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

[Vastator]

I don’t think 6-8 foot requirements are too unrealistic
You don’t need to shove your smart phone in the cops face.

My only problem would be with cops continually moving within 8 feet of you and demanding you step back
Also, you need to be allowed to video from your car

And the driver, or other subject is whom I think this law was specifically crafted toward.

 

[progressive hunter]

New Arizona law places limits on filming police amid growing calls for transparency

A new state law in Arizona will soon make it illegal for people to film a police officer from 8 feet or closer without the officer’s permission, placing greater limits on how people can video police officers at a time when calls are growing louder for increased law enforcement transparency.

www.aol.com

i will not be surprised if this happens in all states. you can thank these black folks who do it so they can sue can get free money.

these are the two main guys that caused this law to happen,,
they dont look black to me,,

https://www.youtube.com/c/DirectDAudits

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC_8tJst6X5fx6dUXuuXdl9w

and I guess you missed the other threads on this topic,,

 

[jc456]

Why would filming interfere? Just being there would be the same interference. I don't see how holding up a cell phone changes anything in that regard, do you?

So why do you suppose they codified filming into the law?

Well I guess one could argue that someone holding something pointing at a cop might be a gun?

 

[rightwinger]

Well I guess one could argue that someone holding something pointing at a cop might be a gun?

I think we can trust cops are capable of knowing what a smart phone looks like

 

[horselightning]

Exactly. These black folks should be grateful to take their beatings/shootings at the hands of the police.

Just mighty uppity of these black folks to be taking pictures of the poor poor policeman.

What's next? Prosecuting the cops just because they shoot some of 'em?

there already prosicuting cops for shooting them.

 

[Magnus]

there already prosicuting cops for shooting them.

Of course, they are. Do you want the cops to go scot-free?

 

[pknopp]

I think we can trust cops are capable of knowing what a smart phone looks like

You think so? How many people have they killed with a cell phone in their hand saying they were afraid it was a gun?

 

[Vastator]

You think so? How many people have they killed with a cell phone in their hand saying they were afraid it was a gun?

On one hand it can seem like a reasonable rule, if intended to give officers a bubble in which they can perform their job. As an officer, how would you react to being suddenly swarmed by a small mob while making an arrest? Things could get ugly. On the otherhand... I don't see what filming has to do with anything. Especially if YOU as the subject of the cops attention, are the one filming. For instance, at a traffic stop. There is so.eyhing fishy about the way this law was written...

 

[progressive hunter]

On one hand it can seem like a reasonable rule, if intended to give officers a bubble in which they can perform their job. As an officer, how would you react to being suddenly swarmed by a small mob while making an arrest? Things could get ugly. On the otherhand... I don't see what filming has to do with anything. Especially if YOU as the subject of the cops attention, are the one filming. For instance, at a traffic stop. There is so.eyhing fishy about the way this law was written...

you should watch some of the videos I posted and you will see why cops are being filmed,,
I also put up the channel of the two guys that were front and center on why these laws were passed,,

 

[pknopp]

On one hand it can seem like a reasonable rule, if intended to give officers a bubble in which they can perform their job. As an officer, how would you react to being suddenly swarmed by a small mob while making an arrest? Things could get ugly. On the otherhand... I don't see what filming has to do with anything. Especially if YOU as the subject of the cops attention, are the one filming. For instance, at a traffic stop. There is so.eyhing fishy about the way this law was written...

It was written for politicians to be able to say "look at what we did", when in reality they didn't actually do anything.

 

[progressive hunter]

It was written for politicians to be able to say "look at what we did", when in reality they didn't actually do anything.

it sets a standard and will stop the cops from pushing cop watchers back beyond 8 ft,,

 

[woodwork201]

Any links showing this? Don't usually see a cop arresting individuals for filming them. Not saying it doesn't happen, but never heard of this being a widespread issue.

I'm going to assume that you're just starting on page 1 and haven't read all those posts that have dozens, between them, of stories with links of cops harassing, arresting, beating, people for recording them.

 

[scruffy]

For the racist, neo-fascist right, of course, this is about law enforcement interacting with American of color – to hide from the public the disproportionate violence visited upon Americans of color by law enforcement, to the detriment of the right’s political agenda.

Sure, DNC troll. Sure.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Republicans voters will of course defend this because they are morons. We all know how they’d react if a democrat did this instead.

And because Republicans are illiberal authoritarians who want to coverup criminal acts of violence by racist LEOs in violation of the First Amendment.

 

[progressive hunter]

 

[tshrimp]

No, you're not a libertarian. You're a sheep. An authoritarian sock-puppet.

The cops harass people from across the street, from their porches and doorways, from across fields. They harass from hundreds of feet and there have been stories posted today and before today on this topic.

Banning recording within 8 feet means that no individual can ever record what happens to them. That means that no driver can ever record their interaction with a cop. Yea, that's a real libertarian scenario. You're not a libertarian; you're an anti-constitutional authoritarian.

You realize 8 feet is just over arms reach in distance. You can still record from "porches and across fields", etc. If you are closer than 8 feet then you are in the way, and endangering everyone including yourself.

 

[woodwork201]

I think we can trust cops are capable of knowing what a smart phone looks like

I think you're right about that. But that makes you wonder why so many are dead who had nothing more than a smart phone in their hands. Since we agree that cops knew they were just phones, there must be intent to kill on the part of the cops.

 

[woodwork201]

You realize 8 feet is just over arms reach in distance. You can still record from "porches and across fields", etc. If you are closer than 8 feet then you are in the way, and endangering everyone including yourself.

And do you realize that I posted videos of cops assaulting videographers who were recording 75 feet away and 200 feet away?

There's nothing in the law that prevents people from doing anything else within 8 feet, such as, as someone else posted, playing Angry Birds, or video chatting, or anything else on their phones. Only recording the cop is illegal. This has nothing to do with safety of the bystanders or the cops. It has one intent and one intent only: to interfere with recording cops.

I saw a video yesterday, but can't find it today, of a case where there were a dozen cops around a guy on the ground, handcuffed, while cops were kicking him. In the obvious lawsuit that followed, the cops denied pepper spraying the victim though the victime claimed it in the suit. Then one of the body cams caught just a bit of the right angle where there was a gap in the wall of cops and you could see a cop spraying the guy in the face.

Point is, there are things that might be caught closer or just a different angle might present.

 

[woodwork201]

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

Wrong. The Constitution represents enumerated powers of government. That's what they have and it is all they have and they have no more than that.

 

[woodwork201]

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 don't read well, I can see that now. Just how did yelling fire in a theater come up in this thread? Someone called me a leftist and I gave examples to document that I am, with no doubt, the most constitutionally conservative person on this website - without exception.

I pointed out that I am so absolute on the Constitution and that people who say there's an exception to the 1st Amendment because you can't yell fire in a theater are wrong. I said, and I say, that yelling fire in a theater is a civil matter and the Constitution forbids Congress from passing any such law. So you've been arguing with your self for the last several posts because I said what you're now saying before you said it, idiot.

You were clear to blame some but not others.

Huh? That sentence makes zero sense. You'll have to explain what you're talking about.