Jump to content

Georgia cops demolish single moms home - by mistake


SportsGuy41017

Recommended Posts

There is the issue about the mistake, but I would like to know what people feel about the other issue, the use of infrared cameras.

 

It could be seen as invasion of privacy, use the technology to spy on people? Then find something so that you can get a warrent to go in?

 

Kansas cops demolish single mom?s home and destroy children?s Christmas tree ? by mistake

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

There is the issue about the mistake, but I would like to know what people feel about the other issue, the use of infrared cameras.

 

It could be seen as invasion of privacy, use the technology to spy on people? Then find something so that you can get a warrent to go in?

 

Kansas cops demolish single mom?s home and destroy children?s Christmas tree ? by mistake

Are you on a mission to find as many cop bashing titles as google can provide? Because you are the master of cop smearing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you on a mission to find as many cop bashing titles as google can provide? Because you are the master of cop smearing.

 

That shows how little you know, and with my career? May I remind you that I have posted more than a few good cop articles. And I'll call them as I see them. So your comment is uncalled for.

 

As well as I made the remark focusing on me use of infrared.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is the issue about the mistake, but I would like to know what people feel about the other issue, the use of infrared cameras.

 

Kansas cops demolish single mom?s home and destroy children?s Christmas tree ? by mistake

 

Unless something has changed, fire departments use them with a pretty successful rate of finding trapped subjects along with identifying hot spots that need attention. If they have had success using infrared technology, I don't see why the police wouldn't. Pretty sure our military uses it also.

 

I don't see the problem with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless something has changed, fire departments use them with a pretty successful rate of finding trapped subjects along with identifying hot spots that need attention. If they have had success using infrared technology, I don't see why the police wouldn't. Pretty sure our military uses it also.

 

I don't see the problem with it?

 

Clyde posted a link about SCOTUS saying cops can't use them, at least what may be in cases like this.

 

Let's say there is no reason LEO's would suspect you of anything. But for some reason they were using the infrared and found something that they may be interested in that was in your home, then made up a reason to get a warrant to enter. That is the issue some will have.

 

But yes, it does have its place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Clyde posted a link about SCOTUS saying cops can't use them, at least what may be in cases like this.

 

Let's say there is no reason LEO's would suspect you of anything. But for some reason they were using the infrared and found something that they may be interested in that was in your home, then made up a reason to get a warrant to enter. That is the issue some will have.

 

But yes, it does have its place.

 

What could they possibly find that would be interesting to them with infrared that they were not already looking for and likely had a warrant for?

 

Basically, outside of trying to locate something or someone they are already looking for, police would have little use of the technology.

 

I didn't read the entire article and I'm still confused whether this happened in Kansas or Georgia? But I doubt police go around with infrared cameras trying to find Christmas trees to attack on a regular basis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That shows how little you know, and with my career? May I remind you that I have posted more than a few good cop articles. And I'll call them as I see them. So your comment is uncalled for.

 

As well as I made the remark focusing on me use of infrared.

Call em how you like. I have no idea what your career is. But you have a penchant for these. You can post what you like, but own it. You are the master at posting pointed threads then adding a caveat to make it seem like you're not taking a jab. Cops, Republicans, etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Call em how you like. I have no idea what your career is. But you have a penchant for these. You can post what you like, but own it. You are the master at posting pointed threads then adding a caveat to make it seem like you're not taking a jab. Cops, Republicans, etc.

 

Was not taking any jabs, Good thing to know that you can also read into people, didn't know your profession could do that. I don't think it's your reading comprehension, but who knows. It's either that or you just search out for threads and/or people who start/post them so you can attempt to bash someone instead of actually contributing something to the thread.

 

Many others in LEO and those three letter agencies feel the same way and are not afraid to call out the bad ones. But again, the intent of the thread was not on that, any anyone could see what else was said and the direction that was being pointed out.

 

As I have stated many times, there are over 1 million LEO's in the country, and the bad are very few in numbers, but they get the attention.

 

Now, back to the thread.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That shows how little you know, and with my career? May I remind you that I have posted more than a few good cop articles. And I'll call them as I see them. So your comment is uncalled for.

 

As well as I made the remark focusing on me use of infrared.

 

If you're focus was infrared, why wouldn't your thread title state what you wanted to discuss instead of cop bashing again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But I doubt police go around with infrared cameras trying to find Christmas trees to attack on a regular basis.

 

Oh I agree, the so-called slippery slope. I'd also like to know what people like Mnt Ref, or even some Libertarians feel about this technology possibly being used the wrong way. Not sure what led them to think that the guy was in that house to begin with, but the infrared could be used from the inside our outside.

 

But again, I agree that infrared has saved countless people when there are fires, as well as helped LEO's help people, as well as help LEO's in potentially dangerous situations.

 

It was in Kansas, not sure why they originally said Georgia.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're focus was infrared, why wouldn't your thread title state what you wanted to discuss instead of cop bashing again.

Lord, you too? Can't contribute too a thread. Not cop bashing so think that all that you want, you see what you want to see, and you just want to see what isn't intended. FWI, I copied and pasted the title of the article, does that make sense to you? ;)

 

As I also said in a later post, which you either conveniently failed to read or ignored it, many other LEO's that I deal with, and members of those three letter agencies agree that there are bad LEO's that need to be exposed, no matter how many, the few (by percentage) are giving a very bad name for the other 1 million out there. They all agree, it's not bashing if it's true., get them out of their career. But again, you don't want to see the intent of the thread, so thread jack all you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SCOTUS has ruled against being allowed to use infrared.

 

Supreme Court Rules on Police Using Infrared - ABC News

 

A little from the link that Clyde posted:

 

(June 11)

The Supreme Court today, in Kyllo vs. U.S., ruled that authorities scanning a home with an infrared camera without a warrant constituted an unreasonable search barred by the Fourth Amendment.

-----

The 5-4 opinion, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, restated the court's previous findings that a visual search of a home, without entry, is not a search and not restricted by the Fourth Amendment.

 

But in adapting a principle first enunciated in the landmark Supreme Court case Katz vs. United States, a case involving remote eavesdropping of someone inside a phone booth, it found a warrant is required when the person has a "subjective expectation of privacy." That expectation existed for Kyllo because he was in his own home, an idea with deep roots in common law, the ruling found.

 

"To withdraw protection of this minimum expectation would be to permit police technology to erode the privacy guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment," it said.

 

Kyllo's attorney, Kenneth Lerner, made a similar argument in court papers: "Technology that exploits invisible, sub-sensory phenomena ultimately fails to respect the traditional boundaries of society, and therefore leaves the population defenseless against such surveillance."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can we get a version of this story that doesn't come from cop block aka the free thought project? I couldn't get past the first sentence.

 

Why is garbage writing like this considered news by anyone? That web site (I'm not saying they did it in this case) literally lies about police and ignores certain facts to generate stories that are anti police.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using the site you agree to our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use Policies.