I was so confused at first. Reducing hospitalizations is great if it’s because of better care.

That’s not what it was.

I know the grid in Texas is (was?) separated from the main national grid, and I guess, maybe something like this could eventually lead to a state wide grid that’s disconnected from the main grid, and maybe that’s very much the long term intention and a real problem.

It would take awhile to manifest as a big issue though as at least the blurb indicates it has to be for newly built power plants and new loads.

If a data center wants to build their own offgrid power system though I don’t see the harm in that? In the future they might very well be building SMR’s to power only their facility.

I think it should all still be overseen by whatever existing regulations there are and kept to the same standards though. And maybe some rules about connecting them to other purpose built ones under this same grouping?

Like, Apple builds one, and then Google builds one. Google and Apple can’t join together.

Maybe even limit it to some strict commercial type use, so Google can’t be doing this to power a google city where residents live.

Edits: Clarity and thoughts along those lines.

Edit: Oh and it should be mandated to be green energy.

The idea and motive and intention is great. The (edit: eventual) outcome is always evil.

I like to think if I was in a position to be working with data like that, that I could ‘accidentally’ forget to redact it one time and trigger a leak like this.

They publicly released that data at that point though through their own failures, fuck Flock for trying to suppress it.

Damn, I had no idea that happened. So fucked.

Edit: Also, I kinda feel like the ones who threatened the quit, were the ones we wanted to quit …

I tried to make a post of what that would look like but it wouldnt let me submit it since it was empty.

Thats also fair.

Footage should be held by some independent 3rd party who will follow the rules on releasing it. It shouldn’t be up to the cops.

Yes, any law enforcement officer, can have a consensual conversion with anyone, and both my links support that. That does not make it a Gestapo.

Here’s another

https://www.npr.org/2025/09/05/nx-s1-5517998/ice-arrest-rules-explained

“Leaving aside border checkpoints, immigration officers have power to consensually question anyone, just like a police officer does; but to detain someone even briefly they require individualized suspicion that the person is violating the immigration laws,” UCLA’s Arulanantham says. (Professor from Practice Faculty Co-Director, Center for Immigration Law & Policy)

He did not detain, search or initiate any seizure at first. Her car was already stopped and sitting there, (edit: he didn’t pull her over). He did not order her to move or anything like that. She did not seem under the impression that she was detained in the short video we have (edit: and she even thought she was able to leave when she was being detained). He did not block her from leaving. I’m not even sure he said a single word to her at first given the video’s we have.

It’s only after the 2nd vehicle arrives ~30 seconds later that it becomes a detainment.

Edit: just in case you’re going to try and continue this traffic stop stuff and no authority. THERE WAS NO TRAFFIC STOP AT THE START. SHE WAS NOT DETAINED AT THE START. THAT WAS A VOLUNTARY CONSENSUAL ENCOUNTER AT THE START.

They’ll just say she’s ANTIFA and keep to the terrorist narrative.

There’s nothing for them to prove about ANTIFA so they’ll just be able to keep lying about it because anything is ANTIFA.

It’s going to be their answer for everything.

Ah, that makes sense. You’re just revealing already public info if you can figure out who the masked person is.

https://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba-cms-dotorg/products/inv/book/400713906/chapter-excerpt-5090173.pdf

Voluntary Encounters

Street contacts

An officer may approach a citizen and have a consensual conversation and ask questions without any level of suspicion—as long as no detention is involved. An officer/citizen contact remains “voluntary” as long as the officer does not restrict the freedom of the citizen, either by physical conduct or verbal direction. Another question courts consider in assessing the voluntariness of an officer/citizen contact is whether a reasonable person would feel free to turn and walk away from the encounter. As long as a reasonable person believes that he or she can “disregard the police and go about his or her business,” the encounter remains voluntary.

Florida v. Bostick, 501 U.S. 429 (1991). If a reasonable person in similar circumstances would not feel free to leave, then the encounter has turned into a “seizure.” United States v. Ringold, 335 F.3d 1168 (10th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 1026 (2003). Simply asking a citizen for identification, without any command or show of force, remains a voluntary encounter. Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial Dist. Court of Nev., Humboldt County, 542 U.S. 177 (2004) (“In the ordinary course a police officer is free to ask a person for identification without implicating the Fourth Amendment.”); United States v. Drayton, 536 U.S. 194 (2002). “A police officer does not have to inform the citizen they are free to disregard any further questioning for the encounter to be consensual.” United States v. Manjarrez, 348 F.3d 881 (10th Cir. 2003), cert. denied, 541 U.S. 911 (2004).

