3 ms·

How is following police unsafe for everyone involved?

simonh 9y ago
Because police routinely go right into the middle of situations that are already unsafe. That's their job. Additional persons getting involved unnecessarily in those situations is a random factor that is unlikely to make those situations safer.
stinkytaco 9y ago
Because police engage in dangerous situations by their very nature. Following them around will likely put followers in unsafe situations as well. Following them and engaging in antagonistic dialog will detract from their ability to do their job. Imagine trying to asses an area before entering a building to deal with a domestic (likely one of the most dangerous things an officer deals with on a regular basis) when someone is antagonizing you. Filming should be legal. If there is an interaction occurring, police should have the expectation of being filmed. They should be required to wear body cameras. They should be accountable. But what this guy was doing seems to slip over the line into obstruction.
reitanqild 9y ago
Honest question: Are you serious? I can think of a number if situations in a number of jobs I have had were people following me around could have been dangerous (farm hand, concrete work etc).
- IslaDeEncanta 9y ago
  I didn't ask how following around a concrete worker could be dangerous.
  - reitanqild 9y ago
    But - in my opinion obviously - if following even someone like me around might be dangerous in certain situations then definitely I can see how it might be dangerous to follow police around? That said, I am not saying you shouldn't be allowed to folliw police at a safe distance, at a safe speed, recording what you see etc as long as it isn't obvious that they are doing something that temporarily needs to be kept secret.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
tenken 9y ago
For the same reason most fire trucks in the USA have plastered on the back "Remain at least 300 feet behind vehicle". ... "Emergency vehicles" such as fire trucks and police vehicles respond to Emergencies. Emergencies are by definition unsafe. So you could "follow" (from very far behind) -- but it's implied often times that individuals are following closer than permitted in order to provoke a response, or simply without discretion to the publics safety.
ascendantlogic 9y ago
I feel like in this case, if this person is in fact a "cop chaser", the issue is that they follow the police around and essentially harass them. It's one thing to be off minding your own business, it's another to make a hobby or career out of going out of your way to swear at cops and try to record them responding in a negative manner. YMMV.
victim2 9y ago
The law states you can get as close to a foot provided you are not interfering with an investigation and filming a police officer or getting close to a police officer is not in and of itself interfering. Corespondent safety is up to the corespondent, not the police. The police only have a reasonable expectation of safety up to a point. A person filming from across the street and/or well within view of a police officer is in no way endangering an officers safety. Chris intentionally stayed on the sidewalk between the east and west bound lanes of traffic to avoid police interactions and still be able to get video of the checkpoint from a safe distance. The officers had already identified the people recording from across the street as they had sent an officer over conspicuously to get an identification. When Chris started crossing the street the officers immediately recognized the street crossing and preceded to cross themselves from the other direction confronting the video recording. There was no significant amount of traffic on this road due to the time and activists alerting motor vehicles of the checkpoint far ahead. 90% of the traffic was successfully re-routed. There were no arrests for DUI that night and the only reason these checkpoints continue to be operated is for federal funding purposes. If there is no DUI arrests the validity of the authorization of the checkpoint becomes invalid. Theoretically the case should be thrown out if the right motions are made at the right time. Now it is possible you can get into unsafe positions, but in almost all incidents it is completely safe to get VERY close. That said Chris, JP, and others were prevented from getting close enough to properly document the improperly conducted sobriety checkpoint. Chris tends to stay at a good distance or at least a safe visible distance if he gets closer. The police did not follow the plan laid out under the superior court for which authorized the checkpoint. The police were in contempt of the order for going outside the checkpoint, putting up closed sidewalk signs, which also hindered the reporting by press of both the arrest and the checkpoint. There were also probably other crimes committed by the police. Notices to quit will be forthcoming and numerous complaints have already been filed against the Manchester police department prior to this interaction. It's likely a properly brought lawsuit will result in $50,000 damages settlement for Chris and/or New England Cop Chasers as has happened in similar cases of the past. Look up the arrest of Carla Gericke for similar charges (disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, which was really just for filming police): http://freekeene.com/2014/05/23/fsp-president-wins-federal-case-against-weare-police/ http://freekeene.com/2014/05/23/fsp-president-wins-federal-c...

