Here's Another Interesting Case Concerning the First Amendment

[trekrok]

i mean this thread was about the legality of livestreaming while having an interaction with police and that possibly creating an unsafe situation for said police.

i brought up how many people, while livestreaming, have been literally assaulted and killed by police, thus it being an unsafe situation *for the streamer*. if anything, livestreaming is of a risk *for the streamer* than the police that might illegally and/or incorrectly assault or kill them.

that's an extremely relevant and on topic discussion.

like hell just read this ONE case (this happens literally all the time, like i said several streamers have been swatted multiple times):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Wichita_swatting

Whoever is found 'swatting' someone should certainly be charged with murder if it results in a death, just like the getaway driver would be if someone was shot in a bank robbery.

So you generally attribute fault to the police when something tragic happens due to a swatting call? Assumption is they just see it as a chance to go assault someone and hopefully shoot them?

 

[joegrizzy]

Whoever is found 'swatting' someone should certainly be charged with murder if it results in a death, just like the getaway driver would be if someone was shot in a bank robbery.

So you generally attribute fault to the police when something tragic happens due to a swatting call? Assumption is they just see it as a chance to go assault someone and hopefully shoot them?

well again, objectively you don't attribute fault to anyone or anything; you just look at who killed who.

and yes, i mean i do blame police. the case i linked sounds like someone just murdered that guy and he happened to be a police officer. again, if he WASN'T a police officer, he was a citizen, and he shot a man who just stepped out of house, wouldn't he be guilty?

against your hostage situation (all purely conjecture btw) wherein a citizen would be justified in that shooting, just like a cop?

basically, i don't think police should have ANY extra judicial rights to use any more force than a normal citizen.

*in fact* i think police should have LESS rights to use violence. in that world, 12 year olds pissed off about call of duty wouldn't be able to literally dial a murder gang. how do you not understand this.

that kid couldn't have killed that guy *any other way* than using a called in hit squad. the existence of the hit squad being willing to kill anyone without question due to having legal protection is my issue.

so....yes?

 

[trekrok]

i would say putting out fires is a firefighters job.

killing people isn't a police officers. in most cases where a police officer shoots someone, it would be legal for a citizen. like your hostage situation, would anyone convict the guy who shoots someone holding someone hostage?

it doesn't ignore context of 73 dead cops against 1,140 dead citizens and if we need more laws for safety of officers, even in situation with ZERO real world evidence to suggest it's needed (still haven't provided an example of someone livestreaming leading to violence against police, meanwhile i've addressed hundreds of swatting cases during livestreaming, all of them erroneous and all targeting people completely innocent), versus more laws for the safety of people AGAINST police.

Firefighters put out more fires because they are sent to where the fires are.

Police shoot more people because they are sent into bad situations, shootings, beatings, whatever. You don't see the correlation of why they might be involved in more shootings than the average citizen? It's silly.

And I said above that I don't see a particular danger allowing a live stream vs recording and encounter.

Comparing swatting during a livestream and livestreaming a traffic stop is non-sensical.

*in fact* i think police should have LESS rights to use violence. in that world, 12 year olds pissed off about call of duty wouldn't be able to literally dial a murder gang. how do you not understand this.

A murder gang? Maybe you could sign up for a position where, when the 911 call came in, you'd rush over there unarmed in non-threatening attire to assess whether the threat was real. If it was, swat can drag your dead body out and handle the situation. If not, well, you saved them from almost certain execution. Maybe leave them some informational brochures to share with their gamer friends about better ways to handle their gamer rage.

 

[HillsideDesolate]

basically, i don't think police should have ANY extra judicial rights to use any more force than a normal citizen.

*in fact* i think police should have LESS rights to use violence.

this is a bit counterintuitive but the police DO have both extra rights and at the same time less rights to use violence.

If the police were not empowered by the state to use force the system simply doesn't work. For the civilian use of force is typically limited to neutralizing force, basically you can use just enough force to stop the behavior. This is often expressed as one level of force above what the offender is using, someone pushes you, you can punch them. They pull a knife you pull a gun etc. The police by the nature of their job can use "overwhelming force" or force several levels above what the offender is using. Someone pushes a cop and they will get pepper sprayed, beaten with a baton, cuffed and imprisoned.

