Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Mostly, the footage is recorded just in case something happens. Especially in corner shops, the cameras are rarely actively watched, if at all.
Obviously, the larger the store, the more likely it is that they've actually employed a security guard to watch the cameras.
edited 22nd Dec '12 7:15:30 AM by Greenmantle
Keep Rolling OnI think that when you have a debate between two sides on what constitutes a right, and one side of the debate cannot distinguish between an inconvenience and infringement of that right, both sides are not being equally extreme.
That said, how many days do we have left in the current congress (the lame-duck session)? It seems like we're going over that cliff.
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.
We should just go over the cliff - anything to encourage the people finally take real action toward our economic woes at this point, just like what's happening in Europe...
As far as I'm concerned, we the people NEED to do something about this shit - that and the gu laws an healthcare issue... FACT.
edited 22nd Dec '12 8:25:42 AM by LostAnarchist
This is where I, the Vampire Mistress, proudly reside: http://liberal.nationstates.net/nation=nova_nacioFrankly, Britain's so crowded (very urban society) that the cameras really didn't change anything. Everyone knew what you were doing anyway.
But anyway, as far as I can figure out, as one of the relatively small section of Brits who have fired guns (though thankfully not at real people), the real argument is between the 'individualists' who think that the individual's right to bear arms should not be infringed.
And the 'communityists' who think that the individuals rights are superceded by the rights of the community. In this case, the right to know that individuals bearing arms are indeed trained and responsible people.
I have to say that personally, I'm far happier with a situation where I'm being constantly recorded in public places than I would be with a situation where I have to take my gun into the loo with me...
edited 22nd Dec '12 8:43:27 AM by Bluesqueak
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.I'm more concerned by stop-and-frisk (or bullshit like this)
than cameras in public places to be honest.
edited 22nd Dec '12 9:10:31 AM by RadicalTaoist
Share it so that people can get into this conversation, 'cause we're not the only ones who think like this.I find stuff like this
to be a little more alarming.
Public places with swat teams? Who wants to be accosted for going about their daily business, right?
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
Um, right. So you're okay with having guns in your home to protect yourself against armed assailants, but you don't want the FBI to presume you have guns in your home when they search your house?
Whether the warrant was enforced competently is one question - but saying that you want the right to bear arms BUT ALSO the right to be presumed unarmed are contradictory positions.
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.
I think you're presuming that I'm presuming anything.
It says the Hughleys still have no idea WHY they were raided. They weren't told anything about this warrant, apparently. It was supposedly connected to heroin charges in other locations, but not why that particular house was raided.
edited 22nd Dec '12 11:03:29 AM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!Hate to burst your bubble, Kostya, but no, the FBI is not allowed to officially do things like that without pre-announcing they have a warrant, same as any other government agency.
edited 22nd Dec '12 11:13:50 AM by TotemicHero
Expergiscēre cras, medior quam hodie. (Awaken tomorrow, better than today.)Two possible reasons: one - the warrant was for the wrong house. The FBI were making perfectly legitimate drugs raids on a number of houses, but in this case their information was wrong and these particular householders were innocent.
Two - it was the right house, but no evidence was found. In which case, saying that you've no idea why you were raided is a kind of a sensible plan.
So please, tell me what the objection is?
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.It's the danger of a No Knock Warrant
(which can also be abused
). They don't have to inform the resident that they are entering and searching the home, and the ensuing chaos has led to one or more people being killed.
The likelihood is that someone related or with the same name as the Hughleys were named as perpetrators of some crime, and the FBI raided the home based on incomplete information.
Is it sensible to enforce a potentially deadly raid based on incomplete information? Again, home owners have a right to defend themselves and their family. How do you know if it's the cops if they don' tell you?
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!If it is the police and you did something wrong then you could prepare for them and start shooting as soon as they enter. Also if they really did think these people were selling drugs then I could understand them just barging in. Giving any kind of warning would make it very easy for them to kill an agent.
And it's okay for the police and agents to kill innocent people if they mess it up?
Go ahead and roll over and die for anyone who has any measurable sense of power over you.
If they aren't innocent, they'll fight, and you'll know you've got the right house. That's the risk of their job.
edited 22nd Dec '12 11:39:42 AM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
Who is being ridiculed?
It's not a tin-foil hat conspiracy or anything, government agents also want to go home after they're doing their job, but that doesn't mean that they can go smashing into someone else's home without being specific and exact.
An innocent person's life shouldn't be worth -less- than anyone else's, including a government agent.
edited 22nd Dec '12 11:50:02 AM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
Jeez, Devil: with the best will in the world and trying for as many checking procedures as possible... mistakes will happen.
Preventing them from doing their job because they might mess up in a small number of cases? "Baby" and "bathwater" spring to mind.
edited 22nd Dec '12 11:52:28 AM by Euodiachloris
Not saying that they can't do their job. Just saying that they should at least be polite enough to knock first. Busting down the door is a tactic for muggers and criminals.
Not saying that such warrant execution is like that, but isn't the FBI better than that?
I'd like to trust them more, but this sort of thing is kind of why people are clinging to rights.
edited 22nd Dec '12 11:58:08 AM by DevilTakeMe
Glove and Boots is good for Blog!
If you are a criminal then knocking politely is just asking for you to grab your gun and start shooting. Bursting in gives the criminal no chance to mount a defense. If you are truly innocent then just put your hands up and don't make any threatening moves. If not then they should have the right to restrain you and prevent you from having a chance to get your weapons.
edited 22nd Dec '12 12:01:55 PM by Kostya
It depends on the type of warrant being served. If the suspect has a record of violent offenses or offenses that give the officers/agents probable cause to respond with coercive measures, then a high-risk warrant will likely be served. A suspect with no record of violent offenses may receive a standard warrant, but this varies based on what the citation is for (drugs, child pornography, and other type of contraband).
This isn't always perfect, neat and clean. There have been situations where an armed tactical response unit slammed through the home of a relatively harmless individual who was in violation of media copyright laws. The reverse is also true. Some plain-clothes federal agents with no body armor have gone to serve a warrant for whom they thought to be a harmless or semi-harmless individual who ended up putting up a real fight.
edited 22nd Dec '12 12:34:28 PM by Aprilla
There's also the point that giving advance warning for a drugs warrant is fairly stupid. If you have got the right house, and they are criminals, then knocking politely and saying 'hello, police here' is an invitation to the people inside to try and get rid of the evidence.
Drugs warrants are often 'no-knock' for that very reason.
It ain't over 'till the ring hits the lava.
Which would be appropriate, if they had anything more than suspicion that there were drugs there. And so far, no, we have no idea what would even indicate that they ever were there.

There's also the fact that, you know, someone needs to watch all that footage and I highly doubt most of the people watching it really care about the habits of most people.