Arizona makes it illegal for bystanders to record cops at close range
arstechnica.com
arstechnica.com
"Kavanagh said it is important to leave this buffer for police to protect law enforcement from being assaulted by unruly bystanders. He said “there’s no reason” to come closer and predicted tragic outcomes for those who do, saying, “Such an approach is unreasonable, unnecessary, and unsafe, and should be made illegal."
He is just happily excusing cops visiting "tragic outcomes" on people who get closer than 8 feet to cops. The lengths that people will go to too justify police just killing people is insane. How about we don't allow police to just wantonly murder or beat whoever they want?
This same guy is an ex cop and "sponsored legislation that would prohibit oversight boards of police departments unless those boards were two-thirds sworn police officers" After the 2020 election he also said: ""Everybody shouldn’t be voting...Quantity is important, but we have to look at the quality of votes, as well."
Seems like a really great guy that very much deserves to be in power /s
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kavanagh_(Arizona_politic...
I'd like the police to be a (mostly) transparent organization that is concerned with the health of our society and key partners to all upstanding citizens. Citizen oversight boards is one path to making that happen.
Highlights include:
* Early in it's formation, the historical precursor to the NYPD was two separate police forces; one run by the city and one run by the state. At one point the city police (Municipals) was literally protecting the mayor from arrest by the state police (Metropolitans).
* Having to be rescued by actual nativist[0] gangs after riots broke out after the Metropolitans won out over the Municipals
* Repeated bi-decennial corruption investigations that lead to reforms which just push the corruption somewhere else and make it worse
Fun fact: the NYPD even operates in other countries. There's a weird post-9/11 program called the International Liaison Program[1] in which other countries pay the NYPD to station NYC cops in their country. It's absolutely insane that this somehow doesn't violate some kind of Geneva convention[2].
[0] People who wanted to build a wall and make the Irish pay for it.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eVJMtXvjn0A
[2] Look. I'll settle for the "driving on the wrong side of the road" Geneva convention, just give me something
Just like how a company wholly owned by New York City could have contracts with New York City, London and Paris at the same time.
Or should not, by law?
There's a difference.
Flights hard to find? It's often easier if a family member works as crew for the airline, etc.
- All damages would be paid from their pension fund.
That's it. If the bill goes to the city/county, nobody cares. If $cop1 fucking up messes up $cop[1..n]'s future pension plans? They'll start to self-police real fast.
The only result is future taxpayers get to pay higher taxes.
- states and local governments may not hire any police officers unless they fully fund the pension obligations ahead of time.
If we can force the USPS to do this, I'd say we can force state and local governments to do this as well. Problem is, I think this will lead to local governments privatizing the police force, getting rid of pension obligations completely, which will be an even worse outcome. Private, for profit companies with qualified immunity...
Social security can exist or not exist, the relevant question will be what kind of purchasing power will the social security benefit have at some point in the future, and that is completely dependent upon politics.
What I do think is that bad cops should be fired and when they make egregious errors. An when they commit crimes (which they seem to do often and while on the job) they should go to jail. End qualified immunity.
I disagree. The silence of the so called good cops is acceptance of the bad behavior. If they don't report and if nothing is done then yes, take it from all of them. They're all part of the same system
Your example falls flat here
https://knock-la.com/lasd-gangs-little-devils-wayside-whitie...
I'm fine with firing the lot of them. I'd honestly rather see mass firing than pension raids because when it comes down to it, we need those people to stop being cops.
Hopefully that would increase recruiting and give people with better values into the system. Right now it feels like policing is family generational business.
ACAB
Quite the opposite. Police are paid tax money to enforce the law and prevent crime, regardless of perpetrator. If they can't do this, they don't deserve the money.
They should be scrutinizing their own ranks first and foremost, as they are granted special privileges (i.e. weapons) that make breaking the law easier and more convenient.
Please stop treating police as exempt from the law.
But the debate is should there be collective punishment for bad cops or should they be terminated. I favor termination.
One main reason I prefer terminating bad cops vs hitting their pensions is that bad behavior is less of a cost impact to the bad cop than losing their job. A cop does something wrong, maybe it will impact their retirement pension by a small percentage. That's not a big disincentive. Loosing their job, that's a big disincentive.
Another way to go about this is to have cops purchase mandatory insurance. Any bad behavior would be paid by their insurance and if they make too big an error, they become un-insurable and thus can no longer be law enforcement.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2017/11/23/cops-trie...
