A New Florida Bill Could Criminalize Filming Cops on the Job

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-05-2021, 08:38 AM)GMDino Wrote: Some of you have presented good counter arguments to one of the article posted.

The fact that no one is defending any of the other examples should tell you all you need to know.

Quote:I do not like "Free speech zones" for protests any more than I like laws keeping citizens from filming public servants doing their job.  And while I certainly don't want police officers being attacked while doing their job I have problems with attempts like this.

Attempts like ensuring people filming stay a safe distance away from law enforcement doing its job?  No one is being prevented from filming because of this, so what possible issue could you have with it?

Quote:I just wish some people (here and not on the board) defend the FIRST Amendment as strongly as they do the 2nd. One would think that a series of states taking steps to make police officers a "protected class" would fall under the same "slippery slope" argument used for every attempt to pass any gun law.

An interesting assertion.  Maybe produce one example of a person not defending the 1st amendment?  You don't even have to confine yourself to this thread, find just one example of a person advocating for limitations on the 1st.

Quote:And there a lot of "well what about..." to get to where nothing could go wrong with this because of some created scenario. 

This sentence doesn't make any sense.

Quote:But "just do what the officer says and let the courts settle it" falls flat with the overwhelming examples of police lying in reports, not using their own cameras, refusing to release camera footage and, not in the least, "qualified immunity".  Which was touted as a job "benefit" in one NH town. 

See, this is why your protestations about supporting law enforcement are directly contradicted by your own words.  "Overwhelming" examples?  You think law enforcement officer lie on their reports on a frequent basis?  You really think that a whole profession routinely conducts themselves in as unprofessional, and downright criminal, manner as to lie on their reports?  Seriously?  Have some LEO's lied, absolutely.  Is it an "overwhelming" amount?  Not even close.  Provide any proof that LEO's lying on reports is a common occurrence.  

Quote:While you sit in jail even if the officer was wrong and they get paid leave at the very worst?  Because it is your word against theirs?

Wanna put both in jail or let both be free while the case is decided...sure.

The ignorance of the process you display here is troubling for a person who likes to discuss the subject as often as you do.  If you are arrested you will see a judge within a short time frame.  Time varies but it's typically two business days from time of detention.  At that time the judge will either release you OR, set bond (which nowadays you don't even have to have 10% to bond out with a bailsman), or remand you to custody awaiting trial.  Of these options bail being set is the most common, followed by OR release and then, way down the line, is being remanded.  If you were arrested for a misdemeanor and you don't have a substantial record (even with a record now) you will be either released OR or a very low bail will be set.  Even violent felonies will likely qualify for bail release, or house arrest, unless the person has an extensive criminal history.

So, quite simply, you're either displaying a marked amount of ignorance on this subject or your engaging in hyperbole to try and make a point.  The first weakens your position for obvious reasons and the second would show how weak you know your position to be that you have to falsify "evidence" to support it.  Neither is very appealing in any event.

Quote:"All men are created equal"...indeed.

A better way to put it would be to say all men will be treated equal.  To what extent that actually happens is certainly a topic for discussion. 

[Dill]

(08-04-2021, 02:40 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: You basically answered you own question.  No instruction to move back was given, hence no obstruction.  Are you insinuating that being made to move back would have prevented the event from being filmed?

Only Bels can answer the question of what HE makes of the Floyd filming.

I'm definitely saying that if Chauvin or his colleagues had started ordering people back,


and actually pushing them back,

then we might not have had the 10 minutes or so of continuous video that convicted Chauvin. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-05-2021, 12:31 PM)Dill Wrote: Only Bels can answer the question of what HE makes of the Floyd filming.

I'm definitely saying that if Chauvin or his colleagues had started ordering people back,


and actually pushing them back,

then we might not have had the 10 minutes or so of continuous video that convicted Chauvin. 

Because (IF asked to move back) their phones were incapable of filming from 30ft away? That's roughly just 12 steps away, man.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-05-2021, 12:31 PM)Dill Wrote: Only Bels can answer the question of what HE makes of the Floyd filming.

I'm definitely saying that if Chauvin or his colleagues had started ordering people back,


and actually pushing them back,

then we might not have had the 10 minutes or so of continuous video that convicted Chauvin. 

This is a silly point because...

(08-05-2021, 05:58 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Because (IF asked to move back) their phones were incapable of filming from 30ft away? That's roughly just 12 steps away, man.

Exactly.  As I predicted, that's exactly what Dill was insinuating.

[Belsnickel]

(08-05-2021, 12:31 PM)Dill Wrote: Only Bels can answer the question of what HE makes of the Floyd filming.

