ThalesCrackheads versus Palantir Spybox
RebekahWSDHate it. It’s so annoying. The stores in the area hate it because it pisses people off and they complain to the stores and them the stores are like we hate them as well but the cops put them there.
NannerBannerI once had the lovely privilege of listening to a police higher up (lieutenant or something?) happily crow about setting these things up. I was just trying not to scoff as he said it was super effective, and yet his little slideshow showed absolutely diddly squat in any changes in the metrics they were using.
They’re more annoying than the guy who use to setup a speaker and and do busking in the parking lot. At least he provided some kind of service and not…that.
the stores are like we hate them as well but the cops put them there.
If they’re on a store’s parkinglot, they’re trespassing if they’re there without the store’s consent. That means they can be removed.
I’m assuming the higher ups for one of the more corp stores allows them there. The people actually working the stores hate them.
I guess that kinda depends on the business structure. Are they fully owned and operated by the main corporation? Or are they licensees of the store’s name and brand? If it’s the first one, some humdrum middle manager could do what you said. If it’s the later, those surveillance things could be trespassing.
Each store has to take care of a part of the lot, but this is all secondhand info from employees working in the stores. So I’d assume one of the stores is fine with the yapping tower thing on one of their spots, even if the other stores aren’t.
Most stores are tenants of a landlord. Even those Walmart warehouses are leased, often both in land and structure.
Even if they are tenants to a lease, the doctrine of quiet enjoyment would prohibit a landlord from being able to freely agree to having police property sitting on the store’s parking lot if their lease covers the parking lot. It’s kinda like renting a house with a yard: your lease is for the house and the yard surrounding the house. A landlord cannot just come on top the lawn and start ripping it up without the tenant’s permission.
A landlord cannot just come on top the lawn and start ripping it up without the tenant’s permission.
On one hand, yes. On the other hand that’s only as enforceable as a tenant can fight it.
In practice it happens. Unless the tenant has the resources or there’s a legal advocacy group dedicated to that specific issue, owners tend to be able to do whatever they want so long as they use the argument of ‘protecting my property’.
The settlement and restitution just ends up something like the owner keeps their stuff there and maybe you get to terminate your lease tomorrow without being forced to pay out the whole eight remaining months of the lease. But that’s anecdotal.
rektdeckardRegardless it’s the people working at the store who don’t like it. The owner class lives this shit and hate poor people.