So the officers just claim they always listen to music?

Or that they were simply trying to send a message that they were done with the conversation with someone who is following them around on the job? Which seems to be the case here, honestly.

Or that they didn’t know that a random person with a phone had a massive YouTube following combined with intent to post this video online?

I know everyone wants to stick it to these cops, but let’s be realistic. Normally HN is very against weaponizing copyright law, but the second it feels useful for their purposes we’re flooded with comments from people who want to misuse copyright law as a weapon.

> Normally HN is very against weaponizing copyright law

I mean, a good chunk of the people here are GPL fans, and if that's not a weaponization of copyright law, I don't know what is.

It's probably against policy to listen to music while on the beat and definitely when interacting with the public.

On the contrary, I wouldn’t be surprised if this was a de-escalation tactic for dealing with stalkers.

If you watch the video (which is available in the previous article and all over social media, contrary to the narrative) it’s clear that the person is trying to get a rise out of the police officers by following them around and badgering them for content on his social media channels. He even went so far as to watermark the video with his social media handles. It’s clear that the officers are tired of dealing with him and being followed around while trying to do their jobs.

I totally agree with you. There are lots of people that do this to EMS as well. Fortunately, I have HIPPA to get these people away from scenes. Unfortunately, there are a ton of people that have nothing better to do than film/jibe/harangue police and fire/EMS in the course of their duties. We know a lot of them on a first name basis including bday, medical history and how many times we have given them narcan... as we often find them with needles in their arms overdosed.

> Fortunately, I have HIPPA to get these people away from scenes.

HIPAA, and you don't. (I'm sure the claim works on people, though.)

https://www.ems1.com/ems-products/cameras-video/articles/pho...

> Your basic HIPAA obligation when it comes to the press is very simple. Don't divulge any patient medical information to a journalist. Don’t discuss patient specifics within hearing or recording distance, at least not in great detail. Don’t write notes where they can be read. If you have a clipboard with medical information, turn it over so it can’t be seen in a photograph.

> Your HIPAA obligation does not, however, require you to stop me or others from taking images at the scene.

Can you keep them at a somewhat reasonable distance? Yes. Out of the scene entirely? Generally no, barring a hazmat incident or something where you'd need to be getting out too.

Journalists and provocateur's have nothing in common. Journalists, in my experience, are very easy to work with. They understand and appreciate the stress of the situations first responders deal with 24/7 and are keen to keep their jobs generally. That is, filming and then posting someone bleeding out to Instagram is a quick way to get sued. Journalists, in my experience have a common sense of decency that provocateur's lack. There is a massive gap between professionals working a scene and bystanders provoking first responders to get likes.

That you like some of the people exercising their First Amendment rights more than others is irrelevant.

Ok buddy... not worth arguing anymore. Walk a mile in another persons shoes before you cast stones.

It would be a very dangerous precedent to deem this stalking.

From the videos (which have not been removed, despite what the headline suggests) it appears the person is following police officers around on the street, trying to provoke reactions while he films, and posting the videos with police names to his Instagram accounts where he sells anti-police merch.

I don’t condone the police behavior, but it’s clear that the person recording is not a hero or even blameless. He’s running a business that profits from anti-police sentiment and promoting it with these videos.

All of what you have described is entirely legal.

So what you are saying is, the police officer should start following that provocateur around on his day off with a camera? Film the guy who is filming the police officers! I like it!

No, that's a complete misunderstanding of the law on this.

If you antagonize and film a police officer while they are off-duty, that is inappropriate; potentially stalking and harassment. Same in the other direction. The courts have thus far determined there are specific rights to filming police while engaged in their duties; not just for press, but for citizens in general.

Filming: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glik_v._Cunniffe

Antagonizing: https://www.wired.com/2013/01/flipping-off-cop-case/

Do those "specific rights" include antagonizing a police officer while he/she is performing his or her official duties? I don't think the majority of society will agree with that, just my opinion. At the end of the day, we need to see a few cities that let their entire police force resign due to "woke" culture and watch what happens. People will vote with their feet and wallets.

The police don’t really need help defending themselves.

If they feel the least bit threatened, they can simply arrest someone who is “stalking” them.

That they are resorting to clever tactics like playing copyrighted music, shows that legally speaking they can’t do anything else.

How would it be dangerous?

I wouldn't have thought it'd require explanation.

"I am filming you, a public official, doing something bad in your official capacity."

"You are now under arrest for stalking."

> So the officers just claim they always listen to music?

> Or that they were simply trying to send a message that they were done with the conversation with someone who is following them around on the job? Which seems to be the case here, honestly.

> Or that they didn’t know that a random person with a phone had a massive YouTube following combined with intent to post this video online?

They can claim those things, sure. But liability (especially civil liability, which is need only be established by preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt like criminal liability) doesn't go away just because you can present a narrative which is possibly true which would provide an innocent explanation.

Moreover, if a department pays the cost of litigating a couple cases where officers actions in this regard are challenged, they'll have a strong incentive to adopt policies which prevent the dispute from occurring.

Maybe they should turn it down a bit while on the job? There is no reason the music should to be heard outside their car.

