11 ms·

Seems like the guy calls himself a "copchaser" and is used to actuallly chase police officers, annoyingly record their action and make sure to insult them while

Seems like the guy calls himself a "copchaser" and is used to actuallly chase police officers, annoyingly record their action and make sure to insult them while teaching them a lesson about how to do their job. And he calls all that "standing his ground". I am sure police officers can be jerks or even completely criminals, but this guy really seems to be crossing the line of common sense. Source: the YT channel himself posted https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgnVXppkmzBKfTOwe-KqAJQ/videos https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgnVXppkmzBKfTOwe-KqAJQ/vid...

nickpsecurity 9y ago
"Seems like the guy calls himself a "copchaser" and is used to actuallly chase police officers, annoyingly record their action and make sure to insult them while teaching them a lesson about how to do their job. And he calls all that "standing his ground"." That's what I was seeing in the video I watched. Dude is a disgrace to activists. Last thing we need is more people acting like that toward police in a way that makes corporate media regularly. Voters would be pushing against police accountability more than dealing with police corruption. Best this stuff is done in a neutral, polite way from terms used (eg CopWatch vs CopChasers) to how one speaks to the cops (respectfully). Activists need the moral, high ground against the cops when viewers or juries start asking where the problems in a confrontation really started. "And if he acts this way on camera, what might he have said off camera to them?" they'll ask.
- eruditely 9y ago
  ie a demand for us to be excessively passive and make their be an asymmetry in favor of the aggressor, ie why girls like criminals now, while they just to like knights before, the good guys, anyways, what you advocate men to do would be cede the asymmetry in favor of aggressors/criminals, police & criminals (same group of people, if you've ever had those sorts of friends they often just decide to try to be a cop later to maintain a few things, anyways, we cannot seed any situation to these people. anyways, my father's house was just broken into, a few other things happened, and we have enough cops, but stuff still isn't being taken care of, anyways, the most important part is the courage to contest
  - nickpsecurity 9y ago
    What the hell are you talking about? Im not encouraging weak behavior. The goal of the videos is to convince public to change law and policy. It's proven fact that more of public will buy into the cops being the aggressor if the activist isnt actively trying to piss them off by doing them dirty or threatening them. Im advocating doing what helps the cause instead of what makes you feel like an alpha-male/female in heat of the moment.
    - eruditely 9y ago
      that asymmetry decides which side women like more, (noob), women will always like the side that wins in the intimidation hierarchy, or the side of the most aggression without repaid cost.
      - nickpsecurity 9y ago
        Maybe. The others still got the most done for underrepresented's freedom (see Civil Rights movement). Including women.
ithought 9y ago
And why shouldn't they? Police departments and city officials across the US routinely lie, obsfucate and remove any sense of accountability for police officers who commit crimes or make mistakes. Look at the case of the murder of Laquan McDonald in Chicago. The lying and stonewalling is a common occurrence. It's not just a few bad apples, it's a bad system that promotes escalation and grants power without accountability. It took the prosecuting attorney 15 months to charge the Chicago cop (Van Dyke) with first degree murder. And this was long after the family resigned to believe their son was at fault. It took a whistleblower to come forward to start a long figh for the truth. After the courts forced the police to release the videotape to the family, whereas the City Council immediately votes to give the family $5 million with the agreement to keep the tape private before they even filed a lawsuit. It took someone else getting the video for it to become public and the cop to be charged. Being annoying or insulting to governmet employees isn't a crime.
- enraged_camel 9y ago
  >>Being annoying or insulting to governmet employees isn't a crime. Sure, but distracting and harassing law enforcement officers while they are trying to do their job can be grounds for obstruction of justice. It's one thing to record them from a distance, another thing to constantly hurl insults and condescending remarks. Don't get me wrong, the police in America have serious problems. But this guy seems to be approaching the issue in a bizarrely antagonistic way. I don't know if his arrest is justified but it's definitely not surprising given his behavior.
  - victim2 9y ago
    There seems to be some confusion. Nobody is antagonistic as its the officers who are confronting the correspondents (Chris, JP, etc). Chris crossed the street and was on a sidewalk between an east and west bound lane of traffic. New Hampshire does not require the use of crosswalks and he was not in a motor vehicle so the other requests to back up or otherwise get out of the street were legally invalid and intended to confuse. There is also no requirement for individuals to carry ID in New Hampshire. He was a pedestrian, and there were no cars nearby. You can be ordered to provide your name under certain circumstances. This is not what was requested and the officer only indicated he had given an order after the arrest thereby nullifying any claim Chris was violating a police order. Chris who is the CEO of ThinkPenguin, Inc does not yell insults or similar at police. The videos where you are seeing insults and similar are from JP. JP reacts in a militaristic style which can come off badly from a public relations stand point at times with the masses and even cause confusion as to his political affiliations (that is he is not republican, conservative, etc, he is pro-freedom). For example he is not homophobic, but does yell such insults when illegally confronted by police for recording, in part due