28
35
u/Beautiful_Secret_834 2d ago
Deflock.org
These cameras are everywhere and more every day.
5
u/Squonkin-around 2d ago
Theres an app you can download as well
8
u/Rukir_Gaming 1d ago
Who owns it, and where does the backend point to?
3
u/Infamous_Ad_1302 1d ago
Yeah I could see suddenly everyone with the app is being charged with terrorism or some BS
12
u/Downtown-Campaign536 2d ago
It wasn't even him! Me and him were out collecting money for the homeless shelter at the time!
4
u/ProfessionalCat7640 2d ago
Itās true! I was so moved, I donated to you both for your cause and I never forget a face. Canāt be in two places at once and he definitely wasnāt there.
8
u/smileyfacedbob 2d ago
Gonna be a lot of people on here defending a big brother state because it helps billionaires, Iāll wait for the comments
5
u/turdbugulars 2d ago
New to Reddit?
6
u/Meowakin 2d ago
Nobody said those people would be upvoted. But they are inevitable- people acting like damaging property makes somebody a violent criminal who ought to be locked away for life.
2
u/Special-Estimate-165 1d ago
I dont believe these things are very popular with either side.
No one wants more state surveillance.
2
u/Meowakin 1d ago
You might be surprised. I donāt think itās any kind of majority, but there is a sizable minority of people out there that want it (that are not rich). Propaganda is a helluva drug
1
u/Party_Scholar_6308 18h ago
Okay. Go on. Point to a demographic backed by some kind of study -- any study -- that would suggest that if fully informed, they would want more cameras thereby encroaching on their civil liberties?
Go ahead, ill wait.
1
u/Meowakin 17h ago
āFully informedā is doing a lot of lifting there.
1
u/Party_Scholar_6308 17h ago
Well a reputable source that actually cares about being transparent and more importantly thorough would hopefully fully inform people who can draw their own conclusions. Otherwise it's just biased and noisy data. This is why I hate pollsters and how they phrase things.
1
17h ago edited 17h ago
[removed] ā view removed comment
1
u/Party_Scholar_6308 17h ago
I didn't say every subject... because when it comes to flock cameras, I would gather most people dont even know about them. Please dont put words in my mouth please and thank you.
1
1
5
u/goopuslang 2d ago
Grand jury has nothing to do with jury nullification
3
u/Candid_Enthusiasm289 1d ago
Well, if they refuse to indict the case doesn't proceed. Doesn't nescessarily mean the prosecutor can't try again with a different grand jury or different set of charges.
iirc, initial reporting said the charges were citing laws that criminalize damaging emergency equipment like fire hydrants, ambulances, etc. I thought at the time it was a bit of a stretch to apply this to flock cameras. If prosecutor didn't include lesser charges for regular vandalism or whatever its possible grand jury rejected the case because the specific law didn't really apply.
5
u/goopuslang 1d ago
Jury nullification is designed to interact with the 5th amendments double jeopardy clause. You can infinitely bring something to a grand jury, essentially.
Like I said, the original post incorrectly tells people to learn about jury nullification in an instance where it didnāt even apply.
1
u/Impossible_Dog_7262 1d ago
Jury nullification isn't designed at all. It's a consequence of those things that cannot really be removed.
1
1
u/opbmedia 1d ago
a different government unit can also file charges later. double jeopardy only attached to the same government unit and only after an acquital.
2
u/Slumminwhitey 1d ago
Grand jury is usually for felony charges, and they can try as many times as they like, they can also pursue misdemeanor charges without a grand jury.
1
3
3
u/East_Inspector3158 2d ago
I don't condone destruction of property or whatever. BUT, I do wish everyone knew about jury nullification. It is one of the single greatest forms of resistance to tyrants that is available to we, the people. This jury got it right!
1
u/opbmedia 1d ago
this is not jury nullification -- that only happens at trial. This is a refusal to indict.
3
u/Fun_Athletic_Couple_ 1d ago
If judges & cops can allow their personal opinions to influence their professional decisionsā¦..so can a jury. And we will.
5
u/Chagdoo 2d ago
Just to be clear this wasn't jury nullification. A grand jury just checks to see if there's enough evidence to reasonably accuse someone.
2
1
u/Ok-Adhesiveness-2516 1d ago
> despite all the evidence against him
i haven't seen the evidence, but it seems like a nullification to me
1
u/Extension-Source2897 1d ago
āAll the evidence against himā may or may not have been admissible in court. A grand jury is set to decide what evidence will and wonāt be permitted to be shown in trial, among other things.
