• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Texas Bill Would Make Recording Police Illegal

How can one record wrongdoing within ones own home? Why cant citizens police the police?

'Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?' has never been more relevant. If a video is filmed within 25 feet of a police brutality incident, will it be admissible in court even though the person taking it was clearly breaking the law?
 
Was the SC shooting filmed from more than 25 feet?

Not a clue. If so, no need to move in closer. Why be in the way or risk being harmed? We don't know what is going on at the scene (this is aside from SC). The perp may have a weapon, bust free and grab a bystander, he may be contagious. We don't know. I wouldn't hover over doctors or EMTs trying to save a patient either. If I am not directly involved, I give the professionals room to move. It may save a life.
Not all emergency scenes are noteworthy but just day by day business. We just never hear about the average but rather sensationalize the few in between.
 
The title is a lie and the Huffington Post troll that posted this thread should be banned.

Except for the language of the bill that outlaws recording of police under the circumstances spelled out within.

"Huffington Post troll" ??????
 
Not a clue. If so, no need to move in closer. Why be in the way or risk being harmed? We don't know what is going on at the scene (this is aside from SC). The perp may have a weapon, bust free and grab a bystander, he may be contagious. We don't know. I wouldn't hover over doctors or EMTs trying to save a patient either. If I am not directly involved, I give the professionals room to move. It may save a life.
Not all emergency scenes are noteworthy but just day by day business. We just never hear about the average but rather sensationalize the few in between.

That's all common sense and good advice, but has little to do with the law, which singles out those recording the event for special restrictions, with others subject only to the general prohibition against interfering with police/EMTs etc.

And the law has to take into account the "few in between." The simplest example is a traffic stop. If you're in the passenger seat and watch the driver get drug out of the car, beaten by six cops, and tazed, it's ILLEGAL for you to record a second of that. If you do, you will face up to six months in jail, and all the state has to prove is you were within 25 feet (100 feet if you're legally carrying a gun) AND you recorded it, even if you never even left your seat.
 
Right. What would this law accomplish that existing laws already cannot?

I assume you mean besides make a bunch of people criminals who aren't otherwise interfering with police, but who do have a phone and have 'record' turned on....
 
'Qui custodiet ipsos custodes?' has never been more relevant. If a video is filmed within 25 feet of a police brutality incident, will it be admissible in court even though the person taking it was clearly breaking the law?

What if it let's the LEO off? It's a double-edged sword that cuts both ways in this business. If an officer could go to the electric chair, but for a video....would they admit it?
 
And? Not my argument.
Making a blanket statement saying the bill would make recording police illegal is wrong as it doesn't.
It only make it illegal under certain circumstances.

Officers have been found to be outside of the law or departmental regs during traffic stops.
This has only been proven as another in the vehicle recorded the incident.
Their are laws in place.
Note it excludes news people. Like they never interfere on a crime/incident scene.
.
 
At least one type of police shooting would be prohibited.

*crickets*
 
I don't disagree that the police will manipulate the rule. But that doesn't mean such a rule isn't justified.

I am the father of two young sons. One of my oldest son's favorite past-times is to lick his finger and stick it about one inch from his brother's face and when his brother protests he says, "What?! I'm not touching you!"

I can envision a situation in which an officer is trying to make a legitimate arrest and bystanders, with cameras or not, start getting too close for comfort. Close enough to be distracting. Close enough the officer may even feel in danger. Imagine a group of friends out, perhaps they just won a hockey game, and one of them throws a beer bottle through a car window breaking it. An officer sees it and starts arresting the guy. All of a sudden his dozen buddies surround him and the officer and get really close. They are yelling at the officer that their buddy didn't do anything and this is ****ed up and they start calling him a pig and everything else. Everything they are yelling is protected by the first amendment, as it should be. But it will be very difficult for the officer to do his job properly and communicate with dispatch over the noise.

"We're not touching you! We're not touching you!"

A balance has to be found.

