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

101–110 of 272 posts

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#101

Post by moretrashplz »

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.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#102

Post by at_a_remove »

tehwebguy wrote: post #84
at_a_remove wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those of us who said, over and over again, how dumb it was to make up "hate crimes" as a thing are smirking. We did tell you what would happen. Nobody wanted to hear it. Now it's here and everyone is all "shocked Pikachu" from the middle of that slippery slope.

Repeating Elon Musk talking points in public is wild! The concept of mens rea is not new, it’s a vital factor in the defining, charging, convicting (and dismissing and acquitting) of crimes.

I wouldn't know, I don't follow the guy. If he said the sky was blue, would you be bothered by that?

Of course mindset matters. You don't murder out of love, generally. I'm sure a few have. Putting these artificial rails on it, saying that it only matters for race or whatnot, that's the silly part and it was bound to be broken through. And so it has.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#103

Post by Supermancho »

ceejayoz wrote: post #93
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…

> 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.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#104

Post by mrangle »

mcdonje wrote: post #88
mrangle wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Read assault laws. Most people think that assault is battery. It isn't. While I wouldn't comment on the event in question because I didn't see it, generally speaking people can't assault police anymore than they can civilians. What the police carry is irrelevant, and speaking to it as if it is implies a type of dissonance that will lead to someone being arrested. Remember that this is the age wherein people are getti…

>Remember that this is the age wherein people are getting arrested for destroying LGBT, BLM, etc signs and art. To think that police won't get away with using a standard that approaches that isn't realistic. Black people and LGBT people are protected classes. Law enforcement is a job. People are getting arrested for hate crimes, the definition of which is a crime motivated by desire to cause harm to a protected class…

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.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#105

Post by thefurdrake »

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.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#106

Post by cratermoon »

Supermancho wrote: post #73
bamfly wrote: post #8

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 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…

It's deadlier to be pregnant than to be a cop.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#107

Post by mitt_romney_12 »

mrangle wrote: post #64
542354234235 wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Remember that this is the age wherein people are getting arrested for destroying LGBT, BLM, etc signs and art. Do you mean vandalizing and/or destroying other people's property or pulling a sign away from someone else and destroying it, or do you mean being charged with assault for destroying their own LGBT sign? Because those are night and day different things. I would love to see a source if it is the latter, sinc…

The former. People have been over-charged for destroying the property of others, in the example given. But my point was comparative. Also, to clarify, it should be difficult or impossible to charge someone for assault simply for destroying property. But according to how I understand assault laws, and leaving room for jurisdictional interpretation, if you do it while doing something else that can be read as intimidati…

> The former. People have been over-charged for destroying the property of others, in the example given. But my point was comparative.

This is a inaccurate comparison. She didn't destroy any else's property

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#108

Post by rootusrootus »

mitt_romney_12 wrote: post #53
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…

>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 under 2 seconds.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#109

Post by mrangle »

screwturner68 wrote: post #86
5555624 wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Read assault laws. Most people think that assault is battery. It isn't. That's why you often hear"assault & battery." "Assault" is causing someone to (reasonably) feel in danger; while "battery" is the actual act.

Let's take a step back, telling someone to F- off!, even a cop is considered free speech and has been verified by the SC. On the other have telling someone I'm going to rack your F-ing skull open could be considered assault -this is threatening language and is not free speech.

Take a step back from what, exactly? What they stated was factual and generally complete.

The event in question was not someone telling a cop to F off. There are plenty of chargeable variations within the gamut of your polar examples.

Re: New laws trying to criminalize filming cops

#110

Post by bobbylarrybobby »

costanzaDynasty wrote: post #80

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…

I believe the basis of hate crime laws is that the act of committing the crime is low-grade terrorism. When you attack someone because of their membership in a particular (protected) group, you're also sending a message to everyone else in the group that they could be next.
Post reply on HN