[HN Gopher] Arizona moves to ban recording video of police
___________________________________________________________________
Arizona moves to ban recording video of police
Author : Eddy_Viscosity2
Score : 206 points
Date : 2022-03-19 20:28 UTC (2 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.fox10phoenix.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.fox10phoenix.com)
| ffhhj wrote:
| Recording at 8 feet with halogen lamp to the face and pole
| microphone, ok sir?
| encryptluks2 wrote:
| kgwxd wrote:
| Why is video even mentioned? Either it's safe to be within 8 ft
| or it isn't, regardless if they're recording or not. By making it
| about video, your actual motive is crystal clear.
| morsch wrote:
| This is an issue in Germany, as well. People are prosecuted for
| recording police interactions regularly; sometimes they get away
| with it, sometimes they don't. As far as I know, there are no
| laws specific to recording the police, it's based on laws that
| apply to recording private conversations and taking/publishing
| pictures without consent.
|
| https://www-deutschlandfunk-de.translate.goog/fotos-und-vide...
| FpUser wrote:
| Crooks
| sofixa wrote:
| Such laws are great, but there should be explicit exceptions
| for public servants on duty such as police.
| insickness wrote:
| In the U.S., the law is delineated where there is "an
| expectation of privacy." In other words, you can record
| anyone anywhere in public, but you can't record in a bathroom
| or dressing room. Police officers should not have an
| "expectation of privacy." Interestingly enough, you can
| record through the windows of someone in their house, the
| courts have determined.
| tormock wrote:
| I was just watching a video of about 6 officers killing/pinning
| down someone and that happened about 2 months before George
| Floyd's story: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybWJe6G5guc (no-
| one got charged even if it was caught on video (and not that it
| matters, but the victim was white)) ... I have see a lot worst
| before but not when that many officers were involved.
| [deleted]
| kingcharles wrote:
| Only a prosecutor can bring charges against the police. How do
| you think the prosecutor's office is going to get cases if it
| antagonizes the police that supply them?
| Buttons840 wrote:
| We should have another elected official responsible for
| bringing charges against police, separate from the
| prosecutors.
| worik wrote:
| We have that in Aotearoa. I thing England does too.
|
| It is a help, better than the police investigating
| themselves.
|
| But class issues really come into play. The investigators
| are all lawyers and have never lived the sort of life where
| they are bullied by the police, and they have no idea of
| the dynamics.
|
| We can always do better, in this case we are doing better
| than we were but it is still quite bad
| jjtheblunt wrote:
| in the US that's the District Attorney or Attorney General,
| i think, but forget which is which.
| geoduck14 wrote:
| The police don't support the DA
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| I don't know what meaning "support" is carrying here so
| it's hard to mount a clear defense.
|
| But they work closely together, and each's work depends, to
| some extent, on the other. So they each have certain
| incentives, which lead them to generally act in certain
| ways towards each other.
|
| I am comfortable calling that support? Could you suggest
| another concise, easily understood alternative term, if you
| have one in mind?
| daenz wrote:
| >(and not that it matters, but the victim was white)
|
| If BLM wanted to add legitimacy to their cause, especially to
| those on the fence, they would raise awareness to these non-
| black deaths in the same way that they do when it's black
| deaths. Standing against unjustified police violence against
| _any_ person is not at all against the "black lives matter"
| premise. In fact, speaking up about it would help people relate
| to their cause. But, for one reason or another, they seem to
| stay relatively silent.
| heavyset_go wrote:
| I recall when the Daniel Shaver murder happened, a lot of the
| same people who now criticize BLM were criticizing Shaver for
| not listening to the police, or saying he deserved what
| happened to him, and objected to the idea of police brutality
| existing at all.
| daenz wrote:
| Wrt Daniel Shaver, from my experience, most people that I
| know just didn't care very much. It's sad, it shouldn't
| have gone down like that (much like many other instances),
| but at the end of the day, there's only so much emotional
| bandwidth to spend, and it can't all be allocated on
| everything at the same time.
| seizethegdgap wrote:
| https://blavity.com/blm-activists-call-attention-to-
| graphic-...
|
| https://www.nola.com/opinions/article_4f6138fe-
| ea8c-551b-9e6...
|
| https://www.12news.com/article/news/local/valley/mesa-
| rally-...
| daenz wrote:
| I carefully chose the words "relatively silent." As in,
| relative to when the victim is black. I don't see how
| anyone can argue that it's anywhere near the same level of
| intensity for non-black vs black.
| jjulius wrote:
| Huh, it's really weird that a group focused on
| eradicating systemic racism would choose to highlight the
| racist moments. How strange.
| daenz wrote:
| Yes, to their own disadvantage. My argument is that they
| would persuade many more people to their cause. Is your
| argument that they shouldn't do that, or that you don't
| think it would work?
| wpietri wrote:
| If you think you can do better than the activists for a
| given cause, I suggest you get out there and do it so we
| can see the superiority of your position. Otherwise, I
| think it's basically the same as armchair quarterbacking:
| people who have less expertise and no stake acting as if
| they know better than the people deeply involved in the
| problem.
| daenz wrote:
| We're having a discussion, and I asked a fairly direct
| question. If your response is to stop the discussion
| because you think no one is qualified here to discuss it,
| then you are welcome to not participate.
| jsnodlin wrote:
| gutitout wrote:
| "But, for one reason or another, they seem to stay relatively
| silent."
