100, 1000, or 100% of cops who are tainted which is the issue, but rather the fact that ANY number of officers in ANY department can potentially engage in corrupt and abuse because there is room for it. With perverse profit incentives, unholy unions between the police and DA's/municipal prosecutors, and with nearly zero accountability or enforceability, abuse is to a police department like mold is to a dark, dank, abandoned basement.
If people really care deeply about this and want to take it upon themselves to personally influence the behavior of organizations like law enforcement they should try to do it from the inside.
Sadly, history has proven you wrong on this. Police who do their best to honestly expose corruption are targeted, harassed, threatened, and even endangered by the more seedy element within the department (and even other departments). And in pointing that out, I'm realizing the prison truism "snitches get stitches" extends to the ruling class (aka the police) in Prison State, USA.
Where is the evidence in support of the statements? The media focuses on a handful of cases to push forward a certain narrative that gets an emotional response from people. Killings are all documented:
As both a victim of police abuse and a witness of it, I can say that not everything gets documented and it's a lot more than is published. I'm not talking only about killing here, but about a number of other violations. I'm not going to get into the why or how. We can differ in opinion. In my opinion, one case is too many. Period. Unfortunately, the number is much higher than that, but you can check out the ACLU's website and learn a bit more as to the why of this.
I'm not against the police, nor do I believe in as you say, "f* the police". In fact, I'm absurdly FOR the police. I'm in favor of the rule of law and that applies to everyone, especially to the police. It's that simple. If they don't want to be held to that higher standard, they're free to find some other, more appropriate work for them.
The exact case for the app is so those cases where they behaved inappropriately can actually be dealt with. If there's no document of it, it's the cop's word against yours. This is only so the ACLU can continue to defend people's rights, and bring the appropriate cases forward. Nothing else.
I think we'll just agree to disagree here. A film is fiction. In reality, I personally don't accept or tolerate a cop stepping outside the law. "The greater good" is not for one person to decide, nor is justice without due process. I hope you're never on the other side of that coin. Innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not guilty according to a cop. I prefer to keep Judge Dredd in the realm of fiction, thanks.
One case is a case too many, in my opinion. Period. It's too many cases as it is, and perhaps you don't see it as dire, and for you the amount isn't big enough. When it happens to you, then we'll see if that amount is too many. When a cop stops you for no reason and takes the cash you have on you, because the only reason you'd have that much money on you ($2000), according to him, must be to do something illegal, then we'll talk again about abuse and illegal seizure. I don't mind having a different opinion. I understand my experience and therefore perspective is much different than yours. I prefer to live in a world where one case is too many. You seem to feel differently and that's ok. Do check out the ACLU website though, and find out what the app is really for.
Cheers.
Just pondering...
The same is true of crime. The person killed by police in Baltimore was one case yet he was arrested 18 times for drug dealing and theft. Should the police have burned down the city for every one of the crimes the person committed? If not minor crimes, should they do it every time a criminal kills a cop or civilian? A single incident doesn't have to be tolerated, there can be a reasonable criticism of every case but expecting there to never be accidental deaths or that cops don't go too hard on career criminals is unrealistic.
If it's not documented then you can't quantify it at all. It's like when people report bent iPhones, you get a handful of people who have the photos of their own problem and then they say it's widespread but there was no data. Without data you can reach any conclusion you want. The internet offers plenty opportunity for people to detail incidents and they aren't doing this.
You have to remember we have the social media generation now. Whenever there's an online campaign to be part of, people misuse it. Take this guy:
[VIDEO]
That cop was on his way to a call and that kid with the smartphone decided to annoy him. This is like the woman earlier who had no reason to be filming anything and was just being a nuisance. There's no problem with having an app to document encounters with police, the dangerous part is pushing a false narrative that coerces people into taking sides in a false war between police and civilians, especially if it's to get views or likes online. The ACLU app should be an app to see if there's a widespread problem and to deal with cases that happen, it shouldn't be promoted as a way to prove a conclusion people have already made because that pushes people into making facts fit the conclusion by annoying police officers.
Deciding the greater good is a rational process and the same process the courts use. If someone has been abusing kids and been convicted numerous times then a stray bullet is for the greater good because the alternative is that more innocent people are hurt and possibly killed. The law fails repeatedly because of technicalities. There was a case where someone shot and ate his victim:
[VIDEO]
He was put into a mental institution and transferred to another country where he just checked himself out of the institution and went free after about 5 years. There's no question he did it and yet everybody can see the law failed the victim and legally they can't do anything.
