That does not make it legal and it does not eliminate the responsibility of asking for the warrant and using it.
Not saying there was a conspiracy here, but bad judges exist and arranging for a warrant is possible even for honest judges. If you are a policeman and you want to kill someone, get a judge to sign a "no knock" warrant, get in their house and shoot them, it happened many times; there were cases when the warrant was not even for the address of the poor guy that was killed and last year the warrant was for someone that borrowed a lawn mower from the judge who signed it and did not return it. So the warrant excuse is not so good.
No, that is not the point. Common law does not exist to render justice to the people in and of itself, it exists to give the people a mechanism of getting that justice themselves.
I expect anyone that was convicted due to this dragnet would now be able to appeal.
Where is it written that, if a judge tells a police officer they can do something, they are legally allowed to do it, no matter how blatantly illegal it is? I'm open to being corrected, but I have a hard time believing that, if a judge told a officer they have permission to go out an summarily execute 40 random people in the mall, it would be legal for the officer to do so. And once _anything_ can be illegal even if a judge tells them two, you're now in a grey area figuring out what is/isn't illegal.
At the moment, I would believe they were both wrong, and that the officer broke the law. I _think_ the judge also broke the law, but I don't know exactly how that works.
Who commands the police officer to do things? Is it his/her superior, or the judge directly?
If there is a chain of command in any police department or Sheriff's Office, then the judge is not going to jump that chain and interpose herself in giving orders to a lowest-level officer who is on-the-ground and doing things.
The order's going to go to the office of their commander, who's going to evaluate it, and then it'll go through proper channels, so by the time your hypthetical "Police Officer in Summary Execution of 40 Innocent Consumers" then the order's been interdicted or validated as totally within the law as they interpret it?
I think there's a disconnect in the way we're looking at this. It seems like you feel the person who told the officers to "go do this" is at fault, and anyone who did <this> isn't. I feel strongly that both are at fault. If a mob boss orders a murder and a hitman carries it out, they're both at fault. Same deal here.
“You feel”? Who is “you”? Are you referring to me? I have no feelings or judgement on any particular case. I have no facts about them. I don’t care because I am not involved and I am not in authority.
Please do not ascribe judgements to me that I am not making. I was simply asking questions to clarify a typical process that may be hypothetically followed. Thank you.
Sorry, there's multiple people in the conversation. I was originally speaking to the person that said this
> They were allowed to gather the evidence - they had a warrant from a judge. The judge erred, not the police.
And that statement makes it very clear that, if the judge gives the ok to do something, then the judge is at fault; and _not_ the person that actually does the thing. I disagree with this. The person who does the thing is responsible for their own actions. The judge may _also_ be at fault, but that doesn't absolve the officer who took the action.
Your response (in the context of what I said)
>> if a judge tells a police officer they can do something
> Who commands the police officer to do things? Is it his/her superior, or the judge directly?
Seems to indicate you think I said the judge is the one who ordered the officer to do the thing. I didn't. I said the judge gave permission for it.
To be very clear, in a situation where
1. Tier 1 officer orders Tier 2 officer to have a thing done
2. Tier 2 officer orders Tier 3 officer to do the thing
3. Judge authorizes Tier 3 officer to do the thing
4. Tier 3 officer does the thing
If "the thing" is clearly illegal (to a reasonable person), then ALL of those individuals are at fault. And Tier 3 officer clearly broke the law when doing the thing.
Also if the Ukrainians hated it so much they would just side with Russia and form rebel militias all over and apparently that is not happening, I think they know which side has their best interests at heart and which is trying to genocide them.
Well, from 2014 onward there were supposedly rebel militia groups in the south and east. (Most people think they were Russian puppets however.)
> [...] I think they know which side has their best interests at heart and which is trying to genocide them.
Doesn't even need to be their best interest, really. The Ukrainian government had and has its fair share of flaws. (They exist in the real world after all.) But it's enough that they are a lot better than Russia.
Public opinion shows there’s nobody more supportive than the continued military defense of Ukraine than the Ukrainians. Even the conscripted would prefer more modern weapons to permanently ceding Ukrainian territory to Russia.
Well, the invader is the last party to want a war: they'd be happy to just take over.
Russia's takeover of Crimea in 2014 was almost as 'peaceful' as the German takeover of the Sudetenland in the 1930s.
All in all, my comment is just a convoluted way that sometimes the price to pay for peace is too high.
