Police had woman’s Facebook deactivated during standoff
washingtonpost.com
washingtonpost.com
I wonder what FB's policy on this will be going forward. In many ways, these livestreams are a public good and provide transparency and additional accountability in these situations. If people elect to stream them, it seems wrong to shut it down. On the other hand, perhaps there is a public good in not showing an ongoing live police operation?
I think I'd lean toward not agreeing to shutdown such streams, unless perhaps it's a hostage situation or terror event of some kind. (Getting into squishy definitions there, I'm sure, which is why I qualify it provisionally.)
As to this particular incident... I wish the deceased hadn't resisted. It seems in this case the police exercised much more caution and restraint than has been the case in many other recent examples of shootings. And I think one thing generally stands: if you threaten to kill a police officer and especially if you do so while holding a weapon (or certainly pointing it at them), you're likely to be shot.
I love Monday morning quarterbacks.
honest question, what does this mean?
>The definition of a Monday morning quarterback is someone who is always criticizing and saying how he would have done something better or differently after the event has passed.
[0] http://www.yourdictionary.com/monday-morning-quarterback
[0]: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=monday%20morn...
It's also intolerable in a society with the rule of law that someone could opt out of being subject to the law by waving a gun around and refusing to comply with a lawful order from the police. If that worked, everyone would do it. It would be impossible to enforce the law.
If she didn't have a child with her, maybe they could have waited her out. They had already been there for quite a while before they decided to act. But to suggest that they just walk away and come back later is absurd.
A Monday Morning Quarterback doesn't leave a lot of question or uncertainty. That's the kind of the point. They take potshots post facto and frame what "should've" been done as obvious or what happened as ridiculous/blatantly stupid. I don't see how my comment can reasonably be read that way.
I'd ask that you either explain your rude remark in rational terms, or apologize if you don't think you have a great rationale.
Also, you didn't at all address the question about whether it makes sense to stop streamings in the event of a police encounter or not. If not, when shouldn't it be allowed? I think, at least in many states, you do have the right to record police encounters, especially if it's on your own private property or in a public place. But maybe I'm mistaken?
Perhaps you can read more carefully, think more carefully, behave more civilly, and try again.
Fair enough, but maybe just delay any posts of an active operation, instead of censoring them?
So she was a Sovereign Citizen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement)? http://heavy.com/news/2016/08/korryn-gaines-instagram-videos... quotes her spouting more of the sovereign citizen legal gobbledegook. Apparently there's even a black version of all this stuff: http://www.rawstory.com/2014/08/sovereign-citizens-express-f...
It's sad that the top comment on this thread is just name-calling.
Why do you consider her views to be 'gobbledegook'?
There are some opinions that should rightfully be disregarded.
Edit: this is also covered by the OP's links.
If that person pulls a gun on the police during that process, they are not likely to end up in a good spot.
Especially with a five year old in the vicinity.
But let's have some empathy: she was in her home, and some folks came to her home and attempted to remove her, with threats of violence. She didn't believe they had legal authority to do that.
What would you do in that situation, with those beliefs?
Now let's say I disagree that police officers have the right to enforce the law, and that, in fact, the entire legal system doesn't apply to me, and it infringes on my fundamental rights as a human being. I don't need to work through the system, because the system doesn't apply to me! Well, that sucks -- I still live in the United States, where the power of the law is ultimately backed by a large citizenship that does believe that the laws apply to them, and also by an incredible military force and globally connected political powers.
Clearly, saying "the law doesn't apply to me," while I'm living in the US, is about as useful as saying "the rules of physics don't apply to me." In the interest of self-preservation, while pursuing my ideologies, I might abscond to some country that does not have political ties to the US, and obtain citizenship there. Heck, I might just find my own island in the middle of nowhere and live out the rest of my days in the peace of my own personal government. Great! Everyone's happy!
