Texas Bill Would Make Recording Police Illegal - What are they afraid of?

[ClosedCaption]

Texas Bill Would Make Recording Police Illegal


A bill introduced in the Texas House of Representatives would make it illegal for private citizens to record police within 25 feet.

House Bill 2918, introduced by state Rep. Jason Villalba (R-Dallas) on Tuesday, would make the offense a misdemeanor. Citizens who are armed would not be permitted to record police activity within 100 feet of an officer, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Only representatives of radio or TV organizations that hold an FCC license, newspapers and magazines would have the right to record police.

The legislator disagreed with people on Twitter who said he’s seeking to make all filming of cops illegal.

“My bill ... just asks filmers to stand back a little so as not to interfere with law enforcement,” Villalba tweeted.



Yeah you cant have public servants being watched by the public they serve. Stand back a ways....like all the way out of zoom capabilities

You can't see from 25 feet ahead of you? Really? Get some glasses.

Lol! You think this is to make SEEING illegal?

 

[WillowTree]

Texas Bill Would Make Recording Police Illegal


A bill introduced in the Texas House of Representatives would make it illegal for private citizens to record police within 25 feet.

House Bill 2918, introduced by state Rep. Jason Villalba (R-Dallas) on Tuesday, would make the offense a misdemeanor. Citizens who are armed would not be permitted to record police activity within 100 feet of an officer, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Only representatives of radio or TV organizations that hold an FCC license, newspapers and magazines would have the right to record police.

The legislator disagreed with people on Twitter who said he’s seeking to make all filming of cops illegal.

“My bill ... just asks filmers to stand back a little so as not to interfere with law enforcement,” Villalba tweeted.



Yeah you cant have public servants being watched by the public they serve. Stand back a ways....like all the way out of zoom capabilities

You can't see from 25 feet ahead of you? Really? Get some glasses.

Lol! You think this is to make SEEING illegal?

No idiot. I am saying the crowd can ogle from 25 feet.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Texas Bill Would Make Recording Police Illegal


A bill introduced in the Texas House of Representatives would make it illegal for private citizens to record police within 25 feet.

House Bill 2918, introduced by state Rep. Jason Villalba (R-Dallas) on Tuesday, would make the offense a misdemeanor. Citizens who are armed would not be permitted to record police activity within 100 feet of an officer, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Only representatives of radio or TV organizations that hold an FCC license, newspapers and magazines would have the right to record police.

The legislator disagreed with people on Twitter who said he’s seeking to make all filming of cops illegal.

“My bill ... just asks filmers to stand back a little so as not to interfere with law enforcement,” Villalba tweeted.



Yeah you cant have public servants being watched by the public they serve. Stand back a ways....like all the way out of zoom capabilities

You can't see from 25 feet ahead of you? Really? Get some glasses.

Lol! You think this is to make SEEING illegal?

No idiot. I am saying the crowd can ogle from 25 feet.

This law has nothing to do with ogling goofball

 

[WillowTree]

Texas Bill Would Make Recording Police Illegal


A bill introduced in the Texas House of Representatives would make it illegal for private citizens to record police within 25 feet.

House Bill 2918, introduced by state Rep. Jason Villalba (R-Dallas) on Tuesday, would make the offense a misdemeanor. Citizens who are armed would not be permitted to record police activity within 100 feet of an officer, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Only representatives of radio or TV organizations that hold an FCC license, newspapers and magazines would have the right to record police.

The legislator disagreed with people on Twitter who said he’s seeking to make all filming of cops illegal.

“My bill ... just asks filmers to stand back a little so as not to interfere with law enforcement,” Villalba tweeted.



Yeah you cant have public servants being watched by the public they serve. Stand back a ways....like all the way out of zoom capabilities

You can't see from 25 feet ahead of you? Really? Get some glasses.

Lol! You think this is to make SEEING illegal?

No idiot. I am saying the crowd can ogle from 25 feet.

This law has nothing to do with ogling goofball

What would you call it if not ogling?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

I don't see a big issue. Even the shittiest cell phone cams made today can clearly pick up video from 25 feet away.

Also The Huffingtonpost's spin on it sucks.

