2 ms·
In general I agree, but thinking of counter-arguments -- criminals are not playing by the same rules and use every manpower-reducing technologies. So if police
by deepsun 9mo ago
In general I agree, but thinking of counter-arguments -- criminals are not playing by the same rules and use every manpower-reducing technologies. So if police to keep to their traditional methods, then criminals will have upper hand, and more so with technological advances.
- jordanb 9mo agoIf "criminals" are now are the mass population then we need to think about how we're defining "criminal." Police were always allowed to bug a vehicle with a court order. They weren't allowed to just casually bug random people's cars because that's mass-surveillance. Now mass-surveillance is completely normalized. Every citizen is treated as a potential criminal and surveilled into a database.
- GrowingSideways 9mo agoI'm about 1000x more concerned with gangs of armed thugs kidnapping & murdering my neighbors than I am about criminals.
- wat10000 9mo agoYou could say the same thing about all those pesky rules police have to follow around probable cause, evidence collection, letting people have lawyers, etc. Criminals don’t have to do any of that.
- actionfromafar 9mo agoAverage Republican, fine with that.
- mindslight 9mo ago[flagged]
- deleted 9mo ago[deleted]
- hackable_sand 9mo agoI can fight back against criminals. I cannot fight back against cops. I'd rather be surrounded by criminals.
- deepsun 9mo agoYou probably meant the other way around, no? You can legally fight back against cops, but criminals be criminals, you cannot "fight back" against someone stealing your car forever.