"Criminals like that get what they deserve, but that would never happen to me..."
But there will always be people who want to believe that the police keep them safe and are virtuous above reproach.
... right until they're on the receiving end of police abuse of power/lawbreaking, and they look around proclaiming their innocence and wondering why no-one believes them, instead brushing aside their claims of innocence as baseless attempts by a criminal, attempting to tar the good name of the paragons of virtue that are law enforcement.
It's worse than that actually, with the 'good faith exception' idea courts have basically made it clear that the less police know of the law the better off they are, as they can get away with more.
Members of the public are required to follow all the laws, even the ones that they aren't aware of, as 'ignorance of the law is no excuse', yet for police, the group (theoretically) tasked with upholding and enforcing the law ignorance of the law not only is an acceptable excuse, it's a greatly desired state.
Given the stop happened at night I'm guessing the cop was just bored and figured he's spice up his night with a search of someone's car. That he actually found something was completely unexpected, as evidenced by the fact that the excuse presented was so pathetic.
"It's not our fault artists in germany can't have their music on YT and make money off of it, it's entirely YT's fault for not giving in to our completely reasonable demands and then having the gall not to open themselves up to lawsuits by hosting the music anyway! If they'd just caved and paid out what we demanded then german artists would be raking in the cash(while we took a perfectly reasonable cut of course), so blame them, not us!"
Of course, after all if they let one person go just because the evidence clears then them they might have to let other people go because the evidence clears them, and that's just such a huge freakin' hassle. Not to mention it might make the prosecutors and judges look bad for sending an innocent man to prison/death row, and we can't have that now can we?
Nah, better by far to just ignore any 'inconvenient' evidence and let the actual guilty person walk free, I mean really, what's a few wrongfully convicted/executed people compared to more paperwork and making someone in a position of authority look bad?
Had he done that then they would have had the initiative, and they could have spun his response as a 'spiteful attempt at excusing his own incompetence/inability to do his job'. By leaving on his terms he got to set the narrative, and they're left trying to come up with excuses for why what he said isn't true.
In YT's case they don't actually need to do any of that. YT was being sued left and right when it first appeared, and I'd say the only reason they are still around is because they were bought by a company with enough money to fight back and survive the barrage of lawsuits.
A smaller company though wouldn't be so lucky and would almost certainly be sued into the ground by companies or groups looking to set a favorable precedent they could use elsewhere, including against YT.
The only way a viable YT competitor is going to enter the market and stick around long enough to matter is if it's owned from the start by a company willing and able to fight off a whole slew of lawsuits, and that has it's own set of problems, namely that companies generally care first and foremost about profits and aren't likely to back a project that they know is going to invite hefty legal expenses unless they also know it's going to bring in more than it costs.
"Terribly sorry mister IRS man, but the system I use to keep track of profits and expenses for my small business is incapable of actually doing either. No worries though, I promise that I've followed every applicable law, so there's no need to assume the worst or punish me for anything, I mean it's not like I knew in advance that the system wouldn't work, or could have easily upgraded it and decided not to because it benefits me to have it broken or anything."
brings up the question, 'if you are deemed 'innocent' until found guilty, then why are your valuables, possessions, etc. confiscated anyhow? If this is being equated to 'locking up as secure during court proceedings', then instantly you have a situation where you are in-fact, truly being considered 'guilty until proven innocent', aren't you?
The insanely stupid and insane argument they use is that the person isn't being treated as guilty until proven innocent, and therefore having their rights violated, the property is, and property of course doesn't have rights to violate. Likewise just because the person hasn't been found guilty that doesn't mean the property isn't guilty, and property, unlike a person, can be assumed to be guilty until the former owner can demonstrate it's 'innocence'.
It's a stupid law held up by even more brain-dead arguments, supported by spineless judges and lawmakers and those that stand to benefit from being able to grab everything not nailed down and/or on fire.
Because drugs! All the rules go out the window when drugs are involved! That scrap of paper and the scribblings on it aren't nearly as important as doing everything possible to stop people from even thinking about drugs, and anyone who says otherwise is clearly a criminal communist terrorist drug and seller user of the highest order!
(Really wish I could say this was entirely sarcastic instead of a deliberate poe...)
Love the scenario, but I feel I must object to the unfair comparison. Comic book super-villains tend to employ much better logic and arguments than the NYPD, not to mention tend to be more honest and respectful of the public.
Any stolen money or property that doesn't have complete, searchable records is returned to the owner if possible, donated to the funds of the NYC public defender's office in the case of money, or an actual charity in the case of property. If they can't prove that they have it legally then they don't get to keep it, simple as that.
I guarantee that if such a requirement was put into place the system would magically start working again practically overnight.
Re: Re: Unfortunately, it is the taxpayers who will pay the price
Absolutely, because as anyone knows the biggest perk of being elected to any position is complete immunity from personal responsibility!
Just because anyone else who did even half of what these thugs did would have been tossed into a cell and/or fined into oblivion doesn't mean they should face the same, the public is absolutely at fault for electing someone who ran on the platform of 'I will rob anyone who has stuff I want, use it for my own personal benefit, and then sell it and pocket the money'.
Really, the very idea that someone from the nobili- public office should ever be held personally responsible for their actions is absurd, it's not their fault they're out raping and pillaging, the people who elected them made them do it, so the people who elected them are the ones really at fault, and deserve all the punishments as a result, sparing the completely innocent public servants from unjust punishment.
/poe(just in case it wasn't crystal clear to those that do think like this)
... is how much less money the artists are seeing from such a move. Broadcasters may be required to play 40% local music, but collection agencies seem to have this funny little problem actually paying out money they collect, so it's possible that the artists aren't actually out that much money at all, with the only group making significantly less being the collection agency itself.
In any case kudos to the collection agency for making it clear who's side they're really on by screwing every single artist in the country just because they're throwing a temper tantrum.
Now, the court system is meant to be the former, not the latter.
Meant to be, but hasn't been for many a year/decade. After all if you weren't guilty of something then you wouldn't be under investigation/in court, and someone being found not guilty doesn't make for a good PR soundbite.
Nonsense, clearly if you own something you know at all times what state it's in and what it's being used for. This is why it's flat out impossible to lose say your keys, since you always know at all times where they are and in what state.
Given this ability of course he should have known, he wouldn't have even had to leave his house to know that something illegal was taking place, and as such the blame for his negligence in not stopping it before it happened was entirely and reasonably placed on his head.