[lohengramm]

Seems like the guy calls himself a "copchaser" and is used to actuallly chase police officers, annoyingly record their action and make sure to insult them while teaching them a lesson about how to do their job. And he calls all that "standing his ground".

I am sure police officers can be jerks or even completely criminals, but this guy really seems to be crossing the line of common sense.

Source: the YT channel himself posted https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgnVXppkmzBKfTOwe-KqAJQ/vid...

[ithought]

And why shouldn't they? Police departments and city officials across the US routinely lie, obsfucate and remove any sense of accountability for police officers who commit crimes or make mistakes.

Look at the case of the murder of Laquan McDonald in Chicago. The lying and stonewalling is a common occurrence. It's not just a few bad apples, it's a bad system that promotes escalation and grants power without accountability.

It took the prosecuting attorney 15 months to charge the Chicago cop (Van Dyke) with first degree murder. And this was long after the family resigned to believe their son was at fault. It took a whistleblower to come forward to start a long figh for the truth.

After the courts forced the police to release the videotape to the family, whereas the City Council immediately votes to give the family $5 million with the agreement to keep the tape private before they even filed a lawsuit. It took someone else getting the video for it to become public and the cop to be charged.

Being annoying or insulting to governmet employees isn't a crime.

[enraged_camel]

>>Being annoying or insulting to governmet employees isn't a crime.

Sure, but distracting and harassing law enforcement officers while they are trying to do their job can be grounds for obstruction of justice. It's one thing to record them from a distance, another thing to constantly hurl insults and condescending remarks.

Don't get me wrong, the police in America have serious problems. But this guy seems to be approaching the issue in a bizarrely antagonistic way. I don't know if his arrest is justified but it's definitely not surprising given his behavior.

[simonh]

>And why shouldn't they?

Because one person (cop or not, doesn't matter) breaking the law over here doesn't in any way justify unreasonable harassment of another person (cop or not) over there?

Let me put it another way, how is this behavior intended to improve policing in America, and do you think it has a chance of doing so?

[stale2002]

It improves policing because now police know that they will always be watched.

And any excessive force or mistake that they engage in will be trending on YouTube in under an hour. So you better be damn careful.

[chronic940]

> And any excessive force or mistake that they engage in will be trending on YouTube in under an hour. So you better be damn careful.

And what's the best outcome, huh? They get out on temporary administrative leave? Ha. Go ahead and record the police. They don't care. We on HN don't care. And you won't care after a week.

[SirensOfTitan]

So people should just do nothing in the face of police brutality and misconduct? Bringing awareness to issues like this takes time. United's problems have spearheaded a ton of attention to the US airline problem because people recorded incidents. We could finally see much needed airline reform like removing the foreign investment restrictions on airlines and more antitrust activity.

Anything worth fixing or building takes a tremendous amount of focus and time. This comment makes me sad, as it mirrors general millennial sentiments on civic engagement.

[Asooka]

If you start applying violence you'll be no better than them. Batman fights killers, but he himself doesn't kill. Be like Batman.

[shallot_router]

The question is if this guy is merely monitoring police, or also actively trying to harass them or interfere with what they're doing.

[simonh]

The problem is this isn't a video in which cops are watched, it's a video of cops being unreasonably harassed. Those are two very different things

[s73ver]

Given the complacency cops have toward the indiscretions of other cops, I can't agree with that. Perhaps if the good cops worked harder to root out the bad cops, instead of hiding behind the thin blue line, I'd agree.

[simonh]

Are you arguing that there are no good cops, only bad cops and all cops deserve to be treated by default as the worst cops?

[s73ver]

I'm arguing that if there are good cops, they need to prove it. And the best way they can prove it is to stop protecting the bad cops.

[stinkytaco]

I absolutely think you should be able to record the police. But following them around is potentially unsafe for everyone involved. It's also a good way to harass good people out of the profession (the worse a job is, the more you have to scrape the bottom of the barrel to fill it). In addition, it absolutely can be a misdemeanor to harass people, government employee or not. No one deserves to be insulted.

The problem here is lack of reason on either side. People being unreasonable just escalates the unreasonableness on both sides of the equation.

[koolba]

Following them around is originally what the Black Panther Party would do to keep tabs on them. But without actually interacting with them. So no insults or entering the situation unless actual police brutality or a miscarriage of justice was occurring. If they had smart phones I'm sure they'd be filming the whole thing too.

