5 ms·

I don't see this as the same knee-jerk "the police are being shielded from having their misdeeds recorded" as other people are jumping to do. If you look at so

I don't see this as the same knee-jerk "the police are being shielded from having their misdeeds recorded" as other people are jumping to do. If you look at some of the video of police trying to do their jobs and having screeching bystanders yelling at them, I am absolutely fine with this law being invoked to maintain police sanity and prevent things from escalating.

alistairSH 4y ago
In the vast majority of cases recorded in the last two years, the escalation came from the side of the police, not the bystanders. If a police officer doesn’t like being yelled and recording while beating protestors or murdering minor criminals, perhaps they need to find other employment.
- OrvalWintermute 4y ago
  > In the vast majority of cases recorded in the last two years, the escalation came from the side of the police, not the bystanders please provide some data to back up this claim.
- kepler1 4y ago
  As I said in another comment, you sound like you feed on turning 0.001% exceptions into the rule. Almost all police in this country are not beating protestors or murdering people. I don't want to have a system where someone's extreme (though yes, bad case) sets the way we handle everything. Is your approach to solve for the 0.001% problem and care nothing about the rest of the 99.999% situations where the rule you put in place will have to be lived with by everyone else?
  - fzeroracer 4y ago
    Here's a thought experiment for you: I want you to watch the video of the Daniel Shaver shooting in Arizona. Then I want you to consider the outcome of the extreme police violence cases vs the extreme cases of bystander escalation. The only thing that stops the police from getting away with violence is the fact that people are recording them. And even then, the police can execute an innocent and unarmed individual and get acquitted by court.
    - kepler1 4y ago
      No one's talking about stopping people's right to record. And if standing 8 feet makes a difference then we've got other problems. I'm talking about reasonable restrictions to stop people from getting up in the police's face in everyday situations that dominate the daily work of policing, so that bystanders with less than honorable intentions don't provoke and escalate a situation. By whatever principle you're operating under, you would assert that police have no right to put up police tape and cordon off a crime scene either?
staticassertion 4y ago
People are allowed to screech. It's kind of an important part of the constitution.
- kepler1 4y ago
  That's fine of course. Just don't do it right in the police's faces as an attempt to interfere or borderline provoke a situation.
  - staticassertion 4y ago
    You can politely ask me not to do that. Legally preventing me from doing that is unconstitutional.
    - kepler1 4y ago
      Your interpretation of the constitution is quite expansive. In what provision do you find it unconstitutional that laws are passed regulating the distance of someone to be kept away from interfering with police duties? Police put up tape to cordon off a crime scene. That's unconstitutional too? Examine your own sense of reasonableness.
sph 4y ago
Forbidding to film police with a phone won't stop the bystanders from screeching.
- kepler1 4y ago
  It will stop people from getting up in the police's face while trying to do their jobs and provoking conflict.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
"police trying to do their jobs and having screeching bystanders yelling" oh noe, what did they suffer hearing damage or something? Compared to how many innocent people were shot?
- kepler1 4y ago
  I think you need to consider visiting outside of the echo chamber you live in. We do not have some epidemic of innocent people being shot. You feed on turning 0.001% exceptions into the rule.
  - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
    you need to reexamine your values. To even suggest that Noise pollution suffered by police is more important than even 1 person. getting shot is incredible. To suggest that when 2500 people are shot annyally is simply breathtaking. UK police kills 0 - 2 people a year, you have more people in prison than Russia and China combined, and you think you *Don't* have a problem?
    - kepler1 4y ago
      I'm not solving for loud noises that the police have to hear. You took my literal words, lost the point, and turned it into ready outrage. There are legitimate reasons for the police to have bystanders stay a distance away from them while doing their job. Not having people purposely stand in the police's way and provoke conflict while filming is reasonable. And let's not go down the hole of analyzing police shooting stats. We can do that endlessly. How many of those shootings were against armed suspects? How many were in the process of committing crimes? We can go on and on. Your numbers will drop fast. Not saying we don't have a problem with guns in this country. But putting the outrage on having to stand reasonably far away from a police officer isn't where it's going to be solved.

alistairSH 4y ago

In the vast majority of cases recorded in the last two years, the escalation came from the side of the police, not the bystanders. If a police officer doesn’t like being yelled and recording while beating protestors or murdering minor criminals, perhaps they need to find other employment.

