4 ms·

Exactly. It's mostly people who are looking for trouble that cry police brutality. There were so many instances of people shoving their camera in a cop's face a

Exactly. It's mostly people who are looking for trouble that cry police brutality. There were so many instances of people shoving their camera in a cop's face and get beaten. Why would you do that? There are a lot of dumb people who believe everything the media tells them to believe.

vangelis 6y ago
If recording is violence, do I have the same rights as a civilian to respond?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- greatwhitenorth 6y ago
  Is shoving a camera in a cop's face same as recording from a distance?
  - vangelis 6y ago
    I'd hope an officer of the law would be able to keep their composure even with a camera in their face.
  - FriendlyNormie 6y ago
    Don’t bother with these retards. Just continue to stockpile ammo.
rsynnott 6y ago
Look, if the police officer in question was a bear or something, I could kind of see your point. But police officers are typically humans, and have free will. If they're not able to deal with that sort of thing without assaulting people, then perhaps they should consider less demanding work.
- greatwhitenorth 6y ago
  20 people are encircling your car, banging your windows, shouting and ready to break your car. Can you tell me how you would respond? Sit there and wait for them to assault you?
  - meheleventyone 6y ago
    Right but your original example was someone filming a policeman at close range. Should you be beaten for filming the police?
    - greatwhitenorth 6y ago
      Is shoving a camera in a cop's face same as recording from a distance?
      - meheleventyone 6y ago
        No the person is closer but so what? What crime has been committed that justifies extra-judicial beating? Are the police so poorly trained they cannot be filmed at close range without becoming violent?
  - thephyber 6y ago
    So many problems with this argument. > 20 people are encircling your car, banging your windows, shouting and ready to break your car. Of the 400 videos, how many of them were this type of situation? I would guess 3 or fewer. This isn't a representative scenario. > Can you tell me how you would respond? People (police or otherwise) who aren't trained will respond in any number of inappropriate ways. Your argument is basically just justification for police to act inappropriately anytime they encounter a situation for which they haven't been explicitly trained. We don't pay police departments 40% of all municipal revenues to put untrained people on the street to act in completely unprofessional ways towards the same people who pay their paychecks, retirement, union dues, medical bills, and department lawsuits. Actually check that. Apparently we do and those departments settle for billions of USD per year in legal settlements. The problem is that the officers largely aren't held accountable -- but the taxpayers frequently are. Moral hazard. > Sit there and wait for them to assault you? Professional police have a whole belt full of tools, a radio (to 40,000 other officers in NYC), a megaphone, a long gun, a short gun, and frequently a tazer. Also, why is an officer in a car surrounded by angry citizens? Because someone in the same uniform mistreated their brother/father/son/husband/etc. Police have a lot of ability to de-escalate the problems before they happen, but they aren't doing it. Instead, police {departments, chiefs, unions, officers, wives} are pointing at violent protesters as if violent protesters have no incentive or excuse to be angry at police. And while we're at it, shouldn't your logic be equally used against officers who assault civilians? Why shouldn't the entire country support civilians defending themselves against officers who use "extralegal" force? (rhetorical question)
scollet 6y ago
The first line of defense against authoritarianism is eyes on the regime. You're defending disproportionate response to a non-violent checking of power. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

vangelis 6y ago

If recording is violence, do I have the same rights as a civilian to respond?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
greatwhitenorth 6y ago
Is shoving a camera in a cop's face same as recording from a distance?
- vangelis 6y ago
  I'd hope an officer of the law would be able to keep their composure even with a camera in their face.
- FriendlyNormie 6y ago
  Don’t bother with these retards. Just continue to stockpile ammo.

rsynnott 6y ago

Look, if the police officer in question was a bear or something, I could kind of see your point. But police officers are typically humans, and have free will. If they're not able to deal with that sort of thing without assaulting people, then perhaps they should consider less demanding work.

greatwhitenorth 6y ago
20 people are encircling your car, banging your windows, shouting and ready to break your car. Can you tell me how you would respond? Sit there and wait for them to assault you?
- meheleventyone 6y ago
  Right but your original example was someone filming a policeman at close range. Should you be beaten for filming the police?
  - greatwhitenorth 6y ago
    Is shoving a camera in a cop's face same as recording from a distance?
    - meheleventyone 6y ago
      No the person is closer but so what? What crime has been committed that justifies extra-judicial beating? Are the police so poorly trained they cannot be filmed at close range without becoming violent?
- thephyber 6y ago
  So many problems with this argument. > 20 people are encircling your car, banging your windows, shouting and ready to break your car. Of the 400 videos, how many of them were this type of situation? I would guess 3 or fewer. This isn't a representative scenario. > Can you tell me how you would respond? People (police or otherwise) who aren't trained will respond in any number of inappropriate ways. Your argument is basically just justification for police to act inappropriately anytime they encounter a situation for which they haven't been explicitly trained. We don't pay police departments 40% of all municipal revenues to put untrained people on the street to act in completely unprofessional ways towards the same people who pay their paychecks, retirement, union dues, medical bills, and department lawsuits. Actually check that. Apparently we do and those departments settle for billions of USD per year in legal settlements. The problem is that the officers largely aren't held accountable -- but the taxpayers frequently are. Moral hazard. > Sit there and wait for them to assault you? Professional police have a whole belt full of tools, a radio (to 40,000 other officers in NYC), a megaphone, a long gun, a short gun, and frequently a tazer. Also, why is an officer in a car surrounded by angry citizens? Because someone in the same uniform mistreated their brother/father/son/husband/etc. Police have a lot of ability to de-escalate the problems before they happen, but they aren't doing it. Instead, police {departments, chiefs, unions, officers, wives} are pointing at violent protesters as if violent protesters have no incentive or excuse to be angry at police. And while we're at it, shouldn't your logic be equally used against officers who assault civilians? Why shouldn't the entire country support civilians defending themselves against officers who use "extralegal" force? (rhetorical question)

scollet 6y ago

The first line of defense against authoritarianism is eyes on the regime. You're defending disproportionate response to a non-violent checking of power. It leaves a bad taste in my mouth.