Now that said legally speaking the police officer is also going to be held to a higher standing when he does use force. It is expected that the officer has had training on use of force and when it is justified as well as training on the specific type of forced used. Any force used must be justified in his report and should specifically address the officers training. Example: as a civilian you punch some that pushed you, you tell the police that you got pushed so you punched him in self defence. For the police officer it would be something like this " Suspect placed both hands on my chest and 'pushed" me backwards. Due to the suspects agitated and agressive state and having been assaulted, for my safety and the safety of my fellow officers and bystanders I delivered a right handed fist defence to the left side of the suspects face as taught to me in police combative training.

The court will hold the officers to a higher standard than the general public on use of force because it is expected that the officer has greater understanding and training on both the law and use of force. Many justified self defence shootings in the civilian world would not be justified if an officer took the same action.

 

[TedKennedy]

The court will hold the officers to a higher standard than the general public on use of force because it is expected that the officer has greater understanding and training on both the law and use of force. Many justified self defence shootings in the civilian world would not be justified if an officer took the same action.

And vice-versa.

 

[joegrizzy]

this is a bit counterintuitive but the police DO have both extra rights and at the same time less rights to use violence.

If the police were not empowered by the state to use force the system simply doesn't work. For the civilian use of force is typically limited to neutralizing force, basically you can use just enough force to stop the behavior. This is often expressed as one level of force above what the offender is using, someone pushes you, you can punch them. They pull a knife you pull a gun etc. The police by the nature of their job can use "overwhelming force" or force several levels above what the offender is using. Someone pushes a cop and they will get pepper sprayed, beaten with a baton, cuffed and imprisoned.

Now that said legally speaking the police officer is also going to be held to a higher standing when he does use force. It is expected that the officer has had training on use of force and when it is justified as well as training on the specific type of forced used. Any force used must be justified in his report and should specifically address the officers training. Example: as a civilian you punch some that pushed you, you tell the police that you got pushed so you punched him in self defence. For the police officer it would be something like this " Suspect placed both hands on my chest and 'pushed" me backwards. Due to the suspects agitated and agressive state and having been assaulted, for my safety and the safety of my fellow officers and bystanders I delivered a right handed fist defence to the left side of the suspects face as taught to me in police combative training.

The court will hold the officers to a higher standard than the general public on use of force because it is expected that the officer has greater understanding and training on both the law and use of force. Many justified self defence shootings in the civilian world would not be justified if an officer took the same action.

yeah i've typed several novels worth of words on my old accounts on here on the use of force continuum, how they aren't always equal across police departments, how it's still based on a judgement call (like all interactions at the end of the day, how they lead to escalation of force instead of de-escalation, etc, but when you give someone the benefit of the doubt that they will have qualified immunity, they are going to be more likely to fire imo).

again, i don't hate police and i understand their job is basically impossible, but that's part of my complaint. they aren't asked to the right thing imo to enforce the law, only react to what they think violates it. that's not enforcement.

they should be a show of force. i would rather have armed police on most corners that won't fire unless someone is shooting at them, instead of police that show up without any information and just blast the first person they think might be a threat.

 

[HillsideDesolate]

And vice-versa.

Yes because the general public can not use overwhelming force or say shoot someone to prevent escape.

 

[joegrizzy]

And vice-versa.

yeah i'd say it's the majority of these cases since it's not legal for a citizen to really draw, and police are allowed to already be trained on targets before any kind of threat for any reason. tons of police shootings would absolutely put people in jail.

 

[user 51785]

lots of people crapping on this post but i think several people misread it.

police call in for backup all the time; why can't you if you get pulled over?

i mean it's for YOUR personal safety. i know i feel safer when i have people around who are willing to help me if someone starts to violate my rights. my rights have been violated many times by police. seems very reasonable imo.

they don't, it just gives the police another reason to grab their phone and destroy it.

>oh i had reasonable expectation to believe he was livestreaming, that's why i seized his phone and destroyed it, your honor. btw, see you at the golf course after brunch tomorrow.

Blah f**ckin' blah....

Let me say it again....I was not commenting on the issue raised in the OP. It's complicated and there are valid arguments on both sides. Your comment about being afraid to pull over for a traffic stop due to repercussions was the only thing I was commenting on.....because it was ridiculously stupid and short-sighted. Especially in this day and age with the political and social climate in terms of disdain for so many people by law enforcement.

