5 ms·

Possible Devils advocate - you can easily gather evidence while not being within 8 feet of an officer. This could be more to do with interfering with police act

by jjcon 5y ago

Possible Devils advocate - you can easily gather evidence while not being within 8 feet of an officer. This could be more to do with interfering with police activities than preventing evidence collection. Potentially unconstitutional either way but i imagine there are legit concerns with people/press being that close to officers.

vpilcx 5y ago
I don't think you understand how the GOP operates now. 8ft now, next year, they increase it. It's like what they do with abortions.
mwt 5y ago
The text of the bill is focused on recording, not physical interference (for which there appears to be existing laws) https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/summary/H.HB2319_022322_HOUSEENGROSSED.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/summary/H.HB2319_0223...
Eddy_Viscosity2 5y ago
Once the police have the ability to arrest people for videoing them, they will use it whenever they please. Then argue after the arrest whether or not it was '8 feet' or not. The person video-taping still gets put into custody and has to deal with all of the consequences of that, including a not so gentle arrest. Then, best case, if they can prove it was outside 8 feet, they might get the charges dropped, but they won't be able to sue or at least it be very unlikely to succeed. The functional result (if this bill passes the senate) is that the police in arizona can, and will, arrest anybody they want to who video tapes them. Following that will be similar bills in other states. Being arrested is a big deal and you could be in jail for some time, even if the charges are dropped. Whereas unlawful arrest could result in consequences for officers, this law would give that arrest at least a pretext of being reasonable, all they have to say is they misjudged the distance and then are off the hook - "honest mistake".
- Kye 5y ago
  Yep. They already yell "stop resisting!" at people who are clearly not resisting to prime the memories of witnesses. "You're too close!" fits right into that dynamic.
- nonrandomstring 5y ago
  > Once the police have the ability to arrest people for videoing them, they will use it whenever they please. Maybe not quite. An interesting dilemma arises. If our law abiding, peace officers arrest someone for filming - then that media becomes the evidence in an arrest. So they may safely arrest someone so long as they (the police) are doing nothing wrong while the cameraman is is "illegally" filming them. But then why would anyone be filming police who are doing nothing wrong? As soon as the police are engaged in acts of violence, and people start filming them, it would not be in their interests to arrest anyone, unless they were prepared to follow through, destroy evidence, intimidate detainees into silence or commit perjury. So this idea puts the police into an interesting bind, and suggests it would only have consequences that lead quickly to tyrannical outcomes.
  - naijaboiler 5y ago
    > As soon as the police are engaged in acts of violence, and people start filming them, it would not be in their interests to arrest anyone, unless they were prepared to follow through, destroy evidence, intimidate detainees into silence or commit perjury. This is such a naive take from someone who had never had to face police officers blatantly violating your rights and physical well-being.
    - nonrandomstring 5y ago
      > This is such a naive take from someone who had never had to face police officers blatantly violating your rights and physical well-being. What on earth do you think you know about that?
  - DoctorOW 5y ago
    > As soon as the police are engaged in acts of violence, and people start filming them, it would not be in their interests to arrest anyone, unless they were prepared to follow through, destroy evidence, intimidate detainees into silence or commit perjury. We already see this happening. IIRC Police unions are the only people allowed to review the evidence for the first 24 hours and are free from consequence were it to get "lost".
hsfhdfhsdfhs 5y ago
The problem is if your rights are being violated by an officer, that officer is probably within eight feet of you. It's bullshit that you're not permitted to record your rights being violated.
- everfree 5y ago
  According to the article, the ban only applies when the officer is interacting with someone other than yourself.
  - alphabettsy 5y ago
    Then the law isn’t necessary because officers already have lawful authority to enforce a “reasonable” safety boundary.
  - Brian_K_White 5y ago
    The officer that just took your phone from you? Or handcuffed you? That officer? Or one of the other officers standing around in any of the other 359 degrees where your phone isn't pointing? There is just no way to make any of their excuses actually hold water.
Brian_K_White 5y ago
