- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
- cross-posted to:
- hackernews@lemmy.smeargle.fans
There is a discussion on Hacker News, but feel free to comment here as well.
You must log in or # to comment.
Invasion of privacy because the state-mandated recordings were distributed after this young man had them provided by the state. I think maybe you take that up with the state? No, wait, you sue the kid you falsely arrested.
I saw this video on YouTube a while back. He was dead fucking sober. There was absolutely no reason for suspicion. Fuck these cops.
I thought we had already established the public has the right to film on duty police, no exceptions.
He didn’t even film them. They filmed themselves with body cameras and he used a FOIA request to get them.
He did do some filming on his phone, but he even asked the officer before he did it and the officer said yes he can.
Police complain about invasion of privacy? That’s rich.
I’m curious to hear why the police think public officials doing their public duty in public think they have an expectation of privacy in that context.
Woah woah woah. You sound like a threat. Do they need to harass and/or sue you as well?
Did the teenager say mean things about you?
Removed by mod
Yeah, it was great. When the kid proved he was sober he requested to speak to the arresting cop and called him out on it to his face while the cop gave some stupid excuses and and got away from the kid as fast as he could.
ACAB
This is a new tactic the police are trying out. They have recognized that people recording them, and people releaseing police recordings via FOIA, are making them look bad and resulting a lot of public outcry and pressure. So what’s the solution? Institute better transparency regulations and work on creating more accountability for bad actors? No, of course not.
Along with these invasion of privacy claims the police are also fielding charging people with organized crime for recording them on live stream and/or for a youtube channel. Claiming that recording their activities is actually a physical form of interference because “I had to physically leave the scene to address you”. Claiming that showing up to more than one scene run by the same cops qualifies as stalking. Claiming that posting videos and pictures of them going about their duties is doxxing them. We will see more and more tenuous attempts to use the legal system against anyone who would expose their own actions. They want to find a wedge the court will allow them to use to arrest anyone who records them or releases information they gathered from FOIA. Many jurisdictions are also pushing a variety of bullshit in order to not comply to FOIA at all.
So the judge said “nah, that’s bullshit” to every claim the police attorneys made, except for the part where the kid said the cop beat the shit out of girlfriend when instead he was currently placed under a restraining order and that case hadn’t been finished yet.
Because the kid said “beat the shit out of his girlfriend” instead of “awaiting sentencing for a domestic violence charge as the aggressor with an active restraining order”, those counts can proceed. Fuck that noise still.
Because the kid said “beat the shit out of his girlfriend” instead of “awaiting sentencing for a domestic violence charge as the aggressor with an active restraining order”, those counts can proceed
It’s actually because the teen said the cop was “‘convicted’ of domestic abuse.” when that wasn’t the case.
It is still a clear cut case of police intimidating someone who called out their BS, but it is a legally valid claim of defamation.
Thank you for the correction. Commenting doesn’t make going back to the article easy on mobile. Definitely upsetting that’s not considered “close enough” like the rest of his speech.
Sounds ripe for a countersuit
