Steve, you said the quiet part outloud (that or you experienced a fraudean slip (or whatevet). we DONT need "catch all " laws. We dont.. We have too many catch all laws. We need less. Less laws in general, but less catchall laws especially
Could you do a breakdown of the 13th-14th amendments.... I ask because different Black American Advocate groups are planning to sue the federal government for not enforcing 14 and using it for immigration
It is not not a lawful threat, but cops don't like you to video them and this is where these laws are coming from. They don't want you close enough to hear what they are saying to one anotehr or to the subject of the stop, but cop watchers get close enough to hear what is being said so there is an independent source of facts about what transpired. Cops will supress body camera videos, but they have no control over private videos. Cops don't like transparency.
@@shenmisheshou7002 Exactly...We can't rely on those body cams. Thank God I record everything and have all their threats to protect myself. It is a shame we have to video our every move but they just showed me why it's a must now that they made a false charge on me banking I wasn't recording a city worker I was having a civil conversation with who called police who showed up and said I was asked to leave.. A bold face lie. Now they keep dragging out a case I can prove in a 2 minute video they refuse to look at while my Constitutional rights are being violated.
There is a video online where the police were selectively letting some people to pass during the questioning a possible shoplifter on a busy downtown sidewalk. While blocking "trouble makers". This was crazy to watch.😢😢😢
A $500 fine won't ruin your life, but 60 days in jail might. You most likely will lose your job, not be able to pay your rent or house payment, get evicted and lose all your belongings. So yeah, that could cause real problems.
Then they call another cop who walks up to you and says move back 25 feet, then walks up to you again and repeats the process. This is just another attempt to protect corrupt cops.
Exactly what happened in Indiana. It's well documented and was handed over to the ACLU. The work of Freedom 2 Film and Famously Unfamous was essential in showing the abuse/misuse of the statute.
Cops claim that people just standing quietly 15 ft away are "interfering" all the time. They claim that because of the person's mere presence, the cop has to divide his attention, which is "interference" or "obstruction". They routinely arrest people for it, on camera. They know the charges will get dropped but they also know that they won't suffer any consequences for it. The one who has to deal with the BS of being cuffed, fingerprinted, booked, fall down the stairs a couple times, and spending the night in jail won't be the cop. That was the point of the arrest, to show the uppity citizen that cops don't need the law on their side to make you suffer.
@TheOneandOnlyD-R-E sometimes they do. It comes down to the observer being a distraction to the cop. The cop will claim that the observer could, without warning, attack them.
We're at a tipping point where large government-worker unions are exerting an outsized effect on the legislature. They are voting for their own salaries.
the issue is that in so many cases that the officers were interfered with; add that an attacker can cover 21 feet FASTER than the officer can see - identify- and then react to to protect themselves [commonly referred to as the "21 Foot Rule"] , necessitates SOMETHING be done to protect them. This Law needs "tweaking" to fit the factors Steve articulated. Duhhhh But it isn't a Big Brother/Democrat-led restriction on behavior or Constitutional Law as in California and other States that actively disobey the SCOTUS decisions. This ATTEMPTS to address a serious issue. So, work is needed, and it will be resolved.
So let me get this straight. Someone who is going to approach a police officer and attack him is going to be dissuaded by a new law that says that he can't be within 25 ft of him. I don't think that's going to stop them.
Texas needs to pass a law that law enforcement cannot come within 50 feet of people doing their jobs. Officers if don’t have business here stay 50 feet away for your safety.
This is going to turn out like "stop resisting arrest", where the cops just claim you're resisting arrest, and then arrest you for resisting. They will say "get back 25 feet", give you 0.02 seconds to do so, and then arrest you. Oh sure, you might beat it in court, but you'll have the hassle of the arrest.
Just make it illegal to record the police while brandishing a weapon. Literally no one recording the police has ever been a threat to an officer but if you want to record it should be illegal to be a threat.
cops already arrest people that annoy them. It's called punishment by process. They know their BS charges will get dropped. They know there will be no consequences for them, even if legal action is taken. With this new BS, the charges won't get dropped
That's a great idea, Police should stay at least 25ft away from me. Oh, that doesn't go both ways, special laws for government employees? Remember, as a juror you don't have to tolerate this crap and you don't have to explain your vote to anyone.
Yeah, different laws for Government employees is quite important. You aren't allowed to issue driver's licenses... You aren't allowed to pass a law, etc... Kind of the basis of a Government to have some special laws. If you want to make an argument, make a better argument. "Remember, as a juror you don't have to tolerate this crap and you don't have to explain your vote to anyone." And the moment you know this, you aren't going to be a juror, because you will be asked in a round about way if you know this, and if you do, you can be prosecuted afterwards... which makes sense, otherwise jurors can't act impartially, which is kind of the point of a juror. It's great that you are encouraging corruption in the juror system... That's not going to make any lawmakers change anything, right? Nor piss off a lot of people.
@@SioxerNikita corruption in the courts/gov/police does not exist. normal people pushing back is bad. what rock do you live under? i've never been arrested. but i have been lied to and ticketed.
Never even thought of that! And, I already know they would abuse it the first day it was allowed!!! "I'm conducting an "investigation"; Everyone has to back up 25'... " When done correctly, they could (and would!) abuse it to its full advantage!!! "We need another 25'..."
Or plant or tamper with evidence. It's absolutely ridiculous. Cops have been caught doing so all over the country. The best are when the officers own body cams catch them. @@brentfarvors192
@davidh9638 doesn't matter. Approaching you is part of their investigation. You expect police to act like professionals? Unlawful arrests happen everyday for disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, interference, and trespass that are tossed by the DA AFTER arrest, incarceration, attorney fees and fines..... You think a cop will honor the intent of this law? 🤣
What happens when you move 25' and the officer moves with you? They could 25' you right off of any property. Just another tool to intimidate the people.
If a cop did that he would lose qualified immunity for further actions he took because he would be instigating officer-created jeopardy. So they order you back to 25’. Then they advance and order you back but you don’t move. Any actions they take to enforce that 25’ command from then on would put them at fault and they would not be covered under qualified immunity so they could be civilly sued by you.
It is unconstitutional due to it being prior restraint (a form of censorship). The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that prior restraint is a severe infringement on First Amendment rights.
The Press Secretary said they had several officers who were injured while carrying out their lawful duties. If someone doesn't care about assaulting a police officer, they wouldn't care about a 25' law.
I didn't really think about the fact that nowadays a lot of cars have cameras. What if they drove like 2 mi an hour going past the traffic stop. They could just say" I was only trying to be safe".
There are plenty of videos on RUclips of cops abusing statutes like this. They walk up to you and demand that you step back the required spacing away from them. You do, and they follow you, demanding you keep your distance, and arrest you for not doing so. Costing their departments big sentiments. Because the rest took place 50 to 100 feet away from the actual incident.
I can already see police abusing this. They’ll walk up to citizens on the sidewalk and tell them to backup 25ft. Then approach them again and say 25ft…..
A lot of states clearly define "interference" is a physical act. Recording, talking to the subject, not talking to the police are not examples of interference but many people get arrested and charged with it. Interference charges of this type are also known as contempt of cop, meaning you didn't bow down to them whether legal or not.
This is absolutey correct. If they get the 25 feet, they will go for 50 feet, and then for 100 feet, becuse cops don't want you to be close enough to record what they are conspiring to do to innocent people.
They can't mute your camera, or turn their body 'accidentally' away from a fellow officer planting drugs. When will the bootlicking public understand that police breaking policy is equivalent if not worse than someone breaking the law?
