A persons political persuasion can tell you something about their values, and the policies they would prefer enacted for a given topic.
Republicans AFAIK have not been on the crusade to end mass surveillance or promote privacy laws to regulate big tech, so seeing a republican man stand up for this right might help you understand that the sentiment of the party is not unanimous.
Nothing pro-/anti-human or dog in that headline, just increasing intrigue without resorting to clickbait. Assuming a man really did bite a dog (bad!).
Best comment this week, so far.
I cannot stand it that disingenous and ignorant people pretend this isn't the case, you can all go to hell.
Last I looked it up, $2500 per year per camera in the surveillance area.
To be clear, I do not support Flock cameras.
[0]: https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/local/san-francisco/san-fran...
I suppose "blocking the view of surveillance cameras" is probably illegal though.
“heavy-set male with a black and white hat”
“person on skateboard”
“person wearing orange vest and construction hat”
If done obliquely enough... e.g., just making a tracker and having the ability for people to report broken cameras, you're probably fine in theory. In practice, this is a litigious society, so you'd want to build this anonymously.
It does not gamify or otherwise encourage damaging them, which would be legally risky.
You can argue that this shouldn't be about politics, but how many years of living under an authoritarian government do you need?
Everything is about politics now.
Moronic generalisation.
For the community, the vandal, and progress, no.
We're a backsliding democracy, and risk backsliding into fully consolidated autocracy, unless we mount effective resistance.
In that bit, an unarmed man was murdered, the killers scatter like roaches, the federal police is covering for them, while actively preventing the state from giving the guilty a fair trial and a swift sentencing and imprisonment.
(What they did is a state crime with a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, and also a federal crime that carries the death penalty.)
Interesting.
As anyone else, though, they constitutionally deserve a fair trial where the onus is on the state to prove that guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, before they can be sentenced. My assessment of their guilt has little bearing on the state's ability to do that.
Proving that guilt would be trivial if the federal government weren't actively complicit, by preventing such a trial from taking place. There's no need to cover for it, it's behavior is unconscionable and treasonous.
I’m trying to understand your original claim.