[quote=“catgrin, post:40, topic:35143”]
Think about it from a cop’s perspective. …those cops were probably just trying to make the person that was wasting their time, making them nervous, and distracting them go away.
[/quote]I guess they should have just listened to the cop they sent over the first time when he came back and said “just some guy taking photos.” and moved on instead of escalating it and driving over with four cars then.
They chose to raise the stakes, not him. He informed them as to what he was doing and the decided they didn’t like it and chose to intimidate him so he wouldn’t do it again. Their actions, not his, are the thing that wasted their time.
I’m going to agree to disagree with you, and walk away from you at this point.
As I already noted - you watched his edited version of events that is clearly edited to make him seem sparkling clean (he starts off his voice over as though this is the first stop he’s been to today). You don’t know how he stood, what he did, how long the stop took, or anything else that took place after that one cop walked away. I’d be a little less sure of him.
If anything I’d say fights on battlefields tend to make countries less free. I can’t think of many counterexamples.
Depends on the intent, doesn’t it? If the intent of the video is to demonstrate something about a citizen’s rights while photographing and otherwise interacting with the police then by the standards you have devised there is no “smart” way to do this. (Notifying the officers you will be filming them removes most of the instructional elements of the encounter.)
Tell that to the guy who shot himself through the penis.
I doubt that was his intent.
Perfectly legal. Not smart.
It was his responsibility to know how to use his gun safely, and do so.
It’s completely untrue that speaking to the police first,“removes most of the instructional elements of the encounter”. The whole point of filming them (when they’re just doing their jobs - these cops weren’t doing anything wrong until the direct encounter with the ‘photog’ or he would have released that footage as well) is to let them know they’re being watched, and may be legally recorded at any time. It also sets up a situation where they can get used to the idea of being recorded. It does all that while removing any physical concern you may present to them. They do have good reason to be nervous when you’re far enough away that they can’t clearly see what you’re holding, and have no idea who you are.
I’m really not sure what term would work. It used to be called discrimination, racism, or walking while black. Because most of my moral compass comes from TV, the episode of The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air where Will and Carlton are arrested for driving while black is what made it sink in for me.
If the goal is to get people with an advantage to recognize that they have that advantage, I don’t think saying “you have privilege” helps. That just puts the person on the defensive. Being told that I have a privilege makes me worried you want to take that away from me. Now I’m not thinking about how shitty the other guy has it and how it’d be better if he wasn’t being screwed over, I’m worried that I’m going to be screwed over too.
Well actually, white privilege didn’t used to be called those things – those things used to be, and still are, called those things. WP is something else, a result of those things.
Yes, feeling defensive is a common newbie reaction, but many privileged people are able to move beyond that initial response into appreciation of a heightened sense of self-awareness (The unexamined life is not worth living, etc.). Also, thinking only about how shitty the other guy has it leaves whites off the hook, in a way. After all, the shittiness of other lives makes privileged lives all that much better – another form of unfairness that at least the more circumspect and morally alive person is likely to appreciate learning about. Basically, if we leave white privilege out of the equation, we’re only addressing half of a mutually constitutive dynamic. I think most white brains and hearts are capable of eventually handling both halves, even if initial contact with the unexamined half makes one queasy at first.
So if we got society to stop discriminating based on race, whites would still have white privilege somehow? I must be misunderstanding what it is. In my mind, white privilege comes from not being discriminated against. It’s just another way of saying non-white people are treated worse by society than white people. If society started treating white people as badly as non-white people, would whites still have white privilege?
Because he was trolling cops. Mall security guards DO threaten to jail you for taking pictures. Go try it. I’m not OK at all with law enforcement making up laws… but I’m not shocked in this case…you’ve never been to the panhandle of Texas. Its completely flat, full of cotton, and nothing else. Nothing to do. Nothing to see. Its a horrible stupid place. I wouldn’t be surprised if they couldn’t spell Police. Sad but not surprised.
There are so many cops that act like the SS… why post this crap.
There’s a continuum of discrimination, and at its worst/best white privilege means you are positively discriminated against/for. You are given the benefit of the doubt. You get off with warnings. People let things slide. An educated, middle class white person gets to enjoy these benefits that a lower-class white person or Asian might not, even if those peeps aren’t actually discriminated against. If you recognize that you actually have privilege, instead of simply thinking that others have a shitty deal, it becomes easier to see how you are a part of the problem, and not simply someone totally external to the problem.
Do you think this guy was positively discriminated against? In your ideal world would he have been treated worse? It’s not privilege to not have your rights violated, it’s how things are supposed to work.
Not in this instance, but he’s also probably aware that he gets away with a lot of things in other contexts and situations. It’s a lot easier to stand up for your civil rights when you don’t actually live in fear of them being violated on a daily basis and instead have the expectation that they will and should be respected.
It is a privilege to be let off on traffic stops with a warning, or to not have officers ask to search your car or assume you might be armed and dangerous and treat you as such (which the police can legally do). Recognizing that privilege may be what led him to make the video.