Not to mention there are any number of things that can potentially go wrong with pulling over for a traffic stop.....especially when certain information might be known about the occupants of the police vehicle.....so most prudent and cautious people might obviously worry about some repercussions.

If you can't understand that I can't really help you.

see?

like ya'll former and current LEO's don't even detect the SEEEEETHE you have for people. we see it, and yes maybe you think we hate you too.

the difference is; you kill WAAAYYYY more of us than we kill of you. the fear is only justifiable in one direction. you abuse our rights WWWAAAYYYYYY more than any of us abuse yours.

like again, the concept of backup.

why shouldn't i be allowed to simply ignore the cop until my backup arrives for my personal safety? that's the standard for police, correct?

this is also completely asinine because MANY people have been literally swatted by, during, and because of livestreaming.

absolutely none of the people that got swatted, WHILE livestreaming, got a mob of people to show up and endanger the officers or interfere with their work. that's completely retarded and you know it.

and that's a perfect example for my justification because in all of those cases, the swatting is done incorrectly and unjustifiably ; there's simply no need for the police to be there in the first place because someone merely lied to them and they believed it. get this *that's the sole reason why people do it because they want to see if they can get police to just straight up kill and/or severely injure and/or kidnap the person livestreaming because police are so dumb they will just show up and do this without any recourse.*

if they actually checked the livestream *first* they would know the truth. retarded.

nope, it's actually 100% accurate, verifiable by fact. would you like me to show you the numbers?

do you seriously believe there is more violence committed against police than vice versa?

is that your final answer?

the obvious power dynamic is any police stop is that an officer has the power to end your life.

YES, some people are also armed. YES sometimes the officer is not informed of this.

BUT

in 100% of EVERY police contact, you KNOW the police officer can and sometimes DOES draw even before making contact. the threat of you being dead is always there. you can say this is true of police, but only in a paranoia schizoid reality. the numbers do not justify this.

in 100% of EVERY police contact, you KNOW that the police officer can and sometimes DOES simply want to just cuff you and take you in. you don't have to be charged with a crime. you can just be detained or held indefinitely.

sure, i mean i guess a flash mob of evil brown people could show up and attack police at any given moment, but......man again, the numbers simply reflect that's EXTREMELY rare. it's more rare than school shootings at this point. for contrast, if i start naming people *i personally know who have been violated by police, it's gonna exceed the character limit*. i'm not even joking, everyone i know has a story of police overreach. you can say "well i'm a cop and all these people have done these things to me!" but you have to understand *that you are the one initiating and being the aggressor and then having someone *return violence* is not really much of a defense, even if on the side of the state*. objectively. like most people understand our military doctrine on being able to just murder someone is stricter than our local police.

again, i've had my rights violated by police. for contrast; i've certainly never violated the rights of any police officer ***because get this i'm not in any position to do so***.

this isn't hard. surely you understand a concerned citizen when the issue of police overreach has never been fully address and burning down random parts of cities certainly did nothing about the real issues people like me had with things liiiiiike

no knock warrants
1033 program
indefinite detention
lack of video, police ending recordings, taking cameras, etc etc

again, if you want to suspect me, why shouldn't i suspect you?

any thing you *accuse* me in your mind i can accuse you of, PLUS you have the implicit threat of the power of the state. that's.....a pretty big difference lol. i don't see how you don't get this.

next time, i'm calling in backup at a traffic stop. why not? what would you do if i politely told the officer: for my safety, i am not going to respond until my backup arrives. i will be more than happy to assist you with whatever you need at that point in time, but until then please wait in your patrol car until my backup arrives for my personal safety?

you think that seems outlandish, yet you have that power. that's the power dynamic. and the thought of it becoming a bit more shifted towards the "potential bad guy" scares you.

so you should realize how scared people are by YOU.

teachers and cops are the highest professions for swinging, statistically.

it's a horrible job, that's why i don't do it lol.

i dunno.

let me restart with a thought experiment based on reality that i touched on briefly earlier:

a person is livestreaming from their computer in their house. they are playing a video game while interacting online with thousands if not millions of people, instantly.

one of these people, maybe multiple people, all know the streamer's address. these people could be minors, likely are minors. they could be 12. let's say they are 12.

