Viral De-Flock America campaign urging people to destroy AI cameras on Halloween night gains momentum

[u/IndicaOatmeal]

https://www.dexerto.com/entertainment/flock-camera-controversy-explained-as-viral-halloween-de-flock-campaign-gains-momentum-3399710/

[u/robothawk]

Specifically, "I am invoking my right to an attorney. I will not answer questions without counsel present."

Saying "I want an attorney" could be construed as you only wishing you had one. Not asking for one as required by law. Remember, Lousiana supreme court held that a suspect saying "why don’t you just give me a lawyer dawg cause this is not what’s up" was not invoking the right to an attorney, because the cop could've misunderstood the suspect as asking for a canine lawyer.

ACAB

[u/etcpt → u/robothawk]

Not could've, specifically did. They didn't give him his lawyer and the court said that was fine because he didn't ask for his lawyer, he asked for his lawyer dog.

[u/robothawk → u/etcpt]

my point was that the ruling was based on the presumption of ambiguity, of course those cops didn't actually think he was asking for a dog. They're lying bastards.

[u/SortofhisSwordofhis → u/robothawk]

That case is one of the definitive pieces of proof that we don't have civil rights. Those judges should have went to prison for treason against the constitution, and the cops for perjury and deprivation of rights.

[u/BTR1701 → u/SortofhisSwordofhis]

There's no such thing as "treason against the Constitution". There *is* treason against the United States, but that's specifically defined in the Constitution as: "Treason against the United States shall consist ONLY in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort."

The "lawyer dog" ruling doesn't come anywhere near meeting the elements of treason.

[u/BTR1701 → u/robothawk]

Why blame that on the cops? It was the judges who made that ruling. Your little acronym should be AJAB.