Facebook temporarily disabled the social media accounts of a woman who was posting video of her own standoff negotiations with the police:
Baltimore police shot and killed Korryn Gaines, a 23-year-old black woman, after an hourslong standoff on Monday — during which Facebook and Instagram, at police request, temporarily shut down Gaines' accounts. [...] Police Chief Jim Johnson says Gaines was posting video of the standoff to social media as it was unfolding, which prompted police to request the deactivation of her accounts. Gaines' Facebook page is now reactivated; it does not have any videos visible to the public. On Instagram, one video apparently recorded during the standoff remains. [...] A second video, now deleted, showed a police officer with a gun drawn at Gaines' door. Facebook and Instagram have not responded to NPR's requests for comment.
[...] "Gaines was posting video of the operation as it unfolded. Followers were encouraging her not to comply with negotiators' requests that she surrender peacefully," he said. "Clearly, you can see this was an exigent circumstance where life and serious injury were in jeopardy." After a short period of time, Facebook (which owns Instagram) complied and deactivated the accounts. No data was deleted, Johnson said. Police do not have the authority to directly deactivate a social media account, Johnson and the spokeswoman both said. Facebook decides whether to comply with such requests.
Related Stories
A Thai man live streamed the murder of his own daughter as well as his suicide:
A Thai man filmed himself killing his baby daughter on Facebook Live, before taking his own life, Thai police say. The 21-year-old hanged his daughter, and then himself, at a deserted hotel in Phuket on Monday, reportedly after an argument with his wife. Facebook sent condolences to the family for the "appalling" incident and said that the content had now been removed. The company pledged a review of its processes after footage of a US killing stayed online for hours this month. The footage of the Thai killing had also been available on video sharing website YouTube, but the company took it down after the BBC alerted it to its presence.
Another story discusses the aftermath of the killing. This follows an incident where a man streamed his murder of a randomly picked stranger in Cleveland. That murder had already led to a "backlash" against Facebook:
It is an issue that Facebook, the world's largest social network, has had to contend with more frequently as it has bet big on new forms of media like live video, which give it a venue for more lucrative advertising. The criticism of Facebook over Mr. Stephens's video built swiftly Monday, with critics calling it a dark time for the company and outrage spreading on social media over how long it had taken — more than two hours — for the video to be pulled down. Ryan A. Godwin, the victim's grandson, pleaded with other users on social media to stop sharing the video online.
[...] Justin Osofsky, a vice president of Facebook, said in a public post late Monday that the company knows "we need to do better" to stop videos like that of the shooting from appearing. He said the company was working to ensure that such content and reports of it can be flagged faster, including through the use of artificial intelligence and a better review process.
NSFW: You can watch the Cleveland murder on LiveLeak. This video purportedly shows the murder in Phuket, Thailand, but you won't see much.
Some other incidents and related news:
Facebook Launches Live Video and Photo+Video Collages
Muslim Terrorist Kills French Cop, Wife While Livestreaming on Facebook
Falcon Heights, Minnesota Police Shooting Facebook Live Video [WARNING: GRAPHIC] [UPDATED]
Police Request Shut Off of Armed Woman's Social Media Accounts During Fatal Standoff
Hate Crime Charges Filed Over Beating Live Streamed to Facebook
Facebook Turns to AI to Prevent Suicides (eventually, your intention to murder and commit suicide will be countered by a compassionate chatbot)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @01:48AM
The woman sounds like a nutter, a "sovereign citizen" type, like the shooter in Louisiana. But if the cops can just shut you down when you are living streaming what they are doing to you, that's how they avoid accountability. At the very least, it is damn suspicious since she ended up dead.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Francis on Thursday August 04 2016, @01:58AM
Considering that she was being arrested for charges stemming from driving around with a license plate that had been covered up to indicate that she wasn't subject to the normal laws, I think it's highly likely that she was one of those sovereign citizen nutters.
It's unfortunate that she was killed. Beyond just the loss of human life, there's the unfortunate result that she'll probably wind up a martyr to those free citizen wackjobs.
As far as deactivating the page goes, that's probably more about limiting her access to outside interference than ti was about controlling video from leaving the scene. Anybody outside the premises could film what they wanted and anything that she filmed was likely to wind up in evidence and subsequently released anyways. Especially in the case that there's a wrongful death suit.
