Remember when all the republicans told us we needed to let school shootings happen because the second ammendment was so important because it would protect us from stuff like this?
With all due respect, have you taken a moment to see where these cameras are being destroyed by the public? It’s generally not in Democrat strongholds.
Where I am, deep in “Red State” territory, they’ve not started talking openly about it yet, but there are at least three separate people I’m aware of personally that are interfering with or destroying them.
"defend itself from tyranny". Burner, the tyranny is in the room and the 2A bootlickers all signed up to enforce it. Please show me the country higher on the global freedom index with more guns per-capita than the US. The "immense benefit" to the guns is "the poors keep killing each other and distracting themselves from building a guillotine".
This is jingoistic hogwash and not an actually moral point.
> the tyranny is in the room and the 2A bootlickers all signed up to enforce it
.
That’s not at all my experience, and I’m in “2A” communities every day. A few months ago you’d have found a few people in support of it; now you’ll find a couple of cops say something inflammatory in the hopes of getting the other members banned, but otherwise they stay holed up in their little private law-enforcement-only subforums that everyone else isn’t allowed to access.
This seems like some sort of bait style "news" that hurts the very real awareness of issues with flock. It is not only normal but standard practice for a company to try to get users to evangelize its products.
'Users' here are not a neutral, non-aligned set of private customers expressing their opinion about proposed regulation. They're public officials being trained to shape policy before the public has a chance to weigh in.
The agencies that fare best aren't the ones with the best set of talking points after the fact. They're the ones who walked into city council meeting chambers first, before there was anything to react to, and said 'here's what we're using, here's why we're using it, and here's how to hold us accountable.
- Chris Colwell, SVP of customer experience at Flock, quoted on page 4 of the document
In other words, they're advising public officials (the police) to pre-empt the public approval process and then shut down potential objections by claiming that regulatory mechanisms already in place. There's a name for this: regulatory or institutional capture. The 'users' of the technology are not private individuals who are free to go off and make their own buying decisions about what works best for them.
City councils represent all the people of the community, not just the police department or a private company. The problem will solve itself in one election cycle as people vote out the candidates that Flock swayed.
The problem will solve itself in one election cycle
Yeah that's pretty unlikely because it's hard to organize people for candidate B just based on one point of dissatisfaction with candidate A, especially when votes against candidate A can be easily split and Candidate A uses their incumbent advantage to claim credit for any and all positive outcomes.
...that doesn't solve the actual problem, as all that guarantees is new officials. You need another step which is electing officials that are willing/able to enact policy change on this issue and who then do it. There's countless examples of "we need to get the bad man out of office, oh shit, the new man is also bad in the exact same way!"
All this is to say: voting is a process, not a solution.
Finding out the battle plan for your opponent and finding ways to attack their strongest points is absolutely valuable in public policy debate.
I'd rather have this information available vs not if I found out my city council was about to lay out money for this trash service. Of course I understand the cops are driving the issue, but knowing how to cut their legs out from under them is helpful.
Remember when all the republicans told us we needed to let school shootings happen because the second ammendment was so important because it would protect us from stuff like this?
With all due respect, have you taken a moment to see where these cameras are being destroyed by the public? It’s generally not in Democrat strongholds.
There’s at least one case of a Tennessee congressional candidate shooting multiple cameras: https://www.yahoo.com/news/politics/articles/tennessee-congr...
Where I am, deep in “Red State” territory, they’ve not started talking openly about it yet, but there are at least three separate people I’m aware of personally that are interfering with or destroying them.
What more would you have them do at this point?
[dead]
[flagged]
So am I to assume from your post that you're out there using your 2A rights to combat tyranny or... not?
GTFOH with that counter-rational drivel. Accidents and mass murder aren't equivalent just because both can result in death.
"defend itself from tyranny". Burner, the tyranny is in the room and the 2A bootlickers all signed up to enforce it. Please show me the country higher on the global freedom index with more guns per-capita than the US. The "immense benefit" to the guns is "the poors keep killing each other and distracting themselves from building a guillotine".
This is jingoistic hogwash and not an actually moral point.
> the tyranny is in the room and the 2A bootlickers all signed up to enforce it .
That’s not at all my experience, and I’m in “2A” communities every day. A few months ago you’d have found a few people in support of it; now you’ll find a couple of cops say something inflammatory in the hopes of getting the other members banned, but otherwise they stay holed up in their little private law-enforcement-only subforums that everyone else isn’t allowed to access.
How is this not a conflict of interest?
This seems like some sort of bait style "news" that hurts the very real awareness of issues with flock. It is not only normal but standard practice for a company to try to get users to evangelize its products.
I am not pro FLOCK.
'Users' here are not a neutral, non-aligned set of private customers expressing their opinion about proposed regulation. They're public officials being trained to shape policy before the public has a chance to weigh in.
The agencies that fare best aren't the ones with the best set of talking points after the fact. They're the ones who walked into city council meeting chambers first, before there was anything to react to, and said 'here's what we're using, here's why we're using it, and here's how to hold us accountable.
- Chris Colwell, SVP of customer experience at Flock, quoted on page 4 of the document
In other words, they're advising public officials (the police) to pre-empt the public approval process and then shut down potential objections by claiming that regulatory mechanisms already in place. There's a name for this: regulatory or institutional capture. The 'users' of the technology are not private individuals who are free to go off and make their own buying decisions about what works best for them.
You're not wrong, exactly, but also people are justifiably mad at flock's existence and as a result articles like this get written.
Perhaps there is a perfect world where every article is "better" than this, but this one doesn't seem so bad.
City councils represent all the people of the community, not just the police department or a private company. The problem will solve itself in one election cycle as people vote out the candidates that Flock swayed.
The problem will solve itself in one election cycle
Yeah that's pretty unlikely because it's hard to organize people for candidate B just based on one point of dissatisfaction with candidate A, especially when votes against candidate A can be easily split and Candidate A uses their incumbent advantage to claim credit for any and all positive outcomes.
...that doesn't solve the actual problem, as all that guarantees is new officials. You need another step which is electing officials that are willing/able to enact policy change on this issue and who then do it. There's countless examples of "we need to get the bad man out of office, oh shit, the new man is also bad in the exact same way!"
All this is to say: voting is a process, not a solution.
Finding out the battle plan for your opponent and finding ways to attack their strongest points is absolutely valuable in public policy debate.
I'd rather have this information available vs not if I found out my city council was about to lay out money for this trash service. Of course I understand the cops are driving the issue, but knowing how to cut their legs out from under them is helpful.