However, essentially declaring war on an institution far more powerful than yourself, while the institution has both the self-interest and ability to enforce its laws isn't so much "exercising your personal ideologies" as it is "a symptom of an insane person with no sense of self preservation"
There are refugees all around the world that are fleeing from the ideologies of their own governments. That's within their rights as human beings. However, it's a symptom of insanity, not personal ideology, to believe that the laws of the country literally don't apply to you while you're there. This is why we don't often see these refugees driving around the streets of their home country, disobeying (relatively) minor laws in an extremely attention-getting way, trying to pick fights, and then threatening to shoot cops. I'm sure there are examples of this, but I'll just say the same thing in those cases -- that's not political ideology, it's insanity. And when insane people wave guns around, they get shot.
We read a lot about police violence but, in this case, I'm inclined to believe they acted very reasonably.
"No! Of course not! The internet is the land of Freedom! Hosting this content isn't bad for us at all!"
Edit: I think I misread the first sentence, I suppose you meant a content warning rather than cause and effect, but that's not a great reason to turn off cameras pointed at police.
Before cellphones they would just cut the landlines, I don't understand why they couldn't just use a jammer to cut her off instead of going to facebook but putting a media blackout on such situations isn't wrong.
I'd personally trust that far more than Facebook.
[1] https://www.aclu.org/feature/aclu-apps-record-police-conduct
Slight concern that the developer on ACLU's behalf is something called Quadrant 2, Inc, which seems to be owned by an individual operator as opposed to a larger established company. Not sure what the company's track record or policies are.
But just an aside there. This is cool to see and great to have as a reminder.
Furthermore others on social media actively encouraged her violence which directly led to her death and serious injury to her children. It reminds me most of the school shooting in Oregon where the attacker was actively encouraged on internet forums to commit the act. Though like in that incident I think this women would have acted the same regardless.
Downside could be lawsuites against the police for "damages" that the sleep gas caused.
Sadly, the most reliable method of stopping a person presenting a threat is with a firearm.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moscow_theater_hostage_crisi...
That seems strictly better than shooting to kill.
A dose enough to knock out an adult might easily kill a child.
Even in the UK with its very low use of police gunfire (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-police-shoo... - seven shootings out of ~12,500 incidents involving firearm officers) have done this on a few occasions involving sieges.
It's all the other incidents we should be concerned about.
https://www.publicknowledge.org/news-blog/blogs/why-shutting...
"More than seventy years ago, Congress made a choice to take that option away from local authorities. It conferred jurisdiction on the FCC and the state Public Utility Commissions to provide oversight, and gave everyone a federally protected right to access the phone network. That right applies to all phone networks, whether wireline or wireless."
The federally protected right to access the phone network is unaffected. There is no federal requirement that would require Facebook to only shut down an account after receiving a court order.
I don't know the background for these policies, so asking the first question non-rhetorically.
Invasions dropped very substantially after the TV stations enacted this policy.
> [...] camera crews filmed the actions of the officers from the German apartments, and broadcast the images live on television. Thus, the terrorists were able to watch the police prepare to attack
Can you give another justification?
Obviously there are many creeps on the internet. They can taunt, prod, confuse, mislead and provoke the already unstable person, in a nerve wrecking situation, with a gun in his hand.
The mere fact that s/he is broadcasting takes away power from the negotiator.
Live streaming has amazing potential for keeping law enforcement accountable. With events like the death of Philando Castile it seems many of us have realized this. I think we've been slower to realize what potential live feedback may have.
A mother determined to endanger the life of her son in a firefight with police. Though it seems it may not have been her fault that she turned out that way. Quite sad.
If some police departments can deliver bombs via drones, maybe warrants can be too!
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/06/17/man-shot-killed-whil...
Where he was live streaming to Facebook while being shot by police. If the police can prevent streams like these from being seen, it gives them a huge legal advantage. It means the public won't be able to see what happened and can't put political pressure on DAs to prosecute cops. It's much better for them if they can keep that footage internal to Facebook, the police force, and the DA if at all possible.
Very smart.