We don't really have all the facts, but I suspect that the deactivation of the profiles was the right call. The last thing you want is an armed nutter being egged on by other nutters and trolls while trying to defuse the situation.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 04 2016, @02:23AM
I know, right? How dare she demand liberty? That's obviously a summary execution offense.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by kurenai.tsubasa on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:07AM
/me chants “I am a citizen of the United States, not a U.S. citizen. I am a citizen of the United States, not a U.S. citizen. I am a citizen of the United States, not a U.S. citizen.”
Whee! I no longer have to file form 1040!
I don't remember if that was the exact magickal incantation, but you too can declare yourself not subject to whatever laws you feel like by reciting the true name of your citizenship. One is a birthright and the other is an artificial contract with Satan!
(Score: 4, Insightful) by shortscreen on Thursday August 04 2016, @04:55AM
There are quite a few incantations which can grant immunity from laws. Generally, they are only effective if one has a lot of money (but sometimes a badge will do).
(Score: 1) by tisI on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:31PM
Yes, Yes .. I want to know the incantation that a couple former leaders of the US used to keep them free after being convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity.
"Suppose you were an idiot...and suppose you were a member of Congress...but I repeat myself."
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:27PM
I'll give you a hint, it starts like this:
I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States. . .
Once you've assumed that office you're already in the club; no further handshakes or incantations required.
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:33AM
Precisely what liberty was she demanding? Arguably posting on the internet, but it doesn't appear that the platform owners were coerced into doing it. It appears that what she was doing was a violation of their ToS anyways. The fact that it was reported by the cops wouldn't be any different than if somebody else reported it.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:05AM
Why do you say she violated the terms of service?
(Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Thursday August 04 2016, @11:07AM
because he has to believe she was a 'bad' person, otherwise their worldview might need re-thinking..
(Score: 1) by ewk on Thursday August 04 2016, @11:53AM
<sarcasm> Probably something in that TOS about the glorification of violence and/or terrorism...
Won't somebody think of/for the children? </sarcasm>
I don't always react, but when I do, I do it on SoylentNews
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 04 2016, @02:08PM
Because every service I've ever signed up for has exceptions for criminal activities. You can't engage in criminal activities and expect that the service is going to be complicit in streaming the activity.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:24AM
> that's probably more about limiting her access to outside interference than ti was about controlling video from leaving the scene.
I know that's what they said, and probably what a lot of them thought. But how important was it really? For one thing, she had a near infinite number of other ways for people outside to send her messages. But very few ways for the public to see what was going on without going through the police. Other people on scene with their own camera phones just don't have the vantage that she did.
The problem I have is that the police were able to make that call with basically no oversight. Kind of like the decision to send in the bomb-bot to blow up the guy in dallas. What is most convenient for the police isn't necessarily what's best for society.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Francis on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:36AM
Quite important. One of the objectives necessary if they're going to bring somebody like that in alive or get the hostages out is to get and keep the hostage taker as calm as possible. Having it livestreamed probably wouldn't have been as much of an issue in the past, but having an audience, especially one that's egging the hostage taker on, leads to volatility that makes it that much harder to control the situation.
As I've already said, the videos that she took are likely to be made available to the courts at some point and any that do exist will probably eventually be released to the public. Not to mention that there were witnesses outside the building as well to document what happened. So, it's unlikely that the cops are going to be able to avoid scrutiny by asking that the stream be shut down.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @10:01AM
Oh, they will be. And they will show that Greedo shot first. Any claim of the original showing that Han shot first will of course be denied.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:48AM
Considering that she was being arrested for charges stemming from driving around with a license plate that had been covered up to indicate that she wasn't subject to the normal laws
No idea why she was doing that, but with all the license plate readers and surveillance in many places (maybe not there), I think it's a good idea. Maybe not totally covering it up since that just invites the cops, but thwarting the surveillance is definitely a good thing.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @11:35AM
Ho hum. . .
We don't really have all the facts, but I suspect that the deactivation of the profiles was the right call.
More stuff that Francis doesn't know! But she suspects! I feel so much more secure now, really.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @12:06PM
OMG you're right -- after all, if they hadn't suppressed those social media accounts, they might have been unable to defuse the situation and had to shoot her! Clearly that "right call" made all the difference.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @01:23PM
you two kiss ass traitors probably talked shit about the people at waco and ruby ridge basd on what the tv whores told you too. While kids and dogs were being run over with tanks or sprayed in the back with an mp5, you were calling them "nutters" and "wack jobs" even though they have a constitutional right to believe in whatever made up god they want or to sell guns to their fellow americans (illegal laws about barrel length not withstanding). I don't blame the pigs for wanting tactical superiority but facebook is chickenshit for shutting her account off. Of course, people are stupid for acting like facebook is legitimate/trustworthy to begin with.
