4 ms·

25 feet is actually pretty far. You could be on top of a two story building or across the street and still be "too close". Obviously neither of those cases woul

25 feet is actually pretty far. You could be on top of a two story building or across the street and still be "too close". Obviously neither of those cases would interfere with an officer's duties. To me this law is clearly overreaching, and seems intended to scare people off from trying to see what their "officers of the law" are doing.

yencabulator 2y ago
25 feet is a distance under which running at someone with a knife is a very dangerous attack. Decreasing the chances of that happening to the officer (while they're e.g. arresting someone else) is the purpose here.
- DaveExeter 2y ago
  No, the purpose of this is to discourage people from recording police.
  - yencabulator 2y ago
    Yeah clearly a defensive distance threshold that's been taught all over the world for decades is purely a coincidence, surely. Recording video at 25 feet is plenty good for evidence.
    - DaveExeter 2y ago
      You might be living in fantasy-land. In the real world, the police officer will arrest you for recording him, charging you with: 1) interfering with official duties. 2) Resisting arrest. 3) Felony assault on a police officer. Remember, in a criminal trial, you have to prove your innocence. How do you prove you did not do something that a police officer, testifying under oath in a court of law, says you did?
      - yencabulator 2y ago
        I mean, I am European, I'll give you that. So, if I have a constant video recording where the officer is clearly at a distance, wouldn't that be great for my defense? Much better than if that same video showed me walking right up to them, within touching distance, with the video not showing where my limbs are at all times. If you're worried about unlawful arrest, stay away from the cop and record them -- and if you do that, great, this law wouldn't affect you.
      - nyokodo 2y ago
        > in a criminal trial, you have to prove your innocence No you don’t, at least not in the USA. The state has to prove you’re guilty. Granted, I gather the word of an officer will usually trump an ordinary citizen, but that’s a great use case for the filming of Officers! It’s hard to prove interference with official duties when you’re quietly filming an officer from 25+ ft away.
  - trealira 2y ago
    Ostensibly, it's to prevent attacks, according to the author of the bill: “At 25 feet, that person can’t spit in my face when I’m making an arrest,” Fontenot said while presenting his bill in a committee earlier this year. “The chances of him hitting me in the back of the head with a beer bottle at 25 feet — it sure is a lot more difficult than if he’s sitting right here.” But it's very easy to see how it will also make it harder to record videos of the police. I bet that's at least part of the reason why they're doing it, even if they won't say so. (I assume that Fontenot is speaking in the first person because he's a former law enforcement officer.)
- everforward 2y ago
  So the operative theory is that someone willing to commit a very illegal assault on an officer is going to suddenly care about a minor charge for being too close to the officer? If that’s really the goal, Louisiana _really_ needs to work on their public education and maybe check the water for heavy metals and what not. That’s stupid on a level where I’m worried if they’re doing alright down there.
  - yencabulator 2y ago
    No, the theory is to change the average behavior to remove excuses for the bad people.
    - everforward 2y ago
      What excuses are they using, and how does the average behavior feed into that? That doesn't make any sense to me unless Louisiana has a very weird legal system that operates on the average behavior rather than a codified set of restrictions and exceptions to those restrictions (they don't). The law doesn't deal in excuses. If everyone decides to charge an officer, that doesn't suddenly make it legal. More importantly, these are tried by jury, so anyone that skates on an "excuse" doesn't have an excuse, they have the support of a jury of their peers who do not believe they are "bad people". This is just fascists who don't like their fascism being filmed. They're a lot like street gangs in that regard.
      - yencabulator 2y ago
        You're so set on a line of thinking you're not really considering anything outside of your viewpoint. If the average person, after being told so by the officer, stays 25 feet away, then that gives the officer a nice safety buffer to operate in. Anyone not following that rule now sticks out like a sore thumb. If there are multiple people crowding the officer, leaning over them as they are kneeling on the ground, it's really hard for the officer to remain safe in case one of them decides to attack.
        2y ago

yencabulator 2y ago

25 feet is a distance under which running at someone with a knife is a very dangerous attack. Decreasing the chances of that happening to the officer (while they're e.g. arresting someone else) is the purpose here.

DaveExeter 2y ago
No, the purpose of this is to discourage people from recording police.
- yencabulator 2y ago
  Yeah clearly a defensive distance threshold that's been taught all over the world for decades is purely a coincidence, surely. Recording video at 25 feet is plenty good for evidence.
  - DaveExeter 2y ago
    You might be living in fantasy-land. In the real world, the police officer will arrest you for recording him, charging you with: 1) interfering with official duties. 2) Resisting arrest. 3) Felony assault on a police officer. Remember, in a criminal trial, you have to prove your innocence. How do you prove you did not do something that a police officer, testifying under oath in a court of law, says you did?
    - yencabulator 2y ago
      I mean, I am European, I'll give you that. So, if I have a constant video recording where the officer is clearly at a distance, wouldn't that be great for my defense? Much better than if that same video showed me walking right up to them, within touching distance, with the video not showing where my limbs are at all times. If you're worried about unlawful arrest, stay away from the cop and record them -- and if you do that, great, this law wouldn't affect you.
    - nyokodo 2y ago
      > in a criminal trial, you have to prove your innocence No you don’t, at least not in the USA. The state has to prove you’re guilty. Granted, I gather the word of an officer will usually trump an ordinary citizen, but that’s a great use case for the filming of Officers! It’s hard to prove interference with official duties when you’re quietly filming an officer from 25+ ft away.
- trealira 2y ago
  Ostensibly, it's to prevent attacks, according to the author of the bill: “At 25 feet, that person can’t spit in my face when I’m making an arrest,” Fontenot said while presenting his bill in a committee earlier this year. “The chances of him hitting me in the back of the head with a beer bottle at 25 feet — it sure is a lot more difficult than if he’s sitting right here.” But it's very easy to see how it will also make it harder to record videos of the police. I bet that's at least part of the reason why they're doing it, even if they won't say so. (I assume that Fontenot is speaking in the first person because he's a former law enforcement officer.)
everforward 2y ago
So the operative theory is that someone willing to commit a very illegal assault on an officer is going to suddenly care about a minor charge for being too close to the officer? If that’s really the goal, Louisiana _really_ needs to work on their public education and maybe check the water for heavy metals and what not. That’s stupid on a level where I’m worried if they’re doing alright down there.
- yencabulator 2y ago
  No, the theory is to change the average behavior to remove excuses for the bad people.
  - everforward 2y ago
    What excuses are they using, and how does the average behavior feed into that? That doesn't make any sense to me unless Louisiana has a very weird legal system that operates on the average behavior rather than a codified set of restrictions and exceptions to those restrictions (they don't). The law doesn't deal in excuses. If everyone decides to charge an officer, that doesn't suddenly make it legal. More importantly, these are tried by jury, so anyone that skates on an "excuse" doesn't have an excuse, they have the support of a jury of their peers who do not believe they are "bad people". This is just fascists who don't like their fascism being filmed. They're a lot like street gangs in that regard.
    - yencabulator 2y ago
      You're so set on a line of thinking you're not really considering anything outside of your viewpoint. If the average person, after being told so by the officer, stays 25 feet away, then that gives the officer a nice safety buffer to operate in. Anyone not following that rule now sticks out like a sore thumb. If there are multiple people crowding the officer, leaning over them as they are kneeling on the ground, it's really hard for the officer to remain safe in case one of them decides to attack.
      - 2y ago