4 ms·

Very upsetting the mindset of a police officer (sergeant!) who will harass someone while listening to a pre trial hearing for an officer who murdered a man havi

Very upsetting the mindset of a police officer (sergeant!) who will harass someone while listening to a pre trial hearing for an officer who murdered a man having a mental breakdown, and then upon being recorded will attempt to interfere with that recording. Police officers are given extraordinary powers by society and yet they can act like spoiled brats (or worse). Not cool!

moate 5y ago
It's almost like there is a systemic problem within the department...
ipnon 5y ago
It seems like the police officer was remaining calm and collected while the protestors were mocking him, interrupting him, and calling him an "asshole."
- Judgmentality 5y ago
  Good on the protestors for calling him out on being an asshole, filming it, and getting the publicity this deserves so we can have a public debate about the manchildren our government protects through qualified immunity. If the officer really wanted to engage with the protestors, all he had to do was not play the song. The cops care more about protecting themselves than protecting the citizens they aren't even sworn to protect. https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-y...
  - nextlevelwizard 5y ago
    >If the officer really wanted to engage with the protestors It is painfully obvious that he did NOT want to do that. The protestors wanted to engage with him and nitpick on whatever order he had given them. They are acting hostile and trying to land the officer in question in trouble. Yeah he kind a does it to himself by trying to play the music so the video won't end up on Youtube, but I can only see this as anti police folks having bad blood. When the protestors do anything that prevents their surveilance / recording by the police (like in Hong Kong when they were shining blinding lasers into officer's eyes and into recording equipment that was touted as genious use of technology and civil disobedience. Now that a cop tries something similar they are touted as trouble makers and assholes for simply not wanting to be recorded. Yes it is a public place and you are allowed to record them but you don't have to bring your phone into their face.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
    - Muromec 5y ago
      Cops are paid by public and public has a right to know how they are doing their job, so yes, it’s very different
      - nextlevelwizard 5y ago
        Yes you have the right to know what they are doing, but again pushing right up to their face with a camera is just being a huge dick
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- jolux 5y ago
  Ever heard of the first amendment?
  - stale2002 5y ago
    They were arrested or anything. So I don't see the problem.
  - vxNsr 5y ago
    The OP said the cop was harassing them… the only harassment appeared to be coming from the crowd.
    - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
      I just watched the video in the article. Seems like everyone is calm. But the man with the gun on his hip seems to be demanding the crowd change their behavior due to some issue with a banner. Whether you call that harassment or not I suppose is a matter of perspective.
      - vxNsr 5y ago
        That’s not really true tho right? they mock him, they hurl insults, at the end we can hear them telling him he has no life… I understand that we’re now entering a phase of cognitive dissonance, but it’s always surprising to see it so starkly represented.
      - sigzero 5y ago
        Then you watched a different video. The crowd was not "calm".
        deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
    - jolux 5y ago
      Point being, cops aren’t actually allowed to retaliate, or stop you from filming them, just because they don’t like what you’re saying. They are required to let you speak and film.
- pempem 5y ago
  It seems like signing up for a job like being a police officer, and receiving a gun, riot training, interrogation and arrest techniques means that they should be able to handle this without escalating. Now if a cop was calling you those things and you had all of those weapons and verbally engaged in escalation, i think maybe, you might not survive the encounter.
- jdavis703 5y ago
  I’ve seen bus drivers treated worse. It’s just a part of working with the public, which is part of being cop. If an adult armed with a gun can’t deal with this, they should seek a desk job.
jMyles 5y ago
> Police officers are given extraordinary powers by society and yet they can act like spoiled brats (or worse). I'm not sure the phrase "and yet" is precise; it seems like these are cause-and-effect. This is power corrupting, with the corruption approaching absoluteness as the power does.
- TaylorAlexander 5y ago
  Well, it was a way to be charitable in my rhetoric. Giving the hypothetical police officer the benefit of the doubt that they might be worthy of the powers they are being given. Which, might not actually be powers humans can handle without abuse.
- kgwxd 5y ago
  I don't think it's always cause and effect. People who want power, specifically so they can abuse it, seek it out. If society offers a position of power that lets acting like a spoiled brat go unchecked, spoiled brats will gravitate towards that position. I often wonder what a police force with a zero-tolerance sobriety requirement, on and off duty, would be like. Is there some places in the world with a policy as strict as that and actually enforces it?
slowmovintarget 5y ago
Why aren't you upset about YouTube allowing automated removal of videos with zero reconciliation to fair use statutes? It's YouTube and Instagram that are broken. The right to record is preserved. The ability (not right) to distribute is hampered by these organizations.
- darkwater 5y ago
  Because YT automated removal of copyrighted content here is just the loophole used by the police officer to avoid being recorded and published (which it's a citizen right in the US, according to the article). So it's the sergeant attitude the problem here, he would use another loophole if this one wasn't available. Why are you trying to diverge the attention spot here?
  - ballenf 5y ago
    I think both are fair readings here. There's even a strong case for a third problem: copyright itself is a tool fundamentally one-sided and OP. Three different things can all be true at the same time without detracting from each other. The problem with focusing on just the police here is that there are any number of circumstances where copyrighted audio will be naturally occurring that the issue will require more than just getting the police to refrain from using the loophole.
- deadbunny 5y ago
  I could be wrong but doesn't YouTube just remove any monetisation from the uploader and assign it to the artist/label if it detects copyrighted music?
- a9entroy 5y ago
  Because YouTube is doing it at the behest of the public. People voted in representatives that brought laws that force YouTube to do this. Your outrage is misplaced. You think YouTube has any incentive in this? If it were up to YouTube they would just bring in rules that give creators ample flexibility while still making sure there's no infringement.

moate 5y ago

It's almost like there is a systemic problem within the department...

ipnon 5y ago

It seems like the police officer was remaining calm and collected while the protestors were mocking him, interrupting him, and calling him an "asshole."

