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

91–100 of 123 posts

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#91

Post by linkregister »

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'?

The sovereign citizen stance is accurately characterized by the term "gobbledegook." It is predicated on the false legal theory that the US federal government has no legal authority on citizens that claim they are only beholden to individual states. This viewpoint is based on the original Articles of Confederation, while ignoring or disregarding the authority of the Constitution. It also employs fictions such as the assertion that courts that have gold-fringed flags are courts of Admiralty and therefore are illegitimate.

There are some opinions that should rightfully be disregarded.

Edit: this is also covered by the OP's links.

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#92

Post by Dylan16807 »

2bitencryption wrote: post #81
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.

"Mr. Zuckerberg sir, an incredibly violent and hostile individual with a gun is livestreaming a standoff with the police. It's very likely this livestream will involve somebody brutally dying or getting horrible maimed. Also, this stream could jeopardize an important police operation underway to neutralize this dangerous person. Should we pull the stream?" "No! Of course not! The internet is the land of Freedom! Host…

Entertaining strawman, but a sane 'no' would look more like "There's no reason to think the stream will lead to maiming, and you're just lying to me when you say that the subject streaming her own view could jeopardize the police operation."

Edit: I think I misread the first sentence, I suppose you meant a content warning rather than cause and effect, but that's not a great reason to turn off cameras pointed at police.

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#93

Post by nl »

williamscales wrote: post #27
gpm wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The normal justification (the only I've heard) for that is you don't want to give the suspects an advantage. Clearly that justification doesn't apply when the suspect is the one livestreaming it. Can you give another justification?

The negotiator is going to try to work with the suspect. If the suspect is communicating with people online that could undermine the negotiations and make the situation much more dangerous for both.

Indeed, in this specific case the article says "Her social-media followers, police said, were encouraging her not to give in."

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#94

Post by twblalock »

panic wrote: post #19
HelloImDumb wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This was a hostage situation. Was the 5 year old boy, not a hostage to his crazed, gun-wielding mother in this standoff? I love Monday morning quarterbacks.

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.

If she had shot herself, or her child, or one of her neighbors, while she was in an unstable mental state, people would be outraged that the police had not done anything to prevent it.

It's also intolerable in a society with the rule of law that someone could opt out of being subject to the law by waving a gun around and refusing to comply with a lawful order from the police. If that worked, everyone would do it. It would be impossible to enforce the law.

If she didn't have a child with her, maybe they could have waited her out. They had already been there for quite a while before they decided to act. But to suggest that they just walk away and come back later is absurd.

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#95

Post by TorKlingberg »

dogma1138 wrote: post #90
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.

Why not? cutting off the lines of communication is pretty standard procedures in standoff situations. Before cellphones they would just cut the landlines, I don't understand why they couldn't just use a jammer to cut her off instead of going to facebook but putting a media blackout on such situations isn't wrong.

Cell phone jammers disrupt service in a large area.

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#96

Post by adamsea »

MichaelGG wrote: post #72
nness wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?).

FB isn't a platform; it's a business, it makes money. If something interferes with FB making money ...

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#97

Post by twblalock »

donatj wrote: post #36
HelloImDumb wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Answer me this. Honestly. Is people getting served really more important than people's lives?

> Is people getting served really more important than people's lives

If the person being arrested is a danger to others, there is no distinction.

This was not about a subpoena being served. This was an arrest warrant.

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#98

Post by dogma1138 »

TorKlingberg wrote: post #95
dogma1138 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not? cutting off the lines of communication is pretty standard procedures in standoff situations. Before cellphones they would just cut the landlines, I don't understand why they couldn't just use a jammer to cut her off instead of going to facebook but putting a media blackout on such situations isn't wrong.

Cell phone jammers disrupt service in a large area.

Depends on the jammer, you can buy ones that only work over few feet, you can build ones that can jam an entire block.

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#99

Post by douche »

MichaelGG wrote: post #72
nness wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?).

At best it will go viral, and the clicks and ad revenue will rake in millions.

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#100

Post by douche »

wildmusings wrote: post #85
catuskoti wrote: post #75

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.

Are you kidding me? She was shooting at police in order to resist arrest. This is about as justified as it gets.

You're thinking rationally, which isn't a strong suit of these scum that get pissy about ambiguous police-involved shootings, and conclude that ambushing and murdering police officers is a valid response.
Post reply on HN