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

131–140 of 272 posts

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#131

Post by ceejayoz »

Supermancho wrote: post #103
ceejayoz wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ones who pay the most are LE. This is simply not true. Cops die via gunfire in sub-100 numbers annually. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_enforcement_office...

I meant pay for the right to bear arms in being exposed to the consequences. Might want to look at gunfire injuries that are not deaths. There is also the issue of how this happens despite training, their own weapons, armor, etc that are daily requirements. The general populace would probably see better survival rates with these things as well, right? It's more than a little biased to just point at deaths.

> I meant pay for the right to bear arms in being exposed to the consequences.

The 50,000 dead annually via firearms would appear to be paying more. (Even when you adjust for relative populations; 800k cops with 50 deaths, 300M Americans with 50,000).

> Might want to look at gunfire injuries that are not deaths.

I went looking and was unable to find any particularly reliable sources on police-specific firearm injuries. I did find that cops are at higher risk of firearm death via suicide than via suspects as an additional data point.

Perhaps they could do with some therapy and anger management in addition to all the armor and weaponry?

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#132

Post by mywittyname »

mitt_romney_12 wrote: post #75
mrangle wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Most people respect and want cops 89% of Americans think that changes need to made to make policing better and 50% of Americans think that major changes need to be made [1]. > 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.…

Believable metric.

Many citizens in the abstract, "support" police. But police are pretty indiscriminate with their power tripping. So people with actual experience dealing with them tend to form negative opinions when they realize this might be a Leopard Ate Your Face moment.

I've heard an actual person say, "I though police were only like that to people".

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#133

Post by iudqnolq »

euniceee3 wrote: post #117
thefurdrake wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

I thought this until I tried to actually watch and understand body cam footage. it's quite a lot harder to parse and misses quite a bit that cell phone cameras capture. there's also an interesting argument that by always showing the officers' perspective it will make people more likely to empathize with them.

I'm not sure exactly why bodycam footage is so much worse. I think part of it might have to do with the odd height it's placed at.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#134

Post by idiotsecant »

Supermancho wrote: post #103
ceejayoz wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The ones who pay the most are LE. This is simply not true. Cops die via gunfire in sub-100 numbers annually. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_law_enforcement_office...

I meant pay for the right to bear arms in being exposed to the consequences. Might want to look at gunfire injuries that are not deaths. There is also the issue of how this happens despite training, their own weapons, armor, etc that are daily requirements. The general populace would probably see better survival rates with these things as well, right? It's more than a little biased to just point at deaths.

Each year more than 250,000 civilians are injured by police. At least 600 are killed. between 2014 and 2019 there was an average of 245 officers shot per year, many of which were injuries only.

It's extremely clear that in an average encounter a civilian is much more likely to be shot and kileld or injured by police than the other way around. Gun violence against police is extremely rare.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#135

Post by thefurdrake »

euniceee3 wrote: post #117
thefurdrake wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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'.

Police camera footage should definitely, 100%, be public record the moment it's taken, I agree.

Part of the problem isn't actually refusal to cooperate on the part of police orgs, though. I happen to know second-hand that the companies operating the cameras provide abysmal and overcomplex, failure-prone software and hardware, and storing all that camera footage in a way that is quickly accessible to the public would approach Youtube levels of footprint/operational costs... It's complex, and police orgs, in addition to being resistant to change, are also not exactly known for their technical acumen.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#136

Post by 542354234235 »

zdragnar wrote: post #28
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.

Several people have been charged with hate crimes for spinning their car tires over rainbow painted sidewalks, even though nobody else was present. Hate crime is a fucking stupid term; a crime is a crime is a crime. That said, if targeting one group deserves special treatment, then targeting any group should get the same. Equal application of the law, y'know?

>Hate crime is a fucking stupid term; a crime is a crime is a crime.

Is a crime a crime? Why are there first degree murder, second degree murder, and voluntary manslaughter? They are all the act of killing someone intentionally, with the only difference being the person's thought process and motivation. Most crimes involve taking into consideration the reasons for the act as part of what makes a crime a crime. So, hate crimes are not some outlier in how crimes are defined and differentiated.

> if targeting one group deserves special treatment, then targeting any group should get the same. Equal application of the law, y'know?

Hate crimes (and protected classes in general) are not “one group” nor are they randomly picked. At the federal level, they are race, religion, ethnicity, disability, nationality, gender, sexual orientation, and/or gender identity, which basically fall into two different categories; what you are and what you believe. None of them are for what job you happen to choose to do. The “special treatment” statements is particularly fallacious, since most hate crime laws came in response systematic violence committed against these groups and them not receiving equal protection under the law. We don’t have anti lynching laws to give black people special treatment.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#137

Post by rootusrootus »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #121
rootusrootus wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the difference between first degree murder and second degree murder? Is that any different than a hate crime designation?

Premeditation and planning is the difference between federal first and second degree murder.

Intent, essentially. This sounds the same as a hate crime designation, which is also a matter of intent.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#138

Post by semanticist »

lordfrito wrote: post #78
mitt_romney_12 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why wouldn't police officers be subject to the same kinds of protections from microagressions afforded to others? These are special protections afforded only to police officers. Normal people are protected from hate speech about their race or gender but cops are protected from "hate speech" about their race, gender, or profession . It's not hate speech to say "Fuck Lawyers" but it is to say "Fuck the Police".

I'm not sure I'm following you. I agree, I'm against these kinds of laws (see previous post). I agree with you, there are special protections given police offers, these are related to the power they are authorized by the state to wield that regular citizens cannot. I can sue you if you break down my door. But a kidnapper can't sue the SWAT team that broke down their door in the course of saving the kidnapped person i…

I think you're conflating someone's job with a protected characteristic in the context of anti-discrimination and hate speech law. If a cop gets special laws to prevent people smirking at them, or 'being a cop' is considered a protected characteristic, that is not "having the same basic rights as normal people", it's having extra rights that you can choose to opt-into by getting a certain job.

A person cannot choose their race, sex, sexuality, gender identity, able-bodiedness, etc, that is why discriminating against them based on those grounds is inherently unfair and thus not allowed.

No one is born a cop. Someone chooses to join the police, with an understanding of what the job represents and entails. If they choose to join the police when the police are widely considered corrupt and looked down upon by society (or at least some parts of it), that's on them.

Anti-discrimination and hate speech laws are about ensuring the people are not mistreated for a fundamental characteristic of who they are. No one has cop DNA.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#139

Post by mrangle »

mitt_romney_12 wrote: post #75
mrangle wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Most people respect and want cops 89% of Americans think that changes need to made to make policing better and 50% of Americans think that major changes need to be made [1]. > 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.…

Very, very few innocent people are being shot and assaulted by police. You're using hyperbole to throw the discussion off track. Read the post to which I was replying and stop ruining any chance of discourse with nonsense claims.

Your POV is equivalent to shouting in someone's face about surgical malpractice when the discussion is about the benefit of doctors in spite of the fact that some don't live up to expectations when providing GP service. Give us all a break for once, from your warped corner.

If you want statistically inevitable bad-cop events to stop happening, the only way to do that is to reduce the events that cause violent cop interactions. That is, crime has to reduced at the community level without law enforcement.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#140

Post by eesmith »

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…

That is not the other side to the argument. What you describe is already a crime. Police officers already have the legal authority to compel people to move away if they are obstructing an investigation.

For example, from California at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio....

> 148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment.

The argument, plainly stated in the article, is that the police don't want to be filmed by people who don't like police:

> These laws take their cue not only from the anti-protest and police protection laws but from a 2022 Arizona law making it a crime to film the police from 8 feet or closer. That law’s sponsor, then–state Rep. John Kavanagh (a former police officer), was frank about his intentions. “There are groups hostile to the police that follow them around to videotape police incidents,” he declared. The new law would put a stop to this nuisance.

and simple filming is not obstruction. Again, from the article:

> “Cops have long tried claiming that [filming them] obstructs their ability to do their job,” observes First Amendment lawyer Ari Cohn. “Now that this argument failed, they are … transparently trying to create a safe space from observation.” The new laws are nothing but “a targeted assault on First Amendment activity.”

Post reply on HN