6 ms·

Funny how when one of us finds a workaround it's regarded as a hack and clever and a sign of how talented and 'relentlessly resourceful' we are. When a cop does

Funny how when one of us finds a workaround it's regarded as a hack and clever and a sign of how talented and 'relentlessly resourceful' we are. When a cop does it, oh god no the sky is falling. Asking a neighboring dept for an assist is within the law and from this own reporting not abused at all. It was used "at least 5 times" (ok, that is lazy, what is the upper bound?) and "no matches were returned". It's not some crazy surveillance state. It's cops trying to catch criminals. Which we need

phyzome 2y ago
What matters is whether the "workaround" is harming people.
- CTmystery 2y ago
  The article mentions a guy "charged with aggravated assault for allegedly charging toward someone with a knife". I'd say getting that guy into trial is good for NOT harming people
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
AnthonyMouse 2y ago
> Funny how when one of us finds a workaround it's regarded as a hack and clever and a sign of how talented and 'relentlessly resourceful' we are. Indeed. Which is why when somebody gets pulled over for speeding and points out that because of the theory of relativity speed limits are meaningless without a frame of reference, but the law doesn't explicitly specify one, and laws are required to be interpreted most favorably to the accused in a criminal case, the police always let them go instead of giving them a ticket. > It's cops trying to catch criminals. Corporations dumping mercury in the river are "businesses trying to create jobs". Muggers are "disadvantaged youths trying to put food on the table". They're supposed to do the second thing but not in that way.
- CTmystery 2y ago
  Your first bit isn't an example of a legal workaround, it's an example of attempted sophistry for illegal behavior. Are you implying that the cops in this case broke the law? I don't think that is clear. Cops should be able to do what is within the law, and if we don't like that then we should change the laws.
  - AnthonyMouse 2y ago
    > Your first bit isn't an example of a legal workaround, it's an example of attempted sophistry for illegal behavior. This is exactly what the police are doing. > Are you implying that the cops in this case broke the law? Are you implying that it's illegal to drive with the flow of traffic? That seems like an unreasonable interpretation, it would imply that everybody is constantly breaking the law! The interpretation where the speed limit is relative to other traffic makes much more sense, because the main issue is speed differences. If everybody is driving 70 that is much safer than some people driving 25 and some people driving 115, so the law sets a maximum speed difference, e.g. if the speed limit is 55 and some people are driving 40 then you could drive up to 95 but 100 is too fast. This is clearly much more in line with observed behavior. Anybody can come up with reasoning to justify whatever. You can say that we should follow the letter of the law and let people get away with it if they can find a loophole, or that we should have judges reinterpret what the law actually says to try to get the result the legislature intended, but don't try to say we should do different ones for different people.
    - CTmystery 2y ago
      Again, more sophistry. Take the argument head on. Do you believe the cops are breaking the law, yes or no?
      - CTmystery 2y ago
        Thanks for all the downvotes with no cogent argument against my points. I will explain it very simply why you are engaging in nothing more than sophistry: - My original post puts forth an interesting double standard, where when a non-cop finds a workaround to achieve their aim it's considered a 'hack' and a sign of being 'relentlessly resourceful' (a fundable, valued attribute!). When a cop uses a workaround to achieve their aim, which is to find criminals, it's considered grounds for outrage. - Rather than engage on this point, you put forth analogies that don't address the hypocrisy, but rather use fine sounding language (relativity!) to make a completely different point that all laws should be treated in the spirit of how they were written, and not by what they actually say. And this takes some thinking on the reader's part to get there, as it's diverged significantly from the thrust of the first post, which, again, was to point out an interesting double standard. - I try to get clarification on your now changed point - You double down on the speed analogy, even further removed, with whataboutism and the logic that 'everyone is breaking the technical law so we need wide latitude in how laws are interpreted'. It was so far from my original observation that I don't even know why I responded. Perhaps you were trolling, IDK. It's also interesting to me that my initial post got a couple quick upvotes and then got buried 5 min later. I don't claim foul play or anything. Just interesting. Kinda reminds me of the post against applying to YC that rocketed to the front page and then got flagged for removal. It's quite amazing how hiveminded this place is. And you know, I really have to question the value that I've gotten from this site in 15 years of reading it. I am positive that my life would be richer without it. So so long. This last part has nothing to do with you, just doing some reflecting. I'll see myself out.

phyzome 2y ago

What matters is whether the "workaround" is harming people.