this 12 year old calls the police and says the person streaming (mind you, they are already streaming thus would fit into the theoretical psuedo illegal status this case is concerning, thus this is very relevant to the topic even they you may not think so i assure you please follow these are fun) has a hostage, a gun, and is making threats of violence.

the police send the swat unit, full tilt. door is broken open, streamer turns around and stands up, with hardcore gamer mouse still in hand, and gets immediately ventilated by about 30 shots.

meanwhile, the 12 year old that called in the tip is watching.

what do you think this child understood of the police? that they were for their safety? or they were a dog of the state that only exists for violence and can be exploited as easily as the AI in the game you are playing?

and if you think "well how could anyone know?!" you need to understand that *multiple* streamers have been swatted *multiple* times, this REALLY happens. you'd think after AT LEAST the first raid, you might i dunno have some sort of digital reference that could keep the physical address tied to the streamers url so you could check, literally in an instant, if the tip about the hostage situation or the bomb threat, or the shooter was legit or *just a literal child exploiting the gang violence of the state that is you*.

and, if you think THAT's the real threat; then we live in a dystopian future wherein the biggest threat isn't actual crime, but being killed by the "good guys" who were told you were a "bad guy" by a pissed off 12 year old that you were beating in an online game.

anyone who believes livestreaming is a threat to POLICE, when things like swatting are COMMON, does not believe in objective reality.

and finally, for contrast, we can point to literally dozens if not hundreds of real life cases of swatting, which is the unjustified raid of a livestreaming person's home by a swat team, and to my knowledge absolutely ZERO real world cases of "flash mobs" attacking police *initiated* by a livestreamer *during* a police contact.

thus, if anything, i would like to see more laws on the PROTECTION of streamers AGAINST unjustifed police action, rather than some sort of law for officer safety, which again is already shifted INCREDIBLY in one direction.

from what i can see, 129 officers were killed in the line of duty in 2021. 73 of these were felonious, 56 were accidents, mostly traffic. so that's really 73 officers killed for the year of 2021.

https://www.fbi.gov/news/press-rele...forcement-officers-killed-in-the-line-of-duty
police killed *at least* 1,140 people in 2021.

https://policeviolencereport.org
objectively, to say that police are allowed to use extra judicial force on the citizenry *because* of the fear of the citizenry is simply not in the numbers. police kill 15x more people than are killed by police, this is raw numbers. that's a 1,461% increase. you could objectively say a person's fear that a police officer might kill them, justifiably or not, is literally a thousand percentage higher, based in fact. but those are raw numbers! we can do per capita!

per the same FBI UCR stats, there are 860,000 LEO's in the US. there are 331,900,000 people in the United States. Let's remove the LEO's from the citizenry: that gives us a nice figure we will round down to an even 331,000,000.

you have:
860,000 LEO's killing 1,140 citizens
331,000,000 killing 73 LEO's

assuming that one LEO is killing one citizen, or one citizen is killing one LEO (which isn't true but for the sake of easy math i digress) you could say:

that's one LEO killing a citizen for every 750 LEO's.
that's one citizen killing a LEO for every 4,534,246 citizens.

there are any number of stats you can call up from this data set that makes the myth of police violence merely a paranoid reality, while the threat of extra judicial police violence being very real. even the clip we saw earlier, with the guy in the mattress from here in OKC, yes that man was WAITING for police (again, if the police weren't being the aggressor, this situation wouldn't occur. i understand that is their job, but for the sake of objectively i am merely addressing this) to pull up the mattress and he was shooting with the intent to kill but get this because the police were allowed to already have their guns drawn and backup they were actually able to just kill the guy while one of them took an injury.

yes, you can subjectively say that the cops were justifiable but we're talking merely about objective violence here because we are addressing a situation wherein police are making an initial contact without any knowledge and someone is livestreaming. and thus, if the police are saying "well because of this theoretical situation we demand this legal protection" then i'm saying man i'd like a few more of them legal protections too because it seems like the numbers would suggest ya'll violate us more than the other way around.

i know you think this isn't true, but most people will never interact with gang violence but at some point they will undoubtedly be in a position to be harassed by the gang violence threat of the police. like most people won't have anyone draw a gun on them except police. won't have anyone threaten to cuff them and do things to them except police. etc etc. this is a REAL threat that the numbers suggest is 15x more likely for the citizenry.

not to mention: the implicit threat of citizenry violence is ALSO a threat FOR the citizenry.

the threat of police violence is ONLY a threat for the citizenry, don't think many cops are killing other cops or committing violence against them.

so if you view from that standpoint, the numbers are EVEN FURTHER apart.

like just look at it as a contact thing.

yes, every person you contact as a leo might kill you.

