5 ms·

Some of these "Auditors" are just trying to stir shit up with cops for views, but plenty have done real work asserting our basic rights when interacting with co

Some of these "Auditors" are just trying to stir shit up with cops for views, but plenty have done real work asserting our basic rights when interacting with cops

insanitybit 3y ago
Feels like advertising just fundamentally destroys journalism.
- tehwebguy 3y ago
  In this case it protects it. An auditor relying on a day job is at great financial risk by auditing. One that lives on ad revenue is free to keep auditing. Plus, if police keep their emotions in check the auditor will likely have to look for a day job and have no more time to bother them!
Daviey 3y ago
And the best way to disempower auditors is not to react to them. When the police learn not to react to lawful activities, the "auditing" movement will be dead. The "plenty" will be happy with this situation, because that is what they want. I am certainly no auditor, but last week I felt uncomfortable with how a stop-and-search of a person of colour was being conducted in England last week, so I filmed it from a reasonable distance. There was no provocation from me, and the police didn't react - which is the right thing, and makes a boring video (which I had no intention of uploading anyway). Despite this, when one of persons friends got close (~15 feet away) to talk to him (which is entirely lawful with a stop-and search), one of the police pushed (with force) him away. I interjected and told the constable he "could use words, rather than force", and his response was "I could have pushed harder if I wanted". If the constable was willing to have this type of interaction on camera, imagine what it could have been like if it wasn't filmed.
- TheRealPomax 3y ago
  Not really the same thing as walking into the police station with the only reason you're doing so is to film the police as they work, or even heckle them with the camera rolling to see if you can rile them up enough to point your finger and say "ha! see? got you!".
  - kelnos 3y ago
    > only reason you're doing so is to film the police as they work I think that's a fine reason to do it. If we can get to the point where cops acknowledge that they can and may be filmed anywhere when they're on duty, that's a good thing. Heckling and riling them up is crossing the line, though.
- kelnos 3y ago
  Why aren't you planning to upload it (or send it to some oversight board, if your community has one)? That shitty interaction you describe at the end should be publicized, or at least reported in some way, no?
- indymike 3y ago
  > When the police learn not to react to lawful activities, the "auditing" movement will be dead. This is what most of the auditors are working towards.
  - Teever 3y ago
    Broadly speaking this kind of behaviour is about aligning incentives. The police don't want auditors bugging them, and auditors don't want police bugging innocent people. Once these two groups understand the positions of each other, they'll invariably align incentives.
    - jawns 3y ago
      The incentives, unfortunately, are not so neatly aligned, and the NYPD arrest at the center of this lawsuit is a prime example. The officers were willing to make an arrest to retaliate against First Amendment protected activity because they knew they could do so with impunity. Would it have been less hassle to ignore him and let him do his thing? Yes indeed. But they assaulted and then arrested him anyway because it's a power thing.
      - indymike 3y ago
