Arizona Will Ban People From Filming Police Officers At Short Distances

[fooferdoggie]

From the party of free speech.

Arizona Will Ban People From Filming Police Officers At Short Distances​

Arizona Will Ban People From Filming Police Officers At Short Distances

A law in the US state of Arizona will ban people from filming police officers at short distances, with possible fines or jail for those who don't comply.

www.unilad.com

 

[Alli]

As I said when I heard this news last night - that’s bullshit. Cause you know the police doing the wrong thing are going to come after anyone recording them, even if they are across the street using a zoom lens.

 

[fooferdoggie]

As I said when I heard this news last night - that’s bullshit. Cause you know the police doing the wrong thing are going to come after anyone recording them, even if they are across the street using a zoom lens.

or they walk ups the person filming then make the arrest.

 

[JayMysteri0]

or they walk ups the person filming then make the arrest.

That's really it. Having the power to make another arrest, for daring to film officers to insure things are on the up & up.

They might have a leg to stand on ( No, not really EVER ) if their own body cams didn't suddenly stop working when shit hits the fan for the victim and not themselves. If anything civilian filming is just the backup for the inevitable body cam fail that happens when something controversial occurs.

When the state feels the need to ban observation of their duties, one should understandably consider it's for a very good reason. Absolutely nothing good for the public.

 

[Roller]

This will boost iPhone sales if Apple increases the focal length of their camera lenses and improves image stabilization.

 

[Herdfan]

Why do you need to be closer than 8'?

 

[Yoused]

Why do you need to be closer than 8'?

For instance, if there were an incident on a 10'-wide pier, it would be very difficult to be 8' away anywhere you could realistically shoot from. But, the way the police have been, they with call 25' eight feet and confiscate your device in an attempt to eliminate the evidence.

 

[fooferdoggie]

now everyone has to carry a tape measure with them.

 

[Alli]

For instance, if there were an incident on a 10'-wide pier, it would be very difficult to be 8' away anywhere you could realistically shoot from. But, the way the police have been, they with call 25' eight feet and confiscate your device in an attempt to eliminate the evidence.

Exactly!

 

[Citysnaps]

As a photographer, I'm not taking the position this law is OK... but what would a more reasonable distance be? 1, 2, 4, or 6 feet?

 

[SuperMatt]

As a photographer, I'm not taking the position this law is OK... but what would a more reasonable distance be? 1, 2, 4, or 6 feet?

Or no law restricting the first amendment at all perhaps?

We all know where this law comes from: cops did whatever the F they wanted until everybody had a video camera in their pockets. They suddenly started to be held accountable for illegal activities. Oh no!

With this law, if they see you filming, even from a distance, they can close the gap and make you stop. Imagine if this law was in place during the murder of George Floyd. One cop could murder and the others could spread out to make sure they were spaced out every 8 feet.

 

[Citysnaps]

Or no law restricting the first amendment at all perhaps?

We all know where this law comes from: cops did whatever the F they wanted until everybody had a video camera in their pockets. They suddenly started to be held accountable for illegal activities. Oh no!

With this law, if they see you filming, even from a distance, they can close the gap and make you stop. Imagine if this law was in place during the murder of George Floyd. One cop could murder and the others could spread out to make sure they were spaced out every 8 feet.

Here's a hypothetical, something I've witnessed a few times on the streets making photographs of cops. A cop is trying to make a legitimate arrest, the subject is not complying and being combative. The cop is having a difficult time.

Should I be able to stand 2 feet away from the cop and subject, making a bunch of photos?

 

[Yoused]

Here's a hypothetical, something I've witnessed a few times on the streets making photographs of cops. A cop is trying to make a legitimate arrest, the subject is not complying and being combative. The cop is having a difficult time.

Should I be able to stand 2 feet away from the cop and subject, making a bunch of photos?

It should be obvious enough at the time what is "too close". But now the police have a number they can use, and eventually 12 or 15 feet will be called eight and they will grab you and seize your device so that they can delete the evidence.

Also, if there is a security camera nearby that can provide evidence (e.g., in a lawsuit against them), they will say that it was too close to the incident so its content is inadmissable.

 

[JayMysteri0]

Here's a hypothetical, something I've witnessed a few times on the streets making photographs of cops. A cop is trying to make a legitimate arrest, the subject is not complying and being combative. The cop is having a difficult time.

Should I be able to stand 2 feet away from the cop and subject, making a bunch of photos?

Realistically, ...would you be that close?

There's hypothetical, and then there is practical.

At 2 feet away, you become a secondary hazard to the officer, as they have to worry if you are a threat or will place yourself in danger with the subject. 10 - 12 feet is considered threat distance, as a person with a knife can injure even an armed officer if they are trained. For personal survival reasons I can't imagine anyone getting that close, unless it's a staged photo op. With a modern day cellphone camera one can be safely out of the 10 - 12 feet distance, and not be considered an immediate physical threat. That isn't to say the officer wouldn't claim otherwise. When it's just an observational one if the officer's body cam is even present or even turned on. Now if the incident is over & the officer does have control, it will again by a judgement call by the officer if you are too close even if you aren't in immediate danger.