The United States Supreme Court has ruled that mere questioning by police does not create a detention. Muehler v. Mena, 544 U.S. 93 (2005). The Supreme Court upheld the officers’ questioning of Mena, whom they were detaining while officers executed a search warrant in her residence. Officers asked Mena questions about her immigration status during a search for weapons and suspects connected to a shooting. The lower court ruled that the officers were required to have independent reasonable suspicion in order to question her about her immigration status because her status was not related to the purpose of the search warrant. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that “mere police questioning does not constitute a seizure” under the Fourth Amendment. “Even when officers have no basis for suspecting a particular individual, they may generally ask questions of that individual; ask to examine the individual’s identification; and request consent to search his or her luggage.” Though Mena was detained and handcuffed for approximately three hours, the questioning about her immigration status did not prolong her detention and did not create an additional seizure. Therefore, no independent reasonable suspicion was required to support the questioning. The Court relied on its decision in Illinois v. Caballes, wherein the Court ruled that conducting a drug detector dog sniff during a traffic stop does not violate the Fourth Amendment if it does not extend the stop beyond the time normally required to complete the purpose of the original detention. Illinois v. Caballes, 543 U.S. 405 (2005).

For example, an officer walks up to a group of high school students at a football game, suspicious that some of the students may have been throwing water balloons into the crowd. The officer greets the students and asks their names. As long as the officer does not do anything such as block the exit path, give nonverbal signals of detention, or use command language, the encounter remains voluntary. The officer may ask the students if they were involved in the balloon tossing or if they have any information, and still no detention will be created.

If the officer approaches the students and tells them not them not to move, or waves them to stop or come toward him, the officer has exercised enough control that the encounter may well be ruled a seizure. Thus, reasonable suspicion of criminal activity will be required to make the detention lawful. The difference between seizure and voluntary encounter, as well as the difference between encouraging cooperation or generating hostility, often depends on the officer’s tone and language. Remember: you can be perfectly tactically aware with a smile on your face!

Did… did he just declare the USA Annexed Venezuela?

what? I was asking if there was a legal aid hotline they could call if their rights were being violated and you’re the one who jumps to can i call the government and starts going off the rails.

And for the record.

Law enforcement does not need any legal justification to approach someone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Florida_v._Royer

While it is legal for authorities to target and approach a person based on their behavior, absent more, they cannot detain or search such individual without a warrant or probable cause.

She was blocking the roadway. He didn’t pull her vehicle over, she was already there, stopped. Ross then stopped his vehicle, and approached it. I don’t even think he even said a single word to her until the other officers arrived, nor did he try to stop her from leaving at first. There is nothing illegal about that.

The second ICE officers arrived, and then started barking orders, and tried to detain her by entering the vehicle. If they had no authority based on obstructing/impeding THIS is where anything illegal begins.

From what i understand the warrant has to be specific. It would need their address.

If it was the home address of the target, but not the address of the person’s house they ran into, i think it’s useless, other than to at least prove to the person there is a legitimate warrant out for them, which could change their behaviour.

Like if someone had a judicial warrant for them, but not with my address on it, I’d probably act differently than if they didn’t have one at all.

should be illegal to make that look like a legal warrant.

Should have giant fucking disclaimer at the top

THIS IS NOT A LEGAL WARRANT

I meant during. Guess not.

Help! Government! Save me from the government!

That’s not what I meant. I meant like does the ACLU or other organization have some number you can call if you think something illegal is happening to you by the government.

Of course the Government wouldn’t have anything.

they would already have a judicial signed warrant.

I don’t think that’s true? They could have a judicial warrant for her arrest, but I don’t think that includes any ability to enter her residence?

That would need to be a 2nd warrant wouldn’t it?

damn, that sucks.

Also I don’t even know wtf I would do if they had unholstered them. That would be insane.