Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[feelotraveller]

Didn't Australia yeet all their guns and then experience a drop in deaths?

Yeah, I've posted this link before in this threaad. https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/compareyears/10/total_number_of_gun_deaths
Guns were yeeted in 1996 (by the right wing party) following a mass shooting known as the Port Arthur massacre.  There was a major government funded buyback which led to over a million weapons being bought and melted down.  Can still own a gun but must have a license, valid reason and the weapon must be registered.  More here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_of_Australia

It's significant because if there was a will in America some version of this is a definite way forward that would result in a marked reduction gun deaths.  Other countries have had similar experiences but hurr durr american exceptionalism.

[Rolan7]

Eight feet is such a strange limit though. Completely nonsensical unless it's to illegalise people recording themselves being beat up somehow or if the police approach bystanders to get them to stop filming because when the police close in it turns into a crime.

There's like no reason for it to be eight feet. Who films closer than eight feet if they can avoid it.

It was originally 15ft but got negotiated down, yes really. So hey, could have been worse?
(It's so gross)

[anewaname]

Two links to the Arizona state government's site and the actual laws:
The pdf for the new law that was signed in. Title 13 (Criminal Code) which contains Chapter 37 (Miscellaneous Offenses) that the law is being added to.

8 feet is reasonable. Some people will push the limits, wanting to get in close while they are yelling at the police and while they are recording their video. There is a point where getting too close is a physical threat and "I'm videoing this" should not be an excuse for increasing the threat level to officers. And, the police should not be involved in intentionally blocking line-of-sight to the activity being videoed, which could be a potential source of abuse.

I looked through other laws, searching for anything about laws restricting videoing police activities, and didn't see any. The new law itself seems to only restrict videoing within 8 feet and gives exceptions for a) being in a vehicle, b) being in a building, and c) being the subject of the police activity. Inside a building, if the police officer says it is not safe and orders the video-er to leave the area, they are obliged to (there might be potential for abuse here).

This isn't a law about "you cannot video the police".

[hector13]

No media exceptions there bud. The cops move within 8ft of a journo and ask them to stop filming, refusing is a misdemeanor, and you can have whatever you’re filming with confiscated.

Don’t be so naive.

It is about protecting the police though. Derek Chauvin was videoed by a 17 year old, Chauvin was convicted of the murder and violation of the civil rights of George Floyd. If there was a law like this in Minnesota, that doesn’t happen.

[Rolan7]

8ft does sound relatively reasonable (again, it was supposed to be 15ft) but we're talking specifically about filming - not about aggressive people getting too close to cops.  That's already covered by other laws, I'm sure, or at least "I felt threatened so I reached for my taser which was accidentally my gun".

Why propose a law specifically about filming within 15ft, if it's about cop safety?

The bill anewaname helpfully linked DOES have some reassuring caveats in it, except that they're instantly mooted by the officer's feeling about the situation, so it's... well, up to the officer to be a good person.

which defeats the entire purpose of the filming.

[anewaname]

[sarcasm]Right, officer abusing the new law, caught on video. Never considered that...[/s]

The moment officers adopt the tactic of approaching video-takers to use the law to stop the video-taking, those specific officers will be taking a personal risk.

The law is about protecting police, not from videos but from video-takers (who push and yell at close range).

The risk of the police seizing phones has always been there. The risk of bystanders attacking the police has always been there. You got to keep them separated...

EDIT: The thing is, what reason does a video-er have to get within 8 feet of a police action? Unless a police officer is intentionally blocking the view, there is none... unless that person is also planing to involve themselves physically.

[None]

Are the lives of our brave policefolk endangered when anyone is within 8ft any time, or only when there's videography occurring? What, then, makes video footage so dangerous to the lives of our boys in blue? Perhaps resolution degrades the body, or proximity to solid state media emits as-of-yet unknown and hazardous radiations?

Perhaps 8ft is the negotiable distance between which a cellular device may vaguely appear like a deadly weapon or some other threat, not to be confused with 15ft where it could surely be confused so?

[Rolan7]

[sarcasm]Right, officer abusing the new law, caught on video. Never considered that...[/s]

I don't think we'd ever see the video of that, no

The moment officers adopt the tactic of approaching video-takers to use the law to stop the video-taking, those specific officers will be taking a personal risk.

The law is about protecting police, not from videos but from video-takers (who push and yell at close range).

I appreciate the dangers of law enforcement more than a lot of people I know.
It's not statistically a dangerous job compared to most others, but adrenaline runs high so I understand why officers act so irrational so often.  Training, largely- it can be pretty bloodthirsty sometimes, when it isn't just deficient.  (compared to the budget for mil-surp weaponry)

The risk of the police seizing phones has always been there. The risk of bystanders attacking the police has always been there. You got to keep them separated...

So what purpose does the bill serve?
You haven't supported that this bill which is literally about recording, also supports police safety.

[Rolan7]

EDIT: The thing is, what reason does a video-er have to get within 8 feet of a police action? Unless a police officer is intentionally blocking the view, there is none... unless that person is also planing to involve themselves physically.

The bill does list a fraction of the real-world reasons that would happen, as exceptions.  (though as usual, the officer's judgement trumps them)

[lemon10]

The moment officers adopt the tactic of approaching video-takers to use the law to stop the video-taking, those specific officers will be taking a personal risk.

EDIT: The thing is, what reason does a video-er have to get within 8 feet of a police action? Unless a police officer is intentionally blocking the view, there is none... unless that person is also planing to involve themselves physically.

Police officers approach people recording them *all*, *the*, *time* to get them to stop recording, often lying about how its illegal to record a officer.
Per this bill they can just openly walk up to someone, give them a single warning, then just arrest them if they don't stop recording instantly.

And seriously, what personal risk? If you honestly believe that cops are in danger of or think they are in danger of getting brutally assaulted by people recording them with their phone I don't know what to say.

[hector13]

If someone wants to assault a police officer, given the prevalence of firearms, 8ft/15ft/100ft won’t stop them.

[anewaname]

What reason does a person taking a video have to get within 8 feet of a police action?

[nenjin]

Badge # and face.

Assuming they're even displaying either of them. Which, increasingly, they are not.

[delphonso]

What reason does a person taking a video have to get within 8 feet of a police action?

Or to get arond them to get clear footage of them kneeling on.someone's neck.

[da_nang]

What reason does a person taking a video have to get within 8 feet of a police action?

You don't have to justify exercising your First Amendment rights.