I wonder what FB's policy on this will be going forward. In many ways, these livestreams are a public good and provide transparency and additional accountability in these situations. If people elect to stream them, it seems wrong to shut it down. On the other hand, perhaps there is a public good in not showing an ongoing live police operation?
I think I'd lean toward not agreeing to shutdown such streams, unless perhaps it's a hostage situation or terror event of some kind. (Getting into squishy definitions there, I'm sure, which is why I qualify it provisionally.)
As to this particular incident... I wish the deceased hadn't resisted. It seems in this case the police exercised much more caution and restraint than has been the case in many other recent examples of shootings. And I think one thing generally stands: if you threaten to kill a police officer and especially if you do so while holding a weapon (or certainly pointing it at them), you're likely to be shot.
From a Facebook abuse and law enforcement operations perspective, if this happens more often it will become a huge pain in the ass. They have procedures in place to provide geolocation and such for urgent subpoenas and warrants (example: a kidnapping in progress). The level of stress that the FB team responsible for this ticket queue must experience is immense.
It's a strange wish, because the only reason the police were intertsted in arresting her on Aug 1 was because she steadfastly rejected and resisted police authority previously. This was specifically a micro (idiot) rebellion against govt authority, there were no other (non-derivative) issues involved.
> According to a police report from the March stop, which the department released after the shooting, Gaines was stopped when an officer saw that in place of a license plate she had a piece of cardboard on her vehicle. The cardboard declared, “Any Government official who compromises this pursuit to happiness and right to travel, will be criminally responsible and fined, as this is a natural right and freedom.”
It's not gobbledygook to disagree with the government. (Is the Declaration of Independence gobbledygook?) It's only gobbledygook if you expect a police officer or court to be persuaded by your reasoning. Gaines defended her sovereignty with her gun, just like the US and MD government does. Unfortunately for her, the MD government used it's guns more preemptively, aggressively, and effectively.
I think this is a very unfortunate situation, but the thought of Facebook disabling her account at the behest of the police, that doesn't feel right. We seen that we cannot always trust the police perspective in shootings, so instead of disabling the account, perhaps Facebook should have instead continue to record the feed but disable the comments.
"Mr. Zuckerberg sir, an incredibly violent and hostile individual with a gun is livestreaming a standoff with the police. It's very likely this livestream will involve somebody brutally dying or getting horrible maimed. Also, this stream could jeopardize an important police operation underway to neutralize this dangerous person. Should we pull the stream?"
"No! Of course not! The internet is the land of Freedom! Hosting this content isn't bad for us at all!"
Why not? cutting off the lines of communication is pretty standard procedures in standoff situations.
Before cellphones they would just cut the landlines, I don't understand why they couldn't just use a jammer to cut her off instead of going to facebook but putting a media blackout on such situations isn't wrong.
If you think about it from Facebook's perspective though, do you really want to be responsible for broadcasting a video where the women, her child or a police officer is shot or killed on camera?
Slight concern that the developer on ACLU's behalf is something called Quadrant 2, Inc, which seems to be owned by an individual operator as opposed to a larger established company. Not sure what the company's track record or policies are.
But just an aside there. This is cool to see and great to have as a reminder.
This is going to get upvoted because of the title, I really hope that people read the actual article before posting. The worst part is that this women put her children in extreme danger and had a history of instigating police and threatening extreme violence through social media.
Furthermore others on social media actively encouraged her violence which directly led to her death and serious injury to her children. It reminds me most of the school shooting in Oregon where the attacker was actively encouraged on internet forums to commit the act. Though like in that incident I think this women would have acted the same regardless.
An alternate explanation is a woman was protecting her child from a threat --real, perceived or otherwise. Poor choice? Probably. But I think you've only explored one side of the story and a lot more information has become available in the last 12 hours.
I wonder if there was a way to resolve this standoff without her death. I.e. letting her shoot all the shotgun shells she has, or just waiting until she gets tired and slips up, gets hungry, etc. Yeah, it requires a lot of patience but hey, you can save a human life. I don't think she would have harmed her kid so waiting in cover seems like a relatively safe thing to do?
Someone shooting at the police is a clear and present danger to everyone's life and needs to be neutralized as quickly as possible. "Letting her shoot all the shells she had" sounds like a cute scene in a movie, not reality. You don't know what the shells will be able to penetrate, whether bystanders in nearby apartments or on the street are at danger, etc. The preservation of her life stopped being a concern when she pulled a deadly weapon and most certainly when she opened fire.
Agreed. Especially if you consider that she was originally being served a warrant for a relatively minor offense, which she hadn't even been convicted of.
if police are about to shoot, and have good cause to, then it would seem reasonable that they be allowed to use sleep gas or tranquilizer, similar to what doctors use during operation. Seems better than killing them.
Downside could be lawsuites against the police for "damages" that the sleep gas caused.
What is the rationale for news outlets not showing an ongoing police operation? Is it so that the suspects / perpetrators can't use the external information against the police? If so, does that rationale applicable when it is the suspect / perpetrator broadcast their own available information?
I don't know the background for these policies, so asking the first question non-rhetorically.
The normal justification (the only I've heard) for that is you don't want to give the suspects an advantage. Clearly that justification doesn't apply when the suspect is the one livestreaming it.
Also, using a police scanner while committing a crime carries an additional penalty in certain jurisdictions. Probably along the same lines as far as rationale goes.
>“She was intelligent, strong, determined, beautiful. She was a dedicated mother, an awesome friend. She was determined to enlighten people. There’s not enough accolades I can give her,”
A mother determined to endanger the life of her son in a firefight with police. Though it seems it may not have been her fault that she turned out that way. Quite sad.
