5 ms·

Lots of people jumping to conclusions one way or the other here, but keep in mind a few things. #1 The police had a warrant. That means they had to have a cert

Lots of people jumping to conclusions one way or the other here, but keep in mind a few things. #1 The police had a warrant. That means they had to have a certain amount of evidence to present to a judge. "She is a disgruntled former employee with an axe to grind" is probably not enough to get a warrant. Server logs with an IP address would hold up in court. #2 Pointing guns at clearly non-aggressive people and particularly kids is bullshit in general. The PD says she hung up on them and knocked on the door for 20 minutes. Maybe BS cover up, but if true, might explain the seemingly over-aggressive entry. Not jumping to conclusions, but sometimes decent people do stupid things.

giantg2 6y ago
It's possible the guns were not point at them but were in a low ready too.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  There is a video, I didn't watch it, I was just taking her comment about guns at face value.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    There's only 30 seconds, but I couldn't see the guns pointed at anyone unless they were off-frame.
    - Balgair 6y ago
      20 seconds in the video she posted here: https://twitter.com/GeoRebekah/status/1336065787900145665 https://twitter.com/GeoRebekah/status/1336065787900145665 Officer is clearly pointing a firearm upstairs at the family.
      - giantg2 6y ago
        It doesn't show people upstairs in that video. Even if they were, they were doing it to clear the corner and then lowering the weapon after identifying them as non-hostile (or no person at all since they aren't on video).
        colanderman 6y ago
        Why did they need to do that? Why would they have any reason to believe anyone in the house was a violent threat? Come in with the damn guns holstered. It's some scientist's house, where her kids live. Not a fucking prepper compound.
        giantg2 6y ago
        Do you know if they have guns in the house or if they are violent? This is standard procedure if they were noncompliant. No harm was done, so I don't see why this is being discussed. If they had thought there was a chance of violence, they would have been much more forceful.
        elijaht 6y ago
        > No harm was done, so I don't see why this is being discussed Come on now. If you can't look at events this year and understand why people are frustrated/scared about a situation like this, then that's willful ignorance. Is it reasonable for LE to come into certain situations preemptively prepared for violence (gun draw in tight quarters)? I think yes. Is this one? Hell no
        giantg2 6y ago
        They're prepared to defend themselves because the individual was non-compliant for 20 minutes so they don't know if the people in the residence were setting up an ambush. I believe it's willful ignorance to ignore the facts of the case. Have you ever educated yourself on police training and tactics?
        Balgair 6y ago
- brianpan 6y ago
  There are home security videos that you can watch in the article.
  - giantg2 6y ago
    I'll have to watch that. Edit: Watched it, but did not see guns being pointed at anyone.
  - thepasswordis 6y ago
    And they don't show any guns being pointed at anybody.
brundolf 6y ago
#1 seems like a fairly optimistic interpretation of how the system works in practice. Re #2, "sometimes decent people do stupid things": these "decent people" have been doing these "stupid things" habitually, systematically, across the nation, for decades. This isn't some one-off incident, this is the typical procedure.
totalZero 6y ago
"Decent people do stupid things" when oversight is lax, accountability is thin, wrong is not punished, and right is not highlighted. All of these factors are the result of poor institutional control, and a lack of capacity of institutional leaders to incentivize good behavior and eradicate bad behavior. There's no reason to pull a gun on an unarmed child in a household of people who have demonstrated no danger to the police executing the warrant, even if it took forever to enter the property. There is no planet upon which "she hung up on us and didn't answer the door for 20 minutes" is by itself a reason to threaten to kill someone.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > There's no reason to pull a gun on an unarmed child in a household of people who have demonstrated no danger to the police executing the warrant, even if it took forever to enter the property. There is no planet upon which "she hung up on us and didn't answer the door for 20 minutes" is by itself a reason to threaten to kill someone. Fully agree. Wasn't trying to justify it.
  - totalZero 6y ago
    I wasn't going after you, apologies if it came off that way. My frustration is aimed at the system which tacitly consents to needless police aggression. When I read about police behavior I am always reminded of Dr. Zimbardo's suggestion that systems may be corrupted not by bad apples, but rather by a bad barrel that damages otherwise healthy apples within. Your comment about decent people hits near the same concept.
    - ogre_codes 6y ago
      No worries, I can see how you could read it as justifying their actions. I was just trying to point out that she likely made things worse. I wish our police forces could be much more like the British where only a small percentage of officers are armed. The over-abundance of weapons here makes that exceedingly difficult, but it would be nice. Certainly situations like this where the probability of violent resistance is so small should merit unarmed response, but that's just not the way we do things.
hshshs2 6y ago
Being unresponsive doesn’t warrant having your life threatened. Why do people think this? It’s BS either way.
jcheng 6y ago
For further context, this is the message that she's accused of sending: > It's time to speak up before another 17,000 people are dead. You know this is wrong. You don't have to be a part of this. Be a hero. Speak out before it's too late. That's literally it. When I hear "disgruntled former employee" I think of phishing for credentials or threatening former coworkers, in this case the terms "whistleblower" and "civil disobedience" seem more appropriate.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  I'm not sold that what she did was a terrible crime. I do think it was foolish and likely pointless, but not something which merits police pointing guns at her kids and going to prison.
- wil421 6y ago
  A disgruntled former employee allegedly accessed the former employers system to send an unauthorized emergency message. That’s illegal and it doesn’t matter if it’s the Florida Department of Health, Google, or McDonalds. Creating your own dashboard and fighting your former employer’s data is much more like whistleblowing or fighting the system. Hopefully these are just allegations and she can get good lawyers.
  - jcheng 6y ago
    Whistleblowing is often illegal. Civil disobedience is, by definition, illegal. Actions can be both illegal and morally/ethically admirable--hopefully we can all agree on that.
    - wil421 6y ago
      It’s not often illegal for public employees. Most of the time there are specific Whitleblower statues. She falls into the one for Florida. Prong 1: Any violation or suspected violation of any federal, state, or local law, rule, or regulation committed by an employee or agent of an agency or independent contractor which creates and present a substantial and specific danger to the public’s health, safety, or welfare; and/or Prong 2: Any act or suspected act of gross mismanagement, malfeasance, misfeasance, gross waste of public funds, suspected or actual Medicaid fraud or abuse, or gross neglect of duty committed by an employee or agent of an agency or independent contractor. https://www.floridalaborlawyer.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-whistleblower-against-a-public-employer-in-florida/ https://www.floridalaborlawyer.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a...
frabbit 6y ago
Just because they have a warrant does not mean they should be going in with weapons drawn even if they were made to sit around for 20 minutes while the innocent person decided what do to. And once they had taken violent charge of that innocent person they had no business lurking in the family dwelling with weapons drawn menacing people that were not even listed on that warrant. You are making a very thin apologium for appalling behaviour.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  > Just because they have a warrant does not mean they should be going in with weapons drawn even if they were made to sit around for 20 minutes while the innocent person decided what do to. Agree. > You are making a very thin apologium for appalling behaviour. Wasn't my intent, but I can see how you would read it that way.
jpmattia 6y ago
> Server logs with an IP address would hold up in court. TIL I can frame somebody by breaking their wifi password and doing some crimes. Cool.
- ogre_codes 6y ago
  Well I meant the IP was enough for getting a warrant. But people have been in some dicey situations due to funky shit on their IP addresses. "I have an unsecured wifi" is a defense that's been used in court.
  - jpmattia 6y ago
    > Well I meant the IP was enough for getting a warrant. That makes more sense, but I suppose you can still frame somebody for the warrant only and make their life miserable. (Rebekah's computers were confiscated, as an example.)
tqi 6y ago
#2 acting aggressively simply because someone didn't comply is an abuse of power. The only justifiable reason to draw their weapons is if the occupants were viewed as a threat. To threaten as retaliation for non compliance is fucking horse shit.

