3 ms·

The cops are just looking for evidence of felony crimes, not all your notes to your mom and coworkers – but if you were reluctant to hand over your email creden

by danso 6y ago

The cops are just looking for evidence of felony crimes, not all your notes to your mom and coworkers – but if you were reluctant to hand over your email credentials, would it seem fair to characterize you as complicit in covering up for felony crimes?

jojobas 6y ago
The judge granted them recordings taken by professional equipment in specific area in specific time range, not mom notes.
- danso 6y ago
  Sorry, I didn’t mean my analogy to be a wholesale dismissal of the subpoena or its justification. I meant to address what seemed like circular reasoning in your reply to this thread. The thread started out with someone arguing that the "protests" are actually "riots". Someone else replied by pointing out "because there's riots and protests", which are not the same thing. So then you replied with, "The cops are after evidence on arson and gun theft, not protests, as the headline says." – which I took (perhaps mistakenly) as an argument that the media's footage should not be considered as innocuous "protest footage", because the cops believe that it contains evidence of crimes. But that seems like begging the question? Ignoring the whole "innocent until proven guilty" concept (two suspects have been arrested and charged, but not tried), it seems problematic to argue that the media should handover its riot footage on the basis that the police believe it contains evidence of riotous activity. Just as it would be problematic to characterize someone's personal email account as being non-innocuous, on the basis of what the police assert they might find if they do a few keyword searches of it.
  - aspenmayer 6y ago
    > would it seem fair to characterize you as complicit in covering up for felony crimes? The way this part was written in context was hard to parse for me - on first read it seemed that you were arguing that it would be fair to say that you were complicit. This reply shows that you intended this in a more hyperbolic way, or in such a way that you would mock-suggest that “surely this would not be fair,” which is obvious when I already know your meaning, but didn’t seem clear to me on first read.
    - danso 6y ago
      Yeah I agree with you. I had a muddled analogy and likely muddled line of reasoning
      - aspenmayer 6y ago
        Good talk though

by danso 6y ago

jojobas 6y ago

The judge granted them recordings taken by professional equipment in specific area in specific time range, not mom notes.

danso 6y ago
Sorry, I didn’t mean my analogy to be a wholesale dismissal of the subpoena or its justification. I meant to address what seemed like circular reasoning in your reply to this thread. The thread started out with someone arguing that the "protests" are actually "riots". Someone else replied by pointing out "because there's riots and protests", which are not the same thing. So then you replied with, "The cops are after evidence on arson and gun theft, not protests, as the headline says." – which I took (perhaps mistakenly) as an argument that the media's footage should not be considered as innocuous "protest footage", because the cops believe that it contains evidence of crimes. But that seems like begging the question? Ignoring the whole "innocent until proven guilty" concept (two suspects have been arrested and charged, but not tried), it seems problematic to argue that the media should handover its riot footage on the basis that the police believe it contains evidence of riotous activity. Just as it would be problematic to characterize someone's personal email account as being non-innocuous, on the basis of what the police assert they might find if they do a few keyword searches of it.
- aspenmayer 6y ago
  > would it seem fair to characterize you as complicit in covering up for felony crimes? The way this part was written in context was hard to parse for me - on first read it seemed that you were arguing that it would be fair to say that you were complicit. This reply shows that you intended this in a more hyperbolic way, or in such a way that you would mock-suggest that “surely this would not be fair,” which is obvious when I already know your meaning, but didn’t seem clear to me on first read.
  - danso 6y ago
    Yeah I agree with you. I had a muddled analogy and likely muddled line of reasoning
    - aspenmayer 6y ago
      Good talk though