News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source. Clickbait titles may be removed.
Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials, videos, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.
7. No duplicate posts.
If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners or news aggregators.
All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
Why was this man's license plate being tracked for him to be caught? If you can answer that question in a manner that implies the cops had suspicion before they did the license plate tracking then you've got a strong case that this gentleman's 4th amendment rights weren't violated.
But I don't think there's any way they knew to search his car where the first step wasn't "Flock told us he goes to Michigan a lot" which, again, isn't a crime nor is it suspicious. But more importantly, it means that the only justification for the search of the car came from an UNNECESSARY search of all the activities of all drivers in Brown County.
Yes, in public there's no expectation of privacy, but that argument hinges on the idea that cops need to spend resources to follow people's movements when they're suspects in a crime. Recent SCOTUS cases have drawn the line that full sweep movement tracking could violate the fourth.
But the bigger deal here is how they knew where to be and when. They setup a sting because Flock pinged that he'd just crossed the border back from MI. So, based on Flock's evidence that this man travels to MI, they began tracking his whereabouts OUTSIDE OF THEIR JURISDICTION. Reminder that reasonable suspicion of law breaking is required for tracking like that, but, more importantly, so is a warrant.
https://youtu.be/gmnL_Y9CsI0 video on Flock's "legality" especially concerning unwarranted mass surveillance
I'm gonna hand you back this part of your argument. Trying to force me to prove a negative is a bad look and screams of desperation. But, if you do want to go down that road, I will remind you that you've never given proof that you're not a pedophile and I find that very suspicious. Only pedophiles don't have proof that they're not pedophiles.
This may be contained in the video you linked, but I can't watch it now (and don't really want to commit time to watching videos on this) - do you have a written explanation of why this kind of surveillance needs prior suspicion?
When a cop is driving round on patrol, they're looking at everyone for signs that might be suspicious. Cops can only have eyes in so many places, so cameras are a lot more effective than that. You only said that SCOTUS say this "could" make it legally different, though.
I think you are making the positive claim that the police have broken the constitution, and part of that argument relies on the claim that they didn't have any legal path to their search and arrest, and that claim is based on the absence of evidence.
Here's how I'd phrase that: "it's possible from the police's description of events that this was unconstitutional, and we need to demand they provide a full explanation of every step of the investigation."
Right, so your accusation that I'm a paedophile based on that lack of evidence would be invalid, right? But you're accusing the police of having done something wrong here, and the only basis you have for that is that they don't have proof that they did it right?
No, I have the proof in this article of wrongdoing. Your argument hinges on this not being all the evidence used, sans proof. You're the person asserting a claim without proof.
So yeah, you're a pedo. Got it!
I am not claiming that there is more evidence out there, so I don't think you've understood me properly.