4 ms·

This sounds very much like one side of the story. "I was essentially arrested for filming a police checkpoint in Manchester, New Hampshire" I don't want to de

This sounds very much like one side of the story. "I was essentially arrested for filming a police checkpoint in Manchester, New Hampshire" I don't want to defend the police, but that sounds like there is a lot of information missing here. Why was he filming the police? What did other people do at/to/near the checkpoint? Was he alone or part of a group or even a mob?

kelukelugames 10y ago
A commenter in the post suggests the CEO was verbally instigating in one of the linked videos. I didn't watch it so I don't have an opinion.
- ItendToDisagree 10y ago
  Yet you'll happily repeat a bit of hearsay that is contradicted by in fact watching the video.
beart 10y ago
Some New England states do random police checkpoints to try to curb drunk driving. Many people think this is illegal (stopping without cause) and try to fight against it, film their interactions at the checkpoints, etc.
- iamatworknow 10y ago
  Don't forget US Border Patrol has the authority to setup checkpoints or pull over anyone within 100 miles of the border, without cause. A lot of people might be aware of this with respect to the border with Mexico, but it applies to Canada as well. In the northeast that covers about half of the states of Vermont and New Hampshire, basically all of Maine, and a lot of New York north of the Thruway (Syracuse/Albany).
larrydag 10y ago
There should be a police report filed. I'm not sure the date of the incident. http://www.manchesternh.gov/Departments/Police/Police-Log http://www.manchesternh.gov/Departments/Police/Police-Log
sgift 10y ago
> Why was he filming the police? Why would this be relevant? > What did other people do at/to/near the checkpoint? Same as above: Why would this be relevant? > Was he alone or part of a group or even a mob? Could be relevant.
- JustSomeNobody 10y ago
  > Why would this be relevant? Read other posts here about this person being a "cop chaser".
  - vertex-four 10y ago
    His reasons for filming the police are still irrelevant. His methods of doing so are relevant.
throwaway999b 10y ago
> I don't want to defend the police Why not? Is it now politically incorrect to give the benefit of the doubt to people who literally put their lives on the line to serve the community and keep people safe?
- athenot 10y ago
  This is a case of "trust but verify". Yes we trust the police, but we'd like to verify they respect the law they swore to uphold, and that illegal behavior be dealt with due process.
- spacemanmatt 10y ago
  Because they've been wrong (and liars) before. We'd be stupid to keep trusting them.
  - PeterisP 10y ago
    Accusers also have been wrong (and liars) before. We'd be stupid to trust the claims of any one side without looking at the other.
    - spacemanmatt 10y ago
      Accusers already face an uphill battle to be heard, and then when they are, it's usually by another cop. Let's not pretend like this is an equitable situation from the get-go.
- ue_ 10y ago
  The police are agents of the state. I do not trust the state, so why should I trust their bullies?
- pdkl95 10y ago
  > the benefit of the doubt Police lost that benefit a loooooong time ago. Respect is earned; covering up bad behavior and criminal activities is a reputation that deserves scrutiny and suspicion. They can regain the benefit of the doubt only after their reputation is free of blatant murdering innocents, officers that engage in criminal acts are reliably prosecuted, and the culture that encourages escalating confrontations to violence is fixed. > put their lives on the line Police work isn't particularly dangerous compared to many other jobs. It's not even in the top 10. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/04/the-10-most-dangerous-jobs-for-men.html http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/04/the-10-most-dangerous-jobs-fo... Regardless, modern police culture encourages pushing all of the danger onto other people when they treat everyone as if they were violent. > keep people safe That's not always the case. Police incite a lot of unnecessary violence. Also, the SCOTUS has ruled that Police do not have a duty to actually prevent anything. They usually show up afterwords and write reports/etc. Generalizations are problematic; obviously some people do try to keep people safe, but reality is more complicated.
guiomie 10y ago
I dont understand all the downvotes. Just a few comments up someone talked about a cop firing on someone filming, which sounds awful, but when added with context (there had been 100's of rounds shot from a machine gun earlier), seems understandable. I agree this is only one side of the story, and more info would be great.
- WaxProlix 10y ago
  Except that was a lie - it was rounds fired from a rifle, not a 'machine gun', and that's STILL a pretty flimsy excuse.
  - guiomie 10y ago
    Tell me you've been in a gunfight before and I'll accept you as a subject matter expert in quantifying what is "flimsy" or is not a "flimsy" excuse is when it comes to shooting or not shooting.
    - WaxProlix 10y ago
      Same goes for you I guess! Showing up in milspec combat armor because of someone popping off a .22 or something and then killing a dude with a camera seems pretty unprofessional of a paramilitary org like modern US police. I don't know what actually went down, but there are a lot of ways to respond to that kind of call without killing some random citizen, and that's what makes it flimsy - there was no gunfight. There was a guy with a camera.
notjustanymike 10y ago
When someone includes "essentially" in their statement, it means they're giving you their opinionated distillation of the facts.

kelukelugames 10y ago

A commenter in the post suggests the CEO was verbally instigating in one of the linked videos. I didn't watch it so I don't have an opinion.