Cops that raped her ended up getting probation.
Or case of another cop that recorded fellow officers admitting to crimes and corruption. He turned in evidence and was abducted by other cops and committed to a mental institution.
Police that know their actions would be reviewed and their chiefs and administrators would have no ability to save them would certainly reduce the amount of police illegality.
In many other jurisdictions this would be at the discretion of the officer, if they felt you were merely interfering with their investigation they could arrest you. A law like this clarifies exactly where that line is expected to be. And it's reasonably short enough and with appropriate exceptions that on it's own, I don't see a problem with the law.
Regardless of how one may feel about the sponsor of the bill, it was still voted on and passed by a majority of the legislative body.
It seems that if you are filming "safely from a distance" they just need to send one officer over to wherever you are and demand you stop filming.
If they keep following you around, this will make for a pretty interesting video that's almost certain to get some wide sharing if you post it online.
If police are going to make up something bogus like arresting you because you're giving them space, they can do that regardless of this new law. This new law doesn't make it worse.
And if they approach you to conduct "law enforcement activity" on you, you're effectively exempted and allowed to film. https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf
A legislative body that subjectively follows the law.
It sets a specific measurement, but it would be extremely difficult to prove someone was or wasn't within the set distance.
The court will always defer to police over other witnesses.
The law is completely unnecessary for the stated purpose. Every state already has plenty of "interfering with a police officer" type laws...and there's no epidemic of people filming stuff, getting in the way of police.
This law is a softball for the supreme court to use to revoke their prior ruling that filming police is constitutional.
I suspect it's also designed to stop passengers in a stopped motor vehicle from filming - a few police shooting cases involved footage taken by a front seat passenger, showing the driver never made any threatening moves.
That’s exactly what this case will do. Cops will just walk over to you and insist you were interfering and arrest you.
> This law is a softball
They’ve been lining these cases up for a year plus in preparation for this exact moment.
Edited to remove incorrect take.
No - "The same exception extends to anyone recording while in a vehicle involved in a police stop."
A boundary relative to what? An immovable object or a cop who can walk? I mean walk towards someone who's at 8 feet and tell them to stop filming?
vs.
" C. THIS SECTION DOES NOT ESTABLISH A RIGHT OR AUTHORIZE ANY PERSON TO MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY. "
https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf
The law explicitly makes it closer than 8 feet, after a warning, illegal (with some exceptions). It does not supersede other laws about interfering with an investigation.
> I don't see a problem with the law.
How can you possibly say this? It means the police can completely stop you from filming, simply by having cop walk up to you.
Heck, a cop can walk up behind you filming, when you can't see him, and simply arrest you. "You were ten feet away from them, but here I am behind you, off to jail for a year!"
> it was still voted on and passed by a majority of the legislative body.
So were plenty of evil, immoral things. This statement is a signpost - when people say that, it means, "Morality is not an issue that concerns me."
That boundary is likely to be chipped into further and then upheld by the current SCOTUS.
The repeal of Roe v. Wade shows that we can't really trust the the slippery slope is a fallacy these days.
Please avoid hyperbole on HN.
You made that part up.
IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO KNOWINGLY MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING 7 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY
FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY" 31 MEANS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING: 32 1. QUESTIONING A SUSPICIOUS PERSON. 33 2. CONDUCTING AN ARREST, ISSUING A SUMMONS OR ENFORCING THE LAW. 34 3. HANDLING AN EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED OR DISORDERLY PERSON WHO IS 35 EXHIBITING ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR.
Edit: If you're the subject of police action, the 8 ft rule doesn't apply.
A PERSON WHO IS 22 THE SUBJECT OF POLICE CONTACT MAY RECORD THE ENCOUNTER IF THE PERSON IS 23 NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS,
That's pretty all encompassing. Gives any cop at scene of incident any number of things to claim at the time or retroactively as reason you're in violation and to move 8ft back from them, not just 8ft from incident.
Laws like this are horrible not because of the intent of spirit (which is to protect LEO and suspects from whacko's) but because they are written vaguely and poorly. Then abused by police / DA to suppress, oppress, threaten and selectively prosecute those standing up to their abuse.
A bystander interfering with police has nothing to do with recording and is already illegal. This is clearly just an attempt to make it more difficult to hold cops accountable.
