3 ms·

Unfortunately, this simply does not hold up in reality, wherein police routinely stalk and harass individuals, to the point that the police decide to fabricate

Unfortunately, this simply does not hold up in reality, wherein police routinely stalk and harass individuals, to the point that the police decide to fabricate criminal evidence just to prove themselves right. I would know, this is exactly what happened to me, as I mentioned in another comment. An example of police organizations surveilling groups of people who are against a gas pipeline running through their lands: https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/surveillance-state-descends-dakota-access-pipeline-spirit-camp https://www.aclu.org/news/free-speech/surveillance-state-des... Are they criminals for organizing and petitioning the government to relent? Example, from my own city, of how police organizations routinely fabricate evidence, typically against minorities and those the police have decided they "do not like" and "could be criminals". Unfortunately, my own hometown was not included in this investigation and my conviction wasn't overturned. https://www.wbrz.com/news/nakamoto-how-corruption-in-brpd-led-to-hundreds-of-dropped-drug-charges https://www.wbrz.com/news/nakamoto-how-corruption-in-brpd-le... What you fail to take into account is the average academic and emotional intelligence of the type of person who finds themselves working in a US police force, given the low pay, high stress and allure of wielding soft power. There aren't just a few bad apples; The entire bunch is rotten and we find this corruption as far back as we find State police forces. Now it's just more apparent because we also surveil the police.

roenxi 2y ago
> What you fail to take into account... I've accounted for all that though. I even said in the comment "even if the police in this instance are, for the sake of argument, irredeemably corrupt" just to highlight that I'm very open to the idea that these police are actively engaging in corruption. This issue I'm raising is that the call to action in the article is observably stupid. They're arguing that if a Mob boss is publicly racketeering on facebook then that shouldn't be used by the police as evidence to raise their suspicions. And there is no way that makes sense. They should be calling for something that will actually help their cause. Shutting your brain down and panicking isn't going to get you to a good place - there are a bunch of problems outlined in the article and the call the action addresses none of them. You really need these people to focus on doing things that will help, rather than doing things at random. In this case like - reigning in RICO abuse, replacing the police leadership or a demilitarisation strategy for the training facility. Trying to ban the police from using public information to inform their policing is remarkably foolish. > I would know, this is exactly what happened to me, as I mentioned in another comment. Well, you probably need to hear this although it is a bit brutal: you're going to lose more if you make stupid arguments. Try to avoid doing that, the justice system responds to it really badly. It also make a difference politically although not as much. If you score a win, you need to be fighting for something that actually helps your position, not arbitrary demands.
- soulofmischief 2y ago
  > I've accounted for all that though. I even said in the comment "even if the police in this instance are, for the sake of argument, irredeemably corrupt" just to highlight that I'm very open to the idea that these police are actively engaging in corruption. You still fail to take it into account. When creating policy, one has to consider all ways in which a policy might be used or abused. Any sociopolitical structure which confers power to individuals over others must be designed to protect innocents against worst-case scenarios. If there is even the possibility that the wrong person in the driver's seat could do significant or irreversible damage to innocent people, then it's bad policy. Because organizations and their policies often last longer than any one individual within the organization. This is the very basis on which the US Constitution was written. > You're going to lose more if you make stupid arguments. Try to avoid doing that, the justice system responds to it really badly. What on earth are you referring to?
  - roenxi 2y ago
    >> You're going to lose more if you make stupid arguments. Try to avoid doing that, the justice system responds to it really badly. > What on earth are you referring to? You're claiming you were stalked, harassed and the police fabricated evidence against you. Your response is to advocate that they can't read your Facebook posts. That response is stupid, it is a stupid thing to advocate for. You should be calling for something more like people to be fired. Based on that stance, I'd assume you're going to get rolled by the police strategically. Over the long term you're going to get nothing if you think calling for a reading-public-information-ban is going to get you anything. If there was such a ban in place, it wouldn't even start to protect you from the problems you're describing. They'd just read your posts in their lunchbreak and keep the list at home on a stickynote outside of an official capacity. > You still fail to take it into account. When creating policy, one has to consider all ways in which a policy might be used or abused. Yeah, you do. And when you do that with a policy like "The police can't read public information" the consideration will come to "this policy is moronic, the police should be able to read publicly available information and act if they feel it is appropriate". I'm not sure how you are thinking that policy of restriction is a good idea and your argument is unpersuasive. You'd either end up with situations like people actively inciting murder on social media and the police are powerless or no change from the current state. The entire idea is silly. The police have to, as a matter of principle, have the power to read public information and act on it if they think it is evidence of a crime. Particularly if they're planning RICO charges. And you can't overrule their judgements on whether something is a crime while their still in an early investigative phase as they would be if they are drawing up lists. It can't possibly work.

