Florida law will create safety barrier for first responders, will go into effect on Jan. 1

[1srelluc]

In the case of an accident with injury someone's misery is not anyone else's business.

 

[ReinyDays]

Wrong. Each lane is 12 feet, so 25 feet is completely across the street from a cop. With his back turned to you, you CANNOT hear or see what is going on. He CANNOT restrict you from seeing or hearing that. IT IS AGAINST THE LAW. Use your phone and film someone having a conversation from 25 feet away. You WILL NOT be able to hear what they say unless they yell.

How are you going to enforce this? They would have to prove you were within 25 feet. What if you were 24'10"? How would they prove it? Without a tape measure on the ground at that moment, it's impossible.

It's a stupid feel-good law that is unconstitutional and illegal.

My street is a full 60 foot easement ... two 12 foot lanes for traffic, two 12 foot lanes for parking leaves 6 feet either side for sidewalks ... Mississippi isn't like everywhere else ...

How do you define "interference with a police officer" ... In Florida this is covered in Chapter 843 of their criminal code ... and it's a felony ... and actual 1A Auditors have this statute memorized and include it in all their videos ...

I agree it's a stupid "feel good" law that does nothing to protect First Responders ... all we can expect from Republicans ... but I don't see where we have any kind of constitutional right to stand between a police officer and a violent suspect being arrested ...

Parabolic microphone - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Parabolic microphones are also used by search and rescue teams to locate lost people in wilderness environments. This application is supported by a study comparing parabolic microphones to unaided hearing in detecting and comprehending calling subjects at distances out to 2500 meters."

[emphasis mine]

While the black guy was still screaming ... we could hear him fine at 50 feet ... once he passed out, then yeah, we could barely hear the police officers laughing ...

 

[airplanemechanic]

My street is a full 60 foot easement ... two 12 foot lanes for traffic, two 12 foot lanes for parking leaves 6 feet either side for sidewalks ... Mississippi isn't like everywhere else ...

How do you define "interference with a police officer" ... In Florida this is covered in Chapter 843 of their criminal code ... and it's a felony ... and actual 1A Auditors have this statute memorized and include it in all their videos ...

I agree it's a stupid "feel good" law that does nothing to protect First Responders ... all we can expect from Republicans ... but I don't see where we have any kind of constitutional right to stand between a police officer and a violent suspect being arrested ...

Parabolic microphone - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

"Parabolic microphones are also used by search and rescue teams to locate lost people in wilderness environments. This application is supported by a study comparing parabolic microphones to unaided hearing in detecting and comprehending calling subjects at distances out to 2500 meters."

[emphasis mine]

While the black guy was still screaming ... we could hear him fine at 50 feet ... once he passed out, then yeah, we could barely hear the police officers laughing ...

You shouldn't need a "parabolic microphone" to record cops. The absurdity of that argument is what makes you a liberal.

I never said you had a right to stand between a cop and a "bad guy." I said you have a right to stand close enough to ACTUALLY record them. Meaning audio and video not from so far away that you can't get the details. If someone claims they were assaulted by a cop, but you're so far away you can't tell and can't hear what is said, that's a violation of your right to film. Cops have a bad habit of turning off body cams or muting them (just watch copwatch videos) when things go sour, so a citizen's right to film police MUST not be interfered with. DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO I POSTED?

The fact that this same law was struck down in MULTIPLE STATES by the courts says I'm right and you're wrong. But you're a liberal, being wrong is what you do best.

 

[boevans]

Has not passed federal law and won't this time, either.

 

[Unkotare]

...

It also specifies the definition of "first responder" to include law enforcement officers, a correctional probation officer, firefighters and emergency medical care providers.
...

And we get snubbed again...

 

[Crepitus]

Possibly, depending on the scene.

Why do you hate EMSs, Firemen, and such?

LMAO!! You and I both know this is really about protecting police who use "questionable" tactics.

 

[1srelluc]

LMAO!! You and I both know this is really about protecting police who use "questionable" tactics.

Nope, it's to protect the people you pay so they can do their jobs without being hassled by professional Looky Lous and anyone else who thinks it's important to film other's misery.

They can ply their "trade" 25' away.....In fact I think the fine is too light for those scum.

 

[Crepitus]

Nope, it's to protect the people you pay so they can do their jobs without being hassled by professional Looky Lous and anyone else who thinks it's important to film other's misery.

They can ply their "trade" 25' away.....In fact I think the fine is too light for those scum.

Yep, you go ahead and pretend you believe that.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Nope, it's to protect the people you pay so they can do their jobs without being hassled by professional Looky Lous and anyone else who thinks it's important to film other's misery.

They can ply their "trade" 25' away.....In fact I think the fine is too light for those scum.

I believe courts have said a reasonable distance is acceptable for First Amendment purposes. I want to think some courts have upheld ten feet as acceptable. I am surprised 25 has been ruled as violating, with today's technology.

 

[sparky]

You don't tell a family member to leave their house when one of theirs is circling the drain......~S~

 

[sparky]

Further, you do know most robberies, accidents, or fires are seen by bystanders before responders here?

~S~

 

[San Souci]

Florida law will create safety barrier for first responders

A new Florida law will keep first responders safe by prohibiting a person from approaching any police, fire or EMS personnel while working on a call.

www.foxnews.com

A new law in Florida will support the need to keep first responders safe while working a call.

Senate Bill 184 will go into effect on Jan. 1 and will prohibit a person, after receiving a warning, from approaching a first responder engaged in the lawful performance of their job.

