EFF to Court: The First Amendment Protects the Right to Record First Responders | Hacker News Reader

EFF to Court: The First Amendment Protects the Right to Record First Responders

eff.org

150 pointsDiabloD343 comments

I have an engineering question: Is there any negative feedback for police who violate peoples rights like this? I don't mean theoretically. I mean practically, is there any negative feedback?

The reason this is an engineering question is I think we all know what happens to control systems without negative feedback.

What sort of negative feedback do you mean? Termination/jail time, negative annual reviews, or something else?

I mean any negative feedback. A stern finger-wagging isn't negative feedback.

The only negative consequences are to the taxpayer that has to pay to settle these things out of court. Would be nice if the arresting officers were held financially liable to some degree and then you can bet they'd make a better effort to be sure they were making lawful arrests.

This is an interesting thought. Like other professions which have license to affect an individual physically, such as doctors, perhaps the first responders should carry some type of "malpractice" malpractice insurance.

It's turtles all the way down though. If police need to carry malpractice insurance then the cost will have to be built into salary which is paid by the taxpayers. It might be cheaper to just have the state pay out then pay for a bunch of individual insurance policies.

Not necessarily, they can move to another police department if they get fired for wrongdoing at their current job. This happens frequently. An insurance company underwriting police malpractice policies wouldn't go for that, they would track the officer's claims history and deny coverage (or make it prohibitively expensive), same as if you kept wrecking cars, submitting claims, and switching car insurance companies.

When the state pays directly, there is no incentive for the individual to behave. If the state paid the officer's salary plus a standard 'allowance' equal to the cost of police malpractice insurance for an officer with no claims, then the incentive is to keep their record clean or pay higher rates out of pocket for misbehaviour.

The only difference I can see is that, like your car policy, if you have to pay a claim your rates go up. That would cause someone not to want a claim filed against them because their salary goes down (assuming the department doesn't just raise their salary to compensate). Still, I think you're right, the tax costs would just go up.

Yes, but there is now incentive to weed out the few officers that are the source of all the complaints. The ones that give good officers a bad name and are a walking lawsuit waiting to happen.

Noone (neither police nor citizens) want them on the force as they make everyone's life more difficult. But right now there is zero incentive to remove them, and only a union fighting to back them no matter what.

I'm assuming if you have a stream of 20-30+ excessive force complaints against you over the past two years, based on past behavior you are very likely to have them in the future and be the cause of a terrible situation leading to a lawsuit.

The point is to make the individuals pay for their own misdeeds. Like car insurance.

If you have a clean record, your car insurance is low. If you have multiple at-fault claims, your insurance is prohibitive.

Why can't we do the same for professional services? The individual who acts ethically ends up with lower insurance than the individual who acts unethically. And at the same salary, the ethical person will take more money home.

That's individual incentive.

From the article:

>Adelman sued the officer and DART.

Yeah! Let those men and women making $55k a year pay for their "arrest insurance!" /s

This is a terrible idea for so many reasons, I find it hard to believe it was brought up. Part of the reason why Doctors earn/charge so much is due to the insurance they must carry.

I am a first responder and I would gladly carry insurance if I was compensated for it. Taken one step further, I would now like to be compensated for the exposure to disease, injury, environmental toxins, and more. Maybe we should strike and show the public how much they get for $55k a year?

> $55k a year

This is actually a LOT. My mother who even has a PHD and works as a teacher only makes 16.8k per year.

it's not, it's slightly lower than the gdp per capita for the US.

Don't confuse mean with median. Someone earning the mean will be well above the median (i.e. earning more than most people) because the mean is skewed by the very well off.

I wasn't arguing that it was the mean, I was arguing that it's not a lot.

$55k is just under the median 'household' income ($59k), so it may not be a lot, but it's more than a lot of people have.

Median household income in the U. S. is $56K. In this case, the point stands...kinda.

But you're right, GDP isn't the way to measure, as GDP has been going up more than income. Which means someone is skimming, but that's a different discussion.

making $55k a year

Median household income in the U. S. is $56K.

So the person is making the same amount as the median 'household'.

if your mother has a PhD and only makes $17k/year, Its because she WANTS to in that She would rather do her job where she is at than move (geographically or career orientation-ally). People working fast food can make more than that.

Moving and finding a job in another country is not something trivial, especially if you get 17k/year.

This is a very emotion-based response to a rational post. I understand you are in the profession and it is important to you, but that shouldn't mean

> This is a terrible idea for so many reasons

So list some of the reasons, rather than just dismiss the idea.

> I am a first responder and I would gladly carry insurance if I was compensated for it.

So now it sounds like it isn't a terrible idea at all and you agree with it if compensated. The take away I get from this is "first responders are paid too little to be held responsible for their actions." Lots of professions are paid very little and are still held responsible for intentionally reckless or malicious behavior.

> I would now like to be compensated for the exposure to disease, injury, environmental toxins, and more.

Sure that's fine as well, but against has no bearing on a person being responsible for their actions. Again it sounds like a justification of "first responders don't have to be responsible for their actions because xyz other concern". And shouldn't your union be negotiating for compensation for these things?

To me it sounds like exactly a viable solution. First responders must carry insurance for extremely negligent or malicious behavior, and should have an increase in salary across the board to cover average insurance cost.

Their employer can be sued, like in this case and the other referenced in the article. I don't think there is any significant feedback for individual officers unless these suits become common.