|
| The one reason is they, are not black.
| daenz wrote:
| Should my conclusion be that the reasons for unjustified
| police violence against blacks and the reasons for
| unjustified police violence against non-blacks have no
| overlap, and should therefore only be addressed by an
| identity-oriented organization for each race?
| [deleted]
| sixothree wrote:
| Just because you haven't bothered to pay attention doesn't
| mean it isn't happening.
|
| Consider this whenever you claim "someone" isn't doing
| something. They very well might be and you look stupid when
| you are shown otherwise.
| [deleted]
| daenz wrote:
| I chose my words carefully to say, not that it "isn't
| happening", but that it isn't happening at anywhere near
| the same level. If you're going to suggest that I "look
| stupid", please accurately represent the argument that I
| "look stupid" about.
| markdown wrote:
| > If BLM wanted to add legitimacy to their cause
|
| The cause isn't "stop police violence", it's stop systemic
| racism within the police forces of the USA. Police violence
| disproportionally affecting black people is a symptom of that
| systemic racism.
| worik wrote:
| True.
|
| And systematic racism is a symptom of the cruel bigotry and
| prejudice throughout society.
|
| Anti racism campaigners are doing work for all of us who
| find our selves on the outside of the right side.
|
| Edit: I do not live in the USA. I do not have an experience
| of racism there. I might be missing something
| tzs wrote:
| Would you make a similar argument to people trying to raise
| awareness of and research funding for breast cancer? Should
| they be talking about heart disease too? Just trying for a
| general increase in research funding for all diseases?
|
| I do agree that BLM made a mistake though--they should have
| called it "Black Lives Matter, Too". That would have made it
| clearer what they are going for.
| worik wrote:
| All lives will matter when black lives matter.
|
| That is what it means. To any body not either racist or on
| the autistic spectrum and very pedantic, it is obvious that
| is what it means.
| unfocussed_mike wrote:
| It's so painful to have to say this again and again, and
| I am glad of anyone who does.
| sfdh789 wrote:
| californical wrote:
| Wow, truly incredible and sad.
| juanani wrote:
| barnabee wrote:
| There can be no justification for this.
| [deleted]
| fredgrott wrote:
| obviously they had a problem reading the US Constitution
| nwienert wrote:
| For some context not in this thread yet, I'm sure this is being
| driven in part by cop watchers like James Freeman who are really
| doing God's work by bringing attention to rampant corruption of
| police against recording.
|
| Highly recommend watching a few of his videos, here's a mix of
| his run ins with Tucson police:
| https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLEHv5tmOgVtXPiKPLK1cCp8An...
|
| Those saying "8 feet seems reasonable" haven't thought through
| this _at all_. Watching James' videos the cops are constantly
| trying to push him, crowd him and generally do anything in (and
| out) of their power to try and shut him down. With a rule like
| this they would absolutely abuse it by just having one officer
| move forward into your space even if you back away. You
| absolutely cannot give them leeway like this, if you don't
| believe me watch some of the videos. It's really eye opening what
| they try and get away with.
| jawns wrote:
| Sean Paul Reyes of the YouTube channel Long Island Audit is
| another good example. He has multiple videos of himself
| engaging in constitutionally protected activity, but police
| officers routinely harass him and in some cases get physical.
| In one recent case in Connecticut, he was assaulted and had his
| phone thrown by an officer who lost his temper, and no other
| officer intervened.
| tgb wrote:
| I'm shocked at the support for this here. It doesn't matter that
| it only applies to within 8 feet and if it's an interaction with
| someone else. No one should have to know a law about whether they
| can record police or not. What are you going to do, look up the
| law when an officer tells you to stop recording? Remember if you
| refuse it's a 30 day jail time you could be facing. Want to take
| bets on whether the officer is lying or you misremembered the
| allowed distance and conditions? What if a second police officer
| then approaches you, do they get to box you out by just standing
| there? There's no reason this can't be handled by generic laws
| for not interfering with police that I'm sure already exist. It's
| either pointlessly redundant or will be abused.
| dylan604 wrote:
| New app idea to pitch: have the camera app overlay the distance
| using the lidar system.
| [deleted]
| kodah wrote:
| The argumentation you're using can pretty much apply to any
| mature legal system. Usually when this is argued it's in the
| form of an old Bloomberg opinion piece, "70% of people have
| done something worthy of jail time and didn't even know it" [1]
| All that to say, that bit of reasoning is probably more apt for
| a different discussion.
|
| I don't really have an opinion as to whether it's ethical or
| not ethical to video a traffic stop. It does kind of sound like
| lighting a match when soaked in gasoline though.
|
| 1: https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2014/dec/08/stephen-
| ca...
| tgb wrote:
| I don't see that as relevant to my points. My main point is
| that an officer can easily abuse this law due to asymmetric
| information/outcome despite the limits in the text. The
| officers that would do this are exactly the ones that need to
| be recorded.
| kodah wrote:
| True, sorry I didn't get to that point. That point is
| nothing new about police. Ever seen cops stack charges on
| someone? They write a long list of micro-grievances that
| you have committed and make you answer for them
| individually. The system rests on this idea that no one is
| harmed by charging someone with a crime, and that it is a
| DAs job to determine whether or not a crime has been
| committed.
