6 ms·

The police department stated that she was a suspect; Amazon identified her as a thief, breaking the presumption of innocence that is a bedrock of American socie

The police department stated that she was a suspect; Amazon identified her as a thief, breaking the presumption of innocence that is a bedrock of American society. If the video is fine, the post wording still isn't.

shiven 7y ago
Habeas corpus called & would like to be thawed from deep freeze. The presumption of innocence in American society died a long time ago, with Gitmo, CIA black sites & NSLs. What little was still left, is being killed every day with asylum seeker kids being abused in border ‘shelters’. Long live habeas corpus & the American conscience.
- geggam 7y ago
  This is codified in law and society has adjusted to it. Example : Driving used to be considered a right, it has since been reduced to a privilege that gets revoked simply by accusation
  - jvolkman 7y ago
    When was driving considered a right?
    - geggam 7y ago
      Given the fact the constitution limits the govt and not the people. Given the fact the constitution says the govt cannot limit the freedom of movement. The govt cannot make laws limiting freedom of movement regardless of the method as they were not given that right by the constitution. Therefore driving as a form of movement cannot be regulated. There are also precedents discussing it Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –
      - ceejayoz 7y ago
        > Given the fact the constitution limits the govt and not the people. Well, sorta. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
        geggam 7y ago
        States rights was decided during this little thing called the civil war. Interstate travel cannot be regulated by the states and since freedom of movement is a right protected by the constitution. You have to conclude interstate travel is a right. Granted the commerce clause can be used to regulate commercial travel but private travel cannot be ;)
        ceejayoz 7y ago
        Interstate travel is a clear right. The right to do it as the driver of a car is less clear, given that one can freely move between states in a bus, plane, boat, taxi, or as a car passenger.
      - throwawayatty 7y ago
        There's a pretty wide gap between what you think is Constitutional and what U.S. courts think. Virginia law notwithstanding, elsewhere in the U.S., driving is not a right and never has been. Per U.S. Supreme Court law, freedom to travel includes the freedom to cross state lines, but that right does not extend to any particular mode of travel. You're free to walk, but not necessarily to drive or fly (notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 40103, because Congress subsequently restricted that right in 49 U.S.C. 44901-44902). Otherwise, you'd just be able to walk into an airport and board any flight you'd like without presenting identification. Similarly, if driving were a right, states would be forced to allow anyone behind a wheel (ok, at the helm of a 2-ton killdozer) without being properly trained or insured first.
        geggam 7y ago
        Problem being the interstate highways prohibit walking,horse riding and most "not automotive" methods of transportation. You have to drive a car to travel interstate.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
Bud 7y ago
Even if one claims the video is fine (and I'd disagree), it's still a very very very bad idea for Amazon, or any large company, to be enforcing the law and conducting mass shaming via advertising. That's practically a Black Mirror episode, and I would hope that everyone can see this, but judging from this comment thread, that's clearly not the case. Disturbing.
- throwawayatty 7y ago
  What's the practical difference between a TV show like "COPS" (or any of its various descendants), which features police recordings of its interactions in public with possibly-innocent suspects, and what's happening here? Is it merely the association with a commercial product?
  - ppseafield 7y ago
    COPS like any TV show blurs people's faces unless they sign a release.
    - throwawayatty 7y ago
      This is out of an abundance of caution, not necessarily because the law requires it. This explains it: https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Cops-TV-show-need-to-get-signed-releases-from-arrestees https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Cops-TV-show-need-to-get-sign...
      - geggam 7y ago
        As an atty I am sure you are aware folks can sue and typically he with the most money wins, regardless of law (see:OJ)
        colejohnson66 7y ago
        OJ is an interesting case. Basically though, the prosecution messed up enough that OJ’s team was able to instill enough doubt to avoid the “without a doubt” part needed for a jury
bdcravens 7y ago
> Amazon identified her as a thief, breaking the presumption of innocence that is a bedrock of American society. I totally agree with that principle, but I think they presumption of innocence ship sailed a long time with modern social media and news cycles.
- lostmyoldone 7y ago
  Even if that would be the case, allowing private companies to so blatantly capitalize on fear, all the while mocking that so very hard won presumption, is simply an amazingly terrible idea. Not only because under the pressure of competition some company in this sector will attempt to manufacture fear by any means available. If by misdirection, or by direct action of some sort, but we'll all be so much worse for it.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
byset 7y ago
The presumption of innocence is a legal presumption. Anyone is free to make private judgments about someone's innocence or guilt without waiting for a criminal verdict. That said, Amazon's phrasing ("this woman was caught on camera breaking into a vehicle") does seem a bit reckless. If the person in the video is innocent, she can and should sue Amazon for defamation.

