Georgia college student reportedly received a ticket from a cop after a Flock camera flagged her newly purchased vehicle as having no insurance when it did. According to a WSB-TV report, posted by podcast host Kacee Allen, the car has a temporary license plate, but the student presented a valid insurance card. Despite this, the officer reportedly still issued a citation. The incident reportedly happened twice, and the student now has to defend herself in court
According to the news report, the database that Flock cameras rely on was yet to be updated. This caused the system to falsely flag the newly purchased vehicle.
Renee Jones, the student’s mother, said her daughter was doing everything required of her. This included maintaining insurance and carrying proof of coverage.
ACAB as usual.
Was she black?
Edit: yup, she was black. I hope the officer suddenly runs out of blood soon.
What’s crazy to me is how this insurance database lookup even makes sense… Most insurance companies give you a grace period to add new vehicles if you have an existing policy. For mine in Washington, I have 14 days to tell my insurance if I’ve bought a new car, and it’s covered under my existing policy until then. Flock would have no way of looking up this information and has no justification to flag a vehicle like this…
I’m struggling to process how the fuck that cop could still write a ticket after seeing a valid proof of insurance. The sheer arrogance is ridiculous
There’s an infamous video of a cop who tickets an amputee for holding a cellphone in her non existent hand. He triples down in the video that she had the phone specifically in her missing hand WHILE she is holding up the stump and laughing at him. She of course disputed it, agency stupidly stood by their braindead officer until it got to court when suddenly the cop begged for the entire thing to be dropped, after proceedings had started, wasting everyone’s time and taxpayer dollars.
They are so used to never being questioned, and having zero consequences when they are because of qualified immunity, that their brains are incapable of processing that they are fucking up something incredibly simple.
We’re pretty close to the anniversary of the events that ended up in the creation of the “qualified immunity” doctrine which was September 13, 1961. The case involves the civil rights movement, 15 priests, Mississippi, and law enforcement overreach. It’s a good read.
after proceedings had started, wasting everyone’s time and taxpayer dollars.
That was the point - that is, that’s why the cop didn’t just walk away. He knew he was wrong, but she embarrassed him. He knew that he could just force the issue right up to the last minute, and there would be no consequences for him. Major hassle and inconvenience for her, but he still gets paid and there’s almost certainly no negative repercussions for him.
He was deliberately making life more difficult for her, because his feelings were hurt. It wasn’t out of ignorance, it was out of childish malice.
Apparently they can write tickets for things that are objectively false. There’s bodycam footage of cop giving a ticket to a woman a few months ago for using her phone while driving. He said “with your right hand” before she showed him that she doesn’t have a right hand. Gave her a ticket anyway
It’s that thing where your brain locks in on your first understanding of a situation and it’s harder to change after that point. Cops, being morons, are extra susceptible to it.
Having worked in insurance before, I’ve had numerous officers stop in to our office to validate insurance cards because they’ve been doctored.
How that works: person A signs up for a policy, pays the minimum pymt. Gets ID cards, stops paying after first payment. Policy is canceled but ID cards show valid date for 6-12 months. Person A then edits the document with new dates to show future proof of insurance without spending money. Might trick some initially unless you get into an accident.
However, not everyone is so skillful at matching fonts or size, so often it’ll look like shit and be obvious its fake. Maybe the officer thought some database was surely more accurate, but should’ve done a little research first before issuing a ticket.
You literally just call the company instead of writing a citation first
In a just world, the officer, the police department, and Flock would all owe her compensation. I’d put the amount at about 10x the fine for the offense.
The problem is that any fees cops get for doing stuff coming out of tax money.
In a way I understand why, but it just bullshit at the end of day.A proposal I’ve seen floated a few times is to require police to carry liability insurance individually and give them a stipend for an average/reasonable amount. This is usually paired with changes to qualified immunity to make lawsuits and insurance claims easier.
The idea is that risky behavior from police costs them money personally.