It's scenarios like those that are the problem. It's easy to record an incident and then edit the video to make it look like the cop was wrong and the perp was right or vice versa. I don't have an issue with recording the police, but it'w when those recording get used in court that there can be a problem.
 
That isn't what the bill says. HuffingtonPost is lying in that headline.

It would be legal to film an officer from 25 feet away. What the bill is intending to do is keep people from rushing in to film a crime scene before the police have processed it.
That the headline is somewhat misleading is true. However, pretty much everybody in this thread seems to have figured that out and is moving on with the discussion.
 
how many times has a citizen who was filming the police actually been shown to have interfered with their work? I mean I'm sure people are arrested for it all the time but really, how many times has a perp gotten away or something of consequence actually occurred because of someone filming the police (other than exposure of police brutality).
 

i cannot see how this is in any way unreasonable.

Anything has cen shown from a distance of 25 feet, as a reporter I would have given an arm to be guaranteed 25 feet from anything.

I would further suggest that in yet to be controlled situation, even that close could be dangerous to the filmer as well as the officers.

The Huff will war at anything the remotely looks like a challenge to civil liberties, but has no problem with Obama lying.
 
how many times has a citizen who was filming the police actually been shown to have interfered with their work? I mean I'm sure people are arrested for it all the time but really, how many times has a perp gotten away or something of consequence actually occurred because of someone filming the police (other than exposure of police brutality).

Google it

Or, perhaps call the local police and ask how often a person filming them made their jobs more difficult or potentially interfered with an investigation.

Would you want an innocent man to go to prison because some exculpatory evidence was overlooked by officers more concerned about the safety of the people filming?

Or do you just assume that cops are out to "get" people?
 
Google it

Or, perhaps call the local police and ask how often a person filming them made their jobs more difficult or potentially interfered with an investigation.

Would you want an innocent man to go to prison because some exculpatory evidence was overlooked by officers more concerned about the safety of the people filming?

Or do you just assume that cops are out to "get" people?

you could have just not answered or posted "I don't know" and this would have been easier but here are the answers to your statements/questions:

I did google it. couldn't find anything other than advocacy websites.

I don't want to waste my local police department's time.

no.

no.
 
That isn't what the bill says. HuffingtonPost is lying in that headline.

It would be legal to film an officer from 25 feet away. What the bill is intending to do is keep people from rushing in to film a crime scene before the police have processed it.

I guess those with cameras better invest in a tape measure to carry with them so they'll know at what point they're subject to six months in jail for stepping one foot into that prohibited zone. :roll:

Also, too, it's 100 feet if you are legally carrying a weapon. That's a long tape measure!

And if the bill intends to preserve a crime scene, why allow those NOT filming into the "NO RECORDING ALLOWED ZONE!"? What point do special rules for those recording the scene serve? I can't think of any, except the obvious one which is reduce the situations when it's legal to record the police, and to hand cops an easily abused excuse to arrest bystanders who have the temerity to get their cameras out. If you're driving, and your wife records a traffic stop during which you get drug out of your car and beaten, she's committing a crime and will be subject to (up to) six months in jail. You're OK with that I guess.....
 
you could have just not answered or posted "I don't know" and this would have been easier but here are the answers to your statements/questions:

I did google it. couldn't find anything other than advocacy websites.

I don't want to waste my local police department's time.

no.

no.

So no evidence produces a question of how much?

You had the answer, you just didn't like it. Note for future reference the lack of finding anything often means there is none.

And not wasting the time of the police is a cop out. I volunteer for the local police and that is what we do, find answers to those questions so the public better understands the complexity of a police officer's job.

the fact you don't accept "no evidence" for what it is and don't want to know about how police do their job says all that needs be said.
 
My interpretation of this bill is that it is intended more to intimidate people into not even attempting to record incidents.
 
i cannot see how this is in any way unreasonable.

Anything has cen shown from a distance of 25 feet, as a reporter I would have given an arm to be guaranteed 25 feet from anything.

