
Cops charged after pot shop’s hidden cameras show them eating snacks - leephillips
http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2016/03/cops-charged-after-pot-shops-hidden-cameras-show-them-eating-snacks/
======
ZoeZoeBee
>The cops maintained that the dispensary illegally recorded them because the
officers believed they had disabled all the store's cameras and therefore had
an expectation of privacy "that their conversations were no longer being
recorded," according to their lawsuit.

You can't make this stuff up. The Cops are attempting to sue because they
believed they had a reasonable right to privacy; because they thought they had
destroyed all of the surveilance system (They smashed 5 cameras and took their
tapes) and were not being recorded. Simply so they could commit crimes, break
department rules, and get high on the job with complete impunity. Welcome to
the Police State America if you're still in denial its time to wake up.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Its ridiculous of course. But protections provided by the courts go to
extremes to protect the individual. In the case of officers, there are other
issues. But at root their protections start the same as mine and yours. So
that's part of the argument here.

~~~
ZoeZoeBee
That is what the Constitution and Rule of law provides in this country and
we're all supposed to live under it. At the same time you type this the FBI is
attempting to argue in court that no one really has a right to privacy.

If you cannot expect the Police to Uphold and follow the Laws they are sworn
to protect you no longer live in a Democracy, you live in a Police State.

If you go and destroy all of the surveilance cameras you see in a bank and
then go rob it, see if you're able to request that evidence be thrown out
because you thought all of the cameras had been "disabled"

~~~
krapp
If this were an actual police state, the police would not be arguing their
position in court, and if they did, the courts would never disagree with them,
or charge them with crimes. Police corruption alone isn't evidence of a police
state.

~~~
ZoeZoeBee
po·lice state(noun) A totalitarian state controlled by a political police
force that secretly supervises the citizens' activities.

You are correct that a police state is not simply corruption within the police
force. Your self-defined version of what a police state is incorrect though.
We're certainly having our activities secretly spied upon.

~~~
krapp
The police don't control the state, though.

~~~
ZoeZoeBee
The State uses the Police to control the Populace, The Police do not Control
the State in a Police State.

>The inhabitants of a police state may experience restrictions on their
mobility, or on their freedom to express or communicate political or other
views, which are subject to police monitoring or enforcement. Political
control may be exerted by means of a secret police force which operates
outside the boundaries normally imposed by a constitutional state.

Which part of this is not actively being instituted in the US?

The only reason I can think that so many people have such a limited and
incorrect view of what a Police State is they choose to live in denial or they
themselves benefit from the Police State.