to his age, background, and upbringing, but he's not actually a bigoted individual, and has friends who are gay- including ones which he works with as part of New England Cop Chasers. Chris tends to remain silent during interactions with police up to the point where an officer comes to him and begins an interaction. Unless there is no incident that is and its merely a friendly interaction with police (going up to a police car to find out what the officer is up to). Chris also does not interact with police as a general rule particularly when they are being the aggressor, but remaining silent can be difficult, particularly when you have to inform officers of things like ones rights in order maintain those rights. For example if you do not invoke your right to remain silent they can take that as consent to being questioned. Chris prefers to remain silent or otherwise invoke his right to remain silent. Chris will stand his ground however and ignore illegal orders or requests- which are generally actually just requests implied to be orders. An officer will say things like "I'm going to have to ask to search you". That's not an order. It's a request for your consent to be searched. If you do not object they can take it as you consenting to a search. You can refuse, but they will get angry and start yelling. They do this to intimidate you.
sandworm101 9y ago
There is a mindset amongst many that police should never stop, question or even talk to people without some level of suspecion of wrongdoing. They see most any checkpoint as a threat to basic libery. Such "chasers", rather than the silent watchers who dont scream at officers, are extreemists who take laws and constitutional constructions far to literally.
- ithought 9y ago
  It's called probable cause and it's recognized by the courts in any other police interaction except for checkpoints. And it's backed by the 4th Amendment, which is neither a law nor a rule. It's an acknowledgment of an innate natural right that all human beings have which includes the right to be left alone except when there's reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
  - s73ver 9y ago
    Except there are limits to what constitutes Probable Cause. A cop still needs to demonstrate that there was reason to believe they had Probable Cause, and things like a person's skin color don't factor into it. I threw the thing in about skin color not because I have any reason to believe you are racist, but because we are talking about cops, who in many areas have been shown to be quite racist, and have been shown to pull persons of color over far more than white people.
- bmelton 9y ago
  That's not a mindset, that's the actual, current state of the law. Police pulling you over without cause is considered by many judges, jurists and supreme court justices to be a violation of your fourth amendment rights to privacy and your fifth amendment rights to due process. The alternative to this is stop and frisk. Yes, the law is muddied, and yes, there are many, many exceptions... most notably those as defined in Terry v Ohio (ie, Terry stops), but even with Terry stops, officers need to have a reasonable suspicion that you're either presently armed, or should be considered dangerous enough to warrant a stop. It isn't extremism to interpret the law as it is written, and as it is considered by many courts to be valid, that requires police to need at least some mandate to being pulled over (whether a traffic violation, exigent circumstances) more specific than "this guy was black", or "this guy was poor", or what have you. The problem is that with qualified immunity and deference, we allow the police to get away with a lot of stops that don't even meet the legislative standards we've set, and as we allow these things to continue, from one generation to the next, the standards for what is or isn't a valid stop gets lowered. TLDR, if a cop pulls you over just because he can, and he cannot formulate a reasonable suspicion, then he has overstepped his boundaries in the eyes of the law, even where that law seemingly has bent over backwards to accommodate arbitrary stops.
ceejayoz 9y ago
Being a douchebag is still protected by the First Amendment, though.
- simonh 9y ago
  True, but if you are being a douchebag in such a way that it interferes with a police officer's conduct of their duty, then that effect is not protected. So prosecuting this person for what they said would be wrong. Prosecuting for interfering in a Police officer's discharge of their duty would be though. Incidentally this is my take on the 'shouting Fire in a cinema' issue. Shouting whatever you like shouldn't be a crime, just as firing a gun isn't in itself a crime. Context matters. Deliberately causing a panic is a crime, as is killing a person with a bullet fired from your gun. Intentions matter and even unintentional but negligently caused effects matter.
jMyles 9y ago
> actuallly chase police officers, annoyingly record their action and make sure to insult them As for the insulting part - sure, that's always a shame. But what's wrong with following bearers of state power and recording their actions? That's precisely in the spirit of the first amendment.
- throwaway76543 9y ago
  Insulting is likewise precisely in the spirit of the first amendment.
  - jMyles 9y ago
    Well, it terms of defending-what-you-say, I won't. In terms of defending-your-right-to-say-it, I will. However, for the recording thing: In terms of defending-your-right-to-do-it, I will. However, in this case, defending-what-you-do, I'll do that too. So it's a little different. Although I acknowledge someone's right to insult someone, I assert that it's not particularly good for society. However, for recording police, I both acknowledge their right to do it and assert that it's of global benefit to society.
soheil 9y ago
A book you might enjoy reading: Civil Disobedience [1] [1] https://www.amazon.com/Civil-Disobedience-Essays-Thrift-Editions/dp/0486275639 https://www.amazon.com/Civil-Disobedience-Essays-Thrift-Edit...
- ninjin 9y ago
  Haven't read the work, but it appears that Project Gutenberg has a freely available version. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/71 http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/71

