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

81–90 of 272 posts

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#81

Post by [deleted] »

Supermancho wrote: post #73
bamfly wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 should be pee-pants scared all the time Not to step out and defend cops too much but this narrative is unfair...I believe the right to bear arms includes guns and we pay for that as a society. The ones who pay the most are LE. They primarily have to deal with the worst elements of society and the most volatile of individuals. I don't envy the job. I would be scared all the time too. Chances of me being shot at…

[deleted]

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#82

Post by lordfrito »

manuelabeledo wrote: post #77
lordfrito wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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) […

> So much so that Hate Crimes and Safe Spaces are now a thing. People have lost jobs due to Cancel Culture fueled hate-mobs. It is not "cancel culture", just good old fashioned "consequences".

Ahhh the old "consequences" argument.

I can't tell when it's "cancel culture" or "consequences" anymore. Word seems interchangeable nowadays in the media.

Seems like when it happens to the in-group it's called cancel culture, but when it's experienced by the out-group it's just shrugged away as consequences.

The point I'm making is I'm tired of this kind of separation of people into groups. Bad behavior leading to "consequences" for one group should also be considered bad behavior for the other group, which doesn't get to complain about the same "consequences" as well.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#83

Post by mitt_romney_12 »

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…

> But by god, there are a load of good ones, and some of them spend all day, dealing with people at their absolute worst, taking crap you or I wouldn't be able to handle for 5 minutes.

There are plenty of other professions that have tough jobs that I absolutely wouldn't want to do. But that doesn't mean I'm going to start letting garbage collectors get away with murder

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#84

Post by tehwebguy »

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.

Repeating Elon Musk talking points in public is wild!

The concept of mens rea is not new, it’s a vital factor in the defining, charging, convicting (and dismissing and acquitting) of crimes.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#85

Post by trinsic2 »

To get back on topic, I can see both sides of the spectrum on this. On the one hand, they will be dirty cops that use this to their advantage, but on the other hand, I see the possible scenarios of people getting too close and interfering with that particular job, maybe I'm not seeing this for what it is but I don't think it's a bad thing for having to be some distance away from a police situation. Being too close you run the risk of other people getting harmed and I feel like this article is a little bit biased.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#86

Post by screwturner68 »

5555624 wrote: post #63
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…

> 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.

Let's take a step back, telling someone to F- off!, even a cop is considered free speech and has been verified by the SC. On the other have telling someone I'm going to rack your F-ing skull open could be considered assault -this is threatening language and is not free speech.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#87

Post by kerblang »

Clubber wrote: post #2

Filming police performing their duties is a constitutionally protected activity affirmed by many circuit courts and strongly alluded to by the SCOTUS. >On July 1, an Indiana law went into effect making it a crime to come within 25 feet of an on-duty police officer if ordered to stay back. Legislators in Florida, Louisiana, and New York have produced similar laws. 25 feet isn't very far. In the other states mentioned…

> Sounds like the articles objective is to peddle anger.

Just my opinion, but Slate is heavily left-slanted, moreso than Vox. That's not a crime, of course, but I really don't think this kind of echo-chambering is a good fit for HN, even when recognizing HN is quite off-topic-tolerant.

Of course people are gonna do what people do anyhow.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#88

Post by mcdonje »

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…

>Remember that this is the age wherein people are getting arrested for destroying LGBT, BLM, etc signs and art. To think that police won't get away with using a standard that approaches that isn't realistic.

Black people and LGBT people are protected classes. Law enforcement is a job. People are getting arrested for hate crimes, the definition of which is a crime motivated by desire to cause harm to a protected class or members of a protected class.

You're saying it's unrealistic to think police won't get away with trying to apply protected class protections to an occupation. That's an extraordinary claim whether it's true or false.

If it's true, police can defacto make up laws. If it's false, it's reasonable to expect that police should have some oversight that prevents overreach.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#89

Post by moretrashplz »

nathan_compton wrote: post #65
lordfrito wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

"Governments everywhere are more conservative than ever" - do you have any sources / citations to back this up?

"There is literally no legal force behind any woke policies" - Politicians in Michigan have been attempting to pass a law to make harassing someone by misgendering them a felony.

There are plenty of laws and policies protecting groups of people that have nothing to do with "structural racist shit". If you're looking for racism everywhere and in everything, you're probably going to find it. I find that people who focus on race and class constantly, also end up exhibiting the most racist and classist views and behaviors.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#90

Post by tastyfreeze »

manuelabeledo wrote: post #77
lordfrito wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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) […

> So much so that Hate Crimes and Safe Spaces are now a thing. People have lost jobs due to Cancel Culture fueled hate-mobs. It is not "cancel culture", just good old fashioned "consequences".

When you lose your job simply for disagreeing with the mob it is indeed "cancel culture" not "consequences".
Post reply on HN