|
| The reality is that DAs rarely drop charges when they
| should (or don't enough, take your pick) and merely
| charging someone with a crime has lots of legal and extra-
| legal consequences. It's a shit system, imo, but depending
| on the situation people are in they either love or hate
| this system. If you are an agrieved party, then you likely
| like this system because it's laced for vengeance and
| action, while if you're trying to make a case that you
| didn't violate the law or even _know_ that something was a
| law it 's like walking uphill in a foot of mud.
| ctoth wrote:
| > I don't really have an opinion as to whether it's ethical
| or not ethical to video a traffic stop. It does kind of sound
| like lighting a match when soaked in gasoline though.
|
| What? Under what possible interpretation of ethics might it
| not be ethical to video tape a public official interacting
| with a citizen? This just doesn't even make sense as a
| sentence to me. Segmentation fault (core dumped)
| kodah wrote:
| I could see it not being ethical if a person is being
| provocative. If it's just a dash-mounted camera or one
| pinned to the person's body (like a cops) that seems
| perfectly ethical.
| ctoth wrote:
| Then the provocative behavior is potentially unethical,
| not the recording? Seems like a very important
| distinction to make.
| kodah wrote:
| Yeah, could be, though I think the two in combination
| probably makes for a force multiplier.
| judge2020 wrote:
| > The original proposal from Rep. John Kavanagh made it illegal
| to record within 15 feet of an officer interacting with someone
| unless the officer gave permission. The revised bill was approved
| on a 31-28 party-line vote Feb. 23 and lowers the distance to 8
| feet.
|
| And the exception for recording when in a car:
|
| > It also now allows someone who is in a car stopped by police or
| is being questioned to tape the encounter and limits the scope of
| the types of police actions that trigger the law to only those
| that are possibly dangerous.
| ethbr0 wrote:
| 8' seems pretty reasonable.
|
| Are there circumstances where you would have a valid interest
| in filming from closer than 8'?
|
| This feels like a response to someone shoving a phone in an
| officer's face and claiming they're protected by the First
| Amendment. Which... seems unreasonable.
|
| There's a clear public safety interest (both to the officer's
| own person, and to anyone the officer is interacting with, by
| not distracting anyone and/or increasing tension in the
| situation) and the public's right to record seems unimpinged by
| an 8' limit.
|
| But this is from someone recently of Georgia, where we had
| people on both sides of the election fiasco harassing people
| while claiming journalistic protections.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| > limits the scope of the types of police actions that trigger
| the law to only those that are possibly dangerous.
|
| And that means the entire law will be applied at will, by the
| sole discretion of the officer involved. It's the same nonsense
| they've used for decades to harass anyone they claim "smelled
| like marijuana".
| [deleted]
| mwt wrote:
| I'm always weary of "legislator/body proposes <thing that seems
| obviously bad>" headlines since many politicians fundraise via
| grandstanding bills that are DOA. This passed the house, though,
| so it's not that sort of thing. And it passed by a party line
| vote, so with one party having a majority of the senate and
| governorship, I guess it's going to become law?
| [deleted]
| hirundo wrote:
| "The original proposal from Rep. John Kavanagh made it illegal to
| record within 15 feet of an officer interacting with someone
| unless the officer gave permission. The revised bill was approved
| on a 31-28 party-line vote Feb. 23 and lowers the distance to 8
| feet."
|
| Requiring an eight-foot filming bubble around a working cop seems
| reasonable in terms of not disrupting their job, and unlikely to
| trigger a federal first amendment slapdown. With a modern phone
| you can capture all of the detail that's typically needed at that
| distance.
|
| I'm a first amendment absolutist to most people, and this bothers
| me little.
| avs733 wrote:
| > seems reasonable
|
| which is exactly the goal...something that _seems reasonable_
| while enabling abuse.
| TeaDrunk wrote:
| Scenario: A policeman is performing brutality on someone while
| multiple peers observe. Those peers approach anyone recording,
| such that it forces anyone recording to traverse further and
| further away. (And if those people stand their ground, cops are
| now able to arrest them for being within 8 feet.) What then?
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >Requiring an eight-foot filming bubble around a working cop
| seems reasonable in terms of not disrupting their work, and
| unlikely to trigger a federal first amendment slapdown.
|
| Nonsense. There's already a ton of laws on the books about not
| impeding emergency services in public. This would do nothing
| but give cops carte blanche to arrest anyone with a camera.
| seanw444 wrote:
| I think leaving the law at "don't interfere with the police
| during their job" is good enough. Making static rules like this
| is normally a bad idea. And we won't know why until there's a
| scenario where we regret passing it.
| Taylor_OD wrote:
| Right. Something that comes to mind is is multiple cops
| arrive and make a perimeter they can continue to move people
| back and say they have to be 8 feet away from THEM which
| could make the cop in question many many more feet away.
|
| It's easy to see how this will be abused. The existing law
| seems to be working well.
| avs733 wrote:
| >I think leaving the law at "don't interfere with the police
| during their job" is good enough.
|
| Those already exist, of course, including[0]:
|
| * Failure to comply with police officer; classification
|
| * Refusing to Aid a Peace Officer
|
| * Obstructing Criminal Investigations of Prosecutions
|
| * Refusing to provide truthful name when lawfully detained
|
| * Impersonating a public servant
|
| * Obstructing a highway or other public thoroughfare
|
| No matter how reasonable the law may read on its face, the
| clear goal is empowering more police abuse and less
| oversight. The history of police conduct in arizona makes
| this readily apparent.[e.g., 1]
|
| [0] https://www.jacksonwhitelaw.com/criminal-defense-
| law/obstruc...
