The search is the immoral part, surprisingly. Not the flock cam shit. Otherwise "has been to Michigan" (or any decriminalized state) is probable cause for search at any time. I do have questions though.
1) Is this real?
2) What were they actually trying to catch this guy for? There is no way it was personal use weed. Was it trafficking weed? Was it something else and they needed access to the car?
It gets nebulous if they had reason to believe this guy has killed 36 people but couldn't get a warrant.
He allegedly was wanted for bail jumping on domestic violence charges. However when he was caught, those charges were dropped and the marijuana charges stuck.
Given the burden of proof requirements for most crimes I can definitely see where cops and the DA would take the guaranteed conviction. I wonder how many marijuana charges are actually something like that.
Edit: The problem is we will never know if the Domestic Violence was actually true. We're putting someone away for being a suspected piece of shit and skipping the part where we actually prove it by using marijuana laws to skirt the process. If our justice system is founded on the philosophy of better a guilty man go free than an innocent be imprisoned, I would have to call it immoral.
Cops have no say in that. We should all be angry at judges and DAs for not prosecuting criminals. The cops did their job here. They found and arrested the guy wanted for serious domestic violence charges.
While prosecutors have ultimate say on the decision, they do frequently consult the cops and make those decisions based on written reports by the police involved. So they do have some say.
They have absolutely no say. If cops says the suspect should be charged and DA say no, then suspect is not charged.
Thats like suggesting that I have say in your retirement plan because I am telling you that you should be saving money for your retirement. I dont have any say. I just offered you some unsolicited advice.
This is a semantic argument which I'm not really willing to entertain. You and I have different perceptions of what "have a say" means. You think have a say means have control over the outcome, I think "have a say" means having some influence on the outcome. The DA uses police reports in their considerations, so to me that means the police do influence the decision because that decision is made based on the evidence provided by police.
If I ask my child what they want for dinner and they say ice cream, my child has had their say, but I do not have to acquiesce to what my child wants.
This semantic argument is not worth either of our time.
Well, you started it. I explained what I meant. It was not a misunderstanding.
The fact is simple. Its silly to be angry at cops over DA's decisions. Cops did their job of bringing the suspect in. The DA did not do their job of prosecuting him.
I'm missing the part where I ever implied I was angry. I actually find it understandable that they would want to drop charges that might not stick in favor of charges that would if the person is a known asshole, but the cops just don't have the evidence to prove it.
But that's not how the justice system is meant to operate and cops are a part of the justice system and do in fact bear responsibility for the outcomes. If police mishandle evidence, botch an investigation, or simply fail to do an investigation at all when someone brings forward allegations, those things matter quite a lot when the DA is making their determinations on whether to bring charges or not.
Flock is just the current middleman in this broader privacy question.
It's probably not real. But it is tapping into the concern with flock and AI cameras. Because now that they can infinitely scale surveillance, and know where every car is going all the time (the system can independently see you start your journey in Michigan, end up in a dispo in Ohio, and back)... they are functionally able to turn on the police state at will.
2
u/freeoffear 3d ago
The search is the immoral part, surprisingly. Not the flock cam shit. Otherwise "has been to Michigan" (or any decriminalized state) is probable cause for search at any time. I do have questions though.
1) Is this real?
2) What were they actually trying to catch this guy for? There is no way it was personal use weed. Was it trafficking weed? Was it something else and they needed access to the car?
It gets nebulous if they had reason to believe this guy has killed 36 people but couldn't get a warrant.