You're not reading any of the replies, I guess.

It's OK that any traffic stop is just about inherently illegal to record? It's OK to make it illegal to record your OWN interaction with police? If you're in a small room, any recording is illegal, especially if you're legally carrying a gun, which mandates 100 feet. Reasonable? If you're filming, a police officer entering into the 25 foot zone (100 feet if you have a legal firearm) makes you a criminal unless you stop immediately, which means grounds for arrest, seizing your recording device and up to 6 months in jail. You're OK with that? They only have to prove you were recording in that prohibited zone. Nothing else.

I would further suggest that in yet to be controlled situation, even that close could be dangerous to the filmer as well as the officers.

It's already illegal to interfere with a police officer. Police would have the same rights they have now to clear people (recording or not) from a scene when necessary to do his or her job properly and safely.

Explain why a photographer (aka an ordinary person with their cell phone out and recording) is more dangerous than any other person with a cell phone out but not recording?
 
Last edited:
I'm having some trouble understanding you here so I'm going to break this up:

So no evidence produces a question of how much?

no evidence of what?

You had the answer, you just didn't like it. Note for future reference the lack of finding anything often means there is none.

what answer did I have? I googled "how often do citizens filming actually interfere with police". I just now tried "cases of police interference with cameras" on bing. both instances didn't bring up any stats or examples of how often this type of thing actually occurs. if you're saying that the fact that I couldn't find anything means that it never happens, I guess that means this law is utterly and completely unnecessary, doesn't it?

And not wasting the time of the police is a cop out. I volunteer for the local police and that is what we do, find answers to those questions so the public better understands the complexity of a police officer's job.

okay...but I'm guessing the Vancouver police department works a bit differently from mine, so maybe that scenario wouldn't apply down here

the fact you don't accept "no evidence" for what it is and don't want to know about how police do their job says all that needs be said.

again, if there's no evidence that filming police ever actually interferes with their work, then why would we ever need this law?
 
I'm having some trouble understanding you here so I'm going to break this up:


no evidence of what?



what answer did I have? I googled "how often do citizens filming actually interfere with police". I just now tried "cases of police interference with cameras" on bing. both instances didn't bring up any stats or examples of how often this type of thing actually occurs. if you're saying that the fact that I couldn't find anything means that it never happens, I guess that means this law is utterly and completely unnecessary, doesn't it?



okay...but I'm guessing the Vancouver police department works a bit differently from mine, so maybe that scenario wouldn't apply down here



again, if there's no evidence that filming police ever actually interferes with their work, then why would we ever need this law?



Oh FFS

You Googled you said and found NOTHING

And so you decided to post the question anyway?

How much more simply can I say you. had. the. answer. NONE!

Good bye and have a good whatever it is you do
 
You're not reading any of the replies, I guess.

It's OK that any traffic stop is just about inherently illegal to record? It's OK to make it illegal to record your OWN interaction with police? If you're in a small room, any recording is illegal, especially if you're legally carrying a gun, which mandates 100 feet. Reasonable? If you're filming, a police officer entering into the 25 foot zone (100 feet if you have a legal firearm) makes you a criminal unless you stop immediately, which means grounds for arrest, seizing your recording device and up to 6 months in jail. You're OK with that? They only have to prove you were recording in that prohibited zone. Nothing else.



It's already illegal to interfere with a police officer. Police would have the same rights they have now to clear people (recording or not) from a scene when necessary to do his or her job properly and safely.

Explain why a photographer (aka an ordinary person with their cell phone out and recording) is more dangerous than any other person with a cell phone out but not recording?

I see no evidence of any of that.

But if you say so, then the law is clearly unconstitutional and you have no worries.

Somehow I doubt that. I know how the Amerikan left operates. You're the guys who issue death threats over pizza shops not wanting to cater gay weddings.

hysteria is common, but if your claims are correct, it is an open and shut case
 
Back
Top Bottom