Only representatives of radio or TV organizations that hold an FCC license, newspapers and magazines would have the right to record police.

No. Everybody can still record the police.

25 feet doesn't always entail a clear line of sight to the event. It's a fixed distance that doesn't accommodate every situation. Plain and simple, this is a direct challenge to the Supreme Court and someone is going to get bitch slapped back in place.

A clear camera shot supersedes the police doing their job?

The police don't need 25 feet.

 

[martybegan]

Texas Bill Would Make Recording Police Illegal


A bill introduced in the Texas House of Representatives would make it illegal for private citizens to record police within 25 feet.

House Bill 2918, introduced by state Rep. Jason Villalba (R-Dallas) on Tuesday, would make the offense a misdemeanor. Citizens who are armed would not be permitted to record police activity within 100 feet of an officer, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Only representatives of radio or TV organizations that hold an FCC license, newspapers and magazines would have the right to record police.

The legislator disagreed with people on Twitter who said he’s seeking to make all filming of cops illegal.

“My bill ... just asks filmers to stand back a little so as not to interfere with law enforcement,” Villalba tweeted.



Yeah you cant have public servants being watched by the public they serve. Stand back a ways....like all the way out of zoom capabilities

Make it 5 feet, and that would be considered reasonable. 25 feet is crazy.

Split the difference and make it 15 feet. I find the whole thing a bit silly as I don't know of any up to date phone that does not have a zoom option when in video mode.

The zoom option isnt the issue. Its that cops want to make it illegal to film their bullshit. Once they pass this guess what?

Where will 25 feet be? Answer: Wherever the cop says it is. Go to Jail

I'm guessing 25 feet would be starting at the scene of crime and going out from there and generally speaking you don't go to jail for a misdemeanor which is what this would be.

Once a crime scene is established, access is already controlled, regardless of a person's status as a recorder of visual information.

To me a cop can ask a person to back off if they are in the direct area of an attempted arrest, 5-10 feet say.

25 feet for a person simply recording an arrest or police action is too far.

 

[martybegan]

That would be viable if they would get fired for doing unconstitutional arrests, but all they usually get is a slap on the wrist, and they go back to their jobs.

Don't ignore your access to the civil court. If you are falsely arrested or otherwise unlawfully injured by police there are lawyers who specialize in representing such complaints and in most examples will do so on contingency, meaning you pay nothing if they fail but they get half of any award they win for you.

It is important to understand that "injury" does not necessarily mean physical harm. It could mean emotional pain, humiliation or unnecessary discomfort -- which can occur in extreme degrees.

In New York City, alone, thousands of complaints are made against police officers in any given year. Those which have little or no merit are dismissed without a first hearing but the majority are settled for a nominal sum, usually a thousand or two, because paying that out that is cheaper in the long run than bringing them to trial. Those with substantial merit will be negotiated for increasing settlement offers, which the lawyers usually know when it's time to accept. In extreme cases the settlements can be as high as a million or more.

While I can't speak for the present, throughout the seventies and eighties the City paid out over $350,000,000 each year in damage awards in police misconduct lawsuits, the vast majority of which were settlements. Very few run through full trial process and are jury awards -- and these usually are the big numbers (millions).

So if you ever are mistreated by cops, and you are sure you have a valid complaint, look for a good contingency lawyer and let him/her handle everything. You could walk away with anything from a few hundred dollars pocket money to a new car, a house, or if the damage is significant, you could be made relatively rich. Rodney King received about five million dollars and I am personally aware of several individuals in New York City who received massive settlements or won jury awards of a million or more.

Who cares if you get a few thousand bucks after 2-3 years of going through the process? The issue is the cop doesn't suffer for making a bad arrest. With great power comes great responsibility. If a cop makes a blatantly unconstitutional arrest, they need to not be a cop anymore. Have them transferred to another form of government service.

Now I am not talking about any arrest that later turns out to be a wrong arrest, like grabbing the wrong guy after a chase, or grabbing someone who is later acquitted. I am talking about things like arresting someone recording you who does nothing to interfere with your official duties.

I don't want the City to be responsible, i want the cop to be responsible, and more importantly, I want other cops to KNOW they will be held responsible if they perform an unconstitutional act.

