3 ms·
The title is editorialized to be misleading. They aren't moving to ban video recording of police. The ban is on recording from within a distance of 8 feet, whi
by everfree 5y ago
The title is editorialized to be misleading. They aren't moving to ban video recording of police.
The ban is on recording from within a distance of 8 feet, while the officer is interacting with someone else, which seems reasonable enough to me. There's nothing you're going to miss by standing 8 feet back from an investigation while you're recording.
- TillE 5y agoYou think cops are gonna get out a tape measure before arresting you for refusing to move back further? "8 feet" will be like 20+ feet.
- google234123 5y agoThe point of the law is to stop the people filming from tiny distances and getting in the way. You can definitely tell 3 feet for example.
- alphabettsy 5y agoThere is already a law that makes it illegal to get in the way.
- google234123 5y agoMaybe it’s not working? I’ve seen examples of people getting in the way a lot. There’s nothing wrong with making more specific laws targeting bad behavior.
- alphabettsy 5y agoIf that’s the case, how do more laws fix an enforcement issue?
- google234123 5y agoRaise awareness, make it easier to prosecute - vague laws are harder to convict on.
- everfree 5y agoCops unlawfully arrest people all the time for multitudes of reasons, but we have courts to deal with those cases of unlawful arrest. It should be very clear from an officer's body cam whether the recording party is within 8 feet. That's a basic personal space amount of distance.
- TeaDrunk 5y agoWhat if the body cam happened to be off, glitchy, or data was just lost on happenstance? What if even if the arrest was unlawful the victim already lost their job?
- everfree 5y agoIf a body cam happened to be off, then it doesn't matter whether a law like this is in effect or not.
- jyounker 5y agoIt does affect you if the police can force you turn off your camera, or if they can later claim in court that video evidence of their transgressions were illegally obtained, and thus inadmissible.
- jyounker 5y agoAnd cops get away with harassing people all the time. The US courts have been doing an abysmal job of protecting the citizenry from police abuse. (E.g. qualified immunity.) The thing that has been to some extent reversing that trend is cheap and ubiquitous video cameras.
- tormock 5y agoThe problem with that is that they get 12 cops to body-block any cameras 8ft away or more... sometimes you have to be close to get a good angle.
- mymythisisthis 5y agoI think you're right. Usually a dozen cops respond to most major calls. Now anybody trying to record, within a block of the action, will be arrested and have their camera seized.
- everfree 5y agoWhile these people may be arrested and their cameras may be seized, they could easily sue for unlawful arrest if they were more than 8 feet away at the time. Exactly the same as if their cameras were seized before the 8-foot law were in effect.
- jyounker 5y agoI forsee many seized cameras being "accidentally damaged" in Arizona's near future.
- everfree 5y agoIf police unlawfully seize and destroy your recorded evidence, then it doesn't matter whether there was a law like this in effect. The officer could make up any story to justify their action under any law. Mandatory body cam laws would be a lot more relevant in that case, not 8-foot citizen recording laws.
- jyounker 5y agoIt gives them legal cover for seizing cameras. Right now there is no legal justification for doing so.
- tormock 5y ago
- V__ 5y ago"Excuse me, you with the camera, can you come over here for a second" -> arrested. "Excuse me, you with the camera, can you come over here for a second".. the person moves away.. "why are you running" -> arrested. Cop moves towards the person filming -> arrested. It's a law which will be abused.
- usrusr 5y agoThe person the officer is interacting with might be concerned in a very different way about what they say to a police officer, vs what they say to a police officer while a random or perhaps not random at all third party is recording. 8 ft seems like a reasonable cutoff. But something needs to be done about the abuse potential of another officer walking towards the recording person, repeating "eight foot rule! eight foot rule!" to continuously push back the recording person so that their colleagues can proceed unwatched.
- everfree 5y agoAs I mentioned, the article clarifies that the law only applies in the case that an officer is interacting with a third party. A cop walking towards you is clearly interacting with you, not a third party, thus the law would not apply.
- usrusr 5y agoThanks, missed that detail. Surprisingly well thought out then!
- garyfirestorm 5y agoThe second part of your comment is the exact intention of this law! That’s exactly how it’s supposed to work.