People are sick of government leeches and their henchmen using force, or the threat of force, on people just because they think they should have control. People are finally realizing that they are free ,if only they believe in it and stand up for it. You pieces of shit fund the thieves and applaud their hired killers. Justice comes for you too.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 04 2016, @02:12PM
Traitor? She would have had her day in court if she hadn't refused to show up.
As for Waco and Ruby Ridge those aren't even remotely the same thing. She apparently thought she was above the law, refused to turn herself in and then took her son hostage while she tried to fight off the cops. How else was this going to end. Bottom line is that you assume that there wouldn't have been a change if they hadn't removed her social media access, but the evidence we have suggests that her contacts were just egging her on.
It's not like we're going to be able to do a double blind A/B test here to see which strategy was going to be the superior one.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @07:41PM
I'd encourage you to dig deeper to find the root cause of action here. The root problem was not that Korryn Gaines refused to show up in court, it was that she was pulled over via threat of force because a cop noticed she didn't have a license plate on her car.
My journey to discover the limits of governments' authority started with the self-contradictory nature of USian gun bans and ended with: "if I as a single individual do not have authority to do a thing, neither can I then delegate that same authority to a government" [soylentnews.org]. If I were to forcibly stop someone on the side of the road because they didn't have proper ornamentation on their vehicle, I'd be guilty of false imprisonment, assault, and other literal crimes. The traffic cop had no more authority to forcibly stop Korryn Gaines than I do, because the cop's authority is solely derived from my own!
A huge percentage of the problems we face as a society is due to the this disregard for the easily-discerned limits of government power in favor of our preferred flavor of rank tyranny/criminality.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday August 04 2016, @11:56PM
I could accept forbidding others to post to her social media. To block her own posting in this case seems highly suspicious.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jdavidb on Thursday August 04 2016, @04:19AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 2) by jimshatt on Thursday August 04 2016, @10:58AM
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday August 04 2016, @12:45PM
I don't think that. But I misread the poster I was replying to to be suggesting that nutters like sovereign citizen types deserve what they get. No more posting after 11:00 PM for me!
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @01:52AM
"Her 5-year-old son was wounded in the exchange of gunfire." This is what social media are doing to our society. Back in the day, the police would have put him out of his misery.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Snotnose on Thursday August 04 2016, @02:10AM
Do you trust the cops, who have a record of shooting black people for not flossing? Or the black chick, who is afraid the cops are going to shoot her for not flossing and is trying to document what's happening?
Dead chick sounds like a nutter, but as the actual video got shut down and I'm hearing the story from the MSM there's a very reasonable doubt as to what actually happened.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 04 2016, @02:26AM
I'm sorry, can you not do math? You're more likely to wind up dead as a white person getting involved with the cops than as a black person. Significantly more likely in fact. The problem is black people get involved with the cops far more often than white people.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Eristone on Thursday August 04 2016, @02:46AM
Buzzard, you know there is a ton of history why black people get involved with cops far more often than white people.. and some of it boiled down to "we need someone to blame oh hey look there's a black guy grab him". There is also a ton of history of black people having adverse dealings with law enforcement. You have to remember, up until oh say.. 1965 or so, a black person drinking out of the wrong water fountain or sitting at the front of a bus and not moving seats would be a reason for law enforcement to get involved. The underlying attitude has carried on through..hell today. Yes, there are other reasons (social, economic, etc.) but the changes have been slow in coming as far as getting law enforcement to not immediately treat the black guy as a convicted criminal up front instead of the presumed innocence that should be given to every person. There's a Family Guy episode [youtube.com] that more or less points out that attitude. (Yeah, there are a lot of them but I picked just this one for the moment.)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 04 2016, @10:28AM
There may be reasons but there are no excuses.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Zz9zZ on Thursday August 04 2016, @07:40PM
Cuts both ways, no excuses for the men in blue.
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 04 2016, @08:48PM
Indeed.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Runaway1956 on Thursday August 04 2016, @02:55AM
Remember, there are AT LEAST two sides to every story.
I've commented in the past that if I were a black guy living in New York City, the 'stop and frisk' bullshit would have me inciting an insurrection.
