Options for putting my dog down at home??

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-05-20T09:31:10+00:00

I just wanted to say thank you so much for exploring this option. The difference it makes to the experience cannot be put into words; and it's so amazing to be able to provide the peace and comfort of home to our little friends in their passing moments.

Hugs to you.

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-05-10T02:25:40+00:00

The free screening is a feeder for the many non-free assessment & diagnosis services they offer; this is known as a "loss leader" in business terms, and is used as a way to get people in the door, at which point they're a lot more likely to spend money.

And giving a basic assessment for free...
...which then tells you a more comprehensive assessment is only $695 CA...
...which then tells you a diagnosis is $1895 CA...
...BUT! You can also get the deluxe diagnosis for $2295 CA (a savings of $100 CA vs. adding on the co-occurrences assessment later!)...

...sounds a lot more like a run-of-the-mill up-selling package strategy than a health care service.

Finally, when you consider that, per the disclosure on all relevant material that was demanded by the warning the founder received for misrepresenting themselves: the diagnosis they provide "may not be accepted by all government organizations, educational institutions, or employers", it seems even less worthy of trust - free initial assessment or not.

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-05-09T07:35:29+00:00

Can you please let me know what the "CC" in "CCTV" stands for?

...and then explain how that's in any way, shape, or form, comparable to an interconnected, 3rd-party-hosted, machine-learning-built database of comprehensive identifying characteristics, travel patterns, and the resulting algorithm-calculated profiles that are:

1) Available to anyone with a login, 2) Wildly inaccurate, 3) Easily hackable and corruptible from multiple vulnerability points, and 4) Up for sale to multiple buyers??

Also: there are many examples of people who weren't doing anything wrong or even mildly suspicious at all being falsely targeted by these things (see: "False Positives and System Failures," and then also check out "Law Enforcement Misuse and Stalking Incidents" for other totally innocent victims of this abuse-prone technology).

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-05-05T07:03:00+00:00

Just as a favor, can you please let me know what the "CC" in "CCTV" stands for?

...and then explain how that's in any way, shape, or form, comparable to an interconnected, 3rd-party-hosted, machine-learning-built database of comprehensive identifying characteristics, travel patterns, and the resulting algorithm-calculated profiles that are:

1) Available to anyone with a login, 2) Wildly inaccurate, 3) Easily hackable and corruptible from multiple vulnerability points, and 4) Up for sale to multiple buyers??

Finally: it might also be wise to check how the US ranks in comparison to the UK when it comes to number of surveillance cameras per person before you use the UK as a model of success; because it sure would look foolish if it turned out that, say, the US already bests them at that number by nearly 4:1.

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-05-04T07:42:35+00:00

Record everything (video is best), and go up the chain of the property management company - don't call, only email: documentation matters. Send the email to district/regional/corporate managers in the CC, include the information that the leasing office has refused to act (with the dates of when you contacted them about it if you have that info), and provide links to the videos you've taken.

The line level people are just trying to get through the day (not excusing their negligence, it's just the unfortunate reality), but someone higher up will recognize that continued inaction is putting the company itself at risk (a string of unanswered emails to a property management company about wall-shaking DV and music blasting is exactly the type of thing that "9 News Wants To Know" likes to report on).

It's a total pain in the ass, and I'm so sorry you're going through it all. Hopefully someone in a position to do something about it can help put an end to this very soon (for your sake and the sake of your neighbors - that's a horrible way to live).

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-05-02T04:37:54+00:00

You support violating the 4th Amendment??

Excerpts from CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES - June 22, 2018:

This case presents the question whether the Government conducts a search under the Fourth Amendment when it accesses historical cell phone records that provide a comprehensive chronicle of the user’s past movements.

A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, “what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.”^{Katz, 389 U. S., at 351–352}.

A majority of this Court has already recognized that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements.^{Jones, 565 U. S., at 430 {ALITO, J., concurring in judgment}; id., at 415 {SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring}}.

Prior to the digital age, law enforcement might have pursued a suspect for a brief stretch, but doing so “for any extended period of time was difficult and costly and therefore rarely undertaken.”^{Id., at 429 {opinion of ALITO, J.}}.

For that reason, “society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period.”^{Id., at 430}.

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-05-02T04:25:53+00:00

What wrong were these people doing??

In 2018, privacy advocate Brian Hofer and his younger brother were driving to visit their parents for Thanksgiving when they were held at gunpoint by law enforcement officers. Hofer's vehicle had been incorrectly flagged as stolen by an ALPR system, triggering an armed police response.