 

[MikeK]

Who cares if you get a few thousand bucks after 2-3 years of going through the process? The issue is the cop doesn't suffer for making a bad arrest. With great power comes great responsibility. If a cop makes a blatantly unconstitutional arrest, they need to not be a cop anymore. Have them transferred to another form of government service.

Now I am not talking about any arrest that later turns out to be a wrong arrest, like grabbing the wrong guy after a chase, or grabbing someone who is later acquitted. I am talking about things like arresting someone recording you who does nothing to interfere with your official duties.

I don't want the City to be responsible, i want the cop to be responsible, and more importantly, I want other cops to KNOW they will be held responsible if they perform an unconstitutional act.

The police are in bottom-line reality the army of the ruling class. To punish them for misconduct against the lesser classes would diminish their effectiveness as a defensive wall between the rich and protesting mobs in the event of an uprising.

Rather than punish and thereby weaken the primary role of the police it serves the interest of the ruling class to dole out tax dollars to victims of police misconduct.

 

[martybegan]

Who cares if you get a few thousand bucks after 2-3 years of going through the process? The issue is the cop doesn't suffer for making a bad arrest. With great power comes great responsibility. If a cop makes a blatantly unconstitutional arrest, they need to not be a cop anymore. Have them transferred to another form of government service.

Now I am not talking about any arrest that later turns out to be a wrong arrest, like grabbing the wrong guy after a chase, or grabbing someone who is later acquitted. I am talking about things like arresting someone recording you who does nothing to interfere with your official duties.

I don't want the City to be responsible, i want the cop to be responsible, and more importantly, I want other cops to KNOW they will be held responsible if they perform an unconstitutional act.

The police are in bottom-line reality the army of the ruling class. To punish them for misconduct against the lesser classes would diminish their effectiveness as a defensive wall between the rich and protesting mobs in the event of an uprising.

Rather than punish and thereby weaken the primary role of the police it serves the interest of the ruling class to dole out tax dollars to victims of police misconduct.

That's the "class is everything" way of looking at it. The reality is police officers who can't do the job properly have to go. Let them keep a government job, just not a law enforcement one.

 

[MikeK]

That's the "class is everything" way of looking at it. The reality is police officers who can't do the job properly have to go. Let them keep a government job, just not a law enforcement one.

If you don't believe class is everything when it comes to such critical entities as the civilian police I admire your innate idealism. Unfortunately, when it comes to the social bottom line one is what one has and who one knows. So if you know someone who can get the mayor (or the President) on the phone and complain about an aggressive cop, you will quickly see who is in charge in America.

Did you happen to watch the footage of the Occupy protest on Wall Street during the latter months of 2011? Did you see the army of cops protecting the financial nobility who stood arrogantly drinking wine on their office balconies, diligently protected from the Mob below. Those cops, who like to think of themselves as middle-class citizens, knew very well the reason behind the Occupy protest and the right and wrong of the entire situation. Yet they were prepared to do whatever it took, up to and including shooting to kill if necessary, to protect those gloating Wall Street elites from the People they've been stealing from for decades. Such loyalty to the ruling class comes from knowing their own misconducts, up to and including the occasional flagrant brutalities, will go unpunished because their victims will be paid off ("settled.")

The primary duty of American civilian police is to protect and serve -- the rich.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm surprised no one else has brought this up (or maybe I am underestimating ranges) but could this have as much to do with the audio portion of potential recordings as the video? 25 feet may not be an obstacle for video of an incident, but perhaps it would impede onlookers from easily recording audio of events. Just a guess, I have no idea how sensitive the microphones on your average cell phone are.

I haven't read the bill so my comments are subject to change, but as others have said, what does recording really have to do with anything? If people need to be 25 feet away to prevent interference in police activity, it doesn't matter if they are recording the scene or not. If this bill does specify people recording a scene, how is it more of an interference to stand holding a phone than to stand not holding a phone? Unless the police plan to do something they don't want on record, how does the phone hinder the performance of their duties?

 

[OnePercenter]

That's the "class is everything" way of looking at it. The reality is police officers who can't do the job properly have to go. Let them keep a government job, just not a law enforcement one.