Incidentally, I've often stated that there are no "good guys" in the Arab/Israeli conflict. That same statement applies here. Maybe the black people involved aren't "good guys", but the cops aren't all "good guys" either. It seems the best of the police are willing to go along to get along, covering up for the bad cops.
WTF are there squads of police in the low income housing projects, patrolling all night long? The first time I witnessed that, was in Memphis. All night long, three cars steadily patrolling, in one gate, in another, shining floodlights, and sometimes being joined by a fourth or fifth car. Maybe three out of four residents were toking up, or shooting up, but SO WHAT?!?! It doesn't justify an occupation force.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:04AM
I'm sorry, can you not do math? You're more likely to wind up dead as a white person getting involved with the cops than as a black person. Significantly more likely in fact. The problem is black people get involved with the cops far more often than white people.
99.9% of my interactions with cops is I get busted every 2-3 years for doing 80 on the freeway. When I see the lights I hit the turn signal, move to the right, stop, roll down my window, put both hands on the steering wheel while I watch the cop approach me, then I'm all yessir nossir.
Got pulled over last November. Cop got my info, went back to his bike, I asked if I could get out of the car (on the freeway!), he said sure. He's calling in my info, I'm checking out the makeshift cup holder he made out of his radar gun holder. We shot the shit, he got his info, I got my ticket, we both drove away.
Result? I paid a lawyer $100 to deal with it. Got the letter last week the case was dismissed (Mitch Mehdy, or Mr Ticket, if you're in San Diego). Had I not hired a lawyer I'd have probably paid $500 in fines/court fees, plus the money and time for traffic school.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:41AM
That's how people who want to live handle situations like that. Most of the cases that the #BLM folks take on are cases where the deceased was engaged in activities that are highly risky. Running away from the police, waving around weapons, resisting arrest and similar activities. It makes it very hard for me to support their cause when they jump to rash judgments about the situation and even after the facts come in they don't change their minds if they're wrong.
Some cases like Tamir Rice we have the video and it's pretty obvious why he was shot. I wouldn't be waving around a toy gun like that in public because I'd expect to be shot. Or if I was really lucky, arrested for disorderly conduct.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Snotnose on Thursday August 04 2016, @04:44AM
Tamir Rice was a kid playing with a toy gun when the cops pulled up on him from a few feet away and shot him while he was still thinking "asshole almost hit me, WTF?". Wanna guess how many times this cracker played with a toy gun with friends in a public park without getting shot?
You've got the Cleveland shooting of a couple years ago, where the cops shot 100+ rounds into a car for no good reason, killing 2 black people who apparently didn't floss.
Baton Rouge guy apparently didn't floss.
The guy with the concealed carry permit, evidently pulled over dozens of times before cops realized not flossing was a good enough reason to kill him.
Walter Scott got pulled over for a broken taillight, when the cop realized he didn't floss Walter ran and the cop shot him in the back.
If I was black I don't think I'd be as cavalier about those 80 in a 70 MPH zone infractions.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 04 2016, @04:49AM
There's a reason why toy guns are legally required to have that nice bright orange tip. I can't recall when exactly those were added, but they were added specifically because people were being shot when the toy was mistaken for the real thing.
The rest of them tend to agree with, but confounding cases where there's reasonable reason for using deadly force with ones where there isn't, just undermines the whole notion that there's a problem.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Snotnose on Thursday August 04 2016, @04:58AM
I'm a bad guy from wherever looking to kill as many people as possible. Think I haven't noticed the big orange thing on the end of toy guns and realized taping an empty toilet paper roll to my mac-9, then painting it orange, wouldn't get me a couple extra seconds?
Those orange tips are worse than useless, they give innocent people a false sense of security.
The solution is to fix the cops' "shoot first, let god sort it out" mentality.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 2) by cubancigar11 on Thursday August 04 2016, @08:07AM
Cops were given those rights for a reason. Want to guess what those reasons are? Ever heard of people saying 'they should just be shot', 'we arent doing enough to curb crime against...', 'these men need to be castrated' etc.? You can't have both. Hell, I am sure someone from #BlackLivesMatter is demanding the same thing done to racist cops.
(Score: 2) by Anal Pumpernickel on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:53AM
So what? Even if he did have a real gun, why did the cops pull up right next to him and immediately shoot him? There was no time to comply. If they're trained--and they supposedly are--pulling up quite close to someone you believe has a gun and startling them probably isn't a good idea.
