Palo Alto: Best Place to Rob Bank or do Other Crimeing--For as long as no Cop *sees* you, you're OK

[MedRxx]

(I apologize if this was already posted, did search LBN and here 10 screens back for this Too Good To Miss Report)

Police won’t fine Elon Musk for illegally livestreaming while driving...

As no officer witnessed it happening in person at the time of occurrence ... no ticket is forthcoming....
PA police say 'there are practical reasons why the department doesn’t ticket without personally observing a driver — they need to be able to tell a judge what they saw, verify the driver’s identity and driver’s license, and collect a license plate or VIN number for the vehicle to support the citation.

“The officer needs to be prepared to testify in court about what they personally observed (namely, that they saw the phone in the driver’s hand)...'”


https://www.theverge.com/2023/8/28/23850011/elon-musk-driving-phone-california-law-palo-alto

So, even if there is actual video of a crime being committed, unless a Palo Alto cop witnesses the event as it is occurring, then there will be no charges??

I made the right choice by being born White, but f***up by not being born rich.

[erronis]

1. And yet I can get a ticket on a toll highway if I don't pay and no cop sees me.

These highways are perhaps state/locality-owned but operated by private companies.

With the AI that muskrat promotes, we don't need no stinking human cops to identify the culprit. Looks like the musk holding a streaming device - throw his ass in the clinker..... Oh, wait.

[erronis]

2. And livestreaming driving is possible without holding the device.

I've tried the dashcams - sort of fun. But I'm sure there are the equivalent whole-environment equivalents.

[Mr.Bill]

3. I'm pretty sure if you rob a bank, there will be video of it.

Misleading headline.

[MedRxx]

4. Misleading Headline? No. Sigh. That was the POINT. There WOULD be video, but...

Following the Palo Alto Police's statement that:
“The officer needs to be prepared to testify in court about what they personally observed..."

It then it logically follows that if a Palo Alto cop was not in the bank to personally observe the robbery, then any actual video of the crime would not be able to be admitted as evidence.

Perhaps they would treat bank robbery differently than they did the crime committed a crazed, entitled, perhaps strung out on ketamine twit? Almost certainly they would if the bank robbery was committed by some desperate dude with a gun and not by the machinations of the Bespoke-Suited Bankers. The scales of justice are heavily weighted by how heavy your pockets are.

The Canadian News Program 22 minutes addressed this very issue in a short, but comprehensive, report " target="_blank">

Sorry if it's confusing.

[Mr.Bill]

5. That Palo Alto police statement was not in the context of a bank robbery.

Your headline said if you robbed a bank and a cop didn't see it, you would be okay. If that were true, there would be very few people convicted of bank robbery. And your "logic" that if the cop didn't see it, the video would not be admitted as evidence is way off base. Any bank robbery trial would include any existing video as evidence. That's all the time I care to waste on this silly premise. Have a good day.