 

[JayMysteri0]

It should be obvious enough at the time what is "too close". But now the police have a number they can use, and eventually 12 or 15 feet will be called eight and they will grab you and seize your device so that they can delete the evidence.

Also, if there is a security camera nearby that can provide evidence (e.g., in a lawsuit against them), they will say that it was too close to the incident so its content is inadmissable.

That's also not including the catch all some police have put in with body cam footage.

Making body cam footage part of an officer's personnel record, so it can be kept sealed from the public, to "protect" the privacy of the officer.

Nice manufactured seal if the department doesn't want certain video evidence intended to increase transparency isn't allowed to do that very thing.

 

[Citysnaps]

Realistically, ...would you be that close?

There's hypothetical, and then there is practical.

At 2 feet away, you become a secondary hazard to the officer, as they have to worry if you are a threat or will place yourself in danger with the subject. 10 - 12 feet is considered threat distance, as a person with a knife can injure even an armed officer if they are trained. For personal survival reasons I can't imagine anyone getting that close, unless it's a staged photo op. With a modern day cellphone camera one can be safely out of the 10 - 12 feet distance, and not be considered an immediate physical threat. That isn't to say the officer wouldn't claim otherwise. When it's just an observational one if the officer's body cam is even present or even turned on. Now if the incident is over & the officer does have control, it will again by a judgement call by the officer if you are too close even if you aren't in immediate danger.

Of course not. I was trying to make the same point, if 8 feet was unacceptable, what would the "proper limit" be for a law. Depending on the circumstances at some distance during an arrest you're becoming part of the problem and interfering, endangering everyone involved.

Not taking a position on the new law, but speaking as a photographer who has photographed cops on the street doing their job, I see no problem with eight feet. If I shot for TMZ or was aiming for a Pulitzer, that might be different.

 

[Cmaier]

Of course not. I was trying to make the same point, if 8 feet was unacceptable, what would the "proper limit" be for a law. Depending on the circumstances at some distance during an arrest you're becoming part of the problem and interfering, endangering everyone involved.

Not taking a position on the new law, but speaking as a photographer who has photographed cops on the street doing their job, I see no problem with eight feet. If I shot for TMZ or was aiming for a Pulitzer, that might be different.

My question is, why would the law even mention photography? If the issue is people getting too close, just pass a law against getting too close. Why does it matter whether you have a camera, unless the goal is to prevent accountability?

 

[Citysnaps]

My question is, why would the law even mention photography? If the issue is people getting too close, just pass a law against getting too close. Why does it matter whether you have a camera, unless the goal is to prevent accountability?

Excellent point - and why I couched with "not taking a position on the law." Also...I assume there are already laws that deal with interfering with a police officer - though they're probably pretty squishy.

 

[Cmaier]

Excellent point - and why I couched with "not taking a position on the law." Also...I assume there are already laws that deal with interfering with a police officer - though they're probably pretty squishy.

The point here was not to solve a problem, but to virtue signal “I’m with cops and against antifa. And when I say antifa, you know who I’m talking about”

 

[JayMysteri0]

Of course not. I was trying to make the same point, if 8 feet was unacceptable, what would the "proper limit" be for a law. Depending on the circumstances at some distance during an arrest you're becoming part of the problem and interfering, endangering everyone involved.

Not taking a position on the new law, but speaking as a photographer who has photographed cops on the street doing their job, I see no problem with eight feet. If I shot for TMZ or was aiming for a Pulitzer, that might be different.

That's just it. This ban is all about the police establishing a "proper limit" where there was never one before. There is no hypothetical, there's only take the police's word as gospel. The only circumstances the police in that instance ( let's not forget in the other place we covered for a period of time a consistent litany of issues with the police, spotlighted by this, this, and another I can't find at the moment ), care about are the ones that "protect" them specifically. All of this with Arizona's history for awhile, is very convenient.

City of Phoenix Pays $800,000 to Settle Two More Police Misconduct Cases

The settlements that are expected to be approved Wednesday will add to the millions in legal payouts that Phoenix has made to resolve claims over its law enforcement practices.

www.phoenixnewtimes.com

It's not the largest sum the city has paid in recent memory to settle a case over the conduct of Phoenix police officers. In November, the city paid $5 million to settle a lawsuit over the death of Muhammad Muhaymin, a Black man who died during an arrest. Over the years, the amount of money the city has paid out in police settlements has reached tens of millions.

Imagine how much can be saved if you can eliminate that pesky video evidence that the public keep making? In a court system that often weighs the officer's word more than the supposed offender, lack of inarguable video evidence would be nice.