"Baiting" the Police

[Rainbows and Rivers]

That's the problem with these videos, you seem to thinnk the cops just showed up "Hey thats guys got a camera lets go fuck with him." thats not the case here, in both videos the baiters took legal acts and concerned citizens seeing a man with a gun walking along the highway (possible madman headed to shoot someone) and a man filming mass transit (possible terrorist filming transit schedules and responding police procedures) and they called the cops.

Here's the thing about that:

It doesn't matter. The police are within their rights to show up (even though no illegal activity is being performed) and they're within their rights to follow the person if they really think they're suspicious. What they can't do is ask them to put their gun away and stop filming because neither of those things is actually illegal, so the police have no say about it, even if they don't like it.

The whole point of having laws is that it doesn't matter how suspicious you look to some guy on the street or what you 'possibly' are. You can do things which are legal to do and nobody can stop you.

[Thoricia]

The more of these I watch the more I see that its not about people standing up for civil rights, its about people wanting to talk shit to cops behind the safety of a camera.

Perfectly legal yes, but not standing up for civil rights, sorry even if you paint turd gold, its still a turd.

It's not like the cops can't just walk away or ignore. And if they are actually interfering with or harassing them they should be arrested, heck they'll have all the video to back it up as legit It seems like the cops are the ones who unreasonably continue these encounters, just walk away deny them what they want and arrest them if they break the law. The simple fact is in too many of these videos I've seen though it seems like the cops are either misinformed, uniformed, or don't fully understand the laws this helps educate them I don't see that as being a bad thing, but yeah some of the people making these videos are jerks about it sometimes, unfortunately thats not a crime.

So when someone is videoing mass transit stops you wouldn't want the cops questioning the person until he provides some clear answers?

[Rainbows and Rivers]

So when someone is videoing mass transit stops you wouldn't want the cops questioning the person until he provides some clear answers?

Hell no I wouldn't. Either make videotaping mass transit a crime (in which case I'll vote against you at the next election) or let people go about their videotaping business.

[Thoricia]

So when someone is videoing mass transit stops you wouldn't want the cops questioning the person until he provides some clear answers?

Hell no I wouldn't. Either make videotaping mass transit a crime (in which case I'll vote against you at the next election) or let people go about their videotaping business.

I don't recall saying we should make it a crime. Only that we should be able to question those that are to discover their motives without some little turd whining his civil rights were eroded when they actually weren't.

[Thoricia]

That's the problem with these videos, you seem to thinnk the cops just showed up "Hey thats guys got a camera lets go fuck with him." thats not the case here, in both videos the baiters took legal acts and concerned citizens seeing a man with a gun walking along the highway (possible madman headed to shoot someone) and a man filming mass transit (possible terrorist filming transit schedules and responding police procedures) and they called the cops.

Here's the thing about that:

It doesn't matter. The police are within their rights to show up (even though no illegal activity is being performed) and they're within their rights to follow the person if they really think they're suspicious. What they can't do is ask them to put their gun away and stop filming because neither of those things is actually illegal, so the police have no say about it, even if they don't like it.

The whole point of having laws is that it doesn't matter how suspicious you look to some guy on the street or what you 'possibly' are. You can do things which are legal to do and nobody can stop you.

Actually stop and frisks by police because you look suspicious are completely legal but we're getting off track here.

[Caxan]

Yes, but I fail to see how there is that much of an issue here. So what? the cops ask a couple of questions and let the men move on there is nothing wrong with filming anything or with carrying a gun while doing so. It seems the cops should have been quickly and easily able to determine that these men weren't an immediate threat and if they were really that concerned that they were in fact terrorists then the cops should have followed them as non conspicuously as possible to gain intel on these people, who they might be meeting with etc. we're all too paranoid post 911 and what has that paranoia gotten us?

How do the cops determine they are a threat? The filmers are not helping the cops do that. In my opinion, it is a citizen's duty to help the cop realize they are not a threat. Because they are there to "teach" the cops, they don't help the cops out. I know a cop who lived in an area with high gun ownership, and he said that he would just ask people with guns for their license and send them on their way. That was however, quite before this trend, where it seems that what the people involved is to prove the cops are oppressing them.

The best tactic I think a cop can use when dealing with citizens is to approach them as a friendly neighbour. "Hello, how are you doing? What is your name etc." Also, you shouldn't do perfectly legal things if it upsets your neighbour. I mean, I don't walk around with my airsoft pistol, because I don't want to alarm my neighbours. Just because it is perfectly legal, doesn't make it right.

I have had the police called on me, one time for actually doing nothing. I was just waiting in a Wendy's when someone there called the police, saying that my friend and I had stolen a car (we knew this because we heard it on the scanner). We simply greeted the cop, told him what we were doing there. He ran the plates of my friend's car and checked his id, thanked us and left. No big deal. This is what most of my experiences with cops has been like.

The first time I was pulled over I was on a bike going to the library, the cop stopped me, asked me where I was going, and if school was in session, took my word for it and complemented my bike and let me go.

The only real trouble I had was when I was shooting at my friends farm. We were shooting at a berm, the other side of which was a golf course. Long after we had finished shooting and had gone into another town, the cops showed up responding to reports that we were firing automatic weapons. There were two cops, the Sheriff (whose jurisdiction we were thankfully in) and the Village police (where the golf course was) The Sheriff quickly came to the conclusion that we were shooting responsibly. The village cop, true to the reputation of that police force, was a bit more of an annoyance. It worked out though, and I think it is better for both cops and civilians to treat each other in a friendly and courteous manner. Most of the time cops are responding to calls, and the concerns of others.

