|
BamaD -> RE: It Looks Like This Police Officer Fucked Up (4/11/2015 1:42:26 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: igor2003
quote:
ORIGINAL: BamaD
quote:
ORIGINAL: dcnovice
quote:
Your own quote shows that your "headline" is a inaccurate. They can record the police, they just have to stay back when they do it. The recording of this shooting would have been unaffected by that law.
You don't think this might be the first step onto a "slippery slope"? [:)]
Any thoughts on the requirement that an armed person keep four times the distance of an unarmed observer?
ETA: Fixed my math. #funwithchemobrain
In a heated confrontation a cop looking up and seeing an armed person could lead to a unfortunate misunderstanding.
Do you even know what the point of this law is?
The current law says that people recording the police can't get it the way, but leaves how far back they have to say to the discretion of the cops. With this the distance is defined so that cops can't make them move as far away as they want to. It reduces the opportunity for the cops to abuse the law.
If, as you say, in a heated confrontation a cop looks up and sees an armed person, then yes, it could lead to an unfortunate misunderstanding. Though, if the weapon is holstered, the "misunderstanding" would be on the part of the officer(s) involved. But the bill doesn't specify weapons in plain view. It specifies all handguns, even those that are concealed. And it does not include long guns. Not that any of that really matters too much. I do have to question, why is it that a person with a legally concealed weapon doesn't have the right to record a close proximity video (25 feet) the same as anyone else? Your explanation of "what if the officer looks up and sees a weapon" scenario doesn't hold up.
Also, if you read the bill, it talks about how "Only representatives of radio or TV organizations that hold an FCC license, newspapers and magazines would have the right to record police." (According to the article linked to by dcnovice.) It seems to be contrary to private citizens having the right to film. In reading the bill myself it all seemed a little ambiguous. But let's say it is limited only to radio, tv, newspaper, and magazine employed reporters. How many of those are actually "on scene" from the very beginning? As a rule they would only get there in time to film or report the aftermath. How convenient would that be for the police? This would go back to Lucy's comment about how this would now appear to have been a "legitimate" shooting, having only the cop's say-so in the matter.
So, do you even know what the point of the law is? It looks to me like it is less about keeping people back a certain distance, and more about keeping them from filming all together. If they want to keep them back a certain distance, then specify that distance. . .for EVERYONE. Period. Leave out any reference to established media personnel. Leave out references to everyone with a handgun. MAYBE specify those with handguns that open carry. What it says is, you can't RECORD if you have a handgun. It DOES NOT say that you have to stay back that distance if you are just standing there watching. . .while carrying a handgun. How is recording while carrying a handgun more dangerous than just standing watching while carrying a handgun?
You seem to have more detailed information on the law than I did.
I gave the only reason I could find for making armed people stay further away.
If it isn't open carry then how would the cops know they were armed.
Ok course the cop would be the one misinterpreting the situation.
And, to be honest I don't see what difference it should make about the person being armed.
I have doubts about this law standing up in court but as I pointed out in the initial exchange on this the headline and the story contradict each other.
|
|
|
|
