3 ms·

To get back on topic, I can see both sides of the spectrum on this. On the one hand, they will be dirty cops that use this to their advantage, but on the other

To get back on topic, I can see both sides of the spectrum on this. On the one hand, they will be dirty cops that use this to their advantage, but on the other hand, I see the possible scenarios of people getting too close and interfering with that particular job, maybe I'm not seeing this for what it is but I don't think it's a bad thing for having to be some distance away from a police situation. Being too close you run the risk of other people getting harmed and I feel like this article is a little bit biased.

thefurdrake 3y ago
25' is too far. It's far enough that phone cameras may miss finer details of an altercation, which is the intent. 10' would be more reasonable. You should really be considering what "being close to police officers means you risk getting harmed" being statistically-common enough that you bring it up actually says about what's going on.
- euniceee3 3y ago
  25' is fine if ALL officers involved have body cameras. Getting that footage should be as simple FOIL request. There needs to be a streamlined process for citizens to obtain footage as easy as it is to browse on Nextdoor. The problem is when you have a police line established that is 25' from the action and then have to move back another 25'.
  - iudqnolq 3y ago
    I thought this until I tried to actually watch and understand body cam footage. it's quite a lot harder to parse and misses quite a bit that cell phone cameras capture. there's also an interesting argument that by always showing the officers' perspective it will make people more likely to empathize with them. I'm not sure exactly why bodycam footage is so much worse. I think part of it might have to do with the odd height it's placed at.
    - sidewndr46 3y ago
      I've watched lots of body cam footage as well. One interesting aspect is that apparently multiple departments allow officers to turn the camera off at will.
      - ceejayoz 3y ago
        In theory, it's intended for things like officers going to the bathroom, or when interviewing witnesses who don't want to be on camera due to concerns about retalliation or discussing sensitive stuff like a rape. In practice, it's often used less... wholesomely, as you'd expect.
    - lesuorac 3y ago
      > I'm not sure exactly why bodycam footage is so much worse. I think part of it might have to do with the odd height it's placed at. Its the lack of any stabilization. If you twist your body a tiny bit then the focus of the camera moves drastically; this differs from when you're holding a camera far from our body using your arms. When you move your body your arms will counter-act that and the video won't jump as much.
  - thefurdrake 3y ago
    Police camera footage should definitely, 100%, be public record the moment it's taken, I agree. Part of the problem isn't actually refusal to cooperate on the part of police orgs, though. I happen to know second-hand that the companies operating the cameras provide abysmal and overcomplex, failure-prone software and hardware, and storing all that camera footage in a way that is quickly accessible to the public would approach Youtube levels of footprint/operational costs... It's complex, and police orgs, in addition to being resistant to change, are also not exactly known for their technical acumen.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      It's a bit odd that exculpatory bodycam footage tends to be a lot faster to be able to get through that abysmal and overcomplex, failure-prone process.
      - thefurdrake 3y ago
        Maybe. All I know is the software sucks.
eesmith 3y ago
That is not the other side to the argument. What you describe is already a crime. Police officers already have the legal authority to compel people to move away if they are obstructing an investigation. For example, from California at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=148 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio.... > 148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. The argument, plainly stated in the article, is that the police don't want to be filmed by people who don't like police: > These laws take their cue not only from the anti-protest and police protection laws but from a 2022 Arizona law making it a crime to film the police from 8 feet or closer. That law’s sponsor, then–state Rep. John Kavanagh (a former police officer), was frank about his intentions. “There are groups hostile to the police that follow them around to videotape police incidents,” he declared. The new law would put a stop to this nuisance. and simple filming is not obstruction. Again, from the article: > “Cops have long tried claiming that [filming them] obstructs their ability to do their job,” observes First Amendment lawyer Ari Cohn. “Now that this argument failed, they are … transparently trying to create a safe space from observation.” The new laws are nothing but “a targeted assault on First Amendment activity.”
nh23423fefe 3y ago
[flagged]

thefurdrake 3y ago

25' is too far. It's far enough that phone cameras may miss finer details of an altercation, which is the intent. 10' would be more reasonable. You should really be considering what "being close to police officers means you risk getting harmed" being statistically-common enough that you bring it up actually says about what's going on.

