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

[Correll]

I don't have a problem with idiots and low lifes. Without them, I'd be out of a job.

Idiots paid for my swimming pool.

I do. And I dislike the idea that a law is too little to be enforced.

 

[fncceo]

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.

From the article:

"The law, however, makes exceptions for people interacting with police, or in enclosed area on private property."

So, the law isn't about filming police. If you're involved with the interaction, you can film away. If you're in your own home or non-public space, film away.

What it is about is by-standers who get in the middle of police interactions, creating dangerous situations for themselves and police, and interfering with the job of police.

 

[woodwork201]

Tape them when they do wrong. Most are not when the "auditors" go stand in front of a police station or something to try and goad them into doing something wrong.

That seems to me like entrapment and it's something I don't care for when the police do it either.

Standing there isn't goading them; they see it as challenging them. Never, ever, challenge an abuser; it triggers them. That's just about the most dangerous thing you can do around an abusive cop...The cop reactions to people standing there prove it.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

I never thought about recording while youre the one being stopped,, this cant apply to that it just wouldnt make sense,,

will have to read more on the law and see

 

[toobfreak]

fuck BLM,,,and quit trying to dodge your victim blaming,,,

Dude, you have a serious triggering issue, touchy that the stuff we heard about the whole year of 2020 about reforming police to have better trained specialists to deal with social situations expressly TO PREVENT THESE VERY KINDS OF SITUATIONS has never materialized at all and instead all went into some BLM's deep back pocket!

 

[progressive hunter]

Dude, you have a serious triggering issue, touchy that the stuff we heard about the whole year of 2020 about reforming police to have better trained specialists to deal with social situations expressly TO PREVENT THESE VERY KINDS OF SITUATIONS has never materialized at all and instead all went into some BLM's deep back pocket!

blah blah blah,,,

 

[fncceo]

I do. And I dislike the idea that a law is too little to be enforced.

When it comes to a misdemeanor, police officers have discretion about what to prosecute for the sake of public order and fairness.

If someone is only slightly speeding and not driving dangerously, and it seems that a warning is sufficient, they don't have to get a ticket. They just need to know that someone is watching and next time, they might not be so lucky.

If someone is smoking in a place where they aren't allowed but they put it out when asked. A warning is sufficient.

There is a concept of "not in the interest of public order" that decides if someone is charged with crime.

Policing isn't about punishing people for crime (courts do that) it's about keeping public order and getting people to behave in a civil manner.

 

[Correll]

From the article:

"The law, however, makes exceptions for people interacting with police, or in enclosed area on private property."

So, the law isn't about filming police. If you're involved with the interaction, you can film away. If you're in your own home or non-public space, film away.

What it is about is by-standers who get in the middle of police interactions, creating dangerous situations for themselves and police, and interfering with the job of police.

Libs just say shit. Pointing out that what they said is wrong, just confuses them. THey don't care about truth.

 

[Rigby5]

8 feet is perfectly reasonable. It's even very close.

Good on Arizona for codifying a uniform standard.

Wrong.
If you are in a car for example, you can not retreat.
It is the cop who has closed the distance to less than 8", with the deliberate intent of arresting innocents who simply want proof of police infractions.

There already are plenty of laws about people not interferring.
This was totally unnecessary and illegal.
The reality is that police should be interferred with when they break the law, like suffocating George Floyd.

 

[fncceo]

I never thought about recording while youre the one being stopped,, this cant apply to that it just wouldnt make sense,,

will have to read more on the law and see

In the article is specifically says that it doesn't apply to people involved in the police interaction.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

here is the text of the law,, if youre the one being stopped you can record them with a few questionable restrictions,,

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

 

[Correll]

When it comes to a misdemeanor, police officers have discretion about what to prosecute for the sake of public order and fairness.

If someone is only slightly speeding and not driving dangerously, and it seems that a warning is sufficient, they don't have to get a ticket. They just need to know that someone is watching and next time, they might not be so lucky.

If someone is smoking in a place where they aren't allowed but they put it out when asked. A warning is sufficient.

There is a concept of "not in the interest of public order" that decides if someone is charged with crime.

Policing isn't about punishing people for crime (courts do that) it's about keeping public order and getting people to behave in a civil manner.

A "reporter" standing right there while a cop is arresting someone, filming and asking, "why are you arresting her", when it is clear why the person is being arrested, is not behaving in a civilized manner. She is interfering and trying to inflame the situation. At best.

 

[Rigby5]

When it comes to a misdemeanor, police officers have discretion about what to prosecute for the sake of public order and fairness.

If someone is only slightly speeding and not driving dangerously, and it seems that a warning is sufficient, they don't have to get a ticket. They just need to know that someone is watching and next time, they might not be so lucky.

If someone is smoking in a place where they aren't allowed but they put it out when asked. A warning is sufficient.

There is a concept of "not in the interest of public order" that decides if someone is charged with crime.

Policing isn't about punishing people for crime (courts do that) it's about keeping public order and getting people to behave in a civil manner.

Sometimes, but I also run into police who are simply trying to fill a quota in order to gain a promotion, by bringing in the maximum revenue possible.

 

[fncceo]

It is the cop who has closed the distance to less than 8", with the deliberate intent of arresting innocents

What is the point of arresting innocents? Just a lot of paperwork for no purpose.

No cop is interested in more paperwork.

 

[pknopp]

Disagree in part – it is political theater.

It’s also intended to coverup police wrongdoing.

LEO determines what is ‘eight feet’ – and anyone within that determination is subject to arrest.

You can step back two feet and still capture everything they are doing.

Do you think the video the young woman captured of Chauvin would have shown him in a better light of taken from a step back?

 

[fncceo]

A "reporter" standing right there while a cop is arresting someone, filming and asking, "why are you arresting her", when it is clear why the person is being arrested, is not behaving in a civilized manner. She is interfering and trying to inflame the situation. At best.

Again, just talking to police is not a problem. Just being annoying is not an offense.

Getting to close to a potentially dangerous suspect and placing yourself, and the police in danger is a problem.

Being an idiot isn't an offense. Being a dangerous idiot is.

 

[fncceo]

Sometimes, but I also run into police who are simply trying to fill a quota in order to gain a promotion, by bringing in the maximum revenue possible.

There is no revenue from arresting people. In fact, it involves a LOT of time and expense for police.

Only courts can assess fines.

 

[Rigby5]

Libs just say shit. Pointing out that what they said is wrong, just confuses them. THey don't care about truth.

Exceptions to the main thrust of the legislation usually are quickly forgotten.
Sure you can then hire an expensive lawyer who can win the case, but the damage is already done by the harmful precedent of the police being able to suppress any public oversight. Almost everything the police do, like Prohibition, the War on Drugs, mandated sentences, asset forfeiture, etc. are entirely illegal.
The police essentially did not exist before 1900, and the country was much better off without them. The police are not the Gestapo, Stasi, Tonton Macaques, etc., yet, but they are going that way and will be there eventually.

 

[pknopp]

I never thought about recording while youre the one being stopped,, this cant apply to that it just wouldnt make sense,,

will have to read more on the law and see

The law clearly notes that it doesn't apply to the person being addressed by the police. Such as.......if they pull you over and are at your car window, you can still record.

 

[Missourian]

these are the people youre defending,,

Show me the whole video.