7 ms·

> The new Arizona law requires any bystanders recording police activity in the state to stand at a minimum of 8 feet away from the action. If bystanders move cl

> The new Arizona law requires any bystanders recording police activity in the state to stand at a minimum of 8 feet away from the action. If bystanders move closer after police have warned them to back off, they risk being charged with a misdemeanor and incurring fines of up to $500, jail time of up to 30 days, or probation of up to a year What exactly is wrong with this? Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings?

colechristensen 4y ago
It also seems like a protection for recording the police. “The law says I can record you if I’m more than 8 feet away” No more could police argue interference because there’s an explicit definition now of what is too close.
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  Obvious protection. Exception proves the rule.
- WesternWind 4y ago
  quoting the law, "THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY."
  - throwawaymaths 4y ago
    Right this is the problem. If it said the opposite, it would be a FANTASTIC law.
  - colechristensen 4y ago
    But you already have the right to record which has been upheld in court. Now in AZ when faced with a court argument that you were too close to the action you can point to a law that defines too close.
    - kevinsundar 4y ago
      You can't really read laws in the negative. Laws only mean what they say. You can still for example "interfere" and be more than 8 feet away and pointing to this law won't help you.
      - WesternWind 4y ago
        You are largely right, though one can apply the canons of construction to understanding a law's text, which sometimes can sometimes lead to inferences. https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/adjunct/dstevenson/2018Spring/CANONS%20OF%20CONSTRUCTION.pdf https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/adjunct/dstevenson/2018Spring...
- bergenty 4y ago
  But then the cop runs towards you and now everyone filming can potentially end up in prison.
- kolanos 4y ago
  > It also seems like a protection for recording the police. This was already constitutionally protected. And this new law is likely going to be challenged on its constitutionality.
mbrameld 4y ago
> Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings? They can still do that, too. Interfering is still illegal no matter what you're doing or where you are when you do it. Simply filming is protected by the first amendment, so unless you were doing something else you had a defense to say you weren't interfering. Now that defense is gone. It doesn't matter whether you're actually interfering or not, now you can be arrested and charged for simply filming.
- qwerpy 4y ago
  - shepardrtc 4y ago
    > I think this is a good, common sense law That will absolutely be abused by police with no repercussions. They just have to walk up to you and then you're violating the law.
  - dwater 4y ago
    Can you link to some examples, because I have not seen any videos like that.
  - deathanatos 4y ago
    Then, as a cop, you arrest them. A court of law will see right through crap like that, and you'll be exonerated for recording the officer and convicted for pressing up against the officer. What we don't want, here, is someone who isn't doing that jailed nonetheless, because they were 7.5ft away, recording police brutality, and the police didn't want that. (Edit: IANAL, ofc.)
    - bragr 4y ago
      That's before you even get into "I think I'm 10ft away, but the cop says I'm 7ft so now I'm going to jail and will always have this arrest on my record even if charges are dropped"
badlucklottery 4y ago
>What exactly is wrong with this? It's a pretty obvious way to criminalize citizens documenting police. The police already had the law on their side to deal with people actually interfering in their duties. Now merely documenting them in a way they determine is unsafe is a crime. >Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings? They still can.
throwawaymaths 4y ago
Yeah I am huge on recording cops, but a minimum distance of 8 feet does not bother me as long as it doesn't slippery slope into more. Slippery slope arguments are usually invalid, unless they involve government justifying and expanding powers, we have plenty of historical evidence for that.
patmcc 4y ago
> What exactly is wrong with this? Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings? What's wrong is this - I'm filming some police brutality from the legally mandated 8 feet away. Then a cop moves 1 foot closer to me. Ooops, look like my camera/phone is confiscated and I'm under arrest.
- 14 4y ago
  That is why you should have it live streamed so even if they confiscate/ accidentally smash your phone it is too late.
  - patmcc 4y ago
    I don't disagree, but I think in this scenario you'll end up with some illegal activity recorded/uploaded but the very illegal activity is yet to come. Like if Darnella Frazier's video stops before George Floyd dies, it's not nearly as effective as evidence.
  - freen 4y ago
    How idealistic. Why don’t you try it out and see how well that works out for you? Very, very few people of privilege know what having an adversarial state is truly like.
  - smt88 4y ago
    The purpose of the bill is to scare people and punish them for filming. The fear of a smashed phone or an arrest is enough to stop many people from filming.
Rapzid 4y ago
Yeah, 8 feet is pretty dang close to police action. I would consider that "close range".
- epakai 4y ago
  For many situations, yes. In a crowd, not really. In something like a concert crowd, clubbing, etc. next to impossible.
bergenty 4y ago
They’re just going to have one cop be the “perimeter” 50 ft away.
- Rapzid 4y ago
jksmith 4y ago
What if you were on a bus, sitting across from a cop bashing somebody's face in? Ok, back up two rows to be able to video. Check! What if you have to get out of your car, but leave your camera running and the cop decides to drag you down and put a knee on your neck within 8 feet?
- nvrspyx 4y ago
  For the second example, you wouldn't be a bystander, so I don't think it would apply. If you were the passenger though, I guess it would.
  - jksmith 4y ago
    So the law reads that this only applies to bystanders? Including spouses/family?
    - rndgermandude 4y ago
      It does not apply to the person who is subject to police action. It does furthermore not apply to other occupants of a vehicle (as long as they do not interfere otherwise). And it allows to make videos in a "closed structure" on private property from closer than 8ft unless the person is interfering otherwise or the entire area is deemed unsafe. And it's only a misdemeanor after the police already warned you and you continue to take video from closer than 8ft. https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf
- drewcoo 4y ago
  And if you can't move, ask the cop to continue the beating farther away so you can film.
  - the_only_law 4y ago
    See, we can solve problem with civility!
wonderwonder 4y ago
In 10 seconds the cops are going to have brainstormed having an officer walk around asking people to move back from them, driving bystanders further and further from whatever is taking place. They will also indiscriminately arrest people now knowing they can just charge them with violating this law. If the cop says you were 6ft away and you say you were 8, who are they going to believe? Does it really matter, you are already going to jail and your phone was unfortunately damaged in the arrest which you were also resisting. Just read up on who the bill sponsor is and you will understand his intent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kavanagh_(Arizona_politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kavanagh_(Arizona_politic...
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  > If the cop says you were 6ft away and you say you were 8, who are they going to believe? The video footage. Image analysis along with metadata is sufficient to determine the viewpoint. > Does it really matter, you are already going to jail and your phone was unfortunately damaged in the arrest which you were also resisting. 5G, and perhaps within a few years the new civilian internet satellites, will evolve this situation. Constantly uploading/syncing video and images to secure remote storage is something war journalists have long sought. By the time someone with a gun threatens you to delete things you can go through the theatre of complying, or they can even destroy your device, but it's too late for them.
  - nonrandomstring 4y ago
    I am wondering whether down-voters disagree or don't understand how forensic video analysis can accurately pinpoint the positions of objects from perspective when the camera and lens model are known?
    - csydas 4y ago
      It's not about the technical details, it's about the fact that before you'd ever have a chance to present such an argument, you already are liable for a fine And jailtime (30 days). It doesn't matter what might end up happening later, the upfront cost of recording is now very real and there is a chance to get starved out of money to even try to take such an item to court. The tech might be undeniable, but it doesn't matter if there is a buffer in front of the system that would accept such tech as evidence, and said buffer could delay your chance to succeed by months if not years. It doesn't really matter how good the tech is if the system where it would help can stall out the situation beyond your means to live.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]

