How to stop the police from breaking the law, Arizona style.

[kaz]

No, you're not a libertarian ...

Jarlaxle made the same point without being a total dick like you did.

I was thinking of filming others, but it's a good point you should be able to record your own interaction. I agree. And you're an ass, Holmes. Take a breath and calm down

 

[woodwork201]

And when you are there to participate in criminal activities as a form of protest, and when cops show up to arrest you all, you claim "press" to avoid personal arrest, and then harass the cops as they are arresting your friends, while filming them with the intent of posting it out of context packaged with lies to inflame and divide the country in the service of a marxist political agenda,

it should NOT be called reporting. imo.

There's no exemption to the law or the Constitution for the press. If the press break the law, even the 'youtube press" then you go to jail.

You've watched too many BLDM riots and misunderstand what civil disobedience is supposed to be. The traditional intention of civil disobedience is to break the law, get arrested, go to jail and court, and challenge the law to show how stupid the law is. The BLDM rioters committed civil disobedience and had no consequences.

One might break the 2010-ish law in Chicago that said it was illegal to record the police in public - and people did. And they went to jail. And they went to court and were found guilty. They appealed, ultimately to the Supreme Court, and the law was overturned.

On the other hand, civil disobedience isn't appropriate to challenge laws on murder. They won't be overturned. You'd just go to jail.

In between disobedience with little jail time risk, such as the Chicago police recording and flat out crimes like murder, there are things like gun possession. Gun control laws really need the challenge of civil disobedience as well but the risk is very high. Though a protester might be right, morally and constitutionally, the risk of 10 years in prison is pretty high so you don't often see civil disobedience protests about gun control.

The January 6 protests and riot were examples of civil disobedience protest. Though the rioters were right to protest, they took the gamble and many lost and are spending a long time in jail. That's always the risk with civil disobedience protests.

The point is, civil disobedience isn't supposed to be breaking the law with no consequences, whether or not you claim to be the press. There should be no such thing as breaking the law with no consequences.

 

[woodwork201]

Yes.

‘First Amendment advocates are considering their options in response to an Arizona law signed last week making it a crime to record video police officers from closer than 8 feet away.

[…]

"There is zero evidence in the record that this law actually addresses a problem," said K. M. Bell, an attorney for the ACLU of Arizona. "We are investigating all possible options for addressing this unconstitutional law."

Bell said there were several specific problems with the law, including that it was overly broad. It limits what people can do on their phones while near a police officer, which amounts to a First Amendment violation, Bell said.

"This is a content-based restriction, because I can stand 3 feet from an officer and play Angry Birds, but I can't stand 3 feet away and record them," Bell said.’

First Amendment advocates respond to a new Arizona law limiting recording of police

Recently signed legislation in Arizona would bar people from recording video of police officers within 8 feet after being told not to.

www.npr.org

And content-based restrictions are un-Constitutional.

This law is a ‘solution’ in search of a ‘problem’ that doesn’t exist – save for the problem conservatives have with holding law enforcement responsible for the crimes they commit.

save for the problem conservatives authoritarians have with holding law enforcement responsible for the crimes they commit.

Conservatives defend the constitution. Authoritarians defend tyranny.

 

[woodwork201]

Hahaha…see what you’re doing? This is full leftist shit….You’re engineering a retarded narrative based on something (police brutality) that may occur .000002% of the time while shoving a camera in a cops face will instigate and escalate a situation 100% of the time.…it’s just plain ignorance.
Leftists tell us white supremacy is this nations biggest problem while blacks spend their weekends…EVERY WEEKEND, kiling eachother in all dark shitholes all across America…..are you sure you shouldn’t be talking shit about black criminality…wouldn’t that be better use of your time and energy?

See what you're doing? You asked if there were bad cops before cell phones and when I proved there were bad cops before cell phones, you pretended that I brought up that topic. That's what happens when idiots lose the debate. When the truth defeats them they change the question to make it appear that the answer was no longer the truth.

You asked if there were bad cops before cell phones. Yes, there were bad cops before cell phones.

If you want to talk about crime in the black communities and innocent black babies being shot in their mothers' arms or shot in their car seats in the back seats of their fathers' cars, I'm happy to participate and usually do when those threads come up.

