Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

washingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 123 posts

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#71

Post by Sukotto »

HelloImDumb wrote: post #26
panic wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The police could have left her alone and come back later. They were in her house, and she was only threatening to harm the officers, not her child.

Again, I love that Monday morning quarterbacking. Crazed gunman? Come back later. Crazed gunman with a kid? Come back later. Crazed fugitive gunman with a warrant out, with a kid, threatening to kill police? Let them settle down, come back later. There was outrage in my town over a standoff with a guy (with kids) who was having attempted to be served on him by the cops for the dozenth time after a year on the lam, fo…

I downvoted you because I read your comment as needlessly confrontational and possibly trolling.

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#72

Post by MichaelGG »

nness wrote: post #60
Overtonwindow wrote: post #13

I think this is a very unfortunate situation, but the thought of Facebook disabling her account at the behest of the police, that doesn't feel right. We seen that we cannot always trust the police perspective in shootings, so instead of disabling the account, perhaps Facebook should have instead continue to record the feed but disable the comments.

If you think about it from Facebook's perspective though, do you really want to be responsible for broadcasting a video where the women, her child or a police officer is shot or killed on camera?

FB isn't responsible; they are a platform. The person broadcasting is "responsible". And even if they were, yes, why should that be a problem? At worst it'll be flagged mature (and deleted?).

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#73

Post by MichaelGG »

nolepointer wrote: post #8

Considering her followers were encouraging her to not give in to police demands, this was entirely justified.

Police aren't allowed to jam cell phones, so why should they be allowed to do this? Making the cops' jobs easier isn't something that always benefits society. (I'm totally for the cops in this case, but still they shouldn't be able to censor like this.)

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#74

Post by smcl »

rahimnathwani wrote: post #65
aab0 wrote: post #24

> According to a police report from the March stop, which the department released after the shooting, Gaines was stopped when an officer saw that in place of a license plate she had a piece of cardboard on her vehicle. The cardboard declared, “Any Government official who compromises this pursuit to happiness and right to travel, will be criminally responsible and fined, as this is a natural right and freedom.” So she…

"quotes her spouting more of the sovereign citizen legal gobbledegook" It's sad that the top comment on this thread is just name-calling. Why do you consider her views to be 'gobbledegook'?

I don't see it as an attack on their views in general (though the sovereign citizen stuff is pretty odd, IMO) but that those sorts of people tend to ramble in an extremely weird way. If you haven't seen this specifically then think of a sort of madder, less coherent version of Glenn Beck or Alex Jones.

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#75

Post by catuskoti »

Well, this new incident will certainly help justifying new killings of policemen. It will make other people who were already close to the line, now cross it. In that sense, nothing comes for free.

As a libertarian, I certainly believe that these things should never come for free. I am now waiting for the news that at least half a dozen policemen were unceremoniously killed somewhere.

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#76

Post by 2bitencryption »

tamana wrote: post #68
will_brown wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Is people getting served really more important than people's lives? She wasn't just being served court documents, the police were executing a bench warrant, meaning the police were there to bring her into jail. Moreover, the officers went into this knowing this woman was charged with 4 misdemeanors including resisting arrest, and then she didn't go to court and that is why they were there. Execution of bench warrant…

If executing a bench warrant is so dangerous, maybe police should be more careful about how they serve them. For example, surveil the target and approach when the target is not holding a gun.

At this point the target has proven to be EXTREMELY unstable and is an enormous hazard. The kind of hazard you would call the police on because you would be afraid of them shooting someone.

I guess this shows that people on HN do not understand these situations as much as they think they do.

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#77

Post by 2bitencryption »

bmmayer1 wrote: post #69
aab0 wrote: post #24

> According to a police report from the March stop, which the department released after the shooting, Gaines was stopped when an officer saw that in place of a license plate she had a piece of cardboard on her vehicle. The cardboard declared, “Any Government official who compromises this pursuit to happiness and right to travel, will be criminally responsible and fined, as this is a natural right and freedom.” So she…

Why does it matter? Having a cardboard license plate and an uncommon political belief doesn't make someone deserve to die.

Nobody deserves to die (unless you believe in the death penalty I guess?). However, threatening to kill people, and exhibiting signs of extreme instability and violence, makes someone a danger that needs to be neutralized.

If that person pulls a gun on the police during that process, they are not likely to end up in a good spot.

Especially with a five year old in the vicinity.

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#78

Post by [deleted] »

bmmayer1 wrote: post #69
aab0 wrote: post #24

> According to a police report from the March stop, which the department released after the shooting, Gaines was stopped when an officer saw that in place of a license plate she had a piece of cardboard on her vehicle. The cardboard declared, “Any Government official who compromises this pursuit to happiness and right to travel, will be criminally responsible and fined, as this is a natural right and freedom.” So she…

Why does it matter? Having a cardboard license plate and an uncommon political belief doesn't make someone deserve to die.

[deleted]

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#79

Post by rbanffy »

bmmayer1 wrote: post #69
aab0 wrote: post #24

> According to a police report from the March stop, which the department released after the shooting, Gaines was stopped when an officer saw that in place of a license plate she had a piece of cardboard on her vehicle. The cardboard declared, “Any Government official who compromises this pursuit to happiness and right to travel, will be criminally responsible and fined, as this is a natural right and freedom.” So she…

Why does it matter? Having a cardboard license plate and an uncommon political belief doesn't make someone deserve to die.

Not sure about local laws, but in most places it'd be a traffic offense.

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#80

Post by rahimnathwani »

smcl wrote: post #74
rahimnathwani wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"quotes her spouting more of the sovereign citizen legal gobbledegook" It's sad that the top comment on this thread is just name-calling. Why do you consider her views to be 'gobbledegook'?

I don't see it as an attack on their views in general (though the sovereign citizen stuff is pretty odd, IMO) but that those sorts of people tend to ramble in an extremely weird way. If you haven't seen this specifically then think of a sort of madder, less coherent version of Glenn Beck or Alex Jones.

So, it's not a vague attack on their views, but a vague attack on their communication style?
Post reply on HN