Flock Camera Tells Cop New Car Didn’t Have Insurance When It Did, Cop Writes Ticket Anyway
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
This is how it works now, but who pays the department’s legal bill? Municipal tax payers. It’s zero accountability. Each cop should be insured like doctors and engineers. That’s the only way to make it work that isn’t just wasting taxpayer dollars.
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.
LMFAO… Good cops get abused in the police force. They never last. Sometimes they get harassed for life because they tried to stand up for what’s right.
Even in the fantasy world where the majority of cops are good, nothing changes for them. They carry insurance, the stipend pays for it, and they don’t have claims because they don’t do stupid shit like this. The bad cops have tons of claims, the insurance becomes unaffordable, and they have to quit.
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.
You know, you’re not supposed to cut over the center dividing line when you turn but plenty of people do if you’re not making a perfect arc with your turn (and I mean, just a little bit). A friend got pulled over for it. We both agreed it was probably racial.
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?
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…
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.
Your own quote is literally the benefit of the doubt I’m complaining about, it’s not me failing to understand something here.
Cop was way wrong here, clearly. Why are you talking about obviously forged documents, what does that have to do with this situation? You’re saying because of other situations, you can see why the cop is suspicious, and that’s normal and fine - he just should’ve checked properly! I realize I put words in your mouth, but they sound like the ones you’re saying.
That’s you extending benefit of the doubt. I’m saying that cop much more likely didn’t really give the first fuck whether it was legit or not, and that’s the kind of doubt that must be extended to such people.
As in, “Think that cop mighta been doing the right thing in this case or at least with good intentions? Nah, prolly not”. Unless I really am misunderstanding, you’re doing the opposite.
You’re doing the opposite. [Edit - whoops - struck out line was a duplicate I left accidentally before adding the “Unless…” above, which does happen to create the exact opposite effect intended by adding the “unless” in the first place]
OK, I’m not saying they’re (police) are doing anything right or wrong. The initial comment I replied to was about not understanding why a ticket was still issued after proof given. I explained my experiences from what I’ve witnessed, but also not claiming (or trying to) this is what happened in this exact situation.
The last sentence I requoted of mine was a simple speculation or presumption out of the officer’s own laziness to not verify.
The other issue, cops (IMO) don’t care if they’re wrong or right in these scenarios, bc the person they ticketed goes to court and provides copies of insurance and doesn’t have to pay anything in the end; (“no harm no foul”). The biggest inconvenience is taking time off work to go to court in the first place. If the cop was right, well, be more added to their quota of tickets I guess. Plus it looks like they’re actually doing something productive.
Calm the fuck down though bro, you’re getting super bent out of shape reading WAY too far into something that you’re wanting to be there about someone defending a cop or something and trying to call me out. OK cool? Get worked up over a comment online. I got better shit to do. You’re just trying to comment for the sake of winning a pretend argument or upvotes… Go get 'em tiger
Arguments about cops are some of the very least pretend arguments there are today, so here you go again just revealing what’s important to you and not. I’ll let ya get back to it.
I did leave an unfortunate mistake in my last comment that shifted the tone from my intended somewhat neutral into pure snark, so I can’t really blame you for getting mad just now, but anyway, regardless we don’t have anything to discuss lol.
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.
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
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.
Plus there is probably some percentage of people who will just pay a fine rather than losing time at work to go to trial. That may have been what he was hoping for.
I’ve seen other examples of this in bodycam videos from Georgia on YouTube where Flock wasn’t involved at all. The cops claimed that they only go by what their computers say regardless of whether the person has proof of insurance on hand. In one notable example, a cop stopped an elderly couple at around midnight for the same reason, ignored their proof of insurance, and left them stranded on the side of the road after towing their car. The husband was disabled and couldn’t walk.
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…
Look, I’m not saying that I support these Big Brother-type companies, but if the cop is just gonna follow the instructions on their computer and not even think for themselves, then we should cut out the middleman. Flock should send tickets directly to offenders. You’re far less likely to get shot that way.
<s>
What recourse could an AI company possibly have over someone? Negative social credits.
Run a stop sign? Social credit goes down. Rob a Walmart? Social credit goes down. Murder someone? Social credit goes down, but more. Safely follow all road laws? Fuck you, this counter only goes down. Have low social credit? Believe it or not, social credit goes down.
How do we use these social credits to keep society in line? Public registry. Look up why anyone has their social credit score. Filter by thefts at Walmart and buy those people beers.
</s>
But seriously. If the Justice system is willing to automate and outsource police work, then get those fucking cops off the streets.
That sounds like a feature outside of the agreed set. As a compromise, the UI can have access to the device speaker and its LLM can shout “BANG” at random intervals.
Actually, a number of governments have contracted with private companies to handle certain policing duties like tolls or parking enforcement. Those companies then basically get all the rights of the government. I believe that it was NY City that was having a serious problem with parking enforcement stealing (impounding vehicles) and putting tickets on legally parked vehicles (about 10yrs ago) just to bump their profits.
Honestly she should sue for malicious prosecution. She was driving the vehicle legally with insurance, she proved that to the officer by showing her paperwork, and then, knowing that she had insurance and the complaint was baseless, the officer wrote the ticket anyway.
I hate nothing more than people blindly following what an algorithm tells them. What’s the point of paying this idiot cop if they’re dumber than an outdated database?
So the system doesn’t use the official database but some copy of it that is low to be updated. Surely this would happen every single day if this is how it works.