But twisting my proof that there were bad cops before cell phones, in direct answer to your direct question, into suggesting I defend black criminals is inaccurate and an intentional lie on your part. You really are a loser because you're incapable and unwilling to have an honest debate, intentionally choosing lies and deceit when logic and facts fail you.

 

[woodwork201]

I respect the constitution well enough to know better than to support any form of todays Democratic party. Todays Democratic party has gone so far-left over the cliff extremist. While I would like to protect our country and the constitution, you band of whacko's are hell bent on taring it all down. Stick your Woke where it don't belong!

You're an idiot. I'm not a leftist, not woke, not a Democrat. I'm the most constitutionally conservative person on this site.

Someone, I don't recall who, questioned whether I lived my life with such absolutes as I post here. Actually, I pretty much do. I am an absolute constitutionalist.

In the world, there is right and wrong. It's absolute. There are often choices because there can be more than one right or more than one wrong so it's possible to do things differently from me and still be right but if you're wrong you're wrong. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

I'm an absolutist on the 2nd Amendment. It says "shall not be infringed" and they meant, "shall not be infringed". There areonly two others on his site that I recall having seen defend "shall not be infringed". All of the others are anti-2nd Amendment. Even if they like and own guns and believe in a limited privilege to keep and bear arms, they neither support nor defend, "shall not be infringed".

I am an absolutist on abortion. Killing an innocent unborn life is never moral with the exception of when the doctors and the mother agree that the risk to the mother's life is such that to continue carrying the baby would result in the death of both the mother and the baby. No other exceptions should exist.

I am an absolutist on free speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater actually is constitutionally protected. When one harms another by executing their rights they can be sued civilly for doing so. Yelling fire in a crowded theater can, and should, get you sued civilly but you don't actually see any federal laws against yelling fire, do you?

I am so constitutionally conservative that, compared to me, you're a ******* Stalinist.

What I am also is honest with you and myself. I don't surrender my morals or values for convenience or to keep from offending people like you - you're so woke compared to me that you may as well join Antifa.
I am not perfect, and I do violate my morals and values, but when I do things wrong I own it. I don't try to justify my shortcomings by claiming special circumstance or by blaming others. I don't suggest one set of rules and legal/constitutional protections for those I dislike and another set for me.

I'm not like you who scream about your rights when the left threatens your guns and then openly argue in support of constitutional violations against those with whom I disagree. When you accept, even defend, promote, and encourage, the government to act outside of the constitutional limits imposed on it by the people, then you accept and approve that the Constitution is nothing more than a suggestion.

You argue that government exists without the Constitution as though people like Joe Biden and Tony Fauci must have blue blood or some other birthright authority to rule over us.

We might honestly disagree on the meaning of things in the Constitution - though in those cases I will almost certainly be right and you will almost certainly be wrong (notice that I do leave room for the remote possibility of error on my part regarding interpretation of the Constitution) - but when you openly advocate government actions outside of the Constitution then you are acting as an anti-constitutional enemy of the United States of America and of the Constitution upon which it stands.

 

[woodwork201]

They can simply make being on duty without a body camera a Federal crime. An alternative is to simply require the states to make it a felony or lose all Federal funding.

Or do both.

Where is the constitutional authority to make not wearing a camera a federal crime?

Using Federal funds to force States to comply with otherwise unconstitutional policies is unconstitutional. In fact, withholding Federal funds from some states while giving them to other states is a violation of the General Welfare clause of the Constitution so even using funds to force individual state compliance with otherwise constitutional policies is unconstitutional.

If you want laws requiring body cameras, and I know I certainly do, write your state legislator and your governor.

 

[woodwork201]

Jarlaxle made the same point without being a total dick like you did.

I was thinking of filming others, but it's a good point you should be able to record your own interaction. I agree. And you're an ass, Holmes. Take a breath and calm down

You're not a libertarian. You told a lie and I pointed it out. That's not being a dick. Being a dick is pretending to be a libertarian while defending authoritianism. You insult and degrade all those who are actual libertarians. That's being a dick.