        > The officers were willing to make an arrest to retaliate against First Amendment protected activity because they knew they could do so with impunity. It's worse than that, NY has an ordinance explicitly allowing people to film police. This is a case of the police enforcing laws that simply don't exist and prosecutors supporting them. It's by definition lawlessness inside the police force.
        Teever 3y ago
        The first time someone drops a grenade from a quad UAV on a corrupt cop in America is gonna be a game changer. That will align some incentives.
        3y ago
jawns 3y ago
Unfortunately, the police have seized on this stereotype to try to discredit all auditors, most of whom are not looking to provoke police or anyone else, but are merely trying to assert their First Amendment rights. In the NYPD raw footage, you can see an officer tell Mr. Reyes, post-arrest, "You wanted this." And Reyes responds, "I wanted my freedom to be taken away from me?" It's preposterous on its face. And if merely asserting a constitutionally protected right is synonymous with baiting or provoking law enforcement, what crazy world do we live in? In other videos on his channel, it has become routine for police officers to pull public employees aside and say, "Look, he's just doing it for the views or to start a lawsuit." Essentially, they imply that he's trying to exploit some loophole of the law for personal gain. In reality, though, like any other journalist, he's entitled to a source of income from the content he produces, and that doesn't mean he's doing anything dirty or sensational. And he's certainly not exploiting a loophole of the law. The right to do what he's doing is enshrined in the Constitution.
autoexec 3y ago
There's an interesting youtube channel called audit the audit that calls out the bad actors and praises the cops who do their jobs correctly. I'm glad folks are willing to do the work of civil rights auditing. I suspect most are just hoping it'll result in youtube views or a nice lawsuit with a large payout, but I don't mind. I value my life/time/comfort too much to do that kind of work for youtube ad money.
- SantalBlush 3y ago
  >audit the audit that calls out the bad actors and praises the cops who do their jobs correctly This conflates constitutional rights violations by police with merely being an annoying "bad actor" civilian, which is intellectually dishonest and completely reprehensible.
  - autoexec 3y ago
    You're right that bad behavior by police (who are also civilians) is a much bigger problem than bad behavior by the people they interact with, but the actions of both parties still matter. The channel seems to take into account that your average person doesn't interact with police very often, hasn't been trained for such encounters, and isn't under any obligation to act professionally. That said, they can still be reckless, irresponsible, and abusive. An auditor can also weaken their case if they're not careful.
jasonlotito 3y ago
So? "Stirring shit up" doesn't mean doing anything illegal. If they also get views WHILE calling out the bad stuff, why is that bad? They aren't violating the law. They aren't forcing anyone to do anything. I really don't see why not breaking the law is suddenly frowned upon.
- sneak 3y ago
  People don't like antagonists, and they do like those who punish antagonists (even illegally). "You reap what you sow" even predates the current issues with police.
  - SantalBlush 3y ago
    Yep, many people are just fine with police popping people in the mouth for talking back. They just don't admit it.
- mrguyorama 3y ago
  I explicitly mean that some of these people know they get better ad revenue by being rage bait and getting the cops to do something to them, and are willing to cross lines that are fuzzy. That kind of stuff provides fodder for those trying to paint the entire movement as bad faith.

