New laws trying to criminalize filming cops • Hacker News Board

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#111

Post by dcow » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 3:50 PM UTC

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 mean, they’re just emulating the zeitgeist. This is what happens when the prevailing worldview is inconsistent and hypocritical.

We’ve normalized the idea that words and subtle actions can be micro-aggressive and thus are violent. That’s literally the logic these days and instead of fighting it most people happily jumped onboard entertaining idiotic rhetoric in the name of social justice. So I’m not surprised at all to see this stuff try to make it’s way into laws.

Your responsibility as a citizen is to maintain a fair and just playing field. You don't get to cancel others for their word-violence and then turn around and complain when your peers try to put a stop yours. Time to grow up.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#112

Post by yamazakiwi » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 3:50 PM UTC

jimbob45 wrote: post #55

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-…

In fairness, Utah is arguably the most conservative state in the US right more by virtue of its hefty Mormon bloc.

Utah is definitely not the most conservative state.

Wyoming 69.9% West Virginia 68.6% Oklahoma 65.4% North Dakota 65.1% Idaho 63.8% Arkansas 62.4% Kentucky 62.1% Alabama 62% South Dakota 61.8% Tennessee

It's not in the top 10

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#113

Post by zer8k » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 3:50 PM UTC

zapataband1 wrote: post #97

Supermancho wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You are statistically more likely to die on the job as a delivery driver than a cop.

Another fun fact is when controlling for race and gender you are still more likely to be killed by a cop than almost anything else.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#114

Post by mitt_romney_12 » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 3:52 PM UTC

rootusrootus wrote: post #108

mitt_romney_12 wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>25 feet isn't very far. In the other states mentioned I believe it's 10 feet, which is reasonable The 25 ft buffer means that while people aren't prevented from recording an arrest, they are prevented from making a recording that would actually show anything. Like the article says "They create a visual and auditory buffer likely to produce reasonable doubt in the courtroom. Is the officer’s knee on the suspect’s sho…

> From 25 feet, they can’t capture choking sounds or someone crying “I can’t breathe.”" If you really believe that, I recommend going outside and stepping off 25 feet and then trying some smartphone recordings. 25 feet is actually very close. I wouldn't be surprised if cops find it very uncomfortable to have bystanders that close when any kind of violent encounter is in progress. Most people can run that distance in…

> If you really believe that, I recommend going outside and stepping off 25 feet and then trying some smartphone recordings.

I recommend you trying that in a high stress situation involving an number of people in close proximity and lots of environmental noise. And then trying to see how that footage would be interpreted by a hostile lawyer in court

> I wouldn't be surprised if cops find it very uncomfortable to have bystanders that close when any kind of violent encounter is in progress

These are not violent encounters, the only violence that is going on is from the police. While I do care about the comfort of the police while arresting people, I am more concerned about not being assaulted or killed.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#115

Post by rootusrootus » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 3:52 PM UTC

Clubber wrote: post #5

giraffe_lady wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Have the legal position of any other scotus-affirmed rights changed recently that would have people on their toes, do you think, maybe? I've seen first hand police use the justification of stopping filming them to use violence on and arrest people filming them. For however long it takes to get this in front of the supreme court, assuming they choose to hear it, assuming they choose to endorse our rights, it will be u…

>Have the legal position of any other scotus-affirmed rights changed recently that would have people on their toes, do you think, maybe? Having read the reasoning of overturning Roe (I assume that's what you are alluding to), no, I'm not concerned. First amendment is on a much stronger legal standing than Roe was based on and has much fewer contradicting laws. >They don't let you out of prison when the law used to ju…

> I think 10-25 feet is reasonable. I think 10 feet is more reasonable than 25.

Sometimes I wonder how far people think 10 feet really is. That's like standing across a small bedroom from someone. If you're that close to a cop arresting someone, you're basically participating. 25 feet is more reasonable, but if things go pear shaped you're still close enough to get injured before you even realize something is wrong.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#116

Post by HDThoreaun » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 3:52 PM UTC

next_xibalba wrote: post #96

ralusek wrote: post #21

Being a police officer is a privilege. The population grants you the authority to detain us, accuse us, and even kill us. Few professions should be subject to higher scrutiny.

I find this type of overly simplistic claim pretty naive and unhelpful. If you knew any police, you would know it sure doesn't look like a privilege. It is often an unpleasant job. Policing is much more dangerous than the average job, often involves dealing with the mentally ill, intoxicated, people in some form of crisis, people who are just antisocial criminal jerks, etc. It is not very well compensated profession.…

I don’t see how these statements contradict each other. We can both hold police accountable for their actions and also show them respect. Letting them get away with abusing the population isn’t showing them respect.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#117

Post by euniceee3 » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 3:53 PM UTC

thefurdrake wrote: post #105

trinsic2 wrote: post #85

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 yo…

25' is too far. It's far enough that phone cameras may miss finer details of an altercation, which is the intent. 10' would be more reasonable. You should really be considering what "being close to police officers means you risk getting harmed" being statistically-common enough that you bring it up actually says about what's going on.

25' is fine if ALL officers involved have body cameras. Getting that footage should be as simple FOIL request. There needs to be a streamlined process for citizens to obtain footage as easy as it is to browse on Nextdoor.

The problem is when you have a police line established that is 25' from the action and then have to move back another 25'.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#118

Post by zer8k » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 3:53 PM UTC

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,

A lot of them are ex-military which is why every incident is treated like a mini-fallujah. There should be better psychological evaluation of police. It's harder to get a gun as a citizen anywhere in the US than it is to become a cop.The very least we can do is treat them to a far higher standard than we do citizens given that they have a monopoly on violence and qualified immunity. But that would run contrary to their purpose. Cops aren't there to protect you and me. They are the HR of the local, state, and national Government. They're there to protect the interests of the state.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#119

Post by mitt_romney_12 » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 3:54 PM UTC

moretrashplz wrote: post #101

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 people still want to eliminate the right for private citizens to carry semi-automatic firearms! Generally, it's the the same people complaining that complain about police abusing their powers and vulnerable groups of people.

A gun isn't going to protect you from police violence, it's just going to give them a reason to become even more militarized and an excuse after they shoot you

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#120

Post by whoknew1122 » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 3:54 PM UTC

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) […

Safe spaces aren't a new thing. It's just now there is a vocabulary for it. 20 years ago, before people talked about safe spaces, I would hang out at comic/gaming stores because I could be my nerdy self while playing Magic: the Gathering.

When I would go to bars, I'd go to gay bars. Because I could just be myself and not worry about running into the violence in the clubs that catered to teens.

A safe space is about finding a place where you find yourself comfortable to be your authentic self. They've always existed, even if they weren't called safe spaces -- or castigated as part of a culture war.

As an aside, I probably wouldn't use dicta from Plessy v. Ferguson, one of the worst decisions in US history, to buttress any argument. The constitution was never color-blind. It didn't explicitly reference color, but it didn't have to--everyone knew what it was talking about.

> Why wouldn't police officers be afforded the same kinds of protections from microagressions that are given to other people in this country.

Microaggressions are one thing. Criminalizing microaggressions is quite another.

> Doesn't a police officer have a right to a safe working environment, and aggression free interactions with 'customers' (citizens), and laws saying as much?

No. No cop goes into the profession expecting puppies and rainbows. Going into potentially unsafe environments with potentially aggressive people is what they signed up for.

As a retail employee, you have to put up with microaggressions from customers. It's just part of dealing with the public. And those microaggressions aren't criminalized. Why do cops get to criminalize their feelings getting hurt?