Most insane part of this article was the below quote from the bill sponsor:
"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
If there's anything that would build public trust back in police institutions, it would be politically-empowered independent citizen's oversight boards. It is such a shame that most cities in the US don't have these.
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.
Unfortunately so many police departments are just gangs now with political backing. Just this 4th of July the NYPD decided it was their right to commandeer viewing areas for their families and prevent the public from using them. No repercussions, no politicians demanding an investigation, just armed people in uniform daring you to say something. This is a massive open abuse of power and its just shrugged off.
* 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.
On the face of it, the last one does not sound so bad, as long as the NYPD is operating with permission from the jurisdictions where they are operating.
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.
Except cops aren't your Average Joe, they need to obey the local laws regarding a police force operations and without a lot of laws (or a suitable hand-waving) can't do anything more than an American tourist in the destination country.
They should formalize this. They have to work on the 4th of July, I don't actually see a problem with making it easier for them to be closer to the kids/spouse that day.
Why should they get more rights than the populace they enforce the laws over? More importantly this is not a formal policy they simply commandeered the space and forced the plebians out. If you don't think people should lose their jobs and be prosecuted for abuse of power over this I don't know what to say.
The #1 thing that would reform the US police institutions is this:
- 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.
Or they will just make sure $cop1 is not caught using whatever they need including witness intimidation. NYPD cops raped a handcuffed girl in a van and 9 other cops turned up at her hospital room and tried to intimidate her into changing her story.
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.
Where I am outside of the US, the anti police-corruption police are hated by the normal police, which I think is a pretty good indication of how many police don't like being held accountable. A lot of police misconduct really relates to a culture of closing ranks so it's seen as a betrayal to investigate that properly. It doesn't need to be said that police should be held to a higher standard than anyone else since they gain pretty major privileges and powers, obviously including the legal ability to use deadly force.
Pensions funds are already underfunded and subject to corruption such as understatement of liabilities and investments in politically connected ventures.
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...
…or do the extremely easy thing and scrap all compensation that extends further than the end of employment, just like any other non taxpayer funded employer operates in the US.
A government with the ability to issue new money is not comparable.
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.
I’m not sure I agree with that. I don’t think a good cop should have his pension harmed because a different cop in some other precinct did wrong.
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.
If a good cop watches a bad cop breaking the law or brutalizing someone and does not stop him then that is not a good cop. Using that standard you will quickly start running out of good cops. Search the internet there are hundreds of videos of cops just standing there watching another cop beat people. Even in the rare occasion where video forces the precinct to charge or suspended the violent cop the bystanders are unpunished. The George Floyd case is the only one I can think of where they were.
If a cop stood idly by and watched another cop brutalize someone, I would not call that person a good cop. Fire them. I'd fire a doctor who sat by and did nothing while a patient go into cardiac arrest. I'd fire a fireman who sat by and watched a house burn down without attempting to put it out.
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.
> I’m not sure I agree with that. I don’t think a good cop should have his pension harmed because a different cop in some other precinct did wrong.
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.
I'd rather just see the bad cop be fired. I feel that if we were to penalize their pension fund, their union and local government would just find some back door to refund the money. Better to just terminate the bad cops and be done with them.
If you look at the top of the thread, you'll see I said "when they commit crimes (which they seem to do often and while on the job) they should go to jail".
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.
We need those good cops to be actually saying something though. It's not like bad police operate in a vacuum, they go on patrols with the good cops. The good cops know all of the bad cops.
In the US, being a "good cop" in this context is a career-ending move. People in power don't really like it when abuses of their power are exposed. The "thin blue line" and all.
>I don’t think a good cop should have his pension harmed because a different cop in some other precinct did wrong.
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
Someone posted something I disagree with, but you're operating in the "same system" as them and didn't stop them, so we'll just downvote you instead, cool?
Pretty sure I speak up, check my comment history. Not to mention, police actively killing innocent people is way different than disagreeing on the internet. Are you seriously conflating those?
This is exactly the solution. I've long proposed civilian review boards assembled like juries - random citizens called in to judge specific cases of police actions. Theses juries would have the ability to rule on the culpability of the officers, select penalties and their deliberations would be secret and final.
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.