Some of these "Auditors" are just trying to stir shit up with cops for views, but plenty have done real work asserting our basic rights when interacting with cops

insanitybit 3y ago

Feels like advertising just fundamentally destroys journalism.

tehwebguy 3y ago
In this case it protects it. An auditor relying on a day job is at great financial risk by auditing. One that lives on ad revenue is free to keep auditing. Plus, if police keep their emotions in check the auditor will likely have to look for a day job and have no more time to bother them!

Daviey 3y ago

And the best way to disempower auditors is not to react to them. When the police learn not to react to lawful activities, the "auditing" movement will be dead. The "plenty" will be happy with this situation, because that is what they want. I am certainly no auditor, but last week I felt uncomfortable with how a stop-and-search of a person of colour was being conducted in England last week, so I filmed it from a reasonable distance. There was no provocation from me, and the police didn't react - which is the right thing, and makes a boring video (which I had no intention of uploading anyway). Despite this, when one of persons friends got close (~15 feet away) to talk to him (which is entirely lawful with a stop-and search), one of the police pushed (with force) him away. I interjected and told the constable he "could use words, rather than force", and his response was "I could have pushed harder if I wanted". If the constable was willing to have this type of interaction on camera, imagine what it could have been like if it wasn't filmed.

TheRealPomax 3y ago
Not really the same thing as walking into the police station with the only reason you're doing so is to film the police as they work, or even heckle them with the camera rolling to see if you can rile them up enough to point your finger and say "ha! see? got you!".
- kelnos 3y ago
  > only reason you're doing so is to film the police as they work I think that's a fine reason to do it. If we can get to the point where cops acknowledge that they can and may be filmed anywhere when they're on duty, that's a good thing. Heckling and riling them up is crossing the line, though.
kelnos 3y ago
Why aren't you planning to upload it (or send it to some oversight board, if your community has one)? That shitty interaction you describe at the end should be publicized, or at least reported in some way, no?
indymike 3y ago
> When the police learn not to react to lawful activities, the "auditing" movement will be dead. This is what most of the auditors are working towards.
- Teever 3y ago
  Broadly speaking this kind of behaviour is about aligning incentives. The police don't want auditors bugging them, and auditors don't want police bugging innocent people. Once these two groups understand the positions of each other, they'll invariably align incentives.
  - jawns 3y ago
    The incentives, unfortunately, are not so neatly aligned, and the NYPD arrest at the center of this lawsuit is a prime example. The officers were willing to make an arrest to retaliate against First Amendment protected activity because they knew they could do so with impunity. Would it have been less hassle to ignore him and let him do his thing? Yes indeed. But they assaulted and then arrested him anyway because it's a power thing.
    - indymike 3y ago
      > The officers were willing to make an arrest to retaliate against First Amendment protected activity because they knew they could do so with impunity. It's worse than that, NY has an ordinance explicitly allowing people to film police. This is a case of the police enforcing laws that simply don't exist and prosecutors supporting them. It's by definition lawlessness inside the police force.
      - Teever 3y ago
        The first time someone drops a grenade from a quad UAV on a corrupt cop in America is gonna be a game changer. That will align some incentives.
        3y ago

jawns 3y ago

Unfortunately, the police have seized on this stereotype to try to discredit all auditors, most of whom are not looking to provoke police or anyone else, but are merely trying to assert their First Amendment rights. In the NYPD raw footage, you can see an officer tell Mr. Reyes, post-arrest, "You wanted this." And Reyes responds, "I wanted my freedom to be taken away from me?" It's preposterous on its face. And if merely asserting a constitutionally protected right is synonymous with baiting or provoking law enforcement, what crazy world do we live in? In other videos on his channel, it has become routine for police officers to pull public employees aside and say, "Look, he's just doing it for the views or to start a lawsuit." Essentially, they imply that he's trying to exploit some loophole of the law for personal gain. In reality, though, like any other journalist, he's entitled to a source of income from the content he produces, and that doesn't mean he's doing anything dirty or sensational. And he's certainly not exploiting a loophole of the law. The right to do what he's doing is enshrined in the Constitution.

autoexec 3y ago

There's an interesting youtube channel called audit the audit that calls out the bad actors and praises the cops who do their jobs correctly. I'm glad folks are willing to do the work of civil rights auditing. I suspect most are just hoping it'll result in youtube views or a nice lawsuit with a large payout, but I don't mind. I value my life/time/comfort too much to do that kind of work for youtube ad money.

SantalBlush 3y ago
>audit the audit that calls out the bad actors and praises the cops who do their jobs correctly This conflates constitutional rights violations by police with merely being an annoying "bad actor" civilian, which is intellectually dishonest and completely reprehensible.
- autoexec 3y ago
  You're right that bad behavior by police (who are also civilians) is a much bigger problem than bad behavior by the people they interact with, but the actions of both parties still matter. The channel seems to take into account that your average person doesn't interact with police very often, hasn't been trained for such encounters, and isn't under any obligation to act professionally. That said, they can still be reckless, irresponsible, and abusive. An auditor can also weaken their case if they're not careful.

jasonlotito 3y ago

So? "Stirring shit up" doesn't mean doing anything illegal. If they also get views WHILE calling out the bad stuff, why is that bad? They aren't violating the law. They aren't forcing anyone to do anything. I really don't see why not breaking the law is suddenly frowned upon.

sneak 3y ago
People don't like antagonists, and they do like those who punish antagonists (even illegally). "You reap what you sow" even predates the current issues with police.
- SantalBlush 3y ago
  Yep, many people are just fine with police popping people in the mouth for talking back. They just don't admit it.
mrguyorama 3y ago
I explicitly mean that some of these people know they get better ad revenue by being rage bait and getting the cops to do something to them, and are willing to cross lines that are fuzzy. That kind of stuff provides fodder for those trying to paint the entire movement as bad faith.