Where he was live streaming to Facebook while being shot by police. If the police can prevent streams like these from being seen, it gives them a huge legal advantage. It means the public won't be able to see what happened and can't put political pressure on DAs to prosecute cops. It's much better for them if they can keep that footage internal to Facebook, the police force, and the DA if at all possible.
Police aren't allowed to jam cell phones, so why should they be allowed to do this? Making the cops' jobs easier isn't something that always benefits society. (I'm totally for the cops in this case, but still they shouldn't be able to censor like this.)
I think this is a good point. I wonder if livestreams could be enabled but perhaps comments/feedback could be disabled or invisible to the poster. This could also address concerns that external viewers might feed a suspect/perpetrator intel on the police operation which might impinge their efficacy in an already difficult notice.
This incident didn't really have anything to do with Facebook. The cause was buried in an offhand remark in the middle of the article: apparently the woman's behavior was a result of brain damage from lead paint. The headline should have been 'Lead paint claims yet another victim'.
[+] [-] erdevs|9 years ago|reply
I wonder what FB's policy on this will be going forward. In many ways, these livestreams are a public good and provide transparency and additional accountability in these situations. If people elect to stream them, it seems wrong to shut it down. On the other hand, perhaps there is a public good in not showing an ongoing live police operation?
I think I'd lean toward not agreeing to shutdown such streams, unless perhaps it's a hostage situation or terror event of some kind. (Getting into squishy definitions there, I'm sure, which is why I qualify it provisionally.)
As to this particular incident... I wish the deceased hadn't resisted. It seems in this case the police exercised much more caution and restraint than has been the case in many other recent examples of shootings. And I think one thing generally stands: if you threaten to kill a police officer and especially if you do so while holding a weapon (or certainly pointing it at them), you're likely to be shot.
[+] [-] imglorp|9 years ago|reply
Fair enough, but maybe just delay any posts of an active operation, instead of censoring them?
[+] [-] walrus01|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tamana|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] HelloImDumb|9 years ago|reply
I love Monday morning quarterbacks.
[+] [-] aab0|9 years ago|reply
So she was a Sovereign Citizen (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_citizen_movement)? http://heavy.com/news/2016/08/korryn-gaines-instagram-videos... quotes her spouting more of the sovereign citizen legal gobbledegook. Apparently there's even a black version of all this stuff: http://www.rawstory.com/2014/08/sovereign-citizens-express-f...
[+] [-] rahimnathwani|9 years ago|reply
It's sad that the top comment on this thread is just name-calling.
Why do you consider her views to be 'gobbledegook'?
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] bmmayer1|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tamana|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Overtonwindow|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 2bitencryption|9 years ago|reply
"No! Of course not! The internet is the land of Freedom! Hosting this content isn't bad for us at all!"
[+] [-] dogma1138|9 years ago|reply
Before cellphones they would just cut the landlines, I don't understand why they couldn't just use a jammer to cut her off instead of going to facebook but putting a media blackout on such situations isn't wrong.
[+] [-] nness|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] donatj|9 years ago|reply
I'd personally trust that far more than Facebook.
[1] https://www.aclu.org/feature/aclu-apps-record-police-conduct
[+] [-] erdevs|9 years ago|reply
Slight concern that the developer on ACLU's behalf is something called Quadrant 2, Inc, which seems to be owned by an individual operator as opposed to a larger established company. Not sure what the company's track record or policies are.
But just an aside there. This is cool to see and great to have as a reminder.
[+] [-] ben_jones|9 years ago|reply
Furthermore others on social media actively encouraged her violence which directly led to her death and serious injury to her children. It reminds me most of the school shooting in Oregon where the attacker was actively encouraged on internet forums to commit the act. Though like in that incident I think this women would have acted the same regardless.
[+] [-] thelock85|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] duaneb|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Kenji|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] wildmusings|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] forkwhilefork|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] lighttower|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pjc50|9 years ago|reply
Even in the UK with its very low use of police gunfire (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/uk-police-shoo... - seven shootings out of ~12,500 incidents involving firearm officers) have done this on a few occasions involving sieges.
It's all the other incidents we should be concerned about.
[+] [-] _audakel|9 years ago|reply
Downside could be lawsuites against the police for "damages" that the sleep gas caused.
[+] [-] williamscales|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] erdevs|9 years ago|reply
I don't know the background for these policies, so asking the first question non-rhetorically.
[+] [-] gpm|9 years ago|reply
Can you give another justification?
[+] [-] NeutronBoy|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] clarkmoody|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] chendies|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] microcolonel|9 years ago|reply
A mother determined to endanger the life of her son in a firefight with police. Though it seems it may not have been her fault that she turned out that way. Quite sad.
[+] [-] cloudjacker|9 years ago|reply
If some police departments can deliver bombs via drones, maybe warrants can be too!
[+] [-] erikpukinskis|9 years ago|reply
http://www.cnn.com/videos/us/2016/06/17/man-shot-killed-whil...
Where he was live streaming to Facebook while being shot by police. If the police can prevent streams like these from being seen, it gives them a huge legal advantage. It means the public won't be able to see what happened and can't put political pressure on DAs to prosecute cops. It's much better for them if they can keep that footage internal to Facebook, the police force, and the DA if at all possible.
Very smart.
[+] [-] nolepointer|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] MichaelGG|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] erdevs|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] rwallace|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] codezero|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tonmoy|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] catuskoti|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] wildmusings|9 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|9 years ago|reply
[deleted]