The law is aimed at helping police, fire and EMS personnel stay focused while performing critical first aid.

It will create a 25-foot barrier around the responder, keeping the public at bay. It also includes keeping the public from threatening and harassing the responders while they are trying to do their jobs.

Violators will receive a warning initially, but could face criminal penalties if they don't heed it.

It also specifies the definition of "first responder" to include law enforcement officers, a correctional probation officer, firefighters and emergency medical care providers.

Of course, the self-proclaimed "1st Amendment Auditors" and general "Lookie-Lous" are pissed about it as it deprives them of clicks.

I didn't know there was such a thing as a 1st Amendment auditor but here you go:

First Amendment Audits: Definition, Examples and More

You might see First Amendment audits pop up on YouTube and TikTok. But what are they? We answer that, and much more, in this guide.

www.freedomforum.org

Assholes in the way is more like it.

Yes. These rubbernecks with I-Phones should be arrested.

 

[sparky]

Yes. These rubbernecks with I-Phones should be arrested.

there's always two basic types Souci

those that ask 'what happened?'

and those that sincerely want to help

~S~

 

[San Souci]

there's always two basic types Souci

those that ask 'what happened?'

and those that sincerely want to help

~S~

Third type. Those who want to stir up trouble.

 

[fncceo]

LEO still gonna hafta let the public watch, sorry.

The public can "watch" as much as they want. They can record to their heart's content. What they can't do, and what is already illegal in every state, is interfere with performance of first responder duties.

Interference is not always easy to define - except when you're on the scene - and there is no magic distance when your activities cease being watching and start being interference.

I suspect this law - while good intentioned - will prove unnecessary in most cases and unworkable in the rest.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I believe courts have said a reasonable distance is acceptable for First Amendment purposes. I want to think some courts have upheld ten feet as acceptable. I am surprised 25 has been ruled as violating, with today's technology.

I've heard that about the ten feet, but haven't heard a case cited. From a brief wiki "research" it seems that a 1st circuit case established that citizens do have the right to record police and in that case the videographer in that case was approximately ten feet away.

So that case could be taken to imply that ten feet is a reasonable distance at which the first amendment over-rides the desire of law enforcement officers to not be recorded.

Glik v. Cunniffe, 655 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) is a case in which the United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit held that a private citizen has the right to record video and audio of police carrying out their duties in a public place, and that the arrest of the citizen for a wiretapping violation violated his First and Fourth Amendment rights. The case arose when Simon Glik filmed Boston, Massachusetts, police officers from the bicycle unit making an arrest in a public park. When the officers observed that Glik was recording the arrest, they arrested him and Glik was subsequently charged with wiretapping, disturbing the peace, and aiding in the escape of a prisoner. Glik then sued the City of Boston and the arresting officers, claiming that they violated his constitutional rights.Background​

[edit]
On October 1, 2007 while walking in Boston Common,[a] Simon Glik saw an arrest by Boston Bicycle Unit police officers John Cunniffe, Peter Savalis, and Jerome Hall-Brewster.[2] Glik began recording the arrest after he heard a bystander say "[y]ou are hurting him, stop".[3] Because Glik was concerned that the officers were using excessive force, he filmed the encounter with his cell phone.[4] Although Glik was 10 feet away and was not interfering with the arrest, one of the officers turned to him after placing handcuffs on the suspect and said "I think you have taken enough pictures".[5] Glik replied that he was recording the incident; he said, "I am recording this. I saw you punch him".[6] When the officer determined that this included audio, he placed Glik under arrest for violating the Massachusetts wiretapping law.[7]

The facts of this case seem to be exactly what the first amendment is for. If we cannot observe and report on what law enforcement does when interacting with the public, what can we do under the First? Stand back so far that we cannot see what they are doing while praying that law enforcement is obeying the law?

The officers lost their qualified immunity in that case, so could have been sued personally. The city of Boston paid a settlement, so the case never made it to the USSC.

 

[ReinyDays]

You shouldn't need a "parabolic microphone" to record cops. The absurdity of that argument is what makes you a liberal.

I never said you had a right to stand between a cop and a "bad guy." I said you have a right to stand close enough to ACTUALLY record them. Meaning audio and video not from so far away that you can't get the details. If someone claims they were assaulted by a cop, but you're so far away you can't tell and can't hear what is said, that's a violation of your right to film. Cops have a bad habit of turning off body cams or muting them (just watch copwatch videos) when things go sour, so a citizen's right to film police MUST not be interfered with. DID YOU WATCH THE VIDEO I POSTED?

The fact that this same law was struck down in MULTIPLE STATES by the courts says I'm right and you're wrong. But you're a liberal, being wrong is what you do best.

Maybe I watch the wrong kind of 1A Auditor videos ... they emphasis staying out of the way of the cops ... and respect for written law ... which they generally post ...

 

[Crepitus]

what is already illegal in every state, is interfere with performance of first responder duties.

The why bother with a new law?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Maybe I watch the wrong kind of 1A Auditor videos ... they emphasis staying out of the way of the cops ... and respect for written law ... which they generally post ...

I don't see 1A auditors being aggressive. It is very passively standing and video recording for the most part. I do see cops aggressively approaching the 1A auditors and acting shocked that they don't get immediate cooperation when the start barking orders.

Barking orders at a person violating no law whatsoever, but who they "got calls on."

 

[fncceo]

The why bother with a new law?

If they didn’t constantly write new, useless laws, the politicians would have to get real jobs.