 

[kaz]

You're not a libertarian. You told a lie and I pointed it out. That's not being a dick. Being a dick is pretending to be a libertarian while defending authoritianism. You insult and degrade all those who are actual libertarians. That's being a dick.

Gotcha, so you actually are a dick, you didn't just get carried away. I suspected, but gave you a chance. Turned out you're just another racist leftist

 

[Paleman]

You're an idiot. I'm not a leftist, not woke, not a Democrat. I'm the most constitutionally conservative person on this site.

Someone, I don't recall who, questioned whether I lived my life with such absolutes as I post here. Actually, I pretty much do. I am an absolute constitutionalist.

In the world, there is right and wrong. It's absolute. There are often choices because there can be more than one right or more than one wrong so it's possible to do things differently from me and still be right but if you're wrong you're wrong. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

I'm an absolutist on the 2nd Amendment. It says "shall not be infringed" and they meant, "shall not be infringed". There areonly two others on his site that I recall having seen defend "shall not be infringed". All of the others are anti-2nd Amendment. Even if they like and own guns and believe in a limited privilege to keep and bear arms, they neither support nor defend, "shall not be infringed".

I am an absolutist on abortion. Killing an innocent unborn life is never moral with the exception of when the doctors and the mother agree that the risk to the mother's life is such that to continue carrying the baby would result in the death of both the mother and the baby. No other exceptions should exist.

I am an absolutist on free speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater actually is constitutionally protected. When one harms another by executing their rights they can be sued civilly for doing so. Yelling fire in a crowded theater can, and should, get you sued civilly but you don't actually see any federal laws against yelling fire, do you?

I am so constitutionally conservative that, compared to me, you're a ******* Stalinist.

What I am also is honest with you and myself. I don't surrender my morals or values for convenience or to keep from offending people like you - you're so woke compared to me that you may as well join Antifa.
I am not perfect, and I do violate my morals and values, but when I do things wrong I own it. I don't try to justify my shortcomings by claiming special circumstance or by blaming others. I don't suggest one set of rules and legal/constitutional protections for those I dislike and another set for me.

I'm not like you who scream about your rights when the left threatens your guns and then openly argue in support of constitutional violations against those with whom I disagree. When you accept, even defend, promote, and encourage, the government to act outside of the constitutional limits imposed on it by the people, then you accept and approve that the Constitution is nothing more than a suggestion.

You argue that government exists without the Constitution as though people like Joe Biden and Tony Fauci must have blue blood or some other birthright authority to rule over us.

We might honestly disagree on the meaning of things in the Constitution - though in those cases I will almost certainly be right and you will almost certainly be wrong (notice that I do leave room for the remote possibility of error on my part regarding interpretation of the Constitution) - but when you openly advocate government actions outside of the Constitution then you are acting as an anti-constitutional enemy of the United States of America and of the Constitution upon which it stands.

Well said, I am impressed.

You're an idiot. I'm not a leftist, not woke, not a Democrat. I'm the most constitutionally conservative person on this site.

Someone, I don't recall who, questioned whether I lived my life with such absolutes as I post here. Actually, I pretty much do. I am an absolute constitutionalist.

In the world, there is right and wrong. It's absolute. There are often choices because there can be more than one right or more than one wrong so it's possible to do things differently from me and still be right but if you're wrong you're wrong. When I'm wrong, I'm wrong.

I'm an absolutist on the 2nd Amendment. It says "shall not be infringed" and they meant, "shall not be infringed". There areonly two others on his site that I recall having seen defend "shall not be infringed". All of the others are anti-2nd Amendment. Even if they like and own guns and believe in a limited privilege to keep and bear arms, they neither support nor defend, "shall not be infringed".

I am an absolutist on abortion. Killing an innocent unborn life is never moral with the exception of when the doctors and the mother agree that the risk to the mother's life is such that to continue carrying the baby would result in the death of both the mother and the baby. No other exceptions should exist.

I am an absolutist on free speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater actually is constitutionally protected. When one harms another by executing their rights they can be sued civilly for doing so. Yelling fire in a crowded theater can, and should, get you sued civilly but you don't actually see any federal laws against yelling fire, do you?

