So, get police to come out for X when you haven't done X. Then do X and police should ignore it cause last time they had evidence of X it turned out to be wrong?
Police should always investigate. They should have history of previous investigations, but that should not stop them from future investigations.
Apologies for my ignorance but how is this going to police the police? I read the original blog post, there was lots of inferences/could and might be's/etc made but little in the way of proof of anything. What's to stop the police saying it was just circumstance that provided your results?
I'm not here defending the police, or denigrating the project, just playing devils advocate. What happens if the police just ignore you?
i see. when you are investigating a crime and you break or bypass the law I would say that the investigation should not happen in the first place. Everything has to be done within the legal framework that our society is allegedly built on or we descend into anarchy.
It should never be a crime to report something to the police.
It should be the police's responsibility to make a decision about whether reports should be followed up or not. We should hold the police, prosecutors and the courts culpable for making reasonable judgements here, not random uninformed members of the public.
That's not how real-world police departments work, at least where I live. The police are lazy. They receive many complaints, and ignore most of them. Coming to the police with allegations and no evidence simply doesn't go anywhere.
Audit logs I provide won't be enough for criminal prosecution. They would be enough evidence to cause my local police to investigate, as well as adequate cause for a warrant to Google.
this an absolutely ridiculous position. if you are charged with a crime, police absolutely do and should investigate for evidence, which includes breaching your privacy. the entire of idea of finding evidence is to breach your privacy.
without this, almost no crimes would have enough evidence to go to prosecution. that includes stuff that you don't care about, like privacy, and maybe stuff you do care about, like murders and kidnapping
There have been far too many cases where they " investigate the [suspect], find nothing", and still charge them or harass them, even making stuff up or withholding evidence from the courts, because they "know for sure" that they did it.
Especially if the suspect is black, muslim, immigrant, etc.
Usually when there’s an ongoing investigation the default is for police to not release too much information to avoid jeopardising the investigation, then release all the info when the investigation is complete. It’s frustrating and often a principle that’s applied too broadly, but I do understand the reasoning behind it.
In all honesty, this is the correct mindset to have. I have limited expertise in this topic, and you should be aware that other law enforcement agencies probably do not handle this the same way.
Nearly the entire job of police is to collect evidence of crimes being committed. (Actually stopping crimes in progress is secondary at best).
Falsifying evidence is the opposite of this job. Not just not doing the job, but doing its inverse. Provably falsifying evidence even one time should be enough to be banned from ever being entrusted to carry out this role again.
It seems like we could establish some hierarchy (in fact, we already have one implicit in maximum or minimum sentence lengths, though I don't know if that is the right one to use). When an officer asks to engage in a search, he can then state "I am investigating X, we will ignore anything less serious."
If something is seen, it seems like it would be hard to prevent the officer from making a mental note to look into that guy later. We could grant immunity, but that could also get weird. I think just narrowly excluding the evidence uncovered in the search would still probably be an improvement, though (probably...).
The problem with this is the police can harass you back in an asymmetrical way that involves you in jail with a record on trumped up charges.
If they wont even bother with the most non-controversial of crimes, what makes you think they have the moral gumption to not do that to get rid of an annoyance?
Police should always investigate. They should have history of previous investigations, but that should not stop them from future investigations.
reply