I'm definitely saying that if Chauvin or his colleagues had started ordering people back,

and actually pushing them back,

then we might not have had the 10 minutes or so of continuous video that convicted Chauvin. 

I didn't bother responding because SSF responded in basically the same way I would have.

(08-05-2021, 05:58 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Because (IF asked to move back) their phones were incapable of filming from 30ft away? That's roughly just 12 steps away, man.

Completely agree, here. Had people been ordered back, we still would have seen video. How many videos of police doing questionable things have we seen from distances of 30 feet or even more?

[GMDino]

(08-06-2021, 08:48 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I didn't bother responding because SSF responded in basically the same way I would have.


Completely agree, here. Had people been ordered back, we still would have seen video. How many videos of police doing questionable things have we seen from distances of 30 feet or even more?

And I disagree that pushing people to some random distance makes anything "safer".

And I'd argue that the further away the less likelihood for clear video.

Again, I get the idea but I dislike the idea and the same time.  

What I dislike more is it is part of a trend (slippery slope?) to keep the public for watching the public servants.  

[Goalpost]

(08-06-2021, 09:24 AM)GMDino Wrote: And I disagree that pushing people to some random distance makes anything "safer".

And I'd argue that the further away the less likelihood for clear video.

Again, I get the idea but I dislike the idea and the same time.  

What I dislike more is it is part of a trend (slippery slope?) to keep the public for watching the public servants.  

Safe distance sounds reasonable to me.  When you see an accident with a car occur, and emergency on the scene, you don't get to walk up to the car and record what's going on.  Paramedics ask you to stand back.  In the case of an officer being called to a scene, the average Joe doesn't even know why the call was made and what is going on.  Hence the presence could be seen as a nuisance to the situation being involved and so close to it.

[Belsnickel]

(08-06-2021, 09:24 AM)GMDino Wrote: And I disagree that pushing people to some random distance makes anything "safer".

You may disagree, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Based on evidence from police involved violence and the psychological principles involved in those situations, violating orders and getting too close to a situation is going to increase the likelihood of injury or worse for everyone involved. You distract the officer, meaning if the suspect they are engaging with decides to get violent they will have more of an opening, and they have an additional target. You put the officer on higher alert, increasing the likelihood that an otherwise benign action could be interpreted in a malicious way. You encourage the suspect in a manner that may result in them making a move that could injure others or themselves. Or, if the suspect is not in control, you can now become a hostage.

Seriously, there are a huge number of ways that you getting too close decreases public safety.

(08-06-2021, 09:24 AM)GMDino Wrote: And I'd argue that the further away the less likelihood for clear video.

I don't disagree on the clear video aspect. But this is also why I advocate for stronger laws and funding related to body worn cameras.

(08-06-2021, 09:24 AM)GMDino Wrote: Again, I get the idea but I dislike the idea and the same time. 

What I dislike more is it is part of a trend (slippery slope?) to keep the public for watching the public servants.  

And I get it. I'm a big fan of transparency. I'm a bureaucrat, I am a public servant and what I deal with is almost entirely public information. I want public servants held accountable because we work for the public. However, this has to be balanced with public safety. This also has to be done with an understanding of the job. We live in an indirect democracy. The public has a right to know things, but we need our legislators to pass laws and handle oversight. It's not a perfect process, but that is how the process needs to work. Taking that hands-on action that we see occurring opens up too many opportunities to damage public safety and create unhelpful situations.

I believe in good government. I believe that we can have a government that works for us. We need to enact change, but we can't do that in ways that puts people in danger.

[GMDino]

(08-06-2021, 09:39 AM)Goalpost Wrote: Safe distance sounds reasonable to me.  When you see an accident with a car occur, and emergency on the scene, you don't get to walk up to the car and record what's going on.  Paramedics ask you to stand back.  In the case of an officer being called to a scene, the average Joe doesn't even know why the call was made and what is going on.  Hence the presence could be seen as a nuisance to the situation being involved and so close to it.

In theory I agree.  "Safe distance" is arbitrary.

My mom and dad were pulled over by a very angry officer who accused them of not switching lanes while passing him when he had someone pulled over on the highway.  They explained that the truck in the other lane prevented it and he ran their plates and all that fun stuff and told them they better watch it.

So giving them another reason/excuse/law to charge people with may have good intentions but bad results.

Even when they are recorded things like this happen:

https://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2021/06/09/tyree-burnett-jacob-giddings-deleted-cellphone-video-arrest-philadelphia/

Quote:PHILADELPHIA (CBS) — A man intends to sue the Philadelphia Police Department, accusing one of its officers of apparently deleting video of an arrest from his cellphone.