I disagree. Had he spoken to the police first the police probably wouldn’t have approached him in the first place in which case there would be no opportunity to demonstrate how to establish one’s rights while dealing with adversarial police officers.
Again, disagree. I think the intent was to provoke a confrontation with police officers to demonstrate how to establish one’s rights while dealing with adversarial police officers.
While true, this again has no bearing on my argument whatsoever.
Occasionally instructors will demonstrate how not to do something, e.g. they will do something they know to be stupid (as I am conceding this person’s actions were) for a non-stupid purpose (showing people how to deal with having done something stupid). I believe that is what’s going on here. Intent does matter.
He’s not an “instructor”. He’s a jerk with a toy. Stop trying to give him excuses for clearly doing something wrong and dangerous. Here’s why what he did is a problem:
He attended several scenes (and tried to lie to us so that we’d think the police overreacted). Police are private citizens. They also have a right to do their jobs without being harassed. There’s a word for what he was doing, and a law against it:
42.072. STALKING. (a) A person commits an offense if
the person, on more than one occasion and pursuant to the same
scheme or course of conduct that is directed specifically at
another person, knowingly engages in conduct, including following
the other person, that:
(1) the actor knows or reasonably believes the other
person will regard as threatening:
(A) bodily injury or death for the other person;
As I said, by him NOT IDENTIFYING HIMSELF and then REPEATEDLY showing up at scenes and hanging around, he made those police nervous (with good reason). They could have actually arrested him for stalking, and chose instead to let him walk away - probably knowing full well he’d post this trash. He has no effing clue how lucky he is.
Umm, when you quote a law, it’s best to quote the entire thing (unless you know what you’re doing). You’ve only quoted part of the first element of the Texas Stalking law. The second element is that the stalkee had to be in actual subjective fear of bodily injury or death or injury to property. This subjective prong is balanced by the third prong: the fear must have been objectively reasonable, such that that an average person would have felt this fear.
I don’t think any jury would say that observing a series of police interactions is: 1) conduct that is directed specifically at a person or that a reasonable person would consider to be threatening injury or death upon that specific person; 2) that the police officers being observed would feel threatens them with injury or death; and 3) that a reasonable person would feel police being observed as they do their job is a threat of injury or death.
On the other hand, if I know that police are staking me out, can I charge them with stalking?
There is the word “or” between sub-elements A), B), and C) of element 1). But elements 1), 2), and 3) are joined by “and.” See for yourself:
A person commits an offense if the person, on more than one occasion and pursuant to the same scheme or course of conduct that is directed specifically at another person, knowingly engages in conduct, including following the other person, that:
(1) the actor knows or reasonably believes the other person will regard as threatening:
(A) bodily injury or death for the other person;
(B) bodily injury or death for a member of the other person’s family or household; or
(C) that an offense will be committed against the other person’s property;
(2) causes the other person or a member of the other person’s family or household to be placed in fear of bodily injury or death or fear that an offense will be committed against the other person’s property; and
(3) would cause a reasonable person to fear:
(A) bodily injury or death for himself or herself;
(B) bodily injury or death for a member of the person’s family or household; or
(C) that an offense will be committed against the person’s property.
I trust no further response in necessary.
Your confidence is charming, though.
If (a)(1)(A) applies, then 2 AND 3 - by logic - also probably follow (otherwise the complaint wouldn’t have been made). That’s why I didn’t bother to post them. In fact, it’s part one that relies on the actor behaving in a manner that they know is a problem. We know that the photographer did this, because if he thought it was fine to video multiple stops and force an encounter, he would have told us that’s what he did. He led us to believe this was the first one of the day: a lie.
Parts 2 and 3 of the law require that the person was worried (the officer was). I already, in previous posts explained why police officers have a reasonable fear of harm/death if they are repeatedly pursued by an unidentified person.
Get over yourself. You aren’t as smart as you think you are.
You’re just irritating.
Now that you have truly had your say I SERIOUSLY WON’T TALK TO YOU ON THIS THREAD AGAIN. Say anything you like.
Yeah, I guess legislators just like to include duplicative elements when they write laws. Like, “Let’s include this elements even though it will logically follow, just for shits and giggles.”
And was there a stalking complaint made, as you seem to be claiming? Let me know how it turns out and if the prosecutor goes ahead with it.
Let me use your logic: you knew that your selective quoting of the statute was a problem, because why else would lead us to believe you were quoting all of the relevant law and why would you flatly deny (i.e., lie) that the word “and” appears between the three elements, thus also requiring subjective fear that was objectively reasonable?
No, only element 2 requires that the person be in fear (and fear is not “worried”). Element 3, as I said, requires that the actual fear be reasonable. There are situations where there is real fear, but it is unreasonable. And there are situations where a reasonable person might be afraid but the actual person was not. Elements 2 and 3 do not do the same thing.