|
| [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/08/31/actor-
| steve...
| insickness wrote:
| The problem is when officers construe filming video as
| interfering with their job. I wonder if this law would
| paradoxically enshrine the right to film officers anywhere
| outside of 8 feet.
| jyounker wrote:
| Note that this makes it impossible to film a police officer
| while they are confronting you.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| It's always better to go directly to the source, rather than
| rely on someone else's summary of something as a source for
| analysis. Your concern is addressed in the actual text:
|
| https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/summary/H.HB2319_0223.
| ..
|
| > Provision 4: Provides that a person who is the subject of
| the police contact may make a recording if doing so does not
| interfere with lawful police actions. (Sec. 1)
| jyounker wrote:
| Yeah, I actually did that, and just came back to delete my
| comment, but you've already replied, so I can't any more :)
| gorbachev wrote:
| That is statement is going to be used quite often by cops.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| The officer has taken your phone.
|
| Or knocked it to the ground while you were "resisting".
|
| Or you are handcuffed.
|
| Or there are multiple officers but your phone only points
| in one direction at a time.
|
| The officers own body cams are on while _they_ are within 8
| feet of _you_.
|
| There is no way to make this valid. The supposed rationale
| falls apart under any scrutiny at all.
| jyounker wrote:
| I take back what I said. It doesn't actually address my
| concern.
|
| All the officer has to say is that your filming was
| interfering with their actions, and then they'll slap that
| charge on you and confiscate your phone, possibly combining
| with resisting arrest. Also, the worse the officer's
| transgression is, the more likely that your phone will be
| "accidentally damaged".
|
| Even if the officer's claim is bullshit, the cost of
| defending against their bullshit is going to be infeasible
| for many.
| worik wrote:
| Also, if you are not a hardened criminal, getting
| arrested is a shocking event, and the support of friends
| with video cameras can make the difference. Literally, if
| not often, life and death.
| worik wrote:
| Reading between the lines the purpose of the bill is not to
| make police jobs easier by keeping clear space around them.
|
| IMO the purpose is to remind the plebeians exactly what's what
| and what their position in society is.
| ajju wrote:
| I think such a law would clearly violate the first amendment.
|
| https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/1/23/21078810/kansas...
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Right. It won't survive a lawsuit.
| humanistbot wrote:
| But it will have a chilling effect while the court system
| works its way to the case, and even after it (hopefully) gets
| overturned.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| I doubt it. You'll never stop people from making cell phone
| videos.
| worik wrote:
| The chilling effect is reminding the victims of the
| police that they have no friends in the establishment,
| surely?
| dymk wrote:
| The law not surviving the court system would be contrary
| to that.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| hey quick question when a law goes away what do you think
| happens to all the people in prison for violating that
| law
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| > Kavanagh's bill makes a violation a petty offense, the
| lowest-level Arizona crime that can bring a fine but no
| jail time. Refusing to stop recording when an officer
| orders it would be a low-level misdemeanor subject to a
| 30-day jail sentence.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| It can still do a lot of damage. Arrest and exposure to the
| criminal legal system carries heavy costs and risks for very
| many people. Those things aren't undone when, years later, it
| gets declared unconstitutional because someone else's case
| finally made it through the process.
| x86_64Ubuntu wrote:
| Yes, but in the meantime, the cops are allowed to beat,
| detain and arrest you. While your case rises to a right-wing
| packed SCOTUS, you will most likely lose your job, have
| issues with any kind of clearance (resisting arrest can be a
| felony depending on circumstances), face difficulties during
| any custody battle and possibly be incarcerated. Then if the
| courts rule in your favor, you receive nothing except your
| world reduced to ashes. In the US justice system, the process
| is the punishment.
| jjulius wrote:
| This entire hypothetical assumes the law remains in place
| as the lawsuit works it's way through the system.
| treeman79 wrote:
| So you would like limits on police and state power? Well
| that's a right wing goal.
| woodruffw wrote:
| I don't think you'll be able to successfully draw a
| disjoint "left wing" or "right wing" circle around people
| who want there to be limits to the police and/or state's
| authority. It's more or less a universally held position
| in liberal democracies.
| mindslight wrote:
| Neither directional wing gets to claim ownership of that
| goal. Grassroots "left" and grassroots "right" both
| desire limits on government power. The professional
| parties both give the goal some acknowledgement, and then
| turn around and herd people into their sponsors' top-down
| authoritarian policies. When you make statements like the
| above, all you're essentially doing is attacking the
| other tribe based on their entrenched politicians while
| giving your tribe a pass based on its grassroots. In
| actuality, if you want reform you need to do the exact
| opposite and focus on criticizing your own tribe.
| woodruffw wrote:
| A longstanding political technique in the US is to pass
| patently unconstitutional laws and then ignore their
| enforcement. This accomplishes both goals: it scares citizens
| into changing their behavior (in this case, not recording
| police abuses), and it keeps the lawsuits away (the current
| standard for legal standing in the US requires demonstrable or
| imminent harm, which doesn't exist in the absence of
| enforcement).
|
| That technique is unlikely to succeed in this particular case
| (since the 1A standard for harm is much lower), but it's worth
| noting.
| tyronehed wrote:
| I will be curious to see on what grounds the current right-
| falling-over court will justify this abomination against the
| First Amendment.
