5 ms·

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

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.
stinkytaco 9y ago
I absolutely think you should be able to record the police. But following them around is potentially unsafe for everyone involved. It's also a good way to harass good people out of the profession (the worse a job is, the more you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to fill it). In addition, it absolutely can be a misdemeanor to harass people, government employee or not. No one deserves to be insulted. The problem here is lack of reason on either side. People being unreasonable just escalates the unreasonableness on both sides of the equation.
- IslaDeEncanta 9y ago
  How is following police unsafe for everyone involved?
  - simonh 9y ago
    Because police routinely go right into the middle of situations that are already unsafe. That's their job. Additional persons getting involved unnecessarily in those situations is a random factor that is unlikely to make those situations safer.
  - stinkytaco 9y ago
    Because police engage in dangerous situations by their very nature. Following them around will likely put followers in unsafe situations as well. Following them and engaging in antagonistic dialog will detract from their ability to do their job. Imagine trying to asses an area before entering a building to deal with a domestic (likely one of the most dangerous things an officer deals with on a regular basis) when someone is antagonizing you. Filming should be legal. If there is an interaction occurring, police should have the expectation of being filmed. They should be required to wear body cameras. They should be accountable. But what this guy was doing seems to slip over the line into obstruction.
  - reitanqild 9y ago
    Honest question: Are you serious? I can think of a number if situations in a number of jobs I have had were people following me around could have been dangerous (farm hand, concrete work etc).
kordless 9y ago
> And why shouldn't they? This is a leading question, which is to say it's not a question that can be answered in a rational way. If one desires removal of choice in the conversation, they may answer it irrationally. > Look at the case of the murder of Laquan McDonald in Chicago. The use of a separate case of an individual having choice removed, or individuals in a group removing choice for an individual, applied to the officers involved in this video (and conversation here) is illogical. Just because someone of the group "law enforcement" acts irrationally one place does not mean all will act that way everywhere else. > Being annoying or insulting to government employees isn't a crime. When Alex Jones presents his words as truths it is also not a crime. However, while holding the separate goal of being "controversial" and "in your face", the dissonance that is created by such actions is palatable, and akin to a crime of logic or truth. If one attempts to disrupt the arrival of a truth in a given situation, they seek to create additional work for the aggregate to determine truth. In this case, the officer wanted to know why someone was shining a flashlight (changing colors no less) around in the general vicinity of the stop. The reply was along the lines of "no concern of yours", when in fact it WAS a concern of the officer. In essence, the individuals filming were actively removing choice from the officer to be concerned, speaking for his actions (by implying he was or was going to run plates) and in general acting in a way that would encourage the future event of confrontation. In other words, they are acting in an irrational way to cause further irrationality to occur, when none existed. I've been kicking around a framework for detecting and describing these types of logical "arguments" which are all verbally spoken or written. In the case of comments on HackerNews, I regularly point out the dissonance in the argument, and attempt to show how these arguments can spread if the irrationality is intended to disrupt, as is done with leading questions that blame using biased arguments.
- athenot 9y ago
  Even if that behavior is questionable, there is at least merit in raising the argument of parity. If it is unreasonable for this man to behave like that, then why is it reasonable for men vested with the authority to enforce the law for the peace of society? If we can succeed in proving that this man's behavior is contradictory with what we want for society, then it should follow that the same applies to the police force.
simonh 9y ago
>And why shouldn't they? Because one person (cop or not, doesn't matter) breaking the law over here doesn't in any way justify unreasonable harassment of another person (cop or not) over there? Let me put it another way, how is this behavior intended to improve policing in America, and do you think it has a chance of doing so?
- s73ver 9y ago
  Given the complacency cops have toward the indiscretions of other cops, I can't agree with that. Perhaps if the good cops worked harder to root out the bad cops, instead of hiding behind the thin blue line, I'd agree.
  - simonh 9y ago
    Are you arguing that there are no good cops, only bad cops and all cops deserve to be treated by default as the worst cops?
    - s73ver 9y ago
      I'm arguing that if there are good cops, they need to prove it. And the best way they can prove it is to stop protecting the bad cops.
- stale2002 9y ago
  It improves policing because now police know that they will always be watched. And any excessive force or mistake that they engage in will be trending on YouTube in under an hour. So you better be damn careful.
  - chronic940 9y ago
    > And any excessive force or mistake that they engage in will be trending on YouTube in under an hour. So you better be damn careful. And what's the best outcome, huh? They get out on temporary administrative leave? Ha. Go ahead and record the police. They don't care. We on HN don't care. And you won't care after a week.
mikeash 9y ago
Being annoying or insulting isn't a crime, but there are lots of other things that are crimes. If you want to hold the system accountable, don't give them any excuse to take you down. If you're going around filming cops, there may not be any legal requirement to be polite and respectful, but you had better be polite and respectful if you want to be effective.
- victim2 9y ago
  Generally JP and Chris (can't say that for every person in New Hampshire) are respectful and polite when going out and filming police. It's only when police instigate by interacting with and attempting to disrupt the filming that either comes off as disrespectful.
paulddraper 9y ago
> Being annoying or insulting to governmet employees isn't a crime. Harassment is a crime, at least in the US. This applies to everyone, regardless of their employer.

