• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Facebook friend turns into Big Brother

I juat smoked some marijuana like five seconds ago and I'm not hurting anyone. I'm just sitting here, posting on an internet forum; same thing happens all the time with beer. Why do I deserve to be harassed?
The police state profits from creating crime where there didn't have to be any. Pigs are cannibals so they're always hungry for more pork. No matter how fat they get they always want more. These bloated, bureaucratic swine need laws against victimless "crimes" to justify their own parasitic existence. The more free and self-reliant people get, the less willing they will be to let the police state parasite sap their vitality. Self-respecting people can take care of themselves and each other through peaceful cooperation. Too much of that and people might begin to wonder how they ever got hoodwinked into thinking that donut-scarfing bureaucraps who taser crippled eighty-somethings are somehow heroes. The more people can rely on themselves and their neighbors the less they'll feel any need to rely on police state "expertise."

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pj4yUpR1PB0"]YouTube- DEA Agent Shoots Himself[/ame]

BTW, I was just reading about how in Singapore marijuana possession (over 500 grams) is punishable by hanging. What a paradise.
 
I think that the net is a nebulous territory in terms of legal boundaries, application of our bill of rights, ownership of intellectual property, privacy, etc.

In this particular case, the kid may as well have put a billboard up that says "hey, I'm an underage drinker". I think it's a ****ty way for the cops to spend their time. It's not like they caught him in the act or he created any kind of harm or disturbance at the time he was drinking or they would have caught him then. I think this goes against the idea that law enforcement is about public safety and starts to reinforce this idea that law enforcement is about playing "gotcha" games with peaceful citizens.

So, in the end, no I don't think this is right at all.

Jall, you pretty much nailed it.

Legally, the cops didn't do anything wrong in the legal or constitutional sense. The kid posted the pics on his own. Chose to befriend the cop account and got nailed. Its like inviting a cop into your home and then getting nailed for having illegal substances or items out in plain view.

The problem I have is what you stated. It goes against the idea that law enforcement is about public safety. Operations like this aren't about protecting anyone, its about playing "gotcha" and generating fines and revenue.
 
WTF!?

Is it ok for the police to use facebook and other social websites to *enforce* the law? I think this is a privacy issue.

What do you think?


The story is interesting, in that it says the police report states that the kid admitted to underage drinking. I think they could not have issued the ticket without an admission. Sure, they have pictures of what looks like drinking, but how do they know what is actually in the bottles or glasses? They don't.

I think they used the pix, which freaked out the kids, and made them confess to something the cops had no evidence of.


I also think its creepy that social networking sites are used to 'police' underage drinking. That is very big brotherish to me.
 
But how does it serve the public interest? The police don't HAVE to enforce that law, they simply choose to. Proponents of legal realism would maintain that the law is what officials do about it, so what interest is served in the enforcement of that law?

i'm pretty sure it is the cops job to enforce the law and maintain order, hypothetically the kid could've got really pissed, thus losing alot of common sense and grabbed a kitchen knife and tried to mug someone or something like that.
 
The story is interesting, in that it says the police report states that the kid admitted to underage drinking. I think they could not have issued the ticket without an admission. Sure, they have pictures of what looks like drinking, but how do they know what is actually in the bottles or glasses? They don't.

I think they used the pix, which freaked out the kids, and made them confess to something the cops had no evidence of.


I also think its creepy that social networking sites are used to 'police' underage drinking. That is very big brotherish to me.

Yeah, it seems kind of strange to me too. I totally support the police hunting serious criminals and pedophiles, and also terrorists on the internet, but going undercover online to arrest drinking teens seems a bit strange to me. Maybe they knew it would get reported in the media and it would make kids think twice about it, I don't know.
 
I'm surprised this stuck. Wouldn't they have to actually prove that it was a beer he was holding and not just an empty beer bottle with fluid in it?
 
i'm pretty sure it is the cops job to enforce the law and maintain order, hypothetically the kid could've got really pissed, thus losing alot of common sense and grabbed a kitchen knife and tried to mug someone or something like that.
Wtf?
All this took place after the drinking was long over and the kid was sober.
So your hypothetical has no bearing on what actually took place. :doh

Now if the police were watching a live camera feed and saw a kid opening up and drinking from a beer bottle, your hypothetical might just apply.
 
i'm pretty sure it is the cops job to enforce the law and maintain order, hypothetically the kid could've got really pissed, thus losing alot of common sense and grabbed a kitchen knife and tried to mug someone or something like that.