In addition, there's also pre-commitments that make everything more complicated: as a potential victim of invasion, you might want to pre-commit to defending long beyond any reasonable threshold, in the hopes that this will deter invasion. Sometimes your bluff gets called, and then you need to actually fight to maintain your credibility.
Compare mutual assured destruction in nuclear war: nuking Moscow in retaliation for the Soviets nuking New York isn't going to bring anyone back from the dead. But it's what you pre-commit to in order to deter the bombing of New York in the first place.
Zelensky was elected in part on a platform of trying to negotiate with Russia but it fell apart because Russia wasn't interested in negotiating and instead decided it wanted to massively expand the war. If Russia shown the smallest sign that they had given up on conquering Ukraine and were willing to seek peace Zelensky would be interested. Zelensky is also more popular then most potential political opponents and they would rather the election would be held after the war when they'd have more of a chance(wartime popularity doesn't always transfer over to peacetime, Winston Churchill lost his post war election). And any credible challenges would likely be more hawkish on Russia not less
Very possible, but you should provide data. The data we have suggests that Zelensky's approval is extremely high among the public and the consensus not to violate the constitution to hold elections during wartime is unanimous within the government.
THE GOVERNMENT doesn't want elections in wartime. Most people want.
>not least because polling stations become targets.
I think this is pure gaslighting. If we are talking about Ukraine, Putin is one of the main supporters of holding elections there. And almost certainly not because he wants to bomb some polling stations, but because he is confident that people will vote for a candidate who will de-facto offer to surrender, and not for Zelensky with his busifications.
The only likely candidate close to Zelenskyy in popularity is Zaluzhnyi, the former commander of the Armed Forces of Ukraine. That's not a person who sees surrender as an option.
All major political factions oppose holding elections now, because they expect Zelenskyy's popularity to fade after the war ends and believe their candidates will have better chances then.
> All major political factions oppose holding elections now, because they expect Zelenskyy's popularity to fade after the war ends and believe their candidates will have better chances then.
Well, that, and also the constitution doesn't allow election during wartime.
The point of mandatory third party insurance is so that when you drive through the putative crowd of children waiting for the bus, the state and the victim's families are not on the hook for lifetime care costs which can easily be in the tens of millions of dollars per victim.
Idk seems like a get out of jail free card when you should probably be in debt for life, slaving away for your grave negligence, not let off the hook because you paid 100$ a month.
You can't really retroactively fix things with money, the idea that it "compensates" in some equal way is simply wrong. Money helps with the medical bills, disability, etc. It's better than nothing, but even if you pursue civil or criminal litigation it's not going make any one else take paying attention to controlling their heavy machinery more seriously. The perception of consequences diminishes, even though there are real consequences they seem like tail end risks since causing an accident doesn't typically result in jail time or civil litigation. I guess my hypothesis, based on a single observation is that people take extra risk because they have insurance and so feel like if they get in a wreck - it won't be that bad and they might get a new car.
> Because of how effective this is for catching even fairly minor violations like failure to pay vehicle tax, number plate cloning is becoming pretty common (comparatively) in the UK.
Evidence of number plate cloning would reduce revenue from fines. If the government wants to fine you for not paying your vehicle tax, evidence that someone cloned your plate would be exculpatory, so it's in the government's best interest to not collect that evidence in the first place.
That's literally not how government works. If they explicitly discarded data because it was exculpatory then not only would they not be able to fine you based on that data, they would have to refund every fine they issued while that discard rule was in place.
"Oh, we hit for DEADBEEF at 11:00am in London, so ignore hits for DEADBEEF from anywhere else outside some Nx safety factor of the driving distance from that hit, because it has to be a false positive."
or
"Oh, we hit for DEADBEEF at 11:00am in London and again at 11:05am in London. Our cloud costs are high, so we're only going to store the most recent picture DEADBEEF, and only record the violation from 11:00am and 11:05am."
I guess these examples sound kind of contrived to me, but how long do you retain this kinda data for? 30 days? 60 days? A year?
Entirely contrived. The point of the system is that you want all the hits everywhere, if your system is using any discard rules at all then it is unreliable for a prosecution.
Suppose you have a system of cameras operated by the various localities. The localities are all storing the data. Then there is a central system that can query all the local systems but doesn't itself store any of the data.