> The same exception extends to anyone recording while in a vehicle involved in a police stop.
>And if you were filming before and caught the cop doing something illegal, they are now incentivized to arrest you to make you stop.
Wouldn't they be incentivized the exact same amount before this law? I don't see how this law makes that worse.
>A bystander interfering with police has nothing to do with recording and is already illegal.
Many specific instances are debatable whether it's interference or not. What if the cameraperson is 1 foot from the cop? 2 feet? 5 feet? 10 feet? This law makes it clear what the distance is so people don't have to debate in the moment or in the courtroom.
(But, there is probably more strict laws for drones in general, I don't know the US rules about that.)
If I was a bystander, I'd certainly want to know that a cop wasn't allowed to take two steps towards me, declare that I am now within the 8 ft barrier, and am now subject to assault and arrest unless I delete the recording.
Don't make laws unless you've thoroughly thought about how they can be abused by bad actors.
I have not read the law myself, but if the summary is accurate, it seems to suggest police moving towards the bystander does not count.
https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf
You can't record as a bystander within 8' of law enforcement activity, defined as "QUESTIONING A SUSPICIOUS PERSON. 33 2. CONDUCTING AN ARREST, ISSUING A SUMMONS OR ENFORCING THE LAW. 34 3. HANDLING AN EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED OR DISORDERLY PERSON WHO IS 35 EXHIBITING ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR. "
If you're the subject of activity, e.g. they deem you as a suspicious person and move towards you, you may record.
You may record, but you will not be able to after they handcuff you. So, they'll claim they were establishing a perimeter for the initial activity, that you refused to move away or stop filming from that perimeter, making your recording up to that point illegal, and then they'll detain you for this offense, handcuffing you to prevent you from filming.
Or they'll just take your phone under civil asset forfeiture laws, as it was involved in illegal activity (filming a police officer from too close by).
So this law puts the wheels in motion for lawful seizure of these phones.
You won't find much recent prior seizures in Arizona because Arizona cops can't fulfill a lawful seizure without a crime, and prior to now recording a public official performing their duty was basically never a criminal act.
If this was actually about the safety of officers, there would be no need to mention recording -- they would simply limit all bystanders from being within 8' of such activity whether they're recording or not. Since it is about recording, we know it is just about recording, and not actual officer safety.
Except in cop "logic" it does. Because once they move on someone filming, that person is now within 8 feet and thereby a "criminal" - worrying about the exception to the law is for prosecutors to do later. The filmer is a threat, because cops are juiced up on paranoid delusions that everyone that doesn't fall into line and salute them is out to attack them. And therefore the cop justifies themselves preemptively attacking the filmer, smashing their camera, etc, to get the situation "under control".
When the incident actually sees court (persecution of the victim of course, cops themselves rarely end up as defendants for their own crimes), the cop will cry about how scared they were etc (with a manly facade) and how their job is so hard, and they have to make quick decisions in the heat of the moment, blah blah blah. Even if the victim does spend enough on attorneys to successfully defend themselves legally, they'll still suffer the injuries from being attacked, their broken phone, other possessions "lost" (stolen) by the police, time and money spend defending themselves, etc.
Like every other recent Republican legislative dog whistle, it's purporting to address a problem that simply does not commonly exist - as many others have pointed out, interfering with police officers is already illegal. This law does not create a clearer delineation, but rather is focused on the specific act of filming to add uncertainty and undermine that individual freedom despite the anticonstitutionality of doing so. The only reason the exceptions are even there is to make it sound like equity has been considered, but they're really just afterthoughts to the main goal of increasing the arbitrary and capricious power of the state.
Have you not seen any "police encounter" videos?
Here is one example: police will lie to you about what is legal or illegal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UQKkYWDUQ4
Never trust a police officer, local, state, or federal law enforcement agent. Never volunteer any information to a police officer. Just say these magic words, "I want a lawyer." Do not say anything else.
Well we might need to identify ourselves with the police? I am not a lawyer.
there's an excellent description of this in the Illustrated Guide to Criminal Procedure about Miranda, that explains exactly why you need both, and what that means.
A police officer is standing there doing crowd control, that's not included.
I suspect it's also to stop passengers from recording a traffic stop.
So they are not redundant and you have made a bad comparison .
Why do you need a law designed to prevent people from interfering with an officer doing their job, when you already have plenty of laws that make it illegal to interfere with an officer doing their job?