[IslaDeEncanta]

How is following police unsafe for everyone involved?

[tenken]

For the same reason most fire trucks in the USA have plastered on the back "Remain at least 300 feet behind vehicle".

... "Emergency vehicles" such as fire trucks and police vehicles respond to Emergencies. Emergencies are by definition unsafe.

So you could "follow" (from very far behind) -- but it's implied often times that individuals are following closer than permitted in order to provoke a response, or simply without discretion to the publics safety.

[stinkytaco]

Because police engage in dangerous situations by their very nature. Following them around will likely put followers in unsafe situations as well. Following them and engaging in antagonistic dialog will detract from their ability to do their job. Imagine trying to asses an area before entering a building to deal with a domestic (likely one of the most dangerous things an officer deals with on a regular basis) when someone is antagonizing you.

Filming should be legal. If there is an interaction occurring, police should have the expectation of being filmed. They should be required to wear body cameras. They should be accountable. But what this guy was doing seems to slip over the line into obstruction.

[ascendantlogic]

I feel like in this case, if this person is in fact a "cop chaser", the issue is that they follow the police around and essentially harass them. It's one thing to be off minding your own business, it's another to make a hobby or career out of going out of your way to swear at cops and try to record them responding in a negative manner. YMMV.

[simonh]

Because police routinely go right into the middle of situations that are already unsafe. That's their job. Additional persons getting involved unnecessarily in those situations is a random factor that is unlikely to make those situations safer.

[reitanqild]

Honest question: Are you serious?

I can think of a number if situations in a number of jobs I have had were people following me around could have been dangerous (farm hand, concrete work etc).

[IslaDeEncanta]

I didn't ask how following around a concrete worker could be dangerous.

[reitanqild]

But - in my opinion obviously - if following even someone like me around might be dangerous in certain situations then definitely I can see how it might be dangerous to follow police around?

That said, I am not saying you shouldn't be allowed to folliw police at a safe distance, at a safe speed, recording what you see etc as long as it isn't obvious that they are doing something that temporarily needs to be kept secret.

[mikeash]

Being annoying or insulting isn't a crime, but there are lots of other things that are crimes. If you want to hold the system accountable, don't give them any excuse to take you down. If you're going around filming cops, there may not be any legal requirement to be polite and respectful, but you had better be polite and respectful if you want to be effective.

[kordless]

> And why shouldn't they?

This is a leading question, which is to say it's not a question that can be answered in a rational way. If one desires removal of choice in the conversation, they may answer it irrationally.

> Look at the case of the murder of Laquan McDonald in Chicago.

The use of a separate case of an individual having choice removed, or individuals in a group removing choice for an individual, applied to the officers involved in this video (and conversation here) is illogical. Just because someone of the group "law enforcement" acts irrationally one place does not mean all will act that way everywhere else.

> Being annoying or insulting to government employees isn't a crime.

When Alex Jones presents his words as truths it is also not a crime. However, while holding the separate goal of being "controversial" and "in your face", the dissonance that is created by such actions is palatable, and akin to a crime of logic or truth. If one attempts to disrupt the arrival of a truth in a given situation, they seek to create additional work for the aggregate to determine truth.

In this case, the officer wanted to know why someone was shining a flashlight (changing colors no less) around in the general vicinity of the stop. The reply was along the lines of "no concern of yours", when in fact it WAS a concern of the officer. In essence, the individuals filming were actively removing choice from the officer to be concerned, speaking for his actions (by implying he was or was going to run plates) and in general acting in a way that would encourage the future event of confrontation. In other words, they are acting in an irrational way to cause further irrationality to occur, when none existed.

I've been kicking around a framework for detecting and describing these types of logical "arguments" which are all verbally spoken or written. In the case of comments on HackerNews, I regularly point out the dissonance in the argument, and attempt to show how these arguments can spread if the irrationality is intended to disrupt, as is done with leading questions that blame using biased arguments.

[athenot]

Even if that behavior is questionable, there is at least merit in raising the argument of parity. If it is unreasonable for this man to behave like that, then why is it reasonable for men vested with the authority to enforce the law for the peace of society?

If we can succeed in proving that this man's behavior is contradictory with what we want for society, then it should follow that the same applies to the police force.

[joshuamorton]

You answer your own question: society vests them with the authority.

As a similar thought: why do we only allow police to give citations for crimes, instead of allowing anyone to cite anyone for a crime?

