5 ms·

But what was the intention of the law? 8 feet seems close enough, you don't want people interfering with police work, just to film.

by tiku 4y ago

google234123 4y ago
Honestly, the law seemed redundant. There are already laws that cover this - just write a memo to the police telling them to enforce it more.
Fatnino 4y ago
The intention of the law is (was?) to equip cops with an invisible 16 foot diameter circle around them. This circle is to be used when one cop is misbehaving his partner walks towards any bystanders who happen to be filming and just has to brush this circle on them and then arrest the footage.
- zimpenfish 4y ago
  > his partner walks towards any bystanders who happen to be filming That wouldn't work - it only covered cops who were "actively involved". Getting your partner to move towards someone with a camera would mean they were no longer covered by that. Otherwise they could just station cops on 16ft grid and prevent any filming for 100s of ft. (Not that I am defending the law - it was clearly a spiteful protest at cop oversight.)
  - arcticbull 4y ago
    > That wouldn't work - it only covered cops who were "actively involved". Getting your partner to move towards someone with a camera would mean they were no longer covered by that. Otherwise they could just station cops on 16ft grid and prevent any filming for 100s of ft. If only there was footage to corroborate the partner's statement on the matter. Quip aside, I can think of a half dozen ways off the top of my head for a partner to get in the way while remaining actively involved. It's ok for the balance to tip in favor of the people once in a while.
    - zimpenfish 4y ago
      > I can think of a half dozen ways off the top of my head for a partner to get in the way while remaining actively involved. Sure but none of them are "walk towards the camera and the magic circle goes with them", right? Which is what a lot of people think is the "GOTCHA!" this law gives the cops.
      - jebronie 4y ago
        Wow, extremely naive. All laws will be abused by bad actors.
      - spoiler 4y ago
        Police officers are just people. There's always going to be people who abuse theirs power. Petty and malicious bullies revel in it a even. Unfortunately, the nature of the job attracts those people sometimes. I'm not trying to do the police as a career a disservice (which in general is a noble one, IMO), but they shown time and time again that they have plenty of bullies and bad apples (universally, not in any given place, but some places are worse). Edit: some other comments illustrate this better
    - sonotathrowaway 4y ago
      The idea that it won’t be used by a cops partner to arrest bystanders to prevent their filming is patently laughable, and verges on being a bad faith argument. It’s clearly the intent of the law, and the idea that it won’t be used for such is impossible to reach without motivated reasoning.
      - arcticbull 4y ago
        LAPD did exactly this last week, too... at an LAPD sponsored movie night. [1] I didn't even invent this situation de novo. I just happened to have seen this footage from a few different angles shortly before replying to this comment. I'm certainly not saying all police officers are bad actors - what I am saying is that there will always be bad actors. That is precisely why we have checks and balances for those with authority. It's pretty clear thanks to qualified immunity that some police in the US feel pretty, well, immune. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. That and ending qualified immunity. [1] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-09/a-teen-filmed-lapd-officers-arresting-his-friend-then-he-ended-up-in-handcuffs https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-09/a-teen-f...
  - boomboomsubban 4y ago
    I'm not sure where you're getting this from. The law says the officers need to be engaged in "police activity," defined broadly enough to include almost anything, but it says nothing about needing to be "actively involved." Arguably maintaining a perimeter would be part of "questioning a suspicious person" or "enforcing the law" and thus would count as "police activity" meaning you need to film 8 feet away. Here's the one page law https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf edit even easier, if this law was enacted, one officer could say to another "make sure those people filming are eight feet away." Then, to enforce the law they would need to approach the person filming to measure the distance but as they are engaged in enforcing the law that person needs to be eight feet away. Simple magic circle gotcha.
    - zimpenfish 4y ago
      > it says nothing about needing to be "actively involved." It specifically quotes "law enforcement activity" as "QUESTIONING A SUSPICIOUS PERSON", "CONDUCTING AN ARREST, ISSUING A SUMMONS OR ENFORCING THE LAW", or "HANDLING AN EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED OR DISORDERLY PERSON WHO IS EXHIBITING ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR". All of those are "actively involved". > as they are engaged in enforcing the law that person needs to be eight feet away I'm reasonably sure any court would consider the locus of action to be the first officer, not the second, and claims to the contrary would be dismissed. Probably why no-one is willing to defend the law from this injunction...
      - Cipater 4y ago
        >ENFORCING THE LAW You really don't see the problem here? That's incredibly broad and would cover anything and everything a policeman does.
        zimpenfish 4y ago
        > That's incredibly broad and would cover anything and everything a policeman does. It is broad, yes, but claiming that an officer making sure people were 8ft away is part of the same law enforcement procedure as the cops making an arrest (and thus people would have to be an extra 8ft away) almost certainly isn't going to stand up in court. Although we'll sadly never find out for sure because no-one is willing to defend it against the injunction. Maybe they'll have better luck on their 3rd go around.
  - boppo1 4y ago
    > That wouldn't work Cops don't always follow laws to the letter.
  - MisterSandman 4y ago
    This comment makes no sense, walking towards bystanders to stave them off is definitely "police work" and actively involved. And even if it isn't, you can just start arguing with the bystanders, and suddenly it is police work.
skhr0680 4y ago
They can ask you to stop filming, and you're free to say no, just like you are to any other civilian
- Bilal_io 4y ago
  They shouldn't have the right to ask you to stop filming. They're public servants with guns, they're intimidating. If they ask a citizen to stop filming, said citizen could interpret it as an order and assume that's the law.
Cthulhu_ 4y ago
I'm fairly sure interfering with police work is already covered by other laws and/or common sense. The cameras are there to keep the police honest; if they didn't want to be recorded or be made to wear body cams, they shouldn't have done things like plant drugs or kill people. I strongly feel like police who do that kind of thing should be tried as civilians, the police protecting their own is a big part of the issue.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  >police who do that kind of thing should be tried as civilians POLICE ARE CIVILIANS. They are not above the law, nor are they military members, or anything like that. They are bound by the same law as everyone else, no matter what they seem to want.
thehappypm 4y ago
it’s ridiculous stupid bullshit, that’s all. If you aren’t doing anything wrong, officers, why are you worried about being filmed?

