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

New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

slate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 272 posts

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#61

Post by mitt_romney_12 »

at_a_remove wrote: post #29
matthewdgreen wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks to your comment I read through to the original article and it’s even more despicable than I’d thought from the description. She’s being accused of a “hate crime” for “intimidating the police” based on defacing a sign. It’s the most disgusting thing I’ve ever heard of, and I have no idea why any rational human being would defend it.

Those of us who said, over and over again, how dumb it was to make up "hate crimes" as a thing are smirking. We did tell you what would happen. Nobody wanted to hear it. Now it's here and everyone is all "shocked Pikachu" from the middle of that slippery slope.

This isn't a problem with hate crimes this is a problem with the level of immunity cops are given. If hate crimes had never been "made up" (whatever that means) they would have just found another way to make it illegal to piss off cops.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#62

Post by LanceH »

bamfly wrote: post #8
whoknew1122 wrote: post #4

> "Many states have passed hate-speech laws that protect the police from verbal or symbolic abuse, such as stomping on a “Back the Blue” sign while “smirking in an intimidating manner” (the crime for which a woman in Utah was prosecuted)." Wow... this is just... The police have a monopoly on the legalized use of violence. Police carry at minimum one deadly weapon (a handgun), but usually have multiple so-called less-…

> I'm not sure how someone wearing body armor and carrying multiple weapons that can incapacitate or kill someone can be intimidated by a smile. They're wannabe military tough-guys with laughably worse training and culture, much of which tells them they should be pee-pants scared all the time (seriously—folks very-successfully sell some wacko training courses to cops; or, just look at the disconnected-from-reality-an…

> They're wannabe military tough-guys with laughably worse training and culture

Every time they shoot someone after serving a warrant when the subject of the warrant isn't there, it just blows my mind. Do they really just get warrant signed, then roll up and break in? No surveillance?

Who the hell wants to go into a closed room if you could just wait for them to walk outside and swoop in on them when they are in view.

But I guess if you have the gear, you must use it.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#63

Post by 5555624 »

mrangle wrote: post #32
whoknew1122 wrote: post #4

> "Many states have passed hate-speech laws that protect the police from verbal or symbolic abuse, such as stomping on a “Back the Blue” sign while “smirking in an intimidating manner” (the crime for which a woman in Utah was prosecuted)." Wow... this is just... The police have a monopoly on the legalized use of violence. Police carry at minimum one deadly weapon (a handgun), but usually have multiple so-called less-…

Read assault laws. Most people think that assault is battery. It isn't. While I wouldn't comment on the event in question because I didn't see it, generally speaking people can't assault police anymore than they can civilians. What the police carry is irrelevant, and speaking to it as if it is implies a type of dissonance that will lead to someone being arrested. Remember that this is the age wherein people are getti…

> Read assault laws. Most people think that assault is battery. It isn't.

That's why you often hear"assault & battery." "Assault" is causing someone to (reasonably) feel in danger; while "battery" is the actual act.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#64

Post by mrangle »

542354234235 wrote: post #52
mrangle wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read assault laws. Most people think that assault is battery. It isn't. While I wouldn't comment on the event in question because I didn't see it, generally speaking people can't assault police anymore than they can civilians. What the police carry is irrelevant, and speaking to it as if it is implies a type of dissonance that will lead to someone being arrested. Remember that this is the age wherein people are getti…

>Remember that this is the age wherein people are getting arrested for destroying LGBT, BLM, etc signs and art. Do you mean vandalizing and/or destroying other people's property or pulling a sign away from someone else and destroying it, or do you mean being charged with assault for destroying their own LGBT sign? Because those are night and day different things. I would love to see a source if it is the latter, sinc…

The former. People have been over-charged for destroying the property of others, in the example given. But my point was comparative.

Also, to clarify, it should be difficult or impossible to charge someone for assault simply for destroying property. But according to how I understand assault laws, and leaving room for jurisdictional interpretation, if you do it while doing something else that can be read as intimidation then you could be vulnerable to an assault charge.

Whether or not the other person is actually intimidated won't ever be considered. Cop or civilian. The intention is what will be charged.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#65

Post by nathan_compton »

lordfrito wrote: post #54
whoknew1122 wrote: post #4

> "Many states have passed hate-speech laws that protect the police from verbal or symbolic abuse, such as stomping on a “Back the Blue” sign while “smirking in an intimidating manner” (the crime for which a woman in Utah was prosecuted)." Wow... this is just... The police have a monopoly on the legalized use of violence. Police carry at minimum one deadly weapon (a handgun), but usually have multiple so-called less-…

> But they are so fragile that a smirk can intimidate them? First let me say I'm not on the side of these kinds of laws. We can't be passing laws giving special privileges to (or removing privileges from) a particular group of people. "Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens. In respect of civil rights, all citizens are equal before the law." Plessy v. Ferguson (1896) […

I mean for one thing there aren't any laws anywhere protecting anyone else from micro-aggression. I work in a context where this stuff is taken very seriously and I've never seen anyone lose a job over it. I've never been asked to attest to something at all, to say nothing of some mandatory idea.

Look, what you reactionaries call "woke" and are so afraid of is the mere pointing out of structural racist shit. There is literally no legal force behind any woke policies. Governments everywhere are more conservative than ever and the supreme court is absolutely locked tight against these policies.