BUT

that's true *for every single person in the citizenry as well, we live with that threat and in fact it's statistically FAR more likely for us*

PLUS

the citizenry have the threat of police violence.

statistically, violence against police is LESS LIKELY than violence against another citizen. again, as noted, there is virtually no violence of police officer against another police officer.

so you need to realize again that while you have the threat of all of us, we have the threat of all of us AND you. and YOU are the biggest one most of the time.

yeah because the 9 perps are citizens who have the threat of the hostage takers AND the police. to be noted, undoubtedly some of the 1,140 were indeed hostages taken by others and killed by police.

and it should be noted, this is just objective death i'm talking about and for reference:

doctors, nurses, and medical staff kill over 300,000 each year, so the ~1,100 from police is literally nothing either way.

from a purely objective standpoint, yes.

again, you are ignoring the 9 people that had a gun to their head *and* all the police guns pointed at them that hopefully didn't kill them too.

since it's your context, was the hostage taken *because* the police were called? like we can do this all day, hence the objectivity part.

i mean this thread was about the legality of livestreaming while having an interaction with police and that possibly creating an unsafe situation for said police.

i brought up how many people, while livestreaming, have been literally assaulted and killed by police, thus it being an unsafe situation *for the streamer*. if anything, livestreaming is of a risk *for the streamer* than the police that might illegally and/or incorrectly assault or kill them.

that's an extremely relevant and on topic discussion.

like hell just read this ONE case (this happens literally all the time, like i said several streamers have been swatted multiple times):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Wichita_swatting

i would say putting out fires is a firefighters job.

killing people isn't a police officers. in most cases where a police officer shoots someone, it would be legal for a citizen. like your hostage situation, would anyone convict the guy who shoots someone holding someone hostage?

it doesn't ignore context of 73 dead cops against 1,140 dead citizens and if we need more laws for safety of officers, even in situation with ZERO real world evidence to suggest it's needed (still haven't provided an example of someone livestreaming leading to violence against police, meanwhile i've addressed hundreds of swatting cases during livestreaming, all of them erroneous and all targeting people completely innocent), versus more laws for the safety of people AGAINST police.

well again, objectively you don't attribute fault to anyone or anything; you just look at who killed who.

and yes, i mean i do blame police. the case i linked sounds like someone just murdered that guy and he happened to be a police officer. again, if he WASN'T a police officer, he was a citizen, and he shot a man who just stepped out of house, wouldn't he be guilty?

against your hostage situation (all purely conjecture btw) wherein a citizen would be justified in that shooting, just like a cop?

basically, i don't think police should have ANY extra judicial rights to use any more force than a normal citizen.

*in fact* i think police should have LESS rights to use violence. in that world, 12 year olds pissed off about call of duty wouldn't be able to literally dial a murder gang. how do you not understand this.

that kid couldn't have killed that guy *any other way* than using a called in hit squad. the existence of the hit squad being willing to kill anyone without question due to having legal protection is my issue.

so....yes?

yeah i've typed several novels worth of words on my old accounts on here on the use of force continuum, how they aren't always equal across police departments, how it's still based on a judgement call (like all interactions at the end of the day, how they lead to escalation of force instead of de-escalation, etc, but when you give someone the benefit of the doubt that they will have qualified immunity, they are going to be more likely to fire imo).

again, i don't hate police and i understand their job is basically impossible, but that's part of my complaint. they aren't asked to the right thing imo to enforce the law, only react to what they think violates it. that's not enforcement.

they should be a show of force. i would rather have armed police on most corners that won't fire unless someone is shooting at them, instead of police that show up without any information and just blast the first person they think might be a threat.

yeah i'd say it's the majority of these cases since it's not legal for a citizen to really draw, and police are allowed to already be trained on targets before any kind of threat for any reason. tons of police shootings would absolutely put people in jail.

dude you need help like soon. no wonder people here say things about you

 

[joegrizzy]

not a retort