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

[progressive hunter]

Show me the whole video.

let me find it,, hope you havent eaten yet because its sickening,,

 

[woodwork201]

Because you can't see anything from 10 feet away?

You libs really think words are just handfuls of poo you can throw at people you hate, don't you?

No, I'm not a lib. I'm the most constitutionally conservative person on this site. You remember the Constitution, don't you? It's that thing that says the police don't get to beat your fucking face in. And you're not a conservative; you, too, like many others in this thread, are an anti-constitutional authoritarian.

We can post pictures all day long showing cops abusing people for legally recording and you pretend this won't lead to more abuse?

 

[progressive hunter]

Show me the whole video.

 

[progressive hunter]

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.

I posted the text of the law,,

 

[pknopp]

I posted the text of the law,,

OK.....I quoted the article.

 

[Rigby5]

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

No cop is interested in more paperwork.

Yes they are.
The whole point of arresting innocents is that the police get to keep bail, court costs, etc., and set the precedent of preventing future witnesses.
Most of what police do is illegal.
Like the woman murdered by police when they conducted a no-knock warrant at night, without any probable cause or need.
There is really no legal justification for the War on Drugs at all.
Shooting fleeing suspects, high speed chases, PIT maneuver, etc.
They are all illegal.

 

[woodwork201]

No, you don't. You just lied.

You said that those people aren't legitimate press. That's what Hillary claimed about Internet sites. You and she think a lot alike.

I take it you think the press is only those who work for print newspapers? You know, the press as it was in 1791? I take it you will also say the 2nd only applies to muskets?

 

[progressive hunter]

OK.....I quoted the article.

close but not exact text,,

 

[progressive hunter]

 

[Rigby5]

{...
Alan Chen, a law professor at the University of Denver, said there were several outstanding questions about the law’s enforcement, including how people should respond if an officer moves toward them even though they were recording from more than eight feet away.

“It might deter them from actually recording or might make them back up even further than the eight feet that the law requires,” Mr. Chen said. “There’s certainly some First Amendment concerns here.”
...}

Arizona Law Bans People From Recording Police Within Eight Feet (Published 2022)

Civil rights and news media organizations have objected to the law, which is set to go into effect in September, as a violation of free speech protections.

www.nytimes.com

 

[woodwork201]

you do know cameras have a zoom feature??

Wrong. Your phone has a digital zoom. It can't actually zoom closer; it just stretches fewer pixels to fill the entire screen. Actual zoom requires a zoom lens.

 

[pknopp]

{...
Alan Chen, a law professor at the University of Denver, said there were several outstanding questions about the law’s enforcement, including how people should respond if an officer moves toward them even though they were recording from more than eight feet away.

“It might deter them from actually recording or might make them back up even further than the eight feet that the law requires,” Mr. Chen said. “There’s certainly some First Amendment concerns here.”
...}

Arizona Law Bans People From Recording Police Within Eight Feet (Published 2022)

Civil rights and news media organizations have objected to the law, which is set to go into effect in September, as a violation of free speech protections.

www.nytimes.com

I say "stand your ground" if you're eight feet away unless the whole issue comes towards you.

I'd argue "I was eight feet away, it was the officer that violated that".

This is a do nothing law. I'm still trying to think of a video that condemned an officer that wasn't already that far.

 

[progressive hunter]

Wrong. Your phone has a digital zoom. It can't actually zoom closer; it just stretches fewer pixels to fill the entire screen. Actual zoom requires a zoom lens.

has the same result,,

 

[Correll]

No, I'm not a lib. I'm the most constitutionally conservative person on this site. You remember the Constitution, don't you? It's that thing that says the police don't get to beat your fucking face in. And you're not a conservative; you, too, like many others in this thread, are an anti-constitutional authoritarian.

We can post pictures all day long showing cops abusing people for legally recording and you pretend this won't lead to more abuse?

Not being able to get right up on them, will not reduce their ability to film.

 

[Correll]

You said that those people aren't legitimate press. That's what Hillary claimed about Internet sites. You and she think a lot alike.

I take it you think the press is only those who work for print newspapers? You know, the press as it was in 1791? I take it you will also say the 2nd only applies to muskets?

Nope. I explained my reasoning. People who are clearly acting as political agitators, and not reporters, are not reporters, even if they say that magic word.

 

[pknopp]

Nope. I explained my reasoning. People who are clearly acting as political agitators, and not reporters, are not reporters, even if they say that magic word.

Why do you see people wanting to hold the police accountable to the laws they are supposed to uphold as political?

 

[woodwork201]

Hahaha…yeah yeah…save your leftarded bullshit….You can’t sell that “cops are bad, dark thugs are good” bunch of ignorance….until you protest against dark people criminality nobody decent and sane will take you white guilt fools seriously on these matters.
Let the thugs and hood rats get their asses beat off camera.

Do you realize what an idiot you are? I'm as vocal against crime as anyone. Even more so. I'm the most constitutionally conservative person on the site. Unlike you, though, I remember the Constitution. I defend it. I defend it from people I don't like, like you. I defend it for people I don't like, like you. I always defend it with 100% consistency. I defend it when it protects my rights and I defend it when it protects the rights of those I dislike - people like you.

Also, unlike you, I'm not a racist. I recognize and challenge the problem with black crime in America - IM2 thinks I'm among the most racist here because I challenge it successfully with facts. I don't need racist slurs to make my arguments; I have intelligence - another way I'm unlike you.

You can't make any of these claims that I make. You're anti-constitutionalist. You're a racist. You're an authoritarian, that's it. You, just like the left, are an enemy of the State, of the Nation.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Do you realize what an idiot you are? I'm as vocal against crime as anyone. Even more so. I'm the most constitutionally conservative person on the site. Unlike you, though, I remember the Constitution. I defend it. I defend it from people I don't like, like you. I defend it for people I don't like, like you. I always defend it with 100% consistency. I defend it when it protects my rights and I defend it when it protects the rights of those I dislike - people like you.

Also, unlike you, I'm not a racist. I recognize and challenge the problem with black crime in America - IM2 thinks I'm among the most racist here because I challenge it successfully with facts. I don't need racist slurs to make my arguments; I have intelligence - another way I'm unlike you.

You can't make any of these claims that I make. You're anti-constitutionalist. You're a racist. You're an authoritarian, that's it. You, just like the left, are an enemy of the State, of the Nation.

Whoa, whoa…easy there Thomas Jefferson…what does instigating, cameras in the faces of cops and cops beating the asses of degenerate filth have to do with the constitution?

 

[progressive hunter]

Nope. I explained my reasoning. People who are clearly acting as political agitators, and not reporters, are not reporters, even if they say that magic word.

when you tape/observe anything and report it to other people thats called reporting,,,

 

[woodwork201]

Then comply. You have a problem with that? If I'm arresting somebody or dealing with a medical emergency, with a crowd all around yelling and shouting, the last thing they need are strangers in their faces distracting them. Move the fuck back.

This Arizona law isn't about crowds all around yelling and shouting. That would be distracting and, therefore, interfering. This law is about a person, presumably peacefully and quietly because the law applies to peacefully and quietly, recording a public servant doing the public's business in public. It doesn't forbid yelling and shouting; it only forbids recording.

The effect of this law, whether intended or not (I suspect it is) is to prevent any driver from recording the interaction with the police. The driver is always within 8 feet when the cop is at the door of the car.

How many times has it been said here, if you have nothing to hide then why do you care if someone does a background check or if you have nothing to hide then why do you care if the cops stop and frisk, or if you have nothing to hide, why do you care if the dogs sniff your car?

If the cops have nothing to hide, why do they care if they're recorded?