Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff • Hacker News Board

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#121

Post by stevenwiles » Wed, Aug 03, 2016, 9:48 PM UTC

MichaelGG wrote: post #72

nness wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you think about it from Facebook's perspective though, do you really want to be responsible for broadcasting a video where the women, her child or a police officer is shot or killed on camera?

FB isn't responsible; they are a platform. The person broadcasting is "responsible". And even if they were, yes, why should that be a problem? At worst it'll be flagged mature (and deleted?).

Uh.. The fact that FB is fully capable of pressing a button to turn off the stream suggests that they are, in fact, responsible for its broadcast.

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#122

Post by stevenwiles » Wed, Aug 03, 2016, 9:49 PM UTC

mywittyname wrote: post #115

rbanffy wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A shotgun is not a reasonable way to protect oneself from a state. The state probably has more police officers than you have bullets. You'll only make it worse.

Unfortunately, the common narrative today to is to take up arms against what you perceive to be an oppressive government.

Actually, the narrative today is to take up arms against the haters and anyone who tries to get between you and your dreams.

Re: Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff

#123

Post by aab0 » Thu, Aug 04, 2016, 8:25 PM UTC

rahimnathwani wrote: post #65

aab0 wrote: post #24

> According to a police report from the March stop, which the department released after the shooting, Gaines was stopped when an officer saw that in place of a license plate she had a piece of cardboard on her vehicle. The cardboard declared, “Any Government official who compromises this pursuit to happiness and right to travel, will be criminally responsible and fined, as this is a natural right and freedom.” So she…

"quotes her spouting more of the sovereign citizen legal gobbledegook" It's sad that the top comment on this thread is just name-calling. Why do you consider her views to be 'gobbledegook'?

Maybe you should read up on Sovereign Citizen stuff. It is literally gobbledegook, based on making up linguistic stuff like claiming that 'understand' means 'stand under [to make a contract]'. Some of it is free-association verbal gibberish based on sound similarities, strongly reminiscent of schizophrenia's 'word salad'.