ItendToDisagree 10y ago
Yet you'll happily repeat a bit of hearsay that is contradicted by in fact watching the video.

beart 10y ago

Some New England states do random police checkpoints to try to curb drunk driving. Many people think this is illegal (stopping without cause) and try to fight against it, film their interactions at the checkpoints, etc.

iamatworknow 10y ago
Don't forget US Border Patrol has the authority to setup checkpoints or pull over anyone within 100 miles of the border, without cause. A lot of people might be aware of this with respect to the border with Mexico, but it applies to Canada as well. In the northeast that covers about half of the states of Vermont and New Hampshire, basically all of Maine, and a lot of New York north of the Thruway (Syracuse/Albany).

larrydag 10y ago

There should be a police report filed. I'm not sure the date of the incident. http://www.manchesternh.gov/Departments/Police/Police-Log http://www.manchesternh.gov/Departments/Police/Police-Log

sgift 10y ago

> Why was he filming the police? Why would this be relevant? > What did other people do at/to/near the checkpoint? Same as above: Why would this be relevant? > Was he alone or part of a group or even a mob? Could be relevant.

JustSomeNobody 10y ago
> Why would this be relevant? Read other posts here about this person being a "cop chaser".
- vertex-four 10y ago
  His reasons for filming the police are still irrelevant. His methods of doing so are relevant.

throwaway999b 10y ago

> I don't want to defend the police Why not? Is it now politically incorrect to give the benefit of the doubt to people who literally put their lives on the line to serve the community and keep people safe?

athenot 10y ago
This is a case of "trust but verify". Yes we trust the police, but we'd like to verify they respect the law they swore to uphold, and that illegal behavior be dealt with due process.
spacemanmatt 10y ago
Because they've been wrong (and liars) before. We'd be stupid to keep trusting them.
- PeterisP 10y ago
  Accusers also have been wrong (and liars) before. We'd be stupid to trust the claims of any one side without looking at the other.
  - spacemanmatt 10y ago
    Accusers already face an uphill battle to be heard, and then when they are, it's usually by another cop. Let's not pretend like this is an equitable situation from the get-go.
ue_ 10y ago
The police are agents of the state. I do not trust the state, so why should I trust their bullies?
pdkl95 10y ago
> the benefit of the doubt Police lost that benefit a loooooong time ago. Respect is earned; covering up bad behavior and criminal activities is a reputation that deserves scrutiny and suspicion. They can regain the benefit of the doubt only after their reputation is free of blatant murdering innocents, officers that engage in criminal acts are reliably prosecuted, and the culture that encourages escalating confrontations to violence is fixed. > put their lives on the line Police work isn't particularly dangerous compared to many other jobs. It's not even in the top 10. http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/04/the-10-most-dangerous-jobs-for-men.html http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/04/the-10-most-dangerous-jobs-fo... Regardless, modern police culture encourages pushing all of the danger onto other people when they treat everyone as if they were violent. > keep people safe That's not always the case. Police incite a lot of unnecessary violence. Also, the SCOTUS has ruled that Police do not have a duty to actually prevent anything. They usually show up afterwords and write reports/etc. Generalizations are problematic; obviously some people do try to keep people safe, but reality is more complicated.

guiomie 10y ago

I dont understand all the downvotes. Just a few comments up someone talked about a cop firing on someone filming, which sounds awful, but when added with context (there had been 100's of rounds shot from a machine gun earlier), seems understandable. I agree this is only one side of the story, and more info would be great.

WaxProlix 10y ago
Except that was a lie - it was rounds fired from a rifle, not a 'machine gun', and that's STILL a pretty flimsy excuse.
- guiomie 10y ago
  Tell me you've been in a gunfight before and I'll accept you as a subject matter expert in quantifying what is "flimsy" or is not a "flimsy" excuse is when it comes to shooting or not shooting.
  - WaxProlix 10y ago
    Same goes for you I guess! Showing up in milspec combat armor because of someone popping off a .22 or something and then killing a dude with a camera seems pretty unprofessional of a paramilitary org like modern US police. I don't know what actually went down, but there are a lot of ways to respond to that kind of call without killing some random citizen, and that's what makes it flimsy - there was no gunfight. There was a guy with a camera.

notjustanymike 10y ago

When someone includes "essentially" in their statement, it means they're giving you their opinionated distillation of the facts.