giantg2 6y ago

It's possible the guns were not point at them but were in a low ready too.

ogre_codes 6y ago
There is a video, I didn't watch it, I was just taking her comment about guns at face value.
- giantg2 6y ago
  There's only 30 seconds, but I couldn't see the guns pointed at anyone unless they were off-frame.
  - Balgair 6y ago
    20 seconds in the video she posted here: https://twitter.com/GeoRebekah/status/1336065787900145665 https://twitter.com/GeoRebekah/status/1336065787900145665 Officer is clearly pointing a firearm upstairs at the family.
    - giantg2 6y ago
      It doesn't show people upstairs in that video. Even if they were, they were doing it to clear the corner and then lowering the weapon after identifying them as non-hostile (or no person at all since they aren't on video).
      - colanderman 6y ago
        Why did they need to do that? Why would they have any reason to believe anyone in the house was a violent threat? Come in with the damn guns holstered. It's some scientist's house, where her kids live. Not a fucking prepper compound.
        giantg2 6y ago
        Do you know if they have guns in the house or if they are violent? This is standard procedure if they were noncompliant. No harm was done, so I don't see why this is being discussed. If they had thought there was a chance of violence, they would have been much more forceful.
        elijaht 6y ago
        > No harm was done, so I don't see why this is being discussed Come on now. If you can't look at events this year and understand why people are frustrated/scared about a situation like this, then that's willful ignorance. Is it reasonable for LE to come into certain situations preemptively prepared for violence (gun draw in tight quarters)? I think yes. Is this one? Hell no
        giantg2 6y ago
        They're prepared to defend themselves because the individual was non-compliant for 20 minutes so they don't know if the people in the residence were setting up an ambush. I believe it's willful ignorance to ignore the facts of the case. Have you ever educated yourself on police training and tactics?
        Balgair 6y ago
brianpan 6y ago
There are home security videos that you can watch in the article.
- giantg2 6y ago
  I'll have to watch that. Edit: Watched it, but did not see guns being pointed at anyone.
- thepasswordis 6y ago
  And they don't show any guns being pointed at anybody.

brundolf 6y ago

#1 seems like a fairly optimistic interpretation of how the system works in practice. Re #2, "sometimes decent people do stupid things": these "decent people" have been doing these "stupid things" habitually, systematically, across the nation, for decades. This isn't some one-off incident, this is the typical procedure.