The department issuing traffic citations requests an automated daily report showing every vehicle observed at multiple locations where the two sightings imply an average speed between 55MPH and 170MPH. Then the citations department takes the report and issues a citation to anyone where there is no route between those two points that allows the calculated average speed without exceeding the speed limit.
The report isn't automatically generated if the average speed was calculated to be 490MPH because cars don't go that fast so issuing a citation would trivially allow it to be challenged as a data irregularity, and the report is requested by the department issuing speeding citations rather than the one (if any) investigating data irregularities.
Now you get a ticket for doing an average speed of 87MPH along a route where the speed limit never exceeded 55MPH. You claim it's a data irregularity (cloned plate), but that's a possible speed, because the automated report didn't include the impossible speeds.
There may have also been sightings that would have implied an average speed of 490MPH, but that report was never requested so it doesn't exist. The bureaucracy comes up with some excuse for why you can't run your own reports that don't already exist. You could request the raw data and then do the calculations yourself, but then you have to make a thousand requests to each individual locality, which is purposely too much trouble for most people to bother, and even then there is no guarantee that the person who cloned your plate was spotted in a location that would have produced an impossibly high speed.
><The department issuing traffic citations requests an automated daily report showing every vehicle observed at multiple locations where the two sightings imply an average speed between 55MPH and 170MPH. Then the citations department takes the report and issues a citation to anyone where there is no route between those two points that allows the calculated average speed without exceeding the speed limit.
The problem with that is that isn't how average speed cameras work, and where speeds are ludicrously high then there is a human operator looking at it.
So why isn’t the system already working as Gigachad suggested up the thread? Why is cloning plates feasible at all and not immediately discovered and prosecuted? Is this perhaps in the works? Or are the incentives not there?
Because ANPR data isn't routinely monitored. If your car is up to date on tax and insurance it doesn't generate an alert, the presence is recorded and ignored.
People make journeys that are illogical all the time and ANPR misreads are common, so there is no justification for having a system that says "this plate has pinged simultaneously 200 miles apart", because what are you going to with that information?
When you trigger a speed camera, the police send a notice to the registered keeper. They don't search ANPR for other hits, because why would they? They're dealing with the single traffic offence in front of them.
ANPR is an intelligence tool. It is an extremely valuable one, but it isn't definitive and no prosecution would stand alone on ANPR data without other corroborative evidence.
>There is an onus in the UK for the registered keeper of the vehicle to incriminate themselves or someone else for road traffic offences (confirmed by test cases).
That's not how that works. You, as the registered keeper of a vehicle, have a number of duties relating to the provision of information to the police or other relevant authorities upon request. This isn't a controversial provision, something similar exists in practically every jurisdiction in which cars have a unique identifier.
The s172 process avoids the situation where a speeding fine can be avoided by simply not saying who was driving. 172(4) provides a statutory defence which can be advanced by an individual who's vehicle was cloned:
>A person shall not be guilty of an offence by virtue of paragraph (a) of subsection (2) above if he shows that he did not know and could not with reasonable diligence have ascertained who the driver of the vehicle was.
And regarding the disclosure issue
> The core objective of the police is to assert your guilt, not to provide you with any help for your defence.
This is an incorrect statement - the police are obliged to disclose any relevant, unused material (eg material they have that they don't produce in evidence) that will either undermine the prosecution case or advance the defence.
However, if you are being prosecuted for failing to nominate, it is more likely that you have completely failed to return the form rather than returning the form with a note saying that your plate appears to have been cloned, in which case access to the ANPR database is irrelevant because you need to explain why you did not bother to furnish the information rather than police not believing that your vehicle had been cloned.
> This is an incorrect statement - the police are obliged to disclose any relevant, unused material (eg material they have that they don't produce in evidence) that will either undermine the prosecution case or advance the defence.
"Obliged"?
I immediately thought the case of the Guildford Four, and the scene in the biographical film In The Name Of The Father.
IIRC in the film the note in police files said "not to be shown to the defence"... :/
The key takeaway from the article is that the race etc. of the subjects wasn't disclosed to the AI, yet it was able to predict it to 80% while the human experts managed 50% suggesting that there was something else encoded in the imagery that the AI was picking up on.
The AI might just have a better subjective / analytical weight detection criteria. Humans are likely more willing to see what they (or not see what they don't) expect to see.
https://www.404media.co/sales-of-hard-drives-prepper-disk-fo...
reply