It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Texas Bill to Make Filming Police Illegal

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

What about security cameras? The article says:

Only representatives of radio or TV organizations that hold an FCC license, newspapers and magazines would have the right to record police.

So do all stores have to turn their security cameras off when a cop walks in the store?




posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:23 PM
link   
Even though, I am fairly sure the bill will go nowhere or be found unconstitutional I think the mear fact that our elected representatives would try to pass crap like that is a subject unto itself.

Are they so dumb that they don't understand the unconstitutionality of the legislation or do they simply not care about it?

Either scenario is troubling to say the least.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:27 PM
link   
They need reminding how out of touch they are by losing an election or two.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
Just because an officer steps at us and it impedes on the 25-foot zone if we're filming doesn't mean that the citizen is responsible for the crime. And we should have the right to document any interaction with public officials, to include LEOs, if we desire.


In a normal world, maybe.

I know some LEOs who will synthesize an obstruction/assault if needed by intentionally walking into someone, then claim that the person impeded or touched them. I don't see anything stopping cops from just walking toward you to stop recordings. It seems like a very low risk thing to do to stop you, in fact.

There was a spate of LEOs assaulting people and stomping on their cell phones last year when the word went around that you could safely do that if you claimed you thought it was a cell phone gun. It didn't fly in court though. If they're willing to walk up to you and baton your arm and stomp the phone to stop you recording, why do you think walking a few feet toward you will be a hindrance?
edit on 13-3-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

So do all stores have to turn their security cameras off when a cop walks in the store?


I don't see them giving an out to police either, so if the cops have recorders on, they violate themselves.

It ought to require some sort of minimal competency to propose law.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Shamrock6
a reply to: Bedlam

Sure is. Which is why I don't see this proposed amendment getting anywhere. And if it does, it'll wind up tanked pretty quick I would think.


I admit it would creep me out if I was arresting someone and a bunch of people started crowding me.

There's good enough interference/obstruction laws on the books in Texas that you don't need more that are blatantly there to prevent recording of LEOs and nothing else.

You guys have bad enough PR without someone trying to float a stinky turd like this one.


Yep. And this is ludicrous because at some point we all know this is going to happen: cop - hey that guy is only 24 feet away! Obstruction! Or vice versa, a citizen is going to say they're 26 feet away. Unless they're going to start issuing tape measures, it's utterly stupid. (Side note: issuing measuring tapes for this would also be stupid. The whole thing is stupid)

And that's not even getting in to the traffic stop scenario. Imo, you're in your vehicle, pull out a damn 1990s style camcorder for all I care. Set up a tripod in your passenger seat for a steady view!

A little common sense goes a long way. Too bad so many people are so devoid of it.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

So do all stores have to turn their security cameras off when a cop walks in the store?


I don't see them giving an out to police either, so if the cops have recorders on, they violate themselves.

It ought to require some sort of minimal competency to propose law.


I was going to make that same point



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Are they so dumb that they don't understand the unconstitutionality of the legislation or do they simply not care about it?


Ah, the real question is, do they think WE'RE so dumb we won't notice that this has no function at all except to keep cops safe from disciplinary action?



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
A little common sense goes a long way. Too bad so many people are so devoid of it.


Then, too, the whole obstruction thing is so situational.

If it's the 10 year old kid of the person you're doing a Terry on, and they're being quiet and they're back a few feet, why in hell would you care? If it's the enforcement branch of the local Outlaws MC, and they keep jockeying around to get behind you, YEAH that's obstruction and I'd want you back a little, and in front of me. Or a lot.

But then again, Texas has a long history of litigation wherein that obstruction law got banged into the current shape it's in, and it's plenty good enough for both sides of the issue, or as good as a law is going to get. What extra does this add? Other than the obvious.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 02:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: Grimpachi
Are they so dumb that they don't understand the unconstitutionality of the legislation or do they simply not care about it?


Ah, the real question is, do they think WE'RE so dumb we won't notice that this has no function at all except to keep cops safe from disciplinary action?