colechristensen 4y ago

It also seems like a protection for recording the police. “The law says I can record you if I’m more than 8 feet away” No more could police argue interference because there’s an explicit definition now of what is too close.

jvanderbot 4y ago
Obvious protection. Exception proves the rule.
WesternWind 4y ago
quoting the law, "THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY."
- throwawaymaths 4y ago
  Right this is the problem. If it said the opposite, it would be a FANTASTIC law.
- colechristensen 4y ago
  But you already have the right to record which has been upheld in court. Now in AZ when faced with a court argument that you were too close to the action you can point to a law that defines too close.
  - kevinsundar 4y ago
    You can't really read laws in the negative. Laws only mean what they say. You can still for example "interfere" and be more than 8 feet away and pointing to this law won't help you.
    - WesternWind 4y ago
      You are largely right, though one can apply the canons of construction to understanding a law's text, which sometimes can sometimes lead to inferences. https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/adjunct/dstevenson/2018Spring/CANONS%20OF%20CONSTRUCTION.pdf https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/adjunct/dstevenson/2018Spring...
bergenty 4y ago
But then the cop runs towards you and now everyone filming can potentially end up in prison.
kolanos 4y ago
> It also seems like a protection for recording the police. This was already constitutionally protected. And this new law is likely going to be challenged on its constitutionality.

mbrameld 4y ago

> Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings? They can still do that, too. Interfering is still illegal no matter what you're doing or where you are when you do it. Simply filming is protected by the first amendment, so unless you were doing something else you had a defense to say you weren't interfering. Now that defense is gone. It doesn't matter whether you're actually interfering or not, now you can be arrested and charged for simply filming.

qwerpy 4y ago
- shepardrtc 4y ago
  > I think this is a good, common sense law That will absolutely be abused by police with no repercussions. They just have to walk up to you and then you're violating the law.
- dwater 4y ago
  Can you link to some examples, because I have not seen any videos like that.
- deathanatos 4y ago
  Then, as a cop, you arrest them. A court of law will see right through crap like that, and you'll be exonerated for recording the officer and convicted for pressing up against the officer. What we don't want, here, is someone who isn't doing that jailed nonetheless, because they were 7.5ft away, recording police brutality, and the police didn't want that. (Edit: IANAL, ofc.)
  - bragr 4y ago
    That's before you even get into "I think I'm 10ft away, but the cop says I'm 7ft so now I'm going to jail and will always have this arrest on my record even if charges are dropped"

badlucklottery 4y ago

>What exactly is wrong with this? It's a pretty obvious way to criminalize citizens documenting police. The police already had the law on their side to deal with people actually interfering in their duties. Now merely documenting them in a way they determine is unsafe is a crime. >Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings? They still can.