I am so constitutionally conservative that, compared to me, you're a ******* Stalinist.

What I am also is honest with you and myself. I don't surrender my morals or values for convenience or to keep from offending people like you - you're so woke compared to me that you may as well join Antifa.
I am not perfect, and I do violate my morals and values, but when I do things wrong I own it. I don't try to justify my shortcomings by claiming special circumstance or by blaming others. I don't suggest one set of rules and legal/constitutional protections for those I dislike and another set for me.

I'm not like you who scream about your rights when the left threatens your guns and then openly argue in support of constitutional violations against those with whom I disagree. When you accept, even defend, promote, and encourage, the government to act outside of the constitutional limits imposed on it by the people, then you accept and approve that the Constitution is nothing more than a suggestion.

You argue that government exists without the Constitution as though people like Joe Biden and Tony Fauci must have blue blood or some other birthright authority to rule over us.

We might honestly disagree on the meaning of things in the Constitution - though in those cases I will almost certainly be right and you will almost certainly be wrong (notice that I do leave room for the remote possibility of error on my part regarding interpretation of the Constitution) - but when you openly advocate government actions outside of the Constitution then you are acting as an anti-constitutional enemy of the United States of America and of the Constitution upon which it stands.

Question? I you all of what you say you are, why are you so constantly challenged from the those of us on the right?

 

[progressive hunter]

Well said, I am impressed.

Question? I you all of what you say you are, why are you so constantly challenged from the those of us on the right?

if youre saying the republican party is on the right that is not correct,, they are leftist authoritarians just like the dems but just not as far left,,

 

[shockedcanadian]

Wow, Arizona is becoming like Ontario.

Good luck with that when your economy collapses along with your civil liberties.

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signs law banning video recording within 8 feet of 'police activity'

Arizona has banned residents from recording video while standing within eight feet of any police activity. Critics argue the bill gives police far to much authority.

www.foxnews.com

Republican Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed legislation banning residents from recording video within eight feet of "police activity" on Sunday.

The law classifies knowingly filming within eight feet of officers as a class 3 misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to 30 days in jail, $500 in fines and up to a year in probation, according to Arizona law. The law says officers must warn anyone filming at least once before they can be charged with a crime.

The legislation defines police activity as any time law enforcement officers are conducting an arrest, questioning a suspicious person, issuing a summons, handling an emotionally disturbed or disorderly person who is exhibiting abnormal behavior, or enforcing the law.


Critics argue the law could permit officers to simply move toward anyone filming them in order to legally halt the recording.

 

[okfine]

Wow, Arizona is becoming like Ontario.

Good luck with that when your economy collapses along with your civil liberties.

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signs law banning video recording within 8 feet of 'police activity'

Arizona has banned residents from recording video while standing within eight feet of any police activity. Critics argue the bill gives police far to much authority.

www.foxnews.com

Republican Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed legislation banning residents from recording video within eight feet of "police activity" on Sunday.

The law classifies knowingly filming within eight feet of officers as a class 3 misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to 30 days in jail, $500 in fines and up to a year in probation, according to Arizona law. The law says officers must warn anyone filming at least once before they can be charged with a crime.

The legislation defines police activity as any time law enforcement officers are conducting an arrest, questioning a suspicious person, issuing a summons, handling an emotionally disturbed or disorderly person who is exhibiting abnormal behavior, or enforcing the law.


Critics argue the law could permit officers to simply move toward anyone filming them in order to legally halt the recording.

So Jan Brewer esque.

 

[yidnar]

Wow, Arizona is becoming like Ontario.

Good luck with that when your economy collapses along with your civil liberties.

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signs law banning video recording within 8 feet of 'police activity'

Arizona has banned residents from recording video while standing within eight feet of any police activity. Critics argue the bill gives police far to much authority.

www.foxnews.com

Republican Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed legislation banning residents from recording video within eight feet of "police activity" on Sunday.

The law classifies knowingly filming within eight feet of officers as a class 3 misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to 30 days in jail, $500 in fines and up to a year in probation, according to Arizona law. The law says officers must warn anyone filming at least once before they can be charged with a crime.

