Quote:
Originally Posted by blueash
Chauvin sits in jail now, not because of citizen complaints, not because of his own body camera, not because his peers reported his behavior. He is only in jail because of the video taken by a teenager who then posted her video on the internet. The Federal Courts have held that police could not prohibit citizens from filming their behavior. It had been common for police to seize cameras back in the good old days. This protected right to film in public is actually is new, only in the last 15 years.
In response to this ability to hold bad cops responsible for bad behavior, the Oklahoma legislature is in the process of finalizing a law that will make it illegal to put a video of a cop online if it might make him really unhappy or cost him his job.
The law is supposedly to prevent doxing. No problem with that as a goal. But then it sneaks a couple extra lines into the language. You can read the bill HERE
It is very short. It prohibits web publication if such would
Clearly if a video like that of Chauvin were made in Oklahoma after this passes, the person who shot the video, Darnella Frazier, would be charged. Chauvin and his family certainly suffered emotional distress and financial loss.
You say I must be making this up. Read the bill. It prohibits publication of
Under this law if your video or still photo showed the name of the cop, his name tag, you are in violation. If it shows what police department he works for, you are in violation, if it shows his face you are in violation. Who is pushing this agenda? Why are the members of the Oklahoma legislature putting this through? Lines A, G, and I have only one goal, preventing the public from being able to police bad police.
If you want to prevent doxing, get rid of several of these items. Many on this forum have suggested that no one wants to protect the bad cops. Apparently a lot of people in Oklahoma have no problem with a law that will do just that, until of course the courts overturn this attempt to punish the public for providing documentation of those cops. |
I think it is entirely possible that Derek Chauvin was an unprincipled person. I feel almost sure that George Floyd was an unprincipled person. I know, I know, we need to give everyone a new chance. George Floyd was arrested and sentenced to a penitentiary for several years for breaking into a private home and holding a gun to the belly of a pregnant woman, allowing three accomplices in to rob the home. He moved to Minnesota for a "new start". The police were called because he tried to pass a counterfeit twenty dollar bill. The camera's inside the store showed him swaying slightly and appearing to be under the influence of something. He got into a car with several other people who later refused to answer questions and took the fifth amendment as reason. I have to think they were somehow involved with buying or selling drugs, or they could have just been very private and did not want to answer questions. At the time that Derek Chauvin allowed George Floyd to die with neck pressure, that maneuver was allowed as a means of restraint. Clearly the other means of restraint used by FOUR MEN were not working. I don't know what I would have done if it had been MY job to arrest him. I believe in my heart that it would have been a dilemma whether or not he was high on drugs, and even if he was a skinny white Episcopalian. Derek Chauvin was there to arrest him and he continued to struggle hard physically. I think this has been made a racist issue above all other considerations. AND maybe it is. I am skeptical.
I am skeptical about whether this issue of "doxing" could be a red herring. I am thinking a lot of scary thoughts. Maybe because I think that people who are generally responsible and ethical worry about being at the mercy of people who are not generally responsible and ethical.