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

[Montrovant]

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.

They say the camera adds 10 lbs.

 

[fncceo]

They say the camera adds 10 lbs.

Then I hope I don't get a lot of cameras pointed at me.

 

[frigidweirdo]

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

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

Ah, another person who can't get through a post without insulting.... No wonder the US is becoming a third world country.

Bye.

 

[Leo123]

No one 'films' anything anymore. We 'video' mostly with our phones....so there is that.....but.....Seems to me unless it can be proven that the video taker is within 8 feet this won't do much. And, videos can be edited.

 

[Meister]

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

Where did it say that not filming was fine?
The article in itself from BBC suggested the filming. But, from the original article from USA.....

"Getting very close to police officers in tense situations is a dangerous practice that can end in tragedy," he wrote in USA Today in March. "Police officers have no way of knowing whether the person approaching is an innocent bystander or an accomplice of the person they're arresting who might assault them."

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Where did it say that not filming was fine?

Are you kidding?

So you must think it possible that standing at 8 feet is already illegal, and this is a way to pile on a charge, or something.

Or what? What am I missing, here?

Why not just call it interfering to get within 8 feet? Why bring filming into it?

 

[woodwork201]

here is the cookie cutter response from Demofks. I have thousands of examples!!!!!! And then at the end of the day ain't got a one. so fking typical of you fking losers.

‘Mob’ of Florida cops on video stomping handcuffed suspect before beating man filming

Five officers have been charged with misdemeanor battery after surveillance footage showed a group of cops beating a detained suspect and a man filming the encounter.

nypost.com

But let me get this straight. You're arguing that no cop every did anything illegal? Because Ashli Babbitt had it coming, right?

 

[Montrovant]

Where did it say that not filming was fine?
The article in itself from BBC suggested the filming. But, from the original article from USA.....

"Getting very close to police officers in tense situations is a dangerous practice that can end in tragedy," he wrote in USA Today in March. "Police officers have no way of knowing whether the person approaching is an innocent bystander or an accomplice of the person they're arresting who might assault them."

Someone posted this earlier in the thread, but here it is again, text of the bill:

https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf

It is very specifically about video recording of police.

 

[woodwork201]

Freedom of the Press referred to freedom of the journalistic industry to freely act as government watchdogs, not idiots taking pictures of police with their cellphones. Even the real press doesn't get 6 feet away from a cop while he is making an arrest!

And as a conservative, I don't own a cellphone, never had a cop making a bust anywhere I was at, but if I did, I'd have sense to stand back at least 10-20 feet and stay out of their hair unless I saw something overtly, grossly wrong or illegal going on that I just had to intercede.

You are Hillary, aren't you?

 

[toobfreak]

Yes he is the press. He's an independent reporter if he says he is.

Sorry, no. I do not subscribe to the liberal view that reality is whatever you want it to be.

Who gets to say otherwise,

Anyone, unless you can produce a formal law of government stating what you claim.

unless you, too, support Hillary's call for

Don't you dare even try to bring that prog Hillary BS argument into this. If I buy your line of BS that if I whip out my phone to take a picture that makes me a member of the Press, then if I take your temperature then I must also be a medical physician, and if I saw a piece of wood, that makes me a carpenter!!

 

[jc456]

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

I thought the law was the law? Courts interpret law? What did you miss?

 

[toobfreak]

I thought the law was the law? Courts interpret law? What did you miss?

If the law isn't the law and courts are kinda hit or miss, then what does it matter that most of the courts refused to hear Trump's election fraud cases either?

 

[jc456]

and I said those had nothing to do with this topic,,,

the topic is how to stop them from breaking the law and the distance you can be to video tape them,,

I’m seeing many 180 conservatives in here

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I’m seeing many 180 conservatives in here

Like, they aren't cool with Police officers operating without accountability, but sometimes they are?

So which is it? Which, do you think, is the "conservative" point of view?

 

[candycorn]

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!!!

In the good old days, you could count on laws like this being skewered by the Supreme Court. Today? I'd be shocked if the Roberts court didn't make it 80 feet.

 

[Papageorgio]

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.

You don’t need to prove anything, the burden of proof is not on the accused. Still see no issue with the law.

 

[Papageorgio]

How would the film prove that?

The burden of proof is not on you.

 

[jc456]

Like, they aren't cool with Police officers operating without accountability, but sometimes they are?

So which is it? Which, do you think, is the "conservative" point of view?

yes we all are. I've posted how cops use their authority wrong. I'm for taking footage at eight feet or less as long as the person isn't interfering in the encounter. That is the argument, not the camera.

 

[Meister]

Someone posted this earlier in the thread, but here it is again, text of the bill:

https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf

It is very specifically about video recording of police.

Thanks, But, I do see that this is an amendment to an existing Bill.
My premise is that the Bill, not the amendment to the existing Bill, requires people to stay
X amount of feet away from the officer regardless of having a video.

AMENDING TITLE 13, CHAPTER 37, ARIZONA REVISED STATUTES, BY ADDING SECTION 13-3732; RELATING TO LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES.

 

[Meister]

Are you kidding?

So you must think it possible that standing at 8 feet is already illegal, and this is a way to pile on a charge, or something.

Or what? What am I missing, here?

Why not just call it interfering to get within 8 feet? Why bring filming into it?

What I posted was from the linked source of the OP. No, I'm not kidding.
Makes sense, and I am not sure why they had to make a special provision.
Do you think that if they aren't recording they can get a foot or two from an arresting officer? Does that make sense?