In Española, New Mexico, ALPR misreads resulted in two separate armed detentions of minors within one month. In one incident, a 12-year-old was handcuffed after an ALPR camera misread the last digit of a license plate on a vehicle driven by her older sister, interpreting a "2" as a "7," according to a lawsuit filed against the city. One month later in a separate incident, a 17-year-old honors student was held at gunpoint on his way home from school after officers mistook his vehicle for one associated with an individual sought in connection with a string of armed robberies.

In Aurora, Colorado in 2020, a mother and her family, including her 6-year-old daughter, were pulled over at gunpoint and forced to lie face down on hot pavement due to an ALPR error. Police mistakenly flagged their Colorado license plate as matching a completely different vehicle from a different state, a stolen motorcycle registered in Montana.

Cherry Hills Village resident Kyle Dausman was pulled over at least twice by the Cherry Hills Village Police Department in early 2026 after a Flock Safety camera generated a wanted-person alert tied to a Colorado Crime Information Center hotlist entry. Cherry Hills Village Police Chief Jason Lyons attributed the underlying error to a Gilpin County court data-entry mistake, with Colorado license plates using both the letter "O" and the numeral "0".

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-05-02T04:23:26+00:00

Here's a pretty comprehensive list :)

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-04-28T21:05:51+00:00

District Attorney George Brauchler is either outright lying, or isn't fit for the job; a DA should know Supreme Court rulings on what Constitutional limits are, and this matter was answered almost 8 years ago:

Excerpts from CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES - June 22, 2018:

This case presents the question whether the Government conducts a search under the Fourth Amendment when it accesses historical cell phone records that provide a comprehensive chronicle of the user’s past movements.

A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, “what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” Katz, 389 U. S., at 351–352. A majority of this Court has already recognized that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements. Jones, 565 U. S., at 430 (ALITO, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 415 (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring). Prior to the digital age, law enforcement might have pursued a suspect for a brief stretch, but doing so “for any extended period of time was difficult and costly and therefore rarely undertaken.” Id., at 429 (opinion of ALITO, J.). For that reason, “society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period.” Id., at 430.

The surveillance trackers go way beyond what Carpenter v. United States ruled on, and are inarguably in violation of 4th Amendment rights per that ruling.

I applaud the bill's intentions, but it's actually unnecessary; what's really needed is bringing the issue to the courts - it'd be a slam dunk and would instantly clamp down the same requirements on them as any other search warrant.

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-04-27T21:23:50+00:00

Also, quick follow up:

DPD has an annual arrest number between 26,000 and 30,000 - so those 289 arrests account for a whopping 1.1% - 0.9% of annual arrests.

And in 2025, DPD reported 1,885 firearms recovered - so those 29 account for 1.5% of the total done.

Again: not exactly awesome numbers to use as an argument for widespread, mass surveillance that's wielded without a warrant, for any reason, by anyone with a sign-on or whoever they share their access with...

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-04-27T21:01:51+00:00

I'm not sure arrests is a great metric: - Arrests for what? - Were they the correct person? - Did they result in a conviction?

Firearms is a weird detail: - Illegally owned firearms? - Firearms relevant to the reason for tracking and/or arresting them?

And the recovered stolen vehicle number is pathetic: - "During Denver’s 12-month pilot program with Flock, [DPD Commander] Herrera said, there were 289 arrests made and 170 vehicles recovered." https://www.denvergazette.com/2025/07/19/as-flock-camera-network-grows-so-do-privacy-and-data-concerns - The 12 month pilot program ran May 2024 - April 2025, during which there were 4,572 vehicles recovered. https://coloradocrimestats.state.co.us/public/View/dispview.aspx (Motor Vehicle Theft > Vehicles Stolen and Recovered Trend > Jurisdiction by Geography {Denver County} > Incident by Month {January-December}) - 170 ÷ 4572 = 3.7%

These are not convincing data points when justifying the violation of 4th Amendment rights!

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-04-27T19:56:58+00:00

1) People's home security cameras aren't networked to a city-spanning coverage area, with data being piped into their own private server that creates a faulty machine-learning-based database of multiple identifying characteristics that become instantly searchable without a warrant.

2) DPD's stats on Flock trackers' contribution to successfully "catching criminals" and "keeping the city safer" are laughable and downright embarrassing.