"you can easily gather evidence while not being within 8 feet" Only a bystander can. The person who needs it the most, can't. Meanwhile, the police's own body cam is on while they are within 8 feet of you. Assuming they didn't turn it off, assuming you get access to it later, in a timely manner, unedited... There is an argument about interference and safety, but no valid argument in the end, since there is no way to allow the limitation without creating a tool for abuse that's worse. Better to let actual cases of interference be tried as such. Make the officer have to invoke a process after the fact, and have to defend their claim of criminal or endagering interference in court.
- worik 5y ago
  Police body cam. That would be good. In fact, if my impression of the news is correct, police body cams do more to protect the police from unjustified charges of abuse than they do to protect the victims of police abuse. Perhaps that is an effect of police unions? Perhaps it is simply a good thing and we should have more of them? People independent of the police filming it seems like a good idea to me. For all concerned.
  - Brian_K_White 5y ago
    If only failing to have the cam present or running were considered a super bad crime instigating a huge investigation with a bias towards guilt and you have to prove innocense. Instead, at least in some places, cops get away with turning their cams off or otherwise suffering mysterious glitches and data loss. There used to be standards for certain things where the appearance of imporopriety was bad enough all by itself, exactly because some things can't really be proven, like how you can't prove a negative. That seems to be pretty much gone now. Judges don't recuse themselves from cases where they have a conflict of interest, and the other judges just let them, etc. So, in the sweet naive child view of the world, a cop merely no being able to produce their body cam footage for some incident, no matter what they say or what the story is should be almost automatic grounds for dismissal of the whole case and maybe the cop too, or at least a huge stink and huge investigation. But I don't think we live in that world we tell gradeschool kids we live in.
  - 5y ago
duskwuff 5y ago
> Possible Devils advocate - you can easily gather evidence while not being within 8 feet of an officer. Until the officer deliberately approaches you to prevent you from recording?
- jjcon 5y ago
  The law specifically states you can film if the officer is interacting with you
  - wave_function 5y ago
    How does this even work? Police officer walks to within 7 feet of you: you’re not allowed to film. They tell you to stop filming and then suddenly you’re allowed to because they’re interacting with you?
  - lovich 5y ago
    So he walks up to you silently and then arrests you for having recorded him within 8 feet while he had not interacted with you. The cops do not follow the law in good faith ever and this gives them another trivially abused tool, like when they would stop people because they "smelled" pot that never existed
TeaDrunk 5y ago
If a cop is actively walking towards you, do you have to stop recording once they reach 8 feet? How can you gather evidence if there are a dozen cops surrounding the abuse, with them approaching anyone who is outside 8 feet to force them further and further away?
nkrisc 5y ago
They can arrest you for recording at any distance, and then drop the charges later and likely just get away with it. It won’t matter either way because they already achieved their goal: stop you from recording.
- worik 5y ago
  That is a very common tactic in my experience. Arrest willy nilly, on court day withdraw the charges. You can sue for "wrongful arrest". That would be a tactically silly idea for almost everybody who has these sorts of encounters
  - nkrisc 5y ago
    Even if you sued successfully for that it wouldn’t matter. Their goal was to stop your recording whatever worse thing they were presumably doing which can never be undone.
jkaplowitz 5y ago
Journalist: records from 9 feet away Police: Stop recording me. Journalist: I'm more than 8 feet away, I have the right to record. Police: You're 7 feet away. Last warning. Journalist: is still 9 feet away so keeps recording Police: Arrests journalist, confiscates recording District attorney: Reviews footage, sees that the journalist was more than 8 feet away, drops charges Journalist: sues for wrongful arrest Court: Being able to count distance accurately is not a job requirement for a police officer. Wrongful arrest claim denied Journalist: files claim for return of recording Police department: We are unable to find this recording. (Or, alternatively, they wipe the media before returning it.)
yalogin 5y ago
You know what’s going to happen. The cop sees the person recording and walks towards him asking if they are recording and gets inside 8 ft and arrests them. Easy! Or another cop dashes the person recording just to stop and arrest the recording

by jjcon 5y ago

vpilcx 5y ago

I don't think you understand how the GOP operates now. 8ft now, next year, they increase it. It's like what they do with abortions.

mwt 5y ago

The text of the bill is focused on recording, not physical interference (for which there appears to be existing laws) https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/summary/H.HB2319_022322_HOUSEENGROSSED.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/summary/H.HB2319_0223...

