What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Cops: No Snarky Nor Positive Title

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bronco said:
He will simply be hired at another department. If only there was a nationwide certification needed to become and remain a police officer.
Click to expand...

Which is hilarious because we've got a friend who is a cop who has had a fucking terrible time getting a job outside of Alaska. He's one of the good cops.

During training he had an exercise where they put a blindfold over you and they walk you into a room. They pull the blindfold off and see how you react. In his case, it was a cop just whaling on a guy on the ground, motionless, with a baton. Our friend immediately tackled the cop like Goldberg in the WCW days. (He said others would pounce on the guy on the ground and throw cuffs on him without even addressing the brutality.)

Anyways. Probably why he's had a hard time getting a job. "Hmmmm not one N word the entire interview. Woefully unqualified."
 
That's really bad. Actually worse than I expected. And I had a pretty dim view of the mpd

the black hawk down comment made me nauseous
 
An apparent victory for us over the Nazis, for once.

A federal judge has ruled that an Arizona law limiting how close people can get to recording law enforcement is unconstitutional, citing infringement against a clearly established right to film police doing their jobs.

The ruling July 21 from U.S. District Judge John J. Tuchi permanently blocks enforcement of the law that he suspended last year.

The Republican-backed law was signed by former Republican Gov. Doug Ducey in July 2022, but enthusiasm for the restrictions faded and legislators refused an opportunity to defend the law during an initial court suspension. Republican state Sen. John Kavanagh, who sponsored the measure, has said he was unable to find an outside group to defend the legislation.

The law would have made it illegal to knowingly film police officers from 8 feet or closer if the officer told the person to stop. And on private property, an officer who decides that someone is interfering or that the area is unsafe could have ordered the person to stop filming even if the recording was being made with the owner's permission.

"The law prohibits or chills a substantial amount of First Amendment-protected activity and is unnecessary to prevent interference with police officers given other Arizona laws in effect," Tuchi ruled.
Click to expand...
 
Kepler said:
An apparent victory for us over the Nazis, for once.
Click to expand...

While I am fine with this in general, if you're familiar with many of the shitbags that are "1st Amendment Auditors" you'd understand why they would have preferred to have at least an 8-foot cushion between themselves and "innocent bystanders". 8 feet is more than close enough to film what they need to yet gives say a single officer who might find himself trying to do the right thing while in the middle of more than a few people a bit of necessary breathing room. I've seen countless videos of these 'frauditors' that overly inject themselves into the situation in ways that are completely unnecessary. Why does someone need to be inside of 8 feet to film what's happening?
 
Slap Shot said:
While I am fine with this in general, if you're familiar with many of the ****bags that are "1st Amendment Auditors" you'd understand why they would have preferred to have at least an 8-foot cushion between themselves and "innocent bystanders". 8 feet is more than close enough to film what they need to yet gives say a single officer who might find himself trying to do the right thing while in the middle of more than a few people a bit of necessary breathing room. I've seen countless videos of these 'frauditors' that overly inject themselves into the situation in ways that are completely unnecessary. Why does someone need to be inside of 8 feet to film what's happening?
Click to expand...

I don't buy it. I'm a lot less worried about "frauditors" than murderers in police uniforms carrying the power of the state.
 
Slap Shot said:
So you don't think you can adequately film a cop from 8 feet? I don't buy it.
Click to expand...

A person who had been pulled over filming the traffic stop from within their own car is within 8 feet.

Cops will abuse the 8 foot limit that is unnecessary when interference with official acts is already on the books.

"Stop filming!"
​​​"I'm 12 feet away! No!"
Cops take 3 steps towards you.
"Now you're not."
 
Last edited:
unofan said:
A person who had been pulled over filming the traffic stop from within their own car is within 8 feet.

Cops will abuse the 8 foot limit that is unnecessary when interference with official acts is already on the books.

"Stop filming!"
​​​"I'm 12 feet away! No!"
Cops take 3 steps towards you.
"Now you're not."
Click to expand...

From within your car if you're the involved party could easily be written in as exempt, and despite there being distance laws previously on the books it didn't lead to cases of drivers being told to stop filming. Also cops can always try to abuse the rules and they can be sued for it. Which cases are you aware of where photographers were ordered to film from an unreasonable distance?
 
Slap Shot said:
From within your car if you're the involved party could easily be written in as exempt, and despite there being distance laws previously on the books it didn't lead to cases of drivers being told to stop filming. Also cops can always try to abuse the rules and they can be sued for it. Which cases are you aware of where photographers were ordered to film from an unreasonable distance?
Click to expand...

So the people that filmed George Floyd's murder should go to jail? They were within 8 feet, and the cops were trying to get them to stop filming.
 
Bronco said:
So the people that filmed George Floyd's murder should go to jail? They were within 8 feet, and the cops were trying to get them to stop filming.
Click to expand...

Nothing I said previously suggests I'm against the cops being filmed. I fully support it and if people can they should do it every time they have the chance.

Specifically in the case of Floyd, did Minneapolis have distance laws in place at the time? If so bystanders were still allowed to film and I'm willing to bet their distance was closer to 8 feet than not.

Yesterday I watched a video of some rando dude on a beach in Florida that started assaulting people for what appeared to be no reason. Guy was likely drunk or on something. One single cop was the first to respond and tackled him down. After several seconds of trying to subdue him while completely surrounded on all sides by people withing just a few feet, one of this guy's friends jumped in and tried to pull the cop off. Most people who watched the video would not find fault with the cop's handling of the situation to that point.

Now while that is not 100% analogous to citizens filming cops, I can understand why the police would like to have some buffer room so they can focus on the task and not have to worry about someone sneaking up behind them.

Find a spot in your driveway and mark it. Measure 8 feet. Film the spot and tell me you can't adequately record it.

btw I didn't read up on this ruling but I wonder if cases such as Chavez v City of Oakland or Branzburg v Hayes were mentioned.
 
Last edited:
Slap Shot said:
Nothing I said previously suggests I'm against the cops being filmed. I fully support it and if people can they should do it every time they have the chance.

Specifically in the case of Floyd, did Minneapolis have distance laws in place at the time? If so bystanders were still allowed to film and I'm willing to bet their distance was closer to 8 feet than not.

Yesterday I watched a video of some rando dude on a beach in Florida that started assaulting people for what appeared to be no reason. Guy was likely drunk or on something. One single cop was the first to respond and tackled him down. After several seconds of trying to subdue him while completely surrounded on all sides by people withing just a few feet, one of this guy's friends jumped in and tried to pull the cop off. Most people who watched the video would not find fault with the cop's handling of the situation to that point.

Now while that is not 100% analogous to citizens filming cops, I can understand why the police would like to have some buffer room so they can focus on the task and not have to worry about someone sneaking up behind them.

Find a spot in your driveway and mark it. Measure 8 feet. Film the spot and tell me you can't adequately record it.

btw I didn't read up on this ruling but I wonder if cases such as Chavez v City of Oakland or Branzburg v Hayes were mentioned.
Click to expand...

You are making a law that will dole out some form of punishment for people filming cops. If it is a distance then the bad cop simply moves closer to the photographer and they get in trouble. It will certainly happen. What if the cop is breaking the law in a room smaller than eight feet? Do they just not get filmed? Carte blanche to do whatever they want in small rooms doesn't sound like the way to go.

I do understand what you are saying. If people are getting in the way of legitimate police action, then they too should be ruled as obstructing justice.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top