Isn't that hypothetical just as likely (or realistically, unlikely) with a 21-year-old as it is with a 19-year old?
 
WTF!?

Is it ok for the police to use facebook and other social websites to *enforce* the law? I think this is a privacy issue.

What do you think?

I think people ought to be careful online. I heard about an education student being denied her credential because of online photos of her drinking and partying.

Regarding this case, the cops ought to go catch some real criminals. Wasting their time on this piddly crap is ridiculous.
 
WTF!?

Is it ok for the police to use facebook and other social websites to *enforce* the law? I think this is a privacy issue.

What do you think?

I agree on one hand, on the other... releasing to the public pictures of yourself engaged in illegal activity is just plain STUPID. Darwin in action sort of dumb.

If had pictures of him with an underages girl would it be a privacy issue?
 
I agree on one hand, on the other... releasing to the public pictures of yourself engaged in illegal activity is just plain STUPID. Darwin in action sort of dumb.

If had pictures of him with an underages girl would it be a privacy issue?

Technically, yes, unless it was reported to the police.

In this case, the police threw out a net and hoped to catch something in it. In this kid's instance, it was after the fact with no real way to prove or disprove the suspicion unless, somehow, technology suddenly develops the ability to take a material sample from a glass in a picture. :shrug:
 
Technically, yes, unless it was reported to the police.

In this case, the police threw out a net and hoped to catch something in it. In this kid's instance, it was after the fact with no real way to prove or disprove the suspicion unless, somehow, technology suddenly develops the ability to take a material sample from a glass in a picture. :shrug:

He pleaded no contest, it is enough to conclude the case and it tdoesnt require a forensic scientist either.
 
He pleaded no contest, it is enough to conclude the case and it tdoesnt require a forensic scientist either.

He pled no contest. That is not an admission of guilt in American courts. It basically means that "I am not confessing guilt but I don't have the resources to fight the court system so I throw myself on the mercy of the court".

That, however, fails to address all the privacy issues involved with this and the complete waste of public safety resources pursuing something like this.
 
Not all laws need to be enforced this vigourosly, especially when other laws supercede underaged drinking in terms of enforcement priority. Every second this officer spent on Facebook could have been put to better use serving the public.

Im sure one police officer isnt going to make a drastic difference to the public. I have come of the belief that when a law is broken regardless of what law is of more importance over another is irrelevant; if a law is broken, a law is broken, no matter how small or insignificant you think it is, it is to be enforced.

Police officers are supposed to be members of their community; this one was acting more like an overly invasive stranger.

He didnt force his way in. The guy certainly didnt know the person he was adding in the first place, regardless if the police officer was pretending to be someone else. What part is invasive against his will?

But how does it serve the public interest? The police don't HAVE to enforce that law, they simply choose to.

What public interest does a law forbidding under aged drinking serve the public interest? If you believe it does serve the public interest, then he was simply enforcing this law. If you dont think it serves the public interest, then thats something you'll have to bring up with the authorities, because a law is broken, no matter how pathetic, its a police officer's duty to enforce it.
 
He pled no contest. That is not an admission of guilt in American courts. It basically means that "I am not confessing guilt but I don't have the resources to fight the court system so I throw myself on the mercy of the court".

Ok but read the highlighted text. He had the lawyer and the means to revoke such an accusation made against him and he chose not to, so the court acted on it.

That, however, fails to address all the privacy issues involved with this and the complete waste of public safety resources pursuing something like this.

What privacy issues? He added a stranger, he accepted willingly, and i see no public safety resources being wasted apart from a broadband bill.
 
Im sure one police officer isnt going to make a drastic difference to the public.

I'm sure that's not the point.

I have come of the belief that when a law is broken regardless of what law is of more importance over another is irrelevant; if a law is broken, a law is broken, no matter how small or insignificant you think it is, it is to be enforced.

The infringement on civil rights is of more significance than a kid having a beer in college.

He didnt force his way in. The guy certainly didnt know the person he was adding in the first place, regardless if the police officer was pretending to be someone else. What part is invasive against his will?

Entrapment. The police approached him through private social networking without any provocation to form an investigation against him. It was basically taking a peek into his personal life without any justification.