Nothing consistent or substantial enough to have any meaningful effect.

From a controls standpoint, it's clear there's no negative feedback sufficient to offset the feedback from getting their way.

Feedback could work if the fiction of qualified immunity were eliminated. If police officers were held to the same criminal standards as non-police it would make them think twice.

Donate to the EFF! They will send you an awesome hoodie

... and you will get high fives everywhere you go in it.

No one sees anything wrong with this ? What about the privacy of the victim? I'm not sure I'd like my pictures or a video of me suffering/dying all over the internet.

Is this not the same reason families ask for privacy when suicide/attempted suicide victims are being attended to ?

From the OP, this happened in the public place. There is no expectation of privacy, nor should there be.

"Be American, get arrested."

It is truer and truer every day. I deliberately avoid a pathway or roadway if I can see a police officer there.

These guys are overpaid, hyped-up, and ignorant of whatever law you cite when they wrongfully arrest you.

The chief has their back, and suing them is expensive and risky.

Plus you are in prison until you are allowed to post bail.

To anyone who disagrees: 70% of prisoners are there for non-violent offences.

Just go on youtube and watch videos of the things that cops do.

Trust me, you don't want to be on the receiving end of state-legitimized force. It hurts whether justified or not.

I talked someone out of a night in prison once.

There was a payment dispute at a night club and the owner brought the police. The guy in question then started talking about their legal rights, and all the lawyers they know

and thats where I interjected "you could just pay with your credit card and initiate a charge back, let the credit card company deal with it, because you'll still spend the night in jail otherwise even if you were right"

the club owner, the crowd and the police looked at me as if to say "who thinks like that", and the club owner stumbled over his words saying back to the guy that is he charges it back he won't be allowed in the club again

who knows how the chargeback would have actually gone

Sometimes the best way to avoid conflict is to embrace it, then channel.

I was in a bar once, sitting at the bar enjoying a beer, when the guy to the left of me recognized the guy to the left.

"Hey! Are you X?"

"Sure."

"I'm going to kick your ass!"

I looked at the guy and said "Hell yeah! Why don't you guys go out into the parking lot and get this thing settled?"

He didn't want to do that. Instead he wanted to keep taunting the other guy. The other guy protested his innocence, but I noticed that he always stayed behind me. Every time the one guy taunted, I agreed and suggested they take it outside. I matched his outrage.

After six or seven exhanges, each time the guy escalating his anger and my escalating my agreement, he finally cursed a bit and went over to the pool tables. Never saw him again that night.

I think if I had tried to talk any sense into the him there would have been a fight, but by agreeing with him so much he finally realized all he really wanted to do was express how angry he was with this other dude.

A strong reminder that as humans, in all our complexity and nuance, each of us have basic needs and a desire for empathy and connection. The need to be heard, and the ability to offer simple acknowledgement of someone else, is so underrated in modern life.

I am a total steer into the skid guy. I like your anecdote but this plays out a LOT differently sometimes. The issue is when 2 "embrace the chaos" people are in the equation. Then in your scenario you as an unafiliated third party get dragged into some serious shit

> when the guy to the left of me recognized the guy to the left.

Sounds like something out of Fight Club.

Sorry. I meant the guy to the left recognized the guy to the right, of course.

Some background: I was at the bar with the guy to my right -- and he deserved to get his ass kicked. So not only was I in the middle of a developing fight, my options were three: 1) back off and watch my friend get a beat-down, 2) try to talk to this guy and calm him down, or 3) Take up for my friend and get into a fight myself

I chose the option in the middle

Reminds me of the time I was sitting at a bar, facing some friends. A guy came up behind me and king hit the guy sitting behind me full in the face.

I didn't see it, just the reactions of my friend's faces who saw the whole thing. Apparently my head was only inches away from being involved.

...The guy who got hit died, the other one was charged with manslaughter.

>70% of prisoners are there for non-violent offences.

Free Bernie Madoff!

Its actually really easy to not get arrested. You just need to follow the general rule of not being a dumbass. You sound like one of these neo-marxist jokes. What the police busted up your riot? Keep crying about how the police are a problem and don't bother calling them when your car gets stolen or someone breaks into your place. That'll work out for ya!

Yeah search youtube and pretend that's an actual sample that isn't bias. Naturally people upload the fringe cases.

I am American. Treat the cop like a human and you will be surprised. Not all cops are bad. Being a cop is basically agreeing to be terrified at all times for a living.

Thank you. I am not a cop, but I am a firefighter. I am consistently amazed at humanity... in meatspace, not in a positive way. Then I read about it in pixel space and shake my head in amazement once more. You nailed it. Don't be a dumbass... it is shockingly easy.

Please see my other comment to the person you replied to.

We are not dumbasses. Your experience is not reflective of everyone's experience.

Next time there's a fire at my house, I would rather put it out myself than have you and your arrogance show up.

When a cop kicks down your door to serve a warrant at the wrong address

throws a flash bang in your baby's crib

and arrests you for "possession of marijuana", but it's really just cut grass from your landscaping job

then you can come tell me how patriotic and American you are.

Honestly I am trying my hardest to remain calm and professional when someone like you attempts to prove how all cops are great and all suspected criminals are scum.

Please try not to be so aggressively uninformed. Your tacit support of the police is killing people.

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2014/05/baby-in-coma-a...

http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/cops-mistake-tomato-plan...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com