"CITIZEN there has been a report of a shooting in the area, please remain motionless as we scan your face for biometrics.

Scan complete. Please do not move or attempt to leave the area until you have been notified via the 'GovernmentForYou' app that you are cleared to leave the area.

Because you have been identified in the active area police have been granted legal probable cause to search your home. Please unlock your homes doors via any smart home app you have to prevent the authorities from forcibly removing your door onsite

Notification. Citizen because of your scan you have been identified as committing a bank fraud case in North Dakota and will be detained and transported (the move process takes 2-4 weeks). Once in North Dakota your right to a speedy trial will start if you are held more than the reasonable 60 day administration period.

Have a good day citizen and thank you for your cooperation."

What would actual human cops do if there was a report of a shooting in an area, and they were investigating it?

If you give me long enough, I can find something to charge anyone with.

Hamas is the government in Gaza who the ceasefire was with and whose acts it was contingent on.

Hezbollah is part of the government in Lebanon and who the ceasefire was with and whose acts in was contingent on.

The relevance is pretty obvious.

'why are do you want to include both sides (including the actual governments on both sides) in a discussion about ceasefire' is a wild take.

Hamas is the (originally elected by the people) government of Gaza. Hezbollah is a partner of and inside Lebanon's government.

In addition, both parties are who Israel was nominally in a ceasefire with. So extremely relevant to the discussion about Israel and ceasefires and not random whataboutism.

You seem to be implying discussion should be waived away if a counter party is both a government and a terrorist organization.

Not sure why you're replying to me?

I'm not the one comparing Israel, Hamas, and Hezbollah.

Though next time I'll put terrorist group in quotes, as everyone has their own opinion.

The courts made polygraphs submittable legal evidence used to convict people, and still use them on people under supervision (because lesser standards apply).

Precedent is often crap and wrong until someone can find a good case paired with good lawyers to rectify.

Edit: Throttled so editing to reply

Precedent is randomly set by whoever gets there first often with a random case and a defendant with zero funds desperate to minimize their situation (for example without the funds to challenge the legality of polygraph/flock versus polygraph/flocks paid 'experts'). Although now political people are trying to game the system and shop very thought out cases to specific friendly courts to help put their finger on establishing precedent. After building enough such cases in lower courts, moneyed interests then shop it to the next level. Then with enough at the next level, to the Supremes.

It's a pretty awful, unintentional by design and fairly random 'legal system' with a huge bias towards those with more money and or the huge disparity in power of the Federal government, it's prosecutors, trial tax and the ridiculousness of 'if you exercise your constitutional rights you risk an additional 20-50 years in prison' versus someone broke, whose life has already been ruined by time in jail (and their fight beaten out of them), just wanting to go home as soon as possible.

And when those disempowered have the courage to risk the trial tax and do happen to stumble upon a win you get the strategic use of either pleas bargains or dropping the case by prosecutors to prevent precedent, or the abuse by judges of 'as applied' rulings in order to again prevent precedent from being set even when the case was won.

One side has all the power. One side has huge threats (in the form of trial tax). One side literally holds in you prison and has 100% control over every aspect of your life as you try to fight them and uses things like diesel therapy or the many other ways the have to apply to break you down for 'being difficult'. One side has the power to just drop cases it if risks precedent they don't like. And one side has the power to label a case 'as applied' to prevent precedent they don't like. It's a pretty crap system if you want fair unmanipulated precedents to come out of it. It's a great system if you want money/federal prosecutors/judges to be able to put their finger on the scale and set the outcome.

I agree with you generally but taken to the extreme this argument very easily goes to "precedents I agree with should be venerated because they're precedents and precedents I disagree with are wrong" silliness.

"Precedent is often crap" isn't really the basis for any cohesive judicial philosophy or legal thought process.

I'm not aware of any precedent anywhere that approaches "ALPRs violate 4A" territory, it's when other stuff happens that's beyond simply "$lp_id was seen by $camera on $datetime" that I've seen courts start to talk about reasonableness and privacy.

No

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/04/08/trump-threatens-tariffs-coun...

Defending crypto as legitimate by adding 'it's also useful for gambling to get around regulation' is wild.

Some bets are less gambling than others. For example, if you bet "no" on the US leaving NATO this year, just how much of a gamble is that? There are many such bets, some a lot less uncertain than this example. Anything can happen in today's environment as yesterday's ceasefire showed, but in aggregate, statistics and commonsense are not lost. The regulation you speak of is oppressive, legally unchallenged, and is considered undesirable by people who appreciate personal freedom.

'It's not gambling. Look at what a sure thing this bet is!'. Again, wild.

The regulation is often at the state level, the most representative form of legislation possible, often varying from state to state creating the freest system/market where you can chose to live in a less or more regulated state.

When at the federal level it is as the DIRECT result of the social impact it previously caused not because the government just wanted to restrict freedom but freedom was tried and in this situation not sustainable on a societal level.

Weren't the feds buying these to convert into very dense ICE detention housing?

So they can support high density human habitation according to the Feds, but not normal housing according to who?

Interesting to see this chemical attack talking point suddenly in the last week. But yet posters here will claim the bad actors are pushing 'zionist' talking points and ignore when an obviously coordinated Iranian talking point is suddenly injected into every thread within a week.