Exactly, this is clearly the intent of this bill. It's obvious for all to see.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 03:12 PM
link   
a reply to: Shamrock6




Yep. And this is ludicrous because at some point we all know this is going to happen: cop - hey that guy is only 24 feet away! Obstruction! Or vice versa, a citizen is going to say they're 26 feet away.


This was my thought too. How would the cop gauge the distance.

Which would lead to the person filming arguing and we all know where that road leads to if the person can't do it civilly or if the cop has cartman syndrome.
edit on thFri, 13 Mar 2015 15:54:28 -0500America/Chicago320152880 by Sremmos80 because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 03:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Man, they really dressed up that headline didn't they? It might be illegal to film cops!....from less than 25 feet away, or 100 if you're strapped.

Guess that last bit took up too much space for a catchy headline.


A reasonable person going about their business should not have a law created to criminalize them going about their business.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 03:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Man, they really dressed up that headline didn't they? It might be illegal to film cops!....from less than 25 feet away, or 100 if you're strapped.

Guess that last bit took up too much space for a catchy headline.


A reasonable person going about their business should not have a law created to criminalize them going about their business.


Couldn't agree more. As I think I made pretty clear in subsequent posts.

A reasonable news outlet shouldn't have to significantly alter headlines to generate more clicks. But they do it anyway, which was my point.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 03:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: Shamrock6

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

originally posted by: Shamrock6
Man, they really dressed up that headline didn't they? It might be illegal to film cops!....from less than 25 feet away, or 100 if you're strapped.

Guess that last bit took up too much space for a catchy headline.


A reasonable person going about their business should not have a law created to criminalize them going about their business.


Couldn't agree more. As I think I made pretty clear in subsequent posts.

A reasonable news outlet shouldn't have to significantly alter headlines to generate more clicks. But they do it anyway, which was my point.


That is the downfall of "press".

Dirty, and in the pocket.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 04:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

That is the downfall of "press".

Dirty, and in the pocket.


If it's not sensational enough it's not going to attract readers, either.

I'm sort of surprised they don't have "Police want to try this weird old trick - page 3B!"



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 04:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan

That is the downfall of "press".

Dirty, and in the pocket.


If it's not sensational enough it's not going to attract readers, either.

I'm sort of surprised they don't have "Police want to try this weird old trick - page 3B!"


Because everybody knows page 3 belongs to the Page 3 Girls. Duh.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: Bedlam

The way i see it, there are 2 ways the media can deal with things:

- observe national sentiment and pursue stories that pique said national sentiment
- create national sentiment by reporting fact, ignoring the political aspects of sucking up to your audience


The first makes more money. But prostitutes can make some bank, too.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 04:43 PM
link   
And apparently the guy's a lawyer. You would think he'd know better.

eta: Earlier this morning, he took to Twitter, again, to insist that “it came about because my brothers/sisters in blue asked for my help to protect them. I did what I could to help."

Ah. There we go. Please, Mr Congressman, make mean people stop recording anything about us so we can't be held accountable.



edit on 13-3-2015 by Bedlam because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 04:54 PM
link   
Well I was fine with trusting my own eyes but now it seems I may have to just side with the public bystanders on what really happened. I see big trouble with this. 25 feet may be called 15 feet and so on.

If this becomes law they should be required to have police cams to hold it true on distance. Also this does away with in car trouble that I've seen plenty of bad policing done on.



posted on Mar, 13 2015 @ 06:51 PM
link   
a reply to: windword




Texas Rep., Jason Villalba introduced a bill that would make it illegal, a misdemeanor, to film the police in any proximity closer than 25 feet, if you're carrying, 100 feet.


Another example of how our representatives clearly don't represent their constituents. They take an oath to uphold our constitution, yet they introduce bills like this? The citizens of Texas need to call this representatives office and raise hell!

They can set up video cameras to record citizens walking down the street in public, yet citizen's are not allowed to film public servants who are paid with our tax dollars?

edit on 13-3-2015 by WeRpeons because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join