| n8ta wrote:
| Self incrimination??? Not being able to present evidence of
| your innocence is not the same as being forced to present
| evidence of your guilt.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| I'll take "hilarious conservative bullshit that will be tossed
| out in the first court case" for $500, Alex.
| GoOnThenDoTell wrote:
| Maybe its time to get the sunglasses with cameras in them :/
| hprotagonist wrote:
| https://slate.com/technology/2018/12/right-to-record-police-...
|
| well, good luck.
| google234123 wrote:
| Nice job reading the article /s
| [deleted]
| SN76477 wrote:
| Who watches the watchmen?
| m-p-3 wrote:
| A Ring doorbell.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| You're allowed to record your own interaction.
|
| Cue the totally random inexplicable wave of phones accedentally
| knocked out of hands in scuffles or confiscated for examination
| or plain handcuffings.
| kgwxd wrote:
| Standard protocol is to assume it's a gun.
| worik wrote:
| > Standard protocol is to assume it's a gun.
|
| Let me correct that:
|
| Standard protocol is to "assume it's a gun".
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| I'm actually thinking more attept-at-deniable than that.
| Like just getting into scuffles where no one can prove the
| phone didn't get knocked to the ground by honest accident.
|
| People who are willing to do things like play copyrighted
| music so that videos of them get taken down by the
| copyright machine, while they are in the very act of
| supposedly upholding law and order, are willing to do
| literally anything.
| NikolaNovak wrote:
| I read title and comments and was ready to be enraged. Heck, I
| WAS enraged.
|
| And then I clicked the link and... 8ft? That's what, just over 2
| meters? Who wants and desires to be within a NBA player's
| distance of a police interaction anyway? At that point you're not
| observer or recorder you're a participant. I find the title very
| very very misleading.
|
| I believe police interactions should be recorded. I believe we
| should be free to record them. I believe they should be held to
| higher standard as the powers they get and their propensity to
| abuse them are huge. But if you're inside 8ft it feels you're
| just interfering.
|
| Maybe there are angles I have not considered...
| codezero wrote:
| This fits with dispatch also going encrypted in a lot of
| districts. The less people know the better for the police.
| oh_sigh wrote:
| The title should not be editorialized: The actual title is
| "Arizona House approves ban on close-up videotaping of police
| officers"
| nodesocket wrote:
| Why do leftist political stories make the front page of HN
| without any hint of "off-topic" flagging? I've been active on HN
| since 2011 and have watched the slow but steady exodus of startup
| and business stories and more and more left leaning only
| political ideology overrun the community. It's nearly a complete
| echo chamber.
| DoctorOW wrote:
| Politics stories can be relevant hacker news. Stories about
| privacy, intellectual property, and other things the tech
| community are interested in often intersect with politics.
| knowaveragejoe wrote:
| brayhite wrote:
| Why is this a "leftist" issue?
|
| Does it matter that traditionally libertarian sources would
| agree this law is bogus? https://reason.com/2022/01/21/glenn-
| youngkin-qualified-immun...
| Marazan wrote:
| In what way is reporting on not being able to film police a
| "leftist" story.
|
| It should be fundamentally an outrage to any libertarian right
| winger.
| Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote:
| The solution to rampant police misconduct and law-breaking? Just
| make it illegal to gather evidence of rampant police misconduct
| and law-breaking. Problem solved _hand wiping motions_
| kingcharles wrote:
| LOL. What would you do if you had evidence of police
| misconduct? Take it to the police? Take it to the prosecutor?
| Take it to a judge?
|
| Unless you can get it into the media you cannot get any
| justice. From personal experience, even if you take hard
| documentary evidence of misconduct to the police, prosecutor or
| judge, each of them will laugh you out of the room.
|
| Who watches the watchers?
| ipaddr wrote:
| Even then most media will ignore, youtube will take down
| worik wrote:
| > Even then most media will ignore, youtube will take down
|
| That is not true!
|
| The media is a sick puppy for all sorts of reasons, YouTube
| a den of evil capitalist exploitation.
|
| But your statement is untrue
| heavyset_go wrote:
| There are pro-law enforcement groups that brigade YouTube
| and file bogus complaints, including DMCA violations,
| against uploaded videos of police misconduct and
| brutality. If they do it enough, YouTube will even ban
| the uploaders and take down their videos.
| jjcon wrote:
| Possible Devils advocate - you can easily gather evidence while
| not being within 8 feet of an officer. This could be more to do
| with interfering with police activities than preventing
| evidence collection. Potentially unconstitutional either way
| but i imagine there are legit concerns with people/press being
| that close to officers.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| "you can easily gather evidence while not being within 8
| feet"
|
| Only a bystander can. The person who needs it the most,
| can't.
|
| Meanwhile, the police's own body cam is on while they are
| within 8 feet of you. Assuming they didn't turn it off,
| assuming you get access to it later, in a timely manner,
| unedited...
|
| There is an argument about interference and safety, but no
| valid argument in the end, since there is no way to allow the
| limitation without creating a tool for abuse that's worse.
|
| Better to let actual cases of interference be tried as such.
| Make the officer have to invoke a process after the fact, and
| have to defend their claim of criminal or endagering
| interference in court.
| jjcon wrote:
| > The person who needs it the most, can't.
|
| This law is only about bystanders - if you're directly
| involved you're still allowed to film
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| With what? That phone that just got knocked to the
| ground? Or that phone you can't operate while you're
| handcuffed or busy trying to breath gravel?
