AUFAN78 3,911 Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 I am curious if anyone opposed to this law is willing to reconsider after viewing the video's? Nope. Not a fan of some of Kory's tactics, but he has the right to be armed, and he has the right to record police. The guy may be a twerp, but he's a twerp that doesn't want to be put on death row for murdering a cop. I don't open carry for practical reasons, but people should be free to No one is arguing his right to be armed or videotape. I don't know why you guys are so hung up on this non-issue. It is these groups intentional interference that is in question. Please tell me I don't have to explain why distracting an officer in the line of duty might cause serious problems. Bottom line, film away dude. Just keep your trashy mouth shut. Pretty simple really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Probably so, if that was the intent of the law. It wasn't. The way I read it anyway. It still allows video taping beyond 25'. Right so since you can't get a ticket 25' away then we can agree if we follow the letter of the law that would wipe out taping of police when you get pulled over. That's just basic physics right? So now you are talking about the driver or passengers? LOL. OK. I don't know that there is a law against doing so. I don't see or have a problem with that aspect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan4Auburn 1,626 Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 I know that. I'm talking about the what if this was passed nationally, I don't care about individually what a guy is doing in Texas. That's what you entered in the conversation. And the last video I posted the officer said the guy assaulted him so yeah everybody lies, but we already know that You brought the Texas law into this. The guy and his group are the reason for the formation and proposal of the law and thus are important. You are posting videos that have nothing to do with the law proposed in Texas. All your videos are cops saying do not film period. The law in Texas does not stop filming, Texas has upheld it is legal to film officers already. I In fact when it comes to police not wanting to be filmed: Several high profile court cases have taken up the issue, and in each case, the judge has either struck down the law or ruled that the police can't reasonably expect privacy while out in public http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/08/13/filming-police-officers_n_5676940.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 I did not see that the woman was doing anything wrong here. She was asked to park, so she may have simply stopped on the street. Hard to tell. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 I don't see the guy videoing doing anything wrong here either. I do think a 25' law would have helped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Looks like a BS charge to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 You have to see this video but I'm on my phone I'll post it later Looks like another BS charge. I think it is possible the 25' law could assist here as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cptau 169 Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 there didn't seem to be any beating of the guy under arrest sitting on the ground in the video. the question is what is the law about recording the police or being told to leave the area when ordered by the police. the use of in car video cameras is becoming more common to help prove fault in accidents. the police can be recorded by those cameras too. most sysyems do a front and back recorded view and 360 recording will be more common. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
alexava 6,973 Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 I don't see the guy videoing doing anything wrong here either. I do think a 25' law would have helped. that is my point that he is arguing against himself. The 25' clarifies it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 I don't see the guy videoing doing anything wrong here either. I do think a 25' law would have helped. that is my point that he is arguing against himself. The 25' clarifies it. This probably deserves it's on thread. Anyway, many issues here.If the cops are performing lawfully why videotape? What is the real goal? Is it to insure justice or incite? In the initial youtube video's shared, it appears the latter. In some Cole posted it seems the former. I have nothing against videotaping as long as you are not inciting. Like I stated earlier, film away and keep your mouth shut and it should not be a problem. Some of the vid's Cole posted seem to indicate the person's videotaping doing nothing wrong. Sure, a 25' rule might have helped, but at least my first impressions were some cops acting like jerks. Of course, we only have limited video and certainly not all details. Body cams, in car police cams and a 25' law seem like they would solve most peoples arguments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,158 Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 This law is redundant. There's already a sufficient law in the books for "interfering with public duties." The violation of our first amendment rights couldn't be more clear. Under this law, this video... (Language warning) http://youtu.be/TH73JiFXiXM ...would be illegal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,802 Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 Land of the free... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBags7277 734 Posted April 14, 2015 Share Posted April 14, 2015 This law is redundant. There's already a sufficient law in the books for "interfering with public duties." The violation of our first amendment rights couldn't be more clear. Under this law, this video... (Language warning) http://youtu.be/TH73JiFXiXM ...would be illegal. But that didn't happen in Texas... No states have ever modeled legislation on bills passed in other states. :-\ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 This law is redundant. There's already a sufficient law in the books for "interfering with public duties." The violation of our first amendment rights couldn't be more clear. Under this law, this video... (Language warning) http://youtu.be/TH73JiFXiXM ...would be illegal. Technically, if the guy video taping moves back 25' it wouldn't be. Right? Regardless, the cops a jerk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,158 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 But that didn't happen in Texas... No states have ever modeled legislation on bills passed in other states. :-\/> You nailed it on comment 313. Ridiculous to me that it flies over the heads of so many folks here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,158 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Technically, if the guy video taping moves back 25' it wouldn't be. Right? Regardless, the cops a jerk. Right, cause if that officer had been aware of him recording the encounter, surely he would have been nice enough to tell him to "go over there and film." Ridiculous. Cole, I feel your pain. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Follow the bouncing ball..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,158 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Follow the bouncing ball..... This post makes about as much sense as your defense of this travesty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Follow the bouncing ball..... This post makes about as much sense as your defense of this travesty. In other words, it flew over your head. Who could have predicted that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,158 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Follow the bouncing ball..... This post makes about as much sense as your defense of this travesty. In other words, it flew over your head. Who could have predicted that? I appreciate you going right into personal attack mode. Really, I do. Have a nice night. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan4Auburn 1,626 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 This law is redundant. There's already a sufficient law in the books for "interfering with public duties." The violation of our first amendment rights couldn't be more clear. Under this law, this video... (Language warning) http://youtu.be/TH73JiFXiXM ...would be illegal. Would never be allowed if the individual is part of the investigation. Already been ruled it is legal to record. Bill needed simple rewording. That ruling includes multiple states =P. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Follow the bouncing ball..... This post makes about as much sense as your defense of this travesty. In other words, it flew over your head. Who could have predicted that? I appreciate you going right into personal attack mode. Really, I do. Have a nice night. Lighten up Ben. Did I complain about your subtle shot from your previous thread insinuating the same? No! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,158 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Would never be allowed if the individual is part of the investigation. Why shouldn't it be? Would never be allowed if the individual is part of the investigation. Already been ruled it is legal to record. Bill needed simple rewording. That ruling includes multiple states =P. Actually, the bill was dropped entirely 4 days ago: http://www.dallasnews.com/news/politics/state-politics/20150410-bill-to-limit-filming-of-police-activity-is-dropped.ece I would have thought most here would have a proper understanding of their first amendment rights. (Not specifically directed at you, Tex) How depressing. This coming from a raging "statist" like myself. Who would have thought I'd be the one railing against the police state? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,158 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Follow the bouncing ball..... This post makes about as much sense as your defense of this travesty. In other words, it flew over your head. Who could have predicted that? I appreciate you going right into personal attack mode. Really, I do. Have a nice night. Lighten up Ben. Did I complain about your subtle shot from your previous thread insinuating the same? No! I attacked a post, or, more accurately, a position. You attacked me. Thanks for that. Really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Follow the bouncing ball..... This post makes about as much sense as your defense of this travesty. In other words, it flew over your head. Who could have predicted that? I appreciate you going right into personal attack mode. Really, I do. Have a nice night. Lighten up Ben. Did I complain about your subtle shot from your previous thread insinuating the same? No! I attacked a post, or, more accurately, a position. You attacked me. Thanks for that. Really. Good grief Ben. And it was certainly vicious. :-\ Look, I've stated repeatedly I have no problem with videotaping as long as there is no interference. I've stated repeatedly I'm against police brutality. What is it exactly that is "flying over my head" as you initially stated? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.