We obviously don't let police "just do" that, and I don't see how this law increases risk here. The other side that people seem to be missing here is that it explicitly establishes a boundary past which it's perfectly fine to film the police.
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.
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.
Then you are no longer a bystander and may continue to film. The irony with this bill is that it would be illegal to closely film the police as a bystander, but if you are arrested/detained for doing so you may film the police detaining you.
Only if you stop and then re-start the video clip. Otherwise, it's the same clip that started while illegal rendering the entire clip illegal. Or some such lawyerly BS to get the cops to be the victim.
It's not 8 feet from the nearest cop. It's 8 feet from where the arrest is happening. So unless both the arresting officer and the arrestee come toward you, you can stay where you are and film.
Which cops will absolutely be doing. After all, if the arrestee refuses, the cops can just beat them up a little more and claim they were also resisting arrest.
Either you're being detained, in which case the law says you're allowed to record your own detainment, or you're not being detained, in which case you're allowed to walk away. In no case does this law give the police an extra reason to detain you if you walk away while they walk toward you.
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.
"E. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, "LAW ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITY"
MEANS ANY OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. QUESTIONING A SUSPICIOUS PERSON.
2. CONDUCTING AN ARREST, ISSUING A SUMMONS OR ENFORCING THE LAW.
3. HANDLING AN EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED OR DISORDERLY PERSON WHO IS
EXHIBITING ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR."
Given worldwide 'shot by cop' statistics, i would put '..AN EMOTIONALLY DISTURBED OR DISORDERLY PERSON WHO IS EXHIBITING ABNORMAL BEHAVIOR." as a valid label for US cops.
> A law like this clarifies exactly where that line is expected to be.
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.
IANAL, is that actually the case? Just because you set the minimum doesn't mean if you're on the other side that you're legal. It's not binary. There is the legal grey zone.
It prevents victims of police brutality to film the scene. In most cases you don't have bystander read to film abuse. So filming your own interactions with the police should be a must.
> The other side that people seem to be missing here is that it explicitly establishes a boundary past which it's perfectly fine to film the police.
> 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."
Honest question, based on the bill sponsors background, his own words and the current policing situation in the US; what part of this is hyperbole? People actively defended the police officers that killed George Floyd and Breonna Taylor. Not trying to start an argument, just interested in your view.
The OP is comparing concern for people getting too close while filming to murder. I believe you’re intelligent enough to already know this and you’re also intelligent enough to know there is a reasonable argument for the use of force in both cases you mentioned.
No, the bills author specifically referrered to people suffering understandable "tragic" consequences if they got too close to police, justifying police killing them. If you think there was a reasonable argument for the violence perpetrated in either of my 2 examples then I very much don't think we are on the same page.
It's not 8 feet from the nearest cop. It's 8 feet from where the arrest is happening. So unless both the arresting officer and the arrestee come toward you, you can stay where you are and film.
A cop is within 8 feet of you during a traffic stop. So if the cop puts you or another passenger under arrest, you have to stop filming. And if you were filming before and caught the cop doing something illegal, they are now incentivized to arrest you to make you stop.
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.
There's an exception allowing you to record if you're in a car involved with something:
> 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.
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.
If the police officer is questioning you as a suspicious person, "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,..."
I agree that it'll continue to happen, but I don't think we should allow that to desensitize us to attempts to further criminalize basic civic behavior.
If I was cop, I would certainly want to know that there is a physical boundary in law that bystanders cannot cross. For my own safety, and for theirs. I see nothing unreasonable about not allowing people to cross this boundary. The law does not prevent recording. It says you cannot record closer than 8ft. Why would somebody need to get closer than 8ft to an officer doing their job, when you have no involvement in the situation at hand? Adding more people to the situation simply increases the stress of all involved.
Does this law contain a provision that prevents the cops from moving closer to civilians?
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.
> The new Arizona law requires any bystanders recording police activity in the state to stand at a minimum of 8 feet away from the action. If bystanders move closer after police have warned them to back off, they risk being charged with a misdemeanor and incurring fines of up to $500, jail time of up to 30 days, or probation of up to a year.
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.
> it seems to suggest police moving towards the bystander does not count.
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.
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.
> 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).