OrvalWintermute 4y ago
> In the vast majority of cases recorded in the last two years, the escalation came from the side of the police, not the bystanders please provide some data to back up this claim.
kepler1 4y ago
As I said in another comment, you sound like you feed on turning 0.001% exceptions into the rule. Almost all police in this country are not beating protestors or murdering people. I don't want to have a system where someone's extreme (though yes, bad case) sets the way we handle everything. Is your approach to solve for the 0.001% problem and care nothing about the rest of the 99.999% situations where the rule you put in place will have to be lived with by everyone else?
- fzeroracer 4y ago
  Here's a thought experiment for you: I want you to watch the video of the Daniel Shaver shooting in Arizona. Then I want you to consider the outcome of the extreme police violence cases vs the extreme cases of bystander escalation. The only thing that stops the police from getting away with violence is the fact that people are recording them. And even then, the police can execute an innocent and unarmed individual and get acquitted by court.
  - kepler1 4y ago
    No one's talking about stopping people's right to record. And if standing 8 feet makes a difference then we've got other problems. I'm talking about reasonable restrictions to stop people from getting up in the police's face in everyday situations that dominate the daily work of policing, so that bystanders with less than honorable intentions don't provoke and escalate a situation. By whatever principle you're operating under, you would assert that police have no right to put up police tape and cordon off a crime scene either?

staticassertion 4y ago

People are allowed to screech. It's kind of an important part of the constitution.

kepler1 4y ago
That's fine of course. Just don't do it right in the police's faces as an attempt to interfere or borderline provoke a situation.
- staticassertion 4y ago
  You can politely ask me not to do that. Legally preventing me from doing that is unconstitutional.
  - kepler1 4y ago
    Your interpretation of the constitution is quite expansive. In what provision do you find it unconstitutional that laws are passed regulating the distance of someone to be kept away from interfering with police duties? Police put up tape to cordon off a crime scene. That's unconstitutional too? Examine your own sense of reasonableness.

sph 4y ago

Forbidding to film police with a phone won't stop the bystanders from screeching.

kepler1 4y ago
It will stop people from getting up in the police's face while trying to do their jobs and provoking conflict.

ClumsyPilot 4y ago

"police trying to do their jobs and having screeching bystanders yelling" oh noe, what did they suffer hearing damage or something? Compared to how many innocent people were shot?

kepler1 4y ago
I think you need to consider visiting outside of the echo chamber you live in. We do not have some epidemic of innocent people being shot. You feed on turning 0.001% exceptions into the rule.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  you need to reexamine your values. To even suggest that Noise pollution suffered by police is more important than even 1 person. getting shot is incredible. To suggest that when 2500 people are shot annyally is simply breathtaking. UK police kills 0 - 2 people a year, you have more people in prison than Russia and China combined, and you think you *Don't* have a problem?
  - kepler1 4y ago
    I'm not solving for loud noises that the police have to hear. You took my literal words, lost the point, and turned it into ready outrage. There are legitimate reasons for the police to have bystanders stay a distance away from them while doing their job. Not having people purposely stand in the police's way and provoke conflict while filming is reasonable. And let's not go down the hole of analyzing police shooting stats. We can do that endlessly. How many of those shootings were against armed suspects? How many were in the process of committing crimes? We can go on and on. Your numbers will drop fast. Not saying we don't have a problem with guns in this country. But putting the outrage on having to stand reasonably far away from a police officer isn't where it's going to be solved.