4 ms·
> and you for violating the 8ft rule, either way, you are involved in an interaction between a cop and yourself, and so you are allowed to film it, and so what
by throwawaycities 5y ago
> and you for violating the 8ft rule, either way, you are involved in an interaction between a cop and yourself, and so you are allowed to film it, and so what the hell was the point of the excercise
It’s not about the original interaction (who as you point out would have the right to record), it’s about the secondary crowds that record the original police interaction and endanger the officer/interfere.
15ft or 8ft is kind of arbitrary either way I’m sure there will be abuse, but I’ve also seen some ridiculously entitled people recording on their phones that begin interfering and escalate very tense situations when officers are performing their duties and probably legitimately concerned for their safety and safety of others. Then there are situations like the woman who recorded George Floyd’s murder that was basically crying and pleading for the officer to get off of Floyd.
- 8note 5y agoIf they're endangering somebody, why not make that illegal rather than the recording?
- deleted 5y ago[deleted]
- throwawaycities 5y agoThe goal is usually narrowly tailored laws “no recording officer interactions/arrests within 8ft when it’s potentially dangerous.” There is still a small amount of discretion, but what you propose is a very broad law with total discretion “it’s illegal to endanger people.” They didn’t make recording illegal, any more than a speeding ticket makes driving illegal. They made it a finable offense to record within 8ft of a potentially dangerous police interaction.