But I've watched dozens of Reyes' videos, and that is not his style. If he enters a public space, he doesn't call attention to himself and typically doesn't speak to anyone unless spoken to. Most often, he films the walls of public buildings, and if he points a camera at anyone in particular, it's only because they've approached him to ask him what he's doing. He is cordial in his responses and will generally politely explain to anyone who inquires that he's an independent journalist gathering content for a story.
On the flip side, police and other government officials routinely treat him with contempt and hostility from the moment they see him, barking unlawful orders at him and attempting to suppress conduct that the law explicitly protects. He's been assaulted, had his camera equipment destroyed, and been unlawfully arrested multiple times, as he was by the NYPD. If he comes off a little salty as a result of that mistreatment, it's at least understandable.
But even in the case where First Amendment auditors are not being respectful and are acting like jerks ... it's worth noting that the First Amendment is not designed to protect content and actions that others approve of, or that make others feel comfortable. It is explicitly designed to protect speech that others would rather we not speak, religions that others would rather we not practice, journalism that others would rather we not publish. So even if they are being jerks, as long as their conduct is legally protected, it at least allows us to determine whether the First Amendment is being respected.
But baiting is when you entice a person to do something wrong by offering them some kind of incentive. And it has to be something they wouldn't otherwise do unless incentivized. Thus, you can't "bait" a law enforcement officer by simply engaging in constitutionally protected conduct, unless the argument from police is that officers just can't restrain themselves from violating people's civil rights when those rights are exercised.
In fact, in one of Reyes's encounters with the NYPD that led to an unlawful arrest, one of the officers told him afterward, "You wanted this to happen," and Reyes responded, incredulously, "I wanted you to violate my rights and take away my freedom?" No, he wanted to be able to go about his business without being arrested -- which he was later able to do after this court ruling went into effect.
You're victim blaming big-time. They're on the receiving end of bullshit and cannot opt out of it, but we'll condemn them for fucking up their response?
I'm the most cool-headed person I know and I had to talk a neighbor down from kicking my ass on camera (and in front of my own child) just yesterday. It took a superhuman amount of restraint to not even raise my voice because the adrenaline factory was in overdrive on both sides, gearing up for a fight.
The provocateur has an unfair advantage-- the element of uncertainty. Only they know they're not they're going to escalate. Defense is a losing game; it only takes one failure to anticipate a threat before you're dead or unconscious. In order to stay so calm, I had to embrace the possibility that I might actually -die- in that encounter if the guy pulled out a knife. I was armed myself, but didn't draw so as not to escalate. It's a position of vulnerability I should never have had to put myself in.
Once the adrenaline rush subsided, I had to go take a fucking nap. Cops don't get that option; they're immediately dispatched to deal with the next asshole.
If you can't keep a level head as a police officer, then you are failing to uphold the oath you swore. Full stop.
Police have the unfair advantage: power. With power comes responsibility. We must hold those in power accountable for that responsibility.
Every person who interacts with a police officer has to deal with the element of uncertainty you are talking about. We give police loaded firearms. We give them handcuffs. We give them dogs. We give them combat training. We all know just how wrong it can go, and just how quickly. We are not allowed to leave!
People are getting murdered in the US by police, and those police are often not held to justice. There is an imbalance of both power and responsibility here that lives as a constant looming threat over many of us.
It's time to change this story, and that change must begin with police.
Yes. That is by design. Doormats don't make for a useful police force.
> Every person who interacts with a police officer has to deal with the element of uncertainty you are talking about.
No, actually. You're familiar with their capabilities and the rules within which they lawfully (and unlawfully) operate. Intelligence is clearly on your side.
There is no "uncertainty" when it comes to police; you seem to know exactly what to expect and how to manipulate them into any particular outcome enough to be able to exploit it on camera. That is the antithesis of uncertainty. If there were uncertainty, people would be too afraid to fuck with them like this. It's certain you can safely do this.
Cooperation tends to work pretty well for most people. Belligerence escalates the situation. Be the change you want to see.
Tell it to George Floyd.
Tell it to Breonna Taylor.
Oh, that's right: you can't. The very best of police can't either.