“There’s dishonesty happening here,” Lennon Edwards with Mills & Edwards LLP said. “There’s tampering with evidence here and it kills. It harms. It harms the community.”

This is video of Philadelphia Police Officer Tyree Burnett allegedly deleting video from Jacob Giddings’ cellphone following a traffic stop. The video is from a police body camera.


“While this happened in Philadelphia, this is something that happens all over the country,” Edwards said. “This exposes what’s happening. It exposes a particular incident, but this is a prevalent issue.”


Edwards is representing Giddings. The incident happened back in March.


Edwards says Giddings was approached by the officer at a gas station and was told to get out of the car. According to Edwards, Giddings was given no reason for why and that is when he began recording.

Giddings dropped his phone while being put in a police car, but it was still recording — and so was the body cam. The body cam footage shows the officer apparently going through the phone and allegedly deleting the video.


Philadelphia Police Commissioner Danielle Outlaw addressed the issue on Wednesday.


“We are aware of this incident,” Outlaw said. “He’s actually been on restricted duty since, I believe, April, but there is an active and ongoing Internal Affairs investigation right now.”

That was this year.  Stories about officers trying to delete videos go back a decade.  

This is as much about protecting the public as it is the police.

And, once again to be clear, I get the spirit of it but I don't like it on principle.  That being that if the public should be able to hold public servants to account.  And no "wait until the courts sort it out" doesn't work when it is simply your word against theirs and they have qualified immunity for almost everything it seems. 

I mean wanna put the cop and the victim in jail "while the courts sort it out"?  Go for it.  Otherwise the entire system is unbalanced against the general public.

Not that we didn't already know that.  But this is just another step in shifting more power away.

[GMDino]

Since I already mentioned Philly...they have other issues.

Quote:[color=var(--primary-text)]‘Borderline illegal’: Courtesy tows remain Philly’s persistent parking nightmare[/color]


Drivers who get sucked into the bureaucratic vortex describe it as city-sanctioned auto theft, sometimes followed by punishing fines from the Philadelphia Parking Authority.


Julia Sheppard, a Temple law student, had her Mazda "courtesy towed" from Center City to Grays Ferry, then it ended up in a private lot. She tried to recoup $200 in fees from the city, but a claims examiner denied her request last year due to the city's "non-involvement."

Updated Mar 19, 2021
Gary Isaacs returned home from a trip to California in January to discover his car missing from its Center City parking spot and two alarming letters in the mail.

The Philadelphia Parking Authority, in a letter dated Dec. 22, informed Isaacs that it had towed and impounded his car.

And a notice from the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas, dated Dec. 30, warned him that the car was scheduled to go on the auction block.

“YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN NOTICE,” the court wrote, “that the vehicle listed below will be sold at auction and your legal and equitable interest in that vehicle will be extinguished. ...”

ADVERTISEMENT

Isaacs was mystified. He’d last parked his 2005 BMW on Camac Street, within the area covered by his parking permit — not in a loading zone on Lombard Street, as the PPA was contending in its letter.

The next day, he called the parking authority, hoping to clear up the misunderstanding. A woman there said his car had apparently been “courtesy towed” from Camac to Lombard because while he was gone, his original parking space had been declared a temporary no-parking zone, reasons unknown.

“I had never heard of a ‘courtesy tow,’” said Isaacs, 61, who runs a small nonprofit that fights homelessness. “It sounds like a generous thing to do. Except they towed it to a place where it was illegal to park. And then they ticketed it, and impounded it, and put it up for auction.”

A Philadelphia courtesy tow — formally known as relocation towing — is when the Police Department, the PPA, or a private tow company moves legally parked vehicles to make room for a special event, utility work, or some other reason. The city’s failure to properly track the relocated vehicles has been a longtime problem — and one that could actually be getting worse, based on Inquirer interviews with dozens of drivers.

ADVERTISEMENT



» READ MORE: How Philly police, parking authority, and tow companies lose cars while ‘courtesy’ towing

Isaacs then went to the PPA’s office to explain what had happened. But a hearing officer said there was no record to support his story. To get his car back, the fines and fees would cost him nearly $1,000.

Not wanting to lose the car to an auction scheduled for the following week, or to continue to rack up daily lot fees, Isaacs decided to pay up, hoping that he might be able to recoup the money down the line.

He found his car on the PPA lot that night.

ADVERTISEMENT

The driver’s side window had been shattered. No one could explain why. The license plate had already been removed to prepare it for auction.

Isaacs drove off the PPA lot while sitting on pieces of glass from the busted window, his hands going numb from the cold as he headed up I-95.

So far, he hasn’t been able to get any of his money back. No one in city government can tell him who towed his car.

“Frustrated,” he said, “to say the least.”

Gary Isaacs had to pay nearly $1,000 to get his car back after it was towed from a legal parking space into a loading zone, then ticketed and impounded by the PPA and scheduled for auction.


What is a courtesy tow?

In Philadelphia, when the police, PPA, or a private company performs a courtesy tow, it is supposed to relay the new location of each vehicle to police headquarters, so when owners find the car missing and call 911, police can tell them where it is.

It often doesn’t work that way. Drivers have reported spending days or weeks searching for their cars — sometimes tracking them down a mile or more away — because neither the PPA nor police has any information about the tow. Many of these tows are recorded by police with a pre-internet system that relies mostly on handwritten notes and fax machines.

ADVERTISEMENT

A botched courtesy tow can involve several government agencies. In interviews with The Inquirer, city officials seemed unaware of how widespread the problem is and who or what is to blame.

The PPA says tows from temporary no-parking zones are primarily a police function. Police say tow companies could be to blame for missing vehicles. The tow companies say police sometimes lose the information they provide.

Drivers who get sucked into the bureaucratic vortex describe it as city-sanctioned auto theft, often followed by punishing fines from the PPA if the car was moved to an illegal parking space, then ticketed, towed, or booted. The resulting fees can be difficult or impossible to fight.

Michael Ippolito, a graduate student at Jefferson, had to pay $500 to retrieve his Volkswagen after it was courtesy-towed from his legal parking space in Old City to an illegal spot, then ticketed four times by the PPA and impounded.

ADVERTISEMENT

“They wouldn’t give me any records of who towed it,” said Ippolito, who finally got a refund a year later, in September, after threatening legal action. “It seems like they have a habit of stealing people’s cars, then charging them a lot of money to get them back.”

Ippolito said he is exploring the possibility of filing a class-action lawsuit.

» READ MORE: A Philly police ‘courtesy tow’ landed a lawyer in handcuffs for ‘stealing’ her own car

Katie Walther, a speech therapist at a city hospital, wasn’t so lucky. Her Jetta was towed from a free parking space near Fifth and Callowhill to a metered or two-hour parking zone, then towed again to another parking spot. It racked up $626 in tickets and penalties. She fought them up until last year, before giving in and paying the full amount after getting a notice that her car would be booted.

“It felt not only disorganized, but borderline illegal,” Walther said. “They keep getting their money. It seems like there is a lack of accountability. You go through this process of appealing, and you don’t really understand why you lost the appeal.”

Julia Sheppard took the fight a step further after her Mazda sedan was courtesy-towed from Center City to Grays Ferry, then ended up in a private lot, which forced her to pay $200 to recover it. Sheppard, a Temple Law student, appealed to the city’s Office of Risk Management.

In March 2020, a year after the tow, a claims examiner from Curley Adjustment Bureau, a firm acting on the city’s behalf, sent Sheppard a letter saying she had failed to prove the city was involved.

“[W]e must deny this claim on the grounds of Non-Involvement for this occurrence,” the examiner wrote.

“It’s just total chaos,” Sheppard said of the system.

Tirzah Vogels, who works for a biotech firm, had to pay a whopping $1,230 to get her car back after it was courtesy-towed while she was traveling for business. Same pattern: towed from a free spot to an illegal spot and repeatedly ticketed, then booted.

“They kind of laughed at me, like, ‘That’s not our problem. If you get a ticket, you have to pay it,’” Vogels said of her phone calls to police and the PPA. “That’s a lot of money just to get my vehicle back. And I had to go to work. It really leaves you stranded.”

In some cases, when vehicles cannot be located, owners have no choice but to report them stolen, which can bring its own set of problems.

Last year, The Inquirer reported, a West Philadelphia attorney whose car had been courtesy-towed due to tree trimming was pulled over in New Jersey months later and placed in handcuffs for driving her own Nissan. Philadelphia police had failed to take the car out of stolen status after it was located.

When Gary Isaacs finally found his car on a Philadelphia Parking Authority lot, the driver's side window had been smashed and the license plate removed to prepare it for auction. 

Passing the buck

Lt. Michael Anderson, head of the Police Department’s Tow Squad, said construction companies that hire tow companies to relocate cars could be partially to blame. He said a company supervisor is supposed to keep a list of cars that had been moved, but sometimes the construction is completed by the time vehicle owners realize their car is missing.

“There is no foreman to see,” Anderson said. “Those people have packed up and moved to another location.”

PPA officials say their tow truck operators use a new electronic system, which they began rolling out in late 2019, to record the location of all towed vehicles, but that relocation tows are usually performed by police or private tow companies.

“We don’t let our officers put people in illegal spots, and if they do, there’s a process to try to resolve those,” said Scott Petri, executive director of the PPA. “If that was happening frequently, I would know. Our employees, especially in the tow area, are really, really good at what they do.”

Kevin Wilson, manager at Rob’s Towing & Hauling, said that when his company is hired by the city or a construction company to relocate vehicles for road work, the drivers report all the information to the local police district.

“Every single vehicle that we relocate,” he said.

Wilson conceded that there have been times when his company has towed vehicles to parking spaces where they have subsequently been ticketed. In those cases, he said, the company will pay the fines.

“We’re not infallible, but we try to do the right thing,” he said.

Over the years, Wilson said, he has tangled with police captains over lost records. He recalled cases when his tow operators dropped off information to police, but police claim they never received it.

“My operator will say, ‘I gave it to the desk sergeant,’ and the desk sergeant will say, ‘I never got anything,’” Wilson said. “It has been a problem. We try to do our best.”


Other cities do a better job.

In Phoenix, the police department uses a statewide database that records all towed vehicles. Chicago’s tow-truck operators use handheld devices to input all vehicle relocation information into an immediately searchable website.

Walther, the speech therapist whose car was towed, suggested a stopgap, low-tech solution: Just put a sheet of paper on the windshields of vehicles after they’re towed.

“There should be something saying the car was moved from a free spot to this spot, please do not ticket,” she said.

Out of luck

When Isaacs finally located his BMW on the PPA lot in January, he found a Dec. 15 ticket, written by a Philadelphia police officer at the original parking spot on Camac Street, which had been deemed a temporary no-parking zone while he was away. There was also a handwritten note that stated: “This car will be ticketed & towed on Dec. 15th.”

On the other side of the note were the names of several city officials, including Steve Lorenz, chief highway engineer for the Streets Department.

Lorenz said that the sheet is the second page of a permit that would have been issued to a construction company or private individual seeking temporary no-parking signs. He said the permits can be obtained for something as small as securing a spot for a moving van.

“Whoever tows the car is supposed to give the tow slip to the local police district,” Lorenz said. “The normal process is they give it to the front desk.”

Lorenz said he did not know who had towed Isaacs’ car, or why someone would write a warning on the back of the permit and place it on a windshield.

“It looks like it was handwritten with a Sharpie and doesn’t tell anybody anything,” Lorenz said.

Anderson, the police lieutenant, said he also did not know who towed Isaacs’ car from Camac Street. PPA records show that police ticketed Isaacs’ car on Camac Street, but a PPA spokesperson said there were no records indicating that the agency had towed it. Rob’s Towing said it did not tow it, either.

After leaving the PPA lot, Isaacs figured that the police ticket, combined with the Streets Department permit and the note about an impending tow, would at least serve as proof that someone had towed his car into the loading zone.

He was wrong.

The Bureau of Administrative Adjudication, the agency through which vehicle owners can appeal PPA tickets, later told Isaacs that he had waived his right to appeal by paying the initial fines and fees.

“It’s basically an admission of guilt in their mind,” he said.

Including the tickets, tow fee, impound fee, and parts and labor for his broken window, the whole ordeal has so far cost him $1,469.

Isaacs’ only remaining option is to appeal to Common Pleas Court, which he intends to do.

The filing fee is $215.

And heck, it doesn't even seem to be illegal.  Winner winner chicken dinner!


And the beauty is the system is set up so that once your in you can't get out.  Well you can with enough money, but that's a different thing.

[Dill]

(08-05-2021, 05:58 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Because (IF asked to move back) their phones were incapable of filming from 30ft away? That's roughly just 12 steps away, man.

Suppose the girl had STARTED filming Floyd nearer than that.
Then she had to stop and move. A cut in the video then. 
Two or three segments rather than the continuous 10 minutes. 
And a gap between them. 

I agree that it is dangerous to the police for people to be filming too close and have nothing in principle against
a law requiring 50 ft. of distance, so a cop making an arrest doesn't feel "surrounded."

My concern though is that some cops, seeing how such filming might present them with legal
troubles, might disrupt any perceived filming as a matter of course by telling people to stop, pushing them 
back, etc., 50 ft. or no.  Where there is more than one cop, one might establish and patrol a perimeter, disrupting filming,
while another rough handles a suspect. 