euniceee3 3y ago
25' is fine if ALL officers involved have body cameras. Getting that footage should be as simple FOIL request. There needs to be a streamlined process for citizens to obtain footage as easy as it is to browse on Nextdoor. The problem is when you have a police line established that is 25' from the action and then have to move back another 25'.
- iudqnolq 3y ago
  I thought this until I tried to actually watch and understand body cam footage. it's quite a lot harder to parse and misses quite a bit that cell phone cameras capture. there's also an interesting argument that by always showing the officers' perspective it will make people more likely to empathize with them. I'm not sure exactly why bodycam footage is so much worse. I think part of it might have to do with the odd height it's placed at.
  - sidewndr46 3y ago
    I've watched lots of body cam footage as well. One interesting aspect is that apparently multiple departments allow officers to turn the camera off at will.
    - ceejayoz 3y ago
      In theory, it's intended for things like officers going to the bathroom, or when interviewing witnesses who don't want to be on camera due to concerns about retalliation or discussing sensitive stuff like a rape. In practice, it's often used less... wholesomely, as you'd expect.
  - lesuorac 3y ago
    > I'm not sure exactly why bodycam footage is so much worse. I think part of it might have to do with the odd height it's placed at. Its the lack of any stabilization. If you twist your body a tiny bit then the focus of the camera moves drastically; this differs from when you're holding a camera far from our body using your arms. When you move your body your arms will counter-act that and the video won't jump as much.
- thefurdrake 3y ago
  Police camera footage should definitely, 100%, be public record the moment it's taken, I agree. Part of the problem isn't actually refusal to cooperate on the part of police orgs, though. I happen to know second-hand that the companies operating the cameras provide abysmal and overcomplex, failure-prone software and hardware, and storing all that camera footage in a way that is quickly accessible to the public would approach Youtube levels of footprint/operational costs... It's complex, and police orgs, in addition to being resistant to change, are also not exactly known for their technical acumen.
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    It's a bit odd that exculpatory bodycam footage tends to be a lot faster to be able to get through that abysmal and overcomplex, failure-prone process.
    - thefurdrake 3y ago
      Maybe. All I know is the software sucks.

eesmith 3y ago

That is not the other side to the argument. What you describe is already a crime. Police officers already have the legal authority to compel people to move away if they are obstructing an investigation. For example, from California at https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=PEN&sectionNum=148 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio.... > 148. (a) (1) Every person who willfully resists, delays, or obstructs any public officer, peace officer, or an emergency medical technician, as defined in Division 2.5 (commencing with Section 1797) of the Health and Safety Code, in the discharge or attempt to discharge any duty of his or her office or employment, when no other punishment is prescribed, shall be punished by a fine not exceeding one thousand dollars ($1,000), or by imprisonment in a county jail not to exceed one year, or by both that fine and imprisonment. The argument, plainly stated in the article, is that the police don't want to be filmed by people who don't like police: > These laws take their cue not only from the anti-protest and police protection laws but from a 2022 Arizona law making it a crime to film the police from 8 feet or closer. That law’s sponsor, then–state Rep. John Kavanagh (a former police officer), was frank about his intentions. “There are groups hostile to the police that follow them around to videotape police incidents,” he declared. The new law would put a stop to this nuisance. and simple filming is not obstruction. Again, from the article: > “Cops have long tried claiming that [filming them] obstructs their ability to do their job,” observes First Amendment lawyer Ari Cohn. “Now that this argument failed, they are … transparently trying to create a safe space from observation.” The new laws are nothing but “a targeted assault on First Amendment activity.”

nh23423fefe 3y ago

[flagged]