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

[Papageorgio]

But let’s say you’re at 8 or 9 feet and a cop busts you for it if you don’t turn off the camera. That wouldn’t be an easy thing to prove in court. This small dick cop is going to give you the citation.

You have the film to prove otherwise. And I don’t care what size dick you or any cop has. Not sure why you are obsessed about it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You have the film to prove otherwise.

No, actually, you don't. Different cameras have different fields of view and focal lengths. You would have a very hard time using your footage to prove you were 9 feet away instead of 8.

See the problems here? They keep piling up.

 

[RaiderBoat]

Arizona to ban people filming police officers within 8 feet

Opponents of the law have said it violates the constitutional right to free speech and a free press.

www.bbc.com

"
A law in the US state of Arizona will ban people from filming police officers at short distances, with possible fines or jail for those who don't comply.

Critics call the law a threat to free speech and the right to a free press.

Police are often filmed by bystanders and footage has occasionally resulted in officer misconduct being exposed."

If it's not filmed, it's not illegal.... WAYYYHEYYYYY!!!

Another post by a mouth breather who didn’t READ the Law.

And people wonder WHY America is becoming a Third World Nation…

 

[protectionist]

It's a case where the courts did not sign with the law.

Sometimes they do. Sometimes they don't. Mostly they do.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Another post by a mouth breather who didn’t READ the Law.

And people wonder WHY America is becoming a Third World Nation…

No points made...

 

[Concerned American]

My version of the Constitution doesn't mention credentials for the press.

Seems to me that anything not specifically forbidden or protected in the constitution can be legislated by the federal or state congresses.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Seems to me that anything not specifically forbidden or protected in the constitution can be legislated by the federal or state congresses.

Yep. They can pass a law saying it is illegal to wear pants.

But, as hopefully is the fate of this garbage law, that would get tossed out by the first court that hears a challenge to it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

You can already be arrested for interfering with any emergency service worker, police, fire fighters, paramedics .. etc. Being so close that your inhibit the ability of workers to do their job or cause them to be concerned for your safety is considered interfering.

You can also be asked to stop filming if there is a minor involved and there are concerns for their privacy. Failure to comply with a lawful order can get you arrested.

Yep.

And then there is this new law, that makes it illegal to film them at 7' 11" away.

 

[progressive hunter]

Seems to me that anything not specifically forbidden or protected in the constitution can be legislated by the federal or state congresses.

I think you have that backwards..


10th A
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

 

[fncceo]

Even news outlets pixelate accused violators. Why is an officers privacy any different.

Officers are conducting business in a public place. They take for granted that they will be photographed, overtly or covertly, at all times. If you're doing your job professionally, it's not a problem, unless you're still holding on to extra weight from winter.

Cops are always concerned about looking fat on camera.

 

[pknopp]

You're absolutely correct. If everyone looks at them then there's no damage but perhaps a trespassing charge if he doesn't leave when told. But if everyone leaves then there's lost time, lost value, lost revenue. Even if the theater gives free tickets there's lost revenue and lost time and travel costs to go to the theater again. There's a lawsuit.

But apparently you totally missed the point that it's actually not an exception to free speech for yelling fire in a theater.

Free speech limitations apply to the government. There isn't squat the government can do to you for simply yelling "fire" and no one actually, physically gets hurt.

If the theater can sue you, that has nothing to do with the first amendment.

Did I say anything nice about Fauci? Did I mention the Supreme Court EAP ruling? No, I didn't do either. Fauci's behavior wasn't about the Constitution; it's about deep state. The point I was making was that the Deep State do not have any right to rule.

Some think the government has power because they're the government and everyone on earth has to have a government over them and Fauci is part of our government.

I was clearly pointing out that the deep state have no power not granted in the Constitution. Are you illiterate? or are you an idiot? Or both?

You were clear to blame some but not others.

 

[progressive hunter]

Free speech limitations apply to the government. There isn't squat the government can do to you for simply yelling "fire" and no one actually, physically gets hurt.

If the theater can sue you, that has nothing to do with the first amendment.




You were clear to blame some but not others.

or financially hurt,, the theater can sue if all the people run outside and didnt get to watch the movie,,

 

[Meister]

8 feet is perfectly reasonable. It's even very close.

Good on Arizona for codifying a uniform standard.

It is a good distance, if a person is within 8 ft and filming, the cop, if in the middle
of an arrest doesn't have the time to figure out if he's got one or two perps to worry about.
Sounds more like common sense than an infringement on a person's rights.

 

[pknopp]

or financially hurt,, the theater can sue if all the people run outside and didnt get to watch the movie,,

But that has NOTHING to do with the first amendment.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It is a good distance, if a person is within 8 ft and filming, the cop, if in the middle
of an arrest doesn't have the time to figure out if he's got one or two perps to worry about.
Sounds more like common sense than an infringement on a person's rights.

But not filming is fine, apparently. Swing on by, maybe have some small talk. How do they figure that?

 

[progressive hunter]

But that has NOTHING to do with the first amendment.

but it goes to what you said about not costing them anything if no one was hurt,,
neither have anything to do with the 1st A
doesnt matter if it a person or property if is causes a damage/loss they can be sued,,

 

[Billy000]

You have the film to prove otherwise. And I don’t care what size dick you or any cop has. Not sure why you are obsessed about it.

How would the film prove that?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, the law isn't about filming police.

Then why mention filming at all? Why not just the 8 foot space?

 

[Montrovant]

I didn’t tap out asshole, my whole life isn’t dedicated to a message board, I can’t help if that is all you have in your life Is this board, didn’t realize how pathetic your life is. Why do you need to be within 8 feet of law enforcement questioning a suspicious person. Why do you need to be filming within 8 feet of an officer conducting an arrest, issuing a summons or enforcing the law? Why do you need to be within eight feet of an officer handling an emotionally disturbed or disorderly person who is exhibiting abnormal behavior. It seems you are putting yourself in harms way, and potential for getting hurt by any sort of scuffle that may or may not happen. You have failed to convince me why this law is bad, seems reasonable.

The problem with the law is that it does NOT stop people from being within 8 feet of cops in the performance of their duties. It ONLY stops people from RECORDING the cops from within 8 feet. If the people aren't recording, this law does not apply to them.

That leads to the question of why a law is needed to try to stop people from recording police, when it isn't designed to stop any other sort of interference?

As I and others have said, if being within 8 feet of police while the perform their duties is interference, make a law that criminalizes being within 8 feet. Limiting it to people who are filming seems to indicate that the filming is the real issue, not the distance.

And if there are laws covering interference that somehow include a loophole if someone is filming, adjust/amend those laws. Creating an entirely separate law which only covers filming seems, again, to be trying to prevent filming, not interference with the police.

 

[progressive hunter]

The problem with the law is that it does NOT stop people from being within 8 feet of cops in the performance of their duties. It ONLY stops people from RECORDING the cops from within 8 feet. If the people aren't recording, this law does not apply to them.

That leads to the question of why a law is needed to try to stop people from recording police, when it isn't designed to stop any other sort of interference?

As I and others have said, if being within 8 feet of police while the perform their duties is interference, make a law that criminalizes being within 8 feet. Limiting it to people who are filming seems to indicate that the filming is the real issue, not the distance.

And if there are laws covering interference that somehow include a loophole if someone is filming, adjust/amend those laws. Creating an entirely separate law which only covers filming seems, again, to be trying to prevent filming, not interference with the police.

there are already laws on that,,