4 ms·

Should the police maintain a list of every individual with a public social media account that speaks out against any policy which the police support?

krapp 2y ago
The police probably already have such a list.
- mulmen 2y ago
  The question is if they should, not if they do.
  - Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y ago
    Definitely. They need to be able to round up $GROUP when the order comes down. I'm sure everyone has a group to fill in there.
    - mulmen 2y ago
      I don't have a group to fill in there.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > need to be able to round up $GROUP when the order comes down. I'm sure everyone has a group to fill in there The history of police keeping lists of people to round up isn't terrific.
    - soulofmischief 2y ago
      Politicians and corporate execs involved in the destruction of our environment and the underclass?
hdlothia 2y ago
I feel like this is really hard to answer with a simple yes or no. I would say that when things are limited to speech, the police should use restraint in collecting information When there is criminal activity in the mix I think the police should be allowed to get info on potential subjects or instigators as long as they are following the law strictly.
- mulmen 2y ago
  It's easy to answer. The answer is no. The answer is never yes.
  - hdlothia 2y ago
    The police can't ever maintain lists of people suspected of criminal behavior?
    - mulmen 2y ago
      In the United States speech is not a crime.
      - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
        > In the United States speech is not a crime Fraud. Perjury. Violent threats.
    - scarecrowbob 2y ago
      "Speaking out against the police" is not "criminal behavior".
      - hdlothia 2y ago
        I agree but stop cop city also does vandalizing, breaking and entering and arson.
        2y ago
roenxi 2y ago
Well, if the police want to? Basically yes. That is how the police work. They monitor the world for things they don't like and police them. We can't pre-empt judgement calls since the courts are retrospective systems, and the police have to be able to monitor public information for things they think are threats. If you have another option for how policing is going to work feel free to put it forward but it is going to be pretty radical. We have this complex system of rules, lawyers and judges to try and reign in the excesses, but at the end of the day there isn't any getting around the basic flaws in human nature or the requirement that the police need the power to investigate things they do not like. The police acting on their intelligence gathering in the sense of interfering with the lives of others is something that can be prohibited, but making a list of people isn't threatening enough or easy enough to detect. You may not like some specific list. The mafia may not like some specific list. The police must be protected from interest groups objecting to specific lists or the whole system won't work.
- mulmen 2y ago
  You have a deep misunderstanding of how law enforcement works. Police are there to investigate after a crime has occurred or to intervene to stop a crime in progress. There is no predictive mandate. When police start trying to predict the future they see the public as monsters.
  - roenxi 2y ago
    But they do think a crime is in progress and has occured. People have been charged. That is why they were keeping the lists! These aren't lists of people to get Christmas hampers, these are lists of people the police expect to charge with crimes. Even if the police in this instance are, for the sake of argument, irredeemably corrupt there may be literally nothing they are going to do with these lists except call people criminals. Otherwise they'd keep them in a private capacity. It isn't reasonable to preemptively declare that the police can't suspect people of being criminals. These aren't matters that can be preemptively dealt with by adding rules or restrictions on the police reading public information. It has to be done in review.

krapp 2y ago

The police probably already have such a list.

mulmen 2y ago
The question is if they should, not if they do.
- Am4TIfIsER0ppos 2y ago
  Definitely. They need to be able to round up $GROUP when the order comes down. I'm sure everyone has a group to fill in there.
  - mulmen 2y ago
    I don't have a group to fill in there.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > need to be able to round up $GROUP when the order comes down. I'm sure everyone has a group to fill in there The history of police keeping lists of people to round up isn't terrific.
  - soulofmischief 2y ago
    Politicians and corporate execs involved in the destruction of our environment and the underclass?

hdlothia 2y ago

I feel like this is really hard to answer with a simple yes or no. I would say that when things are limited to speech, the police should use restraint in collecting information When there is criminal activity in the mix I think the police should be allowed to get info on potential subjects or instigators as long as they are following the law strictly.

mulmen 2y ago
It's easy to answer. The answer is no. The answer is never yes.
- hdlothia 2y ago
  The police can't ever maintain lists of people suspected of criminal behavior?
  - mulmen 2y ago
    In the United States speech is not a crime.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > In the United States speech is not a crime Fraud. Perjury. Violent threats.
  - scarecrowbob 2y ago
    "Speaking out against the police" is not "criminal behavior".
    - hdlothia 2y ago
      I agree but stop cop city also does vandalizing, breaking and entering and arson.
      - 2y ago

roenxi 2y ago

Well, if the police want to? Basically yes. That is how the police work. They monitor the world for things they don't like and police them. We can't pre-empt judgement calls since the courts are retrospective systems, and the police have to be able to monitor public information for things they think are threats. If you have another option for how policing is going to work feel free to put it forward but it is going to be pretty radical. We have this complex system of rules, lawyers and judges to try and reign in the excesses, but at the end of the day there isn't any getting around the basic flaws in human nature or the requirement that the police need the power to investigate things they do not like. The police acting on their intelligence gathering in the sense of interfering with the lives of others is something that can be prohibited, but making a list of people isn't threatening enough or easy enough to detect. You may not like some specific list. The mafia may not like some specific list. The police must be protected from interest groups objecting to specific lists or the whole system won't work.

mulmen 2y ago
You have a deep misunderstanding of how law enforcement works. Police are there to investigate after a crime has occurred or to intervene to stop a crime in progress. There is no predictive mandate. When police start trying to predict the future they see the public as monsters.
- roenxi 2y ago
  But they do think a crime is in progress and has occured. People have been charged. That is why they were keeping the lists! These aren't lists of people to get Christmas hampers, these are lists of people the police expect to charge with crimes. Even if the police in this instance are, for the sake of argument, irredeemably corrupt there may be literally nothing they are going to do with these lists except call people criminals. Otherwise they'd keep them in a private capacity. It isn't reasonable to preemptively declare that the police can't suspect people of being criminals. These aren't matters that can be preemptively dealt with by adding rules or restrictions on the police reading public information. It has to be done in review.