Belligerence is escalating the situation of someone recording you. Belligerence is escalating the situation of someone yelling at you. Belligerence is threatening to assault and kidnap any person who doesn't behave precisely as you command. I expect every police officer to be the change they swore an oath to be. No less.
Cops can absolutely opt out of it. It's not a race, it's a job. If you're a cop and you can't deal with annoying members of the public without violating their Constitutional rights, you aren't in the right job.
I see this inappropriate defense of police all the time but the truth is police who can’t handle someone being unkind (but not physical or unlawful) without violating their rights are not fit to have a gun, badge and special powers.
Cops who can't handle a jerk without committing a clear violation of the Constitution shouldn't be cops.
Sure they do. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patrolmen%27s_Benevolent_Assoc...
San Francisco's cops bombed the mayor's house in 1975. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco_Police_Departmen...
These are big incidents, but their political power is quite clear on a regular basis. NY's police union head even spoke at the RNC in the last presidential election. https://nypost.com/2020/08/27/rnc-2020-nypd-union-head-says-...
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/06/us/police-unions-minneapo...
> They aggressively protect the rights of members accused of misconduct, often in arbitration hearings that they have battled to keep behind closed doors. And they have also been remarkably effective at fending off broader change, using their political clout and influence to derail efforts to increase accountability.
> When liberal politicians do try to advance reform proposals, union officials have resorted to highly provocative rhetoric and hard-boiled campaign tactics to lash out at them. This past week, the head of the sergeants’ union in New York posted a police report on Twitter revealing personal information about the daughter of Mr. de Blasio, who had been arrested during a protest.
That is incredibly naive. I would argue the police unions are the most powerful unions in the country by quite a large margin.
Every union other than the police unions is attacked because they "hurt the economy" (they don't, and they're the reason for most improvements to compensation and working hours normal people experience). Every other union will refuse to cross picket lines, whereas police unions actively assault picket lines, and have repeatedly murdered strikers, and also covered up murders of strikers.
Police, and their union, are sufficiently anti-union that it's absurd that they're still a "police union" rather than a gang. After all the police union is the only one permitted to use force, and is the only one allowed to break the law, and the only one that gets to kill others.
The kind of BS that these "auditors" do that results in them being arrested doesn't come close to the BS I personally experienced on a daily basis working in retail, and somehow I was able to not assault them.
The problem is police believe that using force is acceptable, and so they use force by default, typically after escalating an interaction rather than doing their job which is to de-escalate. The reason for that is that police unions keep trying to train cops to be thugs (the myriad "training" courses that are geared to "every day could be your last, be ready to shoot" instead of "your goal is to arrest criminals, not execute them, so learn to calm down situations instead of making them worse")
Most of the cops seem to just not want their actions being recorded as what seems like a clear result of them also feeling above the law, more power to the people working to change that culture and protect our rights along the way
My uncle was a senior official for a municipality. His home was picketed during a tense labor negotiation. Also noxious and difficult for the family, but a necessary part of the democratic process to allow.
At the end of the day, the shocking revelations that NYPD desk sergeants give zero fucks isn't very compelling video. It's a fad, and it will fade. But the need to hold the government accountable remains, and allowing trolls to damage that serves nobody well, including the police. No different than my uncle. It sucks my cousins had to deal with that as kids, but it would equally suck if some goon squad prevented the union members from having their grievances addressed.
No, that is not necessary for democracy to work. Going to a public official's home is never necessary. Please enlighten me to what I'm missing that requires this invasion of privacy and security.
A peaceful protest on a public sidewalk outside a public official's home falls pretty squarely within those protections.
The high up GP comment that this discussion branched off of was talking about 'labor negotiations', sure it effects someone and obviously the labor wants the negotiations to go their way, but if it doesn't?
Soccer includes rules about sportsmanship; bad behavior gets you a yellow/red card. Politics doesn't have a referee nor much about sportsmanship.
> The whole thing with democracy is, sometimes things don't go your way, and the rules for how to change it are all right there in front of you.
Sure; one of those things allowed by said rules is public protest against elected officials.