He tried it before in 2016 (20ft). Also "Kavanagh sponsored legislation that would prohibit oversight boards of police departments".
Cynically, you might say, since he's an ex-cop, he's pandering to the police vote and/or funds for votes and election monies.
(But given some of the other stuff he's promoted, he might just be a dick.)
WARNING videos on this channel frequently include violence either in aggression or in self defense, some resulting in the loss of life.
https://www.youtube.com/c/DonutOperatorOfficial/videos
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw3F91w6D78 here is a video of onlookers recording agitating one another, several of which are standing in the street and blocking police vehicles.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71wdrhKzuys here a man that had been harassing local businesses and patrons all day charges a guardsman (who's an off-duty police officer) and the crowd starts surrounding him, recording, shouting things, agitating, when another bystander jumps to the guardsman's defense and now you've got multiple hostile people getting more and more agitated while the guardsman waits for uniformed police to come take the guy that tried to assault him, tried to damage his car, was harassing others, etc.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H40vEOOs5z0 here are protestors, standing around filming each other, assaulting a motorcycle officer on his motorcycle as he tries to drive away from them
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvDwWSl-sVE here officers try to restrain a felon, in felony possession of a firearm, that had tried to assault officers while a felon unlawfully possessing a firearm, as people surrounded them to hold their phones as close to them as possible to take footage, then as 3 of them try to subdue the suspect that continued, while armed, to try and resist then has to escalate to non-lethal violence of gasp punching the guy to try to get him to submit. At 3:42 an onlooker throws a full trash can at the officers that are actively trying to handcuff an ARMED FELON that is fighting tooth and nail to escape.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdFsumyHLXo guy on a roof of a business hops down, then retrieves a handgun and aims it at officers, the officers start issuing commands while a bystander walks into the officer's line of fire filming and occasionally shouting things (go to 4:20 and you can see them just right of 12 o'clock.)
Etc.
In other words: you can link these because people recorded them. We then get to have a discussion about it. The application of this law would eliminate that, in many cases.
Edit: I noticed that all of these videos are collections by the same guy. He’s a former cop and seems to relish in videos of the police cracking down on protestors, which makes me think that he’s unlikely to present a balanced view of how disruptive recording actually is, on average.
This law takes a powerful tool for civilian oversight and puts it at the mercy of both happenstance and the mercurial attitudes of individual cops. It takes a situation that everybody agrees is stressful and turns it additionally into one where civilians are punished chiefly for their misfortune.
I think they were just trying to address a relatively new situation that was causing them problems.
I don't really agree with this law, but I also don't think your cynicism on that particular thing is entirely warranted.
It's not a hypothetical situation. I've been there.
This is my home state Arizona and from time to time I think about moving back and this makes me not want to.
The bill doesn't say you can't come within 8 feet of a police officer. It says you can't FILM within 8 feet. The bill specifically punishes filming the police.
What exactly is wrong with this? Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings?
No more could police argue interference because there’s an explicit definition now of what is too close.
You can still for example "interfere" and be more than 8 feet away and pointing to this law won't help you.
https://www.law.uh.edu/faculty/adjunct/dstevenson/2018Spring...
This was already constitutionally protected. And this new law is likely going to be challenged on its constitutionality.
They can still do that, too. Interfering is still illegal no matter what you're doing or where you are when you do it. Simply filming is protected by the first amendment, so unless you were doing something else you had a defense to say you weren't interfering. Now that defense is gone. It doesn't matter whether you're actually interfering or not, now you can be arrested and charged for simply filming.
It's a pretty obvious way to criminalize citizens documenting police. The police already had the law on their side to deal with people actually interfering in their duties. Now merely documenting them in a way they determine is unsafe is a crime.
>Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings?
They still can.
What's wrong is this - I'm filming some police brutality from the legally mandated 8 feet away. Then a cop moves 1 foot closer to me. Ooops, look like my camera/phone is confiscated and I'm under arrest.
Why don’t you try it out and see how well that works out for you?
Very, very few people of privilege know what having an adversarial state is truly like.
What if you have to get out of your car, but leave your camera running and the cop decides to drag you down and put a knee on your neck within 8 feet?
And it's only a misdemeanor after the police already warned you and you continue to take video from closer than 8ft.