Expressing that concern is not an objection to a 50 ft. law.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(08-06-2021, 09:53 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't disagree on the clear video aspect. But this is also why I advocate for stronger laws and funding related to body worn cameras.

Yup, I fully support them being mandatory on any city, state, highway, and federal law enforcement as well. 

I'm a bit iffier on rural police being required for them simply because that's a whole lot of investment for an area that probably struggles to fund their police force already. Some areas just don't even have the money to support that system and they already drive old cars, etc.

(08-06-2021, 11:32 AM)Dill Wrote: Suppose the girl had STARTED filming Floyd nearer than that.
Then she had to stop and move. A cut in the video then. 
Two or three segments rather than the continuous 10 minutes. 
And a gap between them. 

I agree that it is dangerous to the police for people to be filming too close and have nothing in principle against
a law requiring 50 ft. of distance, so a cop making an arrest doesn't feel "surrounded."

My concern though is that some cops, seeing how such filming might present them with legal
troubles, might disrupt any perceived filming as a matter of course by telling people to stop, pushing them 
back, etc., 50 ft. or no.  Where there is more than one cop, one might establish and patrol a perimeter, disrupting filming,
while another rough handles a suspect. 

Expressing that concern is not an objection to a 50 ft. law.

You're telling me that girl is incapable of being able to walk backwards 12 steps on a hard flat surface without having to cut her video 2 times? 

Dill, you're reaching into infomercial levels of theoretical human incompetence at a simple task in order to try to keep this alive. You've also suddenly increased the 30ft to 50ft.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-06-2021, 05:29 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yup, I fully support them being mandatory on any city, state, highway, and federal law enforcement as well. 

I'm a bit iffier on rural police being required for them simply because that's a whole lot of investment for an area that probably struggles to fund their police force already. Some areas just don't even have the money to support that system and they already drive old cars, etc.

I'm in complete agreement.

Quote:You're telling me that girl is incapable of being able to walk backwards 12 steps on a hard flat surface without having to cut her video 2 times? 

Dill, you're reaching into infomercial levels of theoretical human incompetence at a simple task in order to try to keep this alive. You've also suddenly increased the 30ft to 50ft.

There's got to be a better way!

[GMDino]

(08-06-2021, 05:29 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Yup, I fully support them being mandatory on any city, state, highway, and federal law enforcement as well. 

I'm a bit iffier on rural police being required for them simply because that's a whole lot of investment for an area that probably struggles to fund their police force already. Some areas just don't even have the money to support that system and they already drive old cars, etc.


You're telling me that girl is incapable of being able to walk backwards 12 steps on a hard flat surface without having to cut her video 2 times? 

Dill, you're reaching into infomercial levels of theoretical human incompetence at a simple task in order to try to keep this alive. You've also suddenly increased the 30ft to 50ft.

What Dill is doing is offering a "what if".  The kind of think that happens all the time when certain people and their "ilk" what to defend 2A...but gets questioned when its defending 1A.

You do it. Video record with your phone form ten feet to 30 feet, walking backwards.  Keep the objects in frame and and zoomed in to where you can see the actions of the subjects.  Then try todo it standing still and tell me the difference.

I can do it but I've been using video equipment since I was 15 years old.  Not everyone is so well versed in it.

Maybe she is a very good videographer and would have been able to maintain a continuous shot.  If not SSF would have been screaming that we "don't see everything" and "maybe something happened when the camera wasn't filming" because that's the kind of arguments that get made.  I can foresee a case where the argument will get made that the video is "too far away to clearly show what the officer did". 'Cause we all know his "I need to know more about it" defense only happens when the police are accused of something.  Or gun owners.  Never accused citizens. 

Is 30 feet clear enough or safe enough?  What about 50? 20? 13-1/2?

But we have enough real life, actual events where the police didn't turn on their own camera, the video was "lost", the video wasn't released, cellphones were confiscated and/or destroyed by police, etc that the "what if" scenarios are just discussion but we don't even need them.

I have for the safety of officers and I am for citizens keeping said officers accountable for their actions.  This type of law doesn't balance that for me.  It's a simple argument.

And add in the other attempts to make police a protected class and it is that "slippery slope" the 2A ilk LOVE to talk about.  Makes me think they don't really like protecting rights as much as they like protecting their guns.

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-07-2021, 09:25 AM)GMDino Wrote: What Dill is doing is offering a "what if".  The kind of think that happens all the time when certain people and their "ilk" what to defend 2A...but gets questioned when its defending 1A.

You do it. Video record with your phone form ten feet to 30 feet, walking backwards.  Keep the objects in frame and and zoomed in to where you can see the actions of the subjects.  Then try todo it standing still and tell me the difference.

I can do it but I've been using video equipment since I was 15 years old.  Not everyone is so well versed in it.

Maybe she is a very good videographer and would have been able to maintain a continuous shot.  If not SSF would have been screaming that we "don't see everything" and "maybe something happened when the camera wasn't filming" because that's the kind of arguments that get made.  I can foresee a case where the argument will get made that the video is "too far away to clearly show what the officer did". 'Cause we all know his "I need to know more about it" defense only happens when the police are accused of something.  Or gun owners.  Never accused citizens. 

Is 30 feet clear enough or safe enough?  What about 50? 20? 13-1/2?

But we have enough real life, actual events where the police didn't turn on their own camera, the video was "lost", the video wasn't released, cellphones were confiscated and/or destroyed by police, etc that the "what if" scenarios are just discussion but we don't even need them.

I have for the safety of officers and I am for citizens keeping said officers accountable for their actions.  This type of law doesn't balance that for me.  It's a simple argument.

And add in the other attempts to make police a protected class and it is that "slippery slope" the 2A ilk LOVE to talk about.  Makes me think they don't really like protecting rights as much as they like protecting their guns.

This is a lot of words just to say you don't agree with the law.  Your First Amendment comparison is a ham fisted attempt to label your opponents as being against Constitutional rights.  Thankfully your attempt is laughably sophomoric and completely devoid of substance.  Making sure people are a safe distance from law enforcement doing their job in no way shape or form restricts their first amendment rights. You and Dill are acting like 30' away is an insane distance, or 50' when Dill decided to move the goalposts, and that it restricts their First Amendment rights.  How so, they are still able to film?  In any event it's clear you're not here to have an honest debate on the subject, but just to stir shit up and hurl accusations at others.  Make one cogent argument that being restricted to thirty feet from law enforcement doing its job in any way infringes on your First Amendment rights.

[Dill]

(08-06-2021, 05:29 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: You're telling me that girl is incapable of being able to walk backwards 12 steps on a hard flat surface without having to cut her video 2 times? 

Dill, you're reaching into infomercial levels of theoretical human incompetence at a simple task in order to try to keep this alive. You've also suddenly increased the 30ft to 50ft.

I suppose she's "capable."  

But who knows what she'd do if a police officer started yelling at her to get back, or moved to
the people standing on the sidewalk, pushing them back, blocking the view. Was she even 13 years old?
A lot of people would stop and restart, I believe.

My point is that some police officer could use the law to make sure that a long or "complete" video is prevented.

And sure, 50 feet is better.

[Dill]

(08-07-2021, 12:22 PM)Sociopathicsteelerfan Wrote: This is a lot of words just to say you don't agree with the law.  Your First Amendment comparison is a ham fisted attempt to label your opponents as being against Constitutional rights.  Thankfully your attempt is laughably sophomoric and completely devoid of substance.  Making sure people are a safe distance from law enforcement doing their job in no way shape or form restricts their first amendment rights. You and Dill are acting like 30' away is an insane distance, or 50' when Dill decided to move the goalposts, and that it restricts their First Amendment rights.  How so, they are still able to film?  In any event it's clear you're not here to have an honest debate on the subject, but just to stir shit up and hurl accusations at others.  Make one cogent argument that being restricted to thirty feet from law enforcement doing its job in any way infringes on your First Amendment rights.

Wait, are you arguing that 30 ft is better than 50? 


LOL you are NEVER going to stop Dino from hurling accusations at others. 

That just what ham-fisted and laughably sophomoric labelers who cannot debate honestly do. 

He was like that on the old list too!

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-07-2021, 01:13 PM)Dill Wrote: And sure, 50 feet is better.

It's also not in the law.  You're flailing so badly on this you're literally making shit up. 

[Sociopathicsteelerfan]

(08-07-2021, 01:19 PM)Dill Wrote: Wait, are you arguing that 30 ft is better than 50?

It's the distance from the law that is the topic of discussion.  Wow, you're approaching GM levels of inanity here.

Quote:LOL you are NEVER going to stop Dino from hurling accusations at others.

Somehow I'll find the courage to go on living.   

Quote:That just what ham-fisted and laughably sophomoric labelers who cannot debate honestly do. 

He was like that on the old list too!

I'm sincerely concerned for your mental health at this point.  GM's inauspicious return really seems to have damaged you. 

