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

[frigidweirdo]

The ‘eight feet’ provision alone is ridiculous and arbitrary, an indication of the law’s true intent: conceal the violence and criminality of law enforcement.

Can you imagine a police officer getting his tape measure out...... "Excuse me miss, you stepped into my force field zone, get the fuck out.... Or I'll shoot you"

 

[fncceo]

Can you imagine a police officer getting his tape measure out...... "Excuse me miss, you stepped into my force field zone, get the fuck out.... Or I'll shoot you"

No one else can either ...

... if you're forced to arrest someone on a misdemeanor, you verify their name and address, and as long as they quit doing whatever they were doing, you let them go. The will get a summons to appear in court. Nice and simple.

 

[progressive hunter]

To be fair, the law removes ambiguity. No one trying to interfere with police doing their duty actually believes they're interfering.

No one filming police believes they're hindering police if they are standing in the middle of a potentially unsafe situation with their phone in front of them.

Cops in a situation don't have time to explain it to them.

This makes things nice and easy ... film all you want. Say whatever you want. Just do it from a relatively safe 8 feet away.

Removing the ambiguity makes things smoother for you and removes a layer of confusion from the situation.

fact of the matter is this law is in direct response to this man and a few of his friends after they were repeatedly abused by tempe cops and then started videoing them,, if you watch the videos you will see they seldom come within 20 ft of the cops but the cops still have to exert their imaginary authority on them,,
so in reality this is just complete BS law,,

tempe also has a long history of corrupt cops and admins,,

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

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Can you imagine a police officer getting his tape measure out...... "Excuse me miss, you stepped into my force field zone, get the fuck out.... Or I'll shoot you"

What will happen is a private citizen lawfully recording LEO will respond that she’s well beyond eight feet and she’s not going to stop recording, resulting in the citizen being charged with disobeying an order of a police officer – the true intent of the measure, to intimidate citizens.

 

[AZrailwhale]

The point is it gives police more power when clearly they should have less.
For example, it should be illegal for police to edit what they give to the media from body cams.

There are often good reasons to edit what is given to the media. The full recordings can always be gotten by Court order or FOIA demand.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Define legitimate.

These people who work for these websites and youtube channels are not criminals or defending criminals; they're defending your rights. It doesn't get more legitimate than that.

In one case I posted earlier today, a mother records her son being attacked by the police in his own front yard because he asked the cops whey they were searching his car when he wasn't in it, no traffic stop, it was parked in front of his house, and they had no warrant or probable cause. How is she not legitimate?

Blind defense of any group just shows ignorance. Your blind defense of the cops, no matter what, shows stupidity.

Not stupidity. Evil.

The Stasi would have loved you.

He dreams of being part of the Gestapo.

of course there are,, theyre just hard to find,,

No. They either turn bad or leave law enforcement. They don't want to end up like Donna Watts, or Joe Crystal.

 

[Jarlaxle]

What will happen is a private citizen lawfully recording LEO will respond that she’s well beyond eight feet and she’s not going to stop recording, resulting in the citizen being charged with disobeying an order of a police officer – the true intent of the measure, to intimidate citizens.

Or the citizen getting shot.

 

[AZrailwhale]

Define legitimate.

These people who work for these websites and youtube channels are not criminals or defending criminals; they're defending your rights. It doesn't get more legitimate than that.

In one case I posted earlier today, a mother records her son being attacked by the police in his own front yard because he asked the cops whey they were searching his car when he wasn't in it, no traffic stop, it was parked in front of his house, and they had no warrant or probable cause. How is she not legitimate?

Blind defense of any group just shows ignorance. Your blind defense of the cops, no matter what, shows stupidity.

One point about this situation. Looking through the windows of a car isn't considered a search. Anything in plain sight is fair game as probable cause for getting a warrant.

 

[woodwork201]

Remember what I posted before about abusive cops abusing their wifes and more?

Cops Beat Their Wives & Girlfriends At Double The National Rate, Still Receive Promotions

Spread the love488 Statistics show that 1 in 4 women in the US is a victim of domestic violence, those numbers jump to 1 in 2 if they are married to a cop. May 7, 2014 Law Enforcement officers beat their significant other at nearly double the national average. Several studies, according to...

thefreethoughtproject.com

 

[woodwork201]

Question for you anti cop loons….why didn’t we hear of ‘bad cops‘ back before the cell phone era, the leftist movement and before multiculturalism fucked us all up?
progressive hunter
woodwork201
pknopp

We did hear of bad cops before cell phones.

5 Police Corruption Scandals that Rocked New York City

In 1972, the Knapp Commission issued a report on police corruption that identified two types of dirty cops: the “meat-eaters” and the “grass-eaters.” Meat-eaters are officers who “aggressivel…

nypost.com

There are many links and stories about riots in the 60s. I remember those days because as a white kid living in black neighborhoods, I felt the black anger on by body probably every week or so. Many of the riots were triggered by police abuse of black people and it was a real problem.

Yes, there was police corruption before cell phones. The first cellular system turned on around 1985. Phones back then didn't have cameras. The first camera phones happened around 2000-is but cellular companies charged you a dollar a picture to get the images off your phone. So the modern handheld-supercomputer cellular phone we know today is about 12, maybe 14, years old.

