4 ms·

Is it just me or does 8-10 feet seem like an optimal distance to film from anyway? Who’s shooting productive videos from two feet away? Even the George Floyd v

by jm20 4y ago

Is it just me or does 8-10 feet seem like an optimal distance to film from anyway? Who’s shooting productive videos from two feet away? Even the George Floyd videos were at least ten feet away and they seemed more than adequate.

lolpython 4y ago
A fish eye lens works fine. That is what body cameras use.
DangitBobby 4y ago
Anyone who is filming from 8-10 feet away who is approached by an officer who wishes for the filming to cease.
- lionkor 4y ago
  It doesnt apply then, it only applies to officers who are questioning, arresting, etc.
  - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
    Judges and lawyers will have to figure that out.
    - khiner 4y ago
      Judges overwhelmingly side with police officers over defendants as a default stance. Adding laws restricting civilian rights and protecting police officers can only skew that stance further away from neutrality and towards the favor of police officers.
      - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
        > Judges overwhelmingly side with police officers over defendants as a default stance. Definitely not true here in King County Washington, but Arizona is probably very different.
  - DangitBobby 4y ago
    Realistically, it applies to whatever the officer thinks it applies to.
  - Vvector 4y ago
    > ...only applies to officers who are questioning, arresting, etc. and the vague "enforcing the law". The fear is that the bad actors will always claim they were enforcing the law. ====================== For the purposes of this section, "law enforcement activity" means any of the following: 1. Questioning a suspicious person. 2. Conducting an arrest, issuing a summons or enforcing the law. 3. Handling an emotionally disturbed or disorderly person who is exhibiting abnormal behavior.
jdblair 4y ago
It is impossible to be 8 feet away if you are sitting in the front seat during a traffic stop.
- vageli 4y ago
  > It is impossible to be 8 feet away if you are sitting in the front seat during a traffic stop. This is addressed: > B. notwithstanding subsection A of this section, a person who is the subject of police contact may record the encounter if the person is not interfering with lawful police actions, including searching, handcuffing or administering a field sobriety test. The occupants of a vehicle that is the subject of a police stop may record the encounter if the occupants are not interfering with lawful police actions.
  - jdblair 4y ago
    Oh good, my cynical take is incorrect!
  - genocidicbunny 4y ago
    "If the occupants are not interfering with lawful police actions" is doing a lot of work in that text. How much you want to bet cops can find some excuse for why a recording passenger was interfering?
abetusk 4y ago
Most police interaction goes unobserved by a third party so, if I understand the bill correctly, at a minimum this means recording your own arrest is illegal. EDIT: It sounds like recording any interaction you have with a police officer is now illegal, if they're within 8ft of you.
- gruez 4y ago
  Based on the full text quoted by another commenter https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32047580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32047580, this does not seem to be the case. Specifically: > > B. notwithstanding subsection A of this section, a person who is the subject of police contact may record the encounter if the person is not interfering with lawful police actions, including searching, handcuffing or administering a field sobriety test. The occupants of a vehicle that is the subject of a police stop may record the encounter if the occupants are not interfering with lawful police actions.
  - abetusk 4y ago
    Well, at least that's good. Just as a note, most people record with their phones out and pointed at the subject they're recording. From watching many of these videos, police routinely ask people recording to put their phones away, even though they aren't interfering. It seems likely that police will use the excuse that the mere act of recording in this way is interfering and can be used to stop recording or to arrest the person recording.
  - crooked-v 4y ago
    Of course, given qualified immunity, there's nothing to actually prevent cops from acting like they don't know that clause exists.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
b33j0r 4y ago
Seems the most common scenario would be documenting traffic stops. I would be within 8 feet of an officer in any seat of my car.
woodruffw 4y ago
> Is it just me or does 8-10 feet seem like an optimal distance to film from anyway? Who’s shooting productive videos from two feet away? "Productive" is not the relevant metric; "expedient" is. If I'm in a crowded subway car, I may not be able to move 10 feet away from the police officer who's harassing my fellow straphanger. Worse, if I were to move away, the commotion of the crowded car would likely drown out my cellphone's microphone.
- mfer 4y ago
  To add context (nothing more)... there is a call out for occupants of the same vehicle and what they can do (they can record as long as they are not also interfering).
  - woodruffw 4y ago
    The carve-out is for "occupants of a vehicle that is the subject of a police stop." My right to record the police shouldn't rest on whether a state judge interprets a public bus or subway in that manner; it's a ridiculous hair to split. Another example: during a protest, the police might decide to kettle[1] a group of protestors to control them. As a bystander, I can be caught in the kettle. I'm not the target of the police action, and yet this law suggests that my recording might be criminal. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling

by jm20 4y ago

lolpython 4y ago

A fish eye lens works fine. That is what body cameras use.

