Big Brother is Watching You

Flint, Michigan has two problems: crime and cash. To reduce the crime, the city wants to install cameras at 14 major intersections across the city. But cameras cost money, and so they want to have businesses sponsor the cameras. The cameras would feature the business logo: like NASCAR.

I love that Common Cause thinks the taxpayers should pay for the system. Common cause has never seen a tax-and-spend idea it didn’t love. While I’m all for sponsorship and all things hillbilly, this camera idea is ridiculous.

First, have cameras ever deterred crime? No. Just ask the thousands of convenience store clerks who are robbed or shot while their cameras capture the scene.

Second, do cameras solve crime? Not on their own. Every night, the local news posts some still image from a bank robbery or a convenience store hold up in the hopes that someone will recognize the man and call police with the tip. I somewhat doubt that the majority of cases are solved because of camera surveillance. Further, a good lawyer could easily cast doubt at trial when the state tries to use the evidence.

Third, this is a curtailment of civil liberties. While in the post-9/11 world “security” has become the idol of the public, all it has done is hassle the average citizen trying to go about his daily life. Remember my post on how the UK is now requiring old men to remove their hats in taverns. That is the logical step from security cameras. First, the government installs the CCTV system. Then it adds facial recognition, which cannot compensate for hats and glasses. So, the government steps in and bans the offending items. In the name of security, the government is now dressing you. The government has literally become your nanny.

Police: Not Above the Law

In an argument on the law, who do you root for: a lawyer or a cop?

Breitbart reported the AP story of a showdown in a Japanese restaurant between a lawyer and a cop. The cop had run into the restaurant for a quick meal-- but he parked illegally next to the curb outside. Now, if you or I did that, we would get a parking ticket. The lawyer brought up this important point.

Bryant testified. "I responded, 'No, you're not.' I told him he was an officer of the law. He's not supposed to break the law. He's supposed to enforce the law."

The cop replied that the law did not apply to him. The best he could come with in court is that he might have to leave quickly to answer an emergency call.

This is a victory for the rule of law. The police should never be above the law. If the law needs to be amended to allow a cop to park illegally for routine meals, then let the legislature do so. I seriously doubt that parking an extra 30 feet away would really hamper the cop in performing his duties of taking reports after a person is victimized. What this is really about is the arrogance of the police culture in assuming power they do not have, but who will argue with the man with the gun?

Nonetheless, until the law is changed, the cops must abide by the law too.

Tangentially, I will never use the LE/"Civilian" distinction. Really, either a person is active duty military or they are a civilian. Either they operate under the rules of martial orders and law or they operate in civilian law. A soldier has vastly different responsibilities to the state than a cop. A cop is a citizen whose given a badge to enforce the law, while a soldier is to defend the very existence of the state.