Now, for the first time, people have the ability to watch the watchers, to police the police. It is a great day for liberty and civil rights. Anyone who treasures liberty should be defending recording police.

 

[woodwork201]

That's a fact* ... and your body cam usage is monitored and automatically sent to your supervisors. If one person is using their body cams significantly less than others, the boss will want to know why.

Body cams are more for police protection than for police prosecution. The number of times a body cam will save a cop from a false accusation from a MOP will vastly outnumber any potential trouble they might get in.

Any cop with half a brain will uses theirs all the time.

*In fact, the camera is on all the time, it keeps 30 seconds worth of current recording in BWC memory at all times. If you activate it, it will include the 30 seconds PRIOR to activation in the recording as well as what you recorded.

I don't have a way to know but I don't believe what you're saying is accurate. If it were, then why wouldn't the cop in the shooting I linked have turned on his camera as soon as he shot someone and had it on video? If a cop shoots someone legitimately, why wouldn't he say, "oh shit. turn on my camera and save that." Either it's not accurate or the shooting was bad.

 

[woodwork201]

You get that not one of those things you mention were created by police, right?

If you have a problem with laws that police enforce (many police do) then I suggest you go to the person who created those laws. The legislators who YOU elected.

That argument saved no one in Nuremberg. The cops take an oath. Does that oath include anything about the Constitution?

A local oath I read years ago, since removed from the police website, said nothing at all about upholding the Constitution or protecting citizens; it said, instead, something about defending and protecting their police brethren and department.

 

[fncceo]

I don't have a way to know but I don't believe what you're saying is accurate. If it were, then why wouldn't the cop in the shooting I linked have turned on his camera as soon as he shot someone and had it on video? If a cop shoots someone legitimately, why wouldn't he say, "oh shit. turn on my camera and save that." Either it's not accurate or the shooting was bad.

There are lots of reasons why a particular incident might not have been caught on BWC.

1. The officer failed to activate it. The most common model of BWC (Axon) requires a double touch to the main button to start, if the camera power switch is already on.

2. The camera was out of power. Unless they are regularly charged, a typical BWC won't last an entire shift.

3. The camera was faulty. There are known issues with batteries on some BWC, they will often run out of power in a short while even if fully charges.

4. The officer's camera was faulted, turned in for repair.

5. He might not have been issued a camera. The investment for giving every officer a BWC and the associated docking stations that require VPN connectivity, and expensive server storage, is a lot, particularly for a small department.

Most departments with BWCs require officers to activate the camera at the beginning of every public interaction, not just when things get active. Turning on the camera after a shooting is pretty useless for evidentiary purposes.

If this officer didn't capture the incident on his BWC, other officers with him would have captured it on theirs. Any serious incident investigation would look at the BWC and available CCTV footage from every source, police and private.

 

[woodwork201]

One must error on the side of citizens’ rights and liberties; government is entitled to no benefit of the doubt – it should be assumed government is acting in bad faith, particularly government administered by Republicans.

Particularly government administered by Republicans and Democrats.

 

[fncceo]

That argument saved no one in Nuremberg. The cops take an oath. Does that oath include anything about the Constitution?

Actually, it did. Nuremberg only prosecuted those people who had leadership control over human rights violations. Most of those who claimed "I was just following orders" were actually the ones who gave the orders. They could have prosecuted hundreds of thousands of individual soldiers for violations of human rights, but they didn't.

As for The Constitution, any law passed by a legislature that isn't challenged by either a state or Federal Supreme Court is considered Constitutional.

If you're a police officer who doesn't want to enforce the legal law of your jurisdiction, then you shouldn't be a police officer.

 

[Red Front]

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!!!

Has this law passed yet? Is it law?

 

[Jarlaxle]

There are lots of reasons why a particular incident might not have been caught on BWC.

1. The officer failed to activate it. The most common model of BWC (Axon) requires a double touch to the main button to start, if the camera power switch is already on.

2. The camera was out of power. Unless they are regularly charged, a typical BWC won't last an entire shift.

3. The camera was faulty. There are known issues with batteries on some BWC, they will often run out of power in a short while even if fully charges.

4. The officer's camera was faulted, turned in for repair.

5. He might not have been issued a camera. The investment for giving every officer a BWC and the associated docking stations that require VPN connectivity, and expensive server storage, is a lot, particularly for a small department.

Most departments with BWCs require officers to activate the camera at the beginning of every public interaction, not just when things get active. Turning on the camera after a shooting is pretty useless for evidentiary purposes.

If this officer didn't capture the incident on his BWC, other officers with him would have captured it on theirs. Any serious incident investigation would look at the BWC and available CCTV footage from every source, police and private.

The obvious solution here is that body cameras recording every second of every minute of every hour of every shift should simply be a Federal mandate, and being on duty without one, or the wearer deactivating or disabling one should be a Federal felony with about ten years mandatory prison time and a fine of at least ten million dollars.

 

[fncceo]

The obvious solution here is that body cameras recording every second of every minute of every hour of every shift should simply be a Federal mandate, and being on duty without one, or the wearer deactivating or disabling one should be a Federal felony with about ten years mandatory prison time and a fine of at least ten million dollars.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Has this law passed yet? Is it law?

It says "to ban" so I assume not.

 

[Red Front]

If people protest this won't become law. If people do nothing then this might become law.