throwawaymaths 4y ago

Yeah I am huge on recording cops, but a minimum distance of 8 feet does not bother me as long as it doesn't slippery slope into more. Slippery slope arguments are usually invalid, unless they involve government justifying and expanding powers, we have plenty of historical evidence for that.

patmcc 4y ago

> What exactly is wrong with this? Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings? What's wrong is this - I'm filming some police brutality from the legally mandated 8 feet away. Then a cop moves 1 foot closer to me. Ooops, look like my camera/phone is confiscated and I'm under arrest.

14 4y ago
That is why you should have it live streamed so even if they confiscate/ accidentally smash your phone it is too late.
- patmcc 4y ago
  I don't disagree, but I think in this scenario you'll end up with some illegal activity recorded/uploaded but the very illegal activity is yet to come. Like if Darnella Frazier's video stops before George Floyd dies, it's not nearly as effective as evidence.
- freen 4y ago
  How idealistic. Why don’t you try it out and see how well that works out for you? Very, very few people of privilege know what having an adversarial state is truly like.
- smt88 4y ago
  The purpose of the bill is to scare people and punish them for filming. The fear of a smashed phone or an arrest is enough to stop many people from filming.

Rapzid 4y ago

Yeah, 8 feet is pretty dang close to police action. I would consider that "close range".

epakai 4y ago
For many situations, yes. In a crowd, not really. In something like a concert crowd, clubbing, etc. next to impossible.

bergenty 4y ago

They’re just going to have one cop be the “perimeter” 50 ft away.

Rapzid 4y ago

jksmith 4y ago

What if you were on a bus, sitting across from a cop bashing somebody's face in? Ok, back up two rows to be able to video. Check! What if you have to get out of your car, but leave your camera running and the cop decides to drag you down and put a knee on your neck within 8 feet?

nvrspyx 4y ago
For the second example, you wouldn't be a bystander, so I don't think it would apply. If you were the passenger though, I guess it would.
- jksmith 4y ago
  So the law reads that this only applies to bystanders? Including spouses/family?
  - rndgermandude 4y ago
    It does not apply to the person who is subject to police action. It does furthermore not apply to other occupants of a vehicle (as long as they do not interfere otherwise). And it allows to make videos in a "closed structure" on private property from closer than 8ft unless the person is interfering otherwise or the entire area is deemed unsafe. And it's only a misdemeanor after the police already warned you and you continue to take video from closer than 8ft. https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf
drewcoo 4y ago
And if you can't move, ask the cop to continue the beating farther away so you can film.
- the_only_law 4y ago
  See, we can solve problem with civility!

wonderwonder 4y ago

In 10 seconds the cops are going to have brainstormed having an officer walk around asking people to move back from them, driving bystanders further and further from whatever is taking place. They will also indiscriminately arrest people now knowing they can just charge them with violating this law. If the cop says you were 6ft away and you say you were 8, who are they going to believe? Does it really matter, you are already going to jail and your phone was unfortunately damaged in the arrest which you were also resisting. Just read up on who the bill sponsor is and you will understand his intent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kavanagh_(Arizona_politician) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kavanagh_(Arizona_politic...

nonrandomstring 4y ago
> If the cop says you were 6ft away and you say you were 8, who are they going to believe? The video footage. Image analysis along with metadata is sufficient to determine the viewpoint. > Does it really matter, you are already going to jail and your phone was unfortunately damaged in the arrest which you were also resisting. 5G, and perhaps within a few years the new civilian internet satellites, will evolve this situation. Constantly uploading/syncing video and images to secure remote storage is something war journalists have long sought. By the time someone with a gun threatens you to delete things you can go through the theatre of complying, or they can even destroy your device, but it's too late for them.
- nonrandomstring 4y ago
  I am wondering whether down-voters disagree or don't understand how forensic video analysis can accurately pinpoint the positions of objects from perspective when the camera and lens model are known?
  - csydas 4y ago
    It's not about the technical details, it's about the fact that before you'd ever have a chance to present such an argument, you already are liable for a fine And jailtime (30 days). It doesn't matter what might end up happening later, the upfront cost of recording is now very real and there is a chance to get starved out of money to even try to take such an item to court. The tech might be undeniable, but it doesn't matter if there is a buffer in front of the system that would accept such tech as evidence, and said buffer could delay your chance to succeed by months if not years. It doesn't really matter how good the tech is if the system where it would help can stall out the situation beyond your means to live.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]