| worik wrote:
| Police body cam. That would be good.
|
| In fact, if my impression of the news is correct, police
| body cams do more to protect the police from unjustified
| charges of abuse than they do to protect the victims of
| police abuse.
|
| Perhaps that is an effect of police unions? Perhaps it is
| simply a good thing and we should have more of them?
|
| People independent of the police filming it seems like a
| good idea to me. For all concerned.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| If only failing to have the cam present or running were
| considered a super bad crime instigating a huge
| investigation with a bias towards guilt and you have to
| prove innocense.
|
| Instead, at least in some places, cops get away with
| turning their cams off or otherwise suffering mysterious
| glitches and data loss.
|
| There used to be standards for certain things where the
| appearance of imporopriety was bad enough all by itself,
| exactly because some things can't really be proven, like
| how you can't prove a negative. That seems to be pretty
| much gone now. Judges don't recuse themselves from cases
| where they have a conflict of interest, and the other
| judges just let them, etc.
|
| So, in the sweet naive child view of the world, a cop
| merely no being able to produce their body cam footage
| for some incident, _no matter what they say or what the
| story is_ should be almost automatic grounds for
| dismissal of the whole case and maybe the cop too, or at
| least a huge stink and huge investigation. But I don 't
| think we live in that world we tell gradeschool kids we
| live in.
| vpilcx wrote:
| I don't think you understand how the GOP operates now. 8ft
| now, next year, they increase it. It's like what they do with
| abortions.
| duskwuff wrote:
| > Possible Devils advocate - you can easily gather evidence
| while not being within 8 feet of an officer.
|
| Until the officer deliberately approaches you to prevent you
| from recording?
| jjcon wrote:
| The law specifically states you can film if the officer is
| interacting with you
| TeaDrunk wrote:
| If a cop is actively walking towards you, do you have to stop
| recording once they reach 8 feet? How can you gather evidence
| if there are a dozen cops surrounding the abuse, with them
| approaching anyone who is outside 8 feet to force them
| further and further away?
| nkrisc wrote:
| They can arrest you for recording at any distance, and then
| drop the charges later and likely just get away with it. It
| won't matter either way because they already achieved their
| goal: stop you from recording.
| worik wrote:
| That is a very common tactic in my experience.
|
| Arrest willy nilly, on court day withdraw the charges.
|
| You can sue for "wrongful arrest". That would be a
| tactically silly idea for almost everybody who has these
| sorts of encounters
| jkaplowitz wrote:
| Journalist: _records from 9 feet away_
|
| Police: Stop recording me.
|
| Journalist: I'm more than 8 feet away, I have the right to
| record.
|
| Police: You're 7 feet away. Last warning.
|
| Journalist: _is still 9 feet away so keeps recording_
|
| Police: Arrests journalist, confiscates recording
|
| District attorney: _Reviews footage, sees that the journalist
| was more than 8 feet away, drops charges_
|
| Journalist: _sues for wrongful arrest_
|
| Court: Being able to count distance accurately is not a job
| requirement for a police officer. Wrongful arrest claim
| denied
|
| Journalist: _files claim for return of recording_
|
| Police department: We are unable to find this recording. (Or,
| alternatively, they wipe the media before returning it.)
| yalogin wrote:
| You know what's going to happen. The cop sees the person
| recording and walks towards him asking if they are recording
| and gets inside 8 ft and arrests them. Easy! Or another cop
| dashes the person recording just to stop and arrest the
| recording
| mwt wrote:
| The text of the bill is focused on recording, not physical
| interference (for which there appears to be existing laws)
|
| https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/summary/H.HB2319_0223.
| ..
| Eddy_Viscosity2 wrote:
| Once the police have the ability to arrest people for
| videoing them, they will use it whenever they please. Then
| argue after the arrest whether or not it was '8 feet' or not.
| The person video-taping still gets put into custody and has
| to deal with all of the consequences of that, including a not
| so gentle arrest. Then, best case, if they can prove it was
| outside 8 feet, they might get the charges dropped, but they
| won't be able to sue or at least it be very unlikely to
| succeed. The functional result (if this bill passes the
| senate) is that the police in arizona can, and will, arrest
| anybody they want to who video tapes them. Following that
| will be similar bills in other states.
|
| Being arrested is a big deal and you could be in jail for
| some time, even if the charges are dropped. Whereas unlawful
| arrest could result in consequences for officers, this law
| would give that arrest at least a pretext of being
| reasonable, all they have to say is they misjudged the
| distance and then are off the hook - "honest mistake".
| Kye wrote:
| Yep. They already yell "stop resisting!" at people who are
| _clearly_ not resisting to prime the memories of witnesses.
| "You're too close!" fits right into that dynamic.
| nonrandomstring wrote:
| > Once the police have the ability to arrest people for
| videoing them, they will use it whenever they please.
|
| Maybe not quite. An interesting dilemma arises. If our law
| abiding, peace officers arrest someone for filming - then
| that media becomes the evidence in an arrest. So they may
| safely arrest someone so long as they (the police) are
| doing nothing wrong while the cameraman is is "illegally"
| filming them.
|
| But then why would anyone be filming police who are doing
| nothing wrong?
|
| As soon as the police are engaged in acts of violence, and
| people start filming them, it would not be in their
| interests to arrest anyone, unless they were prepared to
| follow through, destroy evidence, intimidate detainees into
| silence or commit perjury.
