DukenukemX
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2005
- Messages
- 11,422
They wonder why people want to defund the police.These cases make police look bad.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
They wonder why people want to defund the police.These cases make police look bad.
Who will be put in its place? Freedom citizens with guns?They wonder why people want to defund the police.
Your license plate isn’t part of your likenessI wonder if one can sue Flock for a type of NIL settlement? "You can't use my image/likeness unless you pay me a lot of money first."
Flock cameras (and Ring for that matter) capture a whole hell of a lot more than just your license plate.Your license plate isn’t part of your likeness
Did I say remove funding? Police for many towns are used a revenue source to pull people over and give tickets. Here in NJ there was a time the police would have inspection checkpoints for vehicle inspections and emissions, which turned out to be illegal. Chris Christie's 2013 bridgegate was illegal and was convicted of federal crimes. We have cops that have nothing better to do but use Flock to track people for their own person interests, which again is illegal.Who will be put in its place? Freedom citizens with guns?
Did I say remove funding? Police for many towns are used a revenue source to pull people over and give tickets. Here in NJ there was a time the police would have inspection checkpoints for vehicle inspections and emissions, which turned out to be illegal. Chris Christie's 2013 bridgegate was illegal and was convicted of federal crimes. We have cops that have nothing better to do but use Flock to track people for their own person interests, which again is illegal.
So when I say defund, I mean less funding. Flock costs money to use, and having cops with extra time on their hands is costing money. They clearly don't serve the people.
View: https://youtu.be/G61APi9jB3o?si=jarvryExnEDYL_Or
Thank you for clarifying. It was merely a constructive question. I thought that if we remove police force, will we have to resort to some type of citizen militia law enforcement.So when I say defund, I mean less funding.
I don't think when people say defund they mean no funding. At that point we'd become the Purge. You obviously need police.While I am totally with you on this, surely you understand where the confusion comes from thought, right?
In English, the prefix "de" means to remove or get rid of something. Its not proper to use it to mean reduction. (though I understand why activists are using the term, because it is much easier to say and chant than "reduce police funding" or something like that.
I don't think when people say defund they mean no funding. At that point we'd become the Purge. You obviously need police.
While the Police abuse is a big problem, we tend to forget why cities are approving Flock, which is to make money. Giving people tickets is a huge source of revenue for many municipalities, and will happily ruin peoples days just to make a quick buck. Flock is just another source of revenue by giving people more fines. It's a huge concern when a broken AI can look through Flock footage and give out tickets without taking you to court and going in front of a judge. It's guilty until proven innocent, all to make money for cities and towns. Especially now that people have Waze and Google maps reporting Police locations, it's getting harder to generate that extra revenue for these municipalities.Meanwhile in rhode island...
https://www.newportthisweek.com/art...es-375k-privately-funded-flock-drone-program/
View attachment 819273
While the quoted text is disappointing, this particular citation happened in Australia, not USA....AI can look through Flock footage and give out tickets without taking you to court and going in front of a judge. It's guilty until proven innocent, ...
View attachment 819304
Although Campbell's story made headlines across the US, the incident actually took place in Queensland, Australia, where mobile phone laws for drivers are among the toughest in the world. She was fined AUD$1,251 (about US$820) after an AI-assisted mobile phone detection camera captured an image showing her phone resting face-down on her lap.
Under Queensland law, drivers are not allowed to hold a phone or have it resting on any part of their body, including their lap, even if they are not using it. AI detection cameras are used to identify suspected offences and all images are reviewed by an authorised officer before a penalty is issued.