this post was submitted on 31 May 2024
212 points (98.6% liked)

News

23611 readers
4471 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Critics of a new Louisiana law, which makes it a crime to approach within 25 feet (7.6 meters) of a police officer under certain circumstances, fear that the measure could hinder the public’s ability to film officers — a tool that has increasingly been used to hold police accountable.

Under the law, anyone who is convicted of “knowingly or intentionally” approaching an officer, who is “lawfully engaged in the execution of his official duties,” and after being ordered to “stop approaching or retreat” faces up to a $500 fine, up to 60 days in jail or both. The law was signed by Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, Tuesday and goes into effect Aug. 1.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 27 points 6 months ago (7 children)

How close do you need to be to take cell phone video of police without being a distraction?

25 feet feels a bit much, but understandable. I can certainly record people 25 feet away with very good detail.

However, does that radius expand if a second cop gets in between and starts walking your way? That sounds like an entrapment issue.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 6 months ago

Like they're gonna care how far you really were.

[–] ThePantser 9 points 6 months ago (1 children)

I didn't approach, he ran at me!

[–] wolfeh 1 points 6 months ago

"It's comin' right for us!"

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 months ago

It's far enough that recording clear video in darker settings would be harder since most zoom lenses suck in low light. Audio would be harder to pickup as well.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 months ago (1 children)

It doesn't matter whether you're a distraction. The First Amendment allows you to be a distraction. It's been your right for the last 250 years to be a distraction.

But I'm trying to understand why you think this is understandable. To me, it's understandable if you're a cop trying to cover up your own illegal actions. If you're 25 ft away, you cannot read the cop's name tag, and if you ask them their name they will pretend not to hear you, so it's harder to hold them accountable if you observe them doing something wrong. Similarly, if a cop is trying to plant evidence, you really want to have higher resolution video. Something grainy is not as useful in court.

Remember what laws are already on the books. Then try to tell yourself a story about why those laws aren't good enough. If you physically interfere with an officer, or if you threaten to do anything physical to them, they already have the authority to arrest you for it. So if you think this new law is necessary, what precise behavior is it that you think is preventing cops from doing their jobs that wasn't already illegal?

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 months ago

Obviously, if shit goes down and people whip out cell phones, it doesn't magically turn everyone into guerrilla cinematographers bumping elbows with police to get the best angle. So if not 25 feet, what would you say is a respectable buffer zone between bystander and interfering?

[–] disguy_ovahea 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago) (1 children)

The point of the Arizona law is to prevent you from recording your own encounter with an officer. You can’t ask an officer to stand 25 feet away from your car after being pulled over.

This needs to be challenged with the “one-party consent” law that allows for both parties of a phone conversation to record if one is recording. If I’m being recorded, I should maintain the right to record.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago* (last edited 6 months ago)

Interesting take. I didn't read it that way. If you are the epicenter, you would always be withing the 25' circle. Hmmm

Edit: based on the article, it doesn't sound like this would apply. The law mentions approaching an officer, implying the bystander began away from but on a vector moving towards the location.

But I'm no lawyer.

[–] assassin_aragorn 1 points 6 months ago

However, does that radius expand if a second cop gets in between and starts walking your way? That sounds like an entrapment issue.

If the wording in this article is correct, the radius would stay the same. It talks about approaching officers, not being approached by officers. If they close the gap, that's on them.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 months ago

25 feet is far enough to prevent most voices that aren't yelling from being recorded. Any sidewalk next to an officer pulling a car over is restricted, as well as 2 lanes of road. A bailiff restricts most the courtroom. Jails are essentially fucked for incarcerated. Any cop directing traffic could choose any car to fuck over. Be careful at any sporting event where a drunk may get removed.