201–210 of 272 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
You might be surprised how much a group of armed citizens can do against a police squad. I don't think “you’ll never protect yourself from the gov’t” is an accurate angle.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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
I've always thought hate crime laws are so misguided. It's just another law to use against people you don't like. Piling on charges for no other reason other than making you feel good. Do you like the perp? No: Hate crime Yes: The brain isn't fully formed yet I worked on the low end of a giant corporation and they would always add new rules, seemingly targeting people they we trying to fire. Stupid rules like you can…
Hate crimes are crimes where the motivation and thought process are against a class of people. They didn’t commit the crime because they were mad at their wife for cheating or mad at the person that the person that cut them off and then swore at them. They were motivated to commit the crime because the victim existed.
Finally, hate crimes are typically put in place because the justice system itself fails to provide equal protection, and because hate crime perpetrators are often protected from justice. There is a reason anti-lynching laws are named after Emmett Till. I can't believe that you could look at the history of any group now protected under hate crime laws and say "yes, these are definitely laws to target the poor marginalized perpetrators".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Has that actually been interpreted by a court in that way or are you proposing a hypothetical? Your interpretation makes all dashcams illegal, which makes many Tesla and Toyota cars illegal.
The way I interpreted it was that people who are not part of a scene need to maintain some distance for safety.
---
The legality of filming police is thorny. For instance, a number of states passed laws after LivePD became a thing that barred the filming of traffic stops. That, however, contradicts the abilities of citizen journalists to document traffic stops and interactions.
Personally speaking, I don't want to be filmed during a traffic stop unless its my own footage. When I was arrested and went to jail the police posted my mug shot to every local paper and crime reporting website. It took quite a long time to scrub the internet of all of that once charges were dropped. Footage would be much worse because at one point after my head was driven into the ground I was sobbing. My instance also involved the police roughing me up because they perceived me to be "strong".
> "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 al…
What’s actually happening is that cops are being filmed and because of that people are losing respect for them faster than ever and the cops hate it and want to do anything they can to prevent people from disrespecting them.
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.…
You could say the same thing about convenience store workers, yet somehow they do it without infringing on people’s constitutional rights, shooting unarmed people, and murdering 25 pets a day[0] . Over 600 convenience store workers are murdered on the job per year [1] compared to about 60 per year for police [2]. Convenience store workers are murdered at about 7 per 100k, while police are about 7-8 per 100k [3]. Many jobs deal with intoxicated or the mentally ill or other potentially dangerous situations, yet they don’t carry guns and body armor and know how to deescalate situations.
[0] https://scholars.unh.edu/unh_lr/vol17/iss1/18/
[1] https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/cwc/assaults-and-violent-acts-i...
[2] https://www.fbi.gov/news/pressrel/press-releases/fbi-release...
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'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…
The fun is to be had in the kicking in of doors, yelling at terrified residents, and so on.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 al…
Cops have always been triggered by the mildest of disrespect, this has nothing to do with people worrying about social micro-aggressions. What’s actually happening is that cops are being filmed and because of that people are losing respect for them faster than ever and the cops hate it and want to do anything they can to prevent people from disrespecting them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
> 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 from recording them. Has that actually been interpreted by a court in that way or are you proposing a hypothetical? Your interpretation makes all dashcams illegal, which makes many Tesla and Toyota cars illegal. The way I interpreted it was that people who are not part of a…
Note the words "IF THE PERSON IS NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS"
We've seen example after example of police screaming "stop resisting" while they beat someone who is handcuffed and/or unconscious. By "resisting", those people were "interfering with lawful police actions". They might not have been guilty of anything before the police started beating them, but under this law if they were recording any of it they'd be criminals.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 from recording them. Has that actually been interpreted by a court in that way or are you proposing a hypothetical? Your interpretation makes all dashcams illegal, which makes many Tesla and Toyota cars illegal. The way I interpreted it was that people who are not part of a…
These laws have nothing to do with safety. They are only about making it illegal to film police abuses. Here's the law in AZ https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf Note the words "IF THE PERSON IS NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS" We've seen example after example of police screaming "stop resisting" while they beat someone who is handcuffed and/or unconscious. By "resisting", those people…