Eddy_Viscosity2 5y ago

Once the police have the ability to arrest people for videoing them, they will use it whenever they please. Then argue after the arrest whether or not it was '8 feet' or not. The person video-taping still gets put into custody and has to deal with all of the consequences of that, including a not so gentle arrest. Then, best case, if they can prove it was outside 8 feet, they might get the charges dropped, but they won't be able to sue or at least it be very unlikely to succeed. The functional result (if this bill passes the senate) is that the police in arizona can, and will, arrest anybody they want to who video tapes them. Following that will be similar bills in other states. Being arrested is a big deal and you could be in jail for some time, even if the charges are dropped. Whereas unlawful arrest could result in consequences for officers, this law would give that arrest at least a pretext of being reasonable, all they have to say is they misjudged the distance and then are off the hook - "honest mistake".

Kye 5y ago
Yep. They already yell "stop resisting!" at people who are clearly not resisting to prime the memories of witnesses. "You're too close!" fits right into that dynamic.
nonrandomstring 5y ago
> Once the police have the ability to arrest people for videoing them, they will use it whenever they please. Maybe not quite. An interesting dilemma arises. If our law abiding, peace officers arrest someone for filming - then that media becomes the evidence in an arrest. So they may safely arrest someone so long as they (the police) are doing nothing wrong while the cameraman is is "illegally" filming them. But then why would anyone be filming police who are doing nothing wrong? As soon as the police are engaged in acts of violence, and people start filming them, it would not be in their interests to arrest anyone, unless they were prepared to follow through, destroy evidence, intimidate detainees into silence or commit perjury. So this idea puts the police into an interesting bind, and suggests it would only have consequences that lead quickly to tyrannical outcomes.
- naijaboiler 5y ago
  > As soon as the police are engaged in acts of violence, and people start filming them, it would not be in their interests to arrest anyone, unless they were prepared to follow through, destroy evidence, intimidate detainees into silence or commit perjury. This is such a naive take from someone who had never had to face police officers blatantly violating your rights and physical well-being.
  - nonrandomstring 5y ago
    > This is such a naive take from someone who had never had to face police officers blatantly violating your rights and physical well-being. What on earth do you think you know about that?
- DoctorOW 5y ago
  > As soon as the police are engaged in acts of violence, and people start filming them, it would not be in their interests to arrest anyone, unless they were prepared to follow through, destroy evidence, intimidate detainees into silence or commit perjury. We already see this happening. IIRC Police unions are the only people allowed to review the evidence for the first 24 hours and are free from consequence were it to get "lost".

hsfhdfhsdfhs 5y ago

The problem is if your rights are being violated by an officer, that officer is probably within eight feet of you. It's bullshit that you're not permitted to record your rights being violated.

everfree 5y ago
According to the article, the ban only applies when the officer is interacting with someone other than yourself.
- alphabettsy 5y ago
  Then the law isn’t necessary because officers already have lawful authority to enforce a “reasonable” safety boundary.
- Brian_K_White 5y ago
  The officer that just took your phone from you? Or handcuffed you? That officer? Or one of the other officers standing around in any of the other 359 degrees where your phone isn't pointing? There is just no way to make any of their excuses actually hold water.

