Hacker News Reader

Comment by pyrophane | Hacker News Reader

Odd that they aren’t more specific than saying she was arrested on “serious” drug charges. Depending on who you ask, that could be anything from possession to trafficking. Sure, that’s not what the article is about, but leaving it so vague just make the absence of that information stand out.

Also, the story here really just seems to be this: police poorly but lawfully install tracking device on car, owner of car removes it, and police demand it back. Then they discuss a previous case where they court said it wasn’t theft to remove the device.

I’m not sure there is much of a story here.

View on HN

>Odd that they aren’t more specific than saying she was arrested on “serious” drug charges

Not the purpose of the sentence. When the police make a mistake, they have to save face by finding a justification, even if it's a vaguely worded accusation without substance.

The police shouldn't be enforcing drug laws.

They should be advocating for legalisation and regulation.

Massive waste of life, time, and money.

Cops choosing which laws to enforce leads down a very bad path.

I understand where you're coming from, but a society where the police have total control over who is arrested and who goes free — who the laws apply to — is a much darker world that I don't want a part of.

(And let me head you off — no, it's not the one we live in right now. You don't actually know what it's like to live in a society without civilian control of the police.)

Police do have enormous discretion over who is arrested and who goes free. It could certainly be a whole lot worse, but it could also be much better.

Police already do that. They don’t police rich white neighborhoods as deeply, and often don’t enforce laws to the same severity eg drug possession laws.

Police shouldn’t out as much time in areas with less crime.

Have you heard of selection bias?

The US has "a well-established tradition of police discretion", as Justice Scalia put it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/28/politics/justices-rule-po...

I'm in Australia and I can tell you from direct experience it is precisely the world we live in.

The police have almost-absolute discretion.

If cops want to be political lobbyists, they should do it on their own time. That's not what they're paid for.

(I am aware of the lobbying of police unions, and I don't like it. Police unions are actually a great example of why you shouldn't want cops to be lobbyists, because the shit they inevitably lobby for is in their interests, not the interest of the general public.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com