|
| So this idea puts the police into an interesting bind, and
| suggests it would only have consequences that lead quickly
| to tyrannical outcomes.
| DoctorOW wrote:
| > _As soon as the police are engaged in acts of violence,
| and people start filming them, it would not be in their
| interests to arrest anyone, unless they were prepared to
| follow through, destroy evidence, intimidate detainees
| into silence or commit perjury._
|
| We already see this happening. IIRC Police unions are the
| only people allowed to review the evidence for the first
| 24 hours and are free from consequence were it to get
| "lost".
| hsfhdfhsdfhs wrote:
| The problem is if your rights are being violated by an
| officer, that officer is probably within eight feet of you.
| It's bullshit that you're not permitted to record your rights
| being violated.
| everfree wrote:
| According to the article, the ban only applies when the
| officer is interacting with someone other than yourself.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| The officer that just took your phone from you? Or
| handcuffed you? That officer?
|
| Or one of the other officers standing around in any of
| the other 359 degrees where your phone isn't pointing?
|
| There is just no way to make any of their excuses
| actually hold water.
| alphabettsy wrote:
| Then the law isn't necessary because officers already
| have lawful authority to enforce a "reasonable" safety
| boundary.
| [deleted]
| quantified wrote:
| I bet it goes through because 8 feet is close enough to get to
| a cop without getting bit, and it's up to the cop saying it's
| dangerous which they'll never do unless it really is.
| [deleted]
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| Since you are allowed to film your own interaction, you just
| can't be a bystander withn 8 feet, I think that just means go
| ahead and film anyway, because simply by being ther, it is your
| interaction also.
|
| If a cop is harassing someone for loitering, and you for
| violating the 8ft rule, either way, you are involved in an
| interaction between a cop and yourself, and so you are allowed to
| film it, and so what the hell was the point of the excercise,
| except to make people afraid and inhibited from protecting
| themselves?
| prh8 wrote:
| > to make people afraid and inhibited
|
| Ding ding ding. Arizona resident here. This state sucks.
| sixothree wrote:
| If a policeman gives you an order, that sounds like an
| interaction to me. If I am being forced to do something by the
| police at threat of arrest, I certainly have a right to record
| it.
|
| But I am guessing republicans will find a way to warp logic
| around this.
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| It's so jarring to read comments like this because shows me
| how wide the range of interactions with police really is.
|
| Do you think the police care about your rights? They've
| certainly never given a shit about mine.
| djbusby wrote:
| I'm 40 something. Never had a good interaction with police
| (Oakland, Berkeley, SF, Seattle, Portland).
|
| I'm sure they don't care about our rights.
| TameAntelope wrote:
| I've had a number of positive interactions with the
| police. Many, _many_ times I 've been let off, warned,
| been given advice, etc.
|
| I bet I could film the police and it'd be fine.
|
| I am, of course, a straight, white, wealthy male. So sad
| that's how it goes.
| Brian_K_White wrote:
| I'm sure in the end the way it works is you get the fine
| because the cop was not originally seeking you out, you
| sought them out.
|
| IE, you have a right to film your interaction about violating
| the 8ft rule just like you are allowed to film your
| interaction about breaking a speed limit. And just like you
| might actually be guilty of beeaking the speed limit, you
| might actually be guilty of breaking the 8ft rule, of someone
| else's interaction.
|
| It's not even really invalid, just somehow still pretty
| convenient for one party, and it's the party that already
| wields the power of the state.
| krsdcbl wrote:
| Thats exactly the point. It's legislation that in practice
| leaves enough room to still be constitutional and
| democratically viable, but can be communicated in a way that
| deter people from documenting police
| giraffe_lady wrote:
| > what the hell was the point of the excercise, except to make
| people afraid and inhibited
|
| Those aren't unfortunate side effects it's the entire purpose.
| 34679 wrote:
| >It also now allows someone who is in a car stopped by police
| or is being questioned to tape the encounter *and limits the
| scope of the types of police actions that trigger the law to
| only those that are possibly dangerous.*
|
| I've read that several times, and I think they're saying you
| can't record the encounter if it's not dangerous? Of course,
| the police would say there was never any danger, as they're
| there "to protect and serve".
| schrectacular wrote:
| Dangerous encounters trigger the law which prohibits filming
| up close.
| chaboud wrote:
| So if they start beating you, you have to stop filming?
| (Kidding... Kind of)
|
| I can't see how this could reasonably constitutionally
| hold, but that rarely stops legislators.
| jsnodlin wrote:
| everfree wrote:
| The title is editorialized to be misleading. They aren't moving
| to ban video recording of police.
|
| The ban is on recording _from within a distance of 8 feet, while
| the officer is interacting with someone else_ , which seems
| reasonable enough to me. There's nothing you're going to miss by
| standing 8 feet back from an investigation while you're
| recording.
| V__ wrote:
| "Excuse me, you with the camera, can you come over here for a
| second" -> arrested.
|
| "Excuse me, you with the camera, can you come over here for a
| second".. the person moves away.. "why are you running" ->
| arrested.
|
| Cop moves towards the person filming -> arrested.
|
| It's a law which will be abused.
| usrusr wrote:
| The person the officer is interacting with might be concerned
| in a very different way about what they say to a police
| officer, vs what they say to a police officer _while a random
| or perhaps not random at all_ third party is recording. 8 ft
| seems like a reasonable cutoff.