Brian_K_White 5y ago

"you can easily gather evidence while not being within 8 feet" Only a bystander can. The person who needs it the most, can't. Meanwhile, the police's own body cam is on while they are within 8 feet of you. Assuming they didn't turn it off, assuming you get access to it later, in a timely manner, unedited... There is an argument about interference and safety, but no valid argument in the end, since there is no way to allow the limitation without creating a tool for abuse that's worse. Better to let actual cases of interference be tried as such. Make the officer have to invoke a process after the fact, and have to defend their claim of criminal or endagering interference in court.

worik 5y ago
Police body cam. That would be good. In fact, if my impression of the news is correct, police body cams do more to protect the police from unjustified charges of abuse than they do to protect the victims of police abuse. Perhaps that is an effect of police unions? Perhaps it is simply a good thing and we should have more of them? People independent of the police filming it seems like a good idea to me. For all concerned.
- Brian_K_White 5y ago
  If only failing to have the cam present or running were considered a super bad crime instigating a huge investigation with a bias towards guilt and you have to prove innocense. Instead, at least in some places, cops get away with turning their cams off or otherwise suffering mysterious glitches and data loss. There used to be standards for certain things where the appearance of imporopriety was bad enough all by itself, exactly because some things can't really be proven, like how you can't prove a negative. That seems to be pretty much gone now. Judges don't recuse themselves from cases where they have a conflict of interest, and the other judges just let them, etc. So, in the sweet naive child view of the world, a cop merely no being able to produce their body cam footage for some incident, no matter what they say or what the story is should be almost automatic grounds for dismissal of the whole case and maybe the cop too, or at least a huge stink and huge investigation. But I don't think we live in that world we tell gradeschool kids we live in.
- 5y ago

duskwuff 5y ago

> Possible Devils advocate - you can easily gather evidence while not being within 8 feet of an officer. Until the officer deliberately approaches you to prevent you from recording?

jjcon 5y ago
The law specifically states you can film if the officer is interacting with you
- wave_function 5y ago
  How does this even work? Police officer walks to within 7 feet of you: you’re not allowed to film. They tell you to stop filming and then suddenly you’re allowed to because they’re interacting with you?
- lovich 5y ago
  So he walks up to you silently and then arrests you for having recorded him within 8 feet while he had not interacted with you. The cops do not follow the law in good faith ever and this gives them another trivially abused tool, like when they would stop people because they "smelled" pot that never existed

TeaDrunk 5y ago

If a cop is actively walking towards you, do you have to stop recording once they reach 8 feet? How can you gather evidence if there are a dozen cops surrounding the abuse, with them approaching anyone who is outside 8 feet to force them further and further away?

nkrisc 5y ago

They can arrest you for recording at any distance, and then drop the charges later and likely just get away with it. It won’t matter either way because they already achieved their goal: stop you from recording.

worik 5y ago
That is a very common tactic in my experience. Arrest willy nilly, on court day withdraw the charges. You can sue for "wrongful arrest". That would be a tactically silly idea for almost everybody who has these sorts of encounters
- nkrisc 5y ago
  Even if you sued successfully for that it wouldn’t matter. Their goal was to stop your recording whatever worse thing they were presumably doing which can never be undone.

jkaplowitz 5y ago

Journalist: records from 9 feet away Police: Stop recording me. Journalist: I'm more than 8 feet away, I have the right to record. Police: You're 7 feet away. Last warning. Journalist: is still 9 feet away so keeps recording Police: Arrests journalist, confiscates recording District attorney: Reviews footage, sees that the journalist was more than 8 feet away, drops charges Journalist: sues for wrongful arrest Court: Being able to count distance accurately is not a job requirement for a police officer. Wrongful arrest claim denied Journalist: files claim for return of recording Police department: We are unable to find this recording. (Or, alternatively, they wipe the media before returning it.)

yalogin 5y ago

You know what’s going to happen. The cop sees the person recording and walks towards him asking if they are recording and gets inside 8 ft and arrests them. Easy! Or another cop dashes the person recording just to stop and arrest the recording