@Rolan7
...Again, the bill you yourself linked lists some cases. I think it's funnier if I don't transcribe them for you.
The only exception is the "it is not safe so you must leave". Re-read the bill and note the use of commas and periods. Tell me where I am missing other exceptions.
You list one of the *other exceptions in this very post, so I don't understand why you're pushing back at me. Cases where people are within an enclosed space like a house or a car.
It's meaningless because it's negated if the cop feels like it, but it was obvious enough that it was paid lip service in the bill, along with reducing the range from 15ft. I wonder if you would defend the 15ft version?
So, are you saying you didn't find any exception besides the "it is not safe so you must leave" exception?
It is not negated "if the cop feels like it" and there are no exceptions that didn't exist already in other laws.
There are failure-to-obey-police laws everywhere... They already exist, and they exist so police can carry out their job (application of coercion to enforce laws). The new law says the police need to warn the video-er of the law if the video-er is within 8 ft. That gives the video-er the opportunity to either back off or stop recording.... and failure to comply gives the the police officer the opportunity to apply coercion. This is not a "if the cop feels like it" situation, but it can be a "if the cop manages to provoke the observer into something stupid" situation.
I do not agree with the 15 foot version. I like 8 foot
because standing 10 or 12 away is a good range.
If you try to stand exactly at 8 foot, you give uninvolved officers something to do, like approaching you, blocking the video, yelling at you, etc, so 10 or 12 foot becomes good.In Florida,
this bill was proposed and shot down specifically because at 30 foot, videos would become difficult, even though video-taking was not mentioned in the bill.
@hector13
Again with the naïveté!
When the police start asking someone to stop filming, that becomes police activity through any sort of handwavey bullshit because it’s a crime to refuse.
“I didn’t have a tape measure on me so I eyeballed it as 8ft so I asked them to stop filming. I may have misjudged in the heat of the moment.”
This absolutely will be abused by the police force to conceal any form of abuse on their part.
This absolutely will be abused by some members of the police force to conceal any form of abuse on their part. How often do you think those specific officers will be able to get away with it?
The officer needs to make a verbal warning about the video being prohibited within 8 feet. Backing up to 12 foot is all the observer needs to do as they continue recording. It is all the observer should do.... They will still get a video as good as Darnella Frazier's.
Whether or not the person videoing moves is irrelevant. The officer can say they moved but were still within 8ft of the action which means they can be arrested, and that means whatever they were recording with is confiscated. It will somehow end up in a million pieces as a consequence, or in some other condition in which the video is irretrievable.
So, to answer your question: much more than they should be able to get away with it. The police are human, but they’re meant to be the best of us and should be held to the highest possible standard. This law is meant to prevent that, because the ones who will abuse it are the ones who don’t/won’t/can’t meet that standard.
[sarcasm]Heck, I wouldn't be surprised if some police have looked into obtaining frequency jammers for personal "protection", to prevent video streaming through phone/gopro, exactly so they can smash the devices and shoot the observers. Some bad cops are bad people... just like some people the police hurt are bad people. Look at how fast a police organization would be replaced by a "militia" force of people that include the same bad people who had been cops.[/sarcasm]
I don't agree that the police are meant to be the "best of us".
Police are meant to apply coercion to others to enforce the laws, but when leaders/law-makers protect their family and business-interests from the application of this law enforcement and when leaders/law-makers create laws that do not represent all members of the community, the police become compromised and no longer represent the entire community. Those leaders/law-makers who should be the "best of us", are a primary source of corruption in police organizations; see my first response in this post for additional context on how police organizations are compromised. When a police organization is compromised and can no longer fairly represent the overall community, the overall community becomes more likely to reject all laws (both laws that represent them and laws that do not).@nenjin
I bought a dash cam specifically to record interactions with police officers from within my car. By this law, I'd be required to turn off my dash cam or be in violation of the law. Which is total bullshit. That'd be like a cop walking into your home and telling you to turn off your phone.
No,
the new law allows that dashcam and it would allow you to pick up your phone and use that too.
@Dunamisdeos
This absolutely will be abused by some members of the police force to conceal any form of abuse on their part. How often do you think those specific officers will be able to get away with it?
The fuck? Do you have an acceptable margin of police officers that should be allowed to abuse their authority, or something? How often do YOU think they'll be able to get away with it once it becomes illegal to obtain admissible evidence of that abuse? Because I'm thinking all of the time.
Literally all I would have to do as a corrupt officer is arrest anyone recording me, and in court I say "I thought it was within 8 feet", and now the video is not only inadmissible, but it was also a crime on the part of the person trying to submit the evidence. What if it's at a traffic stop? What if it's inside a convenience store? What if it's literally anywhere within any 12 foot square on the planet where you could make a reasonable case that it was within 8 feet, because there's no tape measure on camera?
Please imagine what George Floyd would have been like if the judge had said "The video evidence was taken within 8 feet, and was therefore illegal".
has the exception for "inside buildings" and those being stopped. If the officer decides to arrest you for recording, your standing changes under that new law and you are suddenly making a legal recording, even though you are being arrested for ignoring the "you-are-not-allowed-to-record-within-8-feet" warning.
And, Darnella was standing about 10 feet from the event and you didn't see any of the three standing officers approach her or the other observers, because Darnella was not interfering, even though Darnella was clearly pointing the phone camera at the incident with an officer standing about 4 feet from her.
Author
Topic: AmeriPol thread (Read 4229109 times)