roenxi 2y ago

> What you fail to take into account... I've accounted for all that though. I even said in the comment "even if the police in this instance are, for the sake of argument, irredeemably corrupt" just to highlight that I'm very open to the idea that these police are actively engaging in corruption. This issue I'm raising is that the call to action in the article is observably stupid. They're arguing that if a Mob boss is publicly racketeering on facebook then that shouldn't be used by the police as evidence to raise their suspicions. And there is no way that makes sense. They should be calling for something that will actually help their cause. Shutting your brain down and panicking isn't going to get you to a good place - there are a bunch of problems outlined in the article and the call the action addresses none of them. You really need these people to focus on doing things that will help, rather than doing things at random. In this case like - reigning in RICO abuse, replacing the police leadership or a demilitarisation strategy for the training facility. Trying to ban the police from using public information to inform their policing is remarkably foolish. > I would know, this is exactly what happened to me, as I mentioned in another comment. Well, you probably need to hear this although it is a bit brutal: you're going to lose more if you make stupid arguments. Try to avoid doing that, the justice system responds to it really badly. It also make a difference politically although not as much. If you score a win, you need to be fighting for something that actually helps your position, not arbitrary demands.

soulofmischief 2y ago
> I've accounted for all that though. I even said in the comment "even if the police in this instance are, for the sake of argument, irredeemably corrupt" just to highlight that I'm very open to the idea that these police are actively engaging in corruption. You still fail to take it into account. When creating policy, one has to consider all ways in which a policy might be used or abused. Any sociopolitical structure which confers power to individuals over others must be designed to protect innocents against worst-case scenarios. If there is even the possibility that the wrong person in the driver's seat could do significant or irreversible damage to innocent people, then it's bad policy. Because organizations and their policies often last longer than any one individual within the organization. This is the very basis on which the US Constitution was written. > You're going to lose more if you make stupid arguments. Try to avoid doing that, the justice system responds to it really badly. What on earth are you referring to?
- roenxi 2y ago
  >> You're going to lose more if you make stupid arguments. Try to avoid doing that, the justice system responds to it really badly. > What on earth are you referring to? You're claiming you were stalked, harassed and the police fabricated evidence against you. Your response is to advocate that they can't read your Facebook posts. That response is stupid, it is a stupid thing to advocate for. You should be calling for something more like people to be fired. Based on that stance, I'd assume you're going to get rolled by the police strategically. Over the long term you're going to get nothing if you think calling for a reading-public-information-ban is going to get you anything. If there was such a ban in place, it wouldn't even start to protect you from the problems you're describing. They'd just read your posts in their lunchbreak and keep the list at home on a stickynote outside of an official capacity. > You still fail to take it into account. When creating policy, one has to consider all ways in which a policy might be used or abused. Yeah, you do. And when you do that with a policy like "The police can't read public information" the consideration will come to "this policy is moronic, the police should be able to read publicly available information and act if they feel it is appropriate". I'm not sure how you are thinking that policy of restriction is a good idea and your argument is unpersuasive. You'd either end up with situations like people actively inciting murder on social media and the police are powerless or no change from the current state. The entire idea is silly. The police have to, as a matter of principle, have the power to read public information and act on it if they think it is evidence of a crime. Particularly if they're planning RICO charges. And you can't overrule their judgements on whether something is a crime while their still in an early investigative phase as they would be if they are drawing up lists. It can't possibly work.