Not at all surprising to see this type proposal from Texas. Does Perry like the idea?
So your right to film police will be more restricted if you are carrying a gun? How well is that gonna go over in Texas of all places?
Rick Perry isn’t the governor of Texas. Greg Abbott is.
So the cops are at much greater risk from someone with a gun and a camera than they are from someone with just a gun.
guns don’t kill people, cameras do? or someone with a camera could film themselves shooting a cop which…would…be…bad? somehow?
I’m not a USA citizen but I get the feeling from fellow dopers that this is just par for the course in the Lone Star State.
I can understand how the police don’t want people getting in their way while they’re doing their jobs, but this sounds more like “We don’t want you close enough to catch us doing stuff we’re not supposed to do.” Or maybe I’m just overly suspicious.
One thing for sure, I continue to be thankful I don’t live in Texas.
If the police are trying to do their job and focus on a situation, the only time I assume someone would be interested in filming them, I fail to see how wanting non-essential parties to be a reasonable distance away is an unwarrented request. 25 feet is nothing. Cell phone cameras can still capture all of the action but won’t interfere with the event itself. And given the fact that the police have actually been fired upon recently in Missouri and New York, how is wanting any citizen, who’s intent and mindset is unknown, to stay a little ways away from the actual investigation unreasonable? It takes at least some modicum of time for an officer to respond to a lethal threat and giving them a small buffer from someone that’s brought a gun to the situation… how is that violating anyone’s rights?
I really don’t see the bill as being an unusual response to what’s happening around the country. However, it would be a shame to get in the way of some good ol’ Texas-bashing regardless of whether the proposed measure is prudent or not.
How do you figure?
I agree that it would be easy to film/photograph the action from greater than 25 feet (even with a typical cellphone).
And would such a law actually add protection for a photographer (if you’re over 25 feet away, are you presumed to not possibly be interfering with the officer)?
On the other hand, experience teaches us that any new law proposed in the Texas Legislature probably is unnecessary and stupid.
[QUOTE=lieu]
If the police are trying to do their job and focus on a situation, the only time I assume someone would be interested in filming them, I fail to see how wanting non-essential parties to be a reasonable distance away is an unwarrented request. 25 feet is nothing. Cell phone cameras can still capture all of the action but won’t interfere with the event itself.
[/QUOTE]
Except 25 feet means essentially no video being taken of police indoors, regardless of the situation; most rooms aren’t 25 feet wide.
We had a case in Canada where four RCMP took down a disoriented passenger in an airport lounge, repeatedly tasering him. He died.
Several passengers in the lounge videoed it. Their videos showed that the four officers subsequently doctored their account of the entire episode, making it seem that the man was much more of a threat than he actually was, and downplaying their efforts to subdue him.
Based on those videos taken by passengers, one of those Mounties was found guilty of perjury last month.
Mountie who Tasered Robert Dziekanski found guilty of perjury
That would not have happened if the Texas law had been in force in BC, and passengers had been barred from videoing the events. It was those videos that proved the officer’s lies.
I assumed that it was just poor wording in the news article that made a gun restriction read like a gun-and-camera restriction. I was wrong:
[QUOTE=H.B. No. 2918, Section 1]
…
(f) For purposes of Subsection (a)(1), an interruption, disruption, impediment, or interference that occurs while a peace officer is performing a duty or exercising authority imposed or granted by law includes a person:
(1) filming, recording, photographing, or documenting the officer within 25 feet of the officer; or
(2) filming, recording, photographing, or documenting the officer within 100 feet of the officer while carrying a handgun under the authority of Subchapter H, Chapter 411, Government Code.
[/QUOTE]
Since Texans are afraid to be unarmed, may we conclude that to photograph at a distance of 25 to 100 feet, the Texan needs a rifle or shotgun?
And what does “documenting an officer” mean? Jotting down his badge number?
And that Texas law isn’t just restricted to folks with video phones. It would apply to news reporters who are filming a riot, for instance, since where there are large numbers of police engaged, it would be very difficult not to be within at least 25 feet of one of them. I guess freedom if the press doesn’t apply in Texas.
Especially this session; those clowns seem to be throwing out every cock-eyed and insane bill they can come up with.
If the law indeed reads “filming,” I’d say it is toothless. Video cams do not use film.
The video (found here) clearly shows an area much larger than 25 feet and it seem clear to me that the videographer was more than 25 feet away.
Do you disagree?
If not, can you explain your conclusion that the video would not have happened if the Texas law had been in force in BC?
??? From the OP linked article…
The measure does allow the “news media” to film within the 25-foot halo. However, the bill’s definition of media includes FCC-licensed television and radio stations, and magazines and newspapers. Online-only sites (such as Ars Technica) are excluded from the definition of “news media.”
I assume the requirement that the media be FCC licensed is to remove a loophole that just anyone wanting to film could not claim “I’m a member of the media!”
Would that include one proposing to provide body cameras and funding to purchase them for Texas police officers? It also looks to address how the information from them is handled.
The problem is they set a number, this will lead to problems including police threatening people who are taking such vids and picts to withhold this evidence or be charged with the 25 ft law.
So now freedom of the press depends on a government licence? John Locke would be turning in his grave.
Is Gov. Abbott also a moron?
They probably drafted this bill because they thought it would be easier than teaching the entire police force that it’s legal to record them in action.
What if you are in your own home? I certainly couldn’t be 25 feet away in my house.
What if I’m recording and police suddenly pull up? At the start the recording I’m not even trying to record police. Then enter the ‘zone’. It could easily be unsafe for me to move away. Do I go to jail for that?
What if I’m recording them outside the zone and then an office comes from the zone and approaches me to tell me to turn off my camera? The officer approaching me makes my act a crime? How is that a good idea.
Officer : Turn that off!
Me: I’m more than 25 feet away.
(officer runs at me) Officer: Now you’re not. You’re under arrest.