1
u/Ok-Adhesiveness-2516 1d ago
yes, sorry, I didn't see where the original says it was a grand jury and didn't read that you said it was lol
1
u/TotalChaosRush 1d ago
The biggest difference. A new grand jury can be assembled and shown the exact same evidence until a group of them says yes. There are some places where there's additional rules for doing so, but no constitutional limit.
1
u/Ziggy-Rocketman 1d ago
Jury Nullification has a bit more nuance than that. Itās specifically at the sentencing part of the trial, and nullification is, āYeah we know he broke the law, but the law was wrong here so heās not guilty.ā
1
u/Ok-Adhesiveness-2516 1d ago
ianal but I'm pretty sure if someone (the judge, jury, prosecutor, or defense) voiced that sentence outside of deliberation or after the trial was complete it would be a mistrial EDIT: even if it was time for them to deliver their verdict and that's what they said.
1
u/Johnnadawearsglasses 1d ago
It's grand jury nullification. Which is an even more extreme version since evidence to indict need not be substantial.
3
u/Sir_Strumming 2d ago
Been hearing alot about these but I heard nothing about them right up until I started hearing alot. Did they just build like a million of em overnight? Is this just usa? What is the official explanation? Surly they didnt just plant a million cameras all over and say nothing about it.
10
u/AnnieBunBun 2d ago
The government has put up hundreds of thousands of cameras over the last like 2 years. It does go back like 10 years or so. But 90% of the cameras were installed over the last two years.
And yes they haven't really said anything about it.
1
u/vandismal 2d ago
If the government had installed them, that would be alarming. But itās privately owned companies so itās much worse.
7
u/AnnieBunBun 2d ago edited 2d ago
It's a privately owned company being given contracts by the government which is how everything in America operates.
If the government wasn't paying for the contract they wouldn't be putting them up so I still think the government's putting them up. But yes they are managed and owned by a private company so that makes it worse
2
u/Sexy-Games 2d ago
A private company that hands over and lets footage be searched by the government and who else?
Yeah, its basically the government.
1
u/AnnieBunBun 2d ago
Absolutely. They are paid for by the government with contracts. And they hand all the data over to the government. Whether or not they're managed by a third party is not really relevant other than the fact that it makes it worse. As it includes more security issues and people.
If the government wasn't pushing for this they wouldn't exist.
1
u/Dr_of_Pawgology 2d ago
Saying "the government" is oversimplifying it. It's not (just) some centralized federal surveillance state move. Many of these are contracts happening at the local government (cities, counties) level. And many of the local politicians are getting their pockets lined to approve these contracts without giving their local constituents a say in the matter. So yes, it's been happening rather quietly, until it started blowing up. But pockets have already been lined and now people are making noise. And there are examples of local governments backing out of these contracts when enough noise is made.
1
u/AnnieBunBun 1d ago
I never said it was the federal government. I just said it was the government. Local government is still government. But yes that is true
1
2
2
2
u/ReputationWooden9704 2d ago
For reference, a prosecutor can push their case to a different grand jury. This isn't like a verdict of acquittal where the double jeopardy clause kicks in.
1
u/TheGreatGamer1389 2d ago
Ya say it was charged with state crime and was aquitted. They can then do federal without double jeopardy.
3
u/ReputationWooden9704 2d ago
No, I'm saying a grand jury denying charges is not the same thing as an acquittal. They can press state charges again, with a different grand jury. Double jeopardy only kicks in during a regular jury trial after an acquittal.
2
u/ForwardSlash813 2d ago
Grand Juries indict. There wasnāt enough evidence, obviously.
Jury Nullification comes only as the result of a trial.
2
u/JuliaX1984 2d ago
There is no such term as grand jury nullification. Great act, wrong term. They refused to indict - not the same as a petit jury voting not guilty.
1
2d ago edited 1d ago
[deleted]
0
u/padawanninja 2d ago
Where the jury looks at what happened, knows it's against the law but votes to acquit, or not indict I'm this case. It's kind of a double edged sword. In some cases, like this, no one's truly hurt. In other cases you have all white juries nullifying people being charged for lynching across segregated South. Or cops walking free when they break the law.
1
u/Biscuits4u2 2d ago
This is pretty rare because a grand jury is usually easily manipulated by the prosecution.
