4 ms·

10-25 feet seems reasonable with 25 being the upper bound of reasonability. The average person can move 9-12ft/s in a single direction; starting speed would be

by kodah 3y ago

10-25 feet seems reasonable with 25 being the upper bound of reasonability. The average person can move 9-12ft/s in a single direction; starting speed would be slower so generous is 5-6ft/s. 2 seconds worth of distance sounds reasonable to keep everyone safe. As others have pointed out the issue likely isn't the distance. It's that police can enforce their own measures here without accountability.

mitt_romney_12 3y ago
The issue is also the distance, because it makes it harder to get accurate footage of what's going on
- kodah 3y ago
  How do you account for the safety and liability of near proximity parties?
autoexec 3y ago
10-25 feet isn't reasonable for a no-filming police abuses zone. It can make it crime for someone who is handcuffed and being beaten by police to record what happened to them. These laws don't make interfering with police a crime, it only makes filming them illegal.
- kodah 3y ago
  > 10-25 feet isn't reasonable for a no-filming police abuses zone. It can make it crime for someone who is handcuffed and being beaten by police from recording them. Has that actually been interpreted by a court in that way or are you proposing a hypothetical? Your interpretation makes all dashcams illegal, which makes many Tesla and Toyota cars illegal. The way I interpreted it was that people who are not part of a scene need to maintain some distance for safety. --- The legality of filming police is thorny. For instance, a number of states passed laws after LivePD became a thing that barred the filming of traffic stops. That, however, contradicts the abilities of citizen journalists to document traffic stops and interactions. Personally speaking, I don't want to be filmed during a traffic stop unless its my own footage. When I was arrested and went to jail the police posted my mug shot to every local paper and crime reporting website. It took quite a long time to scrub the internet of all of that once charges were dropped. Footage would be much worse because at one point after my head was driven into the ground I was sobbing. My instance also involved the police roughing me up because they perceived me to be "strong".
  - autoexec 3y ago
    These laws have nothing to do with safety. They are only about making it illegal to film police abuses. Here's the law in AZ https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf Note the words "IF THE PERSON IS NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS" We've seen example after example of police screaming "stop resisting" while they beat someone who is handcuffed and/or unconscious. By "resisting", those people were "interfering with lawful police actions". They might not have been guilty of anything before the police started beating them, but under this law if they were recording any of it they'd be criminals.
    - kodah 3y ago
      Again, the problem seems to be who the arbiter of safety is. The police being the arbiter seems to be the problem. I don't think we disagree much. That bill carves out reasonable exemptions that become unreasonable when the police are the interpreters.

by kodah 3y ago

mitt_romney_12 3y ago

The issue is also the distance, because it makes it harder to get accurate footage of what's going on

kodah 3y ago
How do you account for the safety and liability of near proximity parties?

autoexec 3y ago

10-25 feet isn't reasonable for a no-filming police abuses zone. It can make it crime for someone who is handcuffed and being beaten by police to record what happened to them. These laws don't make interfering with police a crime, it only makes filming them illegal.

kodah 3y ago
> 10-25 feet isn't reasonable for a no-filming police abuses zone. It can make it crime for someone who is handcuffed and being beaten by police from recording them. Has that actually been interpreted by a court in that way or are you proposing a hypothetical? Your interpretation makes all dashcams illegal, which makes many Tesla and Toyota cars illegal. The way I interpreted it was that people who are not part of a scene need to maintain some distance for safety. --- The legality of filming police is thorny. For instance, a number of states passed laws after LivePD became a thing that barred the filming of traffic stops. That, however, contradicts the abilities of citizen journalists to document traffic stops and interactions. Personally speaking, I don't want to be filmed during a traffic stop unless its my own footage. When I was arrested and went to jail the police posted my mug shot to every local paper and crime reporting website. It took quite a long time to scrub the internet of all of that once charges were dropped. Footage would be much worse because at one point after my head was driven into the ground I was sobbing. My instance also involved the police roughing me up because they perceived me to be "strong".
- autoexec 3y ago
  These laws have nothing to do with safety. They are only about making it illegal to film police abuses. Here's the law in AZ https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf Note the words "IF THE PERSON IS NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS" We've seen example after example of police screaming "stop resisting" while they beat someone who is handcuffed and/or unconscious. By "resisting", those people were "interfering with lawful police actions". They might not have been guilty of anything before the police started beating them, but under this law if they were recording any of it they'd be criminals.
  - kodah 3y ago
    Again, the problem seems to be who the arbiter of safety is. The police being the arbiter seems to be the problem. I don't think we disagree much. That bill carves out reasonable exemptions that become unreasonable when the police are the interpreters.