3 ms·

Wouldn't the democratic way be to petition the mayor or support a mayoral candidate to appoint a police commissioner whose beliefs on surveillance more align wi

by bko 2mo ago

Wouldn't the democratic way be to petition the mayor or support a mayoral candidate to appoint a police commissioner whose beliefs on surveillance more align with your own? Seems like destroying public property for political reasons is wrong and would otherwise be considered terrorism. But then again, people suspend reason when it comes to certain topics so I'm not surprised.

ParentiSoundSys 2mo ago
> Wouldn't the democratic way be to petition the mayor or support a mayoral candidate to appoint a police commissioner whose beliefs on surveillance more align with your own? Do you believe Flock cameras have been rolled out en masse across the entire country all at once because there is near-unanimous democratic support for their presence? > Seems like destroying public property for political reasons is wrong and would otherwise be considered terrorism. "Terrorism," at this point, is just a term used to describe any action taken in opposition to the ruling class and its objectives of total domination & control, assuming that it has some potential to be effective (in contrast to toothless protests or voting).
- SpicyLemonZest 2mo ago
  > Do you believe Flock cameras have been rolled out en masse across the entire country all at once because there is near-unanimous democratic support for their presence? I'm not sure where you got "near-unanimous" from. I think Flock cameras were rolled out en masse because public video surveillance has been common for a long time, and polling data has historically suggested (e.g. https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/5881-63-accept-video-surveillance-protection-against-te https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/5881-63-accept-video-surve...) that Americans are fine with it.
montagg 2mo ago
Apparently >50% of a jury did not agree with you, in this case, and that is one form of democracy we have to make sure decisions come from the consent of the governed. Looks like democracy to me.
- bko 2mo ago
  [flagged]
fedpost 2mo ago
That's a beautiful fantasy but that's just not how America works at this point. Everyone has ulterior motives to keep the meat grinder running.
fwipsy 2mo ago
This gives me an idea for a (less il)legal alternative: hang "Big Brother is Watching" signs on all of the Flock cameras. Or maybe we can pass a law saying Flock has to do it. That seems like the ideal compromise.
deleted 2mo ago
[deleted]
alphazard 2mo ago
> Wouldn't the democratic way be to petition... This is also the democratic way, arguably more democratic, it's just probabilistic. Juries are supposed to be randomly sampled from the jurisdiction's population (a kind of democratic process). The ability of a jury to judge the law, and not just the particular crime is a feature, not a bug of the justice system. This is how the system is set up, and it is as legitimate as action through a legislative process. EDIT: the parent asked a legitimate question in good faith, there is no need to downvote them because you disagree with their implied current understanding of an issue.
ihumanable 2mo ago
Those people throwing tea into the harbor are destroying property for political reason and are wrong and should be considered terrorists. If they don't like the King's governors they should petition the court to appoint one that more aligns with their taxation desires.
- bko 2mo ago
  Well the government was illegitimate. Is that what you're contending happening here? Are you trying to overthrow the police department or municipal government? How do you feel about Jan 6?
  - none2585 2mo ago
    I think the extrajudicial use of these types of surveillance is an illegitimate use of power and thus fine to be destroyed.
    - bko 2mo ago
      [flagged]
      - none2585 2mo ago
        Of course you can, just you likely won't get any sympathy in the large number of cases where the public or government doesn't agree with you (police, abortion clinics). In this case looks like the people agree with destroying these things. Violence is increasingly the only path forward in America.
      - unclad5968 2mo ago
        Well you can do whatever you want but those are hardly equivalent to destroying a camera.
      - Gormo 2mo ago
        The comment you're responding to didn't formulate the argument as "I am against [X], therefore I am justified in destroying property used to do [X]", but is rather closer "[X] is itself illegal and therefore I am justified in potentially destroying property in order to stop imminent lawbreaking". You can argue the point as to whether this particular "[X]" actually does constitute illegal activity that a citizen is justified in responding to with force, but I don't think it's valid to mischaracterize the argument as the response being justified solely by personal opposition.
Gud 2mo ago
No, the democratic way would have been to have a vote(yes, with the citizenry, not somebody "elected") if you want to allow mass surveillance. Like they do in Switzerland. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-democracy/how-swiss-direct-democracy-works/89073820 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-democracy/how-swiss-direc... Petition the mayor, you can't be real.
nilamo 2mo ago
> would otherwise be considered terrorism Watching what everyone does at all times is terrorism, and it is the people's right to defend themselves against such.
natebc 2mo ago
[dead]
EasyMark 2mo ago
Sometimes the only way is civil disobedience to get the point across to paid off politicians and ones that overly friendly to sacrificing our rights to may the cops happy.

