Grand Jury Declines to Indict Man Caught on Camera Destroying Flock Pole

I mean, if it wasn't packaged up in the American flag and pax americana, your nations actions would be that of clearly terrorist nation.

I don't expect the taliban to have a working legal/justice system either.

This is really true. Pick a blog, video, or what ever lawyer you want making comment on the state of the federal justice system right now. It's a mess and a shit show.

Common Law is better than codified law. That's the only reason we have juries and don't just let judges decide the fate of the accused. Can you imagine, in this country, judges the sole decider of your case?

The reason that the UK and US have had such cuntish law enforcement is not because of english common law. It should be noted the UK cancelled some of common law's basic tenants, like the right to a jury trial, not only afforded to indictable offenses, any crime with less than 3 years imprisonment is decided by their famously haughty aristocratic judges now.

I'll keep that in mind next time we have some influence over policy.

They would have to get rid of juries altogether.

Given that our current legal system was created as a direct reaction to star chambers and baked into the constitution, they have an uphill climb, at the least.

they will give him a secret trial, or disappear to one of thier concentration camps in the south, which would mostly be texas, and the msms will never ever report on a citizen getting detained, at least not a white one.

No, they will do what they do everywhere else and stack the decks so that nullification is only ever used for "their people".

It's a great mechanism for "peer review" especially in the sense that ethics and legality are often entirely different things.

Basically a jury can legally decide to nullify by declaring "not guilty" regardless of the facts or the judge's instructions, etc. This is why even mentioning jury nullification during a trial can really upset the judge and the prosecution. It is supposed to be something every jury is aware of, but that is usually not actually the case.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_nullification

Flock employees.

Sometimes you vote wrong by accident and don't notice.

What does it say? It looks like a blank comment to me. Maybe that's why they down voted it? I'm viewing it on Thunder, and I guess there are flaws.

Zero. Zero accurately. They don't even talk about it, because they don't care. The arbitrary cruelty is a bonus feature.

Facial recognition has an inherent bias as well, or at least it did not too long ago. It was mostly trained on white people, so it's accuracy with non whites was really bad. I'm sure the training data is far more robust now, but that doesn't necessarily mean better.

This has happened

It can't.

Also, and I have no idea what race this person is, but facial recognition tents to be even worse when it comes to minority groups, especially black people. Because its more often created and tested by white or asian dudes.

Which has absolutely terrible implications when you consider it gets used for things like Flock, for crimes, which already have a racism problem skewed against black people.

Not at all, but that’s the court’s problem I guess.

If you have a reasonable group of people like a friends and family group, you can get machine learning to be very accurate (with odd exceptions like babies and twins). But what is 99% accurate for 50 people will almost universally give false positives when searching a group of 50 million faces. The math just doesnt work for them.

By recognizing faces. Obviously.

You must be mistaken, he was helping me load up my truck with mulch for the community garden. He even bought me lunch afterwards.

What does terrorism curry taste like?

The Department of Justice has been doing stuff like that a lot since the Trump administration, to the point that they lost presumption of regularity (the assumption in advance that state actors are being honest and following the rules in good faith). There were so many prosecutions that were clearly directed by the White House and were vindictive persecutions of political enemies that the judges just stopped believing anyone from DoJ.

It didn't help that all the honest prosecutors in DoJ resigned when they were ordered to do something unlawful, resulting in massive brain drain. All the rehires are unskilled if not incompetent, and sometimes they issue legal statements that sound like a Truth Social post.

Holy shit. That's some arrogance right there, thinking no one would ever know or find out. Grand juries are secret, but they're not THAT secret.

they think everything is more openly corrupt than it is yet.

You nailed it.

They never pretended much. You're just looking at it now.

You may be thinking of Mama Cass in the late 70s, who died of a heart attack but was popularly cited as choking on a ham sandwich?

I think you heard a fat joke and confused it with a fact.

We have legal precedent that the police cannot use GPS trackers. A similar case was opened for the APLs in traditional speed cameras, but they were determined to be constitutional since you have no expectation of privacy on a public road and a camera can't be used to track you like GPS. The networked APLs accomplish the same result as GPS trackers just without technically using a GPS tracker.