shiven 7y ago

Habeas corpus called & would like to be thawed from deep freeze. The presumption of innocence in American society died a long time ago, with Gitmo, CIA black sites & NSLs. What little was still left, is being killed every day with asylum seeker kids being abused in border ‘shelters’. Long live habeas corpus & the American conscience.

geggam 7y ago
This is codified in law and society has adjusted to it. Example : Driving used to be considered a right, it has since been reduced to a privilege that gets revoked simply by accusation
- jvolkman 7y ago
  When was driving considered a right?
  - geggam 7y ago
    Given the fact the constitution limits the govt and not the people. Given the fact the constitution says the govt cannot limit the freedom of movement. The govt cannot make laws limiting freedom of movement regardless of the method as they were not given that right by the constitution. Therefore driving as a form of movement cannot be regulated. There are also precedents discussing it Thompson v.Smith, 154 SE 579, 11 American Jurisprudence, Constitutional Law, section 329, page 1135 “The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” –
    - ceejayoz 7y ago
      > Given the fact the constitution limits the govt and not the people. Well, sorta. "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
      - geggam 7y ago
        States rights was decided during this little thing called the civil war. Interstate travel cannot be regulated by the states and since freedom of movement is a right protected by the constitution. You have to conclude interstate travel is a right. Granted the commerce clause can be used to regulate commercial travel but private travel cannot be ;)
        ceejayoz 7y ago
        Interstate travel is a clear right. The right to do it as the driver of a car is less clear, given that one can freely move between states in a bus, plane, boat, taxi, or as a car passenger.
    - throwawayatty 7y ago
      There's a pretty wide gap between what you think is Constitutional and what U.S. courts think. Virginia law notwithstanding, elsewhere in the U.S., driving is not a right and never has been. Per U.S. Supreme Court law, freedom to travel includes the freedom to cross state lines, but that right does not extend to any particular mode of travel. You're free to walk, but not necessarily to drive or fly (notwithstanding 49 U.S.C. 40103, because Congress subsequently restricted that right in 49 U.S.C. 44901-44902). Otherwise, you'd just be able to walk into an airport and board any flight you'd like without presenting identification. Similarly, if driving were a right, states would be forced to allow anyone behind a wheel (ok, at the helm of a 2-ton killdozer) without being properly trained or insured first.
      - geggam 7y ago
        Problem being the interstate highways prohibit walking,horse riding and most "not automotive" methods of transportation. You have to drive a car to travel interstate.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]

Bud 7y ago

Even if one claims the video is fine (and I'd disagree), it's still a very very very bad idea for Amazon, or any large company, to be enforcing the law and conducting mass shaming via advertising. That's practically a Black Mirror episode, and I would hope that everyone can see this, but judging from this comment thread, that's clearly not the case. Disturbing.

throwawayatty 7y ago
What's the practical difference between a TV show like "COPS" (or any of its various descendants), which features police recordings of its interactions in public with possibly-innocent suspects, and what's happening here? Is it merely the association with a commercial product?
- ppseafield 7y ago
  COPS like any TV show blurs people's faces unless they sign a release.
  - throwawayatty 7y ago
    This is out of an abundance of caution, not necessarily because the law requires it. This explains it: https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Cops-TV-show-need-to-get-signed-releases-from-arrestees https://www.quora.com/Does-the-Cops-TV-show-need-to-get-sign...
    - geggam 7y ago
      As an atty I am sure you are aware folks can sue and typically he with the most money wins, regardless of law (see:OJ)
      - colejohnson66 7y ago
        OJ is an interesting case. Basically though, the prosecution messed up enough that OJ’s team was able to instill enough doubt to avoid the “without a doubt” part needed for a jury

bdcravens 7y ago

> Amazon identified her as a thief, breaking the presumption of innocence that is a bedrock of American society. I totally agree with that principle, but I think they presumption of innocence ship sailed a long time with modern social media and news cycles.

lostmyoldone 7y ago
Even if that would be the case, allowing private companies to so blatantly capitalize on fear, all the while mocking that so very hard won presumption, is simply an amazingly terrible idea. Not only because under the pressure of competition some company in this sector will attempt to manufacture fear by any means available. If by misdirection, or by direct action of some sort, but we'll all be so much worse for it.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

byset 7y ago

The presumption of innocence is a legal presumption. Anyone is free to make private judgments about someone's innocence or guilt without waiting for a criminal verdict. That said, Amazon's phrasing ("this woman was caught on camera breaking into a vehicle") does seem a bit reckless. If the person in the video is innocent, she can and should sue Amazon for defamation.