3 ms·

Bad take is bad. It's not the cop's job to do prevent this video from getting onto YoutTube. We have a whole SLEW of legislative channels that could be used to

by moate 5y ago

Bad take is bad. It's not the cop's job to do prevent this video from getting onto YoutTube. We have a whole SLEW of legislative channels that could be used to "protect" cops from people recording them. Don't want videos of cops being posted on the internet? Contact your local representative and have them sponsor a law. Also, in an environment in which trust with the police has been eroded to the point of rioting because people feel the cops are dishonest and hiding bad behavior, admitting on camera "I'm trying to hide my behavior from scrutiny" is about the worst thing you can do, and will get a national publication to pick you up. The cop has a police union, qualified immunity, and the entire law enforcement segment of the government to protect him. It's assumed that whatever his report said happened is what happened. Protesters only have cameras to prove their side of the story. (edited for spelling/grammar mistake)

jwond 5y ago
> Don't want videos of cops being posted on the internet? Contact your local representative and have them sponsor a law. What would a law look like that would prevent people from posting videos of police officers on the internet while also complying with the First Amendment?
- moate 5y ago
  It wouldn't. It's impossible. People want unconstitutional things all the time though, and sometimes they even make them into laws. Then they go to the SCOTUS and lose. But you can do it.
  - floren 5y ago
    > People want unconstitutional things all the time though, and sometimes they even make them into laws. Then they go to the SCOTUS and lose. And there's no penalty for it, either. You get to suppress whatever you want for however long it takes to reach the Supreme Court, and if the law gets struck down, well, at least you stopped those abortion clinics/gun owners/protesters/whatever for 5 years and you can push through another law next month.
    - moate 5y ago
      My personal "favorites" have been some of the abortion ban laws that know they're unconstitutional but are passed and sit there "pending the overturning of Roe v. Wade". Like, bro, you made an illegal law and you know it because you said "this law is illegal...for now."
015a 5y ago
No one is suggesting that recording the police should be disallowed. I'd argue its a critically important piece of balance between the police and citizens; at worst, it can tell a different angle of the same story, and at best it can fight against corruption which does exist (e.g. not wearing body cams, lying, computer glitch lost the bodycam footage, etc). The line is drawn where that footage is distributed and used. Unfortunately, that's less a line, and more of a hazy, impossible to legislate boundary. A courtroom is, undeniably, the best place. This is where this footage should be used; as one piece of evidence in a very long-term narrative about what happened and who is at fault. A neutral site whose entire purpose is to document encounters with the police in an almost database-like format? Maybe there too. Transparency does matter. Dissemination can matter, especially in instances of extreme police brutality or corruption, which does happen (especially outside developed nations). YouTube? Facebook? Twitter? No. Stop making YouTube the single place for all internet video. Stop letting the algorithm make you angry. It won't do it for you. It will surface videos which make you angry. You share those videos. Like a virus, the outrage spreads. What's the plan? Be angry? Tear the system down, or let it tear you down? Defund the police? Get him fired? So, Destruction in any form? All that matters is revenge disguised in a veil of "making the world better", but destruction never ends this way. You believe you can escalate tension because "the police can take it". Its still escalation, and they can take it. Do you want every encounter with a police officer to mean War? Do you enjoy the fact that officers approach cars pulled over for speeding with their hands on their weapon? Do you think this policy actually makes the world safer, or is it self-defense in an unsafe world that actually increases the probability of a negative outcome for citizens? A scale with one pound on each side is balanced; a scale with a hundred pounds on each side breaks.

by moate 5y ago

jwond 5y ago

> Don't want videos of cops being posted on the internet? Contact your local representative and have them sponsor a law. What would a law look like that would prevent people from posting videos of police officers on the internet while also complying with the First Amendment?

moate 5y ago
It wouldn't. It's impossible. People want unconstitutional things all the time though, and sometimes they even make them into laws. Then they go to the SCOTUS and lose. But you can do it.
- floren 5y ago
  > People want unconstitutional things all the time though, and sometimes they even make them into laws. Then they go to the SCOTUS and lose. And there's no penalty for it, either. You get to suppress whatever you want for however long it takes to reach the Supreme Court, and if the law gets struck down, well, at least you stopped those abortion clinics/gun owners/protesters/whatever for 5 years and you can push through another law next month.
  - moate 5y ago
    My personal "favorites" have been some of the abortion ban laws that know they're unconstitutional but are passed and sit there "pending the overturning of Roe v. Wade". Like, bro, you made an illegal law and you know it because you said "this law is illegal...for now."

015a 5y ago

No one is suggesting that recording the police should be disallowed. I'd argue its a critically important piece of balance between the police and citizens; at worst, it can tell a different angle of the same story, and at best it can fight against corruption which does exist (e.g. not wearing body cams, lying, computer glitch lost the bodycam footage, etc). The line is drawn where that footage is distributed and used. Unfortunately, that's less a line, and more of a hazy, impossible to legislate boundary. A courtroom is, undeniably, the best place. This is where this footage should be used; as one piece of evidence in a very long-term narrative about what happened and who is at fault. A neutral site whose entire purpose is to document encounters with the police in an almost database-like format? Maybe there too. Transparency does matter. Dissemination can matter, especially in instances of extreme police brutality or corruption, which does happen (especially outside developed nations). YouTube? Facebook? Twitter? No. Stop making YouTube the single place for all internet video. Stop letting the algorithm make you angry. It won't do it for you. It will surface videos which make you angry. You share those videos. Like a virus, the outrage spreads. What's the plan? Be angry? Tear the system down, or let it tear you down? Defund the police? Get him fired? So, Destruction in any form? All that matters is revenge disguised in a veil of "making the world better", but destruction never ends this way. You believe you can escalate tension because "the police can take it". Its still escalation, and they can take it. Do you want every encounter with a police officer to mean War? Do you enjoy the fact that officers approach cars pulled over for speeding with their hands on their weapon? Do you think this policy actually makes the world safer, or is it self-defense in an unsafe world that actually increases the probability of a negative outcome for citizens? A scale with one pound on each side is balanced; a scale with a hundred pounds on each side breaks.