Yeah. 99% of the videos I've seen where the cops are telling a camera person to get back because they're "interfering" are actually just because the cops are annoyed that someone showed up with a camera. I've seen so many videos where the cops are doing something and they don't give a damn about the random citizens walking right by the scene on a nearby sidewalk but they lose their minds when some guy with a camera walks up on the same exact sidewalk and suddenly the police are more preoccupied with harassing the cameraman and trying to get rid of him than actually doing their duties. It's outright bizarre and shows how unprofessional and fragile their egos can be.
Thats why they are fighting hard against that Ohio vote that Steve covered a few videos ago. Those officers aren't even personaly financially liable in possible lawsuits, they fear sitting down for a deposition with a lawyer like Steve that finally gets to ask tough questions that make them look stupid. I saw a depositon the Civil Rights Lawyer did personally about excessive force, the cop could not have put his foot further in his mouth.
Eventually they'll hit that authority ceiling and commit an act of abuse so outrageous that it causes a riot or even an all out war on them, its happened so many times before and that was during times BEFORE most courts lost credibility as an institution.
I was out of state and my sisters house was surrounded by police. I ran out of my shoes and grabbed the nearest cop, trying to ask if my sister was alive. I couldn’t listen and the cop had to kind of shake me to say it was a car accident about a half mile from there! Thank goodness I didn’t get tased or sh*t!!
They just made it hard to demand ID, your required to remain 25ft away so they can't just come upto you, if they acuse you of anything afterwards have your lawyer state this law in court and say you were attempting to maintain 25ft of distance from the police officer as to avoid interfering with their duties. If they complain that their duty was talking to you state "well I didn't know that, I couldn't clearly hear them from 25ft away".
This is the foundation of a police state. How much of our rights are we supposed to throw away and still call ourselves free? Get rid of qualified immunity first, then we'll talk!
With this new law, the first thing I noticed was, if people are legally demonstrating and approaching a line of police and the police use this law to break up the demonstration, with the threat of arrest for coming closer than 25feet. Does that mean that the right to protest just went out the window?
There is no right to protest. It's the freedom to peaceably assemble. With that I have no problems. However, when your assembly (protest) breaks out into violence the right you speak of doesn't exist. If you are not violent in your assembly you should be free to approach the police.
Hypothetical. Cop pulls over a car just past my driveway. I'm going to check my mail and the cop is standing next to my mailbox, then orders me to stay back 25 feet. Now he's violating 18USC1710 by restricting passage of mail. What then?
Very, very true. Certain high-speed fatal crashes involving Louisiana cops, shows that even just being on the same roadway as a cop puts citizens' lives in danger.
"Citizen safety" aka another means of control. This is flat out government overreach. People recording corrupt cops actions is a problem they would like to remove. "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Ben Franklin, maybe you've heard of him
It would be funny if the ruling came down that it was constitutional but also said cops had to stay 25 feet from the people they were investigating for the same safety reason. They are far more likely to be a danger to the person they're investigating than someone recording them is, after all. Maybe even 50 or 100 would be better for the cop to be required to stay away, actually.
"Approach" is a key word, here. What if the officer tells you to back up to 25 feet away, but then the office comes towards you? You didn't "approach" the officer, but you're still within 25 feet. Is that against the law?
That's what they've done in other jurisdictions with similar laws, the cops conspiring to push an observer further and further back until nothing can be seen or heard.
Depends on the definition of "approach". The cops will interpret it to mean them approaching you (even if the law clearly states otherwise), therefore, they can continuously order you back 25 ft each time they come close to you. Pretty soon, there will be a division of cops whose sole job duty is to constantly approach anyone with a camera until they are 500 ft from the scene.
I think the precedent from the Marine Mammal Protection Act should apply in that case. The law says you cannot approach within 100 yards of a marine mammal (whale, dolphin, seal). But if the animal instead approaches you, then it's allowed.
Arizona's law of eight feet was struck down as unconstitutional because it's just that.... unconstitutional. There is no minimum distance as long as we don't physically interfere and police cowardice can not and will not override our rights.
Presence can interfere, especially if both less than lethal and lethal force might be necessary to use. Not saying this law is great, frankly, a straight up standard limit is not necessarily a great idea, unless it is only under very specific circumstances, but physically interfering never have, and NEVER!!! should be the requirement for interference. Being close to a situation can significantly change how officers handle it, and it may become more dangerous, especially if someone is yelling stuff, or enticing the person to fight back, or similar, especially considering onlookers don't necessarily know the context. At one point, a guy was passed out next to me while I was talking to him, pretty drugged up, I called the emergency service because I was worried about him, they sent the cops out to verify it before they sent an ambulance (don't worry, the guy wasn't at the threat of his life, at the moment, nor would he be), and not that long after they arrived he started seizing, I helped the Officers restrain him, not because he was being arrested, but because... well... he was in danger of hurting himself. If we hadn't caught him, he might've cracked his skull falling off the bench. People were standing terribly close, and the officer was quite angry at them, and I heard calls like "Police Brutality" and similar... these people had NO!!! clue what was happening... or that we were helping him. A few minutes later the ambulance arrived, I gave my statements to the relevant officials, and that was that. People could've interfered quite significantly, especially because we had no idea how conscious this guy was, and if people start yelling about police brutality, the guy could in his stupor or waking up from unconsciousness, become panicked and become a danger to the people helping him... This was in Denmark, mind you, but believe me, your rights don't include potentially endangering people just because you want to be close to a situation, or yelling out about a situation you don't understand. Stand back, record if you think something is going on, stay quiet, and see what happens. You very likely have no clue what is actually going on.
The issue is of course that you may pull out your camera and start filming 25ft away from an officer, and then they or their partner simply walks up to you and tells you to back up 25ft from them. This is a "go away and don't watch me do my job in a public place" law.
It is an absolute violation of the 1st Amendment. Next, it will be 50 feet and then 100 feet, because cops don't want you to record what they are saying.
They will just keep telling you to maintain 25 foot distance as they continue jogging towards you. And how about the cop who drives past you? That's less than 25 feet, so they have reason to pull you over. And during that encounter, you fail to maintain distance, so they arrest you for it. But if you try to maintain distance, they shoot you in the back for running away from them.
And you happen to get shot or injured from the assailant they just pulled over. who are you going to sue? the one who told you to stand back or the one who shot you????
@@dianabirchman7540The Supreme Court has already ruled that cops have no obligation to protect the public. They only have to worry about the people in their custody. So that’s not a real augment. Also, it would obviously be the assailant. Why would you sue the cops for being shot by someone completely different.
You had already moved "25 feet" away, and the cop moved. Is it your responsibility to maintain that 25 feet even if the cop (or a different cop) moves, or approaches you for that matter, and if the cop approaches you, do they have to first rescind the 25 foot "order" so you can talk with them? This whole thing, as said, seems very poorly thought out, especially all the given particularities that can crop up.
A number of years ago a Chief of Police was forced to retire after forcing an internet journalist back nearly a block, screaming all the way that he was too close. This was the Chief of Police. Normally when someone is abusing you you ask to speak to their supervisor. This was the supervisor screaming his head off. It was scary to see a senior law enforcement officer so out of control. I can only assume he was used to being the top man and never questioned.
And, this would literally revoke the 1st amendment!!! Anytime anyone was somewhere they didn't want them, they would simply start a new "investigation"... "You look "suspicious"... "
how about a buffer law where the police officer when told by the citizen, has to back up 25 feet away unless they have a warrant, or probable cause to approach you.
So if there are 6 cops investigating an incident in a road 20 feet wide they can stand 24 feet apart down the road and keep the media and people 144 feet from the scene of the first cop beating up the suspect or kneeling on his throat for only 10 mins.
What??? Louisiana??? Corrupt??? The hell, you say! Next you're going to tell me that the New Jersey police department isn't exactly on the up and up, either!