|
| But something needs to be done about the abuse potential of
| another officer walking towards the recording person, repeating
| "eight foot rule! eight foot rule!" to continuously push back
| the recording person so that their colleagues can proceed
| unwatched.
| everfree wrote:
| As I mentioned, the article clarifies that the law only
| applies in the case that an officer is interacting with a
| third party.
|
| A cop walking towards you is clearly interacting with you,
| not a third party, thus the law would not apply.
| usrusr wrote:
| Thanks, missed that detail. Surprisingly well thought out
| then!
| garyfirestorm wrote:
| The second part of your comment is the exact intention of
| this law! That's exactly how it's supposed to work.
| TillE wrote:
| You think cops are gonna get out a tape measure before
| arresting you for refusing to move back further? "8 feet" will
| be like 20+ feet.
| google234123 wrote:
| The point of the law is to stop the people filming from tiny
| distances and getting in the way. You can definitely tell 3
| feet for example.
| alphabettsy wrote:
| There is already a law that makes it illegal to get in the
| way.
| everfree wrote:
| Cops unlawfully arrest people all the time for multitudes of
| reasons, but we have courts to deal with those cases of
| unlawful arrest.
|
| It should be very clear from an officer's body cam whether
| the recording party is within 8 feet. That's a basic personal
| space amount of distance.
| TeaDrunk wrote:
| What if the body cam happened to be off, glitchy, or data
| was just lost on happenstance? What if even if the arrest
| was unlawful the victim already lost their job?
| everfree wrote:
| If a body cam happened to be off, then it doesn't matter
| whether a law like this is in effect or not.
| jyounker wrote:
| It does affect you if the police can force you turn off
| your camera, or if they can later claim in court that
| video evidence of their transgressions were illegally
| obtained, and thus inadmissible.
| jyounker wrote:
| And cops get away with harassing people all the time. The
| US courts have been doing an abysmal job of protecting the
| citizenry from police abuse. (E.g. qualified immunity.)
|
| The thing that has been to some extent reversing that trend
| is cheap and ubiquitous video cameras.
| tormock wrote:
| The problem with that is that they get 12 cops to body-block
| any cameras 8ft away or more... sometimes you have to be close
| to get a good angle.
| mymythisisthis wrote:
| I think you're right. Usually a dozen cops respond to most
| major calls. Now anybody trying to record, within a block of
| the action, will be arrested and have their camera seized.
| everfree wrote:
| While these people may be arrested and their cameras may be
| seized, they could easily sue for unlawful arrest if they
| were more than 8 feet away at the time. Exactly the same as
| if their cameras were seized before the 8-foot law were in
| effect.
| jyounker wrote:
| I forsee many seized cameras being "accidentally damaged"
| in Arizona's near future.
| everfree wrote:
| If police unlawfully seize and destroy your recorded
| evidence, then it doesn't matter whether there was a law
| like this in effect. The officer could make up any story
| to justify their action under any law.
|
| Mandatory body cam laws would be a lot more relevant in
| that case, not 8-foot citizen recording laws.
| jyounker wrote:
| It gives them legal cover for seizing cameras. Right now
| there is no legal justification for doing so.
| tormock wrote:
| They can also just block the view so that the camera is
| useless...
| everfree wrote:
| Your comment, like many others in this thread, seems to be of
| the form "what if the police do this other, unrelated,
| illegal thing?"
|
| The solution is to make sure there are repercussions for cops
| doing illegal things, not to prevent laws from being passed
| because cops might try to twist the intention of the law to
| try to justify illegal acts.
|
| Courts have a lot of discretion in deciding cases, and many
| cases come down to a question of intent. If 12 cops
| intentionally body-block someone who is recording, that's
| something that a judge isn't likely to look at too fondly.
| alphabettsy wrote:
| > If 12 cops intentionally body-block someone who is
| recording, that's something that a judge isn't likely to
| look at too fondly.
|
| That's all fine and well, but when they can just take your
| device then you no longer have a video of whatever you were
| attempting to record. Things used in a "crime" are subject
| to seizure.
| scarface74 wrote:
| So who is going to stop cops from doing illegal things -
| other cops? The judicial system that is also on the side of
| the cops?
| everfree wrote:
| I can't design a new society in the comments section. The
| question of how to reform the policing system to make
| cops more accountable for unlawful actions isn't really
| in the scope of this article.
| hellotomyrars wrote:
| The question of how is beyond the scope but the
| implications of this specific legislation sure is. It is
| incredibly open to abuse and arguably because of existing
| legislation already surrounding interfering with police
| entirely unnecessary outside of its very obvious abuse
| potential.
|
| Police should be subject to more scrutiny and not less.
| This specifically makes it easier for them to evade
| scrutiny. I struggle to see any good faith argument that
| leads to less accountability or evidence in general. It's
| almost comedic in a "What are you afraid of if you have
| nothing to hide" sense that is often applied in the other
| direction of police having authority beyond what is
| reasonable.
| jyounker wrote:
| If you think US police won't abuse the law to evade
| accountability then I think you haven't been paying
| attention.
| everfree wrote:
| US police abuse the law to evade accountability all the
| time, but I don't see how that's relevant to this
| particular law.
| jyounker wrote:
| This law gives the police one more tool to evade
| accountability.
|
| People filming cops isn't a problem. It doesn't need to
| be regulated.
| asteroidp wrote:
| SubiculumCode wrote:
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-03-19 23:00 UTC)