Judgmentality 5y ago
Good on the protestors for calling him out on being an asshole, filming it, and getting the publicity this deserves so we can have a public debate about the manchildren our government protects through qualified immunity. If the officer really wanted to engage with the protestors, all he had to do was not play the song. The cops care more about protecting themselves than protecting the citizens they aren't even sworn to protect. https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-you-federal-court-affirms-yet-again https://mises.org/power-market/police-have-no-duty-protect-y...
- nextlevelwizard 5y ago
  >If the officer really wanted to engage with the protestors It is painfully obvious that he did NOT want to do that. The protestors wanted to engage with him and nitpick on whatever order he had given them. They are acting hostile and trying to land the officer in question in trouble. Yeah he kind a does it to himself by trying to play the music so the video won't end up on Youtube, but I can only see this as anti police folks having bad blood. When the protestors do anything that prevents their surveilance / recording by the police (like in Hong Kong when they were shining blinding lasers into officer's eyes and into recording equipment that was touted as genious use of technology and civil disobedience. Now that a cop tries something similar they are touted as trouble makers and assholes for simply not wanting to be recorded. Yes it is a public place and you are allowed to record them but you don't have to bring your phone into their face.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - Muromec 5y ago
    Cops are paid by public and public has a right to know how they are doing their job, so yes, it’s very different
    - nextlevelwizard 5y ago
      Yes you have the right to know what they are doing, but again pushing right up to their face with a camera is just being a huge dick
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
jolux 5y ago
Ever heard of the first amendment?
- stale2002 5y ago
  They were arrested or anything. So I don't see the problem.
- vxNsr 5y ago
  The OP said the cop was harassing them… the only harassment appeared to be coming from the crowd.
  - TaylorAlexander 5y ago
    I just watched the video in the article. Seems like everyone is calm. But the man with the gun on his hip seems to be demanding the crowd change their behavior due to some issue with a banner. Whether you call that harassment or not I suppose is a matter of perspective.
    - vxNsr 5y ago
      That’s not really true tho right? they mock him, they hurl insults, at the end we can hear them telling him he has no life… I understand that we’re now entering a phase of cognitive dissonance, but it’s always surprising to see it so starkly represented.
    - sigzero 5y ago
      Then you watched a different video. The crowd was not "calm".
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
  - jolux 5y ago
    Point being, cops aren’t actually allowed to retaliate, or stop you from filming them, just because they don’t like what you’re saying. They are required to let you speak and film.
pempem 5y ago
It seems like signing up for a job like being a police officer, and receiving a gun, riot training, interrogation and arrest techniques means that they should be able to handle this without escalating. Now if a cop was calling you those things and you had all of those weapons and verbally engaged in escalation, i think maybe, you might not survive the encounter.
jdavis703 5y ago
I’ve seen bus drivers treated worse. It’s just a part of working with the public, which is part of being cop. If an adult armed with a gun can’t deal with this, they should seek a desk job.

jMyles 5y ago

> Police officers are given extraordinary powers by society and yet they can act like spoiled brats (or worse). I'm not sure the phrase "and yet" is precise; it seems like these are cause-and-effect. This is power corrupting, with the corruption approaching absoluteness as the power does.

TaylorAlexander 5y ago
Well, it was a way to be charitable in my rhetoric. Giving the hypothetical police officer the benefit of the doubt that they might be worthy of the powers they are being given. Which, might not actually be powers humans can handle without abuse.
kgwxd 5y ago
I don't think it's always cause and effect. People who want power, specifically so they can abuse it, seek it out. If society offers a position of power that lets acting like a spoiled brat go unchecked, spoiled brats will gravitate towards that position. I often wonder what a police force with a zero-tolerance sobriety requirement, on and off duty, would be like. Is there some places in the world with a policy as strict as that and actually enforces it?

slowmovintarget 5y ago

Why aren't you upset about YouTube allowing automated removal of videos with zero reconciliation to fair use statutes? It's YouTube and Instagram that are broken. The right to record is preserved. The ability (not right) to distribute is hampered by these organizations.

darkwater 5y ago
Because YT automated removal of copyrighted content here is just the loophole used by the police officer to avoid being recorded and published (which it's a citizen right in the US, according to the article). So it's the sergeant attitude the problem here, he would use another loophole if this one wasn't available. Why are you trying to diverge the attention spot here?
- ballenf 5y ago
  I think both are fair readings here. There's even a strong case for a third problem: copyright itself is a tool fundamentally one-sided and OP. Three different things can all be true at the same time without detracting from each other. The problem with focusing on just the police here is that there are any number of circumstances where copyrighted audio will be naturally occurring that the issue will require more than just getting the police to refrain from using the loophole.
deadbunny 5y ago
I could be wrong but doesn't YouTube just remove any monetisation from the uploader and assign it to the artist/label if it detects copyrighted music?
a9entroy 5y ago
Because YouTube is doing it at the behest of the public. People voted in representatives that brought laws that force YouTube to do this. Your outrage is misplaced. You think YouTube has any incentive in this? If it were up to YouTube they would just bring in rules that give creators ample flexibility while still making sure there's no infringement.