Taking the law into your own hands is not something that should be done whenever people feel like it but there are blatantly obvious cases where the law fails to stop criminals. The Baltimore case was another example. 18 arrests for criminal activity and the person was still free to walk the streets. They didn't set out to kill the guy and 3/6 of the officers were black, including the driver but again because of the false narrative that the media presents, you get things like this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3061971/Mom-33-arrested-terrorism-charges-banned-social-media-Facebook-rant-called-Death-white-cops-nationwide-Baltimore-protests-erupted-riots.html
"All black ppl should rise up and shoot every white cop in the nation starting NOW... death to all white cops nationwide"
When you spread lies to stupid people and there are lots of stupid people then you get what happened in Baltimore:
[VIDEO]
What are they burning the city down and looting for? Is it really about police brutality when it was a drug dealer involved? Is it about white cops when 3 of them were black? More likely, considering the above news article, it was people reacting to a false narrative being pushed forward by the media.
People recorded the Baltimore arrest without this app:
[VIDEO]
The video helps assess the situation but it's incomplete. What it certainly helped is creating the riot. Should this be the case for every incident? Every time a cop goes too hard during arrest, just put the video on Youtube, share it around and burn every city to the ground? Because that's what's happening so far.
If preventing the odd times asset seizures happen to people who aren't dealing drugs or running prostitution rings means that it would also prevent being able to seize hundreds of millions of dollars in assets from white collar criminals like Bernie Madoff then I don't think it's worth it. If asset seizures on innocent parties were widespread, I guarantee they'd be all over the internet by now and they aren't. The numbers don't add up.
The same is true of crime. The person killed by police in Baltimore was one case yet he was arrested 18 times for drug dealing and theft. Should the police have burned down the city for every one of the crimes the person committed? If not minor crimes, should they do it every time a criminal kills a cop or civilian? A single incident doesn't have to be tolerated, there can be a reasonable criticism of every case but expecting there to never be accidental deaths or that cops don't go too hard on career criminals is unrealistic.
If it's not documented then you can't quantify it at all. It's like when people report bent iPhones, you get a handful of people who have the photos of their own problem and then they say it's widespread but there was no data. Without data you can reach any conclusion you want. The internet offers plenty opportunity for people to detail incidents and they aren't doing this.
You have to remember we have the social media generation now. Whenever there's an online campaign to be part of, people misuse it. Take this guy:
That cop was on his way to a call and that kid with the smartphone decided to annoy him. This is like the woman earlier who had no reason to be filming anything and was just being a nuisance. There's no problem with having an app to document encounters with police, the dangerous part is pushing a false narrative that coerces people into taking sides in a false war between police and civilians, especially if it's to get views or likes online. The ACLU app should be an app to see if there's a widespread problem and to deal with cases that happen, it shouldn't be promoted as a way to prove a conclusion people have already made because that pushes people into making facts fit the conclusion by annoying police officers.
Deciding the greater good is a rational process and the same process the courts use. If someone has been abusing kids and been convicted numerous times then a stray bullet is for the greater good because the alternative is that more innocent people are hurt and possibly killed. The law fails repeatedly because of technicalities. There was a case where someone shot and ate his victim:
He was put into a mental institution and transferred to another country where he just checked himself out of the institution and went free after about 5 years. There's no question he did it and yet everybody can see the law failed the victim and legally they can't do anything.
Taking the law into your own hands is not something that should be done whenever people feel like it but there are blatantly obvious cases where the law fails to stop criminals. The Baltimore case was another example. 18 arrests for criminal activity and the person was still free to walk the streets. They didn't set out to kill the guy and 3/6 of the officers were black, including the driver but again because of the false narrative that the media presents, you get things like this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3061971/Mom-33-arrested-terrorism-charges-banned-social-media-Facebook-rant-called-Death-white-cops-nationwide-Baltimore-protests-erupted-riots.html
"All black ppl should rise up and shoot every white cop in the nation starting NOW... death to all white cops nationwide"
When you spread lies to stupid people and there are lots of stupid people then you get what happened in Baltimore:
What are they burning the city down and looting for? Is it really about police brutality when it was a drug dealer involved? Is it about white cops when 3 of them were black? More likely, considering the above news article, it was people reacting to a false narrative being pushed forward by the media.
People recorded the Baltimore arrest without this app:
The video helps assess the situation but it's incomplete. What it certainly helped is creating the riot. Should this be the case for every incident? Every time a cop goes too hard during arrest, just put the video on Youtube, share it around and burn every city to the ground? Because that's what's happening so far.
Though I agree with you on a couple of points, it's obvious we disagree on most of it. Our experiences are simply different and therefore our points of view will be as well.
When it's your money or your house, then we can start a conversation about asset forfeiture. It's too easy to see it your way when it's not your 2850 dollars that's "guilty of a crime" even though you have committed no crime whatsoever yourself. And yes, there have been plenty of cases documented and I personally have experienced it once, thank you very f*kg much. But check out the ACLU website. You'll see plenty of it.
The media is sensationalist, and I agree about that, but there's more occurring in reality than the media or the country is aware of. If you look, you'll find. That's all I'm saying. Cheers.
Just pondering...