Wait wait… explain this ADP thing. How do I opt out?

But if you are in public and i follow you nonstop, keeping track of where and when you go.....well you would say i was stalking you. Why is it bad for me but ok for a network of cameras.

We need 1 good lawyer to argue this case.

There are plenty of privacy laws, but the catch is that you have to make an effort to create privacy. Putting your blinds down creates privacy. Building a roof over your pool and walls around your yard create privacy. There is just no expectation of privacy in public, and technically anything that can be seen from public is "in plain view". Protecting your privacy is not a function of the state unless you had an expectation of privacy through explicit disclaimer or honest effort.

Exactly. So juries will make their own decisions.

And girls!

i was in JD last sept, it was a burglary case about a AA person, almost everyone used a variation of NULLIFICATION to get out of it. Also in cali, they try very hard to keep these people around. the only ones that excuse quickly is the one that already had professional knowledge of the law(lawyer from germany), and a lady who was in a case where she was a victm.

Things have improved! Once I was rejected because I answered truthfully about whether I'd always vote for the law as written.

To convince the public he's guilty. It's one of the ways they skew the narrative.

Remember in the movie "SWAT" where that monster guy who entered the country illegal to kill the one guy and then offered money to get him out? That's Hollywood doing their part to put the idea in our minds that this kind of thing is warranted.

People do want to help Luigi and that scares the shit out of them too. They expected people's moral compass to make them side with the CEO he shot. But that's not what happened. The general public is very much pro Luigi.

I'm really not sure why they treat him as Hannibal lecter

Because he has the audacity to kill a capitalist, instead of a fellow poor

He entered a guilty plea.

The article mentions felony charges - it could also or instead be that it was too high a bar (pun intended) to indict when it should have been a misdemeanor vandalism charge.

If that's the case, being thrown out by a grand jury is basically being thrown out for being insufficient for probable cause. But that's again why I want the details to know if it's some sort of technicality or some major flaw to the argument.

It's not a practice round for a trial. It is the first safety check of "Is there even plausibly enough evidence to go to trial?" or more specifically "If everything the prosecutin is claiming is true, is that enough for a trial?" which is why it nearly always is.

I highly disagree with your assessment, and it sounds like you don't really understand the courts. Now, you may be simplifying, and if so, then my 'accusation' is off-base, so don't take it too seriously.

I'm no legal expert, but I've followed enough to see how 99% of legal representations on television (i.e. court dramas) are laughably inaccurate.

So I go back to my point - like when see a real judge on a youtube video of a courtroom proceeding and they do a probable cause hearing - basically similar principles to a grand jury - it matters why they throw something out. It matters a lot. Is it a technicality that they can overcome and resubmit the case, or is it a fundamental flaw?

Nah, destroying those mass surveillance cameras is a public duty. One I don't have the cojones to do, but a public duty nonetheless.

Why not both?

I think FlockHopper pulls from deflock and it also does GPS routing as well. Honestly avoiding flock adds maybe a minute extra to my commute so it’s worth it.

https://maps.deflock.org/

I just used "have I been flocked"

You do realize that they sought felony charges, right? Any charge like that absolutely should require a grand jury and would be ridiculous not to.

some people cant afford that commitment. especially since jury duty barely pays a paltry for being summoned. only government workers, retired folks can afford the time off.

You what really works? Having a law on the books that plainly states the "the driver must be ticketed". And NOT the vehicle. So unless they pull the car over and hand the ticket to whoever is driving, they can't use cameras for that purpose.

That really needs to change also. That made sense back when it was just recording something in public that a random officer could have seen, but it’s no longer the same thing. No police force could have such large scale comprehensive surveillance and recording based on what an officer could have seen in public .

The fact that you could even have an officer overstep his authority to stalk someone one nationwide for personal reasons, is not just a failure of privacy safeguards, but proof that large scale surveillance is not the same as “what any random officer could have seen”

There needs to be a threshold, beyond which a warrant is required

Not at all how that works.