Hmmm, I’d like to see this applied to many a teenager eager to have me listen to their choice of music for free from afar.

I hold police to a higher professional standard than I do lackadaisical teenagers.

How about criminals? Higher standards for them? Maybe that music they play while filming the knockout game, or stuff for Worldstar?

I'm not even sure what you're going off about.

But yes, I hold the police to higher standards of professional conduct than I do common criminals.

I guess I'm triggered by people who feel the need to get in officers faces and video them when they are trying to do their jobs. I'm sure my privilege is showing, but cops don't hassle me because I don't do stupid stuff. I don't deal or use drugs, beat my significant other, steal cars, etc. My last interaction with a cop was getting pulled for not having a front tag on my car. "No prob officer, I'll take care of it." I don't make a thing of it when somebody "disses" me. I don't "not show for court" or anything else that causes me to be flagged for outstanding warrants.

I'm not saying there aren't some abusive, nasty cops out there. But the "nice" cops aren't so effective when dealing with nasty people.

Number 1 way to prevent violence during arrests, or avoid arrest is (Ding Ding!) BE RESPECTFUL.

I think the video evidence people wish to collect is exactly the evidence that you are wrong - that people get arrested (or perhaps brutalized, or killed) despite being wholly respectful.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that you're white and present as middle class or above?

And are you as well?

I drive a beater, which is enough to commonly be pulled over with police starting off with a disrespectful demeanor from them. I've gotten "are you employed, son?" as the beginning interaction even before "do you know why I pulled you over?" multiple times. You can watch them re-calibrate in real time when they get the answer "yes, I'm a software engineer".

So initially I don't present as middle class, but once they get a hint of the fact that I am, you can watch them change their behavior nearly instantly. Other times, they don't ask questions like that and have then for instance lied about my drivers license being revoked, taken it, and then pretended like that never happened later, requiring my dash cam footage to even get them to admit they pulled me over.

My friends of color aren't typically even given the chance to re-calibrate their class position to the police by being asked questions like that.

Both are playing music loudly and projecting it openly. Either it’s allowed for all or allowed for none. I’m good with either decision as long as it’s consistent.

My employer expects me to keep my music quiet (preferably confined to my ears only) when I am at the office. At home I can play it loud enough that the neighbors can hear it, and that's okay. I'm fine with professional officers being held to different standards when they are on duty.

As a potential neighbor: no, it's not ok. If I can hear your music, you are intruding in my space. I need at least one place on the planet where I can get some actual quiet without earplugs.

I hear my neighbors all the time. They start up their cars, play basketball in the street, play music in their garage workshop, etc. There are myriad sounds that happen all day long when you live around other people. If you require silence then you choose not to live in a community.

Just because some noises are unavoidable doesn't make it less inconsiderate to knowingly inflict them on people. Music in particular has relatively long duration, is by nature harder to ignore than many of the incidental noises you mentioned, and is easily contained in headphones.

Your last sentence is a common fallacy: just because I pick a certain set of annoyances on a scale of trade-offs (in this case, the scale of living in an apartment to living in the wilderness) doesn't mean I am required to unquestioningly soak up all those annoyances. If that's your logic, you could never speak up about any problem you could in principle escape from, even if that escape would result in bigger problems. This "leave if you don't like it" approach to criticism, where leaving is very expensive and especially where the solution is very cheap, is also not ok (as it more obviously would not be ok in a political context).

I'm not asking for a lot. Just use headphones.

What about a job site? Can they play loudly if the company or the foreman or forewoman allows it? Is it unprofessional if they play it loudly?

A jobsite has different and looser standards of professional conduct than what the police should be generally held to, yes.

I don’t think the cruiser is subject to your elevated standards.

This is a classic case of double standards. We want one set of standards god people we agree with and another set of standards for people we disagree with.

To avoid this, we institute a standard across the board for everyone, like them or dislike them.

Your entire premise was on what could be heard outside the cruiser.

And yes, it's fundamentally OK to hold police to a higher standard than the general public, including literal children. I'm not sure why this is in question.

I weep for the world that measures cops and teenagers with the same ruler. Cops should be held to a higher standard.

I think that’s fair. So all you have to do is make it fair for everyone. We should allow the teenager to arrest the policeman.

You can if the offender, police or not, is on the commission of a crime. You do not however have the wiggle room of reasonable suspicion. If you wish to arrest based on reasonable suspicion, all you need to is attend the academy pass whatever they need you to pass and voila, a newly minted officer who can make arrests based reasonable suspicion.

Right, and if all the officer wants to do is play music, he just has to take off his gun, uniform, and badge. Seems like it’s fair to me. He could even dress like the teenager if he likes.

You practically cannot make a citizen's arrest against a police officer in the states.

Also, you need more than having passed the academy to become an officer of the law that can make standard, non-citizen's arrests.

I believe you can only perform a citizens arrest in the case of felonies, not misdemeanors.

The police are being obnoxious but they are exploiting the streaming platforms and the rightsholders. That's where the problem is.

It doesn't making any sense to ask the rightsholders to pressure the police to stop using a tactic that only works because the rightholders want it to work.