So, if I am in a courtyard and go inside my condo or town house, (less than 25 feet in most places), I can be arrested because I am not far enough away? That’s just one of many instances I can think of to challenge this. It’s ridiculous.
The whole point of these "buffer laws" is that police don't want ppl recording them with their phones and getting them in trouble when they break the law themselves.
The phones and video recording have Zoom and some can pick up sound from a distant. Standing right next to them isn't necessary. Many officers have recording right on them. Try Again.
@dianabirchman7540 yet somehow the police recordings get "accidentally" deleted. Especially if it shows clear violations. They don't tent to get "accidentally" deleted if they know someone else had a video recording of the event.
I remember being at a buddies house all the time. We would park on the street in front. He was on a corner lot. A cop drove by and after the 2nd time mentioned we couldn't park within 50 feet of the intersection. So finally i grabbed a tape measure and painted a small white line 75 feet from the intersection. I remember when he stopped the next time and showed him the dot I painted and informed him that was 75 feet back and we were still parked at least 25 feet away from that mark. He never mentioned it again.
if the pigs can claim a 25' buffer zone, but can get in my face without RAS, then they are untouchable, and we know what happens when a class becomes untouchable. 1780's France, baby.
@@Erin-Thor, All cops are corrupt. If a good cop does not turn in a bad cop, then that good cop just turned into a bad cop. The "thin blue line" is the largest gang in the world!
@ - Police have always been a representation of our society. See problems, the problem is US. Besides, Trump and Republicans have vowed to defund the police and every 3 letter agency that persecuted Trump. Law enforcement will be forever changed, I look forward to military direct deployment to maintain law and order. 👍🏽😎🇺🇸
You did a very good job with the commercial...I normally skip right over them but you struck a chord that got and held my attention and you explained the product with candor and 'matter of facts'...I'm happy I was within the allowable 25' rule/factor! . Like always, Thanks!
The 25' is unconstitutional. It's already not enough for the government. They don't want to be limited by numbers or distances. They want to be able to tell us where to go no matter how far it is & they want to be able to tell us when to go & what to do when we get there. That's mental.
And these are most likely the same officers that say they have no obligations to protect you, and stand around watching people harm others because they may be harmed stopping the illegal activities.
But what if the officer tells you to back up 25 feet then approaches you? Do you need to backing up to maintain the 25 feet from the officer? Why are cops so afraid of a guy with a camera?
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” a well-known quote from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, refers to the benefits of openness and transparency.
Steve, is there a difference in protecting an officer from potential harm and punishing someone from getting harmed? I shouldn't have to worry about getting harmed doing my job, and the threat of punishment for someone harming me is not in any way equivalent!
If police don't want to be filmed, they should be police regardless of whether they're violating rights or not. Being filmed is part of being a government employee.
@@ShapesWithoutColors uhhhh FYI… any modern day smart phone can easily record from 25 feet. You can actually get better footage than being right on top of the situation
They couldn't get a 6-8 ft law successfully past a judge in AZ what idiot in LA is wasting everyone's time with this ridiculous law and with a stupid defense
AZ is in the 9th Circuit Court. LA is in the 5th Circuit Court. So the way to get this sent up to the Supreme Court is for two (or more) Circuit Courts to arrive at contradictory rulings. When that happens, they're not going to want a measly 8 ft. They're going to go for broke. Negotiating 101 is to initially ask for the moon (25 ft) so that what you offer later as a compromise (10 ft or 5 ft) sounds a lot more reasonable.
There is a large contingent of Unamerican footwear sommeliers loose in the country. These politicians know they can stay busy scoring some brownie points with them while avoiding helpful legislation that might negatively affect their donors.
I do not care for absolute distances. Who has a calibrated eyeball? I'm not even sure how many Louisiana officers can do the math to get to 25. The state isn't renowned for its level of smarts.
I guess That’s about 10 or 11 steps, & that’s about how many the cop will take in your direction & you better not still be standing there when he does.
This kind of law was immediatly abused in places where it went into effect. Cop watchers want to get close, because they want to hear the dialog between cops and suspects, or between cops conspiring to find reason to search or arrest people, and cops don't like that. This is not about cop safety, it is about preventing the public from making an independent record of what is being said by cops doing investigations. I have been watching cop videos of 6 years, and the stuff you see and hear is outrageous.
They let them judge speed with their special eyes in a vehicle. Policing is filled with policy that is not backed by any science. Just look at any death ruled as "excited delirium"
In Hill v. City of Houston, the person exercising his 1st Amendment rights was within reach of the cop and the Supreme Court said as long as there is no physical interference with the cop, the person was within their rights. Seems right to me. All this kind of law would do would be give cops more power, especially to arrest people who don't like cops, and that's the last thing cops need.
In Houston v. Hill it was based on free speech. Now it will be based on free press. I actually think this will be struck down at the district court again and the state will collapse as in the other challenges.
A person "close enough" to a police officer can draw a knife or other weapon and attack the officer before the officer can draw a firearm and fire. How close? "The 21-foot rule is a guideline that helps people understand the reactionary gap they might face if they are attacked with a knife or other sharp-edged weapon. The rule states that an attacker can cover 21 feet in the time it takes to: Recognize the threat, Draw a firearm, and Fire two shots. The 21-foot rule was developed by Dennis Tueller, a Salt Lake City police department instructor, based on his research. However, some say that the 21-foot rule is dangerous because people move at different speeds. Others say that the rule is a myth: A study by the Force Science Research Center concluded that trained individuals are at a severe disadvantage against edged-weapon attackers within 21 feet. The 21-foot rule is only a guideline, and it doesn't provide an absolute defense. "
So if you became the victim of a crime, and had to disclose personal and confidential information to the police, you’d want to have some guy with the camera standing next to you recording all of your information??
The problem is that lawmakers don't even consider the practical aspects of the laws they pass- let alone if they are Constitutional or not. Legislators couldn't care less about the Constitution.
--"136 federal, state, county, municipal, military, tribal and campus officers died in the line of duty in 2023," - Fraternal Order of Police. -- "officers killed 1,329 people last year, representing nearly a 19-percent increase over the 11-year span." - The Hill 01/17/24 1,329 divided by 136 ≈ 10 to 1 kill rate. So law enforcement is killing us at a rate of 10 to 1 but they BELIEVE we are trying to kill them ??? Amazing cognitive dissonance !!
is very narrowly defined in law. It does not include officers. In general, their do not include enforcement of misdemeanors, over which they have discretion.
Another issue is if an officer is standing at the window of your car after pulling you over, how would you record them... They would certainly be closer than 25 feet.
The idea is to prevent passersby from recording the incident. The objective is to prevent things like the viral videos that made the murder of George Floyd unignorable.
What if you're in a no exit corridor and a LEO approaches you and commands that you get 25 ft away but keeps coming closer so the fault is forced upon you and you're arrested because of that....
They tried this in Arizona too, same arbitrary distance you must maintain from a cop, that law was overturned by a federal judge shortly after it was enacted.
The problem with these laws are that after the police officer tells you to back up he keeps approaching you and continuing to tell you the back up. I saw one RUclips video where they backed a guy up a block down the street. They then told him if he got any closer that he would be arrested. So how far is far enough when all the officer has to do is keep approaching you and backing you further away. The institute for Justice has taken up a case for a man in Texas who was attempting to attend a press conference that the sheriff was giving. The sheriff said that he was not a member of the press and did not have the right to be there. The sheriff has been waging a war against him because he has been Video recording police and he has been doing freedom of information act requests that the sheriff has been denying or has had heavily redacted. He has had to file with the state Attorney General's office in order to compel them to provide the information which is delayed for months. 😊 At the press conference the sheriff ordered deputies to remove him away from the press conference. They took him far enough away that he could not hear what was being said and unable to record what was being said and he himself was not able to ask questions that the rest of the press was allowed to. In proceedings for the federal court lawsuit against the sheriff the judge stated that the case wasn't about whether the sheriff was wrong but how much in damages that he should be awarded by a jury.