That would be a pretty extreme escalation of civil asset forfeiture. I understand that you distrust the police. You have reason to. But resorting to hyperbole diminishes your argument.
Arizona has somewhat decent civil forfeiture protections: civil forfeiture laws require a crime to take place for permanent forfeiture.
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.
Yes, I'm aware that it protects the subject of the investigation -- they can still record when the officer moves closer than 8', but it does not protect bystanders. This is a clear, and obviously intentional, loophole that allows police to criminalize something they don't like.
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.
I don't see how it would be legal for the police to ask you to delete the recording. Asking you to stop recording or move back could be based on you potentially interfering. Asking you to delete a recording? Doesn't make sense.
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.
you specifically have to say both that you're invoking your right to remain silent, and that you want a lawyer, and then actually shut up.
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.
What's kind of ironic is that the attorney in that video tells the cops a bunch of stuff. He tells them how long he's driven for Uber, how long he's worked in the courthouse, where he picked the passenger up and where he was taking him, and other stuff.
The law (it's in the article) says 8 feet from police activity and then lists out activities such as: arrest, questioning, handling an emotionally disturbed person.
A police officer is standing there doing crowd control, that's not included.
Hilariously it appears there is no law enforcement carve out for this, so the way it is written it appears to be a crime for another officer with a body cam to walk near his fellow officer enforcing the law.
If this law is purely about the safety concerns raised by bystanders being within 8 feet, then why does it explicitly only apply to RECORDING within 8 feet? It does absolutely nothing to prevent bystanders from coming within 8 feet. It only becomes a crime if they pull out a phone and start recording. The "safety" argument is a blatant red herring.
Then it would apply to a lot more situations. The problem is that the only reason people are that close is that they are recording. If they try to say "no one can be closer than 8 feet" that complicates things considerably.... I mean, I've walked by such situations on the sidewalk and gotten closer than 8 feet, because it was unavoidable without crossing the street. (these situations weren't ones likely to be filmed, though, just typical city stuff like with homeless and/or mentally ill people) But I wasn't just hanging out really closely, as I'd be if recording.
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.
The last time this was discussed on HN, I pointed out that there are a wide variety of situations in which bystanders cannot safely leave the immediate vicinity of law enforcement. Crowds on the street, a packed bus or subway, a hostage situation, and so forth.
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.
As I understand it hate laws specifically require the motivation of the crime to be different, which is something already in place for things like degrees of murder.
So they are not redundant and you have made a bad comparison .
> Why would somebody need to get closer than 8ft to an officer doing their job, when you have no involvement in the situation at hand?
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?
And then potentially be filming at a distance and/or angle at which specific details can no longer be seen - like a knee on the suspect's neck, amidst a melee of officers piled on top of the suspect.
>If I was cop, I would certainly want to know that there is a physical boundary in law that bystanders cannot cross.
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.
If by their jobs you mean enforcing the law fairly, no. Cameras don’t interfere with that. If by their jobs you mean enforcing the law arbitrarily, using unnecessary force, and harassing citizens without cause - yes, cameras interfered a lot.
Yes. Go watch a dozen or two of these videos, it's quite common for bystanders to interfere with police, endangering police, endangering themselves, and endangering other civilians in the area.
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/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.)
Individual cases notwithstanding (I think I could find ones where civilians used their cameras to save their lives), I think there’s a hefty dose of irony involved in citing video evidence of misbehavior to defend a law that would, in effect, prevent us from evaluating said behavior.
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.
Self defense isn't "misbehavior", I assume you mean the punching one. An armed felon, that had threatened police, was actively resisting 3 police officers trying to put him in cuffs... are you saying you wouldn't have punched someone with a gun actively trying to fight you and several other armed officers?
“Misbehavior” was directed at the ostensible criminals here, not the cops. Although I suspect that the police made vanishingly little effort to de-escalate any of these situations.
> The new Arizona law requires any bystanders recording police activity in the state to stand at a minimum of 8 feet away from the action. If bystanders move closer after police have warned them to back off, they risk being charged with a misdemeanor and incurring fines of up to $500, jail time of up to 30 days, or probation of up to a year
What exactly is wrong with this? Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings?