What public interest does a law forbidding under aged drinking serve the public interest? If you believe it does serve the public interest, then he was simply enforcing this law. If you dont think it serves the public interest, then thats something you'll have to bring up with the authorities, because a law is broken, no matter how pathetic, its a police officer's duty to enforce it.

You completely miss the point by focusing in on the most simplistic dynamic of this situation. It is irrefutable, at this point that the kid broke a law. That, however, does not address the larger question of why police are expending resources launching investigations into the private lives of personal citizens without justifiable cause. Further, the implications of officers "e-friending" random citizens and investigating them as suspects under false pretenses. It's like having an unmarked patrol car on your tail constantly despite no warrant or authorization to have you followed.

I don't know how things work in the UK, but that's not how our justice system works here in America.
 
I'm sure that's not the point.

I think so.

Entrapment. The police approached him through private social networking without any provocation to form an investigation against him. It was basically taking a peek into his personal life without any justification.

Does the police officer need to be provocated to enforce the law?

That, however, does not address the larger question of why police are expending resources launching investigations into the private lives of personal citizens without justifiable cause.

What resources are being "expended"?

And how is a police officer looking at a citizens facebook infringing their private life? A few pictures and status update, or the "about me" section? Unless he went indepth to describe his life on that, i doubt such vauge information can be considered a violation of privacy and i dont see any reason under law or otherwise why he would need authorization to add him on Facebook, and its nothing he couldnt have obtained on police computers anyway.

Further, the implications of officers "e-friending" random citizens and investigating them as suspects under false pretenses.

He wasnt a random citizen, somebody tipped the authorities.

It's like having an unmarked patrol car on your tail constantly despite no warrant or authorization to have you followed.

I dont believe so.
 
I think so.



Does the police officer need to be provocated to enforce the law?

He has to have probably cause to launch an investigation into a specific citizen's life. Further, to undertake any kind of surveillance or deceptive measures to coerce a confession, there has to be probable cause to instigate interrogation to start with.

What resources are being "expended"?

If an officer is flitering through facebook, that's one less officer on the beat keeping the streets safe.

And how is a police officer looking at a citizens facebook infringing their private life?

That's not. But when they deceptively start "befriending" people seeking confession for a crime they never had any kind of provocation to investigate to start with, that is an infringement on a person's rights.

A few pictures and status update, or the "about me" section? Unless he went indepth to describe his life on that, i doubt such vauge information can be considered a violation of privacy and i dont see any reason under law or otherwise why he would need authorization to add him on Facebook, and its nothing he couldnt have obtained on police computers anyway.

That's not the point. The point is that they undertook deceptive practices to interrogate and coerce a confession given under false pretenses. They bypassed his Miranda Rights entirely by using a false identity to peek into his personal life.

He wasnt a random citizen, somebody tipped the authorities.

He was a random citizen to the police. His facebook information was obtained through a process of entrapment.

I dont believe so.

You don't have to believe so. But that doesn't change it being what it is.
 
WTF!?

Is it ok for the police to use facebook and other social websites to *enforce* the law? I think this is a privacy issue.

What do you think?
This is pathetic. How about the cops spend their time making our country a safer place, rather than screwing with kids.
 
This is pathetic. How about the cops spend their time making our country a safer place, rather than screwing with kids.

I agree, the time would be better spent looking for illegal immigrants....;)
 
I agree, the time would be better spent looking for illegal immigrants....;)
"Those who remain silent about capitalism should not complain about immigration."
- Alain de Benoist.
 
This is pathetic. How about the cops spend their time making our country a safer place, rather than screwing with kids.
They've never done that before so why would they start now?
 
They've never done that before so why would they start now?
Eh, wishful thinking on my part. Not all cops are like this, though. My father was a Los Angeles County Sherriff's deputy and he ignored blatant drug users on the street. He mainly sought to end domestic violence, murder, theft, etc. His line of logic was that there was no point in arresting people who were not endangering or hurting others. I guess that's where some of my views come from. :shrug:
 
And now you are trolling multiple threads. Reported.

I see....
It's trolling when you disagree with my position....;)
Ok, how about they spend that time on DUI patrol?....:confused:
Or better yet looking for prostitution or kiddie porn offenders....;)
 
Back
Top Bottom