Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Timber Rattler
While I disagree with the bill, especially since it states "photographing", I can see how getting too close to cops trying to subdue a potentially dangerous perp (I guess they do run into dangerous folks from time to time....) it might become "uncomfortable to have someone, camera or not, crowding the scene - might be construed as a threat or even actually be a threat.

Physical protection of Cops might make sense - making a record of their activities illegal makes no sense.

3 posted on 03/26/2015 5:18:43 AM PDT by trebb (Where in the the hell has my country gone?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: trebb

But that’s not what the cops are really worried about...they don’t like all the recent video exposes of their bad behavior ending up on Youtube and in court. That’s what this is all about, behind a facade of officer safety.


5 posted on 03/26/2015 5:20:58 AM PDT by Timber Rattler (Just say NO! to RINOS and the GOP-E)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: trebb

It’s already illegal to interfere with the cops whether you have a camera or are just a lookie-loo. This is to keep people, especially the one the cop is dealing with, from recording the cops actions. With the reduced size of cameras and their increasing memory people are going to record their entire day just in case something inreresting happens. This would make all of those people subject to arrest if the walked near a cop.


8 posted on 03/26/2015 5:28:55 AM PDT by KarlInOhio (Darth Obama on 529 plans: I am altering the deal. Pray I don't alter it any further.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: trebb
I can see how getting too close to cops trying to subdue a potentially dangerous perp (I guess they do run into dangerous folks from time to time....)

It certainly can be dangerous, but it's one officer vs one large man, or multiple, then the guy is absolutely going to need help.

9 posted on 03/26/2015 5:32:38 AM PDT by wastedyears (I may be stupid, but at least I'm not Darwin Awards stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

To: trebb
Yeah, I understand LEOs not wanting people interfering or getting in the way - for everyone's safety LEOs, perps, and bystanders. I have no problem with voluntarily staying the {expletive} out of the way.

I do have a big big problem with them saying you can't photograph/record their actions, period. I don't care from what distance etc.

The notion that "legal" gun owners legally carrying must stay back 100 ft is absurd. Simply absurd. So what, if I'm in a car stopped at a light and a police unit pulls up beside me, I'm instantly breaking the law. What are my choices? Run the light, abandon my car, flee, what? I'm sitting in a restaurant booth by the front window and a police officer walks by, I'm instantly breaking the law? I have to go to the back of the restaurant? What if they come in for lunch and are seated at the next table? The proposal is idiotic, unenforceable, arbitrary, and would be wide open for abuses to make virtually any and everyone carrying a weapon a criminal.

11 posted on 03/26/2015 5:55:56 AM PDT by ThunderSleeps (Stop obarma now! Stop the hussein - insane agenda!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson