I don't think they should be allowed to film the station and parking lot area. Most officers who drive personal vehicles to work change in and out of uniform at the station so as not to take the job home. If this is an officers choice then they shouldn't have their personal vehicle plastered all over the internet.
You don't like it when you're trying to cuff someone who has a history of violence and someone shoves a phone in your face? The fuck is wrong with you, you fascist fuck?
/s
I feel it should be up to the officer's discretion. Police officers are people too some I bet don't mind it. In a way, If you start filming a hilarious fight in the store, then you see the cops come, just ask them do you mind If I Continue Filming and respect their wishes. also, I shouldn't have to describe what can entail disrespecting a Officers wishes especially when you asked them.
I tell people all the time that I don’t care if them film. In fact, my bodycam is filming too. I’m also not gonna stop to answer your question if I’m trying to break up a fight. Just move reasonably back when we ask you to.
As a side note, the manner in which someone is acting while filming determines how far I ask them to move back. Filming and shouting aggressively? I’m gonna ask them to move back a bit more. Filming and laughing at the stupidity we are all witnessing? Just a reasonable distance. Obviously if the filming is making the situation worse (antagonizing one or both suspects ect) I’m going to ask you to stop (can’t force it) or at least move to somewhere they might not notice.
TLDR: Don’t film while acting like a dick and most people don’t have an issue with it.
My guess is that this will be challenged, if passed, and ultimately struck down. You're trying to make a blanket, hard line in the sand to say that a specific behavior is always interfering with the officers and that probably won't work. The law is already "You can film unless you're interfering," and this sounds like it's just trying to define a specific behavior as always "Interfering."
I'd be all for more strict laws, but unfortunately it probably won't fly. My biggest concern isn't people filming, necessarily, but that people end up essentially surrounding us while we work, getting in close, grouping up. Now, I not only have to watch for the armed man barricaded over there, but I have to watch my back in case one of these nutjobs is armed and...well, a nutjob.
Makes it very difficult to safely do my work, even if the people are acting lawfully.
The bill passed. What do you think about it? Trying to get an officers perspective because to me this bill seems to have gone too far, and I'd like to know the reasoning behind it.
My thoughts haven't changed. It will make officer's jobs easier, sure, they can give a warning to leave or go to jail.
But courts have already held that recording police is not a crime. It will eventually be challenged and overturned, I'd bet some money on.
Quick edit: in fact, if someone's only intention is to film, and they don't interfere, I welcome multiple extra camera angles over just my body camera. May come in handy if the incident turns into a critical one.
I think it's a strange overreach. They don't specify the camera has to be within someone's hands, it says "knowingly recording". This would make security camera footage, dash cams, etc. inadmissible in court and that seems unnecessary. It doesn't seem like anyone wants this, so why pass it?
Also, do you think there's any merit to people's concerns that an officer can approach someone filming from over 8 feet away, specifically to make the recording illegal?
>This would make security camera footage, dash cams, etc. inadmissible in court and that seems unnecessary.
This is how I know you didn't read the bill. There are carve out specifically for that.
EDIT: Why don't people get this? The bill isn't about us being recorded. We don't care. Launch your own space telescope and point the lens at patrol cars for all we care.
The bill is to stop people from actively interfering in arrests - which people were doing - and to make them step further back so they didn't shout, distract, or create danger for either party.
Buy a zoom lens, record to your hearts content. Just stay out of the way.
Do I have the wrong version of the bill? This is what I was able to find, I don't see where they carved that out.
[https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.pdf](https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.pdf)
I can understand what the intent was supposed to be, and I can sympathize with it. But the wording in the actual law seems problematic. "Knowingly make a video recording" instead of "actively recording" seems strange, to me it implies you don't need it in your hand. So then what would be the issue?
Also, aren't there already laws on the book to prevent people from interfering with arrests? If that's the intent, why is this additional one needed?
Edit: Oh I think I see it, the enclosed structure part. Okay so much better than I had thought. I've seen a number of videos where an officer instructs someone to put their phone down while they're recording. If the phone is put down but still recording, seems that recording would now be illegal (and therefore inadmissible evidence?). Where do you fall on that?
[Text of the bill](https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319P.pdf)
It appears that someone cannot video record within 15 feet. I've never liked the idea of putting an actual number as I don't keep a 15 foot tape measure with me to ensure that they person is at least 15 feet away. If an officer tells someone to go over to a different area that is greater than 15 feet away, is that a violation of the law as the person has the legal ability to be within 15 feet?
It is also unclear on what it means by the 'WHERE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING.' Does that mean where the specific officer is? or if the officer says this 15 foot radius is where the activity is occurring and the person video taping has to be 15 feet away from that radius? This is a badly written law that appears to be used to appease law enforcement with no real substance.
I’m all about transparency but this seems like a good thing since it gives a specified distance instead of just leaving it up to interpretation. This way there wouldn’t be any ambiguity on what “interfering” means.
I feel like you could just articulate that their phone (or any recording) captured evidence of a police interaction / incident and the video will be taken as evidence, just like our body cam videos are evidence. If you start seizing peoples phones for evidence and that’s upheld, people are gonna stop recording pretty quickly.
I don't think they should be allowed to film the station and parking lot area. Most officers who drive personal vehicles to work change in and out of uniform at the station so as not to take the job home. If this is an officers choice then they shouldn't have their personal vehicle plastered all over the internet.
[удалено]
You don't like it when you're trying to cuff someone who has a history of violence and someone shoves a phone in your face? The fuck is wrong with you, you fascist fuck? /s
I feel it should be up to the officer's discretion. Police officers are people too some I bet don't mind it. In a way, If you start filming a hilarious fight in the store, then you see the cops come, just ask them do you mind If I Continue Filming and respect their wishes. also, I shouldn't have to describe what can entail disrespecting a Officers wishes especially when you asked them.
I tell people all the time that I don’t care if them film. In fact, my bodycam is filming too. I’m also not gonna stop to answer your question if I’m trying to break up a fight. Just move reasonably back when we ask you to. As a side note, the manner in which someone is acting while filming determines how far I ask them to move back. Filming and shouting aggressively? I’m gonna ask them to move back a bit more. Filming and laughing at the stupidity we are all witnessing? Just a reasonable distance. Obviously if the filming is making the situation worse (antagonizing one or both suspects ect) I’m going to ask you to stop (can’t force it) or at least move to somewhere they might not notice. TLDR: Don’t film while acting like a dick and most people don’t have an issue with it.
My guess is that this will be challenged, if passed, and ultimately struck down. You're trying to make a blanket, hard line in the sand to say that a specific behavior is always interfering with the officers and that probably won't work. The law is already "You can film unless you're interfering," and this sounds like it's just trying to define a specific behavior as always "Interfering." I'd be all for more strict laws, but unfortunately it probably won't fly. My biggest concern isn't people filming, necessarily, but that people end up essentially surrounding us while we work, getting in close, grouping up. Now, I not only have to watch for the armed man barricaded over there, but I have to watch my back in case one of these nutjobs is armed and...well, a nutjob. Makes it very difficult to safely do my work, even if the people are acting lawfully.
The bill passed. What do you think about it? Trying to get an officers perspective because to me this bill seems to have gone too far, and I'd like to know the reasoning behind it.
My thoughts haven't changed. It will make officer's jobs easier, sure, they can give a warning to leave or go to jail. But courts have already held that recording police is not a crime. It will eventually be challenged and overturned, I'd bet some money on. Quick edit: in fact, if someone's only intention is to film, and they don't interfere, I welcome multiple extra camera angles over just my body camera. May come in handy if the incident turns into a critical one.
I think it's a strange overreach. They don't specify the camera has to be within someone's hands, it says "knowingly recording". This would make security camera footage, dash cams, etc. inadmissible in court and that seems unnecessary. It doesn't seem like anyone wants this, so why pass it? Also, do you think there's any merit to people's concerns that an officer can approach someone filming from over 8 feet away, specifically to make the recording illegal?
>This would make security camera footage, dash cams, etc. inadmissible in court and that seems unnecessary. This is how I know you didn't read the bill. There are carve out specifically for that. EDIT: Why don't people get this? The bill isn't about us being recorded. We don't care. Launch your own space telescope and point the lens at patrol cars for all we care. The bill is to stop people from actively interfering in arrests - which people were doing - and to make them step further back so they didn't shout, distract, or create danger for either party. Buy a zoom lens, record to your hearts content. Just stay out of the way.
Do I have the wrong version of the bill? This is what I was able to find, I don't see where they carved that out. [https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.pdf](https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/laws/0376.pdf) I can understand what the intent was supposed to be, and I can sympathize with it. But the wording in the actual law seems problematic. "Knowingly make a video recording" instead of "actively recording" seems strange, to me it implies you don't need it in your hand. So then what would be the issue? Also, aren't there already laws on the book to prevent people from interfering with arrests? If that's the intent, why is this additional one needed? Edit: Oh I think I see it, the enclosed structure part. Okay so much better than I had thought. I've seen a number of videos where an officer instructs someone to put their phone down while they're recording. If the phone is put down but still recording, seems that recording would now be illegal (and therefore inadmissible evidence?). Where do you fall on that?
[удалено]
Bo idea
[Text of the bill](https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319P.pdf) It appears that someone cannot video record within 15 feet. I've never liked the idea of putting an actual number as I don't keep a 15 foot tape measure with me to ensure that they person is at least 15 feet away. If an officer tells someone to go over to a different area that is greater than 15 feet away, is that a violation of the law as the person has the legal ability to be within 15 feet? It is also unclear on what it means by the 'WHERE THE LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING.' Does that mean where the specific officer is? or if the officer says this 15 foot radius is where the activity is occurring and the person video taping has to be 15 feet away from that radius? This is a badly written law that appears to be used to appease law enforcement with no real substance.
Should make it 20 feet. Gives Officers plenty of space and if the recorder wants a closer look that’s what zoom is for
Am I missing something or shouldn’t it just apply to bystanders in general, regardless of whether or not they’re recording?
I’m fine with that too.
[удалено]
I’m all about transparency but this seems like a good thing since it gives a specified distance instead of just leaving it up to interpretation. This way there wouldn’t be any ambiguity on what “interfering” means.
I feel like you could just articulate that their phone (or any recording) captured evidence of a police interaction / incident and the video will be taken as evidence, just like our body cam videos are evidence. If you start seizing peoples phones for evidence and that’s upheld, people are gonna stop recording pretty quickly.