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. But that didn't happen in Texas... No states have ever modeled legislation on bills passed in other states. :-\ I've said it has been upheld in courts in multiple states that it is legal to record the police on the national level. Show me a officer from every state that says you can't film me and I will say they are wrong. Are other states having issues with AK47 carrying activist stalking their police on every call? No clue. What I do know is these guys, that the law was proposed for, are harassing police and guiding people around DUI checkpoints in a area my family and I frequent often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan4Auburn 1,626 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.dallasnew...-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? I pointed out it was dropped like 2 days ago. Then said just need to reword it to say those non-essential to the scene stay back 25 ft and if armed stay back 100ft (don't even say anything about filming). If the purpose is moving these armed activist/bloggers back then that will take care of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBags7277 734 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. But that didn't happen in Texas... No states have ever modeled legislation on bills passed in other states. :-\ I've said it has been upheld in courts in multiple states that it is legal to record the police on the national level. Show me a officer from every state that says you can't film me and I will say they are wrong. Are other states having issues with AK47 carrying activist stalking their police on every call? No clue. What I do know is these guys, that the law was proposed for, are harassing police and guiding people around DUI checkpoints in a area my family and I frequent often. Good. They can catch more truly dangerous drivers through saturated patrols and harass and waste the time of fewer good folks just trying to get somewhere. DUI checkpoints are an affront to the presumption of innocence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBags7277 734 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.dallasnew...-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? I pointed out it was dropped like 2 days ago. Then said just need to reword it to say those non-essential to the scene stay back 25 ft and if armed stay back 100ft (don't even say anything about filming). If the purpose is moving these armed activist/bloggers back then that will take care of it. Got a real problem with that, too. Neither the right to film police nor the right to bear arms are conditional- you shouldn't have to choose one or the other. 100 ft is 30 yards and change. It becomes much more likely that you might miss something important from that distance. There aren't a whole lot of cop watchers who are looking to get put on death row for killing a cop. So long as the cops behave, they've got little to nothing to worry about. 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. But that didn't happen in Texas... No states have ever modeled legislation on bills passed in other states. :-\ I've said it has been upheld in courts in multiple states that it is legal to record the police on the national level. Show me a officer from every state that says you can't film me and I will say they are wrong. Are other states having issues with AK47 carrying activist stalking their police on every call? No clue. What I do know is these guys, that the law was proposed for, are harassing police and guiding people around DUI checkpoints in a area my family and I frequent often. Good. They can catch more truly dangerous drivers through saturated patrols and harass and waste the time of fewer good folks just trying to get somewhere. DUI checkpoints are an affront to the presumption of innocence. I'm not a fan of checkpoints either, although something tells me I'll get lumped into the pro-checkpoint group. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,158 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 [Good grief Ben. And it was certainly vicious. :-\/> Appreciated all the same. Look, I've stated repeatedly I have no problem with videotaping as long as there is no interference. As I stated in post 361, the law is redundant. Given post 364, it would certainly seem you are defending the bill as it was written. The person in the video's actions would be illegal if the law passed as written. That is very, very off-putting.. I've stated repeatedly I'm against police brutality. One would certainly hope so. What is it exactly that is "flying over my head" as you initially stated? Didn't call you out directly, but yes, this is flying over many peoples' heads. This law seeks to restrict an important tool. It erodes the citizen's ability to hold the police accountable, and is a blatant violation of our first amendment rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 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.dallasnew...-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? I pointed out it was dropped like 2 days ago. Then said just need to reword it to say those non-essential to the scene stay back 25 ft and if armed stay back 100ft (don't even say anything about filming). If the purpose is moving these armed activist/bloggers back then that will take care of it. Got a real problem with that, too. Neither the right to film police nor the right to bear arms are conditional- you shouldn't have to choose one or the other. 