• 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

But what it suggests and what the reasoning was may in fact be two different things. If the congressman was simply addressing the frustration with Papparazzi or other pushy photographers he might have been focused on that.
Possible. But legislators are prone to proposing new legislation that is often redundant simply because it gives the appearance that they're doing something.

I've long thought that we should have most things pretty much nailed down by now, and that the numbers of laws should actually be going down, but that doesn't seem to be happening. That's also probably another topic for another thread.


It seems unlikely that a Texas congressman would be pushing legislation intended to enable police officers in abuse of power.
You have more faith in the purity of our legislators than I do.
 
All we can evaluate is what was proposed, and the proposal amended a law that already made it illegal to interfere with police, and added a provision that made it a presumed violation of that law just for photographing or recording the police within 25 or 100 feet. So the target is clearly those RECORDING the police. Not bystanders in general - ONLY those with cameras turned on.

If there is some evidence the existing law doesn't adequately allow officers to do their job, then present that argument. No one has done so yet that I've seen.

What would suffice as evidence? Who has evidence other than the cops themselves? All I can say is that people crowding in to get pictures with their Kindles and Tablets and Phones etc. are a real pain at times--a phenomenon that didn't exist 10 or so years ago. All I know is that I have witnessed this phenomenon and my nephew, who is a police officer, tells me that it is a problem for them at times.

My only motive in this thread is that I am as angered and offended by true police overreach and misconduct as the next person. But I also know that the good cops outnumber the bad ones by a huge margin, and I'm just not willing to think the worst of them because a legislator from Texas worded a bill that people are trying to make out to be a license for police misconduct.
 
Didn't the supreme court already decide this issue?

Kind of. SCOTUS declined to review a 1st circuit (I think it was) decision a few years back that said videotaping police was constitutionally protected.

That said reasonable restrictions on a right may past muster (not that I think this would)
 
The bill has been dropped by its author.
 
What's really bull**** here is that anyone carrying a gun has to be 100 feet away from the incident, pretty much nullifying a good part of the adult population's ability to accurately video the incident.

"Hey, you get to decide....videotape for justice's sake or risk losing your right to own and carry a firearm?" Nice.
As if a girl from Seattle is worried about my right to carry a gun in Texas.. If the cop needs help you should have your gun in your hand and if the cop needs to be taped for what he is doing you need to have the gun to his head.

If you one of your liberals approach the cop in action with a gun and a camera the person the cop is beating might take the gun and kill the liberal and the cop.

I have it on good authority that bullets are useless beyond 80 feet.
If you get too close the criminal might take your gun when it falls out of your purse. If they were worried about you shooting at the cop with your garter gun they would let you get a lot closer.
I've long thought that we should have most things pretty much nailed down by now, and that the numbers of laws should actually be going down, but that doesn't seem to be happening. That's also probably another topic for another thread.
In this case we are calling about a new situation and we all know that people get in the way. The last big video was taken for pretty far back and the cop may get the death penalty so 25 feet is good.
But what it suggests and what the reasoning was may in fact be two different things. If the congressman was simply addressing the frustration with Papparazzi or other pushy photographers he might have been focused on that. It seems unlikely that a Texas congressman would be pushing legislation intended to enable police officers in abuse of power.
I expect that the cops would like a few feet of separation as backup arrives and people staring at their phone cameras tend to get in the way more than others.
 
What would suffice as evidence? Who has evidence other than the cops themselves? All I can say is that people crowding in to get pictures with their Kindles and Tablets and Phones etc. are a real pain at times--a phenomenon that didn't exist 10 or so years ago. All I know is that I have witnessed this phenomenon and my nephew, who is a police officer, tells me that it is a problem for them at times.

I was asking about evidence of the shortcomings of the EXISTING LAW, which already makes it illegal to interfere with police officers doing their duty. Frankly citizens being a "pain" isn't sufficient to pass a law that makes being a "pain" a crime punishable by up to a year in prison. What I'm asking is why we need laws that single out photographers for special restrictions that aren't needed to control crowds of people not recording.

My only motive in this thread is that I am as angered and offended by true police overreach and misconduct as the next person. But I also know that the good cops outnumber the bad ones by a huge margin, and I'm just not willing to think the worst of them because a legislator from Texas worded a bill that people are trying to make out to be a license for police misconduct.

I agree about the good outnumbering the bad - I respect the police and am damn glad we have them around.

What surprises me about this legislation is it takes 30 seconds of thought to come up with fatal objections to the bill. It's incredible no one pushing it spent the seconds needed to recognize it makes a criminal out of someone recording his or her own interactions with police, which is just a HUGE sledgehammer just begging to be used by crooked cops to harass people. That's my motive - to point that out.
 
As if a girl from Seattle is worried about my right to carry a gun in Texas.. If the cop needs help you should have your gun in your hand and if the cop needs to be taped for what he is doing you need to have the gun to his head.
.

As a cc permit holder in this state, I hope that you are not one in TX (or anywhere). This is the stupidest thing I have read in a long time. Your permit is not a license to become some crime fighter. None of these was about a cop in immediate danger from a suspect and if it was, you'd need to be right next to them to use your firearm in order to make sure you didnt hit the cop....eh sharpshooter? Because they would have to be mano a mano for you to have any excuse to interfere at all.

So your firearm should never even be out for anyone to 'take.' And if you're worried about it, get a little gun retention training.

People like you endanger all our rights to carry. :doh
 
Last edited:
If the drafters of the bill were worried about interference with police performing their duties the bill would call for a 25' perimeter excluding ALL people, not just those with a camera.

The bill doesn't contain an exception for persons being investigated by the officer so presumably a motorist stopped by the police could not legally videotape the encounter under this law.



Courts have consistently held that recording police in the performance of their duties is permissible under the First Amendment. Even if this was passed it likely would not stand a Constitutional challenge.

Also, the law should only prevent people from entering an 25' perimeter of an officer. If an officer approaches you, you should be able to record. The proof, of course, would be on the recording itself. It would show who approach whom.
 
Make it illegal to film the police on the condition that all police wear cameras all the time.

Naw, Keep it legal to film police and require cops to wear body cams while on duty.
 
To prevent Obstruction of Justice and interfering with the duties of police? Maybe.

But why not simply prevent the public from being within 25' of police when involved in an arrest, chase, etc?

Looks like Texas is trying to prevent cops from having their shady/illegal activities recorded.
 
Back
Top Bottom