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.

stinkytaco 9y ago

I absolutely think you should be able to record the police. But following them around is potentially unsafe for everyone involved. It's also a good way to harass good people out of the profession (the worse a job is, the more you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to fill it). In addition, it absolutely can be a misdemeanor to harass people, government employee or not. No one deserves to be insulted. The problem here is lack of reason on either side. People being unreasonable just escalates the unreasonableness on both sides of the equation.

IslaDeEncanta 9y ago
How is following police unsafe for everyone involved?
- simonh 9y ago
  Because police routinely go right into the middle of situations that are already unsafe. That's their job. Additional persons getting involved unnecessarily in those situations is a random factor that is unlikely to make those situations safer.
- stinkytaco 9y ago
  Because police engage in dangerous situations by their very nature. Following them around will likely put followers in unsafe situations as well. Following them and engaging in antagonistic dialog will detract from their ability to do their job. Imagine trying to asses an area before entering a building to deal with a domestic (likely one of the most dangerous things an officer deals with on a regular basis) when someone is antagonizing you. Filming should be legal. If there is an interaction occurring, police should have the expectation of being filmed. They should be required to wear body cameras. They should be accountable. But what this guy was doing seems to slip over the line into obstruction.
- reitanqild 9y ago
  Honest question: Are you serious? I can think of a number if situations in a number of jobs I have had were people following me around could have been dangerous (farm hand, concrete work etc).

kordless 9y ago

> And why shouldn't they? This is a leading question, which is to say it's not a question that can be answered in a rational way. If one desires removal of choice in the conversation, they may answer it irrationally. > Look at the case of the murder of Laquan McDonald in Chicago. The use of a separate case of an individual having choice removed, or individuals in a group removing choice for an individual, applied to the officers involved in this video (and conversation here) is illogical. Just because someone of the group "law enforcement" acts irrationally one place does not mean all will act that way everywhere else. > Being annoying or insulting to government employees isn't a crime. When Alex Jones presents his words as truths it is also not a crime. However, while holding the separate goal of being "controversial" and "in your face", the dissonance that is created by such actions is palatable, and akin to a crime of logic or truth. If one attempts to disrupt the arrival of a truth in a given situation, they seek to create additional work for the aggregate to determine truth. In this case, the officer wanted to know why someone was shining a flashlight (changing colors no less) around in the general vicinity of the stop. The reply was along the lines of "no concern of yours", when in fact it WAS a concern of the officer. In essence, the individuals filming were actively removing choice from the officer to be concerned, speaking for his actions (by implying he was or was going to run plates) and in general acting in a way that would encourage the future event of confrontation. In other words, they are acting in an irrational way to cause further irrationality to occur, when none existed. I've been kicking around a framework for detecting and describing these types of logical "arguments" which are all verbally spoken or written. In the case of comments on HackerNews, I regularly point out the dissonance in the argument, and attempt to show how these arguments can spread if the irrationality is intended to disrupt, as is done with leading questions that blame using biased arguments.

athenot 9y ago
Even if that behavior is questionable, there is at least merit in raising the argument of parity. If it is unreasonable for this man to behave like that, then why is it reasonable for men vested with the authority to enforce the law for the peace of society? If we can succeed in proving that this man's behavior is contradictory with what we want for society, then it should follow that the same applies to the police force.

simonh 9y ago

>And why shouldn't they? Because one person (cop or not, doesn't matter) breaking the law over here doesn't in any way justify unreasonable harassment of another person (cop or not) over there? Let me put it another way, how is this behavior intended to improve policing in America, and do you think it has a chance of doing so?

s73ver 9y ago
Given the complacency cops have toward the indiscretions of other cops, I can't agree with that. Perhaps if the good cops worked harder to root out the bad cops, instead of hiding behind the thin blue line, I'd agree.
- simonh 9y ago
  Are you arguing that there are no good cops, only bad cops and all cops deserve to be treated by default as the worst cops?
  - s73ver 9y ago
    I'm arguing that if there are good cops, they need to prove it. And the best way they can prove it is to stop protecting the bad cops.
stale2002 9y ago
It improves policing because now police know that they will always be watched. And any excessive force or mistake that they engage in will be trending on YouTube in under an hour. So you better be damn careful.
- chronic940 9y ago
  > And any excessive force or mistake that they engage in will be trending on YouTube in under an hour. So you better be damn careful. And what's the best outcome, huh? They get out on temporary administrative leave? Ha. Go ahead and record the police. They don't care. We on HN don't care. And you won't care after a week.

mikeash 9y ago

Being annoying or insulting isn't a crime, but there are lots of other things that are crimes. If you want to hold the system accountable, don't give them any excuse to take you down. If you're going around filming cops, there may not be any legal requirement to be polite and respectful, but you had better be polite and respectful if you want to be effective.

victim2 9y ago
Generally JP and Chris (can't say that for every person in New Hampshire) are respectful and polite when going out and filming police. It's only when police instigate by interacting with and attempting to disrupt the filming that either comes off as disrespectful.

paulddraper 9y ago

> Being annoying or insulting to governmet employees isn't a crime. Harassment is a crime, at least in the US. This applies to everyone, regardless of their employer.