>"You miss the point."

Not really

>"Instead of choosing to depend on a fragile ( FLOCK ) identification system, police depts could choose NOT to use it at all."

The police are absolutely going to use any tool they have access to. The legislators need to be the ones who fix/limit/remove the cameras.

>"Efficiency is the excuse of a tyrant/gestapo agent, not one policing in a free republic."

I agree. And, as I wrote before, I am not a fan of Flock or the surveillance state. These connected spy cameras *ARE* effective at catching criminals. But it is also ripe for abuse. So much so that we need to see if the balance between safety and freedom/privacy is out of balance (and I think it is way out of balance).

>"The "suspected plate" ploy stinks to high-heaven."

Hanlon's razor: one should not assume malicious intent when a situation can be explained by ignorance, incompetence, or accident.

Yes, Donald Trump is stupid, and yes he knows exactly how to play to his base. These things are only incompatible if you think it requires intelligence and strategy to play to his base. It doesn't. He just does what he does and it happens to resonate with them, most of the time at least.

If you are a law-abiding person, and hang around with law-abiding people, the chances of your interacting with police is extremely low. And if you are compliant on the very rare case of interacting, your chance of having anything bad happen are so small to be almost nothing.

I am pretty old now. I have always lived in cities or large counties and have only encountered police twice in my entire life. Both were while driving. One was for a speeding ticket, and one was a warning for speeding. The encounters were completely fine/normal/respectful. I didn't do anything stupid. I didn't insult, complain, or have some nasty attitude, and I followed commands. Having discussed this with friends and family, every one had the same experiences.

And yes, you MUST obey commands from the police. PERIOD. Even if they are wrong. Even if they are illegal. Your venue for fighting wrong is in the courts, not in the streets.

Meh. "Gambling" is such an amorphous term when it comes to betting on events that aren't carefully constructed to be the result of pure chance.

>"Non compliance with a police officer is not a capitol crime."

Nobody said it was. Or did I miss something?

>" Every cop who shoots an unarmed suspect should be fired at least and put on trial for murder."

You are not thinking this through. One, you assume the police can have perfect knowledge, they don't and can't. Two, you assume just because someone is "unarmed" makes them not dangerous, which is untrue. Three, a suspect can easily become armed when trying to reach for an officer's gun, even holstered (and there have been numerous police shot in just that way).

Any suspect shot should, and almost always is, taken very seriously by police departments and local authorities and does lead to lengthy investigations and sometimes officer prosecution. As a side-note, "murder" requires malice aforethought. That is rarely applicable in such cases (it is more likely to be manslaughter).

Rare as they are, bad cops absolutely should be rooted out and dealt with very harshly. But overgeneralization is not helpful.

Any such horrible outcomes are too many.

But that is an extreme anecdote which is extraordinarily rare. There there is no question that the police behavior in that incident is horrible. And in no way would I defend it. But it is not representative of the 99.998% of interactions (or whatever extremely high percent of interactions which have the police using drawn weapons), which do not have such outcomes. It doesn't retort my earlier statement that almost all such bad outcomes are due to non-compliance by the suspect.

Multiple things can be true at once. Police do make mistakes with commands and use of force. Suspects do make mistakes with compliance and their actions. But if you objectively examine the totality of such interactions, it is extremely rarely the fault of the police for a bad outcome. And yes, the police should and must be held to a higher standard, and evidence shows that they are.

I totally agree. However, your data completely ignores if the suspects are being compliant or not. And you know, as well as anyone, those injuries are almost always due to the suspects being non-compliant/hostile/violent/dangerous. There are a lot of violent/horrible/nasty people out there.

In this case, at least the second pull-over was completely avoidable, and based on questionable policies. But she also complied with the police and was fine, other than being inconvenienced/embarrassed/upset. And I think that should come with an official apology and some offer of reasonable compensation (like a thousand). Followed-up with a serious review of why the plate was not removed from all databases immediately once the error was discovered, and how that can be avoided.

>"99.999+% of the time the police have a non violent incident like a broken tail light. In this case they had been told they had a murder suspect. That expectation make the stop much more dangerous than the average."

Absolutely agree. In cases of murder or other violent suspects, the police have to be ready for violence thrown their way. And that does raise the stakes. But even then, if a suspect complies, there is very little danger (even if it is much higher than typical). But when a suspect doesn't comply, then it gets very dangerous.

I have seen countless videos of violent attacks on police by suspects who do not comply. With police officers killed or seriously injured by really bad people. But it doesn't mean we should strive to always make systems and procedures better.

Another poster mentioned that one agency/county/city can't clear the mistaken or ended Flock alert entered by another. And that might be what happened in this case, and that seems completely whacked.

>"As I understand from other reading, one law enforcement agency cannot remove or flag the alert of another."

If that is true, then that is, indeed, a stupid flaw. I am sure they have some reason for that, but from my view, it makes no sense. Of course, I think that, by design, these over-present, interconnected cameras extremely hostile to our privacy and civil liberties.

>"It failed QA. Now the real world test, and it happened twice. The company should drop the L from their name"

I hate these cameras for many valid reasons. But they didn't fail. In fact, they worked exactly as designed. And I have no doubt having all those cameras does, indeed, catch more criminals. The questions is do the means justify the ends. (And I think the Flock model is a "no").

The "fault" is the police not clearing the alert. And the other "fault" are the politicians who decided it is OK to install all this stuff.

>"Given she was guilty of Driving While Black"

Race has nothing to do with it. She was pulled over because of the plate alert. But nice try.

>"it's somewhat surprising they didn't shoot her during one stop or the other."

Stop being ridiculous. 99.999+% of the time, if a person complies with the officers (like pulling over immediately and following instructions), the interaction will be reasonable. I am NOT saying non-compliance should result in death, but when people choose to do stupid s*** then bad things are much, much more likely to occur.

There are some 50 MILLION interactions with police per year in the USA. Around 800 result in death. That is 0.0016% And almost all of those are due to non-compliance and/or valid threats made to the police.

I am not a fan of Flock at all. But the mistake had nothing to do with Flock. The police failed to remove a suspected plate from the system. Even without Flock, had a cop spotted the car, they would have reacted. And probably in the same way.

Sex/race is irrelevant. And yes, I think she should be compensated in some reasonable way for the mistake, especially since it happened twice (insane).

>"The act that makes it violate copyright is profiting from the new creation."

That will depend on the country. In the USA, profit (commercialization) is not at all a requirement for copyright violation. But that might raise the penalties, or raise the chances of companies/people going after you.

This is really no different from many other areas in which you can have conflicts of interest. For example, sports! And the answer isn't to ban betting, it's to ban betting by people who have a conflict of interest. This is well-trod ground.

I'm not particularly a fan of Kalshi or Polymarket and don't really care if they exist or not. My point is just that this isn't really any different from anything else.

The biggest clue that he hasn't read the books -- or maybe just doesn't remember them well -- is that all of the books and stories were built around demonstrating ways in which the rules failed. The 0th rule is only one example, and far from the clearest.