In 10 seconds the cops are going to have brainstormed having an officer walk around asking people to move back from them, driving bystanders further and further from whatever is taking place. They will also indiscriminately arrest people now knowing they can just charge them with violating this law. If the cop says you were 6ft away and you say you were 8, who are they going to believe? Does it really matter, you are already going to jail and your phone was unfortunately damaged in the arrest which you were also resisting.
Just read up on who the bill sponsor is and you will understand his intent.
> If the cop says you were 6ft away and you say you were 8, who are
they going to believe?
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.
I am wondering whether down-voters disagree or don't understand how
forensic video analysis can accurately pinpoint the positions of
objects from perspective when the camera and lens model are known?
It really doesn't matter if they have the evidence to convict you. They can arrest you and put you in jail for a night or 2. You have to pay for an attorney to fight the charges or use a public defender who will probably just advise you accept a guilty plea. You could potentially lose your job. If you have a security clearance that's potentially gone too. Your life can be ruined and when you get to trial a year or so later and you present all the evidence, maybe you are found innocent. At that point the damage is done and it cost the cops nothing.
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.
It's not about the technical details, it's about the fact that before you'd ever have a chance to present such an argument, you already are liable for a fine And jailtime (30 days).
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.
I see. What you say makes sense and I agree with it. Technical
solutions to socially rooted problems are skin deep and don't address
the real issues. Good technology won't fix a crap law.
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.
> What exactly is wrong with this? Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings?
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.
I don't disagree, but I think in this scenario you'll end up with some illegal activity recorded/uploaded but the very illegal activity is yet to come. Like if Darnella Frazier's video stops before George Floyd dies, it's not nearly as effective as evidence.
The purpose of the bill is to scare people and punish them for filming. The fear of a smashed phone or an arrest is enough to stop many people from 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?
> Previously, couldn't cops just claim you were interfering regardless of distance or number of warnings?
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.
Then, as a cop, you arrest them. A court of law will see right through crap like that, and you'll be exonerated for recording the officer and convicted for pressing up against the officer.
What we don't want, here, is someone who isn't doing that jailed nonetheless, because they were 7.5ft away, recording police brutality, and the police didn't want that.
That's before you even get into "I think I'm 10ft away, but the cop says I'm 7ft so now I'm going to jail and will always have this arrest on my record even if charges are dropped"
While I hate to suggest we need to use technical solutions here instead of social and legal ones, it might be worthwhile building a video streaming app that uses the LiDAR available on phones that have it, and overlays distances to every person in the frame onto the stream.
“No, your honour, I was 9’7.5” away from the closest police officer when he moved towards me to confiscate my phone arrest me while the other officer used his taser on the handcuffed black guy for no reason. As you can see in this video on YouTube uploaded and timestamped at the time the incident unfolded.”
The ability to prove after the fact that you were a certain distance away won't stop you from being arrested and dragged to jail, which is probably the point. For a low level crime, by the time you are standing in front of judge with an opportunity to present evidence, a lot of time will have passed and most of the negative consequences of being charged with a crime will have already happened to you - the trauma of going to jail, bail money, hiring a lawyer, missing work, potentially losing your job, the stress and uncertainty, having a record and everything that comes with that. Even if you had that good evidence, those charges would turn your life upside down.
Sure, 1-2 officers responding to an incident are just going to arrest an angry crowd of 10, 20, 50 people while fearing for both their own safety and the safety of the public.
Go watch police cam breakdown/footage on YouTube. Crowds surround officer and start shouting, and even throwing things.
- 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.
> Sure, 1-2 officers responding to an incident are just going to arrest an angry crowd of 10, 20, 50 people while fearing for both their own safety and the safety of the public.
… which has nothing to do with allowing citizens the right to film officers, nor with the point that I was making above: that, in that scenario, you can already arrest that person without needing an unconstitutional law to do so.
> video
This is exactly the sort of thing I want recorded. To one side, this is going to be "police brutality", and to the other, "resisting arrest". Recording it gives us evidence, and allows us the ability to decide on something more firm than the just what each side is going to claim happened.
Yeah, a trash can gets thrown; this thread isn't arguing for the right to toss trash cans at cops, and you're missing the point: that's separate from recording, and we already have laws that allow cops to arrest people that assault cops. So if you toss a can at a cop you already shouldn't be surprised when you get arrested¹. If the cops don't have the manpower to make the arrest, not being allowed your constitutional right to film isn't going to change that. The cops already have the (de jure) power they need here.
¹I'd also note that, here, cops need to understand their actions. While I disagree with the behavior of the people in the video, I can empathize & understand their point of view that this, to them, is police brutality. If you want to de-escalate a situation (which would help, if, as you argue, they can't make the arrest because they're being overpowered by the crowd), that starts by not doing things that enrage the crowd. Failing that, they just need backup, then.
That's not a realistic suggestion, though. If a cop is already arresting someone who's violently resisting, and then a crowd pushes in, are you seriously going to suggest he needs to ask the guy he was wrestling to "put a pin in this" while he arrests several other people for crowding?
There needs to be an effective way to make people aware and discouraged ahead of time from crowding in too close. I'm not sure what the right answer is, but "just arrest the whole crowd if you think they're interfering" is not it.
If you have “a whole crowd” who’re already prepared to risk an obstructing police charge, do you really think adding a potential “filming while too close to a police officer” charge is likely to change their behaviour?
Well, yeah. What does "obstructing" mean? As an ordinary joe, I would assume it means getting in their way or bothering them or trying to interfere, or even just moving in a way that could be interpreted as threatening. So it's a crowd of people who don't know they're risking charges, because who the hell knows.
But if the rule was "stay back 8 feet".... That's a lot less ambiguous. And also recently publicized. I would expect such a rule to change peoples' behavior.
It does not apply to the person who is subject to police action. It does furthermore not apply to other occupants of a vehicle (as long as they do not interfere otherwise). And it allows to make videos in a "closed structure" on private property from closer than 8ft unless the person is interfering otherwise or the entire area is deemed unsafe.
And it's only a misdemeanor after the police already warned you and you continue to take video from closer than 8ft.
Yeah I am huge on recording cops, but a minimum distance of 8 feet does not bother me as long as it doesn't slippery slope into more. Slippery slope arguments are usually invalid, unless they involve government justifying and expanding powers, we have plenty of historical evidence for that.
But you already have the right to record which has been upheld in court. Now in AZ when faced with a court argument that you were too close to the action you can point to a law that defines too close.
You are largely right, though one can apply the canons of construction to understanding a law's text, which sometimes can sometimes lead to inferences.
8ft is 2.4m, it's not that long, it's the lenght of a small car. With current modern resolutions and zooms, you can even read the name of cops on their plaque from that distance.
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 ?
It's not so much the specific distance as the limitation and illegal "zone" that now exists around officers, a moving target for when you can suddenly ve performing something illegal that wasn't illegal a few centimeters ago. A cop leaning a bit or just shifting their weight is enough to make you a criminal.
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.
If you are able to position yourself at a safe distance down to the centimeter, you probably also have the super power to move when the officer shifts weight.
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
I appreciate what I assume is a good faith attempt to read this law, but the law isn't about giving the officers room to safely operate. If that were the case, it would not cite _recording the officers_ as the illegal action, it would just define a minimum perimeter of non-interference.
> 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,
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.
Once you are being arrested, you are no longer a bystander, so you may continue 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.
Except that isn't what it is for. It's so when someone is being lawfully detained, you don't get 30 people circling the officer(s) shouting things and exciting one another, while recording and blocking view and the movement of officers.
It's purely a safety thing. You don't want random people close to you while you are dealing with something
- 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.
You've got a lot of videos of people messing with cops. In any of them, did the fact that someone was recording, as opposed to any other crimes they may have committed, make the officers' job harder?
This law is much, much more about removing accountability than police safety.
I think the law excludes the restriction when filming in a confined structure. I don’t know if a car qualifies, but as the intention is to prevent interference, it arguably could qualify.
I'm sure this state rep is a scumbag in general and all that, but what the law says is:
* 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
You might be able to take a decent recording from 8 feet away, but:
- 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
8 ft seems pretty reasonable... Not sure why people are upset over this. Police officers can't question and keep track of bystanders hanging over their shoulders. Am I missing something?
