4 ms·

I cannot help to wonder how long it will take for the following scenario to play out. 1. Someone films the police from a distance. 2. The police moves closer,

I cannot help to wonder how long it will take for the following scenario to play out. 1. Someone films the police from a distance. 2. The police moves closer, and either gets too close and arrests you. or.. 3. You start moving away from them, and they yell stop, and arrest you for trying to run from them, or for not complying. I hope you guys fix whatever is going on in your country.

soco 4y ago
To arrest you they have to move closer anyway, so, this complicated scenario is not even needed.
pif 4y ago
You forgot 4: you keep filming while they are far enough and stop when they get close to you. This way, you comply with the law, and you have enough material for court in case of misbehavior.
- martin_a 4y ago
  Sounds like you need multiple cameras, because misbehaviour will probably only happen once the cameras are off.
  - pif 4y ago
    Yeah, so what? You filmed the beginning, you filmed the police asking you to stop: which judge will ever trust them when they'll describe how you slipped on a banana peel?
    - black_puppydog 4y ago
      ehm... a few years I'd have laughed and said you're right. but today...
    - ceejayoz 4y ago
      Cops already pull the “whoops my body cam stopped working” trick. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2018/06/28/the-ongoing-problem-of-conveniently-malfunctioning-police-cameras/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2018/06/28/...
  - tromp 4y ago
    By the policemen hole principle, with N+1 camera people spread out (over 16 ft apart) among N policemen, there is always one camera person that doesn't fit into a policeman's 8 ft vicinity.
    - black_puppydog 4y ago
      that's gonna become a new very loose formation at political rallies. :|
pif 4y ago
By the way, from the article: Exceptions were made for people at the center of an interaction with police, anyone standing in an enclosed structure on private property where police activity was occurring and occupants of a vehicle stopped by police as long as recording in those instances didn't interfere with police actions.
- ceejayoz 4y ago
  > as long as recording in those instances didn't interfere with police actions They will immediately claim you are doing so.
  - formerly_proven 4y ago
    "Stop interfering and/or resisting"
- cmurf 4y ago
  Accountability is widely considered interference by people who think they are or above the law.
yalogin 4y ago
You forgot step 4. They shoot the person and the police union protects them with a paid vacation
tehwebguy 4y ago
This is already a thing that happens, the difference is that now there will be a law allowing them to do it and reducing civil suit payouts
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
ryandrake 4y ago
This is the predictable and obvious goal of the law: To give law enforcement an easy way to criminalize someone who is trying to hold them accountable. All the police have to do to arrest a photographer is suddenly run up within 8 feet of them. They can also now fan out in a cop-mesh, 8 feet from one another, so that nobody without a telephoto lens can get close enough to film their ill deeds.
- cosmotic 4y ago
  There's already no shortage of ways to criminalize someone doing nothing illegal.
nathanaldensr 4y ago
This isn't "your country," this is one state--one of fifty what-would-be-countries-in-Europe.
- iudqnolq 4y ago
  Well, it's our country's Supreme Court that has (incorrectly) decided to allow this kind of crap. (Ofc they haven't yet okayed this one specifically, but everyone knows that they'll either allow this law or take a very long time to strike it down and refrain from punishing anyone allowed)
Natsu 4y ago
I mean if they just want to arrest you, they can just cite you for "disorderly conduct" or similar and take you in. If they want to cite you for this law, you'd either have a recording to show the jury, or the cop would have to explain to the court why they cited you for recording them when there was no recording. In short, this doesn't move the needle on bogus arrests and makes it clear at what distance you should be when recording the cops to avoid getting in their way, so it seems pointless to fight it.
Pakdef 4y ago
4. You run away and they shoot you in the back.

soco 4y ago

To arrest you they have to move closer anyway, so, this complicated scenario is not even needed.

pif 4y ago

You forgot 4: you keep filming while they are far enough and stop when they get close to you. This way, you comply with the law, and you have enough material for court in case of misbehavior.

martin_a 4y ago
Sounds like you need multiple cameras, because misbehaviour will probably only happen once the cameras are off.
- pif 4y ago
  Yeah, so what? You filmed the beginning, you filmed the police asking you to stop: which judge will ever trust them when they'll describe how you slipped on a banana peel?
  - black_puppydog 4y ago
    ehm... a few years I'd have laughed and said you're right. but today...
  - ceejayoz 4y ago
    Cops already pull the “whoops my body cam stopped working” trick. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2018/06/28/the-ongoing-problem-of-conveniently-malfunctioning-police-cameras/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-watch/wp/2018/06/28/...
- tromp 4y ago
  By the policemen hole principle, with N+1 camera people spread out (over 16 ft apart) among N policemen, there is always one camera person that doesn't fit into a policeman's 8 ft vicinity.
  - black_puppydog 4y ago
    that's gonna become a new very loose formation at political rallies. :|

pif 4y ago

By the way, from the article: Exceptions were made for people at the center of an interaction with police, anyone standing in an enclosed structure on private property where police activity was occurring and occupants of a vehicle stopped by police as long as recording in those instances didn't interfere with police actions.

ceejayoz 4y ago
> as long as recording in those instances didn't interfere with police actions They will immediately claim you are doing so.
- formerly_proven 4y ago
  "Stop interfering and/or resisting"
cmurf 4y ago
Accountability is widely considered interference by people who think they are or above the law.

yalogin 4y ago

You forgot step 4. They shoot the person and the police union protects them with a paid vacation

tehwebguy 4y ago

This is already a thing that happens, the difference is that now there will be a law allowing them to do it and reducing civil suit payouts

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

ryandrake 4y ago

This is the predictable and obvious goal of the law: To give law enforcement an easy way to criminalize someone who is trying to hold them accountable. All the police have to do to arrest a photographer is suddenly run up within 8 feet of them. They can also now fan out in a cop-mesh, 8 feet from one another, so that nobody without a telephoto lens can get close enough to film their ill deeds.

cosmotic 4y ago
There's already no shortage of ways to criminalize someone doing nothing illegal.

nathanaldensr 4y ago

This isn't "your country," this is one state--one of fifty what-would-be-countries-in-Europe.

iudqnolq 4y ago
Well, it's our country's Supreme Court that has (incorrectly) decided to allow this kind of crap. (Ofc they haven't yet okayed this one specifically, but everyone knows that they'll either allow this law or take a very long time to strike it down and refrain from punishing anyone allowed)

Natsu 4y ago

I mean if they just want to arrest you, they can just cite you for "disorderly conduct" or similar and take you in. If they want to cite you for this law, you'd either have a recording to show the jury, or the cop would have to explain to the court why they cited you for recording them when there was no recording. In short, this doesn't move the needle on bogus arrests and makes it clear at what distance you should be when recording the cops to avoid getting in their way, so it seems pointless to fight it.

Pakdef 4y ago

4. You run away and they shoot you in the back.