CTmystery 2y ago
The article mentions a guy "charged with aggravated assault for allegedly charging toward someone with a knife". I'd say getting that guy into trial is good for NOT harming people

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

AnthonyMouse 2y ago

> Funny how when one of us finds a workaround it's regarded as a hack and clever and a sign of how talented and 'relentlessly resourceful' we are. Indeed. Which is why when somebody gets pulled over for speeding and points out that because of the theory of relativity speed limits are meaningless without a frame of reference, but the law doesn't explicitly specify one, and laws are required to be interpreted most favorably to the accused in a criminal case, the police always let them go instead of giving them a ticket. > It's cops trying to catch criminals. Corporations dumping mercury in the river are "businesses trying to create jobs". Muggers are "disadvantaged youths trying to put food on the table". They're supposed to do the second thing but not in that way.

CTmystery 2y ago
Your first bit isn't an example of a legal workaround, it's an example of attempted sophistry for illegal behavior. Are you implying that the cops in this case broke the law? I don't think that is clear. Cops should be able to do what is within the law, and if we don't like that then we should change the laws.
- AnthonyMouse 2y ago
  > Your first bit isn't an example of a legal workaround, it's an example of attempted sophistry for illegal behavior. This is exactly what the police are doing. > Are you implying that the cops in this case broke the law? Are you implying that it's illegal to drive with the flow of traffic? That seems like an unreasonable interpretation, it would imply that everybody is constantly breaking the law! The interpretation where the speed limit is relative to other traffic makes much more sense, because the main issue is speed differences. If everybody is driving 70 that is much safer than some people driving 25 and some people driving 115, so the law sets a maximum speed difference, e.g. if the speed limit is 55 and some people are driving 40 then you could drive up to 95 but 100 is too fast. This is clearly much more in line with observed behavior. Anybody can come up with reasoning to justify whatever. You can say that we should follow the letter of the law and let people get away with it if they can find a loophole, or that we should have judges reinterpret what the law actually says to try to get the result the legislature intended, but don't try to say we should do different ones for different people.
  - CTmystery 2y ago
    Again, more sophistry. Take the argument head on. Do you believe the cops are breaking the law, yes or no?
    - CTmystery 2y ago
      Thanks for all the downvotes with no cogent argument against my points. I will explain it very simply why you are engaging in nothing more than sophistry: - My original post puts forth an interesting double standard, where when a non-cop finds a workaround to achieve their aim it's considered a 'hack' and a sign of being 'relentlessly resourceful' (a fundable, valued attribute!). When a cop uses a workaround to achieve their aim, which is to find criminals, it's considered grounds for outrage. - Rather than engage on this point, you put forth analogies that don't address the hypocrisy, but rather use fine sounding language (relativity!) to make a completely different point that all laws should be treated in the spirit of how they were written, and not by what they actually say. And this takes some thinking on the reader's part to get there, as it's diverged significantly from the thrust of the first post, which, again, was to point out an interesting double standard. - I try to get clarification on your now changed point - You double down on the speed analogy, even further removed, with whataboutism and the logic that 'everyone is breaking the technical law so we need wide latitude in how laws are interpreted'. It was so far from my original observation that I don't even know why I responded. Perhaps you were trolling, IDK. It's also interesting to me that my initial post got a couple quick upvotes and then got buried 5 min later. I don't claim foul play or anything. Just interesting. Kinda reminds me of the post against applying to YC that rocketed to the front page and then got flagged for removal. It's quite amazing how hiveminded this place is. And you know, I really have to question the value that I've gotten from this site in 15 years of reading it. I am positive that my life would be richer without it. So so long. This last part has nothing to do with you, just doing some reflecting. I'll see myself out.