[Ostroeuropa]

If you bait the police you are an idiot.
If the police respond to legal, but baity, actions with violence or use of their authority, they are fascists.

[Jassysworth 1]

If you bait the police you are an idiot.
If the police respond to legal, but baity, actions with violence or use of their authority, they are fascists.

If you bait the police you are an idiot.

Nope... someone can bait the police and still not be an idiot on the whole. You can't tell if someone's an idiot or not just based on one action like that. A person who scores a 2400 on the SAT might decide to bait the police.

If the police respond to legal, but baity, actions with violence or use of their authority, they are fascists.

It is also possible for the police to respond to ''legal, baiting actions with violence and use of their authority" and still not hold the political views necessary to be a real fascist.


You are assuming too many things and way oversimplifying.

[Yankee Empire]

If you bait the police you are an idiot.
If the police respond to legal, but baity, actions with violence or use of their authority, they are fascists.

If you bait the police you are an idiot.

Nope... someone can bait the police and still not be an idiot on the whole. You can't tell if someone's an idiot or not just based on one action like that. A person who scores a 2400 on the SAT might decide to bait the police.

If the police respond to legal, but baity, actions with violence or use of their authority, they are fascists.

It is also possible for the police to respond to ''legal, baiting actions with violence and use of their authority" and still not hold the political views necessary to be a real fascist.


You are assuming too many things and way oversimplifying.

True, but us Fascists do love to see stupid people with disregard for authority and respect for the law to get a beat down to let the reprucssions of their actions sink in.

Police without the threat of Force are impotent.

Baiters are usually just dumn leftist that want the cops to hit them so they can go "see see, we lives in a poleez tate! Ebul Fascists!"

[Jello Biafra]

Well, civil disobedience usually involves slightly less than legal actions designed to get a police response, and is almost always justified, so by extension completely legal actions designed to get a police response would also almost always be justified, if not inherently justified.

[Xsyne]

Well, civil disobedience usually involves slightly less than legal actions designed to get a police response, and is almost always justified,

Yeah, no. Civil disobedience, in and of itself, is neither justified or unjustified. The justification comes from the reason for the disobedience.

[Ithicaland]

It is unjustified and should be discourage. Police officers already have a very stressful and dangerous job without a bunch of people annoying them by trying to bait them.

[Jello Biafra]

Well, civil disobedience usually involves slightly less than legal actions designed to get a police response, and is almost always justified,

Yeah, no. Civil disobedience, in and of itself, is neither justified or unjustified. The justification comes from the reason for the disobedience.

And given that most of the reasons people have had when they engaged in civil disobedience are justifiable (depending on the level of disobedience), it is almost always justified.

[Dooom35796821595]

The police are there to enforce the law, you want to bait someone try lawyers, they don't have batons.
One example is SO19, they tell you to do something, you don't think YOU DO!
Unless you want to get shot.
Of course, this is a country (UK) where removing the baton from it's pouch is a use of force that you must be able to justify in court.

[Greed and Death]

IT sounds incredibly stupid.
Though I suppose if you get injured or falsely detained it would result in more work for lawyers, so it can not be all bad.

[Yankee Empire]

Yeah, no. Civil disobedience, in and of itself, is neither justified or unjustified. The justification comes from the reason for the disobedience.

And given that most of the reasons people have had when they engaged in civil disobedience are justifiable (depending on the level of disobedience), it is almost always justified.

Source this shit!

[Rainbows and Rivers]

"Hello, how are you doing? What is your name etc." Also, you shouldn't do perfectly legal things if it upsets your neighbour.

Maybe you shouldn't. Either way, that's not up to the police.

[SeeAll]

Baiting the police is a stupid act.

[ALMF]

I've seen plenty of videos on the internet lately of people performing lawful actions which they seemingly believed would be unlawfully acted against by the police.These videos are, more often than not, accompanied by a barrage of comments accusing the participants involved of being malicious arseholes and completely brushing over any inappropriate or illegal actions by the police involved.

Have some examples :

Gun activists (USA) - http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=057_1360503071

Filming in public (USA) - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... MYA#t=119s

Please try not to use these two examples as the be all and end all of police baiting and just consider the act itself rather than the personalities involved. Do you feel that these types of actions are positive or negative? Do you feel that they should be encouraged or discouraged?

I'm conflicted when it comes to this but that's probably because I have been finding it somewhat difficult to seperate out the obnoxiousness of some of the camera holders in these types of videos. Ultimately I think it's a positive act for unprofessional or substandard behaviour of police officers to be highlighted in such a manner and that we shouldn't simply brush over their negative actions.

Interestingly it is positive iff the police/society are trying to control leagly protective behavior. So the vidowing is good and the firearms wold be if the second amendment were not an anachronism that dosen't work.

[Norjagen]

I don't see a problem with it. If a person is engaging in lawful behavior, then by definition, the police should just turn around and walk away. If an officer chooses to behave illegally in response to lawful behavior, then he or she should be punished. May as well happen with a hidden camera rolling.

[Jello Biafra]

And given that most of the reasons people have had when they engaged in civil disobedience are justifiable (depending on the level of disobedience), it is almost always justified.

Source this shit!

Source which? Do you want instances of justifiable civil disobedience?

[Caxan]

Well, civil disobedience usually involves slightly less than legal actions designed to get a police response, and is almost always justified, so by extension completely legal actions designed to get a police response would also almost always be justified, if not inherently justified.

What about Civil Disobedience by the Police?

[Jello Biafra]

Well, civil disobedience usually involves slightly less than legal actions designed to get a police response, and is almost always justified, so by extension completely legal actions designed to get a police response would also almost always be justified, if not inherently justified.

What about Civil Disobedience by the Police?

Can you give an example of this?