• FragrantOwl@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    135
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 years ago

    This is just poor transcription.

    The full conversation was as follows:

    Officer 1: “I like those big cats.”

    Officer 2: “Yeah? Tigers or leopards?”

    Officer 1: “Which is spotted?”

    • ChicoSuave@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      82
      ·
      2 years ago

      I thought it was about gardening

      Officer 1: There’s a garden of nightshade

      Officer 2: That could be tomatoes or potatoes

      Officer 1: Which is potted?

      • cbarrick@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        49
        ·
        2 years ago

        Definitely a crossword.

        Officer 1: Thirteen down. Ten letters. Another name for a cauldron. Starts with ‘w’, ends with ‘t’.

        Officer 2: That’s a witches’ pot, Ted.

      • Imgonnatrythis@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        17
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 years ago

        Pretty sure it was: Officer 1: arrest that stoner, he pirated Oppenheimer!

        Officer 2: I got two guys here chief, both look like the hacker type, using something in their phones called “Lemmee?”

        Officer 1: Which is pothead?

    • Addition@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      27
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 years ago

      Do you ever take the time to gaze across the river and feel like you’re looking at a zoo enclosure?

        • Noel_Skum@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          You should be the US’s official cultural and geographical explainer to the dozens of us foreigners that are on the internet these days. I’ve just learnt all I need to know about two places/states in one sentence. To follow the analogy perhaps you should rename the river between the two places “Congo”.

  • Semi-Hemi-Demigod@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    Perhaps he’s affecting a Cockney accent and saying “Which 'es spott’ed”

    The computer just didn’t know what to do with the “innit”

    • _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      27
      ·
      2 years ago

      I’m gonna assume you’re not from the US given your lemmy instance. In the US most police radios transmit “in the clear”, i.e., not encrypted. As such, anyone can buy a “police scanner”, or a radio on the same band as police/first-responder frequencies.

      In the internet age, there’s websites (and apparently apps now too), that physically monitor these radio channels and stream them online. Hence, a “police scanner app”. Hope that helps.

      Having typed all that out, the only thing I ask is to let us know where you’re from, please.

      • Skull giver@popplesburger.hilciferous.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 years ago

        In the US most police radios transmit “in the clear”, i.e., not encrypted

        That’s wild. Where I’m from (western Europe) the police may be using an encryption protocol riddled with backdoors (TETRA, though the “governments the West likes” protocol is much safer than the “open for anyone” version), but at least it’s encrypted enough that you’ll need some serious compute power to listen in on the police, barring software bugs in sender/receiver.

        You you know if there is a reason your police force allows criminals to listen in on police communication? Or do they simply not care? With all the money your police force seems to spend on big trucks and big guns, you’d expect an encrypted radio would fit inside the budget…

            • Apathy Tree@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              2 years ago

              There is an argument to be made that there’s a public security interest to encrypt some traffic, like when they call in someone’s information to run a check on them. And I think that’s a legit concern.

              There are some fully encrypted systems (which cops want), and there are some hybrid systems, which are more expensive but would keep transparency in place for the population. Those systems work a variety of ways, such as putting the live comms on a 30-minute delay when there’s a big incident, and fully blocking personal information from citizens.

              I think the latter is what they should be using, with very very very specific and clear rules on when they can and cannot encrypt, with regular external audits of the encrypted portion to verify no misuse. But if they won’t go hybrid and submit to inspection, leave it wide open. It’s more important that we have transparency (at this moment in time, due to police behavior), which is a thing I really really hate to say but it’s true…

        • Maggoty@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          2 years ago

          Normal stuff is in the clear. When they’re going to do a raid or talk about sensitive stuff they do switch to an encrypted method of communication. Nobody is listening to the scanner and getting warned that their drug lab is about to be hit.

      • slst@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        2 years ago

        So wait need for speed radio chatter could be something street racers actually had??? I had no idea, I always thought it was kind of silly

        • scoobford@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          2 years ago

          Yes, although many departments are switching to encrypted radios. It’s a minor political issue, because it fundamentally means less oversight, but also in the event of a major riot or coordinated civil unrest you also might not want to broadcast patrol routed unencrypted.