Just read up on who the bill sponsor is and you will understand his intent.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kavanagh_(Arizona_politic...
The video footage. Image analysis along with metadata is sufficient to determine the viewpoint.
> Does it really matter, you are already going to jail and your phone was unfortunately damaged in the arrest which you were also resisting.
5G, and perhaps within a few years the new civilian internet satellites, will evolve this situation. Constantly uploading/syncing video and images to secure remote storage is something war journalists have long sought. By the time someone with a gun threatens you to delete things you can go through the theatre of complying, or they can even destroy your device, but it's too late for them.
It doesn't matter what might end up happening later, the upfront cost of recording is now very real and there is a chance to get starved out of money to even try to take such an item to court.
The tech might be undeniable, but it doesn't matter if there is a buffer in front of the system that would accept such tech as evidence, and said buffer could delay your chance to succeed by months if not years.
It doesn't really matter how good the tech is if the system where it would help can stall out the situation beyond your means to live.
As a Brit I give the police and legal system much more leeway and benefit of the doubt, they've got a job to do and mostly do their best. Also, I believe they should never shy from accountability, hence being filmed by the public, as the police often do to citizens, is an inescapable part of the job today. And if that gets a bit too "in your face" then maybe it's time to look for a job that suits you better.
Nonetheless, the police can no longer lie with impunity against sophisticated technical evidence. We are all changed by technology and possible forensic evidence we never thought possible, and that can keep people more honest.
The police aren't always the sharpest knife in the drawer when it comes to technology. Here in the UK, Wayne Couzens, the policeman who raped and killed Sarah Everard, was caught by technical carelessness that you'd have thought he knew better about.
Also another fun fact is cops in the US don't actually have to know the law they can just claim they thought they were enforcing the law. So they can do pretty much anything up to a pretty arbitrary line of egregiousness and just shrug if told they were wrong and walk away career unscathed.
I don't think it's going to prevent much recording. In fact, the recording are probably be of much more quality: instead of close ups that doesn't show much actions, we will see the a bigger context. Most useful videos are from at least 8 ft away.
I understand the author of the law doesn't have a great background in the US and cops have terrible reputation in this country. So it's probable there is an abuse path I don't see here.
But if I haven't been given that context, the law would not have seen excessive: in a law enforcement context, you don't want every body to park too close to the hot spot. Also, there is this annoying tendency of people with a camera to put it in your face, or to not mind their surrounding.
Given an arrest can be tensed, 8ft sound like it make sense. What am I missing, as a French person not understanding all the weird american social details ?
The main reason there is such concern over this is because the power and corruption in many police forces and a lack of accountability for misbehavior of police, combined with the silliness of such a concept of no recording zone that now surrounds officers.
The issue isn't about how practical it is to record a police officer, it's that rather than address institutional corruption and misbehavior, there is a very vague law with ridiculous premises invented that gives police the ability to issue fines and arrests. Proof of misbehavior can be confiscated by a sudden movement by any police officer. It's a very strange power to give police officers.
The easy solution is to post up at 15 feet and vigilantly adapt. If you are filming an intense arrest, I would hope you would maintain that sort of situational awareness anyway.
I certainly understand your concerns about abuse of power. However, giving officers room to do their job is not “very strange” nor is the premise “ridiculous.” Indeed, moving bystanders back to a reasonable distance might reduce tension and the likelihood of misbehavior
> However, giving officers room to do their job is not “very strange” nor is the premise “ridiculous.” Indeed, moving bystanders back to a reasonable distance might reduce tension and the likelihood of misbehavior
As the law is written and the language of the law specifically acting on _making a video recording_, and nothing else:
IT IS UNLAWFUL FOR A PERSON TO KNOWINGLY MAKE A VIDEO RECORDING 7 OF LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IF THE PERSON MAKING THE VIDEO RECORDING IS 8 WITHIN EIGHT FEET OF WHERE THE PERSON KNOWS OR REASONABLY SHOULD KNOW THAT 9 LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY IS OCCURRING,
https://www.azleg.gov/legtext/55leg/2R/bills/HB2319S.pdf
If this was about officer safety to operate, then it would just define it as such, but it goes out of its way to specifically forbid recording.