But what was the intention of the law? 8 feet seems close enough, you don't want people interfering with police work, just to film.

by tiku 4y ago

But what was the intention of the law? 8 feet seems close enough, you don't want people interfering with police work, just to film.

google234123 4y ago

Honestly, the law seemed redundant. There are already laws that cover this - just write a memo to the police telling them to enforce it more.

Fatnino 4y ago

The intention of the law is (was?) to equip cops with an invisible 16 foot diameter circle around them. This circle is to be used when one cop is misbehaving his partner walks towards any bystanders who happen to be filming and just has to brush this circle on them and then arrest the footage.

zimpenfish 4y ago
> his partner walks towards any bystanders who happen to be filming That wouldn't work - it only covered cops who were "actively involved". Getting your partner to move towards someone with a camera would mean they were no longer covered by that. Otherwise they could just station cops on 16ft grid and prevent any filming for 100s of ft. (Not that I am defending the law - it was clearly a spiteful protest at cop oversight.)
- arcticbull 4y ago
  > That wouldn't work - it only covered cops who were "actively involved". Getting your partner to move towards someone with a camera would mean they were no longer covered by that. Otherwise they could just station cops on 16ft grid and prevent any filming for 100s of ft. If only there was footage to corroborate the partner's statement on the matter. Quip aside, I can think of a half dozen ways off the top of my head for a partner to get in the way while remaining actively involved. It's ok for the balance to tip in favor of the people once in a while.
  - zimpenfish 4y ago
    > I can think of a half dozen ways off the top of my head for a partner to get in the way while remaining actively involved. Sure but none of them are "walk towards the camera and the magic circle goes with them", right? Which is what a lot of people think is the "GOTCHA!" this law gives the cops.
    - jebronie 4y ago
      Wow, extremely naive. All laws will be abused by bad actors.
    - spoiler 4y ago
      Police officers are just people. There's always going to be people who abuse theirs power. Petty and malicious bullies revel in it a even. Unfortunately, the nature of the job attracts those people sometimes. I'm not trying to do the police as a career a disservice (which in general is a noble one, IMO), but they shown time and time again that they have plenty of bullies and bad apples (universally, not in any given place, but some places are worse). Edit: some other comments illustrate this better
  - sonotathrowaway 4y ago
    The idea that it won’t be used by a cops partner to arrest bystanders to prevent their filming is patently laughable, and verges on being a bad faith argument. It’s clearly the intent of the law, and the idea that it won’t be used for such is impossible to reach without motivated reasoning.
    - arcticbull 4y ago
      LAPD did exactly this last week, too... at an LAPD sponsored movie night. [1] I didn't even invent this situation de novo. I just happened to have seen this footage from a few different angles shortly before replying to this comment. I'm certainly not saying all police officers are bad actors - what I am saying is that there will always be bad actors. That is precisely why we have checks and balances for those with authority. It's pretty clear thanks to qualified immunity that some police in the US feel pretty, well, immune. Sunlight is the best disinfectant. That and ending qualified immunity. [1] https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-09/a-teen-filmed-lapd-officers-arresting-his-friend-then-he-ended-up-in-handcuffs https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2022-09-09/a-teen-f...