totalZero 6y ago

"Decent people do stupid things" when oversight is lax, accountability is thin, wrong is not punished, and right is not highlighted. All of these factors are the result of poor institutional control, and a lack of capacity of institutional leaders to incentivize good behavior and eradicate bad behavior. There's no reason to pull a gun on an unarmed child in a household of people who have demonstrated no danger to the police executing the warrant, even if it took forever to enter the property. There is no planet upon which "she hung up on us and didn't answer the door for 20 minutes" is by itself a reason to threaten to kill someone.

ogre_codes 6y ago
> There's no reason to pull a gun on an unarmed child in a household of people who have demonstrated no danger to the police executing the warrant, even if it took forever to enter the property. There is no planet upon which "she hung up on us and didn't answer the door for 20 minutes" is by itself a reason to threaten to kill someone. Fully agree. Wasn't trying to justify it.
- totalZero 6y ago
  I wasn't going after you, apologies if it came off that way. My frustration is aimed at the system which tacitly consents to needless police aggression. When I read about police behavior I am always reminded of Dr. Zimbardo's suggestion that systems may be corrupted not by bad apples, but rather by a bad barrel that damages otherwise healthy apples within. Your comment about decent people hits near the same concept.
  - ogre_codes 6y ago
    No worries, I can see how you could read it as justifying their actions. I was just trying to point out that she likely made things worse. I wish our police forces could be much more like the British where only a small percentage of officers are armed. The over-abundance of weapons here makes that exceedingly difficult, but it would be nice. Certainly situations like this where the probability of violent resistance is so small should merit unarmed response, but that's just not the way we do things.

hshshs2 6y ago

Being unresponsive doesn’t warrant having your life threatened. Why do people think this? It’s BS either way.

jcheng 6y ago

For further context, this is the message that she's accused of sending: > It's time to speak up before another 17,000 people are dead. You know this is wrong. You don't have to be a part of this. Be a hero. Speak out before it's too late. That's literally it. When I hear "disgruntled former employee" I think of phishing for credentials or threatening former coworkers, in this case the terms "whistleblower" and "civil disobedience" seem more appropriate.

ogre_codes 6y ago
I'm not sold that what she did was a terrible crime. I do think it was foolish and likely pointless, but not something which merits police pointing guns at her kids and going to prison.
wil421 6y ago
A disgruntled former employee allegedly accessed the former employers system to send an unauthorized emergency message. That’s illegal and it doesn’t matter if it’s the Florida Department of Health, Google, or McDonalds. Creating your own dashboard and fighting your former employer’s data is much more like whistleblowing or fighting the system. Hopefully these are just allegations and she can get good lawyers.
- jcheng 6y ago
  Whistleblowing is often illegal. Civil disobedience is, by definition, illegal. Actions can be both illegal and morally/ethically admirable--hopefully we can all agree on that.
  - wil421 6y ago
    It’s not often illegal for public employees. Most of the time there are specific Whitleblower statues. She falls into the one for Florida. Prong 1: Any violation or suspected violation of any federal, state, or local law, rule, or regulation committed by an employee or agent of an agency or independent contractor which creates and present a substantial and specific danger to the public’s health, safety, or welfare; and/or Prong 2: Any act or suspected act of gross mismanagement, malfeasance, misfeasance, gross waste of public funds, suspected or actual Medicaid fraud or abuse, or gross neglect of duty committed by an employee or agent of an agency or independent contractor. https://www.floridalaborlawyer.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a-whistleblower-against-a-public-employer-in-florida/ https://www.floridalaborlawyer.com/what-does-it-mean-to-be-a...

frabbit 6y ago

Just because they have a warrant does not mean they should be going in with weapons drawn even if they were made to sit around for 20 minutes while the innocent person decided what do to. And once they had taken violent charge of that innocent person they had no business lurking in the family dwelling with weapons drawn menacing people that were not even listed on that warrant. You are making a very thin apologium for appalling behaviour.

ogre_codes 6y ago
> Just because they have a warrant does not mean they should be going in with weapons drawn even if they were made to sit around for 20 minutes while the innocent person decided what do to. Agree. > You are making a very thin apologium for appalling behaviour. Wasn't my intent, but I can see how you would read it that way.

jpmattia 6y ago

> Server logs with an IP address would hold up in court. TIL I can frame somebody by breaking their wifi password and doing some crimes. Cool.

ogre_codes 6y ago
Well I meant the IP was enough for getting a warrant. But people have been in some dicey situations due to funky shit on their IP addresses. "I have an unsecured wifi" is a defense that's been used in court.
- jpmattia 6y ago
  > Well I meant the IP was enough for getting a warrant. That makes more sense, but I suppose you can still frame somebody for the warrant only and make their life miserable. (Rebekah's computers were confiscated, as an example.)

tqi 6y ago

#2 acting aggressively simply because someone didn't comply is an abuse of power. The only justifiable reason to draw their weapons is if the occupants were viewed as a threat. To threaten as retaliation for non compliance is fucking horse shit.