- Joined
- Dec 2, 2013
- Messages
- 3,237
- Reaction score
- 2,159
- Location
- Florida
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Libertarian - Left
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.
Within 25 feet.
I am a strong supporter in the public's right to record police officers. But I also don't have a problem with giving the officers a buffer zone to do their work. Reasonable people can certainly disagree on what that distance should be.
What is or isn't 25 feet will obviously be up to law enforcement. They will most likely be harassing people that are more than 25 feet away. This is not about helping police do their jobs; this is about making it harder to make them accountable for their actions.
A balance has to be found.
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.
Are people with camera truly interfering with policing or are they threatening to policing?
Within 25 feet.
I am a strong supporter in the public's right to record police officers. But I also don't have a problem with giving the officers a buffer zone to do their work. Reasonable people can certainly disagree on what that distance should be.
Within 25 feet.
I am a strong supporter in the public's right to record police officers. But I also don't have a problem with giving the officers a buffer zone to do their work. Reasonable people can certainly disagree on what that distance should be.
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.
my problem with giving them a specified buffer zone (any specified buffer zone) is that it then becomes a question of measuring the distance to prove guilt or innocence. also, a cop doesn't even need to charge someone with a crime in order to abuse the law. they can just start telling everyone to get back and that their filming is illegal, or use the opportunity to confiscate a camera before a person has had a chance to put the specified distance between themselves and an officer. also if you're in a small room this would essentially make filming the officer illegal, or if you were stopped at a traffic stop, etc.
Read the other thread.what types?
I don't disagree that the police will manipulate the rule. But that doesn't mean such a rule isn't justified.
The rule isn't justified because there are already rules on interfering with the police. This is just something to give the authority a cheater-arm, a way to exert more torque on the People and hide their actions. The laws necessary already exist, they can't use them because they haven't been violated on whole by people recording. So they need a new law to give more force to government to use against the rights and liberties of the People.
This topic was already made and discussed.
http://www.debatepolitics.com/law-and-order/219304-republican-wants-shred-1st-amendment.html
It does not make recording police illegal.
It makes certain types of recordings illegal.
No, maybe the rules should be followed. They do exist for a reason.or I could just continue the good discussion we're having in here and ignore your fly-by post. have a great day!
And? Not my argument.As I noted above there is no exception for those being investigated by the police. That is a major problem with the bill and would effectively put us back in the "he said/she said" days when he - the cop - was always right.