If you don't believe class is everything when it comes to such critical entities as the civilian police I admire your innate idealism. Unfortunately, when it comes to the social bottom line one is what one has and who one knows. So if you know someone who can get the mayor (or the President) on the phone and complain about an aggressive cop, you will quickly see who is in charge in America.

Did you happen to watch the footage of the Occupy protest on Wall Street during the latter months of 2011? Did you see the army of cops protecting the financial nobility who stood arrogantly drinking wine on their office balconies, diligently protected from the Mob below. Those cops, who like to think of themselves as middle-class citizens, knew very well the reason behind the Occupy protest and the right and wrong of the entire situation. Yet they were prepared to do whatever it took, up to and including shooting to kill if necessary, to protect those gloating Wall Street elites from the People they've been stealing from for decades. Such loyalty to the ruling class comes from knowing their own misconducts, up to and including the occasional flagrant brutalities, will go unpunished because their victims will be paid off ("settled.")

The primary duty of American civilian police is to protect and serve -- the rich.

The primary duty of American civilian police is to protect and serve -- the rich.

Sworn Police Officers are civilians?

Don't the police protect you?

 

[OnePercenter]

I'm surprised no one else has brought this up (or maybe I am underestimating ranges) but could this have as much to do with the audio portion of potential recordings as the video? 25 feet may not be an obstacle for video of an incident, but perhaps it would impede onlookers from easily recording audio of events. Just a guess, I have no idea how sensitive the microphones on your average cell phone are.

I haven't read the bill so my comments are subject to change, but as others have said, what does recording really have to do with anything? If people need to be 25 feet away to prevent interference in police activity, it doesn't matter if they are recording the scene or not. If this bill does specify people recording a scene, how is it more of an interference to stand holding a phone than to stand not holding a phone? Unless the police plan to do something they don't want on record, how does the phone hinder the performance of their duties?

Hey genius, stay out of the cops way and let them do their job!!!!!

 

[Montrovant]

I'm surprised no one else has brought this up (or maybe I am underestimating ranges) but could this have as much to do with the audio portion of potential recordings as the video? 25 feet may not be an obstacle for video of an incident, but perhaps it would impede onlookers from easily recording audio of events. Just a guess, I have no idea how sensitive the microphones on your average cell phone are.

I haven't read the bill so my comments are subject to change, but as others have said, what does recording really have to do with anything? If people need to be 25 feet away to prevent interference in police activity, it doesn't matter if they are recording the scene or not. If this bill does specify people recording a scene, how is it more of an interference to stand holding a phone than to stand not holding a phone? Unless the police plan to do something they don't want on record, how does the phone hinder the performance of their duties?

Hey genius, stay out of the cops way and let them do their job!!!!!

And that has what to do with the possible difficulty of audio recordings at these distances? Or it has what to do with the question of how a person holding a cell phone is hindering officers more than a person who is not?

 

[OnePercenter]

I'm surprised no one else has brought this up (or maybe I am underestimating ranges) but could this have as much to do with the audio portion of potential recordings as the video? 25 feet may not be an obstacle for video of an incident, but perhaps it would impede onlookers from easily recording audio of events. Just a guess, I have no idea how sensitive the microphones on your average cell phone are.

I haven't read the bill so my comments are subject to change, but as others have said, what does recording really have to do with anything? If people need to be 25 feet away to prevent interference in police activity, it doesn't matter if they are recording the scene or not. If this bill does specify people recording a scene, how is it more of an interference to stand holding a phone than to stand not holding a phone? Unless the police plan to do something they don't want on record, how does the phone hinder the performance of their duties?

Hey genius, stay out of the cops way and let them do their job!!!!!

And that has what to do with the possible difficulty of audio recordings at these distances? Or it has what to do with the question of how a person holding a cell phone is hindering officers more than a person who is not?

Why would you want to? Is social media that important in your world?

So let me tell you what will happen.

The bad guy fires his gun and hits you, then you sue the police for not keeping you away.

 

[Montrovant]

I'm surprised no one else has brought this up (or maybe I am underestimating ranges) but could this have as much to do with the audio portion of potential recordings as the video? 25 feet may not be an obstacle for video of an incident, but perhaps it would impede onlookers from easily recording audio of events. Just a guess, I have no idea how sensitive the microphones on your average cell phone are.

