[CTmystery]

Funny how when one of us finds a workaround it's regarded as a hack and clever and a sign of how talented and 'relentlessly resourceful' we are. When a cop does it, oh god no the sky is falling. Asking a neighboring dept for an assist is within the law and from this own reporting not abused at all. It was used "at least 5 times" (ok, that is lazy, what is the upper bound?) and "no matches were returned". It's not some crazy surveillance state. It's cops trying to catch criminals. Which we need

[AnthonyMouse]

> Funny how when one of us finds a workaround it's regarded as a hack and clever and a sign of how talented and 'relentlessly resourceful' we are.

Indeed. Which is why when somebody gets pulled over for speeding and points out that because of the theory of relativity speed limits are meaningless without a frame of reference, but the law doesn't explicitly specify one, and laws are required to be interpreted most favorably to the accused in a criminal case, the police always let them go instead of giving them a ticket.

> It's cops trying to catch criminals.

Corporations dumping mercury in the river are "businesses trying to create jobs". Muggers are "disadvantaged youths trying to put food on the table". They're supposed to do the second thing but not in that way.

[CTmystery]

Your first bit isn't an example of a legal workaround, it's an example of attempted sophistry for illegal behavior. Are you implying that the cops in this case broke the law? I don't think that is clear.

Cops should be able to do what is within the law, and if we don't like that then we should change the laws.

[phyzome]

What matters is whether the "workaround" is harming people.

[CTmystery]

The article mentions a guy "charged with aggravated assault for allegedly charging toward someone with a knife". I'd say getting that guy into trial is good for NOT harming people