Because interfering with police is already illegal, and the law only deals with RECORDING police officers which is kind of peculiar if the concern for safety was legitimate.
Top 25 Most Dangerous Professions (Fatal Injury Rate per 100,000 Workers)
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.
I see "17 supervisors of mechanics" but not "mechanics" (other than 22, "Heavy vehicle mechanics").
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.
I'm not sure what the point of your list is. Is your argument that professions like crane operator or construction worker are nowhere near as dangerous as that of logging worker, so we don't need regulations to make them safer?
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.
Police tend to be assaulted at far higher rates than any kind of fatal injury rate, and I'm not sure I'd say it's 'safe' just because it's not death. Do you have any statistics that put a figure on the actual amount of psychopathic/drug fuelled/antisocial behaviour directed specifically at police? I'd be surprised if Airline pilots were assaulted at the same level as police, for example.
The slippery slope keeps getting steeper and steeper... they continue to pass new laws to make the person recording a criminal act into a criminal, but do nothing against the person committing the criminal act in the first place that is on film!
The Ars headline is one of the few for this story that I've seen that has specified "for bystanders" vs making it sound like it was also illegal for the person involved (e.g. someone pulled over in a car or someone else in the car with them) to record.
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.
I'm not American so maybe there's some Very Cool Constitutional Reason this isn't challenged, but is this something people can class action the state over? Seems like the kind of thing that would get steamrolled in court
It will be steamrolled in court until it reaches the radical, ultra-conservative Supreme Court who will say that the Constitution doesn't mention cameras and has no opinion about filming, at which point the law will stand.
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.
Facial challenges to a law are rare and courts don't like them. A normal challenge would have to come from someone who had had the law enforced against them. Give it time.
The notion of policing without consent feels so alien to me. As a UK citizen I used to take this for granted, but wonder if the social contract in the UK will be broken in favour of the US in the future. I hope not. I feel for the people of Arizona.
I hope that the strikedown of Miranda Rights will not be as much of a shock to people as Roe was. They are going to have to back-edit thousands of episodes of Law and Order.
Funny because half these cops shows love glorifying illegal activity. Just make sure the villain of the episode is something really bad like a terrorist and violating their rights is cool and ok.
8ft should be the required distance for everything unless the person is involved.
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.
I think it fair to say the US cops are rather paranoid and some prone to roid rage, so this is sensible, last thing you want is to be on your hands and knees dealing with a suspect whilst worrying about members of the public who might be to close to the action for their citizen policing media content.
Most if not all of the camera footage of George Floyd being murdered was taken from over 8ft away!
I was held at gunpoint after getting too close with my camera (which wasn't that close actually, much more than 8 feet, more like 30-50) while recording an arrest in Mesa, AZ. I was the one who actually called the cops on the dudes that were threatening a guy with a bat. Would prefer to leave it at that as it wasn't a good experience.
Officer charges you with assault and resisting arrest. New supreme court rulings abrogate your exercising Miranda rights and limit liability for police and federal agents, even if they enter your home without a warrant and beat you.
This doesn't seem that unreasonable. You don't need to get closer than 8 feet to record police misconduct, and getting closer than 8 feet to an active arrest is definitely pretty goddamn close. The 8 foot perimeter seems perfectly reasonable.
I don't know what the answer is here but I have sympathy with police trying to do their job with hostile bystanders recording their every move and uploading to to YouTube in edited contextless hatchet jobs intended to ridicule or undermine.
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.
Hostility is when police perform no-knock raids and end up killing innocent people, or shoot unarmed civilians, which happens pretty damn often in the US as seen by the death by cop statistics.
I was going to reflect on how a gun that resembled an iphone might affect this conversation. I did a quick search and saw that they are easily available. So now as a Police Officer when someone takes a phone out of there pocket you have to immediately assess the risk. Am I going to be shot or recorded? Being in law enforcement is getting more dangerous by the day. Damn.
It is more dangerous to be a landscaper, a fisherman, or a truck driver in America, than to be a police officer. Not a joke. Being a police officer is one of the safer professions you can do outdoors or on the road.
The risk of the job is absolutely normal and zero excuse for any concessions of accountability.
How many times have these covert phone-guns been used in crimes?
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.
"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...