Author Topic: Texas rep says stand back when videoing cops (Read 4893 times)

vaskidmark · « **on:** March 14, 2015, 04:14:29 PM »

http://www.chron.com/news/politics/texas/article/Bill-restricting-rights-of-citizens-to-videotape-6130903.phpk

House Bill 2918
http://www.legis.state.tx.us/tlodocs/84R/billtext/pdf/HB02918I.pdf

Google Real Time coverage 29 Articles ATM
https://news.google.com/news/rtc?ncl=dd5BwJADmafBuIMBp6rBiyX8lhz1M

Stand back when videoing cops. Stand waay back when videoing cops if you are armed.

Wonder what would would happen if they made candidates pass a basic civics test before having their name put on the ballot?

My Saturday-morning breakfast group stopped at 9 federal laws he violated just by proposing the bill. I'd guess that at least some of them are replicated in Texas laws.

stay safe.

never_retreat · « **Reply #1 on:** March 14, 2015, 04:26:48 PM »

All 3 of those links don't work. Odd

vaskidmark · « **Reply #2 on:** March 14, 2015, 05:04:56 PM »

Links should work now.

stay safe.

Battle Monkey of Zardoz · « **Reply #3 on:** March 14, 2015, 07:12:22 PM »

Nothing to see here. Just more of that "rift healing".

HankB · « **Reply #4 on:** March 14, 2015, 09:55:23 PM »

If I were filming cops doing "something" I know I wouldn't want to get too close to the action - I mean, you really, really don't want to get in their way. But I've heard that cops have arrested people for filming from their own property or even from across the street.

As for this Texas congresscritter, the local paper said his proposal is that bloggers must stand back - official news reporters would be exempt from his restrictions.

Hmmm . . . maybe reporting by official news reporters is more easily controlled?

Hawkmoon · « **Reply #5 on:** March 15, 2015, 08:34:55 AM »

Quote from: HankB on March 14, 2015, 09:55:23 PM

As for this Texas congresscritter, the local paper said his proposal is that bloggers must stand back - official news reporters would be exempt from his restrictions.

Hmmm . . . maybe reporting by official news reporters is more easily controlled?

So I'm neither a blogger nor an "official news reporter." Where does that leave me?

vaskidmark · « **Reply #6 on:** March 15, 2015, 09:43:51 AM »

Quote from: Hawkmoon on March 15, 2015, 08:34:55 AM

So I'm neither a blogger nor an "official news reporter." Where does that leave me?

With either the hoi or the poloi. Hard to tell from a distance.

stay safe.

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #7 on:** March 15, 2015, 11:46:48 AM »

We have reached the point where the people are afraid of their governments, and the government has no fear of the people. Isn't something supposed to happen?

erictank · « **Reply #8 on:** March 15, 2015, 05:57:16 PM »

Quote from: Monkeyleg on March 15, 2015, 11:46:48 AM

We have reached the point where the people are afraid of their governments, and the government has no fear of the people. Isn't something supposed to happen?

They'd better hope not. Regardless of who "they" is in this case, really - it would end up badly for both the government and the people either way.

RoadKingLarry · « **Reply #9 on:** March 15, 2015, 07:13:46 PM »

Quote from: Monkeyleg on March 15, 2015, 11:46:48 AM

We have reached the point where the people are afraid of their governments, and the government has no fear of the people. Isn't something supposed to happen?

We've gone beyond "no fear" to outright contempt.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #10 on:** March 16, 2015, 01:59:07 PM »

Okay, I don't like the bill. I don't think it is necessary. It is certainly silly to separate out armed people or "official" press. A better way to approach it (if it is a real problem) is to better define what "interfering with the police" means. That might at least keep cops from going after people who are already at a discreet distance.

On the premise of the bill:
25 feet isn't that far at all. People taking video of police really ought to be that far away just to be out of the way. Most cameras these days get video quality plenty good enough to not require tight close ups. Just how close are people currently getting to the police when they video them?

KD5NRH · « **Reply #11 on:** March 16, 2015, 02:25:55 PM »

Quote from: MechAg94 on March 16, 2015, 01:59:07 PM

On the premise of the bill:
25 feet isn't that far at all. People taking video of police really ought to be that far away just to be out of the way. Most cameras these days get video quality plenty good enough to not require tight close ups. Just how close are people currently getting to the police when they video them?

It would effectively prevent anyone somewhat involved in the situation from recording. For example, a passenger during a traffic stop. It also has no provision for situations where it would be unrealistic to claim the person recording is in the way, such as on the other side of a window or on a balcony above the incident.

Balog · « **Reply #12 on:** March 16, 2015, 03:45:08 PM »

Quote from: Battle Monkey of Zardoz on March 14, 2015, 07:12:22 PM

Nothing to see here. Just more of that "rift healing".

Oh ffs, one cop said one thing one time about trying to improve relations between the police and the public and now anytime anyone anywhere does something stupid you bring that up. It's getting annoying.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #13 on:** March 16, 2015, 03:50:10 PM »

I hadn't read the bill. It is more stupid than I realized. I don't think he put any thought whatsoever into this.

- No exception for people involved in the incident. I couldn't even take pictures of my vehicle when an officer is there investigating an accident.
- IMO, a somewhat strict definition of news media. Apparently news media can get right in the officer's face, but no one else can.
- Apparently illegally carrying a gun can still be done taking video at 30 feet. I may be wrong on that legal reference.