What if your a neighbor in your yard and an officer next door tells you to stand back 25 feet, which put you out of your own yard. How about an apartment complex, and the individual is recording from their doorway ? The other questionable issue is if multiple officer are on a scene and the officer keeps walking forward making the individual backing up 25ft from them, this could lead to cops pushing the auditor or whoever 100 or so feet? Broad strokes are a problem when making a law.
Exactly what I was thinking! So they carry tape measure or a laser distance reader?? Even if so, the police could just lie and Say you were within arrestable distance.
Police surround a house and order the homeowners to stay back 25ft, then bust down the door for violating the law, then they can search the house without a warrant.
@randallsmerna384 Not the way this particular law is written. You might assume so, but the law as written does not include any exceptions. So with the law as written, they can do exactly this.
Use code 50LEHTOSLAW to get 50% OFF plus free shipping on your first Factor box at bit.ly/3U24kAE !
Factor box? Where can I buy that Batman t-shirt?
Steve, you said the quiet part outloud (that or you experienced a fraudean slip (or whatevet).
we DONT need "catch all " laws.
We dont..
We have too many catch all laws. We need less.
Less laws in general, but less catchall laws especially
Factor, shipped to you using child labor.
Could you do a breakdown of the 13th-14th amendments....
I ask because different Black American Advocate groups are planning to sue the federal government for not enforcing 14 and using it for immigration
Great product except when your sons are home from colledge🙂
If the police aren't doing anything wrong, the mere act of observing them isn't a threat to them...right?
It is not not a lawful threat, but cops don't like you to video them and this is where these laws are coming from. They don't want you close enough to hear what they are saying to one anotehr or to the subject of the stop, but cop watchers get close enough to hear what is being said so there is an independent source of facts about what transpired. Cops will supress body camera videos, but they have no control over private videos. Cops don't like transparency.
Sure isnt and it will be abused right off
@@shenmisheshou7002 Exactly...We can't rely on those body cams. Thank God I record everything and have all their threats to protect myself. It is a shame we have to video our every move but they just showed me why it's a must now that they made a false charge on me banking I wasn't recording a city worker I was having a civil conversation with who called police who showed up and said I was asked to leave.. A bold face lie. Now they keep dragging out a case I can prove in a 2 minute video they refuse to look at while my Constitutional rights are being violated.
That sounds too much like right.
There is a video online where the police were selectively letting some people to pass during the questioning a possible shoplifter on a busy downtown sidewalk. While blocking "trouble makers". This was crazy to watch.😢😢😢
A $500 fine won't ruin your life, but 60 days in jail might. You most likely will lose your job, not be able to pay your rent or house payment, get evicted and lose all your belongings. So yeah, that could cause real problems.
In the State where I live, the State Constitution prohibits fines of more than $50 or any time in jail without a jury trial.
@@unbreakable7633 What state is that?
Then they call another cop who walks up to you and says move back 25 feet, then walks up to you again and repeats the process. This is just another attempt to protect corrupt cops.
Wrong. If you are just standing there, you are not approaching. The cop is approaching you!
Exactly what happened in Indiana. It's well documented and was handed over to the ACLU. The work of Freedom 2 Film and Famously Unfamous was essential in showing the abuse/misuse of the statute.
Cops want you to back up when there is a cliff behind you.
Exactly
I saw a video of that the cop just kept walking closer to the guy and telling he was too close. Finally he arrested him and the town had to pay.
Cops claim that people just standing quietly 15 ft away are "interfering" all the time. They claim that because of the person's mere presence, the cop has to divide his attention, which is "interference" or "obstruction". They routinely arrest people for it, on camera. They know the charges will get dropped but they also know that they won't suffer any consequences for it. The one who has to deal with the BS of being cuffed, fingerprinted, booked, fall down the stairs a couple times, and spending the night in jail won't be the cop. That was the point of the arrest, to show the uppity citizen that cops don't need the law on their side to make you suffer.
Honestly, I think we need to consider the use of drones for this.
It's the camera that they can't control that they are aiming to restrict. Cops never claim people without cameras are "interfering."
Kidnapping is a felony. You may resist a kidnapping with deadly force. An unlawful arrest is kidnapping. Now you know... 🌈⭐️
@TheOneandOnlyD-R-E sometimes they do. It comes down to the observer being a distraction to the cop. The cop will claim that the observer could, without warning, attack them.
@@denniscrannie1126 The cop's partner could also, without warning attack them.
So could a rabid feral cat, or a disgruntled crow.
Notice how everything passed restricts the citizen and never the government.
And notice the restrictions placed on government are ignored and they do it anyway. Civil asset forfeiture anyone?
We're at a tipping point where large government-worker unions are exerting an outsized effect on the legislature. They are voting for their own salaries.
😊 agreed
It's gonna get worse..
the issue is that in so many cases that the officers were interfered with; add that an attacker can cover 21 feet FASTER than the officer can see - identify- and then react to to protect themselves [commonly referred to as the "21 Foot Rule"] , necessitates SOMETHING be done to protect them.
This Law needs "tweaking" to fit the factors Steve articulated. Duhhhh
But it isn't a Big Brother/Democrat-led restriction on behavior or Constitutional Law as in California and other States that actively disobey the SCOTUS decisions. This ATTEMPTS to address a serious issue. So, work is needed, and it will be resolved.
So let me get this straight. Someone who is going to approach a police officer and attack him is going to be dissuaded by a new law that says that he can't be within 25 ft of him. I don't think that's going to stop them.
Texas needs to pass a law that law enforcement cannot come within 50 feet of people doing their jobs. Officers if don’t have business here stay 50 feet away for your safety.
How about if the law keeps cops at least 25 feet away from a citizen?
I like your idea but as a lot of people would say dream on
Exactly
This is going to turn out like "stop resisting arrest", where the cops just claim you're resisting arrest, and then arrest you for resisting. They will say "get back 25 feet", give you 0.02 seconds to do so, and then arrest you. Oh sure, you might beat it in court, but you'll have the hassle of the arrest.
Can't beat the ride
An arrest record will show up on background checks forever.
Then you run saying i'm trying to stay 25ft away stop chasing me!! LoL
And the sealing of non conviction you have to file to remove the arrest from your record.
They will tell you to step back, then step within 25 feet so they can arrest you
A much better and useful law would make it illegal for police to get within 5ft of a citizen unless they are lawfully detained.
Just make it illegal to record the police while brandishing a weapon. Literally no one recording the police has ever been a threat to an officer but if you want to record it should be illegal to be a threat.
Great comment
This would just be used by cops to arrest people that are annoying them.
Exactly right
So there's a cop has someone in a choke hold & you move in to take video of this clear piece of misconduct & get arrested for 'interfering'.
cops already arrest people that annoy them. It's called punishment by process. They know their BS charges will get dropped. They know there will be no consequences for them, even if legal action is taken. With this new BS, the charges won't get dropped
Yes, they will advance on you and force you to move in threat of arrest...
Lol, you are awful trusting.
I don't remember freedom of the press stating 'unless you are within 25 feet of a cop'
It doesn't state that. these states are literally breaking first amendment laws with these ridiculous buffer laws
Nothing is interfering with them reporting. How close do they need to be?
