This some fascist shit. Why is the government so obsessed with shielding cops from accountability?
this post was submitted on 31 May 2024
212 points (98.6% liked)
News
21860 readers
3499 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.
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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Police Unions and lobbyists. Police Unions are one of the few times unions aren't necessarily a good thing.
All public sector unions are wrong.
Because Republicans are fascists and Democrats are spineless.
Democrats aren’t spineless. they are operating in a world where republicans own the majority of the media and will repeat whatever they say. For example, The democrats lost a lot of local elections last cycle because republican media scared everyone into thinking crime rates were soaring even though they’re at all time lows. Republicans have gerrymandered so well that they have to be extremely careful or risk losing even in states where they have the majority of voters.
Republicans have been playing a long game starting with Regan and they are in their end game now.
LoL there's no way the police ain't gonna abuse this law.
They will start charging at people shouting for them to move back then just grab them and beat the tar out of them.
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.
Like they're gonna care how far you really were.
I didn't approach, he ran at me!
"It's comin' right for us!"
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.
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?
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yet another reason to avoid the deep south.
I don't suppose the law will actually go into effect August 1st. We already have cases like Turner v Driver that have clearly established the right to record officers in the performance of their duties. So then this law would need to be narrowly tailored to infringe upon 1A as minimally as necessary, and it doesn't.
After what happened in arizona, I think the governor is just wasting everyone's time, or perhaps he's trying to take advantage of the crazy results that come out of the appeals courts down there. But on issues like this, the courts have not been on the side of the pigs.
So much freedumb. When are cops lawful? They break laws constantly.
Wait until they learn about zoom lenses.
Zoom lenses are great, unfortunately most phones only have wide angle lenses.
Walk away from police? Jail.
Walk towards police? Believe or not, also jail!
How close can they get to ligma?