MechAg94 · « **Reply #14 on:** March 16, 2015, 03:51:24 PM »

Quote from: Balog on March 16, 2015, 03:45:08 PM

Oh ffs, one cop said one thing one time about trying to improve relations between the police and the public and now anytime anyone anywhere does something stupid you bring that up. It's getting annoying.

And as we have said before, the problem is largely with the politicians including this one.

Cliffh · « **Reply #15 on:** March 17, 2015, 12:28:42 AM »

Listening to the local radio show this morning, a caller ID'ing himself as a LEO said it's for officer safety.

IMO, it's more stifling of our freedom.

Firethorn · « **Reply #16 on:** March 17, 2015, 06:13:09 AM »

Quote from: MechAg94 on March 16, 2015, 01:59:07 PM

is to better define what "interfering with the police" means. That might at least keep cops from going after people who are already at a discreet distance.

I like this idea. If possible, we should better clarify 'resisting arrest', seeing as how people have been charged with it for things like 'asking what they were being arrested for'. Or somebody in a diabetic coma 'not following orders'.

Monkeyleg · « **Reply #17 on:** March 17, 2015, 09:58:06 AM »

Quote

Listening to the local radio show this morning, a caller ID'ing himself as a LEO said it's for officer safety.

Yeah, the radiation emanating from video cameras can have a cumulative, harmful effect on the human body.

KD5NRH · « **Reply #18 on:** March 17, 2015, 10:15:33 AM »

Quote from: Firethorn on March 17, 2015, 06:13:09 AM

I like this idea. If possible, we should better clarify 'resisting arrest', seeing as how people have been charged with it for things like 'asking what they were being arrested for'. Or somebody in a diabetic coma 'not following orders'.

Or the one we had here right after Tasers came out, where an city cop tried to zap a deaf guy for not following orders, because he was facing away from them, digging a hole with a shovel. (IIRC, it was just supposed to be a quick check on the guy digging a hole in his yard at 5AM - turned out his cat had died overnight and he was burying it before his wife woke up.) What got the cop was the "tried" part, given that he was out of range at nearly 50 feet away from a guy with a "weapon" that had maybe a 6 foot range, wasn't advancing on him, and obviously (to four witnesses including an off duty deputy) had no clue the officer was even there. Most of the stink came from said (6'4" and built a bit like a Brahma bull) deputy identifying himself, stuffing the relatively new cop back into the car and keeping him there until less panicky backup showed up.

Battle Monkey of Zardoz · « **Reply #19 on:** March 17, 2015, 12:08:23 PM »

Quote from: Balog on March 16, 2015, 03:45:08 PM

Oh ffs, one cop said one thing one time about trying to improve relations between the police and the public and now anytime anyone anywhere does something stupid you bring that up. It's getting annoying.

Well. I've been schooled. Feel free the add me to your ignore list.

Balog · « **Reply #20 on:** March 17, 2015, 01:26:44 PM »

Quote from: Battle Monkey of Zardoz on March 17, 2015, 12:08:23 PM

Well. I've been schooled. Feel free the add me to your ignore list.

You're a little bit of a drama queen aren't you?

MechAg94 · « **Reply #21 on:** March 17, 2015, 03:27:03 PM »

Quote from: Monkeyleg on March 17, 2015, 09:58:06 AM

Yeah, the radiation emanating from video cameras can have a cumulative, harmful effect on the human body.

To me, the officer safety is often an excuse. Politicians have a hard time arguing against "officer safety" issues. It can be a legitimate argument, but needs explanation.

On the bad side of the spectrum, I can see some a-hole walking up to an arrest in progress and trying to film on a phone or small camera from 18 inches away. IMO, that is a situation where a cop could legitimately claim either interference or "safety" as the officer now has to worry if this idiot is going to get in the way, deliberately interfere, or become a victim of a violent suspect. That is why I was speculating that 25 feet is really not that far away if you are just trying to protect rights or document event. At some point, I think some distance will end up being set. However, there needs to only apply to people with no involvement and there need to be protections for people filming at a discreet distance from police harrassment. Also, there are a wide variety of recording methods. A person with a pen camera in their shirt pocket; should they be forced to leave or turn it off just because of this law?

Firethorn · « **Reply #22 on:** March 17, 2015, 06:50:11 PM »

My take, in general: If the camera is catching officers telling everybody to stand back, to back the hell up, etc... Then the camera crew should be doing so as well. Including if they're professionals, because if they're pros the zooms on their cameras should be more than up to the task of recording something at 25-50' away.

If the police choose to interact with somebody, and NOT moving them away, said person is entitled to record at the distance that the officer chooses to interact with them at.

If somebody is obnoxious about moving away when the police tell them to do so, then perhaps they should maybe catch some trouble, whether they're video recording or not.

Cliffh · « **Reply #23 on:** March 17, 2015, 07:15:57 PM »

Quote from: MechAg94 on March 17, 2015, 03:27:03 PM

To me, the officer safety is often an excuse. Politicians have a hard time arguing against "officer safety" issues. It can be a legitimate argument, but needs explanation.

Same here. "We want this law/regulation, and it's for our safety, you don't want us to not go home at night, do you?"

News:

Author Topic: Texas rep says stand back when videoing cops (Read 4893 times)