"going against the kinds of values we've collectively upheld for over 200 years." This is one of the most positively blinkered ass sentences. We had literal chattel slavery for nearly 100 years of that history and in that time displaced by force huge parts of the native population. Half the country didn't want to end slavery so badly that they went to war over it and after they lost they did almost everything they could get away with to continue to enforce racial segregation and hierarchy.

Look, I'm find if you want to hold the absurd belief that there isn't ant structural racism contemporaneously, although this is obviously wrong, but to suggest that the US has "always held" anything remotely like contemporary racial egalitarian ideals is absolutely wrong.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#66

Post by manuelabeledo »

b112 wrote: post #13
whoknew1122 wrote: post #4

> "Many states have passed hate-speech laws that protect the police from verbal or symbolic abuse, such as stomping on a “Back the Blue” sign while “smirking in an intimidating manner” (the crime for which a woman in Utah was prosecuted)." Wow... this is just... The police have a monopoly on the legalized use of violence. Police carry at minimum one deadly weapon (a handgun), but usually have multiple so-called less-…

And yet it wasn't a smirk, now was it? It was a smirk and other things. Right or wrong, call it what it is. Don't drop info off the event, and focus on one part of it. And if someone has a right not to be harassed, when doing their job in an office, why doesn't a cop, when doing their job on the street? Note, I said "doing their job", not "doing it wrong". For damned sure there are bad cops. But by god, there are a l…

> And if someone has a right not to be harassed, when doing their job in an office, why doesn't a cop, when doing their job on the street?

Is it not dangerous enough to give officers pretty much unlimited authority, and expect the people around them to forfeit their first amendment right?

Police officers, being enforcers of the law, cannot reasonably be protected from people exercising their rights.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#67

Post by PawgerZ »

mrangle wrote: post #39
annoyingnoob wrote: post #27

Police officers are citizens just like everyone else. No one has any expectation of privacy while operating in public. The police are just asking for more people to dislike them. How do you treat everyone like shit, try to take away our rights, and then expect everyone to respect you? Respect is a two-way street.

Everyone doesn't get treated like shit. Most people respect and want cops. People whining about cops being mean to them, and their general dispositions, tends to think that their police interaction is a super special customer service experience and that the system is faulty when it falls short of their expectations. The reality is that cops deal with the worst of society multiple times per day, even if you don't repr…

>The summary take is to move to a very rural area if you need to feel relatively better respected by cops.

As someone who has lived and worked in many rural areas, this advice doesn't work if you're a minority.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#68

Post by wahnfrieden »

tppiotrowski wrote: post #45
whoknew1122 wrote: post #4

> "Many states have passed hate-speech laws that protect the police from verbal or symbolic abuse, such as stomping on a “Back the Blue” sign while “smirking in an intimidating manner” (the crime for which a woman in Utah was prosecuted)." Wow... this is just... The police have a monopoly on the legalized use of violence. Police carry at minimum one deadly weapon (a handgun), but usually have multiple so-called less-…

> The police have a monopoly on the legalized use of violence. Is this true? I thought killing for self defense is legal.

Ticketmaster’s monopoly on venue event ticketing doesn’t mean it’s illegal to sell tickets if you’re not Ticketmaster, and doesn’t require laws the specifically say Ticketmaster gains the monopoly

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#69

Post by screwturner68 »

542354234235 wrote: post #52
mrangle wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read assault laws. Most people think that assault is battery. It isn't. While I wouldn't comment on the event in question because I didn't see it, generally speaking people can't assault police anymore than they can civilians. What the police carry is irrelevant, and speaking to it as if it is implies a type of dissonance that will lead to someone being arrested. Remember that this is the age wherein people are getti…

>Remember that this is the age wherein people are getting arrested for destroying LGBT, BLM, etc signs and art. Do you mean vandalizing and/or destroying other people's property or pulling a sign away from someone else and destroying it, or do you mean being charged with assault for destroying their own LGBT sign? Because those are night and day different things. I would love to see a source if it is the latter, sinc…

You can legally tell a cop to fuck off, the SC ruled on that years ago, that said if you did that where I lived (and were a minority) you'd likely get your skull cracked.

It's pretty sad that a civilian goes to jail for not knowing the law but a cop can make up laws that don't exist, arrest you for those laws and nothing can be done about it. Sure you can sue the city but that just means the residents pay for the cops ignorance and life goes on as usual for the cop.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#70

Post by LanceH »

tppiotrowski wrote: post #45
whoknew1122 wrote: post #4

> "Many states have passed hate-speech laws that protect the police from verbal or symbolic abuse, such as stomping on a “Back the Blue” sign while “smirking in an intimidating manner” (the crime for which a woman in Utah was prosecuted)." Wow... this is just... The police have a monopoly on the legalized use of violence. Police carry at minimum one deadly weapon (a handgun), but usually have multiple so-called less-…

> The police have a monopoly on the legalized use of violence. Is this true? I thought killing for self defense is legal.

When using that, it's not talking about self defense. The government has a monopoly on the use of violence in the sense that if you owe them money or some other obligation, they may go through paperwork, collections, all the normal resources. At some point, though, they will send people with guns and physically collect you. Don't pay the IRS for long enough and the government will use violence against you, generally in the form of locking you up against your will.
Post reply on HN