And again, the cops agreed, presumably after seeing the video.

I highly doubt the police reviewed any video. That is not their job, in this case.

They would issue a citation, on the spot, and every party would be told where the court information, on the citation, is located, if any wish to dispute it.

Police are there to ensure safety and de-escalation. Past that (guilt, etc.), it is for the courts.

And I wholeheartedly agree, if this is how they dealt with it. They have enough to do, they don't need to add jury and judge to their plates. There is a reason the dispute resolution is right on the citation.

Entirely probable. But they also have to defend the citation in court. If someone says 'I have video' they may consult that first.

Video is an impartial witness, something hard to find today.

A Texas Republican lawmaker has been reported to the FBI for a tweet in which he appeared to threaten presidential contender Beto O'Rourke after he had made an impassioned plea for tougher gun restrictions.

Rep. Briscoe Cain was reacting to O'Rourke's statement that he would push for a ban on the possession of certain military-style rifles used in mass shootings in Texas, including in his home town of El Paso, which left 22 people dead, and Odessa and Midland, which killed eight.

In his opening remarks during the Democrat debate on Thursday night in Houston, O'Rourke said that the El Paso victims were killed and injured by a man carrying a weapon "he should never been able to buy in the first place," and who had "been inspired to kill by our president."

When later pressed by the moderator about his stance on weapons, O'Rourke said he would support the taking away of a weapon that "was designed to kill on the battlefield."
...
Cain tweeted "My AR is ready for you Robert Francis," using the former El Paso congressman's legal name.

O'Rourke responded on Twitter that Cain's tweet was a "death threat," adding that "clearly, you shouldn't own an AR-15—and neither should anyone else."

Spouse of Ring exec among lawmakers trying to weaken Calif. privacy law

The California legislature worked through the summer to finalize the text of the state's landmark data privacy law before time to make amendments ran out on Friday. In the Assembly (California's lower house), Assemblywoman Jacqui Irwin has been a key voice and vote backing motions that would weaken the law, and a new report says her reasoning may be very, very close to home.

A review of state ethics documents conducted by Politico found that Ms. Irwin is married to Jon Irwin, the chief operating officer of Amazon's controversial Ring home surveillance business. That company stands to benefit if the California law is weakened in certain key ways before it can take effect.

California Governor Gavin Newsom signed the California Consumer Privacy Act into law in June 2018. This legislation gives California residents several protections with regard to their personal information, including the rights to know what is being collected, what is being sold, and to whom it is being sold. It also grants Californians the right to access their personal information, the right to delete data collected from them, and the right to opt out—without being charged extra for services if they choose to do so.

The provisions in the CCPA become effective as of January 1, 2020, a little more than three months from now. There was a window in 2019 where the state legislature could still alter the text of the law, and so a flurry of proposed amendments hit the Assembly and the state Senate before last week's deadline.

One proposal put forth by Assemblywoman Irwin would expand what kind of data would be exempt from CCPA provisions, and this drew the ire of consumer protection groups, Politico reports. Irwin also initially proposed striking out "a provision requiring companies to disclose or delete data associated with 'households' upon request," a regulation that will likely affect companies like Ring. She also voted against an amendment that would have required smart speaker systems, like Amazon's Alexa or Google Home, to obtain user consent to sell recorded conversations, and "used store security-camera footage as an example of data that would be burdensome and risky for businesses to be required to link to consumers in response to data-deletion requests."

Ring has come under increasing scrutiny in recent weeks following a spate of media reports about the company's working partnerships with hundreds of police departments around the country. These agreements, which often require and incentivize law enforcement to encourage widespread Ring adoption in their jurisdictions, are generally made with very little public transparency about what data is collected or shared between the Amazon subsidiary and the police.

Irwin is Democrat, however. So while corporatist pandering like this is usually admired and championed by the Right, I don’t think this particular story fits the pattern.

Lobbying your wife to change state privacy laws so your company can give more warantless access to people's private spaces to police departments, seems both nihilistic and right wing to me.

So does being racially insensitive and wearing blackface. Should we put Trudeau in here too?