1ºRamon Castellanos why is this so hard to comprehend.
Jesus. If the public witnesses the police in action, they’re going to record. If the police aren’t doing anything wrong, there’s nothing to worry about, people are just filming at a distance.
However, now that the officers can expand the radius by approaching anyone filming, that’s going to be abused when officers are doing something wrong. You’re going to have people being arrested and evidence destroyed simply because the bad ones got caught and now have a legitimate method to abuse their power.
If I’m filming officers beating down on someone and I’m well outside the 8 foot radius and one decides he isn’t going to allow the footage to be taped, he easily can walk to me, extend the radius and arrest me. I could be 20 feet away and if he approaches me, I’m getting into trouble, despite lawfully recording in a public space.
This will be abused.
2ºOne of those situations where you want to do this at a fixed level. So is your position applicable to federal law enforcement? Here is what I want to know, the police cam video of the George Floyd incident, why is it in the UK? Why doesn’t the police cam video support the original narrative is you watch it from the beginning? As for the ACLU, your actions and positions that determines your lawsuits is based upon the money given to you. That’s why a lot of things are replaying themselves out where there is a recant to a lot of your Supreme Court wins. Freedom, liberty, and justice is not a side, or a fixed perspective.
3ºVeronica Vanellope problem is that it’s not legal under the Supreme Court. What happens when Texas says within 100 feet? Or Idaho says within 100 yards.
This has been ruled on by the Supreme Court and the court of appeals.
Time. Manner. Place.
You can record civil servants in the course of their duties in a manner that doesn’t interfere with their duties. In a place you are legally allowed to be and during a time when you are allowed to be there.
If police want to create a safe distance they have a means. They can put up police tape and section off an area.
This is just another way for an officer to make a judgement call and put another American in jail. At some point we have to realize that we lock people up for the most ridiculous stuff.
4ºThe United States has become a very strange place with the government continuously doing these small things to make it harder to keep agencies accountable. A lot of small things add up to big things including law enforcement that can do whatever they want without consequences.
Without somebody recording the most recent examples of unabashed police brutality, what would have happened? We cannot trust law enforcement to make the right decisions and to do what they are meant to do which is protect and empower a community.
Anyone that thinks law enforcement having carte blanche in the name of upholding the law does not have morals or values.
5ºFrank Thornton of you have nothing to hide, what are you worried about? But, when you are pulled over, its 99.999% likely it's for a reason. If you are fully compliant and cooperative with officers, you likihood of being searched an nill. If yiu have a record, especially with any violence or weopens related crimes, the police know it when running plates, and for their protection may ask you to step out of the vehicle. How YOU respond to any of the officers request largely determine how things progress. I've not seen a YouTu e video yet where esclitory action arosenout of a traffic stop,, where the driver or other cars occupants did not initiate the conflict. It's actually ironic, people post videos to supposedly support their claim, and then right from the start, they initiate the conflict themselves. It happens over and over again.
6ºTaylor Bailey, I read the whole article. The section about recording traffic stops says "As long as it doesn't interfere with police". That's a pretty broad description which could easily be interpreted as no using your phone camera with it in your hand, which could be considered interfering with the police interaction if they want your hands doing something else. Propping it up on the dashboard is fraught with problems, getting the right angle, it not falling over in the middle. So maybe everyone needs inboard security cameras... except that excludes an entire class of people who simply can't afford that...I don't know what the answer is, and frankly I don't ever get stopped by the cops and I'm white, so I'm not overly worried personally. But I care about the treatment of my fellow human beings in the BIPOC communities and those who may be suffering mental health crises and not able to act normally during a traffic stop.
7ºMark Rozier why do I need to prove anything to you you're obviously a police officer that want your privacy but you signed up to be a sub public servant but you don't want no one seeing what you're doing wrong secondly take your phone out stand about 8 to 10 ft away from your phone focus in have your kids playing and see if you can make out there face most of the time you will be able to simply because you know who and what they are but take a look at their hands and their actions it can't be explained that is what lawyers are trying to do discredit a picture that is a thousand words
8ºCalvin George...there are laws that tell us the level of force we can use. And again like i said if you don't know the job or what you can and can not do then you really can't scrutinize the job. And if you really want to say you pay peoples salary...you don't like how officers do their jobs...go speak to the politicians who gave the officers this authority...you "pay" their salary. But nope...you only have something to say about the officers. Until you've made a split second decision that can change the lives of yourself and someone else...ill say it again...you have no clue what you're talking about. You can scream from the roof tops..."I pay your salary" as you're breaking the law and getting locked up. Keep is simple...stay 8 feet away and you won't get locked up. Get close...get looked up. Your choice. But the LAWMAKERS put that into effect. Go cry to them.
9ºI can see why they would want to make sure that people aren’t getting in the way when they are trying to apprehend someone who is resisting. However I think 8 feet is excessive and I also think this absolutely should not apply to dashcams, body cams, stationary cameras such as ring and so forth. You want them to be able to effectively do their job, but it is essential that people are allowed to record what they are doing otherwise they will not be trusted and the police that are truly trying to protect and serve will have a harder time doing that when only a fraction of the population trusts them.
10ºIra Farris is this really that hard to understand?
If, slowly now, recording the police as they worked wasn’t much of an issue before this law, meaning there weren’t mobs of people attacking police, freeing detainees, stealing evidence, you know on a consistent basis, than the law here isn’t necessary.
But now that it does exist, still following along, it gives the police the ability to approach someone who is recording who is outside the 8 feet barrier which then places them into the barrier and can result in an arrest.
You can be arrested because of a loophole for just recording what they police are doing, whether it’s lawful or not.