• earthworm@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    118
    ·
    5 months ago

    “You know we have cameras in that town. You can’t get a breath of fresh air in or out of that place without us knowing,” Milliman said to Elser, according to Ring doorbell footage of the Sept. 27 encounter viewed by The Colorado Sun.

    And he saw nothing wrong with that.

  • frunch@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    116
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    I strongly encourage everyone interested in this topic (and you should be!) to read the article because this shit runs deep and they see absolutely no problem approaching the law in this fashion. Absolutely disgusting erosion of liberty and privacy, though it’s not the least bit surprising. Here’s an excerpt i found particularly chilling–this cop is fully convinced (or acting as if he were) about the validity of this minimal-effort investigation they apparently were ready to arrest someone over. Note that weeks later it was fully disproven and ended with a terse email acknowledging that she provided enough proof to absolve herself as the suspect. No accountability for their mistake, just: “you can go now”

    “You know we have cameras in that town. You can’t get a breath of fresh air in or out of that place without us knowing,” Milliman said to Elser, according to Ring doorbell footage of the Sept. 27 encounter viewed by The Colorado Sun.

    “Just as an example, you’ve driven there about 20 times in the last month,” he added.

    Along with the Flock footage, the sergeant told Elser he also had a video from the theft victim that allegedly showed Elser ringing the doorbell before grabbing a package and running away.

    My favorite part

    “I guess this is a shock to you, but I am telling you, this is a lock. One hundred percent. No doubt,” Milliman said.

    😳

    But Elser, a financial advisor, told the sergeant she had no idea what he was talking about. She asked several times to watch the video that Milliman insisted proved her guilt, but he refused to show her. And when Elser offered up footage from her Rivian’s onboard cameras to prove her innocence, Milliman said she could bring it to court.

    “It doesn’t matter. I’ll be giving this all to you. If you are going to deny it to me, I am not going to help you with any courtesy,” Milliman said.

    “It’s kind of funny because we have cameras on our truck, so we could show you exactly where we were,” Elser said.

    We are really fucked here. No accountability on their end, while foisting 200% accountability on ours.

    • Cruel@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      53
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeah, been like this for quite a while. They can drag you for a while, lose their case, shrug it off, and continue as normal.

      Meanwhile, you lost your job after your arrest, maybe even were denied bail and had to stay ~2 years in jail waiting for trial, and spent $100k on legal expenses. Winning at trial gives you no restitution for those massive losses. You’re expected to also shrug it off and continue life.

    • LOGIC💣@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      5 months ago

      This reminds me of how police abuse any new tool they’re given.

      Like how while trained dogs can actually sniff out drugs, when they’re given to police, they get retrained to simply alert whenever the police want them to, and essentially become a flimsy reason to let police violate your rights and search anybody they want to.

      And the police suffer zero repercussions for their actions. If they don’t find drugs, there’s nobody who’s going to take them to court and force them to retrain their dogs or to disallow drug dogs from being used as reasonable suspicion.

    • Corkyskog@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      5 months ago

      We are really fucked here. No accountability on their end, while foisting 200% accountability on ours.

      Is there some reason victims can’t just sue flock into oblivion?

      • frunch@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        15
        ·
        5 months ago

        Good question! Frankly, i don’t know. I have a feeling there would be some way they’re protected in this arrangement since they’re ‘helping’ law enforcement but that’s far from even approaching legal precedent. I imagine questions like yours are going to be challenged in the courts as we move forward… 🫠

    • MrsDoyle@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      5 months ago

      I thought it was interesting that she was ok with all the neighbourhood surveillance until it was used against her.

    • supernight52@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      5 months ago

      lol it’s literally an Amazon business. Should have been time to reconsider when Bezos loudly said that Ring footage can be used for anything they want.

  • AeonFelis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    62
    ·
    5 months ago

    She feared the impact a theft charge, though small, would have on her financial career.

    Wild that a false accusation, after being proven as false at the court of law, can still impact one’s career.