I haven't read the bill so my comments are subject to change, but as others have said, what does recording really have to do with anything? If people need to be 25 feet away to prevent interference in police activity, it doesn't matter if they are recording the scene or not. If this bill does specify people recording a scene, how is it more of an interference to stand holding a phone than to stand not holding a phone? Unless the police plan to do something they don't want on record, how does the phone hinder the performance of their duties?

Hey genius, stay out of the cops way and let them do their job!!!!!

And that has what to do with the possible difficulty of audio recordings at these distances? Or it has what to do with the question of how a person holding a cell phone is hindering officers more than a person who is not?

Why would you want to? Is social media that important in your world?

So let me tell you what will happen.

The bad guy fires his gun and hits you, then you sue the police for not keeping you away.

And that happens because I film with a cell phone? The guy standing there with no cell phone won't get shot at?

Why does it matter why I or anyone else wants to film the police? We're not talking about something happening on private property, we're talking about incidents in public. How does holding a cell phone interfere with the police where not holding the phone doesn't?

 

[JimBowie1958]

Texas Bill Would Make Recording Police Illegal

Who is 'Texas Bill'?

 

[yiostheoy]

Texas Bill Would Make Recording Police Illegal


A bill introduced in the Texas House of Representatives would make it illegal for private citizens to record police within 25 feet.

House Bill 2918, introduced by state Rep. Jason Villalba (R-Dallas) on Tuesday, would make the offense a misdemeanor. Citizens who are armed would not be permitted to record police activity within 100 feet of an officer, according to the Houston Chronicle.

Only representatives of radio or TV organizations that hold an FCC license, newspapers and magazines would have the right to record police.

The legislator disagreed with people on Twitter who said he’s seeking to make all filming of cops illegal.

“My bill ... just asks filmers to stand back a little so as not to interfere with law enforcement,” Villalba tweeted.



Yeah you cant have public servants being watched by the public they serve. Stand back a ways....like all the way out of zoom capabilities

Cops should all wear body cams.

And civilian should not record them or get near in a police action -- that is already illegal.

 

[yiostheoy]

I'm surprised no one else has brought this up (or maybe I am underestimating ranges) but could this have as much to do with the audio portion of potential recordings as the video? 25 feet may not be an obstacle for video of an incident, but perhaps it would impede onlookers from easily recording audio of events. Just a guess, I have no idea how sensitive the microphones on your average cell phone are.

I haven't read the bill so my comments are subject to change, but as others have said, what does recording really have to do with anything? If people need to be 25 feet away to prevent interference in police activity, it doesn't matter if they are recording the scene or not. If this bill does specify people recording a scene, how is it more of an interference to stand holding a phone than to stand not holding a phone? Unless the police plan to do something they don't want on record, how does the phone hinder the performance of their duties?

Hey genius, stay out of the cops way and let them do their job!!!!!

And that has what to do with the possible difficulty of audio recordings at these distances? Or it has what to do with the question of how a person holding a cell phone is hindering officers more than a person who is not?

Why would you want to? Is social media that important in your world?

So let me tell you what will happen.

The bad guy fires his gun and hits you, then you sue the police for not keeping you away.

And that happens because I film with a cell phone? The guy standing there with no cell phone won't get shot at?

Why does it matter why I or anyone else wants to film the police? We're not talking about something happening on private property, we're talking about incidents in public. How does holding a cell phone interfere with the police where not holding the phone doesn't?

It is called interference with a police action and it normally carries a sentence of 1 to 5 years in prison.

 

[yiostheoy]

At first I agreed with you.. but then I thought about it. What cops wants to get elbowed by some civilian when he is trying to arrest a criminal?

Elbows arent 25 feet long

while I agree 25 feet is a bit far, you never know what could happen.
What if a cop was wrestling some dumbfuck and some little limp wrist was recording it, got hit in the violence, and sued the fuck out of the city?

There is no excuse you can use to make recording public servants illegal that makes sense.

I could see if they made a requirement to post entire videos so pieces cannot be used to inflame hatred.

Yeah but then when they cut their body cams off....?

That should be a felony too.