No filming of cops
-
-
Bad ruling.
It will take somebody being severely injured before this silliness ends. With today's phones, you can get all the detail you need from 15 feet.
-
Bad ruling.
It will take somebody being severely injured before this silliness ends. With today's phones, you can get all the detail you need from 15 feet.
@Jolly said in No filming of cops:
Bad ruling.
It will take somebody being severely injured before this silliness ends. With today's phones, you can get all the detail you need from 15 feet.
I have to agree with @jolly here. I have no problem with taking video of cops. 8 feet seem unnecessarily close and could interfere with police activities.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
From the article:
“The relatively quick turnaround between the filing of the lawsuit and the judge's preliminary injunction is partly due to the Arizona attorney general's office and the Maricopa County sheriff's and prosecutor's offices declining to defend the law in court.”
That should tell you that there are serious issues with the law.
-
@Jolly said in No filming of cops:
Bad ruling.
It will take somebody being severely injured before this silliness ends. With today's phones, you can get all the detail you need from 15 feet.
I have to agree with @jolly here. I have no problem with taking video of cops. 8 feet seem unnecessarily close and could interfere with police activities.
@George-K said in No filming of cops:
@Jolly said in No filming of cops:
Bad ruling.
It will take somebody being severely injured before this silliness ends. With today's phones, you can get all the detail you need from 15 feet.
I have to agree with @jolly here. I have no problem with taking video of cops. 8 feet seem unnecessarily close and could interfere with police activities.
There are already laws on the books for that which have nothing to do with amendment rights.
-
@George-K said in No filming of cops:
@Jolly said in No filming of cops:
Bad ruling.
It will take somebody being severely injured before this silliness ends. With today's phones, you can get all the detail you need from 15 feet.
I have to agree with @jolly here. I have no problem with taking video of cops. 8 feet seem unnecessarily close and could interfere with police activities.
There are already laws on the books for that which have nothing to do with amendment rights.
@Aqua-Letifer said in No filming of cops:
There are already laws on the books for that which have nothing to do with amendment rights.
Understood. I'm only questioning the distance, not the action.
"Now look here, you Baltic gas passer... " - Mik, 6/14/08
The saying, "Lite is just one damn thing after another," is a gross understatement. The damn things overlap.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in No filming of cops:
There are already laws on the books for that which have nothing to do with amendment rights.
Understood. I'm only questioning the distance, not the action.
-
@Aqua-Letifer said in No filming of cops:
There are already laws on the books for that which have nothing to do with amendment rights.
Understood. I'm only questioning the distance, not the action.
@George-K said in No filming of cops:
@Aqua-Letifer said in No filming of cops:
There are already laws on the books for that which have nothing to do with amendment rights.
Understood. I'm only questioning the distance, not the action.
Yeah, I think that's more or less fair. Should probably draw the line somewhere.
-
@George-K said in No filming of cops:
@Aqua-Letifer said in No filming of cops:
There are already laws on the books for that which have nothing to do with amendment rights.
Understood. I'm only questioning the distance, not the action.
Yeah, I think that's more or less fair. Should probably draw the line somewhere.
@Aqua-Letifer said in No filming of cops:
@George-K said in No filming of cops:
@Aqua-Letifer said in No filming of cops:
There are already laws on the books for that which have nothing to do with amendment rights.
Understood. I'm only questioning the distance, not the action.
Yeah, I think that's more or less fair. Should probably draw the line somewhere.
8 ft, while subjective, seems 1) the video distance takes into account the context, without intrusion or obstruction; and
2) 8' is a reasonably estimatable distance such that a cop can make a reasonable judgment of "too close". The further away someone is, the more difficult it is to judge distance so if it were say 12' or 20', it's harder to say of some is 11' or 13', 19' or 21' etc. This is not an incredible win for society, let alone 1st amendment rights or police accountability. Someone is going to get in a cop's face with a camera, and someone is going to get hurt. -
I’m sure there are already laws in AZ that prevent bystanders from interfering with an arrest in progress. This was probably not aimed at that.
@jon-nyc said in No filming of cops:
I’m sure there are already laws in AZ that prevent bystanders from interfering with an arrest in progress. This was probably not aimed at that.
So what do you think the 8 ft law was aimed at? It doesn't have an obvious chilling effect on bystanders filming cops, and I can't see anyone filming their own involuntary interaction with the police being prosecuted under that statute.
-
@jon-nyc said in No filming of cops:
I’m sure there are already laws in AZ that prevent bystanders from interfering with an arrest in progress. This was probably not aimed at that.
So what do you think the 8 ft law was aimed at? It doesn't have an obvious chilling effect on bystanders filming cops, and I can't see anyone filming their own involuntary interaction with the police being prosecuted under that statute.
@Ivorythumper I don't know. Intelligible audio? Maybe it was a compromise that came out of a committee.
