3 ms·
You're taking something that has happened at least once and extrapolating it to every situation; this isn't accurate.
by loeg 7mo ago
You're taking something that has happened at least once and extrapolating it to every situation; this isn't accurate.
- Zigurd 7mo agoShow me one big city PD that isn't corrupt enough that this is just a minor corruption snack to them.
- loeg 7mo agoThis is a bizarre comment. What level of absence of evidence would you accept to prove "not corrupt enough?" The "corruption snack" language strongly suggests you aren't really interested in changing your mind even if such evidence could be provided.
- whimsicalism 7mo agowelcome to hn
- Zigurd 7mo agoIf you know of one I would gladly hold it up as a shining example and a template for others to follow. And yet...
- loeg 7mo agoIt's also bizarre because light timings are set by DOTs, not police departments... Do you think your local DOT is corrupt? I think mine is inept, but not corrupt.