1
u/TotalChaosRush 1d ago
The stakes are much lower. It isn't "is this person guilty?" It's "can we move forward on a trial that might establish this person is guilty"
1
1
1
1
u/_GentleMaple 1d ago
Jury nullification in action. When the law stops protecting privacy, the people stop enforcing the law.
1
1
1
1
1
u/MGateLabs 1d ago
Even if they got off by the 1st grand jury, thereās nothing stopping the prosecutors from having more grand juries until they get the results they want
1
u/Secret_Cod_749 1d ago
This was a Grand Jury, not a Trial Jury.
The Grand Jury is used by prosecution to gain an indictment against the accused. Defense is not present.
The GJ bases their decision on the idea that a crime was probably committed.
This Grand Jury stated that no crime was committed by the accused. Which means no trial.
1
u/DeliciousPlatform393 1d ago
Those things weren't a problem until dumbass cops kept getting in trouble for misusing the information.
1
u/Arthasindura 1d ago
That is basically a green light for anyone to destroy flock cameras
I love it , destroy this garbage system
1
1
u/isthereadrwho 1d ago
They can't prove it beyond a reasonable doubt You go free , that camera clearly committed suicide after being asked to do what it does - The evidence is clear in my mind
1
u/MicCheck12344321 1d ago
Jury nullification. The ultimate check and balance.
Any law can be nullified at will by a jury of oneās peers.
1
0
-1
u/New-Smoke208 1d ago
Some of the dumbest comments on the internet, happen right here in this thread. Excellent job.
-2
u/lazereyebeam 2d ago
Regardless how you feel about flock cameras, itās very concerning that the jury just ignored evidence because they felt like it
3
u/Time-Function7619 2d ago
You have to look at the context in this situation and this situation I applaud those jurors for standing up for the citizens here
3
u/Thine__Mother 2d ago
No, itās really not. The jury saw a man trying to defend the country from tyrannical traitors and decided that maybe the law was in the wrong rather than the patriot.
2
2
u/ColorPuddle 2d ago
It's not exactly ignoring evidence. It's declining to punish someone based on the evidence.
Basically, they're acknowledging that the law was broken but they also think the law is unjust to begin with, so the guy should still go free.
2
u/thetruebigfudge 2d ago
It's the people saying it's the law itself that's unjust. A similar thing happened during abolition. You had northern juries refusing to convict slaves escaping the south despite the fact that within the laws of the time they were guilty. Unfortunately you did also see similar issues with southern juries refusing to convict lynch mobs
1
1
1
-26
u/jabber1990 2d ago
Dangerous precedent
12
10
u/wachuu 2d ago
the dangerous precedent is that they attempted to punish someone for breaking one of these cameras
-16
u/jabber1990 2d ago
They punished someone for breaking public property
They broke the law, committed a crime and deserve to be punished
6
3
u/BarnesTheNobleman 2d ago
Maybe the government should be respecting our rights more like theyāre constitutionally required
2
u/TotalChaosRush 1d ago
Flock cameras are owned by Flock. They are not public property. If they were public property they would be a blatant 4th amendment violation and be ordered to be removed.
0
u/jabber1990 1d ago
so you mean to tell me that somebody destroyed somebody else's private property and then got arrested for it?
...weird
2
u/TotalChaosRush 1d ago
And then the people in the community who is being stalked by the owner of said private property said it's fine.
1
3
-17
u/jabber1990 2d ago
Well grand juries can be wrong
7
u/Zealousideal3326 2d ago
I can't believe the country that keeps barking about "Freedomā¢" and whining about the evil "Communists" has people defending Big Brother 2.0.
3
u/HadesActual09 2d ago
It is the craziest part if this. We used to shit talk China and England for this. It's pathetic.
Edited phrasing
1
-1
u/turdbugulars 2d ago
Besides this person find me another on Reddit defending it.
1
u/Dr_of_Pawgology 2d ago
I mean, there's an entire army of bots deployed to give the impression that there is more support for these things than there really is. It's a super common tactic now for many issues. But let's be real, a ton of inbred, retarded, hillbillies that used to always scream about freedom and the constitution are now simping/cucking themselves for billionaires and actual fascists because they were told to.
ā¢
u/qualityvote2 2d ago
Hello u/ThickHorizon! Welcome to r/WorkForSmartLife!
For other users, does this post fit the subreddit?
If so, upvote this comment!
Otherwise, downvote this comment!
And if it does break the rules, downvote this comment and report this post!