7 ms·

Most insane part of this article was the below quote from the bill sponsor: "Kavanagh said it is important to leave this buffer for police to protect law enfor

Most insane part of this article was the below quote from the bill sponsor: "Kavanagh said it is important to leave this buffer for police to protect law enforcement from being assaulted by unruly bystanders. He said “there’s no reason” to come closer and predicted tragic outcomes for those who do, saying, “Such an approach is unreasonable, unnecessary, and unsafe, and should be made illegal." He is just happily excusing cops visiting "tragic outcomes" on people who get closer than 8 feet to cops. The lengths that people will go to too justify police just killing people is insane. How about we don't allow police to just wantonly murder or beat whoever they want? This same guy is an ex cop and "sponsored legislation that would prohibit oversight boards of police departments unless those boards were two-thirds sworn police officers" After the 2020 election he also said: ""Everybody shouldn’t be voting...Quantity is important, but we have to look at the quality of votes, as well." Seems like a really great guy that very much deserves to be in power /s https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kavanagh_(Arizona_politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kavanagh_(Arizona_politic...

beebmam 4y ago
If there's anything that would build public trust back in police institutions, it would be politically-empowered independent citizen's oversight boards. It is such a shame that most cities in the US don't have these. I'd like the police to be a (mostly) transparent organization that is concerned with the health of our society and key partners to all upstanding citizens. Citizen oversight boards is one path to making that happen.
- SpikeDad 4y ago
  This is exactly the solution. I've long proposed civilian review boards assembled like juries - random citizens called in to judge specific cases of police actions. Theses juries would have the ability to rule on the culpability of the officers, select penalties and their deliberations would be secret and final. Police that know their actions would be reviewed and their chiefs and administrators would have no ability to save them would certainly reduce the amount of police illegality.
- wonderwonder 4y ago
  Unfortunately so many police departments are just gangs now with political backing. Just this 4th of July the NYPD decided it was their right to commandeer viewing areas for their families and prevent the public from using them. No repercussions, no politicians demanding an investigation, just armed people in uniform daring you to say something. This is a massive open abuse of power and its just shrugged off.
  - kmeisthax 4y ago
    In the specific case of the NYPD the qualifier "now" is not necessary. They have a centuries-long history of acting above and outside the law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_New_York_City_Police_Department https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_New_York_City_P... Highlights include: * Early in it's formation, the historical precursor to the NYPD was two separate police forces; one run by the city and one run by the state. At one point the city police (Municipals) was literally protecting the mayor from arrest by the state police (Metropolitans). * Having to be rescued by actual nativist[0] gangs after riots broke out after the Metropolitans won out over the Municipals * Repeated bi-decennial corruption investigations that lead to reforms which just push the corruption somewhere else and make it worse Fun fact: the NYPD even operates in other countries. There's a weird post-9/11 program called the International Liaison Program[1] in which other countries pay the NYPD to station NYC cops in their country. It's absolutely insane that this somehow doesn't violate some kind of Geneva convention[2]. [0] People who wanted to build a wall and make the Irish pay for it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVJMtXvjn0A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVJMtXvjn0A [2] Look. I'll settle for the "driving on the wrong side of the road" Geneva convention, just give me something
    - joshuaissac 4y ago
      On the face of it, the last one does not sound so bad, as long as the NYPD is operating with permission from the jurisdictions where they are operating. Just like how a company wholly owned by New York City could have contracts with New York City, London and Paris at the same time.
- theshrike79 4y ago