The legislation defines police activity as any time law enforcement officers are conducting an arrest, questioning a suspicious person, issuing a summons, handling an emotionally disturbed or disorderly person who is exhibiting abnormal behavior, or enforcing the law.


Critics argue the law could permit officers to simply move toward anyone filming them in order to legally halt the recording.

i'm a conservative ... and i disagree with that legislation .

 

[Jarlaxle]

Where is the constitutional authority to make not wearing a camera a federal crime?

Using Federal funds to force States to comply with otherwise unconstitutional policies is unconstitutional. In fact, withholding Federal funds from some states while giving them to other states is a violation of the General Welfare clause of the Constitution so even using funds to force individual state compliance with otherwise constitutional policies is unconstitutional.

If you want laws requiring body cameras, and I know I certainly do, write your state legislator and your governor.

It's 100% constitutional unless and until courts rule otherwise. Claiming otherwise is at odds with reality.

 

[LA RAM FAN]

Can’t have citizens videotaping police corruption or thinking this is a free country,no sirre Bob.

 

[progressive hunter]

Wow, Arizona is becoming like Ontario.

Good luck with that when your economy collapses along with your civil liberties.

Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signs law banning video recording within 8 feet of 'police activity'

Arizona has banned residents from recording video while standing within eight feet of any police activity. Critics argue the bill gives police far to much authority.

www.foxnews.com

Republican Arizona Gov. Doug Ducey signed legislation banning residents from recording video within eight feet of "police activity" on Sunday.

The law classifies knowingly filming within eight feet of officers as a class 3 misdemeanor, which is punishable by up to 30 days in jail, $500 in fines and up to a year in probation, according to Arizona law. The law says officers must warn anyone filming at least once before they can be charged with a crime.

The legislation defines police activity as any time law enforcement officers are conducting an arrest, questioning a suspicious person, issuing a summons, handling an emotionally disturbed or disorderly person who is exhibiting abnormal behavior, or enforcing the law.


Critics argue the law could permit officers to simply move toward anyone filming them in order to legally halt the recording.

already a thread with lots of opinions,,

How to stop the police from breaking the law, Arizona style.

No, you're not a libertarian ... Jarlaxle made the same point without being a total dick like you did. I was thinking of filming others, but it's a good point you should be able to record your own interaction. I agree. And you're an ass, Holmes. Take a breath and calm down

www.usmessageboard.com

 

[Correll]

There's no exemption to the law or the Constitution for the press. If the press break the law, even the 'youtube press" then you go to jail.

You've watched too many BLDM riots and misunderstand what civil disobedience is supposed to be. The traditional intention of civil disobedience is to break the law, get arrested, go to jail and court, and challenge the law to show how stupid the law is. The BLDM rioters committed civil disobedience and had no consequences.

I'm basing my response on what is, not what should be.

 

[Montrovant]

This law doesn't try to stop police interference, at least based on the links provided in this thread. It makes filming within 8 feet illegal, but not any other activity done within the same range. If the intent were to try to prevent interference with police doing their duties, why limit it to filming?

I don't know if this was a poorly-made law with good intentions, a panacea for the electorate, a law designed to protect police even if they act in ways against policy or the law, or what the impetus for it might have been. What it seems to be, however, is a law destined to face, and hopefully not stand up to, legal/constitutional scrutiny.

If having people within 8 feet of police while they perform their duties is interference, make a law preventing people from being within 8 feet of police while performing their duties. Don't make a law only disallowing filming.

 

[progressive hunter]

This law doesn't try to stop police interference, at least based on the links provided in this thread. It makes filming within 8 feet illegal, but not any other activity done within the same range. If the intent were to try to prevent interference with police doing their duties, why limit it to filming?

I don't know if this was a poorly-made law with good intentions, a panacea for the electorate, a law designed to protect police even if they act in ways against policy or the law, or what the impetus for it might have been. What it seems to be, however, is a law destined to face, and hopefully not stand up to, legal/constitutional scrutiny.

If having people within 8 feet of police while they perform their duties is interference, make a law preventing people from being within 8 feet of police while performing their duties. Don't make a law only disallowing filming.

they already have those,, theyre called interfering laws,,

 

[progressive hunter]