Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 09-09-2022, 08:45 PM
 
46,951 posts, read 25,984,404 times
Reputation: 29442

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by john3232 View Post
An officer is making an arrest they can't have the public moving in too close. They've got to stand back.
See above.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 09-09-2022, 08:47 PM
 
Location: az
13,728 posts, read 7,992,868 times
Reputation: 9395
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dane_in_LA View Post
You guys do not get it? A cop who doesn't want to be recorded just has to walk within 8 feet of the citizen doing so and boom! - instant arrest, footage confiscated, and we're sorry he fell down the steps in prison.
No, I get it. I get why the police would want such a law but I also understand why it was tossed.

I would support making it mandatory for police officers to wear a body cam. Every interaction with the public needs to be taped. Not just for the public should they want to lodge a complaint but to protect the officer against charges of alleged misconduct.

Last edited by john3232; 09-09-2022 at 09:01 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2022, 07:20 AM
 
9,434 posts, read 4,252,535 times
Reputation: 7018
Quote:
Originally Posted by john3232 View Post
No, I get it. I get why the police would want such a law but I also understand why it was tossed.

I would support making it mandatory for police officers to wear a body cam. Every interaction with the public needs to be taped. Not just for the public should they want to lodge a complaint but to protect the officer against charges of alleged misconduct.
That would work if the body cams did not "misfunction" so often.
Yea right - misfunction - that's a laugh.
until then another set of eyes is critical.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2022, 07:25 AM
 
15,047 posts, read 8,871,547 times
Reputation: 9510
Quote:
Originally Posted by foodyum View Post
I hate to say I told you so, but I told you so.
And I’ll be right there videoing the whole mess if I think something fishy is going down.
The ability to stream or record abusive police practices has been a game changer.
It ups everyone’s game.
This. Derek Chauvin would still be kneeling on people's necks if not for someone with a phone recording his crime.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2022, 08:17 AM
 
Location: NJ
23,550 posts, read 17,223,445 times
Reputation: 17589
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Hemi View Post
Exactly. The law was made to allow cops to just claim that anyone was too close and arrest them. Then destroy the phone that the footage was on, or just delete it. It was made to abuse and discourage catching egregious behavior.
Get that close or even several feet further away and it makes the arresting officer wary of danger. So now the perps buds, w/o a camera can assist the perp resisting arrest.

Dangerous to put some sort measurement into law. It would require a guy with a camera phone recording the other guy with a camera phone who is recording the arrest.

So some guy closes in on a cop with phone and when he gets close enough, he pulls his gun. Puts the cop at a disadvantage to protect himself.

Shouldn't need a law to not approach a cop involved with an arrest. No need for micro view.

The law is blind but it should not be blind to logic and reason when created.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2022, 08:22 AM
 
45,676 posts, read 24,008,400 times
Reputation: 15559
Quote:
Originally Posted by john3232 View Post
An officer is making an arrest they can't have the public moving in too close. They've got to stand back.

In any event the law regarding filming was tossed and unlikely to return
As a number of people have pointed out -- there are laws on the books which address impeding the ability of an officer to carry out his duties.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2022, 08:39 AM
 
Location: King County, WA
15,834 posts, read 6,539,575 times
Reputation: 13331
The police can always just tell people to stay back. That should be sufficient.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2022, 10:24 AM
 
Location: az
13,728 posts, read 7,992,868 times
Reputation: 9395
Quote:
Originally Posted by foodyum View Post
That would work if the body cams did not "misfunction" so often.
Yea right - misfunction - that's a laugh.
until then another set of eyes is critical.

Not long ago the Ohio police department released the body cam showing the shooting death of Donovan Lewis. The body cam shows the events leading up to the shooting.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tO-W4o14Cgs

Having another set of eyes (public video) is fine but too often it's incomplete and doesn't show the interaction from start to finish.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2022, 12:41 PM
 
6,384 posts, read 2,707,824 times
Reputation: 6122
Quote:
Originally Posted by moneill View Post
As a number of people have pointed out -- there are laws on the books which address impeding the ability of an officer to carry out his duties.
When have current laws ever mattered to Progressives? There are hundreds of laws on the books about "Gun Control", but it doesn't keep them from trying to create more laws. There are also hundreds of laws about various crimes such as Thefts or Drugs, that Progressives just chose to ignore. But now they are concerned about "existing" laws?

This law didn't say you couldn't film police, it said you couldn't get within 8 feet. It didn't bar people involved from filming closer than 8 feet. So if you were a passenger in a car that is pulled over you would still be allowed to film.

I don't even know why any third party would want to get within 8 feet unless their intention was to interfere with police. I don't think there is a video-capable Cell Phone on the market that couldn't clearly video a scene from 8 feet away, with even minor zoom capability you could be 50 feet away and still get quite a bit of detail. Actually the closer you get, the less you may actually end up "seeing".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 09-10-2022, 06:52 PM
 
8,886 posts, read 4,580,593 times
Reputation: 16242
When we were kids (~70 years ago), my brothers and I loved to play "Cops and Robbers". I always chose to be on the side of the "Cops". That hasn't changed. Interesting to see so many on here who are on the side of the "Robbers".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Politics and Other Controversies

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:17 PM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top