[kordless]

Chris acted irrationally and had the right to do so. However, by his intent to spread irrationality by removing the officer's choice, the officers were eventually baited into acting irrationally which then led to the arrest. If they knew more about these types of removal of choice, and how they may spread by their very presence, it may have had a different and more desirable outcome for all involved.

Detecting trolls is important, in other words.

Stating it is reasonable that an individual has a right to choose irrationality removes the leading portion of your question which itself is a removal of choice by those who attempt to answer it. Applying rational thinking to answering it reveals an important question to ask ourselves:

> Why is it reasonable for men vested with the authority to enforce the law for the peace of society?

I think it is somewhat rational for individuals of a group to elect a sub-group to make choice for the individuals. In the case of law, which is suppose to be a rational instantiation of future choice for the group, it is the peacekeepers that are responsible for making choice of who is removing choice from other individuals or the group, as a whole.

However, irrational laws and expectations do creep into the group from time to time. Benjamin Franklin once spoke to this by stating, "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."

A corollary to this insight would be: "Those who would give up temporary Rationality, to purchase a little temporary Liberty, deserve neither Rationality nor Liberty."

Edit: Safety equated to Rationality.

[ithought]

Great post. If only such logical formalities were applied to law enforcement and the courts, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Cops routinely exceed their authority and misrepresent the law. I can only provide you hundreds of examples and case studies to substantiate that this group of people routinely act irrationally. Or as I would say, illegally.

[gwright]

Seems like 'provocative' and 'provocateur' are reasonable descriptions of this behavior and this person.

[nsxwolf]

If these people didn't antagonize and harass the police, they'd rarely obtain any interesting footage. That says a lot.

These people have an agenda. They need to show the police in the worst light possible, and they don't have time to sit around waiting for news to happen. They have to make the news.

[paulddraper]

> Being annoying or insulting to governmet employees isn't a crime.

Harassment is a crime, at least in the US.

This applies to everyone, regardless of their employer.

[jMyles]

> actuallly chase police officers, annoyingly record their action and make sure to insult them

As for the insulting part - sure, that's always a shame.

But what's wrong with following bearers of state power and recording their actions? That's precisely in the spirit of the first amendment.

[throwaway76543]

Insulting is likewise precisely in the spirit of the first amendment.

[jMyles]

Well, it terms of defending-what-you-say, I won't. In terms of defending-your-right-to-say-it, I will.

However, for the recording thing:

In terms of defending-your-right-to-do-it, I will. However, in this case, defending-what-you-do, I'll do that too.

So it's a little different. Although I acknowledge someone's right to insult someone, I assert that it's not particularly good for society. However, for recording police, I both acknowledge their right to do it and assert that it's of global benefit to society.

[soheil]

A book you might enjoy reading: Civil Disobedience [1]

[1] https://www.amazon.com/Civil-Disobedience-Essays-Thrift-Edit...

[ninjin]

Haven't read the work, but it appears that Project Gutenberg has a freely available version.

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/71

[nickpsecurity]

"Seems like the guy calls himself a "copchaser" and is used to actuallly chase police officers, annoyingly record their action and make sure to insult them while teaching them a lesson about how to do their job. And he calls all that "standing his ground"."

That's what I was seeing in the video I watched. Dude is a disgrace to activists. Last thing we need is more people acting like that toward police in a way that makes corporate media regularly. Voters would be pushing against police accountability more than dealing with police corruption.

Best this stuff is done in a neutral, polite way from terms used (eg CopWatch vs CopChasers) to how one speaks to the cops (respectfully). Activists need the moral, high ground against the cops when viewers or juries start asking where the problems in a confrontation really started. "And if he acts this way on camera, what might he have said off camera to them?" they'll ask.

[eruditely]

ie a demand for us to be excessively passive and make their be an asymmetry in favor of the aggressor, ie why girls like criminals now, while they just to like knights before, the good guys, anyways, what you advocate men to do would be cede the asymmetry in favor of aggressors/criminals, police & criminals (same group of people, if you've ever had those sorts of friends they often just decide to try to be a cop later to maintain a few things, anyways, we cannot seed any situation to these people.

anyways, my father's house was just broken into, a few other things happened, and we have enough cops, but stuff still isn't being taken care of, anyways, the most important part is the courage to contest

[nickpsecurity]

What the hell are you talking about? Im not encouraging weak behavior. The goal of the videos is to convince public to change law and policy. It's proven fact that more of public will buy into the cops being the aggressor if the activist isnt actively trying to piss them off by doing them dirty or threatening them. Im advocating doing what helps the cause instead of what makes you feel like an alpha-male/female in heat of the moment.

