Headline was written that way to get clicks. She wasn't in law enforcement, just a longtime employee at the Union. Apparently no one actually reads the article.

Headline was written that way to get clicks. She wasn't in law enforcement, just a longtime employee at the Union. Apparently no one actually reads the article.

If your photos are publicly available, or you give them to someone else (Facebook, Instagram, etc) you no longer have a privacy interest in them. When you willingly give something to someone else, it is no longer yours. You can have an agreement (civil contract) that you expect that company to keep things private, but they can still voluntarily give them to the police. Your remedy would be to civilly sue them for breach of your contract, but said photos can still be used against you.

That specific case was even a bit more nuanced than that. People like to dumb it down and say, "Cops don't even have to know the law!" It wasn't quite that simple.

The law in North Carolina had even been enforced by judges and prosecutors up until that point. If I recall, for many years. Then, an attorney looked closely at the law and realized, due to unclear wording, it's not explicitly clear that it's illegal to drive with only one tail light. They argued, and won.

People don't realize how specific laws have to be, and how often they can be on the books for YEARS before someone makes an argument that something is in fact, not illegal. In my state years ago a criminal case came up where one of the reasons for the initial stop was driving down the shoulder of the road. I think everyone agrees, it's illegal to drive down the shoulder. Well.....it kinda wasn't. The law that referenced improper usage of lanes referenced another section of the code, but that section didn't mention the shoulder, but kind of did lay out the areas of the roadway are between the fog line and center divider. So it was vague, and it didn't EXPLICITLY say you couldn't operate on the shoulder.

I always wondered how many citations got issued, over many many years, before an attorney finally realized the discrepancy and successfully argued it?

>The number of people who just say “fuck it” and don’t show up is pretty small.

You still fail to come up with a way to address the underlying problem that bail is trying to address. And I believe you are severely underestimating the amount of people who refuse to show up to court. The system doesn't have to worry about people that have a home, job families or social circles. Those people already show up to court - or generally don't commit crimes at the rates I'm speaking about. We are talking about people who have 15, 20, 25, 30 arrests in the past 10 years.

>Most people will do this. Some people have difficulty doing this for transportation/childcare/job reasons which is a whole other issue and those people would have trouble paying bail anyway. Some people who have a lot of money may skip out - those kind of people should be treated as a flight risk and it may be appropriate to put them on monitored house arrest.

The people we are talking about don't have permanent addresses. They stay with other people, couch surf, frequently evicted, etc. The individuals I'm talking about don't have jobs. They frequently change phone numbers because they are disconnected. These individuals are in and out of jail on new offenses.

Bail is a little bit more nuanced than people make it out to be. Entirely eliminating bail or severely restricting it's use leads to what has happened in New York. There is still a place for bail.

I absolutely agree, INITIALLY you are either a threat/flight risk or you are not. If you aren't a risk, you get released without bail. But, what if you are released and you don't show up to court? What then? Warrant, back to jail. Should that person then have to sit there until trial? No, generally they should get offered bail. So, they bail for say $250. Still don't show up to court. Warrant, eventually back to jail. Well, now they have to bail for $1,000. So, they do, still fail to show up to court and once again a warrant is issued and they are back in jail. They either rinse and repeat, bail and show up, or stay incarcerated until their trial date.

Another example of when bail might be appropriate is perhaps someone is arrested for their 9th open offense. They have three different trespass cases, five shoplifting cases and a minor drug offense. Through this process of book and constant release, they are missing court date after court date. They get picked back up, back to jail, new court date issued, back out on the street. They are forever just pushing out their court dates and never appearing. Maybe, on this new minor shoplifting offense, it's time a judge sets bail?

There are a lot of people in society that have nothing to lose, or just don't care, and will not show up to court. There's also people who posting $100 bail is a massive incentive enough to show to court, so they get their $100' back. Outright saying we should eliminate all cash bail fails to address the systemic issue of incentivizing people to show up to court when they outright refuse to.