Because police routinely go right into the middle of situations that are already unsafe. That's their job. Additional persons getting involved unnecessarily in those situations is a random factor that is unlikely to make those situations safer.

stinkytaco 9y ago

Because police engage in dangerous situations by their very nature. Following them around will likely put followers in unsafe situations as well. Following them and engaging in antagonistic dialog will detract from their ability to do their job. Imagine trying to asses an area before entering a building to deal with a domestic (likely one of the most dangerous things an officer deals with on a regular basis) when someone is antagonizing you. Filming should be legal. If there is an interaction occurring, police should have the expectation of being filmed. They should be required to wear body cameras. They should be accountable. But what this guy was doing seems to slip over the line into obstruction.

reitanqild 9y ago

Honest question: Are you serious? I can think of a number if situations in a number of jobs I have had were people following me around could have been dangerous (farm hand, concrete work etc).

IslaDeEncanta 9y ago
I didn't ask how following around a concrete worker could be dangerous.
- reitanqild 9y ago
  But - in my opinion obviously - if following even someone like me around might be dangerous in certain situations then definitely I can see how it might be dangerous to follow police around? That said, I am not saying you shouldn't be allowed to folliw police at a safe distance, at a safe speed, recording what you see etc as long as it isn't obvious that they are doing something that temporarily needs to be kept secret.

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

tenken 9y ago

For the same reason most fire trucks in the USA have plastered on the back "Remain at least 300 feet behind vehicle". ... "Emergency vehicles" such as fire trucks and police vehicles respond to Emergencies. Emergencies are by definition unsafe. So you could "follow" (from very far behind) -- but it's implied often times that individuals are following closer than permitted in order to provoke a response, or simply without discretion to the publics safety.

ascendantlogic 9y ago

I feel like in this case, if this person is in fact a "cop chaser", the issue is that they follow the police around and essentially harass them. It's one thing to be off minding your own business, it's another to make a hobby or career out of going out of your way to swear at cops and try to record them responding in a negative manner. YMMV.

victim2 9y ago

The law states you can get as close to a foot provided you are not interfering with an investigation and filming a police officer or getting close to a police officer is not in and of itself interfering. Corespondent safety is up to the corespondent, not the police. The police only have a reasonable expectation of safety up to a point. A person filming from across the street and/or well within view of a police officer is in no way endangering an officers safety. Chris intentionally stayed on the sidewalk between the east and west bound lanes of traffic to avoid police interactions and still be able to get video of the checkpoint from a safe distance. The officers had already identified the people recording from across the street as they had sent an officer over conspicuously to get an identification. When Chris started crossing the street the officers immediately recognized the street crossing and preceded to cross themselves from the other direction confronting the video recording. There was no significant amount of traffic on this road due to the time and activists alerting motor vehicles of the checkpoint far ahead. 90% of the traffic was successfully re-routed. There were no arrests for DUI that night and the only reason these checkpoints continue to be operated is for federal funding purposes. If there is no DUI arrests the validity of the authorization of the checkpoint becomes invalid. Theoretically the case should be thrown out if the right motions are made at the right time. Now it is possible you can get into unsafe positions, but in almost all incidents it is completely safe to get VERY close. That said Chris, JP, and others were prevented from getting close enough to properly document the improperly conducted sobriety checkpoint. Chris tends to stay at a good distance or at least a safe visible distance if he gets closer. The police did not follow the plan laid out under the superior court for which authorized the checkpoint. The police were in contempt of the order for going outside the checkpoint, putting up closed sidewalk signs, which also hindered the reporting by press of both the arrest and the checkpoint. There were also probably other crimes committed by the police. Notices to quit will be forthcoming and numerous complaints have already been filed against the Manchester police department prior to this interaction. It's likely a properly brought lawsuit will result in $50,000 damages settlement for Chris and/or New England Cop Chasers as has happened in similar cases of the past. Look up the arrest of Carla Gericke for similar charges (disorderly conduct and resisting arrest, which was really just for filming police): http://freekeene.com/2014/05/23/fsp-president-wins-federal-case-against-weare-police/ http://freekeene.com/2014/05/23/fsp-president-wins-federal-c...