Posted on 03/26/2015 5:07:37 AM PDT by Timber Rattler
A Texas lawmaker's proposal to establish a 25-foot "buffer zone" around police engaged in keeping the peace is drawing fire from both legal experts and law enforcement groups, but for different reasons.
Dallas-area House representative Jason Villalba introduced HB 2918, which would make it a misdemeanor to photograph police within 25 feet -- raising serious concerns that the bill, if passed, would violate the First Amendment and prevent individuals from holding police accountable. For Texans legally carrying a firearm, the buffer zone required would be 100 feet under Villalba's proposal.
Villalba reportedly said police approached him about creating the legislation, which would apply to everyone -- including journalists. Villalba has since said he'd revise the bill -- changing the buffer zone to 15 feet -- but legal experts as well as law enforcement groups say it is problematic.
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
I can hear it now.....”wait, don’t shoot that guy’s dog till I get my tape measure!”
Physical protection of Cops might make sense - making a record of their activities illegal makes no sense.
Let’s just start calling them the Gaetano and be done with it.
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.
We need fewer commies in this country.
I’m NOT a badgelicker in any sense of the word. One can check past posts that I take each case in careful consideration, and lean heavily on the side of the citizen.
HOWEVER.
Police do need somewhat of a buffer zone to keep jerks from shoving cameras between them and a potential perp in the middle of a scene.
I’m all for recording it at a distance that gives all audio and video information. But one has to keep in mind, people are becoming presstitutes and paparazzi and are more bold to shove a camera in the face of someone or interfere with a scene.
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.
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.
And, according to anecdotal evidence, Thomas Paine was required to produce “press” credentials upon request of the officers of the crown.
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.
I believe the video produced by someone getting in the way of police might be good evidence when the police make a charge in that instance of the photographer hampering their work. Also police should be wearing body cams themselves to show their POV in such a case, and in ANY case.
I’ll accept police body cams when politicians are required to wear them.
Gee, I didn’t know cameras stopped recording 25 feet from the subject. This is a good idea...it isn’t the recording...it’s the distance. None of you kwould want a crowd of people standing five feet from you...cuz then you would have to watch everybody...and take your attention away from the suspect...not a good thing.
Villalba is kind of an embarrassment.
Sigh... I’m ready for his next election, I just moved into Dallas (from Collin) within the past year. He’s been really disappointing. I sent him an email about electing Joe Strauss, and he never responded.
O....K....
I think most states already have laws against interfering with an officer in the performance of his duties. I'm not sure how this law would add to that. I really think this is about preventing people from recording the police - not just video, which you can still get from more than 25' away, but audio. Many times, what is said is critical to establishing context and intent for the actions recorded in the video.
I agree to some extent; however, making CHL holders walk 100 feet around a scene makes no sense at all, unless they’re trying to discourage “helpers”. If that’s the case, it’s a really poor way to do it. And what about those of us who have unrestricted concealed-carry licenses? We’re exempt from all “courthouse, house of worship, alkyhol-sellin’ watering holes” restrictions. Does that mean we can walk up and watch?
Too many questions.
Vilalba sounds like the perfect little fascist. Cops on the job have zero right to privacy. No one should interfere with a tough, dangerous job but photography from a reasonable position relative to the police action is no crime nor should it be.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.