nickpsecurity 9y ago

"Seems like the guy calls himself a "copchaser" and is used to actuallly chase police officers, annoyingly record their action and make sure to insult them while teaching them a lesson about how to do their job. And he calls all that "standing his ground"." That's what I was seeing in the video I watched. Dude is a disgrace to activists. Last thing we need is more people acting like that toward police in a way that makes corporate media regularly. Voters would be pushing against police accountability more than dealing with police corruption. Best this stuff is done in a neutral, polite way from terms used (eg CopWatch vs CopChasers) to how one speaks to the cops (respectfully). Activists need the moral, high ground against the cops when viewers or juries start asking where the problems in a confrontation really started. "And if he acts this way on camera, what might he have said off camera to them?" they'll ask.

eruditely 9y ago
ie a demand for us to be excessively passive and make their be an asymmetry in favor of the aggressor, ie why girls like criminals now, while they just to like knights before, the good guys, anyways, what you advocate men to do would be cede the asymmetry in favor of aggressors/criminals, police & criminals (same group of people, if you've ever had those sorts of friends they often just decide to try to be a cop later to maintain a few things, anyways, we cannot seed any situation to these people. anyways, my father's house was just broken into, a few other things happened, and we have enough cops, but stuff still isn't being taken care of, anyways, the most important part is the courage to contest
- nickpsecurity 9y ago
  What the hell are you talking about? Im not encouraging weak behavior. The goal of the videos is to convince public to change law and policy. It's proven fact that more of public will buy into the cops being the aggressor if the activist isnt actively trying to piss them off by doing them dirty or threatening them. Im advocating doing what helps the cause instead of what makes you feel like an alpha-male/female in heat of the moment.
  - eruditely 9y ago
    that asymmetry decides which side women like more, (noob), women will always like the side that wins in the intimidation hierarchy, or the side of the most aggression without repaid cost.
    - nickpsecurity 9y ago
      Maybe. The others still got the most done for underrepresented's freedom (see Civil Rights movement). Including women.

ithought 9y ago

And why shouldn't they? Police departments and city officials across the US routinely lie, obsfucate and remove any sense of accountability for police officers who commit crimes or make mistakes. Look at the case of the murder of Laquan McDonald in Chicago. The lying and stonewalling is a common occurrence. It's not just a few bad apples, it's a bad system that promotes escalation and grants power without accountability. It took the prosecuting attorney 15 months to charge the Chicago cop (Van Dyke) with first degree murder. And this was long after the family resigned to believe their son was at fault. It took a whistleblower to come forward to start a long figh for the truth. After the courts forced the police to release the videotape to the family, whereas the City Council immediately votes to give the family $5 million with the agreement to keep the tape private before they even filed a lawsuit. It took someone else getting the video for it to become public and the cop to be charged. Being annoying or insulting to governmet employees isn't a crime.

enraged_camel 9y ago
>>Being annoying or insulting to governmet employees isn't a crime. Sure, but distracting and harassing law enforcement officers while they are trying to do their job can be grounds for obstruction of justice. It's one thing to record them from a distance, another thing to constantly hurl insults and condescending remarks. Don't get me wrong, the police in America have serious problems. But this guy seems to be approaching the issue in a bizarrely antagonistic way. I don't know if his arrest is justified but it's definitely not surprising given his behavior.
- victim2 9y ago
  There seems to be some confusion. Nobody is antagonistic as its the officers who are confronting the correspondents (Chris, JP, etc). Chris crossed the street and was on a sidewalk between an east and west bound lane of traffic. New Hampshire does not require the use of crosswalks and he was not in a motor vehicle so the other requests to back up or otherwise get out of the street were legally invalid and intended to confuse. There is also no requirement for individuals to carry ID in New Hampshire. He was a pedestrian, and there were no cars nearby. You can be ordered to provide your name under certain circumstances. This is not what was requested and the officer only indicated he had given an order after the arrest thereby nullifying any claim Chris was violating a police order. Chris who is the CEO of ThinkPenguin, Inc does not yell insults or similar at police. The videos where you are seeing insults and similar are from JP. JP reacts in a militaristic style which can come off badly from a public relations stand point at times with the masses and even cause confusion as to his political affiliations (that is he is not republican, conservative, etc, he is pro-freedom). For example he is not homophobic, but does yell such insults when illegally confronted by police for recording, in part due to his age, background, and upbringing, but he's not actually a bigoted individual, and has friends who are gay- including ones which he works with as part of New England Cop Chasers. Chris tends to remain silent during interactions with police up to the point where an officer comes to him and begins an interaction. Unless there is no incident that is and its merely a friendly interaction with police (going up to a police car to find out what the officer is up to). Chris also does not interact with police as a general rule particularly when they are being the aggressor, but remaining silent can be difficult, particularly when you have to inform officers of things like ones rights in order maintain those rights. For example if you do not invoke your right to remain silent they can take that as consent to being questioned. Chris prefers to remain silent or otherwise invoke his right to remain silent. Chris will stand his ground however and ignore illegal orders or requests- which are generally actually just requests implied to be orders. An officer will say things like "I'm going to have to ask to search you". That's not an order. It's a request for your consent to be searched. If you do not object they can take it as you consenting to a search. You can refuse, but they will get angry and start yelling. They do this to intimidate you.