@@brianrobertson877 AND, as stephen stated, the first amendment doesnt say bubkis about an EXCEPTION to freedom of the press for police and distances
@@CT_Taylor That is what the Supreme Court has been doing for over 200 years. Hasn't the First Amendment been narrowed by time, place and manner?
@@brianrobertson877 yes and within x distance of a cop has already been stricken down as overly restrictive in multiple instances.
Pathetic. Get away from our armed government servants far enough so that you can't document what they are doing in public.
But first bow down and kiss their boots 😂
lol Get drones and record. 25 ft back & Zoom in.
That's a great idea, Police should stay at least 25ft away from me. Oh, that doesn't go both ways, special laws for government employees? Remember, as a juror you don't have to tolerate this crap and you don't have to explain your vote to anyone.
Yeah, different laws for Government employees is quite important. You aren't allowed to issue driver's licenses... You aren't allowed to pass a law, etc...
Kind of the basis of a Government to have some special laws. If you want to make an argument, make a better argument.
"Remember, as a juror you don't have to tolerate this crap and you don't have to explain your vote to anyone."
And the moment you know this, you aren't going to be a juror, because you will be asked in a round about way if you know this, and if you do, you can be prosecuted afterwards... which makes sense, otherwise jurors can't act impartially, which is kind of the point of a juror. It's great that you are encouraging corruption in the juror system... That's not going to make any lawmakers change anything, right? Nor piss off a lot of people.
@@SioxerNikita corruption in the courts/gov/police does not exist. normal people pushing back is bad. what rock do you live under? i've never been arrested. but i have been lied to and ticketed.
That makes it possible for a police officer to make any lawful protest unlawful just because he said so. That's ridiculous.
Never even thought of that! And, I already know they would abuse it the first day it was allowed!!! "I'm conducting an "investigation"; Everyone has to back up 25'... " When done correctly, they could (and would!) abuse it to its full advantage!!! "We need another 25'..."
Or plant or tamper with evidence. It's absolutely ridiculous. Cops have been caught doing so all over the country. The best are when the officers own body cams catch them. @@brentfarvors192
Just like the catch all disorderly conduct. Used and abused to teach people a lesson.
Wrong. If you are just standing there, you are not approaching. The cop is approaching you!
@davidh9638 doesn't matter. Approaching you is part of their investigation. You expect police to act like professionals? Unlawful arrests happen everyday for disorderly conduct, disturbing the peace, interference, and trespass that are tossed by the DA AFTER arrest, incarceration, attorney fees and fines..... You think a cop will honor the intent of this law? 🤣
What happens when you move 25' and the officer moves with you? They could 25' you right off of any property. Just another tool to intimidate the people.
If a cop did that he would lose qualified immunity for further actions he took because he would be instigating officer-created jeopardy.
So they order you back to 25’. Then they advance and order you back but you don’t move. Any actions they take to enforce that 25’ command from then on would put them at fault and they would not be covered under qualified immunity so they could be civilly sued by you.
Then the officer is approaching you, you aren't approaching the officer.
@johnbrobston1334 that's my point, they just keep moving and telling you to move. Too much abstract power.
@@steelwheelsminnesota Maybe they do but that's not what the law under discussion allows.
It is unconstitutional due to it being prior restraint (a form of censorship). The U.S. Supreme Court has consistently ruled that prior restraint is a severe infringement on First Amendment rights.
That is not prior restraint.
Thats also when the Supreme Court was still interested in law making, not partisanship.
What powers are reserved to the people in the 10th amendment.
🤣😂 Nothing all power to the state
The Press Secretary said they had several officers who were injured while carrying out their lawful duties. If someone doesn't care about assaulting a police officer, they wouldn't care about a 25' law.
I love how they provided exactly ZERO examples, most likely because there aren't any.
There are already laws against that, this law serves no useful purpose.
Buffer law? Seriously? No wonder the cops aren't exactly popular.
Remember, it isn't the COPS that are making the laws. It is the idiot politicians, bowing or reacting to public outcry from extremists.
Cops dont make bad laws.
@@BlackJesus8463, But they try and make up laws on the fly.
@@BlackJesus8463 Yet their unions and the FOP lobby to get them passed. Thanks for playing.
@@BlackJesus8463 No but they ask for them
25 feet. This would require all traffic to stop in both directions if a traffic stop occurs on a typical two lane road.
I didn't really think about the fact that nowadays a lot of cars have cameras. What if they drove like 2 mi an hour going past the traffic stop. They could just say" I was only trying to be safe".
Only if ordered by an officer. The cop would have to shout at all the drivers to stay back.
@jasonswiatkowski9127 whoever said the cops were smart? It wasn't me was it you? As my kids would say I didn't do it!
Stop letting cops violate your rights.
Stop breaking the law. Leave the cops to a boring night with nothing to do.
@@dianabirchman7540 Jaywalkers being treated like hardened criminals is alright in your book?
Has any cop ever suggested a law that protects the citizen from a miserable excuse of a cop?
There are plenty of videos on RUclips of cops abusing statutes like this. They walk up to you and demand that you step back the required spacing away from them. You do, and they follow you, demanding you keep your distance, and arrest you for not doing so. Costing their departments big sentiments. Because the rest took place 50 to 100 feet away from the actual incident.
"... protecting the community and attempting to restore order", where do police do that?
I can already see police abusing this. They’ll walk up to citizens on the sidewalk and tell them to backup 25ft. Then approach them again and say 25ft…..
The law makes it illegal specifically to approach, not to be approached.
@@matthewlong9369the law no longer exist but do you think an officer would give a shit what the law said
Police officers in Arizona are already abusing the law and it was repealed.
@Playingwithproxies Is there any law intended to offer the citizen some basic amount of protection that ANY cop gives a shit about?
@@matthewlong9369 cops do not see it that way
if you are within 25 feet you are a threat
so yes i can see them doing this bullshit
A lot of states clearly define "interference" is a physical act. Recording, talking to the subject, not talking to the police are not examples of interference but many people get arrested and charged with it. Interference charges of this type are also known as contempt of cop, meaning you didn't bow down to them whether legal or not.
The Thin Blue Line Criminal Cartel doesn't like the Exposure of their actions.
This is absolutey correct. If they get the 25 feet, they will go for 50 feet, and then for 100 feet, becuse cops don't want you to be close enough to record what they are conspiring to do to innocent people.
They can't mute your camera, or turn their body 'accidentally' away from a fellow officer planting drugs. When will the bootlicking public understand that police breaking policy is equivalent if not worse than someone breaking the law?
Smartphones were the worst things that ever happened to the thin blue line
Yeah. 99% of the videos I've seen where the cops are telling a camera person to get back because they're "interfering" are actually just because the cops are annoyed that someone showed up with a camera.
I've seen so many videos where the cops are doing something and they don't give a damn about the random citizens walking right by the scene on a nearby sidewalk but they lose their minds when some guy with a camera walks up on the same exact sidewalk and suddenly the police are more preoccupied with harassing the cameraman and trying to get rid of him than actually doing their duties. It's outright bizarre and shows how unprofessional and fragile their egos can be.
Thats why they are fighting hard against that Ohio vote that Steve covered a few videos ago. Those officers aren't even personaly financially liable in possible lawsuits, they fear sitting down for a deposition with a lawyer like Steve that finally gets to ask tough questions that make them look stupid. I saw a depositon the Civil Rights Lawyer did personally about excessive force, the cop could not have put his foot further in his mouth.
Police don't like accountability
Oh yeah, let's just add another protection for the gestapo
*Stasi. They were more likely to have drones and access to public devices.
Yes, lets do it!
Eventually they'll hit that authority ceiling and commit an act of abuse so outrageous that it causes a riot or even an all out war on them, its happened so many times before and that was during times BEFORE most courts lost credibility as an institution.