So I can do the following actions which are certainly disruptive to the police making an arrest without violating this law:
- Stop for a smoke next to an officer (presuming I am in one of the allowed places for smoking)
- Make out with someone in a publicly respectable way
- Busking of any kind
- Rollerskate/Skateboard as long as I am practicing reasonable safety
I think it's not easily contestable that these actions are _more_ disruptive to the police being engaged in an arrest, but the law has no concern about them as the focus of the law is exclusively recording. Other laws regarding arrests don't mention such a distance or rights for the officers. The point here is not some desire to interfere with arrests, it's that the premise of your statement that it's about officer safety and ability to perform doesn't pass scrutiny against the text of the law and other situations that would fall under the same concern, which are allowed.
I don't see a justification for this law except to allow police the right to fine/jail people recording them.
Edit: It may be suggested that laws should be concise and specific, and to a point I agree. However, such conciseness also means that the specific action meant to be prevented is much more clear. So I must stress, that even if the law is concise, this means that the focus is not on safety for police and bystanders, but specifically on recording the police. I'm not sure there is a logical interpretation any other way to suggest it's about safety to operate, because if it is, then the law is no longer concise and specific, it requires fairly roundabout inference to reach the spirit of the law.
I wonder if other Arizona laws already exist that address other activities within 8ft.
Let's say you were 4m away and got arrested anyways. The officer stopped you from filming and it deterred others to start filming too.
Even if the charges get dropped later on (which they might not), the police already succeeded in stopping you from filming.
I understand your fear of the chilling effect this may have, but I would guess there will be just as many people who now feel empowered to say “This is my right. I’m 8 ft away.”
> B. NOTWITHSTANDING SUBSECTION A OF THIS SECTION, A PERSON WHO IS 22 THE SUBJECT OF POLICE CONTACT MAY RECORD THE ENCOUNTER IF THE PERSON IS 23 NOT INTERFERING WITH LAWFUL POLICE ACTIONS,
The basis of being subject to this law is that you are interfering with police actions, and lawfulness can only be determined by the courts after the fact.
I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that you would be in your legal right to record the police if you were being arrested for violation of this law, and likely it's something that would need to be tested fairly considerably in court before a definite interpretation was set.
This is a really badly designed/defined law, and I would not rely on the guarantees of the law as being subject to it means it's already been determined you're interfering with police action.
The cop doesn't want you recording, moves closer to you, and arrests you.
It's purely a safety thing. You don't want random people close to you while you are dealing with something
These videos can be graphic:
- Here protestors drag an officer into the crowd and savagely beat him https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Le07VPqBZ58
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sw3F91w6D78 here is a video of onlookers recording agitating one another, several of which are standing in the street and blocking police vehicles.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71wdrhKzuys here a man that had been harassing local businesses and patrons all day charges a guardsman (who's an off-duty police officer) and the crowd starts surrounding him, recording, shouting things, agitating, when another bystander jumps to the guardsman's defense and now you've got multiple hostile people getting more and more agitated while the guardsman waits for uniformed police to come take the guy that tried to assault him, tried to damage his car, was harassing others, etc.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H40vEOOs5z0 here are protestors, standing around filming each other, assaulting a motorcycle officer on his motorcycle as he tries to drive away from them
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvDwWSl-sVE here officers try to restrain a felon, in felony possession of a firearm, that had tried to assault officers while a felon unlawfully possessing a firearm, as people surrounded them to hold their phones as close to them as possible to take footage, then as 3 of them try to subdue the suspect that continued, while armed, to try and resist then has to escalate to non-lethal violence of gasp punching the guy to try to get him to submit. At 3:42 an onlooker throws a full trash can at the officers that are actively trying to handcuff an ARMED FELON that is fighting tooth and nail to escape.
- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdFsumyHLXo guy on a roof of a business hops down, then retrieves a handgun and aims it at officers, the officers start issuing commands while a bystander walks into the officer's line of fire filming and occasionally shouting things (go to 4:20 and you can see them just right of 12 o'clock.)
Etc.
It's hard enough to deal with a life or death situation without an angry mob of people standing around shouting shoving their phone in your face.
This law is much, much more about removing accountability than police safety.
* bystanders can't record within 8 ft of the police questioning a suspect, arresting someone, or dealing with a mental health case.
* the person police are interacting with is exempt and can record unless that interfere with the police operations. I.e. no guarantee you can hold your phone while handcuffed.
* the driver and passengers of a car pulled over are also explicitly exempt.
I think the opposition to this is a knee jerk over reaction comes across as just ... not rooted in reality.
