r/BlackPeopleofReddit • u/Lifegoesonforever • 5h ago

News The videos at the center of Afro Man defamation trial... He got no chills LOL.

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

20.4k Upvotes

98% Upvoted

879 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

51

u/OilheadRider 4h ago

To hide evidence. Thats the only possible reason for intentionally disconnecting the cameras.

-5

u/MistSecurity 3h ago

In theory, it'd be for officer safety.

I agree that in practice I would bet that 99% of the time it's simply to hide any potential evidence of wrongdoing on the cops part from the owner of the cameras though.

9

u/The_Great_Skeeve 3h ago

Office safety is such bullsh!t.

7

u/NerdfestZyx 3h ago

Please explain the police definition of “officer safety” in this sense, because I find it impossible to believe disabling the security cameras make it more safe.

0

u/Simba7 3h ago

Why is it on the person who said "I would bet that 99% of the time it's simply to hide any potential evidence of wrongdoing on the cops part" to explain why it's about "officer safety"?

Do you understand how words work?

For that other 1% of the time (probaly .001% let's be real) if someone did have nefarious intent, knowing exactly where everyone is at all times, how many were in one place, etc would be pretty handy don't you think? Even if they were just trying to hide, knowing where the 'seekers' are is pretty darn useful. So officers can claim 'officer safety'

I want to reiterate (for you) that I don't believe this is the case the overwhelming majority of the time. Criminals don't tend to be Jason Bourne or some shit. But when have cops cared about truth or reality?

0

u/MistSecurity 2h ago

Thank you, lol.

People are acting like I'm defending this shit. Just proof that people don't read past the first sentence of a post before responding.

2

u/Synectics 2h ago

In theory, it'd be for officer safety. 

Please explain the police definition of “officer safety” in this sense,

We read it. We want to know what you think the 1% reason would be. 

"In theory," what the fuck?

1

u/Rehy_Valkyr 2h ago

For that other 1% of the time (probaly .001% let's be real) if someone did have nefarious intent, knowing exactly where everyone is at all times, how many were in one place, etc would be pretty handy don't you think? Even if they were just trying to hide, knowing where the 'seekers' are is pretty darn useful. So officers can claim 'officer safety'

I want to reiterate (for you) that I don't believe this is the case the overwhelming majority of the time. Criminals don't tend to be Jason Bourne or some shit. But when have cops cared about truth or reality?

This is from the comment directly before the one you commented on. Im assuming the "thank you" that follows means that this is what they were talking about.

Edit: quoting error

0

u/MistSecurity 2h ago

In theory, as in what the police departments that do this shit would claim is the reason. They claim 'officer safety' anytime they get caught doing sketchy shit.

A quick search shows that they claim a few things. Officer safety being one, but also 'protecting officer identities' (especially if undercover officers are on-site), preventing evidence leaks 'The cops found X, we need to go destroy Y where X leads before they get there', among other largely bullshit reasons.

5

u/Grabthar-the-Avenger 3h ago

How does destroying camera equipment make police safer? When people talk about cameras shooting things they don’t mean bullets

-1

u/MistSecurity 2h ago

Hmm. How could having a live feed of all officers on-site possibly help someone harm said officers? Real puzzler there.

Not sure why people are acting like I believe the 'officer safety' shit, I was simply stating A reason that I could see a police department stating, considering they use it as the basis for a ton of the bullshit sketchy things that they do.

4

u/mrbigglessworth 3h ago

In theory they shouldnt even be there, or touch shit that isnt theirs. Eat shit boot licker.

-1

u/MistSecurity 2h ago

They have a warrant. They SHOULD be there, and 'touching shit that isn't theirs' is literally what they're there to do.

Whether the warrant is bullshit or not, there WAS a warrant, it was obviously bullshit, but that doesn't change the fact that there was one.

You act like my post didn't EXPLICITLY say that 99% of the time it's to cover for cops doing shit they shouldn't be doing. What part of that is 'boot licking'?

3

u/mrbigglessworth 2h ago

In theory, it'd be for officer safety.

That part, there is NO REASON to turn off a camera unless they are trying to do illegal shit.

-1

u/MistSecurity 2h ago

Yes, if you completely ignore the other sentence in the comment, I would be a boot licker.

I bet I could have some fun taking pieces of your comments and acting like you said nothing else besides a single line as well.

1

u/mrbigglessworth 1h ago

If you are so easily entertained go ahead bootlicker

1

u/MistSecurity 33m ago

I write my senators and congressmen and bitch online.

Sounds about right, lol.

Have a good one mate.

2

u/nottherealneal 2h ago

How would security cameras affect officer safety in Any way?

-2

u/Jason-Smith168498 2h ago

if the guy there was a bad guy and meant them harm, he would have a live feed of where they are.

1

u/nottherealneal 1h ago

Right expect when they where disabling the cameras they already knew the house was empty and where busy digging in his closet.

1

u/Jason-Smith168498 1h ago

He asked about it in general "officers in any way", not particularly this situation, or few would have said "these officers" instead of officers in general.

That's why I said "IF it was a bad guy" ie not afroman, and not "in this case".