4 ms·
> I find this idea very toxic. If the state can send an agent somewhere... if the cops bust into your house because they misread the address of the warrant (so
by sigstoat 9y ago
> I find this idea very toxic. If the state can send an agent somewhere...
if the cops bust into your house because they misread the address of the warrant (something which happens regularly), and they capture some video of you walking around eating cereal naked, do you think that should immediately and irrevocably go up on youtube?
- jMyles 9y agoObviously in a decent society this is a horrific, abhorrent affront. And yes, I'm fine with the horrific, abhorrent affronts of the state being public if I'm the victim. How about we stop allowing police to search homes in the first place in 99.9% of cases?
- s73ver_ 9y ago"And yes, I'm fine with the horrific, abhorrent affronts of the state being public if I'm the victim." Ok. I'm not.
- yojex 9y agoIf an agent of the state commits a "horrific, abhorrent affront" against you, you want it to be kept secret? That's what I'm reading here.
- s73ver_ 9y agoThat would be a fair interpretation if that's all they did. However, we all know that law enforcement agents do lots of other things that the people involved would rather not be made public. A cop being a first responder to someone having a seizure, or consoling a rape victim, are things that I'm pretty sure those people would not want to be public.
- mulmen 9y agoOk but in that case the state did not commit an abhorrent act.
- SOLAR_FIELDS 9y agoThere is definitely a middle ground somewhere around this. Perhaps the victim must consent (assuming the victim can?)