Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're still a fucking idiot.But that has NOTHING to do with the first amendment.
Where in that do I say anything that could be perceived as to suggesting that yelling fire is a 1st Amendment issue, idiot?I am an absolutist on free speech. Yelling fire in a crowded theater actually is constitutionally protected. When one harms another by executing their rights they can be sued civilly for doing so. Yelling fire in a crowded theater can, and should, get you sued civilly but you don't actually see any federal laws against yelling fire, do you?
Then those laws would also cover being that close for recording and there'd be no need for this law.there are already laws on that,,
If you take out your camera and record the government violating the law or the Constitution with the intention of sharing it in places where people go to see the news then you're the press.Sorry, no. I do not subscribe to the liberal view that reality is whatever you want it to be.
Anyone, unless you can produce a formal law of government stating what you claim.
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!!
I'm OK with the 8 foot rule if it applied to everyone coming within 8 feet. But it doesn't apply to everyone so the law is intended to interfere with the recordings only. In addition, the law will be used by the police to violate the legal rights of those recording. Cops will be saying, "I say you're less than 8 feet and it's what I say that counts," or "I determine what is 8 feet now get back or you're going to jail," or similar things.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.
Your premise would be not just wrong but not even in the ball park of right. And it took me all of 1 minute, including reading the chapter index to know that there's nothing about distance from the police anywhere else in the chapter.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.
www.azleg.gov
Interesting perspective. It would be great if that was the intent and the outcome.it sets a standard and will stop the cops from pushing cop watchers back beyond 8 ft,,
You're still a fucking idiot.
Here's where I introduced the subject of fire in a theater into this thread:
Where in that do I say anything that could be perceived as to suggesting that yelling fire is a 1st Amendment issue, idiot?
I'm so constitutionally conservative that you, in comparison, may as well be Lenin or Marx himself.
I'm OK with the 8 foot rule if it applied to everyone coming within 8 feet. But it doesn't apply to everyone so the law is intended to interfere with the recordings only. In addition, the law will be used by the police to violate the legal rights of those recording. Cops will be saying, "I say you're less than 8 feet and it's what I say that counts," or "I determine what is 8 feet now get back or you're going to jail," or similar things.
It also will cover a suspect who is recording a police encounter
Police will demand you stop recording as they interview you
well, again, I am from the mold that if a cop asks one to move, you should move. Just me. They are state sponsored traffickers'. They direct you to stay back, stay back. go cry in court if one gets ticketed for not listening to the directions. Camera, no camera. Why do you believe you supersede the directions by authorized state police?I'm OK with the 8 foot rule if it applied to everyone coming within 8 feet. But it doesn't apply to everyone so the law is intended to interfere with the recordings only. In addition, the law will be used by the police to violate the legal rights of those recording. Cops will be saying, "I say you're less than 8 feet and it's what I say that counts," or "I determine what is 8 feet now get back or you're going to jail," or similar things.
Police have a right to tell you not to interfere with police businesswell, again, I am from the mold that if a cop asks one to move, you should move. Just me. They are state sponsored traffickers'. They direct you to stay back, stay back. go cry in court if one gets ticketed for not listening to the directions. Camera, no camera. Why do you believe you supersede the directions by authorized state police?
And that is wrong for them to do. No doubt. However, many states do have laws that prohibit interfering with a police officers duties. Personally I like ones that state the actual distance as it is easier to prove if you are wrongly arrested for "interfering". If the amount of feet is set you can show your film as proof where the general interfering can be open for interpretation.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.
if a cop tells you to move and you don't, that's a violation and you can be ticketed, no matter how far away you are. I bet you haven't a clue as to why you must obey.And that is wrong for them to do. No doubt. However, many states do have laws that prohibit interfering with a police officers duties. Personally I like ones that state the actual distance as it is easier to prove if you are wrongly arrested for "interfering". If the amount of feet is set you can show your film as proof where the general interfering can be open for interpretation.
you would think,,Then those laws would also cover being that close for recording and there'd be no need for this law.
They are not my masters. I am theirs.well, again, I am from the mold that if a cop asks one to move, you should move. Just me. They are state sponsored traffickers'. They direct you to stay back, stay back. go cry in court if one gets ticketed for not listening to the directions. Camera, no camera. Why do you believe you supersede the directions by authorized state police?
their job is not to protect and serve., and nothing about it is in the constitution either. the police officers job is to inforce the law. if you are real one you know that.They are not my masters. I am theirs.
When they follow the law and the Constitution, when they remember that their job is to protect and serve the citizens rather than to protect and serve the Government and themselves, I support them. I fly a back the blue flag. I am pro cop.
When they violate the law, the Constitution, the liberty of Americans, when they lie, and back up one-another's lies, I don't back them.
If you choose to be subjugated to your police and government, rather than a free citizen who delegates some of your liberty and security to government while explicitly retaining to yourself that which you did not delegate, well, that's your choice. I do not choose what you choose.
They are authority. So yesThey are not my masters
only if you break a law,, until then they are no different than you or me,,They are authority. So yes
