• 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

Fearandloathing said:
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
Click to expand...

...I'm absolutely confused by what you've posted here. I googled the question. I'm looking for cases where a citizen films the police and as a result, the police were hindered or prevented from doing their job properly. when I googled it an bing'd it, I found a bunch of advocacy sites but no statistics on how often this happens. then I posted the question here, wondering if anyone had any idea about how often it happens. I don't know how else to explain it. I didn't think the google results were a good indicator of the information that might be out there so I tried asking.

also, what side are you trying to argue right now? you keep repeating that I have the answer already: "none". if it's true that there is no evidence that citizens actually interfere or prevent officers from doing their job, then aren't you making the case that there is no reason to have this law?

am I not making myself clear? can someone else help me out? this is confusing the **** out of me.
 
JasperL said:
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.....
Click to expand...

Or listen to the officer.
 
radcen said:
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.
Click to expand...

"Somewhat misleading"? Is that what we call lies these days?
 
jmotivator said:
Or listen to the officer.
Click to expand...

They can arrest you jt, and all you have to do is record within a zone the officer says is less than 25 feet. It's an invitation for abuse, and it means you can't film YOUR OWN interaction with police, can't film a traffic stop, etc, etc. etc.

And you didn't answer the question - why single out those with a cell phone and recording, versus those with a cell phone and their camera off?
 
Fearandloathing said:
I see no evidence of any of that.

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

What do you mean you see no evidence of "that?" E.g. you're driving, pulled over, wife is in passenger seat. How can she get outside the 25 or 100 foot zone and record you getting pulled out by your hair, beaten and tazed? If she records it from her passenger seat, she IS a criminal and is subject to six months in jail, a year if she has a carry permit and has a gun in her purse.

If you're in a small room, it's nearly impossible to get and stay 25 feet away from anyone not in a corner.

Etc. Just use your common sense and there's all the evidence you need.

And the legislation amends a law that already makes it a crime to interfere with the police. This proposal creates special restrictions applicable ONLY to those recording the event. It's really a terrible idea, from start to finish.

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
Click to expand...

Blah, blah.... And I don't know how the courts will rule, but if it's enacted, it will take years to get through the system. And it's beside the point anyway. It's a good idea or not, and I can't see any redeeming feature of it, unless you're a cop and want fewer recordings made, and an easy excuse to harass, arrest and even jail those who DO choose to record your actions.
 
BrewerBob said:
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.[
Click to expand...
/QUOTE]



Arms length should be good enough, eh?

If you're not touching them, you're not interfering with them.
Click to expand...
 
jmotivator said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sure, that may be the stated reason, but we all know the real reason is law enforcement doesn't like the scrutiny. And the SC shooting is a good demonstration of this. And of course the police would prefer to "process" a crime scene like the SC shooting before anybody filmed it, lol.
 
AlbqOwl said:
Requiring camera happy spectators to keep their distance is not only reasonable, but
is imperative for the safety of the police officer
Click to expand...
and sometimes those he is questioning or arresting or giving a ticket to or whatever. In especially highly charged situations like the fight following the hockey game etc., the policeman often has multiple issues in progress and doesn't need to worry about who is crowding around him. It isn't much different than the police order to 'Move along, there's nothing to see here" kind of order to disperse a crowd that detracts from a police investigation.
Click to expand...



Yeah, it protects their ability to murder people and get away with it, eh?
 
radcen said:
Right.
What would this law accomplish that existing laws already cannot?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



It might protect some bad cops from the consequences of their illegal actions, but I doubt that the U.S. Supreme Court will let this law go into effect.
 
Fearandloathing said:
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.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



What does Obama, lying or not lying, have to do with this thread?

Fill us in.
 
Fearandloathing said:
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?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Some cops are just out to get people. If they can write you a ticket or arrest you on a BS charge, that's a feather in their cap.
 
Anomalism said:
Texas Bill Would Make Recording Police Illegal
Click to expand...

There should be some sort of buffer zone to allow the police officer to do his or her job. Things like this should be a on a case by case bases instead of a set defined distance. Should someone not being arrested,detained,stopped, questioned or any other business with the police be literally standing next to the officer filming what he is or she is doing? No because that can interfere with the officer doing his or her job.Now someone who is being detained, stopped, arrested or any other business with the police should be allowed to be filming what is going on when they are right next to the police officer. There probably other circumstances like if a house is a murder scene and the police are gather evidence,although in such cases outsiders should not be allowed in to film due to property rights issue while the owner of that property should be allowed to film whats going on assuming they are not touching or preventing the collection of any evidence.
 
JasperL said:
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?
Click to expand...
Click to expand...



Because that video record could cost a bad cop his job and liberty.
 
jamesrage said:
There should be some sort of buffer zone to allow the police officer to do his or her job. Things like this should be a on a case by case bases instead of a set defined distance. Should someone not being arrested,detained,stopped, questioned or any other business with the police be literally standing next to the officer filming what he is or she is doing? No because that can interfere with the officer doing his or her job.Now someone who is being detained, stopped, arrested or any other business with the police should be allowed to be filming what is going on when they are right next to the police officer. There probably other circumstances like if a house is a murder scene and the police are gather evidence,although in such cases outsiders should not be allowed in to film due to property rights issue while the owner of that property should be allowed to film whats going on assuming they are not touching or preventing the collection of any evidence.
Click to expand...

emphasis mine. this is exactly the kind of thing that should be handled on a case-by-case basis. if someone is interfering with the police - whether that's due to filming or any other kind of behavior - they should be charged accordingly. enacting a law like this would only serve to open up a greater possibility of abuse.
 
BrewerBob said:
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.
Click to expand...

Really, so if you are stopped for a traffic citation and had a camera running on your dash to record the incident, yo would be guilty under this law.

That is not right.
 
bg85 said:
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.
Click to expand...

I can see it now. An incident happens, and people from 30 feet away start filming.

The officer walk 6 feet towards them, and they are guilty of a crime.

Can you see the crowd matching the officers step by step to keep the 25 feet between them?
 
JasperL said:
But it is fundamentally different because it singles out those recording the event (e.g. a cell phone with the camera or microphone on) versus everyone else (e.g. someone with a cell phone out, but the camera OFF). The law being amended already prohibits interfering with a police officer doing his duty. This adds a presumption that anyone RECORDING WITH A CAMERA/MIC within 25 feet IS interfering, and those without cameras would be held to a different standard. There is no way I know of to justify that. Besides, if you're legally carrying a weapon, the line is 100 feet IF YOU HAVE A CAMERA TURNED ON, but if not you can presumably be carrying and get as close as you want so long as you don't run afoul of the general prohibition against police interference.
Click to expand...

Those recording the event without some kind of arbitrary connection to a news or journalistic business. Who is to say who is a journalist or who is not anymore?
 
Last edited:
shrubnose said:
What does Obama, lying or not lying, have to do with this thread?

Fill us in.
Click to expand...

LOL, the ODS crowd has to have their daily allotment of hatred or they might start thinking...
 
It's already illegal to interfere with the police. How does pointing a camera at a police officer interfere with their actions?
 
shrubnose said:
Yeah, it protects their ability to murder people and get away with it, eh?
Click to expand...

Well I certainly didn't say that or suggest that. But there's no accounting for the really strange interpretations some people have been pushing today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom