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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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.

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.

And girls!

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.