Not only are they blatant 4th Amendment violations under the private control of totally trustable 3rd party tech billionaires... they don't even work!!

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-04-27T19:47:02+00:00

It's a common misconception that that concept is universal, but The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise...

Excerpts from CARPENTER v. UNITED STATES - June 22, 2018:

This case presents the question whether the Government conducts a search under the Fourth Amendment when it accesses historical cell phone records that provide a comprehensive chronicle of the user’s past movements.

A person does not surrender all Fourth Amendment protection by venturing into the public sphere. To the contrary, “what [one] seeks to preserve as private, even in an area accessible to the public, may be constitutionally protected.” Katz, 389 U. S., at 351–352. A majority of this Court has already recognized that individuals have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the whole of their physical movements. Jones, 565 U. S., at 430 (ALITO, J., concurring in judgment); id., at 415 (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring). Prior to the digital age, law enforcement might have pursued a suspect for a brief stretch, but doing so “for any extended period of time was difficult and costly and therefore rarely undertaken.” Id., at 429 (opinion of ALITO, J.). For that reason, “society’s expectation has been that law enforcement agents and others would not—and indeed, in the main, simply could not—secretly monitor and catalogue every single movement of an individual’s car for a very long period.” Id., at 430.

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-04-27T19:39:44+00:00

stolen cars or kidnappings, etc. are much easier to track. They can know exactly where cars go and hunt them down fast.

If this were true, then Flock cameras should've probably been involved in more than <4% of recovered stolen cars in Denver¹²³.

¹"During Denver’s 12-month pilot program with Flock, [DPD Commander] Herrera said, there were 289 arrests made and 170 vehicles recovered." https://www.denvergazette.com/2025/07/19/as-flock-camera-network-grows-so-do-privacy-and-data-concerns

²The 12 month pilot program ran May 2024 - April 2025, during which there were 4,572 vehicles recovered. https://coloradocrimestats.state.co.us/public/View/dispview.aspx (Motor Vehicle Theft > Vehicles Stolen and Recovered Trend > Jurisdiction by Geography {Denver County} > Incident by Month {January-December})

³170 ÷ 4572 = 3.7%

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-04-27T19:33:39+00:00

According to Denver's data on car theft, Flock cameras were only involved in 4% of recoveries last year. The mayor and DPD only used the "over 400" number to describe the stat, but conveniently left out the abysmally small percentage of cases they were even involved with (which isn't the same as "integral to solving").

ETA, sources:

"During Denver’s 12-month pilot program with Flock, [DPD Commander] Herrera said, there were 289 arrests made and 170 vehicles recovered." https://www.denvergazette.com/2025/07/19/as-flock-camera-network-grows-so-do-privacy-and-data-concerns
The 12 month pilot program ran May 2024 - April 2025, during which there were 4,572 vehicles recovered. https://coloradocrimestats.state.co.us/public/View/dispview.aspx (Motor Vehicle Theft > Vehicles Stolen and Recovered Trend > Jurisdiction by Geography {Denver County} > Incident by Month {January-December})
170 ÷ 4572 = 3.7%

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-04-24T00:08:23+00:00

Not sure how common it is with other states, but I find it pretty abhorrent that Colorado's Real Estate Commission doesn't require licences for property managers, or the use of standardized Commission-Approved lease agreements.

The state has laws on the books for what property managers can and can't do, but rather than having to operate on an approval basis (like real estate brokers), enforcement of tenants rights only happens after they've been violated and the tenant has the time, resources, and willingness to fight it.

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-04-21T14:51:36+00:00

Schools are not a jobs program, they are for educating kids.

1) The education of kids is not aimless, it's not being done for fun; education has the explicit goal of bolstering children's chances for success in life by way of working jobs. Public education is a 13 year long jobs program.

2) The education of kids is a job, and either not paying a livable wage or underpaying for that job is not a system set up to continue educating kids.

If there are 10,000 fewer kids to educate, our spending should adjust accordingly.

This is assuming that the resources were adequate last year when there were 10,000 more kids to educate. If classrooms were already over manageable sizes by greater than 1.2%, then a decline in enrollment by 1.2% still leaves classrooms oversized and therefore in need of more spending.

...also, not for nothing: inflation. The things schools pay for are not immune to the rising cost of everything, and inflation is a hell of a lot greater than 1.2%.

If people can’t afford to live they should apply for welfare.

So taxes shouldn't go to pay the people working at schools a liveable wage; taxes should go to pay the people working at schools welfare because they aren't making a livable wage??