[eruditely]

that asymmetry decides which side women like more, (noob), women will always like the side that wins in the intimidation hierarchy, or the side of the most aggression without repaid cost.

[nickpsecurity]

Maybe. The others still got the most done for underrepresented's freedom (see Civil Rights movement). Including women.

[ceejayoz]

Being a douchebag is still protected by the First Amendment, though.

[simonh]

True, but if you are being a douchebag in such a way that it interferes with a police officer's conduct of their duty, then that effect is not protected. So prosecuting this person for what they said would be wrong. Prosecuting for interfering in a Police officer's discharge of their duty would be though.

Incidentally this is my take on the 'shouting Fire in a cinema' issue. Shouting whatever you like shouldn't be a crime, just as firing a gun isn't in itself a crime. Context matters. Deliberately causing a panic is a crime, as is killing a person with a bullet fired from your gun. Intentions matter and even unintentional but negligently caused effects matter.

[sandworm101]

There is a mindset amongst many that police should never stop, question or even talk to people without some level of suspecion of wrongdoing. They see most any checkpoint as a threat to basic libery. Such "chasers", rather than the silent watchers who dont scream at officers, are extreemists who take laws and constitutional constructions far to literally.

[bmelton]

That's not a mindset, that's the actual, current state of the law. Police pulling you over without cause is considered by many judges, jurists and supreme court justices to be a violation of your fourth amendment rights to privacy and your fifth amendment rights to due process. The alternative to this is stop and frisk.

Yes, the law is muddied, and yes, there are many, many exceptions... most notably those as defined in Terry v Ohio (ie, Terry stops), but even with Terry stops, officers need to have a reasonable suspicion that you're either presently armed, or should be considered dangerous enough to warrant a stop.

It isn't extremism to interpret the law as it is written, and as it is considered by many courts to be valid, that requires police to need at least some mandate to being pulled over (whether a traffic violation, exigent circumstances) more specific than "this guy was black", or "this guy was poor", or what have you.

The problem is that with qualified immunity and deference, we allow the police to get away with a lot of stops that don't even meet the legislative standards we've set, and as we allow these things to continue, from one generation to the next, the standards for what is or isn't a valid stop gets lowered.

TLDR, if a cop pulls you over just because he can, and he cannot formulate a reasonable suspicion, then he has overstepped his boundaries in the eyes of the law, even where that law seemingly has bent over backwards to accommodate arbitrary stops.

[ithought]

It's called probable cause and it's recognized by the courts in any other police interaction except for checkpoints.

And it's backed by the 4th Amendment, which is neither a law nor a rule. It's an acknowledgment of an innate natural right that all human beings have which includes the right to be left alone except when there's reasonable suspicion or probable cause.

[s73ver]

Except there are limits to what constitutes Probable Cause. A cop still needs to demonstrate that there was reason to believe they had Probable Cause, and things like a person's skin color don't factor into it.

I threw the thing in about skin color not because I have any reason to believe you are racist, but because we are talking about cops, who in many areas have been shown to be quite racist, and have been shown to pull persons of color over far more than white people.

[NotSammyHagar]

I don't think we should have checkpoints, ever, unless perhaps there is an imminent thread you are trying to stop, like a felon racing away in the car and you know she's there. In my state, Washington, I have never seen a police checkpoint. Somehow we have managed to survive up to this point

[bearcobra]

I'm genuinely surprised to learn that sobriety checkpoints are considered to violate 10 states constitutions, including Washington's. I wonder if this has any impact on the rate of impaired driving in these jurisdictions

[derivagral]

Do you mean in the sense that "we find more impaired drivers because we look" or "we find fewer impaired drivers because of threats"? According to the top hit on Google for "washinton state dui rates" Washington is still top 10 [1]. I can't really speak to what a good source for these statistics might be, though.

[1] https://www.injurytriallawyer.com/blog/washington-state-dui-...

[self_assembly]

> "There is a mindset amongst many that police should never stop, question or even talk to people without some level of suspecion of wrongdoing."

Or in other words not be harassed. This is also pretty well covered by the fourth amendment.