@@Loku242 Even one event will/should not cause massive instability since EVERYONE won't be involved in the "big conspiracy".
I was out of state and my sisters house was surrounded by police. I ran out of my shoes and grabbed the nearest cop, trying to ask if my sister was alive. I couldn’t listen and the cop had to kind of shake me to say it was a car accident about a half mile from there! Thank goodness I didn’t get tased or sh*t!!
If I have no “reasonable right to privacy in public”, why do the police?
Because they are above the law. You know. The sovereign citizens they accuse people of being
Because they work for the state and the rules only apply to us peasants.
It has nothing to do with privacy, it is about safety. Do you have to get closer than 25ft to video or see what is going on?
@ they’re scared. Why?
It's officer safety not privacy. If you don't understand why it's 25' you have never taken a self defense course, researched, or been attacked.
Cop "step back 25 feet!" Cop walkes two steps in your direction you, "you are under arrest!" What a dumb law.
Yet they can get in your face to demand your ID during an illegal stop.
And demand a window fully open. If not, they will 'open' it for you, permanently.
Just make sure you record, or go live during the interaction. Don't be bashful, it's your right.
If there is no crime, can we the people demand that cops stay 25 feet away from us?
I want a law keeping law enforcement 100' or more away from me.
They just made it hard to demand ID, your required to remain 25ft away so they can't just come upto you, if they acuse you of anything afterwards have your lawyer state this law in court and say you were attempting to maintain 25ft of distance from the police officer as to avoid interfering with their duties. If they complain that their duty was talking to you state "well I didn't know that, I couldn't clearly hear them from 25ft away".
Cops need the 25 feet so you can’t record them planting evidence.
This is the foundation of a police state. How much of our rights are we supposed to throw away and still call ourselves free? Get rid of qualified immunity first, then we'll talk!
All states are police states. Its called socialism.
💯
Explain how this is going to destroy the country or cause you or anyone else harm?
@@brianrobertson877 Explain your use to the country.
@@fs127 What does that have to do with this? Obviously I am a thinking human being versus a barking dog.
With this new law, the first thing I noticed was, if people are legally demonstrating and approaching a line of police and the police use this law to break up the demonstration, with the threat of arrest for coming closer than 25feet. Does that mean that the right to protest just went out the window?
There is no right to protest. It's the freedom to peaceably assemble. With that I have no problems. However, when your assembly (protest) breaks out into violence the right you speak of doesn't exist. If you are not violent in your assembly you should be free to approach the police.
Just made this same law in Indiana and cops immediately abused it.
Thankfully its enforcement was recently blocked by a judge (months after some mouthbreather ruled it didn't violate the Constitution lol).
Just like they abuse Terry v Ohio and the scotus non-legislated qualified immunity.
Bullies only respect and understand force, and the American public has everything it needs to free itself.
Of course
Is there anything they DON'T abuse?
Hypothetical. Cop pulls over a car just past my driveway. I'm going to check my mail and the cop is standing next to my mailbox, then orders me to stay back 25 feet. Now he's violating 18USC1710 by restricting passage of mail. What then?
If they say it's for citizen's safety, it would make some sense. Being within 25 feet of a cop at any time, for any reason, puts your life in danger.
So true. I do like the law to say that citizens can require cops to stay 25 feet away from the citizen. 😁
I support citizen saftey. Officer saftey is worthless lime used tp to me.
Very, very true. Certain high-speed fatal crashes involving Louisiana cops, shows that even just being on the same roadway as a cop puts citizens' lives in danger.
"Citizen safety" aka another means of control. This is flat out government overreach. People recording corrupt cops actions is a problem they would like to remove.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety."
Ben Franklin, maybe you've heard of him
It would be funny if the ruling came down that it was constitutional but also said cops had to stay 25 feet from the people they were investigating for the same safety reason.
They are far more likely to be a danger to the person they're investigating than someone recording them is, after all. Maybe even 50 or 100 would be better for the cop to be required to stay away, actually.
25' may as well be 25 miles! That's ridiculous! I get the idea but dang!
"Approach" is a key word, here. What if the officer tells you to back up to 25 feet away, but then the office comes towards you? You didn't "approach" the officer, but you're still within 25 feet. Is that against the law?
That's what they've done in other jurisdictions with similar laws, the cops conspiring to push an observer further and further back until nothing can be seen or heard.
Correct.
Neither one is. Interference is a physical act. Just "being" cannot be construed as "interference".
Depends on the definition of "approach". The cops will interpret it to mean them approaching you (even if the law clearly states otherwise), therefore, they can continuously order you back 25 ft each time they come close to you. Pretty soon, there will be a division of cops whose sole job duty is to constantly approach anyone with a camera until they are 500 ft from the scene.
I think the precedent from the Marine Mammal Protection Act should apply in that case. The law says you cannot approach within 100 yards of a marine mammal (whale, dolphin, seal). But if the animal instead approaches you, then it's allowed.
Where's the protection against the officer walking up to you and demanding you back up?
Arizona's law of eight feet was struck down as unconstitutional because it's just that.... unconstitutional. There is no minimum distance as long as we don't physically interfere and police cowardice can not and will not override our rights.
Presence can interfere, especially if both less than lethal and lethal force might be necessary to use.
Not saying this law is great, frankly, a straight up standard limit is not necessarily a great idea, unless it is only under very specific circumstances, but physically interfering never have, and NEVER!!! should be the requirement for interference.
Being close to a situation can significantly change how officers handle it, and it may become more dangerous, especially if someone is yelling stuff, or enticing the person to fight back, or similar, especially considering onlookers don't necessarily know the context.
At one point, a guy was passed out next to me while I was talking to him, pretty drugged up, I called the emergency service because I was worried about him, they sent the cops out to verify it before they sent an ambulance (don't worry, the guy wasn't at the threat of his life, at the moment, nor would he be), and not that long after they arrived he started seizing, I helped the Officers restrain him, not because he was being arrested, but because... well... he was in danger of hurting himself. If we hadn't caught him, he might've cracked his skull falling off the bench.
People were standing terribly close, and the officer was quite angry at them, and I heard calls like "Police Brutality" and similar... these people had NO!!! clue what was happening... or that we were helping him. A few minutes later the ambulance arrived, I gave my statements to the relevant officials, and that was that.
People could've interfered quite significantly, especially because we had no idea how conscious this guy was, and if people start yelling about police brutality, the guy could in his stupor or waking up from unconsciousness, become panicked and become a danger to the people helping him...
This was in Denmark, mind you, but believe me, your rights don't include potentially endangering people just because you want to be close to a situation, or yelling out about a situation you don't understand.
Stand back, record if you think something is going on, stay quiet, and see what happens. You very likely have no clue what is actually going on.
Well said - totally unconstitutional
The issue is of course that you may pull out your camera and start filming 25ft away from an officer, and then they or their partner simply walks up to you and tells you to back up 25ft from them. This is a "go away and don't watch me do my job in a public place" law.
It is an absolute violation of the 1st Amendment. Next, it will be 50 feet and then 100 feet, because cops don't want you to record what they are saying.
They will just keep telling you to maintain 25 foot distance as they continue jogging towards you.
And how about the cop who drives past you? That's less than 25 feet, so they have reason to pull you over. And during that encounter, you fail to maintain distance, so they arrest you for it. But if you try to maintain distance, they shoot you in the back for running away from them.
Your premise is a slippery slope fallacy.
@@MicrophoneAssassin13 Slippery slope - yes, fallacy - no...
And you happen to get shot or injured from the assailant they just pulled over. who are you going to sue? the one who told you to stand back or the one who shot you????