DangitBobby 4y ago

Anyone who is filming from 8-10 feet away who is approached by an officer who wishes for the filming to cease.

lionkor 4y ago
It doesnt apply then, it only applies to officers who are questioning, arresting, etc.
- seanmcdirmid 4y ago
  Judges and lawyers will have to figure that out.
  - khiner 4y ago
    Judges overwhelmingly side with police officers over defendants as a default stance. Adding laws restricting civilian rights and protecting police officers can only skew that stance further away from neutrality and towards the favor of police officers.
    - seanmcdirmid 4y ago
      > Judges overwhelmingly side with police officers over defendants as a default stance. Definitely not true here in King County Washington, but Arizona is probably very different.
- DangitBobby 4y ago
  Realistically, it applies to whatever the officer thinks it applies to.
- Vvector 4y ago
  > ...only applies to officers who are questioning, arresting, etc. and the vague "enforcing the law". The fear is that the bad actors will always claim they were enforcing the law. ====================== For the purposes of this section, "law enforcement activity" means any of the following: 1. Questioning a suspicious person. 2. Conducting an arrest, issuing a summons or enforcing the law. 3. Handling an emotionally disturbed or disorderly person who is exhibiting abnormal behavior.

jdblair 4y ago

It is impossible to be 8 feet away if you are sitting in the front seat during a traffic stop.

vageli 4y ago
> It is impossible to be 8 feet away if you are sitting in the front seat during a traffic stop. This is addressed: > B. notwithstanding subsection A of this section, a person who is the subject of police contact may record the encounter if the person is not interfering with lawful police actions, including searching, handcuffing or administering a field sobriety test. The occupants of a vehicle that is the subject of a police stop may record the encounter if the occupants are not interfering with lawful police actions.
- jdblair 4y ago
  Oh good, my cynical take is incorrect!
- genocidicbunny 4y ago
  "If the occupants are not interfering with lawful police actions" is doing a lot of work in that text. How much you want to bet cops can find some excuse for why a recording passenger was interfering?

abetusk 4y ago

Most police interaction goes unobserved by a third party so, if I understand the bill correctly, at a minimum this means recording your own arrest is illegal. EDIT: It sounds like recording any interaction you have with a police officer is now illegal, if they're within 8ft of you.

gruez 4y ago
Based on the full text quoted by another commenter https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32047580 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32047580, this does not seem to be the case. Specifically: > > B. notwithstanding subsection A of this section, a person who is the subject of police contact may record the encounter if the person is not interfering with lawful police actions, including searching, handcuffing or administering a field sobriety test. The occupants of a vehicle that is the subject of a police stop may record the encounter if the occupants are not interfering with lawful police actions.
- abetusk 4y ago
  Well, at least that's good. Just as a note, most people record with their phones out and pointed at the subject they're recording. From watching many of these videos, police routinely ask people recording to put their phones away, even though they aren't interfering. It seems likely that police will use the excuse that the mere act of recording in this way is interfering and can be used to stop recording or to arrest the person recording.
- crooked-v 4y ago
  Of course, given qualified immunity, there's nothing to actually prevent cops from acting like they don't know that clause exists.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

b33j0r 4y ago

Seems the most common scenario would be documenting traffic stops. I would be within 8 feet of an officer in any seat of my car.

woodruffw 4y ago

> Is it just me or does 8-10 feet seem like an optimal distance to film from anyway? Who’s shooting productive videos from two feet away? "Productive" is not the relevant metric; "expedient" is. If I'm in a crowded subway car, I may not be able to move 10 feet away from the police officer who's harassing my fellow straphanger. Worse, if I were to move away, the commotion of the crowded car would likely drown out my cellphone's microphone.

mfer 4y ago
To add context (nothing more)... there is a call out for occupants of the same vehicle and what they can do (they can record as long as they are not also interfering).
- woodruffw 4y ago
  The carve-out is for "occupants of a vehicle that is the subject of a police stop." My right to record the police shouldn't rest on whether a state judge interprets a public bus or subway in that manner; it's a ridiculous hair to split. Another example: during a protest, the police might decide to kettle[1] a group of protestors to control them. As a bystander, I can be caught in the kettle. I'm not the target of the police action, and yet this law suggests that my recording might be criminal. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kettling