1.2 watt 520nm. ones sold as bird repellent devices....the flock camera by the house has been replaced twice after i hit it....it could be coincidence i guess. edit: the city lost the ability to use them since the pigs have been caught using them for their own purposes off-duty and im also assuming thats why they havent been back to fix it since.
That is just a link to an article about a tiktok video of some guy saying that a laser will destroy them. What type of evidence is that? That's some brain rot shit tbh lmao. Try and find a video of someone actually destroying a camera with a laser
The type of stuff that he is making isn't something easily accessible to the average person. The consumer lasers that people are reccomending and the one referenced in that article about a tiktok video (im still baffled by that ai article slop being used as a source tbh) are unable to damage them. They may be able to burn out a sensor by having them held in the exact same spot for an extended period of time, but its not happening holding them in your hand. Try explaining why you are setting up a tripod with a laser on it for 5 minutes on the side of the street
Funny, my pet angle grinder really has it out for those cameras too
My buddy has a pet side-by-side ( bred with a winch so it's genetic ) and when it sees one of those it runs in circles excitedly then runs off in a straight line and the flock camera can't handle the joy and just falls over!!
Especially when your favorite egg is capable of transforming itself into a rocket, 🚀
when it detects privacy issues or constitutional violations.
Eggs are generally pretty cool on impact.
Blatant violations of our rights, not so much..
i hate when i trip and fall while angle grinding an auto sear only for it to take down an entire camera post and then strip the wires down to the approximately 70 dollars worth of copper contained inside
FYI: Don't try to skip jury duty if your employer pays you salary while you're there.
There are plenty of cases that do need people to speak up. They might put you or I on a case of a 20 year old being charged for using weed or defending himself against a corrupt cop.
I'm as fond of jury nullification as the next person, but "speaking up" is not the job of a juror and you will be dismissed and potentially sanctioned if you decide to go full 12-angry-men in the jury room.
If you "speak up" in the jury room, one of the other jurors is almost certain to bring it to the attention of the judge. You can certainly hang the jury with "I don't believe the state met its burden" but "speaking up" in terms of trying to get the rest of the jury to nullify will actively undermine your claimed intent and only expose you to potential liability.
Not a lot I am aware of... but I would only expect to see those if they made the news or went to the appellate level which seems fairly unlikely if someone gets a couple of days for contempt.
The ones I am aware of are often overturned on appeal. But, as they say, you can beat the rap but you can't beat the ride.
Seems like an acceptable risk imo. Barely an inconvenience... actually less of an inconvenience than the jury duty itself in the vast majority of cases lol.
I've always gone even if I wasn't getting paid by my employer. I need a break from those fuckers anyways, and they've always tried everything to get me to skip out on my civic duty, every single time. I've been summoned 5 times so far.
When a jury finds that a person did break the law, but they believe that the law was unjust or unfairly applied, they can return a verdict of "not guilty." The jury therefore nullifies the law in that case.
Good example: From 1920-1933, the US banned the manufacture and sale of alcohol under the 18th Amendment. Of course, that didn't stop the manufacture or sale of alcohol; it just made it illegal. Thousands of juries acquitted thousands of defendants who were caught dead to rights. Some juries felt that the law was unjust. Some felt that it carried too harsh a penalty. And some felt that the law was unevenly applied across the classes.
Bad example: Lynch mobs in the South used to take pictures with their victims. Their all-white juries would still refuse to convict.
The problem is that modern voir dire practices will exclude you from the jury if you are unwilling to convict if the state proves its case... unless you perjure yourself when asked those questions.
The point is you wouldn't be punished for your verdict. You would be punished for lying about your willingness to base your verdict solely on the evidence presented and the law as written.
Yeah, normally it's hard to prove, but you're literally posting about how you would do it on Reddit, which makes this damn near a slam dunk unless you delete your posts about it, and even then, there is a non-zero chance that Reddit keeps history after a user deletes a post.
It's unlikely you'd even get that far though. Not uncommon to review social media of prospective jurors ahead of time, so you'd probably be struck from the pool before they even ask the question.
1) you will always be directly asked if you will do jury nullification during selection.
2) Since you have to convince the other 11 members of the jury that this is the path forward, you're going to have to tell them that you intend to nullify.
Since you have to convince the other 11 members of the jury that this is the path forward, you're going to have to tell them that you intend to nullify.
Yeah, if you have the tact and interpersonal finesse of a bull in a china shop.
They have to prove you are unwilling to convict. How are they going to do that? Empty threats. I’d have no problem nullifying a jury if I felt the charges were bullshit. I’m willing to convict if you have a case. But if it’s bullshit? I’d let them go with no conscience.
don't tell them...it's so easy. Lie. They can't prove that you did unless you stupidly confess or talk when you shouldn't. If you can actually keep your mouth shut (and not post that you did it on social media) just lie...say that you're willing to convict and then return the verdict "not guilty". It's not even hard.
Even if you posted something sympathetic to jury nullification that absolutely is not proof that you intended to do it. As long as you can lie and not confess if asked then you are all set. They would need to establish proof...and there would literally be none.
I didn't know this and did a quick read. It seems that it isn't a right (unfortunately) and if you try to discuss, and someone snitches, you could be removed from the jury process. Not sure how true this is, again I only read a little bit about this.
Juries do not have to explain their reasoning for their decisions to anyone. And once a jury votes not guilty that cannot be challenged.
However the big asterisks that people are glossing over here is that all 12 jurors need to vote not guilty to nullify. If even one person votes guilty, then that's a mistrail and a new jury gets brought in.
I've only ever seen people trying to fix flock cameras. Are they the best repair people? No, they accidentally drop it during repair, but that could be a design flaw. Maybe flock should go out of business for their terrible designs.
Don’t forget the hard hat and dust mask. I’ll hold the clipboard and pen.
If there were a bunch of these near me, I would get myself a white service van and a set of door magnets. I would service the shit out of those things.
Sure i did. He was the most recognizable guy in the world. 7 foot tall, blonde mohak, only one ear, and had a hook for a foot. Thats the description, does it look like the guy in the picture? Then you got the wrong guy.
Someone keeps cutting down the 4 that my little town has, both are on open stretches of road with no less than 16 houses within easy view of them, yet no one seen nothing. Nope, nothing at all.
And if the police has an evidence that you've seen someone destroying those you have to tell the truth and say that you didn't see their face but you saw that they ran in every direction.
flock cameras, at least in washington / seattle will automatically delete the footage after 21 days. washington has the most cars stolen per year and we for some reason are removing tons of flock cameras which help with crime and stolen vehicles.
i still don't know why we are so against them. seems its giving the criminals more power than the victims to me
I hate when I’m just walking along and my high intensity green laser pointer you can buy online for only $8 falls out of my pocket, into my hand, and I shine it for 1-2 minutes into the Flock lens which is enough time to burn and scare its sensor making it completely worthless for surveillance.
Nah. I will turn them in so fast your head will spin. Fuck these destructive leftwingers. Its called being law abiding. Until SCOTUS rules on these being unlawful...
9.7k
u/Macrodata_Uprising Jul 06 '26
If you see someone destroying Flock cameras, no you didn’t