@@dianabirchman7540The Supreme Court has already ruled that cops have no obligation to protect the public. They only have to worry about the people in their custody. So that’s not a real augment. Also, it would obviously be the assailant. Why would you sue the cops for being shot by someone completely different.
You had already moved "25 feet" away, and the cop moved. Is it your responsibility to maintain that 25 feet even if the cop (or a different cop) moves, or approaches you for that matter, and if the cop approaches you, do they have to first rescind the 25 foot "order" so you can talk with them? This whole thing, as said, seems very poorly thought out, especially all the given particularities that can crop up.
Come on Steve this is literally against 1st Amendment Auditors and the blue line THUGS lack of transparency
Hearing him copsplain their safety and concentration is pathetic
A number of years ago a Chief of Police was forced to retire after forcing an internet journalist back nearly a block, screaming all the way that he was too close. This was the Chief of Police. Normally when someone is abusing you you ask to speak to their supervisor. This was the supervisor screaming his head off. It was scary to see a senior law enforcement officer so out of control. I can only assume he was used to being the top man and never questioned.
It’s amazing to me that cops are constantly looking for ways to violate constitutional rights.
No one hates the constitution more than LE.
These are legislators
Seriously, we need to audit police academies, see what it is they're teaching these idiots
You have zero right to interfere with police.
Many laws have been left vague intentionally. Cast a very wide net
And, this would literally revoke the 1st amendment!!! Anytime anyone was somewhere they didn't want them, they would simply start a new "investigation"... "You look "suspicious"... "
how about a buffer law where the police officer when told by the citizen, has to back up 25 feet away unless they have a warrant, or probable cause to approach you.
Didn't a district court strike down Arizonian's 8 foot law because it was against the 1st Amendment and could easily be abused?
It was so bad that even the AG wouldn't defend the law in federal court.
So if there are 6 cops investigating an incident in a road 20 feet wide they can stand 24 feet apart down the road and keep the media and people 144 feet from the scene of the first cop beating up the suspect or kneeling on his throat for only 10 mins.
Louisiana is so corrupt.
What??? Louisiana??? Corrupt??? The hell, you say! Next you're going to tell me that the New Jersey police department isn't exactly on the up and up, either!
Every state has corruption, not just Louisiana
@@DJVIIIManwell fellas it's all the states.
Which state is pure? Which state in this corrupt lawless nation isn't corrupt?
@@howlinwulfLouisiana is really bad though
So, if I am in a courtyard and go inside my condo or town house, (less than 25 feet in most places), I can be arrested because I am not far enough away? That’s just one of many instances I can think of to challenge this. It’s ridiculous.
The whole point of these "buffer laws" is that police don't want ppl recording them with their phones and getting them in trouble when they break the law themselves.
Yes!
The phones and video recording have Zoom and some can pick up sound from a distant. Standing right next to them isn't necessary. Many officers have recording right on them. Try Again.
You can still easily record with a phone from 25' away.
@dianabirchman7540 yet somehow the police recordings get "accidentally" deleted. Especially if it shows clear violations. They don't tent to get "accidentally" deleted if they know someone else had a video recording of the event.
@@justinmiller5660
How often does that happen? Post some data...🤔
I remember being at a buddies house all the time. We would park on the street in front. He was on a corner lot. A cop drove by and after the 2nd time mentioned we couldn't park within 50 feet of the intersection. So finally i grabbed a tape measure and painted a small white line 75 feet from the intersection. I remember when he stopped the next time and showed him the dot I painted and informed him that was 75 feet back and we were still parked at least 25 feet away from that mark. He never mentioned it again.
I'm surprised he didn't arrest or ticket you for vandalism.
if the pigs can claim a 25' buffer zone, but can get in my face without RAS, then they are untouchable, and we know what happens when a class becomes untouchable. 1780's France, baby.
I'm there man !
Let’s stop calling them that, most are just like you and I, our neighbors and friends. The small fraction that earn that title are not the norm.
@@Erin-Thor The corruption of the profession has attracted and filtered a workforce not representative of the rest of the population.
@@Erin-Thor, All cops are corrupt. If a good cop does not turn in a bad cop, then that good cop just turned into a bad cop. The "thin blue line" is the largest gang in the world!
@ - Police have always been a representation of our society. See problems, the problem is US. Besides, Trump and Republicans have vowed to defund the police and every 3 letter agency that persecuted Trump. Law enforcement will be forever changed, I look forward to military direct deployment to maintain law and order. 👍🏽😎🇺🇸
You did a very good job with the commercial...I normally skip right over them but you struck a chord that got and held my attention and you explained the product with candor and 'matter of facts'...I'm happy I was within the allowable 25' rule/factor! . Like always, Thanks!
It's unconstitutional. Our freedoms and rights don't end because of "officer safety". Ban the blue line gangs and abolish qualified immunity
no special rights
Terry v. Ohio,set the standard for "officer safety" , it's been downhill from there.
Officer safety? They know we can't stand them so they are freaking scared.
The 25' is unconstitutional.
It's already not enough for the government.
They don't want to be limited by numbers or distances.
They want to be able to tell us where to go no matter how far it is & they want to be able to tell us when to go & what to do when we get there.
That's mental.
And these are most likely the same officers that say they have no obligations to protect you, and stand around watching people harm others because they may be harmed stopping the illegal activities.
But what if the officer tells you to back up 25 feet then approaches you? Do you need to backing up to maintain the 25 feet from the officer? Why are cops so afraid of a guy with a camera?
"Sunlight is the best disinfectant,” a well-known quote from U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, refers to the benefits of openness and transparency.
Steve, is there a difference in protecting an officer from potential harm and punishing someone from getting harmed? I shouldn't have to worry about getting harmed doing my job, and the threat of punishment for someone harming me is not in any way equivalent!
If the police don't want to be filmed, maybe they should stop violating citizens rights.
If your camera can’t film from 25 feet away I suggest you get a newer phone.
If police don't want to be filmed, they should be police regardless of whether they're violating rights or not. Being filmed is part of being a government employee.
*shouldn't. I'd edit it, but RUclips doesn't allow edits on Firefox.
or go hide under their bed
@@ShapesWithoutColors uhhhh FYI… any modern day smart phone can easily record from 25 feet. You can actually get better footage than being right on top of the situation
Hasn't this already been decided by the Supreme Court? 🤷♂️
No, at district courts.
They couldn't get a 6-8 ft law successfully past a judge in AZ what idiot in LA is wasting everyone's time with this ridiculous law and with a stupid defense
I think the 8 foot thing in AZ was a lot more likely to succeed, but the state decided not to fight for it in court.
AZ is in the 9th Circuit Court. LA is in the 5th Circuit Court. So the way to get this sent up to the Supreme Court is for two (or more) Circuit Courts to arrive at contradictory rulings. When that happens, they're not going to want a measly 8 ft. They're going to go for broke. Negotiating 101 is to initially ask for the moon (25 ft) so that what you offer later as a compromise (10 ft or 5 ft) sounds a lot more reasonable.
There is a large contingent of Unamerican footwear sommeliers loose in the country.
These politicians know they can stay busy scoring some brownie points with them while avoiding helpful legislation that might negatively affect their donors.
Two different federal jurisdictions. Louisiana is in the 5th Circuit where citizens lose iron-clad lawsuits against cops all the time.
Can we get a law that prevents police officers from interfering with our lives if we have done nothing wrong?
I do not care for absolute distances. Who has a calibrated eyeball? I'm not even sure how many Louisiana officers can do the math to get to 25. The state isn't renowned for its level of smarts.
I guess That’s about 10 or 11 steps, & that’s about how many the cop will take in your direction & you better not still be standing there when he does.
@@darthdaddy6983
No, unless you are using very wide strides, 1 foot = about 1 step. It is essentially 20-25 steps away.