I’m wanting to say I like this idea, but…
It just freaking sux. There are good cops out there who don’t need to be pumped into one insurance ideology (fraud) - but til the bad cops get the punishment they deserve there is no good solution.This is a general problem with the whole system - including unaffordable healthcare. If healthcare would be free; freakton of lawsuits wouldn’t happen.
Without those lawsuits the insurance would go down, lawyers would not clog up the system with ‘got hurt in an accident’ cases - and this would reflect all parts of society.
I believe the cops not getting punished for being bad is just one of the hundred symptoms of the system failing.
Break it down; 2% cop 5% department 25% flock
The extra 20 from flock goes back to taxpayers who had to pay the department’s portion.
That adds up to 30%. Maybe you meant 25/50/25.
I’d have to know more before breaking it down. If Flock told police departments that these alerts are up to date and reliable, I might assign them up to half the blame. If there were clear that the information could be a few days old, then I’d set it smaller, but not to zero because I think offering an “alert” product to law enforcement for minor administrative offenses based on stale data is irresponsible.
Similarly for the department and the officer, I have to ask whether there’s a policy about how to handle this sort of thing. If there’s a bad policy, the department gets most of the blame. If the officer decided to ignore a valid insurance card and trust a third-party database, the the officer gets most of the blame.
Oops, I wasn’t really doing the math as I went
Originally I was adding up to your 10x + a adding in bunch extra for flock, but somepoint my brain switch that 10x to 10%. Oh well, the specific numbers dont really matter.
I think greater responsibility should be placed on the department to encourage firing. If the burden is mostly on the officer, than the department bean counters won’t care as long the officer can write more “valid” tickets to offset the bogus ones.
Its also like if a waiter drops a tray of food on someone causing injury. Who is financially responsible to the injured person, the business or waiter? I think most of would agree that the business is. The business is fully within their rights to fire that waiter, but they can’t withhold pay for the damages. If the business can prove the tray was intentionally thrown, then they can sue the waiter. But, the injured party should never have to talk to the waiter.
Should the be the same for an officer, if they make a mistake it’s on the department to make it right with the affected parties. If the department proves the officer maliciously broke protocol or law, then they can sue them separately. The victim of the officer’s actions should be made “whole” by the department, then the department and officer can figure it out on their own.
So I had a suspicion, and yup, this was another ticket for DWB. Flock was just the excuse du jour.
It certainly sounds “more legitimate” than pulling them over for a failure to use a blinker or doing too sharp of a left turn, as friends and victims of DWB can attest to having happened to them.
Although given the paper trail here, it is probably easier to fight in court.
oh cool, so now we have a private company directing our police force.
And the relationship is both symbiotic and exponential. The police make money writing tickets, that money goes to the local govenment, and that government can buy more flock cameras. More flock cameras, more tickets, more money, more flock cameras…
Cyberpunk distophia here we come!
If the cameras are sending cops after non-existent crimes, how are they helping with efficiency or cost?
People pay fake tickets because it’s too expensive to fight them.
The police officer did the right thing. As we all know, computers are always right /s
They have to. If they start admitted it’s making mistakes, there might be a push to take them down. And then we’re be sooooo insecure. Even though it doesn’t seem like the cameras are being used to actually fight crime.
Even though it doesn’t seem like the cameras are being used to actually fight crime.
Just in the last week I noticed a huge uptick in news articles about crimes being solved “with the help of” Flock systems. They’re trying too little, too late to drive the narrative.
Facebook is being flooded, thers a cat in the hat dude locally that is copying the clown trend from a decade ago, every braindead person on there is saying see this is why we need flock cameras and trying to jusitfy more.
We don’t pay those fuckers to think!
Computer says
noticket.Well we know cops are dumb and lazy as a group… imagine once you give them license to turn off the remaining brain power as AI is thinking for them, what could go wrong?
If the cameras are sending cops after non-existent crimes, how are they helping with efficiency or cost?
Duplicate post