  The #1 thing that would reform the US police institutions is this: - All damages would be paid from their pension fund. That's it. If the bill goes to the city/county, nobody cares. If $cop1 fucking up messes up $cop[1..n]'s future pension plans? They'll start to self-police real fast.
  - carschno 4y ago
    The point is that self-policing never works. It's not (only) a matter of motivation.
    - bigDinosaur 4y ago
      Where I am outside of the US, the anti police-corruption police are hated by the normal police, which I think is a pretty good indication of how many police don't like being held accountable. A lot of police misconduct really relates to a culture of closing ranks so it's seen as a betrayal to investigate that properly. It doesn't need to be said that police should be held to a higher standard than anyone else since they gain pretty major privileges and powers, obviously including the legal ability to use deadly force.
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    Pensions funds are already underfunded and subject to corruption such as understatement of liabilities and investments in politically connected ventures. The only result is future taxpayers get to pay higher taxes.
    - pooper 4y ago
      My gut reaction: - states and local governments may not hire any police officers unless they fully fund the pension obligations ahead of time. If we can force the USPS to do this, I'd say we can force state and local governments to do this as well. Problem is, I think this will lead to local governments privatizing the police force, getting rid of pension obligations completely, which will be an even worse outcome. Private, for profit companies with qualified immunity...
akira2501 4y ago
We obviously don't let police "just do" that, and I don't see how this law increases risk here. The other side that people seem to be missing here is that it explicitly establishes a boundary past which it's perfectly fine to film the police. In many other jurisdictions this would be at the discretion of the officer, if they felt you were merely interfering with their investigation they could arrest you. A law like this clarifies exactly where that line is expected to be. And it's reasonably short enough and with appropriate exceptions that on it's own, I don't see a problem with the law. Regardless of how one may feel about the sponsor of the bill, it was still voted on and passed by a majority of the legislative body.
- galleywest200 4y ago
  The law does not seem to stop an officer from walking close to someone to demand they stop filming. It seems that if you are filming "safely from a distance" they just need to send one officer over to wherever you are and demand you stop filming.
  - deelowe 4y ago
    This is exactly what will happen.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - benglish11 4y ago
    Then you are no longer a bystander and may continue to film. The irony with this bill is that it would be illegal to closely film the police as a bystander, but if you are arrested/detained for doing so you may film the police detaining you.
    - dylan604 4y ago
      Only if you stop and then re-start the video clip. Otherwise, it's the same clip that started while illegal rendering the entire clip illegal. Or some such lawyerly BS to get the cops to be the victim.
yieldcrv 4y ago
(For anyone that didnt read the article, this is a local Kavanaugh, not the supreme court justice)
nailer 4y ago
> The lengths that people will go to too justify police just killing people is insane. Please avoid hyperbole on HN.
- wonderwonder 4y ago
  Honest question, based on the bill sponsors background, his own words and the current policing situation in the US; what part of this is hyperbole? People actively defended the police officers that killed George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. Not trying to start an argument, just interested in your view.
  - nailer 4y ago
    The OP is comparing concern for people getting too close while filming to murder. I believe you’re intelligent enough to already know this and you’re also intelligent enough to know there is a reasonable argument for the use of force in both cases you mentioned.
    - confidantlake 4y ago
      A "reasonable argument" for the George Floyd case? Seriously?
      - nailer 4y ago
    - wonderwonder 4y ago
      No, the bills author specifically referrered to people suffering understandable "tragic" consequences if they got too close to police, justifying police killing them. If you think there was a reasonable argument for the violence perpetrated in either of my 2 examples then I very much don't think we are on the same page.
      - nailer 4y ago