This kind of law was immediatly abused in places where it went into effect. Cop watchers want to get close, because they want to hear the dialog between cops and suspects, or between cops conspiring to find reason to search or arrest people, and cops don't like that. This is not about cop safety, it is about preventing the public from making an independent record of what is being said by cops doing investigations. I have been watching cop videos of 6 years, and the stuff you see and hear is outrageous.
@@Delimon007teeny tiny heel to toe steps.
Surveyors used to measure a stride as 1 yard.
1 2 3 4 5 15 feet was just walked off.
They let them judge speed with their special eyes in a vehicle. Policing is filled with policy that is not backed by any science. Just look at any death ruled as "excited delirium"
There needs to be a paragraph where they explain when to take out the pin to the holy hand grenade after the 25 foot buffer has been established..
25 ft far enough away to plant evidence and deny audible accountability.
In Hill v. City of Houston, the person exercising his 1st Amendment rights was within reach of the cop and the Supreme Court said as long as there is no physical interference with the cop, the person was within their rights. Seems right to me. All this kind of law would do would be give cops more power, especially to arrest people who don't like cops, and that's the last thing cops need.
In Houston v. Hill it was based on free speech. Now it will be based on free press. I actually think this will be struck down at the district court again and the state will collapse as in the other challenges.
They tried that shit here in Arizona with an 8ft law, I think it was. All the local news filed suit and beat the hell out of them.
A person "close enough" to a police officer can draw a knife or other weapon and attack the officer before the officer can draw a firearm and fire. How close?
"The 21-foot rule is a guideline that helps people understand the reactionary gap they might face if they are attacked with a knife or other sharp-edged weapon. The rule states that an attacker can cover 21 feet in the time it takes to: Recognize the threat, Draw a firearm, and Fire two shots.
The 21-foot rule was developed by Dennis Tueller, a Salt Lake City police department instructor, based on his research. However, some say that the 21-foot rule is dangerous because people move at different speeds. Others say that the rule is a myth:
A study by the Force Science Research Center concluded that trained individuals are at a severe disadvantage against edged-weapon attackers within 21 feet.
The 21-foot rule is only a guideline, and it doesn't provide an absolute defense. "
The police don’t want to be video recorded.
As a member of the metric society, I do not recognize this law.
Just another Bad Law to Protect Police Officers from their Own Bad Behavior.
Its to stop the Frauditors from interfering with traffic stops.
So if you became the victim of a crime, and had to disclose personal and confidential information to the police, you’d want to have some guy with the camera standing next to you recording all of your information??
@@dianabirchman7540 so you think government accountability is a “fRaUd”? Seriously?
Maybe we _should_ be able to sue lawmakers for making unconstitutional laws
The problem is that lawmakers don't even consider the practical aspects of the laws they pass- let alone if they are Constitutional or not. Legislators couldn't care less about the Constitution.
Which makes them traitors and should land them permanently in prison
That's true of both parties and a lot of local judges too. Read Randy Barnett's RESTORING THE LOST CONSTITUTION: THE PRESUMPTION OF LIBERTY.
60 days in jail would ruin a person's life.
Lose your job, can't pay bills, get evicted...
calling them 'peace officer' is some 1984 double-speak nonsense.
In the Hunger Games movies they called them “Peacekeepers.” They were anything but peaceful.
same as "police". Policy enforcement. aka enforce the will of the ruling class.
--"136 federal, state, county, municipal, military, tribal and campus officers died in the line of duty in 2023," - Fraternal Order of Police.
-- "officers killed 1,329 people last year, representing nearly a 19-percent increase over the 11-year span." - The Hill 01/17/24
1,329 divided by 136 ≈ 10 to 1 kill rate. So law enforcement is killing us at a rate of 10 to 1 but they BELIEVE we are trying to kill them ???
Amazing cognitive dissonance !!
Orwell called it newspeak, this should be newpeace.
is very narrowly defined in law. It does not include officers. In general, their do not include enforcement of misdemeanors, over which they have discretion.
How does anybody not be in violation if the cop keeps approaching the photographer?
Another issue is if an officer is standing at the window of your car after pulling you over, how would you record them... They would certainly be closer than 25 feet.
These laws normally allow involved parties in an interaction to record.
The idea is to prevent passersby from recording the incident. The objective is to prevent things like the viral videos that made the murder of George Floyd unignorable.
That's because you're the subject, genius.
How about the cops have to stay 25 feet away from citizens unless they have probable cause to be closer??...
I find when there is a buffer law, cops will approach the guy filming, to try to put them into the buffer.
Abolish Qualified Immunity!
It’s not even a civil law it’s a criminal law. We have some seriously messed up criminal laws.
What if you're in a no exit corridor and a LEO approaches you and commands that you get 25 ft away but keeps coming closer so the fault is forced upon you and you're arrested because of that....
They tried this in Arizona too, same arbitrary distance you must maintain from a cop, that law was overturned by a federal judge shortly after it was enacted.
Yep, 8 feet and it was ruled unconstitutional. It's prior restraint and has no legitimate purpose other than to restrict the free press.
Can't citizens then demand the same rights as police and demand the police stay 25ft from them?
The problem with these laws are that after the police officer tells you to back up he keeps approaching you and continuing to tell you the back up. I saw one RUclips video where they backed a guy up a block down the street. They then told him if he got any closer that he would be arrested. So how far is far enough when all the officer has to do is keep approaching you and backing you further away.
The institute for Justice has taken up a case for a man in Texas who was attempting to attend a press conference that the sheriff was giving. The sheriff said that he was not a member of the press and did not have the right to be there. The sheriff has been waging a war against him because he has been Video recording police and he has been doing freedom of information act requests that the sheriff has been denying or has had heavily redacted. He has had to file with the state Attorney General's office in order to compel them to provide the information which is delayed for months.
😊
At the press conference the sheriff ordered deputies to remove him away from the press conference. They took him far enough away that he could not hear what was being said and unable to record what was being said and he himself was not able to ask questions that the rest of the press was allowed to.
In proceedings for the federal court lawsuit against the sheriff the judge stated that the case wasn't about whether the sheriff was wrong but how much in damages that he should be awarded by a jury.
Justin won that case against Faban
What if your a neighbor in your yard and an officer next door tells you to stand back 25 feet, which put you out of your own yard.
How about an apartment complex, and the individual is recording from their doorway ?
The other questionable issue is if multiple officer are on a scene and the officer keeps walking forward making the individual backing up 25ft from them, this could lead to cops pushing the auditor or whoever 100 or so feet?
Broad strokes are a problem when making a law.
Everyone put a tape measure in your pocket 😂
Exactly what I was thinking! So they carry tape measure or a laser distance reader?? Even if so, the police could just lie and Say you were within arrestable distance.
The cops can't even get addresses right how can they determine what 25ft is?
Maybe a calibrated laser circle?
@@johngalt97 On every scene??? That takes equipment and time. More taxpayer wasted funds.
@@406walleyeslayer 🤣🤣🤣
How about if LE doesn't have an articulable reason to stop you, they must stand 25 feet away, or it is an unreasonable seizure?
Police surround a house and order the homeowners to stay back 25ft, then bust down the door for violating the law, then they can search the house without a warrant.
It's different if you're the subject of the interaction, genius.
@randallsmerna384 Not the way this particular law is written. You might assume so, but the law as written does not include any exceptions. So with the law as written, they can do exactly this.
If they want people to stay away, then they should be required to put up crime tape.
And when you try to comply they say you were trying to run?
I would love to hear the specifics on these poor officers who got injured
Our government has no orders!!! We the people own this country!!!!! PERIOD!!!!!
Interference is a PHYSICAL ACT.