If you insist on getting up in arms about Arizona's contempt for the first amendment, I encourage you to go burn a flag and dare them to arrest you for violating https://www.azleg.gov/ars/13/03703.htm
- there may be obstructions or bystanders closer to the incident, partially or fully blocking your view
- you may only be able to see clearly from a limited range of angles, and they may all point off the sidewalk into the road, meaning you need to risk your life to get a usable shot
1 Logging workers (70)
2 Aircraft pilots and flight engineers (60)
3 Roofers (50)
4 Construction helpers (40)
5 Crossing guards (38)
6 Garbage collectors (31)
7 Farming supervisors (29)
8 Delivery drivers (28)
9 Ironworkers (27)
10 Farmers (25)
11 Cement masons (22)
12 Agricultural workers (21)
13 Construction supervisors (20)
14 Highway maintenance workers (19)
15 Grounds maintenance workers (18)
16 Mining machine operators (18)
17 Supervisors of mechanics (16)
18 Power lineworkers (15)
19 Construction workers (14)
20 Construction equipment operators (14)
21 Maintenance workers (13)
22 Heavy vehicle mechanics (13)
23 Crane operators (13)
24 Landscaping supervisors (12)
25 Police officers (12)
For what it's worth, most of us have little education on the subject of policing. We're taught a lot about how a biological cell operates, how to structure English grammar, and who fought the War of 1812, but absolutely nothing about how police function, when policing was invented, by whom, where, or to what end[0]. We go through our adult lives believing about police what we absorbed from children's cartoons and, later, TV procedurals or action movies. This leaves us with an impression of the field that is naive, if not outright fantasy.
0. https://www.versobooks.com/books/3906-the-end-of-policing
Maybe supervisors of mechanics should keep a distance from the mechanics; perhaps stay in the back room and reorganize the files in the cabinet.
OK, jest aside. Could this be an age/experience effect?
Here is the idea: over time, mechanics get promoted to supervisor positions, right?
Suppose the average number of years for a mechanic to get promoted to supervisor is X. Then suppose that, for a mechanic, the average number of years on the job before a fatal accident is Y.
If it happens that Y >> X, then more supervisors will be killed than more junior mechanics. This is something akin to or a form of survivorship bias.
It's not that supervisors have a more dangerous job but that they have been doing it longer, exposed to more cumulative risk.
Because in my opinion, crane operator and construction worker are dangerous professions, and if there are reasonable regulations that can make them safer, it would be a good idea to look at the pros and cons of those regulations.
See Ag-Gag laws: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ag-gag
I probably wouldn't support the law - especially if the "cop walks towards someone recording" bit counts as "being within 8 feet of the activity" - but let's report things as written.
Strictly speaking, there is a legal mechanism to remove them, but it basically wouldn't happen short of them being a serial killer. It requires the house of representatives to pass articles of impeachment by majority vote, then the Senate to hold a trial presided over by the chief justice of the supreme Court, at which a supermajority vote would lead to removal from office.
I am hopeful because this country survived McCarthyism, the Vietnam War, and other authoritarian nightmares.
Police doing an arrest have every reasonable reason to ask people to 'stand back a bit' and 8ft seems about right.
The moment there is some kind of interaction of consequence, the 'spot' becomes an issue of civic concern, conflict, violence etc.. Cops may have to draw weapons, fight, god knows what in order to do their jobs.
You can watch/film or whatever from 8ft.
Most if not all of the camera footage of George Floyd being murdered was taken from over 8ft away!
I can understand not interfering with the immediate official duties, but this seems like it will be overturned on 1a grounds.
Then again, laws like this are a slippery slope.
Of course there are bad cops where video has provided useful evidence of their behaviour but for ordinary professional police officers it must add a very unpleasant dimension to already stressful situations.
I don't know the law at all but I would hope that any liberal enabling of filming is constrained by dissemination that identifies individuals without very good reason.
Of course, the reason this happens is because police in the US are just another group of organized thugs.
Being a cop is less dangerous than, for instance, being a pizza delivery driver.
The risk of the job is absolutely normal and zero excuse for any concessions of accountability.
They are unlikely to be much use for that. Self defense or covert assassination, neither are at all common gun violence. Arguably a poor tool for much else.
QED most of these phone-gun owners are likely living in some fantasy world. See: "Sword Guys" archetype.