[GMDino]

https://reason.com/2021/03/30/qualified-immunity-cops-free-speech-force-man-delete-video-beating-suspect/?itm_source=parsely-api

Quote:In August 2014, Levi Frasier filmed Denver cops beating a suspect during an arrest for an alleged drug deal. The officers punched the accused six times in the face, and when a woman approached the scene screaming, a different cop clutched her ankle, tossing her to the ground—all captured on film.


The officers didn't take kindly to the latter point. After the arrest, they surrounded Frasier, searched his tablet without a warrant, and attempted to delete the resulting video. In doing so, a federal court this week acknowledged that the officers violated the First Amendment, with the judges noting that the city's police training had taught the officers as much: There's a constitutional right to record government agents making a public arrest.

The same court ruled that the cops are protected by qualified immunity, the legal doctrine that shields state actors from civil suits unless a previous court precedent outlines a case with almost exactly the same factual circumstances.


Known as the "clearly established law" test, that standard is supposed to protect public officials from shallow litigation. In reality, it often allows the government to skirt responsibility for alleged misconduct, no matter how blatant. Consider the cops who allegedly stole $225,000 while executing a search warrant, or the cops who assaulted and arrested a man for standing outside of his own house, or the cop who shot a 10-year-old child. All were given qualified immunity—not because their conduct wasn't unconscionable, but because pre-existing case law didn't expressly say so.

That standard is alive and well here. "[T]he district court was wrong to deny the officers qualified immunity based on their knowledge of Mr. Frasier's purported First Amendment rights that they gained from their training," wrote Judge Jerome A. Holmes of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit. "Judicial decisions are the only valid interpretive source of the content of clearly established law; whatever training the officers received concerning the First Amendment was irrelevant to the clearly-established-law inquiry."

In other words: Although the officers knew their behavior was unlawful, the public cannot hold them accountable because, in the eyes of qualified immunity, they weren't equipped with that knowledge in the right way. A court precedent is the only avenue in which a public servant can appropriately and unquestionably know what conduct violates someone's rights, wrote Holmes, as if cops are casually perusing case law texts for instruction.

Frasier also brought a civil conspiracy claim against the officers, who again sought protection under qualified immunity. The district court denied them that request. The 10th Circuit reversed.

"Because we have concluded that the officers are entitled to qualified immunity on Mr. Frasier's First Amendment retaliation claim based on the absence of clearly established law," the court said, "it necessarily follows that they also are entitled to qualified immunity on his conspiracy claim insofar as it alleges a conspiracy to retaliate against him in violation of the same First Amendment right."

The Supreme Court has notoriously been unwilling to conduct a wholesale reevaluation of qualified immunity. In fact, the Court specifically demurred at the opportunity to review every qualified immunity case mentioned above.

It's a rich refusal considering that the Court itself breathed qualified immunity into existence. Though it is not the job of nine justices to legislate for the country, that's precisely what they did in creating the first iteration of the legal doctrine in Pierson v. Ray (1967), refining it to its current application—that "clearly established" part—as outlined in Harlow v. Fitzgerald (1982).

In its current session, however, the Supreme Court has been willing to send subtler messages to lower courts about just how rigorous a standard qualified immunity should be. In November, the justices reversed the ruling in Taylor v. Riojas (2020), in which the U.S Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit awarded qualified immunity to a group of prison guards who forced a naked psychiatric-unit inmate into two filthy cells, one lined with "massive amounts" of human feces and the other with raw sewage overflowing from a clogged floor drain. The Court did the same last month when it ordered the 5th Circuit to reconsider a decision in which they gave qualified immunity to a correctional officer who pepper-sprayed an inmate without provocation.

Holmes recognized this trend, tipping his hat to the recent decision in Taylor. As with any guidance from the high court, he conceded that it should be his lodestar. And yet such guidance still isn't enough in this case, he concluded.

"Mr. Frasier's attempt to distill a clearly established right applicable here from the general First Amendment principles protecting the creation of speech and the gathering of news," the judge said, "runs headfirst into the Supreme Court's prohibition against defining clearly established rights at a high level of generality."

As with any qualified immunity decision, the ruling rests on reasonableness. A reasonable officer could reasonably believe that the First Amendment doesn't apply to filming public arrests, Holmes explained. Basic principles attached to both the free press and free speech didn't make it obvious enough. The courses the officers received in which the government explicitly told them that their actions infringed on the Constitution didn't make it obvious enough.

What, then, would make such an act unreasonable? If an armed agent of the state cannot be expected to apply his or her training to the job, then perhaps we're holding the government to too low a standard.