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  I'm not sure where you're getting this from. The law says the officers need to be engaged in "police activity," defined broadly enough to include almost anything, but it says nothing about needing to be "actively involved." Arguably maintaining a perimeter would be part of "questioning a suspicious person" or "enforcing the law" and thus would count as "police activity" meaning you need to film 8 feet away. Here's the one page law https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf edit even easier, if this law was enacted, one officer could say to another "make sure those people filming are eight feet away." Then, to enforce the law they would need to approach the person filming to measure the distance but as they are engaged in enforcing the law that person needs to be eight feet away. Simple magic circle gotcha.
  - zimpenfish 4y ago
    > it says nothing about needing to be "actively involved." It specifically quotes "law enforcement activity" as "QUESTIONING A SUSPICIOUS PERSON", "CONDUCTING AN ARREST, ISSUING A SUMMONS OR ENFORCING THE LAW", or "HANDLING AN EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED OR DISORDERLY PERSON WHO IS EXHIBITING ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR". All of those are "actively involved". > as they are engaged in enforcing the law that person needs to be eight feet away I'm reasonably sure any court would consider the locus of action to be the first officer, not the second, and claims to the contrary would be dismissed. Probably why no-one is willing to defend the law from this injunction...
    - Cipater 4y ago
      >ENFORCING THE LAW You really don't see the problem here? That's incredibly broad and would cover anything and everything a policeman does.
      - zimpenfish 4y ago
        > That's incredibly broad and would cover anything and everything a policeman does. It is broad, yes, but claiming that an officer making sure people were 8ft away is part of the same law enforcement procedure as the cops making an arrest (and thus people would have to be an extra 8ft away) almost certainly isn't going to stand up in court. Although we'll sadly never find out for sure because no-one is willing to defend it against the injunction. Maybe they'll have better luck on their 3rd go around.
- boppo1 4y ago
  > That wouldn't work Cops don't always follow laws to the letter.
- MisterSandman 4y ago
  This comment makes no sense, walking towards bystanders to stave them off is definitely "police work" and actively involved. And even if it isn't, you can just start arguing with the bystanders, and suddenly it is police work.

skhr0680 4y ago

They can ask you to stop filming, and you're free to say no, just like you are to any other civilian

Bilal_io 4y ago
They shouldn't have the right to ask you to stop filming. They're public servants with guns, they're intimidating. If they ask a citizen to stop filming, said citizen could interpret it as an order and assume that's the law.

Cthulhu_ 4y ago

I'm fairly sure interfering with police work is already covered by other laws and/or common sense. The cameras are there to keep the police honest; if they didn't want to be recorded or be made to wear body cams, they shouldn't have done things like plant drugs or kill people. I strongly feel like police who do that kind of thing should be tried as civilians, the police protecting their own is a big part of the issue.

mrguyorama 4y ago
>police who do that kind of thing should be tried as civilians POLICE ARE CIVILIANS. They are not above the law, nor are they military members, or anything like that. They are bound by the same law as everyone else, no matter what they seem to want.

thehappypm 4y ago

it’s ridiculous stupid bullshit, that’s all. If you aren’t doing anything wrong, officers, why are you worried about being filmed?