sandworm101 9y ago

There is a mindset amongst many that police should never stop, question or even talk to people without some level of suspecion of wrongdoing. They see most any checkpoint as a threat to basic libery. Such "chasers", rather than the silent watchers who dont scream at officers, are extreemists who take laws and constitutional constructions far to literally.

ithought 9y ago
It's called probable cause and it's recognized by the courts in any other police interaction except for checkpoints. And it's backed by the 4th Amendment, which is neither a law nor a rule. It's an acknowledgment of an innate natural right that all human beings have which includes the right to be left alone except when there's reasonable suspicion or probable cause.
- s73ver 9y ago
  Except there are limits to what constitutes Probable Cause. A cop still needs to demonstrate that there was reason to believe they had Probable Cause, and things like a person's skin color don't factor into it. I threw the thing in about skin color not because I have any reason to believe you are racist, but because we are talking about cops, who in many areas have been shown to be quite racist, and have been shown to pull persons of color over far more than white people.
bmelton 9y ago
That's not a mindset, that's the actual, current state of the law. Police pulling you over without cause is considered by many judges, jurists and supreme court justices to be a violation of your fourth amendment rights to privacy and your fifth amendment rights to due process. The alternative to this is stop and frisk. Yes, the law is muddied, and yes, there are many, many exceptions... most notably those as defined in Terry v Ohio (ie, Terry stops), but even with Terry stops, officers need to have a reasonable suspicion that you're either presently armed, or should be considered dangerous enough to warrant a stop. It isn't extremism to interpret the law as it is written, and as it is considered by many courts to be valid, that requires police to need at least some mandate to being pulled over (whether a traffic violation, exigent circumstances) more specific than "this guy was black", or "this guy was poor", or what have you. The problem is that with qualified immunity and deference, we allow the police to get away with a lot of stops that don't even meet the legislative standards we've set, and as we allow these things to continue, from one generation to the next, the standards for what is or isn't a valid stop gets lowered. TLDR, if a cop pulls you over just because he can, and he cannot formulate a reasonable suspicion, then he has overstepped his boundaries in the eyes of the law, even where that law seemingly has bent over backwards to accommodate arbitrary stops.

ceejayoz 9y ago

Being a douchebag is still protected by the First Amendment, though.

simonh 9y ago
True, but if you are being a douchebag in such a way that it interferes with a police officer's conduct of their duty, then that effect is not protected. So prosecuting this person for what they said would be wrong. Prosecuting for interfering in a Police officer's discharge of their duty would be though. Incidentally this is my take on the 'shouting Fire in a cinema' issue. Shouting whatever you like shouldn't be a crime, just as firing a gun isn't in itself a crime. Context matters. Deliberately causing a panic is a crime, as is killing a person with a bullet fired from your gun. Intentions matter and even unintentional but negligently caused effects matter.

jMyles 9y ago

> actuallly chase police officers, annoyingly record their action and make sure to insult them As for the insulting part - sure, that's always a shame. But what's wrong with following bearers of state power and recording their actions? That's precisely in the spirit of the first amendment.

throwaway76543 9y ago
Insulting is likewise precisely in the spirit of the first amendment.
- jMyles 9y ago
  Well, it terms of defending-what-you-say, I won't. In terms of defending-your-right-to-say-it, I will. However, for the recording thing: In terms of defending-your-right-to-do-it, I will. However, in this case, defending-what-you-do, I'll do that too. So it's a little different. Although I acknowledge someone's right to insult someone, I assert that it's not particularly good for society. However, for recording police, I both acknowledge their right to do it and assert that it's of global benefit to society.

soheil 9y ago

A book you might enjoy reading: Civil Disobedience [1] [1] https://www.amazon.com/Civil-Disobedience-Essays-Thrift-Editions/dp/0486275639 https://www.amazon.com/Civil-Disobedience-Essays-Thrift-Edit...

ninjin 9y ago
Haven't read the work, but it appears that Project Gutenberg has a freely available version. http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/71 http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/71