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

261–270 of 272 posts

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#261

Post by hellojesus »

watwut wrote: post #257
hellojesus wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gangs clearly aren't trying to war against the state. If they were, I imagine the scenario would result in the national guard or a result akin to Mexico. If the gangs wanted to make a stand against the state, they could. They would need to take and defend their territory while increasing their numbers, likely via kidnapping and child recruitment.

> If the gangs wanted to make a stand against the state, they could. They would need to take and defend their territory while increasing their numbers, likely via kidnapping and child recruitment. That is a pure fantasy. You know how I know? Because gangs historically and worldwide occasionally tried. This fails all the time.

Revolutions have succeeded in the past. It is an unlikely outcome but possible.

My original point was that there is utility in having an armed populace because it requires government agents to evaluate the risk of infringing actions more heavily. Even if the citizens lose, nobody wants to be a casualty in they're resistance.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#262

Post by taylodl »

xtiansimon wrote: post #258
softfalcon wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, this is becoming more and more the case. I have friends who are associated with or in law enforcement and if you ever end up at a bar with them they will endlessly talk about the "threats to their safety" on the job. I often hear stories where they're checking out a house that has supposed drug use (or similar) and they play it up like they're a marine in a war zone, going to have a man-down shoot out. In reali…

> “… ramming tank for SWAT-like break and enter operations. I'm not sure I want my police owning a literal tank when they already have me outgunned…” I have a family member in law enforcement. I asked them this very question. What do you need this monster vehicle for? Their answer was they can approach a target house and communicate with the occupant without putting officers in harms way (as much as a bullet-proof ra…

What's the point of the 2nd amendment when the police has tanks and urban assault vehicles and your government has nukes, fighter aircraft, grenades and several other materiel? I've never understood how self-identified "patriots" support a militarized police force and the 2nd amendment. The government, at all levels, literally has the power to do whatever they want. We need to at least demilitarize the police.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#263

Post by ceejayoz »

baremetal wrote: post #259
ceejayoz wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Temporarily. In the long run? Nah. Eventually the APCs roll in.

In the long run they will run out of jackboots willing to risk not coming home to their families at the end of the day.

Not unless "group of armed citizens" refers to a large-scale rebellion or civil war, no.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#264

Post by ceejayoz »

watwut wrote: post #257
hellojesus wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The gangs clearly aren't trying to war against the state. If they were, I imagine the scenario would result in the national guard or a result akin to Mexico. If the gangs wanted to make a stand against the state, they could. They would need to take and defend their territory while increasing their numbers, likely via kidnapping and child recruitment.

> If the gangs wanted to make a stand against the state, they could. They would need to take and defend their territory while increasing their numbers, likely via kidnapping and child recruitment. That is a pure fantasy. You know how I know? Because gangs historically and worldwide occasionally tried. This fails all the time.

> Because gangs historically and worldwide occasionally tried. This fails all the time.

It succeeds plenty. The list of successful coups by paramilitary groups is loooooong.

Hell, the Nazis started essentially as a gang.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#265

Post by baremetal »

ceejayoz wrote: post #263
baremetal wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In the long run they will run out of jackboots willing to risk not coming home to their families at the end of the day.

Not unless "group of armed citizens" refers to a large-scale rebellion or civil war, no.

Correct, a single individual or small group would get clobbered.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#266

Post by watwut »

ceejayoz wrote: post #264
watwut wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If the gangs wanted to make a stand against the state, they could. They would need to take and defend their territory while increasing their numbers, likely via kidnapping and child recruitment. That is a pure fantasy. You know how I know? Because gangs historically and worldwide occasionally tried. This fails all the time.

> Because gangs historically and worldwide occasionally tried. This fails all the time. It succeeds plenty. The list of successful coups by paramilitary groups is loooooong. Hell, the Nazis started essentially as a gang.

They did not won the way OP suggests.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#267

Post by valval »

mitt_romney_12 wrote: post #243
valval wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am more concerned about not being assaulted or killed. Don’t be — you’re safe unless you decide to make 10 of the worst decisions of your life in a row.

I don't think that's what causes police killings unless you consider walking out of your friend's house with a cellphone in your hand making "10 of the worst decisions of your life in a row"[1] [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Andre_Hill#Incident

Exceptions exist to every rule, and spending your life worried about getting struck by lightning is a terribly miserable existence.

Besides, I could probably go over the incident you’ve linked and point out all the bad decisions the person in question had made up until that point, but frankly I’m too lazy to even open the link to hold your hand through this process of critical thinking.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#269

Post by RickJWagner »

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…

I have a nephew that's a cop. I've had friends that are cops.

They do a hard job, protecting the public, for little pay. Every day they leave their home not knowing if some nut-job is going to try to kill them that day.

This is the truest view I know of.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#270

Post by harimau777 »

rootusrootus wrote: post #100
harimau777 wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course the majority respect cops. It's generally the minority that they abuse.

And very frequently, the cops in question are minorities themselves.

Personally, I don't see how that changes things. Even minority cops work in a systemically flawed system.
Post reply on HN