No filming of cops
-
@Jolly said in No filming of cops:
Don't have a problem with it. Eight feet is a fairly short distance.
You’ve got the concepts of freedom and accountability all wrong.
If anything, there ought to be more laws affirming the people’s right to film or otherwise record state agents’ conduct while publicly conducting the public’s business rather than restricting it.
-
@Jolly said in No filming of cops:
Don't have a problem with it. Eight feet is a fairly short distance.
You’ve got the concepts of freedom and accountability all wrong.
If anything, there ought to be more laws affirming the people’s right to film or otherwise record state agents’ conduct while publicly conducting the public’s business rather than restricting it.
@Axtremus said in No filming of cops:
If anything, there ought to be more laws affirming the people’s right to film or otherwise record state agents’ conduct while publicly conducting the public’s business rather than restricting it.
I wonder if the reasoning behind the 8ft restriction is that at 8ft or less, a photo can't show a complete picture of any situation, and as such can be subject to many different interpretations, leading possibly to an unjust verdict for either party.
-
@Axtremus said in No filming of cops:
If anything, there ought to be more laws affirming the people’s right to film or otherwise record state agents’ conduct while publicly conducting the public’s business rather than restricting it.
I wonder if the reasoning behind the 8ft restriction is that at 8ft or less, a photo can't show a complete picture of any situation, and as such can be subject to many different interpretations, leading possibly to an unjust verdict for either party.
@Catseye3 said in No filming of cops:
I wonder if the reasoning behind the 8ft restriction is that at 8ft or less, a photo can't show a complete picture of any situation, and as such can be subject to many different interpretations, leading possibly to an unjust verdict for either party.
Whether a recording shows sufficient details with sufficient clarity with sufficient context … that that should be left to judges and jurors to resolve for each recording, not to be prohibited outright by law.
-
@Catseye3 said in No filming of cops:
I wonder if the reasoning behind the 8ft restriction is that at 8ft or less, a photo can't show a complete picture of any situation, and as such can be subject to many different interpretations, leading possibly to an unjust verdict for either party.
Whether a recording shows sufficient details with sufficient clarity with sufficient context … that that should be left to judges and jurors to resolve for each recording, not to be prohibited outright by law.
@Axtremus said in No filming of cops:
Whether a recording shows sufficient details with sufficient clarity with sufficient context … that that should be left to judges and jurors to resolve for each recording, not to be prohibited outright by law.
But my point is that a photo that can't by itself give an accurate portrayal of events is unresolvable.
-
@Jolly said in No filming of cops:
Don't have a problem with it. Eight feet is a fairly short distance.
I don't see how this helps anything. Interference and recording are two separate issues.
-
I think the issue is if people are videoing an interaction they tend to get closer and to be hostile toward police to begin with. It’s a distraction and a potential danger for all involved.
-
I think the issue is if people are videoing an interaction they tend to get closer and to be hostile toward police to begin with. It’s a distraction and a potential danger for all involved.
@Mik said in No filming of cops:
I think the issue is if people are videoing an interaction they tend to get closer and to be hostile toward police to begin with. It’s a distraction and a potential danger for all involved.
We already have laws on the books for all of that, though.
-
Arizona Moves to Restrict Filming of Police Officers
Filming police officers within 8 feet soon will be considered a misdemeanor offense in some cases in Arizona after Republican Gov. Doug Ducey signed into law a bill prohibiting certain recordings of law-enforcement activity.
The law bans people from recording police if those filming are within 8 feet of officers and have received a verbal warning. It defines law enforcement activity as officers questioning suspicious people, conducting an arrest or generally enforcing the law.
It also prohibits filming within 8 feet of officers interacting with what the law calls “an emotionally disturbed person or disorderly” individual exhibiting abnormal behavior.
Mr. Kavanagh, in an op-ed earlier this year, said the 8-foot buffer was meant to prevent clashes between police and bystanders during tense situations.
“I recognize the constitutional right of people to videotape police officers performing their duties,” he wrote. “However, the United States Supreme Court has also ruled that this right is subject to reasonable time, place and manner limitations.”
The law has some limitations. If police activity is occurring indoors and on private property, a person authorized on that property can record within eight feet “unless a law enforcement officer determines that the person is interfering” or deems the area unsafe, the law says.
A person who is the subject of police contact is allowed to record within 8 feet in some cases, as long as they aren’t interfering with “lawful police actions,” the law states.
OK, so now, in Arizona, you can't video a cop that pulls you over in your car?
@George-K said in No filming of cops:
OK, so now, in Arizona, you can't video a cop that pulls you over in your car?
See https://www.huffpost.com/entry/arizona-law-police-record-video-restrict_n_62c92a59e4b0aa392d3f16d8 ... it reports that there is an exception that allow filming of the police by people in a car that is stopped or questionable by the police.
-
@Jolly said in No filming of cops:
Don't have a problem with it. Eight feet is a fairly short distance.
You’ve got the concepts of freedom and accountability all wrong.
If anything, there ought to be more laws affirming the people’s right to film or otherwise record state agents’ conduct while publicly conducting the public’s business rather than restricting it.
@Axtremus said in No filming of cops:
@Jolly said in No filming of cops:
Don't have a problem with it. Eight feet is a fairly short distance.
You’ve got the concepts of freedom and accountability all wrong.
If anything, there ought to be more laws affirming the people’s right to film or otherwise record state agents’ conduct while publicly conducting the public’s business rather than restricting it.
The people have no right to interfere with legitimate enforcement of the law. Some guy with shooting video with his phone, standing a foot off of your shoulder or letting a flash go off in your face, is interference, possibly leading to the injury or death of the cop or the person being arrested.
-
-
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.
