New laws trying to criminalize filming cops • Hacker News Board

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#191

Post by EVa5I7bHFq9mnYK » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 4:43 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-…

Wait, arent policemen entitled to safe space to be protected from microaggressions with trigger warning?

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#192

Post by whoknew1122 » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 4:43 PM UTC

mrangle wrote: post #166

whoknew1122 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 f…

>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. That's not how law enforcement works at all. What you are suggesting is that cops have less protections than civilians. Putting on a badge doesn't remove assault legal protections.

I'm not suggesting that at all. Putting on a badge enhances assault legal protections. Assault on a peace officer is an upgraded charge from assault on a civilian.

Being a cop enhances your chances of being in a volatile situation. But you also have more leeway in how you address that violence, and have the backing of legislative branches (via legal enhancements such as assault on a peace officer) and the judiciary (via qualified immunity, among other things).

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#193

Post by yamazakiwi » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 4:46 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.…

While your sympathy is admirable, they chose to deal with the unpleasantry. It's in the job description to deal with mentally ill and intoxicated people.

In the same way I fought for my country in the military with pride, I hope our police forces can exert pride about their job, instead of cowering and complaining about how dangerous it is. If you don't have the propensity to be a cop, then get the hell out.

You can project this lack of understanding on others if you want, but the power cops possess vs civilians is easily observable. Just because being a cop is often unpleasant, doesn't mean they should only get a slap on the wrist for abusing their power. There are many benefits to being a cop, don't act like they're poor little puppy dogs.

It's wishful thinking to believe all people will respect police because they are by definition authoritarians. There are tons of people who don't respect veterans but do I let it bother me? No, because I'm not a fucking cry baby.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#194

Post by dcow » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 4:48 PM UTC

manuelabeledo wrote: post #170

dcow wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some Boeing guy got ousted over a 30 year old opinion that women shouldn’t serve in combat roles in the military: https://nypost.com/2020/07/03/boeing-communications-boss-nie...

The headline itself clearly states that he resigned. And where is that fabled "mob" here?

[flagged]

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#195

Post by autoexec » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 4:49 PM UTC

harimau777 wrote: post #23

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…

Does the 10 foot rule apply if you are the one being spoken to by the police? E.g. if you are recording a traffic stop.

According to the Arizona law even if a police officer is beating you, you'd be committing a crime by recording them so long as the police can claim that you were also "INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS". As long as they scream "stop resisting" at you, you'll probably be a criminal.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#196

Post by sangnoir » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 4:53 PM UTC

idiotsecant wrote: post #123

zer8k wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

>It's harder to get a gun as a citizen anywhere in the US than it is to become a cop. I'm normally the last one to be licking boots when it comes to discussions of the role of law enforcement in our society. With that said, this is hyperbole and obviously falsifiable. There are lots of places in the US where it is very easy to get a gun and at least somewhat difficult to become a cop.

How about: It's harder to kill anyone (and get away with it) as a citizen anywhere in the US than it is as a cop

Some cops have bloodlust and/or are in cop-gangs that have initiation-rituals that demand commiting murder before you can join.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#197

Post by bamfly » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 4:54 PM UTC

mrangle wrote: post #163

idiotsecant wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Uses aggregate numbers then transitions to relative probability as if the math logic follows. This thread is a clown show.

Probability in a given encounter, is how the post is written, which is fine. That is, in an encounter between police and non-police, it's much less likely that a police officer is killed or injured than that someone else is.

Now, police officers are obviously going to be involved in a lot more of these encounters than the average person, and there are fewer of them, which I think is what you're getting at, but this is valid from an "in a given encounter, which party is more-justified in fearing for their physical safety?" sort of way.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#198

Post by autoexec » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 4:54 PM UTC

kodah wrote: post #43

chmod600 wrote: post #31

A law about staying back when a police officer asks doesn’t seem like the most terrible rights violation. It’s like virtual yellow police tape. One way to look at this is that it clarifies how far you need to stand back. 25 feet is slightly far, maybe it should be 15 feet instead?

10-25 feet seems reasonable with 25 being the upper bound of reasonability. The average person can move 9-12ft/s in a single direction; starting speed would be slower so generous is 5-6ft/s. 2 seconds worth of distance sounds reasonable to keep everyone safe. As others have pointed out the issue likely isn't the distance. It's that police can enforce their own measures here without accountability.

10-25 feet isn't reasonable for a no-filming police abuses zone. It can make it crime for someone who is handcuffed and being beaten by police to record what happened to them.

These laws don't make interfering with police a crime, it only makes filming them illegal.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#199

Post by lesuorac » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 4:57 PM UTC

iudqnolq wrote: post #133

euniceee3 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 h…

> 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.

Its the lack of any stabilization. If you twist your body a tiny bit then the focus of the camera moves drastically; this differs from when you're holding a camera far from our body using your arms. When you move your body your arms will counter-act that and the video won't jump as much.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#200

Post by mrangle » Thu, Jul 20, 2023, 4:57 PM UTC

mcdonje wrote: post #147

mrangle wrote: post #104

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There aren't protected class allowances for assault. This thread, more than others on HN, fatally suffers from abuse of jargon. Your last two sentences are word salad. Between the double negative and hyperbole I have zero idea what you are trying to say.

Flippant response. I didn't abuse jargon and there is no word salad. My comment is clear. You're describing hate crimes and saying police are trying to treat actions against them the same way they treat hate crimes. It's not hyperbole to say that amounts to them making up laws.

Yes, a flippant response. The flippant response is well deserved.

It's audacious of you to defend unreadable grammar. An indecipherable double negative is word salad, as is the referential sentence that follows it. Again, because the sentence that it references is indecipherable. I'm not a pedant. I virtually never correct on grammar. I never use correction as a rhetorical device. I legitimately can't interpret your writing. Fix your sentence, if you choose to.

As long as laws have existed, their scope has been argued in court. To wit, we have strong equal protections law in this Nation.

As anti-protected-classes law and constitutional law activists have long argued, laws of this type will be used beyond their intended narrow scope and across the political isle. Also, see speech censorship efforts.

None of that means that law enforcement is conjuring laws. The part of this that you dislike was always inherent in the creation of hate crime enhancements. And, in part, this potential is why many have always seen the notion of protected classes as a terrible idea.

You're complaining now. Wait until they fully reverse the law to only apply to them. At that point, it will still be the fault of those who advocated for this unconstitutional nonsense to begin with.