I think we in America set ridiculous norms/boundaries on some things (things like this topic disrespecting the politician's personal life for something that is occurring in their professional/public life; also, feel that we care too much about their personal lives in general, sex/marriage/family stuff but that's another topic)
Even the article couldn't help calling out auditors for being confrontational assholes, but for what it's worth, Reyes doesn't act like typical auditors. He's polite and cool headed. He's assertive while still attempting to deescalate situations. He's the least confrontational auditor I've ever seen. What's compelling about Reyes's work isn't the video showing that the police in the NYDP were acting like assholes and breaking the law, but that he then follows up with formal complaints, lawsuits, and revisits to see what's changed.
I love that there are people willing to risk their safety and freedom and invest the kind of time and money it takes to follow through using the legal system. It'll either change things for the better or at least let us know how bad things really are and where more reforms are needed.
You do, but their presence is also denying others their right to obtain services without being endangered. Some balance is needed here.
Arguably, common policies on gradual escalation only exacerbate the problem of auditors. Cops go from polite requests, to direct orders, trespass notices, through non-lethal things like tasers and pepper spray, and only then to handcuffs and arrests. The cops that handle these people best seem to be the ones that skip the middle stuff, instead going straight from polite request to handcuffs, with trespass notices coming afterwards.
The First Amendment doesn't have an "unless they're a pain in the ass" exemption.
> Getting someone to leave private property
These folks tend to be on public property. That's the whole schtick.
If you trespass in restricted spaces (like a military base, or an NYPD evidence locker) you'll get arrested, yes. The crime is trespass, whether or not you have a camera filming.
Most of the "auditors" I've seen (and many are certainly insufferable) film from public sidewalks, public lobbies (as is the case in this particular court case, which the auditor won), Border Patrol checkpoint / police traffic stops within their own vehicles, etc. It's very common for them to encounter police resistance in these situations, despite a clear First Amendment right to film.
Police violating Constitutional rights isn't some wildly uncommon theoretical; I'm not sure why you seem to be portraying it as such.
There's dozens (hundreds?) of unenforced laws on the books. I'm sure it varies by jurisdiction (where I live, using your turn signal is optional and cops would never pull you over for failure to signal- it's effectively unheard of.) Point being, cops can decided when to police and when not to police. Recording them at work seems to be a line they do not like people to cross and they don't really care if it's constitutionally protected or not.
Therein lies the rub. I'd be tempted to challenge the hell out of that.
I called it out as different because they’re lawfully filming a private area which is visible from a public area (and also from above) rather than simply filming public areas. Apologies if I was unclear.
So there should be plenty of self-incriminating video of them trespassing?
You don't need to carry water for the police. The Supreme Court has that job already.
Can you link 5 or so videos of this?
Of course they don't leave, they have the constitutional right to stay! The very act of asking them to leave is already an overstep.
> The cops that handle these people best seem to be the ones that skip the middle stuff, instead going straight from polite request to handcuffs, with trespass notices coming afterwards.
That is absolutely disgusting. Is that how you want people to treat you?
Rightfully so; tasers and pepper spray were meant to incapacitate violent suspects. They were never supposed to be used to enforce compliance with orders.
Pulling out tasers to deal with "auditors" is the very behavior they seek to document.
Everyone has to remember, not all departments are bad, but all departments can have bad cops; some WAY more than others to put it lightly. It's the unwillingness to remove or even punish the bad cops, that is the issue.
Almost as big a jerk as the people they're auditing.
Almost.
you may as well describe soldiers as murderous pieces of shit, and while it may be true on some level, YOUR world would be much worse off without them.
It should absolutely be auditors that deal with this. They are willingly subjecting themselves to a negative experience for the benefit of us all. Some may be unreasonable but they must not be blamed for the cracks they expose in our system.
Some random person going about their life should not be the one who has to push this to the supreme court if necessary. Every decision like this represents countless past and future plea deals that normal, working people take (at great personal expense often) in order to just move on with their lives.
Everyone demands victims be kind and normal, but that is rarely the case. Kind and normal people stay far away from the boundaries by nature, but the boundaries always shrink when there is no push-back. We need the kooks out there getting tazed so we don't have to.
The filming isn't the illegal part of what you describe.
Cops murder with impunity but yanking a vacuum cable out of a wall calls for full legal reform.
It's a shame that these people are destroying the ability of citizens to use these facilities without risking exposure.