Cops will simply kill people if there's even the slightest risk of danger, and that is simply insane.
(Score: 4, Informative) by hemocyanin on Thursday August 04 2016, @07:45AM
This is an interesting contrast to how skin color in an open carry state affects police response:
http://thefreethoughtproject.com/racial-profiling-issue-check-difference-black-man-white-man-open-carry-ar-15-legally/ [thefreethoughtproject.com]
(Score: 2) by Zz9zZ on Thursday August 04 2016, @07:43PM
I think it is worse than this, I think there are a few psychopaths in every city who actively search for situations where they can murder someone. Hell, some dumbshits join the military so they can kill "some goddamn *insert racial slur here*"
~Tilting at windmills~
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mhajicek on Thursday August 04 2016, @06:30AM
So did they shoot at the autistic guy because his toy truck didn't have an orange tip?
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @01:43PM
But they shot the black guy lying on his back with his hands in the air.
(Score: 2) by mhajicek on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:09PM
The officer said he was aiming at the autistic guy and missed.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @04:55PM
So did they shoot at the autistic guy because his toy truck didn't have an orange tip?
Not "They", If you use "they" then "they" can hide behind the blue shield. Put a name to it, and make him accountable.
In this case the trigger happy asshat is Jonathan Aledda. A man whose psych evaluation noted a lack of tolerance: Possible characteristics include judgmental; argumentative; critical; challenging; rigid; stubborn [wsvn.com].
Also notable is the assistant police chief did not want to hire Aledda, but was overruled.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @11:41AM
I can't recall when exactly those were added,
ANOTHER THING that Francis doesn't know! Whew@! Not sure we can all keep up. He must have been doing something suspicious to not recall this.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:16PM
There's a reason why toy guns are legally required to have that nice bright orange tip.
Funny, they weren't required years ago and nobody got shot over the lack of them. The reason they started requiring them is is that too many trigger happy morons are allowed to be cops now.
If the cops are going to act like an occupying army, they shouldn't be surprised when the people repel them like an occupying army.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:23PM
Who knew that cops were dental hygene fascists.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:31AM
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you THE BOILED FROG!
Things have decayed a great deal if death is even a possible outcome of a simple traffic stop. The right and proper penalty for acting like an asshole when a cop pulls you over is you stand no chance of him cutting you some slack. Death is not supposed to be part of this equation at all.
As for Tamir Rice, yes it is. Panicy police bravely blasted a child to death for doing what children in this country have done for over a century. Many even look back fondly and wonder why kids can't just get their cap guns and play cops and robbers or cowboys and indians like we did in our day instead of (insert moral panic here). Apparently the reason is because the cops will blow you away without even a warning if you do that today.
(Score: 2) by bzipitidoo on Thursday August 04 2016, @07:21AM
Sandra Bland's "crime" was changing lanes without signaling, about as minor a traffic offense as there is, and refusing to put out a cigarette. For that she was hauled off to jail, and found dead the next morning under highly suspicious circumstances. Should any of her actions be considered highly risky activities that might lead to a fatality? Sassing back at the police is punishable with the death penalty?
Many police enjoy the power trips they can get from the work. That sort of person is strongly attracted to police work but is about the last person we should want serving the public in that capacity. They frequently exceed their authority, and escalate situations for no good reason. It's a big problem screening out power trippers before they end up with a uniform and a badge.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Friday August 05 2016, @12:10AM
It's a bigger problem getting them out AFTER they get the cap and badge.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 4, Informative) by butthurt on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:19AM
[...] black people get involved with the cops far more often than white people.
Depending on what you meant by "far" this seems to be supported by official statistics on arrests (see p.23).
http://www.bjs.gov/content/pub/pdf/aus9010.pdf [bjs.gov]
[...] can you not do math? You're more likely to wind up dead as a white person getting involved with the cops than as a black person.
What are the statistics in which that statement is grounded? According to the document I linked above, whites accounted for 69.5% of all arrests, and blacks 27.9%. However, when Pro Publica analysed homicides by police, they found that whites made up only 44% of those killed. On the face of it, that's at odds with what you say, which would imply more than 69.5% of the dead would be whites—if arrests may be taken as a proxy for "getting involved with the cops".
https://www.propublica.org/article/deadly-force-in-black-and-white [propublica.org]
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 04 2016, @10:24AM
You have to calculate chance of death per arrest rather than chance of death period to have a meaningful statistic rather than one you can lie with.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 04 2016, @02:25PM
they found that whites made up only 44% of those killed. On the face of it, that's at odds with what you say, which would imply more than 69.5% of the dead would be whites—if arrests may be taken as a proxy for "getting involved with the cops".