beebmam 4y ago

If there's anything that would build public trust back in police institutions, it would be politically-empowered independent citizen's oversight boards. It is such a shame that most cities in the US don't have these. I'd like the police to be a (mostly) transparent organization that is concerned with the health of our society and key partners to all upstanding citizens. Citizen oversight boards is one path to making that happen.

SpikeDad 4y ago
This is exactly the solution. I've long proposed civilian review boards assembled like juries - random citizens called in to judge specific cases of police actions. Theses juries would have the ability to rule on the culpability of the officers, select penalties and their deliberations would be secret and final. Police that know their actions would be reviewed and their chiefs and administrators would have no ability to save them would certainly reduce the amount of police illegality.
wonderwonder 4y ago
Unfortunately so many police departments are just gangs now with political backing. Just this 4th of July the NYPD decided it was their right to commandeer viewing areas for their families and prevent the public from using them. No repercussions, no politicians demanding an investigation, just armed people in uniform daring you to say something. This is a massive open abuse of power and its just shrugged off.
- kmeisthax 4y ago
  In the specific case of the NYPD the qualifier "now" is not necessary. They have a centuries-long history of acting above and outside the law: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_New_York_City_Police_Department https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_New_York_City_P... Highlights include: * Early in it's formation, the historical precursor to the NYPD was two separate police forces; one run by the city and one run by the state. At one point the city police (Municipals) was literally protecting the mayor from arrest by the state police (Metropolitans). * Having to be rescued by actual nativist[0] gangs after riots broke out after the Metropolitans won out over the Municipals * Repeated bi-decennial corruption investigations that lead to reforms which just push the corruption somewhere else and make it worse Fun fact: the NYPD even operates in other countries. There's a weird post-9/11 program called the International Liaison Program[1] in which other countries pay the NYPD to station NYC cops in their country. It's absolutely insane that this somehow doesn't violate some kind of Geneva convention[2]. [0] People who wanted to build a wall and make the Irish pay for it. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVJMtXvjn0A https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVJMtXvjn0A [2] Look. I'll settle for the "driving on the wrong side of the road" Geneva convention, just give me something
  - joshuaissac 4y ago
    On the face of it, the last one does not sound so bad, as long as the NYPD is operating with permission from the jurisdictions where they are operating. Just like how a company wholly owned by New York City could have contracts with New York City, London and Paris at the same time.
theshrike79 4y ago
The #1 thing that would reform the US police institutions is this: - All damages would be paid from their pension fund. That's it. If the bill goes to the city/county, nobody cares. If $cop1 fucking up messes up $cop[1..n]'s future pension plans? They'll start to self-police real fast.
- carschno 4y ago
  The point is that self-policing never works. It's not (only) a matter of motivation.
  - bigDinosaur 4y ago
    Where I am outside of the US, the anti police-corruption police are hated by the normal police, which I think is a pretty good indication of how many police don't like being held accountable. A lot of police misconduct really relates to a culture of closing ranks so it's seen as a betrayal to investigate that properly. It doesn't need to be said that police should be held to a higher standard than anyone else since they gain pretty major privileges and powers, obviously including the legal ability to use deadly force.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  Pensions funds are already underfunded and subject to corruption such as understatement of liabilities and investments in politically connected ventures. The only result is future taxpayers get to pay higher taxes.
  - pooper 4y ago
    My gut reaction: - states and local governments may not hire any police officers unless they fully fund the pension obligations ahead of time. If we can force the USPS to do this, I'd say we can force state and local governments to do this as well. Problem is, I think this will lead to local governments privatizing the police force, getting rid of pension obligations completely, which will be an even worse outcome. Private, for profit companies with qualified immunity...

akira2501 4y ago

We obviously don't let police "just do" that, and I don't see how this law increases risk here. The other side that people seem to be missing here is that it explicitly establishes a boundary past which it's perfectly fine to film the police. In many other jurisdictions this would be at the discretion of the officer, if they felt you were merely interfering with their investigation they could arrest you. A law like this clarifies exactly where that line is expected to be. And it's reasonably short enough and with appropriate exceptions that on it's own, I don't see a problem with the law. Regardless of how one may feel about the sponsor of the bill, it was still voted on and passed by a majority of the legislative body.

galleywest200 4y ago
The law does not seem to stop an officer from walking close to someone to demand they stop filming. It seems that if you are filming "safely from a distance" they just need to send one officer over to wherever you are and demand you stop filming.
- deelowe 4y ago
  This is exactly what will happen.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- benglish11 4y ago
  Then you are no longer a bystander and may continue to film. The irony with this bill is that it would be illegal to closely film the police as a bystander, but if you are arrested/detained for doing so you may film the police detaining you.
  - dylan604 4y ago
    Only if you stop and then re-start the video clip. Otherwise, it's the same clip that started while illegal rendering the entire clip illegal. Or some such lawyerly BS to get the cops to be the victim.

yieldcrv 4y ago

(For anyone that didnt read the article, this is a local Kavanaugh, not the supreme court justice)

nailer 4y ago

> The lengths that people will go to too justify police just killing people is insane. Please avoid hyperbole on HN.

wonderwonder 4y ago
Honest question, based on the bill sponsors background, his own words and the current policing situation in the US; what part of this is hyperbole? People actively defended the police officers that killed George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. Not trying to start an argument, just interested in your view.
- nailer 4y ago
  The OP is comparing concern for people getting too close while filming to murder. I believe you’re intelligent enough to already know this and you’re also intelligent enough to know there is a reasonable argument for the use of force in both cases you mentioned.
  - confidantlake 4y ago
    A "reasonable argument" for the George Floyd case? Seriously?
    - nailer 4y ago
  - wonderwonder 4y ago
    No, the bills author specifically referrered to people suffering understandable "tragic" consequences if they got too close to police, justifying police killing them. If you think there was a reasonable argument for the violence perpetrated in either of my 2 examples then I very much don't think we are on the same page.
    - nailer 4y ago