4 ms·
> This isn't an either/or scenario. Right, it's already illegal to interfere with police.
by heavyset_go 3y ago
> This isn't an either/or scenario.
Right, it's already illegal to interfere with police.
- ethbr1 3y agoIf I'm on the ground and an officer is yelling at me, I do not want other people even within that officer's bubble of space. It's unreasonably escalatory in situations that instead need more calm.
- Clubber 3y ago>If I'm on the ground and an officer is yelling at me, I do not want other people even within that officer's bubble of space. If you're in that position, particularly for something as simple as he took something you said the wrong way, the cameras might keep the officer from going overboard too.
- ethbr1 3y agoOh, always-on cameras are a 100% prerequisite solution. The presumption needs to be that if a body camera is ever off, the worst thing happened while it was. Along with ensuring that hardware reliability and UX clearly communicates camera functioning to officers. (I'm not young enough to still assume widely-deployed tech, procured by the government, in real world scenarios is always functional)
- lazyasciiart 3y agoYou don’t want more than one person to be close enough to notice if you’re still breathing?
- parineum 3y agoThere are a lot of laws passed to clarify or elaborate on existing laws. Unless there's common law that already specifies this exact scenario, this just specifies a specific case for judges, citizens and first responders.
- smolder 3y agoI get the impression this law exists more for political reasons than for practical application --not that it won't be applied. Floridian voters seem to like the police but hate taxes. Granting powers to the police to help them harass "undesirables" without any added cost is the kind of law they get excited for.