    • TubularTittyFrog@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      5 months ago

      because when they run a background check on you they see you were charged. and that’s all that matters. you are untouchable to most employers.

      • buddascrayon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        5 months ago

        Yeah, that’s something that absolutely has to change. I don’t care if “career criminals get out of charges all the time”. A false charge should not follow you for the rest of your life.

        Then again, I also believe that if you serve your time in prison and are released, you should not have a publicly searchable record that can be used to deny you opportunities. So take my opinion as you will

        • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          5 months ago

          Agreed, and prison should be for rehabilitation.

          Perhaps prisoners could be released in one of two states: completed time or rehabilitated. The latter carries a much lower chance of recidivism. Maybe the first iffense could be hidden regardless, and expunged entirely after some period of time (10 years?), whereas on the second offense, both are searchable.

          IDK, but I do believe in forgiveness.

        • sqgl@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          4 months ago

          My friend in Australia had a judge lie that he pleaded guilty to a previous crime (in reality the chips dropped the charge). That kind of bias can invalidate her decision should he appeal (there were plenty of other errors in the decision too).

          However it is near impossible to find a lawyer who will appeal and point out the judge lied because that lawyer would fear coming up against the corrupt judge in future.

      • lechekaflan@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        In my country, employers have low trust and expectations on their new hires (and therefore low wages and high turnover) so they ask anyone applying for work to show up with what’s called a “police clearance” and a “NBI clearance” (NBI = National Bureau of Investigation, a less-sophisticated developing country equivalent of the FBI) documents to make sure they’re not felons.

  • Cruel@programming.dev
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    Important for those who don’t know: police can legally lie to you. Happens all the time when they’re trying to get a confession. In a discussion, they’ll be like “we have your fingerprints matched and we have video of you, so it’s better if you’re just honest with us.” But they often don’t have anything which is why they’re desperate for a confession.

    Weird to me that people are taking issue with the cameras more than the police work.

    The problem here is charges being made with weak evidence and officers legally allowed to lie. I had a similar experience, but she was smarter than me. I was 22 and naive, thinking I didn’t need to prove my innocence because they have to prove my guilt in court (logically seemed impossible when I wasn’t guilty). The presumption of innocence is a lie. And juries and judges don’t operate with pure logic and reason. I had to learn the hard way, losing many years of my life.

    • 🍉 Albert 🍉@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      5 months ago

      they came to my door to arrest me on false pretenses. they ask me to leave my house because my children died. they kept making shit up until they left.

  • LoafedBurrito@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    5 months ago

    So because she is better off financially and is not worried about google tracking, she had all the cameras, GPS tracking, and everything set up to prove her innocence.

    I decline all of that stuff and i would have a MUCH tougher time proving my innocence when wrongly accused like she was.

    This is just another step towards fascism where police are charging people for crimes they never committed, based on AI and computers screwing up.

    • Pacattack57@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      4 months ago

      Damn I use to love these guys videos. Taught me a lot over the years. Shut the fuck up when cops ask questions!

  • Modern_medicine_isnt@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    26
    ·
    5 months ago

    The root of the issue is allowing officer to lie in order to deprive people of thier rights.

    He knew he had nothing, he was just trying to get a confession by saying it was a 100% lock. The cameras wouldn’t matter as much if lieing like that was illegal.

  • okwhateverdude@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    12
    ·
    5 months ago

    In many instances, they are “rogue installations” aka trash left on the side of the road that no one owns now. Check with your municipality if they have an agreement for them. If they don’t, feel free to put them in the bin where they belong.

    • Captainvaqina@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      5 months ago

      Someone who isn’t me is wondering if there is any sort of rapid glass etching compound that would help to decorate the lenses for them.

      • PancakesCantKillMe@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        Seems like some kind of oily fog/spray could obscure things until someone took the time to physically clear it. More temporary, but perhaps easier to accomplish?

        Edit: And this pisses me off that I have to think about such things.

  • londos@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    4 months ago

    I know she was acting to protect herself, but its too bad we couldn’t see this played out in court.