If non-white, non-black demographics made up just 13% overall, that would be 44% white and 43% black.
Not that I believe that; just sayin'.
The data, for instance, is terribly incomplete.
The black boys killed can be disturbingly young. There were 41 teens 14 years or younger reported killed by police from 1980 to 2012 ii. 27 of them were black iii; 8 were white iv; 4 were Hispanic v and 1 was Asian vi.
That's not to say officers weren't killing white people. Indeed, some 44 percent of all those killed by police across the 33 years were white.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday August 04 2016, @07:51PM
If non-white, non-black demographics made up just 13% overall, that would be 44% white and 43% black.
I had gotten 44% from that last paragraph you've quoted. I don't see the 13% figure on the Pro Publica page. Because you wrote "if" I suppose it may be hypothetical. The percentages you mention add up to 100%. I assume you are getting at something of greater significance than that, but your meaning escapes me.
Yes, the data are incomplete. Another study estimated that there are really either about 50% more, or about 100% more (I forget which) police homicides than are reported.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 04 2016, @08:27PM
Nah, nothing more subtle than that. I was just being pedantic as usual.
This whole progression since Buzzard's post has been kind of a circlejerk of ambiguous figures and unsupported assertions so I'm not really sure where we're going either, heh.
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday August 04 2016, @08:42PM
If you change your mind, check lower in the thread where he provided his sources.
/comments.pl?sid=14836&cid=384016#commentwrap [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by jdavidb on Thursday August 04 2016, @04:14AM
ⓋⒶ☮✝🕊 Secession is the right of all sentient beings
(Score: 3, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 04 2016, @11:29AM
No, that's math of my own from disparate sources. I had to do it myself because nobody else is willing to say it apparently.
Source one and source two combine to tell us black people are roughly ~2.4x as likely to be arrested in any given year. Prison populations tell another story but we're talking arrests here.
Source one and source three combine to tell us that white people are ~1.27x more likely to be shot during an attempted arrest than if they were black.
As always, feel free to check my math.
----SOURCES----
1) https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2013/crime-in-the-u.s.-2013/tables/table-43 [fbi.gov]
2) https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/ [census.gov]
3) https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/07/18/police-shootings-and-race/ [washingtonpost.com]
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by butthurt on Thursday August 04 2016, @12:58PM
Thank you for answering. However, I see you've made a mistake. From source (3), in 2015
whites made up 50 percent of the 987 fatal police shootings, and blacks, 26 percent
From source (1), in 2013
100%*2549655 blacks arrested/9014635 total arrests = 28.3%
100%*6214197 whites arrested/9014635 total arrests = 68.9%
Hmm, 26% is slightly less than 28.3%. However 50% is substantially less than 68.9%. Being either black or white might, I speculate, have a protective effect against police homicide--more markedly so if one is white. Let's quantify it.
50% white * 987 shootings = 494 whites shot dead
26% black * 987 shootings = 257 blacks shot dead
Combining the homicide statistics from 2015 with the arrest statistics from 2013,
257 blacks shot dead/2549655 blacks arrested = 10 deaths/100000 arrests
494 whites shot dead/6214197 whites arrested = 7.9 deaths/100000 arrests
These are in the ratio 10/7.9 = 1.27
That's the same number you arrived at. However, black and white are reversed. Your second statement, corrected:
Source one and source three combine to tell us that w̶h̶i̶t̶e̶ black people are ~1.27x more likely to be shot during an attempted arrest than if they were b̶l̶a̶c̶k̶ white.
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday August 04 2016, @02:04PM
It's possible you're correct. My daily window of brain usefulness is almost over though so I'll have to check tomorrow.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by t-3 on Thursday August 04 2016, @11:23PM
It should also be noted that the white population of the US is several times larger than the black population... There is a definite racial factor to quantity of arrests/police contact and shootings.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:28AM
Guess you haven't heard that flossing is an ineffective waste of time.
But why didn't the cops just cut the power and jam her signal? Waiting on hold for the *next available representative* seems pretty inefficient.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 4, Insightful) by snufu on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:00AM
of Facebook's stock price.
(Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:22AM
So long as the police prefer to arrest people in their homes, in the hopes of finding further evidence, we will see more situations like this. Had she been stopped elsewhere, in a less defensible position, there wouldn't be long guns or a child involved. Why can't police do a legal traffic stop the way they are so efficient at using them for parallel construction in drug cases? Or a flash mob of plainclothes officers in a location she regularly frequents, perhaps legally tracked via her cell phone?
The fact they wouldn't let her mother try to talk her down should not be written off as acceptable policy. It should be investigated as to why even in the midst of this supposed "war on cops" that police still prefer to shoot than defuse should tell us these troubles are not going to end anytime soon.
Tips for better submissions to help our site grow. [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 1) by Francis on Thursday August 04 2016, @03:44AM
Police don't prefer to arrest people at their homes, there's usually only 2 places that you can routinely find people. One is at home where there's likely to be fewer random bystanders and the other is at work, assuming they have a job, where there's likely to be at least as many people around, and probably more.
But, most warrants are served at traffic stops which is also why police officers pulling people over tend to be so jumpy. They don't know if you're packing and they know that you know if you're wanted before they do. Giving you an advantage if you're likely to shoot them.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday August 04 2016, @04:33AM
This is definitely a corner case, but it seems ostensibly like her freedom of speech and association being actively (albeit briefly) curtailed here on the request of the police. Is there precedent for whether this is constitutional or not?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:15AM
It shouldn't be, if for nothing else than the chilling precedent it will set. Taking away somebody's freedom of expression because they've been deemed "dangerous" will predictably go pear shaped rather quickly. There's also the issue of recording police at play here, something which police continue to attack and punish people for despite the courts repeatedly reminding us that such actions by the police is illegal and unconstitutional. Ensuring police accountability alone is reason enough for this to be unacceptable.
(Score: 2) by Bogsnoticus on Thursday August 04 2016, @07:41AM
Freedom of speech does not cover using a private entity's service.
Same as how the 4th ammendment does not protect you against the security guard at a store insisting he/she check inside your bag to ensure you haven't stolen anything.
Genius by birth. Evil by choice.
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday August 04 2016, @08:43AM
A closer analogy would be: suppose police asked a security guard at a store to search someone's bag.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @10:11AM
In this case, it does.
Freedom of speech does not prevent Facebook for refusing to show her speech, it bans the government from telling Facebook to remove her speech.
Guess which category the police falls under...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @02:37PM
Ding ding ding, we have a winner!
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday August 05 2016, @01:01AM
No it doesn't.
It prohibits the police from *legally requiring* Facebook to shut down her stream. But they're still free to ask, which seems to be all they did here. Facebook then shut it down voluntarily. Just like it says in TFS:
(Score: 2) by CirclesInSand on Friday August 05 2016, @02:57AM
Police have a lot of power, and unlimited get out of jail free cards. A request from the police is not the same thing as a request from your peers.
(Score: 2) by urza9814 on Friday August 05 2016, @08:55PM
Absolutely. And if the request was made to an individual person, there very well might be some confusion about the difference between a request and a command. Although that still doesn't mean the police can't ask, it just means they have to be very careful about *how* they ask, because if they ask in such a way that it can reasonably be considered a command then you can file a lawsuit against them later for violating your rights -- and probably win. But a massive corporation like Facebook surely has lawyers on staff to review such requests, and I don't really think it's reasonable to assume they were confused about the request. Facebook also has quite a lot of power which they could have used to fight this had they wanted to.
(Score: 2) by tangomargarine on Thursday August 04 2016, @02:32PM
Ideally in this example the sites involved would tell the government to go fuck itself.
But not much chance of that :P
"Is that really true?" "I just spent the last hour telling you to think for yourself! Didn't you hear anything I said?"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday August 04 2016, @05:24PM
Is there precedent for whether this is constitutional or not?
Not sure if it has been challenged constitutionally, but it is an extremely common police tactic in hostage and barricade situations to cut landline phone service to the location, on the grounds of officer safety.
If you can figure out a way to allow video streaming outbound that doesn't allow for someone else to respond, "Hey, the four SWAT guys on the north wall are fixing ropes to crash through the center window!" I'd be interested to see that.
(Score: 2, Touché) by basecase on Friday August 05 2016, @02:55AM
I like that this site has continued the spirit of Slashdot post dice buyput. However, the comments here border on bat shit crazy, if not fully deluded. Come on community