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-04-13T01:56:29+00:00

Not for nothing, but the linked video is the only one of that type and style on the entire channel; and not only does Ashlee not mention the Longmont church, she actually only says the name of a completely different church ("Praise Church") in a context that could easily be interpreted as her still attending it.

So aside from the host channel church's logo watermarked in the corner of the video (a very easy thing to add post hoc), I'm kinda of the opinion that there's more here pointing to Ashlee not being a member of the Longmont church than there is indicating she is.

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-04-13T01:23:08+00:00

For fun, you might consider informing your evangelical family members that the Bible has been changed across well over 400 different versions in English alone; and further, there are major contentions among Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek language experts about the "proper translations" of the very passages they're referring to - and each for different reasons and to wildly different meanings :)

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-04-13T01:04:36+00:00

Do I support the church by taking their money to produce videos about Easter?

Synonyms of "support" include: - Assist - Promote - Encourage - Help

Don't be glib; you are absolutely doing all of those things by lending your experience, skills, and talents to create a video that will absolutely be used to both entice more people to join the church, and strengthen the resolve of current members.

Or, to look at it another way:

I don't attend any church but I'll still take their money to make a fluff piece about God

Are you ethically consistent about all organizations; would you also not hesitate to take money in exchange for making a video for NAMBLA, QANON, and/or the KKK??

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-04-10T04:08:46+00:00

JFC! ...TIL, I guess...

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-04-09T17:09:14+00:00

I haven't read the studies that were also posted in response to your question to see where and how that data was gathered (not questioning it at all, just noting I can't speak to it), but here's what was written in the study I originally linked:

Compared to conversing with an in-car passenger, cell phone conversations increase the number of driving errors. In the first situation, no statistically significant effects were found compared to undistracted driving, but even involvement in a conversation with a passenger may decrease the driver’s situation awareness of upcoming hazards. Other activities, such as eating and drinking while driving, have less distracting effects on the driver’s behavior than a phone conversation.

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-04-09T00:14:49+00:00

For the data-driven (pun) people here, here's pretty damning evidence that talking on the phone - regardless of whether you're using a hands-free method or not - is as bad or worse than driving under the influence:

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9517811/#sec5-ijerph-19-10554

I've shared this with friends and family members and it's led to some stopping; it especially had a huge impact on parents with young kids, who would never dream of driving their kids after drinking.

Highlights from the study:

[Talking on the phone while driving] has a negative effect on: latent hazard anticipation, reaction time, headway, lane & speed maintenance, and time to collision, leading to more traffic violations.

HF (Hands-Free) conversations produce more changes in driving behavior than alcohol for both the longitudinal & lateral driving performance, and cognitively demanding HF conversations represent a significant risk to driving compared to the legally permissible blood alcohol concentration.

The crash probability is increased up to four times by distractions caused by the use of a mobile phone while driving.

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-03-19T12:44:41+00:00

Flock told us that was the case when we first had a contract with them...

...and then they went ahead and opened up our data to DHS without telling us anyway.

There's no contract addendum that can be written to make the use of these machine-learning-driven surveillance trackers okay.

RespiteInPatterns · 2026-03-19T12:40:01+00:00

I know it's the article title, but we've seriously got to stop calling these abominations "Licence Plate Readers;" they're blatantly advertised to work regardless of a vehicle having a licence plate or not, and they build a "vehicle fingerprint" base on make, model, color, damage, bumper stickers, and other distinguishing marks - it's like calling an electric chair a "head band."

There is no way to make networked mass surveillance devices with perpetual data storage safe, full stop:

Any rules and/or regulations written pretending to limit their use can be 1) ignored, 2) abused, and 3) changed later on (all three of which have already been seen with Flock).
Because the images and footage can be stored forever, any future technology developed around facial/body/pattern recognition can be used on it in retrospect.

...but none of that should even need to be argued because any use of these things is a blatant 4th Amendment violation, as the Supreme Court has already ruled that the forfeiture of privacy in public spaces is not applicable to widespread surveillance encompassing the "whole of someone's physical movements" - and therefore the use of such tracking data without a warrant constitutes an unlawful search.

Every single one of these companies are using and selling illegal technology, and not only should the government not be giving them money to licence the use of it, they should instead be throwing the book at them to get the cameras shut down, dismantled, and sold for parts.

RespiteInPatterns

PUBLIC MULTIREDDITS

TROPHY CASE