[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.