Some states have a law in their arsenal if you take a video recording of an officer. Even if they don't, some pissed off cop can just slap on the usual "disturbing the peace" or "resisting arrest" nonsense on you. There is too much hero worship for law enforcement and they need to be more accountable and held to higher standards.
So this would have been a great comment if you just left it at the first sentence, because it's true that there's an ongoing legal battle in a bunch of states about the right to record police officers doing their jobs. My home state of Illinois is one of the worst offenders here. I note, happily, that the police are tending to lose these fights in court.
The rest of your comment saps your credibility.
"Some pissed off cop can just" &c &c &c --- well, let's not discuss what the police should be able to do at all then, because this is logic that inevitably ends up with us throwing up our hands. Or, because we're on Hyperbolic News, having a debate about whether the citizens of a truly free society need police at all.
I added the "pissed off cop" bit because it is true, go search around if you don't think so. The rest of it shows what I think is a part of the problem. God forbid we express our opinions and try to have a discussion without someone making a meta-comment about hn itself as if they are above it all.
The problem isn't that you're expressing an opinion; it's that you're making an assertion that isn't falsifiable. Of course it's possible some police officer somewhere is going to act inappropriately. Now what?
