5 ms·

There's an important detail missing from your abbreviated account and that is the individual refused to open the door for the warrant and apparently used the ti

• TheOperator 6y ago
  >There's an important detail missing from your abbreviated account and that is the individual refused to open the door for the warrant and apparently used the time to 'alter' her situation. Proof? This sounds an awful lot like something a police department who refused to publish video evidence themselves would make up out of thin air to save face.
  • jariel 6y ago
    Why would the police want to release anything? The press clearly misrepresented even the minor facts of the case ('pointed guns at children') for which there isn't any evidence - using that likely untruth as the headline item thereby making it an iron clad fact of 'truth' in the public narrative. It's possible, even likely that 1) The woman did something actually wrong and used government accounts without permission and 2) she didn't answer the door for 20 minutes, thereby requiring the police to take a more assertive posture. And frankly I doubt they pointed guns at children because that would be pointless. (Although it's possible she is entirely innocent of breaking into said systems, and possibly has some entirely good reason why she didn't answer the door for the police for 20 minutes) If you use some public system in an unauthorized way, download data, you certainly would expect police to knock in the door, and you don't answer it for 20 minutes, they might have their guns upholstered when you finally do. That's not unreasonable. Also, just because someone has a grievance with your company/government, doesn't them a whistleblower. In the entirety of her public foray, I'm not able to find the specific nature of her concerns - the more I look, the more I doubt her claims. Florida releases more data than any province here in Canada as I can tell, here is the Florida dashboard [1] here is the Ontario dashboard [2]. Florida release information specifically related to schools, LTC facilities etc. - Quebec has for example denied that data to the public. I feel the entire case, like everything, has been politicized. For reference From [3]: "Plessinger said Jones refused to answer the door for 20 minutes and hung up on agents. Jones eventually let the agents into the home, she said. Her family was upstairs when agents entered, Plessinger said. The 31-second video Jones posted on Twitter shows agents entering her home with their guns drawn. Jones tells the officers that her husband and two children are upstairs as they direct her outside of the house. One of the agents points his gun toward the stairwell. An officer shouts, “Police, come down now.” As the video ends, Jones yells, “He just pointed a gun at my children.” The video does not show any children, or agents pointing guns at any children. FDLE said agents didn’t point guns at anyone." [1] https://floridahealthcovid19.gov/ https://floridahealthcovid19.gov/ [2] https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/data-and-analysis/infectious-disease/covid-19-data-surveillance/covid-19-data-tool https://www.publichealthontario.ca/en/data-and-analysis/infe... [3] https://www.sun-sentinel.com/coronavirus/fl-ne-whistleblower-search-warrant-20201207-rapzkgm7fnbujlhwzadunciigu-story.html https://www.sun-sentinel.com/coronavirus/fl-ne-whistleblower...
• 542354234235 6y ago
  > America is a dangerous place, and just like you're a 'regular person at the range with an AR and a Glock' - guns are everywhere. You are more likely to be violently attacked working at a convenience store than being a cop. But we would not tolerate it if the guy next to the slim jims pointed a gun at every random customer. Citizens that choose to carry a weapon for self-defense cannot point their weapon a people just in case, or even put their hand on their weapon or flash it to other people, that is called brandishing and is a crime. Yet police do it as a normal part of their interactions. This idea that police should be allowed threaten and intimidate other citizens as a normal part of their job because “its so dangerous” is ridiculous. > it's probably very ingrained SOP to have weapons drawn Then this is a failure of their training or a failure of the individual police. Hand waving police having deadly weapons drawn and pointed at fellow citizens because of habit is not acceptable. > That they had their 'guns out of holsters' is actually perfectly reasonable because systematically, it's too dangerous for them otherwise. First, it is not too dangerous. Second, if it is, then pick a new line of work. If you are too scared to do your job correctly and would rather put citizens at increased risk then join the post office. And maybe, just maybe, a policy of shoving guns in people’s faces is what escalates many of these situations.
  • jariel 6y ago
    "You are more likely to be violently attacked working at a convenience store than being a cop." You are absolutely more likely to be shot at while serving a warrant, than working in a convenience store. "Citizens that choose to carry a weapon for self-defense cannot point their weapon a people just in case" Citizens are not police officers, entrusted to carry out the law and who must actively confront danger, moreover, police are trained to do so. "Then this is a failure of their training or a failure of the individual police." This is wrong to the extent that it's very rational for police to at least have weapons drawn when individuals are refusing to comply with the warrant etc.. 'Weapons drawn' is a very simple tactic, which makes them easy to use if necessary. It is not in and of itself particularly dangerous. "First, it is not too dangerous. " Yes it is. [1] (from the AP, not Fox News) Have a little Google yourself. " Second, if it is, then pick a new line of work" This is a shameful remark, exemplary of the general tone here. "If you don't want to get COVID and die - quit being a nurse - now go ahead and work without a mask!". It's absurd (and basically offensive) to suggest that public servants shouldn't have the right to take appropriate steps to defend themselves, or even have to put themselves in a position of danger, let alone harassment in the first place. Even African American Police officers are called the n-word and put up with all sorts of horrible abuses (just search 'police' on TikTok) which should definitely be illegal: you cannot go into the DMV or IRS (or Wallmart!) and start harassing people - the same should apply to police. If the woman in question was concerned for the safety of her children, she would have simply opened the door and 'used her words'. If in fact, the Gov. is illegally intimidating her, and she's done no wrong, well then I hope the judge recognizes that. Finally, police reform is not going to come form the plebes on social media, it's going to have to be done thoughtfully, by them, led probably by ex-police officers who have first-hand experience. [1] https://apnews.com/article/30fd23e66f21446b90d2b8cb0135ae03 https://apnews.com/article/30fd23e66f21446b90d2b8cb0135ae03
• jkhdigital 6y ago
  This seems like a pretty thoughtful comment... downvoted to oblivion. Stay classy HN