by bko 2mo ago

ParentiSoundSys 2mo ago

> Wouldn't the democratic way be to petition the mayor or support a mayoral candidate to appoint a police commissioner whose beliefs on surveillance more align with your own? Do you believe Flock cameras have been rolled out en masse across the entire country all at once because there is near-unanimous democratic support for their presence? > Seems like destroying public property for political reasons is wrong and would otherwise be considered terrorism. "Terrorism," at this point, is just a term used to describe any action taken in opposition to the ruling class and its objectives of total domination & control, assuming that it has some potential to be effective (in contrast to toothless protests or voting).

SpicyLemonZest 2mo ago
> Do you believe Flock cameras have been rolled out en masse across the entire country all at once because there is near-unanimous democratic support for their presence? I'm not sure where you got "near-unanimous" from. I think Flock cameras were rolled out en masse because public video surveillance has been common for a long time, and polling data has historically suggested (e.g. https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/5881-63-accept-video-surveillance-protection-against-te https://yougov.com/en-us/articles/5881-63-accept-video-surve...) that Americans are fine with it.

montagg 2mo ago

Apparently >50% of a jury did not agree with you, in this case, and that is one form of democracy we have to make sure decisions come from the consent of the governed. Looks like democracy to me.

bko 2mo ago
[flagged]

fedpost 2mo ago

That's a beautiful fantasy but that's just not how America works at this point. Everyone has ulterior motives to keep the meat grinder running.

fwipsy 2mo ago

This gives me an idea for a (less il)legal alternative: hang "Big Brother is Watching" signs on all of the Flock cameras. Or maybe we can pass a law saying Flock has to do it. That seems like the ideal compromise.

deleted 2mo ago

[deleted]

alphazard 2mo ago

> Wouldn't the democratic way be to petition... This is also the democratic way, arguably more democratic, it's just probabilistic. Juries are supposed to be randomly sampled from the jurisdiction's population (a kind of democratic process). The ability of a jury to judge the law, and not just the particular crime is a feature, not a bug of the justice system. This is how the system is set up, and it is as legitimate as action through a legislative process. EDIT: the parent asked a legitimate question in good faith, there is no need to downvote them because you disagree with their implied current understanding of an issue.

ihumanable 2mo ago

Those people throwing tea into the harbor are destroying property for political reason and are wrong and should be considered terrorists. If they don't like the King's governors they should petition the court to appoint one that more aligns with their taxation desires.

bko 2mo ago
Well the government was illegitimate. Is that what you're contending happening here? Are you trying to overthrow the police department or municipal government? How do you feel about Jan 6?
- none2585 2mo ago
  I think the extrajudicial use of these types of surveillance is an illegitimate use of power and thus fine to be destroyed.
  - bko 2mo ago
    [flagged]
    - none2585 2mo ago
      Of course you can, just you likely won't get any sympathy in the large number of cases where the public or government doesn't agree with you (police, abortion clinics). In this case looks like the people agree with destroying these things. Violence is increasingly the only path forward in America.
    - unclad5968 2mo ago
      Well you can do whatever you want but those are hardly equivalent to destroying a camera.
    - Gormo 2mo ago
      The comment you're responding to didn't formulate the argument as "I am against [X], therefore I am justified in destroying property used to do [X]", but is rather closer "[X] is itself illegal and therefore I am justified in potentially destroying property in order to stop imminent lawbreaking". You can argue the point as to whether this particular "[X]" actually does constitute illegal activity that a citizen is justified in responding to with force, but I don't think it's valid to mischaracterize the argument as the response being justified solely by personal opposition.

Gud 2mo ago

No, the democratic way would have been to have a vote(yes, with the citizenry, not somebody "elected") if you want to allow mass surveillance. Like they do in Switzerland. https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-democracy/how-swiss-direct-democracy-works/89073820 https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/swiss-democracy/how-swiss-direc... Petition the mayor, you can't be real.

nilamo 2mo ago

> would otherwise be considered terrorism Watching what everyone does at all times is terrorism, and it is the people's right to defend themselves against such.

natebc 2mo ago

[dead]

EasyMark 2mo ago

Sometimes the only way is civil disobedience to get the point across to paid off politicians and ones that overly friendly to sacrificing our rights to may the cops happy.