100 ft is 30 yards and change. It becomes much more likely that you might miss something important from that distance. There aren't a whole lot of cop watchers who are looking to get put on death row for killing a cop. So long as the cops behave, they've got little to nothing to worry about. What? They don't have scopes on their assault rifles? (to our sensitive reader's, that was a joke) 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. But that didn't happen in Texas... No states have ever modeled legislation on bills passed in other states. :-\ I've said it has been upheld in courts in multiple states that it is legal to record the police on the national level. Show me a officer from every state that says you can't film me and I will say they are wrong. Are other states having issues with AK47 carrying activist stalking their police on every call? No clue. What I do know is these guys, that the law was proposed for, are harassing police and guiding people around DUI checkpoints in a area my family and I frequent often. Good. They can catch more truly dangerous drivers through saturated patrols and harass and waste the time of fewer good folks just trying to get somewhere. DUI checkpoints are an affront to the presumption of innocence. Actually I need to rephrase that. They aren't actually checkpoint. They guide them around the officers period. But the reason they are there following Rangers/Cowboys games are to look for drunk drivers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,802 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. But that didn't happen in Texas... No states have ever modeled legislation on bills passed in other states. :-\ I've said it has been upheld in courts in multiple states that it is legal to record the police on the national level. Show me a officer from every state that says you can't film me and I will say they are wrong. Are other states having issues with AK47 carrying activist stalking their police on every call? No clue. What I do know is these guys, that the law was proposed for, are harassing police and guiding people around DUI checkpoints in a area my family and I frequent often. Good. They can catch more truly dangerous drivers through saturated patrols and harass and waste the time of fewer good folks just trying to get somewhere. DUI checkpoints are an affront to the presumption of innocence. Actually I need to rephrase that. They aren't actually checkpoint. They guide them around the officers period. But the reason they are there following Rangers/Cowboys games are to look for drunk drivers. Or they are there to find anything they can prosecute people for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 [Good grief Ben. And it was certainly vicious. :-\/> Appreciated all the same. Look, I've stated repeatedly I have no problem with videotaping as long as there is no interference. As I stated in post 361, the law is redundant. Given post 364, it would certainly seem you are defending the bill as it was written. The person in the video's actions would be illegal if the law passed as written. That is very, very off-putting.. I've stated repeatedly I'm against police brutality. One would certainly hope so. What is it exactly that is "flying over my head" as you initially stated? Didn't call you out directly, but yes, this is flying over many peoples' heads. This law seeks to restrict an important tool. It erodes the citizen's ability to hold the police accountable, and is a blatant violation of our first amendment rights. I don't recall stating I was pro 25' law? Maybe I did? I did state, given some of the shared video, that I felt the law may have prevented confrontation. Seeing the law wasn't enacted, it's really a mute point. So, where does that leave us? Back where we began. LOL. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,158 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 I pointed out it was dropped like 2 days ago. Missed it. Apologies. Then said just need to reword it to say those non-essential to the scene stay back 25 ft and if armed stay back 100ft (don't even say anything about filming). If the purpose is moving these armed activist/bloggers back then that will take care of it. That is redundant. They already have a law on the books that covers interfering in public duties. Anything else is unnecessary. Unless they are directly interfering with an investigation, they have a right to be there. 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. But that didn't happen in Texas... No states have ever modeled legislation on bills passed in other states. :-\ I've said it has been upheld in courts in multiple states that it is legal to record the police on the national level. Show me a officer from every state that says you can't film me and I will say they are wrong. Are other states having issues with AK47 carrying activist stalking their police on every call? No clue. What I do know is these guys, that the law was proposed for, are harassing police and guiding people around DUI checkpoints in a area my family and I frequent often. Good. They can catch more truly dangerous drivers through saturated patrols and harass and waste the time of fewer good folks just trying to get somewhere. DUI checkpoints are an affront to the presumption of innocence. Actually I need to rephrase that. They aren't actually checkpoint. They guide them around the officers period. But the reason they are there following Rangers/Cowboys games are to look for drunk drivers. Or they are there to find anything they can prosecute people for. Damn quota's! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,802 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. But that didn't happen in Texas... No states have ever modeled legislation on bills passed in other states. :-\ I've said it has been upheld in courts in multiple states that it is legal to record the police on the national level. Show me a officer from every state that says you can't film me and I will say they are wrong. Are other states having issues with AK47 carrying activist stalking their police on every call? No clue. What I do know is these guys, that the law was proposed for, are harassing police and guiding people around DUI checkpoints in a area my family and I frequent often. Good. They can catch more truly dangerous drivers through saturated patrols and harass and waste the time of fewer good folks just trying to get somewhere. DUI checkpoints are an affront to the presumption of innocence. Actually I need to rephrase that. They aren't actually checkpoint. They guide them around the officers period. But the reason they are there following Rangers/Cowboys games are to look for drunk drivers. Or they are there to find anything they can prosecute people for. Damn quota's! I made no reference to quota's, merely referring to the roadblocks' desire to get low-hanging fruit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Texan4Auburn 1,626 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.dallasnew...-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? I pointed out it was dropped like 2 days ago. Then said just need to reword it to say those non-essential to the scene stay back 25 ft and if armed stay back 100ft (don't even say anything about filming). If the purpose is moving these armed activist/bloggers back then that will take care of it. Got a real problem with that, too. Neither the right to film police nor the right to bear arms are conditional- you shouldn't have to choose one or the other. 100 ft is 30 yards and change. It becomes much more likely that you might miss something important from that distance. There aren't a whole lot of cop watchers who are looking to get put on death row for killing a cop. So long as the cops behave, they've got little to nothing to worry about. And I have the right disagree don't I? Besides if these copwatchers really want to make a difference and go where the brutality is and violating of rights, then they should start tracking the cops down where Tango Blast hangs. 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. But that didn't happen in Texas... No states have ever modeled legislation on bills passed in other states. :-\ I've said it has been upheld in courts in multiple states that it is legal to record the police on the national level. Show me a officer from every state that says you can't film me and I will say they are wrong. Are other states having issues with AK47 carrying activist stalking their police on every call? No clue. What I do know is these guys, that the law was proposed for, are harassing police and guiding people around DUI checkpoints in a area my family and I frequent often. Good. They can catch more truly dangerous drivers through saturated patrols and harass and waste the time of fewer good folks just trying to get somewhere. DUI checkpoints are an affront to the presumption of innocence. Actually I need to rephrase that. They aren't actually checkpoint. They guide them around the officers period. But the reason they are there following Rangers/Cowboys games are to look for drunk drivers. Or they are there to find anything they can prosecute people for. Damn quota's! I made no reference to quota's, merely referring to the roadblocks' desire to get low-hanging fruit. My jokes are not going well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,802 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. But that didn't happen in Texas... No states have ever modeled legislation on bills passed in other states. :-\ I've said it has been upheld in courts in multiple states that it is legal to record the police on the national level. Show me a officer from every state that says you can't film me and I will say they are wrong. Are other states having issues with AK47 carrying activist stalking their police on every call? No clue. What I do know is these guys, that the law was proposed for, are harassing police and guiding people around DUI checkpoints in a area my family and I frequent often. Good. They can catch more truly dangerous drivers through saturated patrols and harass and waste the time of fewer good folks just trying to get somewhere. DUI checkpoints are an affront to the presumption of innocence. Actually I need to rephrase that. They aren't actually checkpoint. They guide them around the officers period. But the reason they are there following Rangers/Cowboys games are to look for drunk drivers. Or they are there to find anything they can prosecute people for. Damn quota's! I made no reference to quota's, merely referring to the roadblocks' desire to get low-hanging fruit. My jokes are not going well. While I certainly see what you're getting at, and I applaud humor, it seems this particular forum is terrible at dealing with humor. This particular thread is even worse. No offense, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,158 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 I don't recall stating I was pro 25' law? Maybe I did? I did state, given some of the shared video, that I felt the law may have prevented confrontation. Seeing the law wasn't enacted, it's really a mute point. So, where does that leave us? Back where we began. LOL. *moot Sorry, pet peeve. I picked up around page thirty, but you have defended the law. I'll pull quotes in a sec. Driving to Publix. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,802 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 I don't recall stating I was pro 25' law? Maybe I did? I did state, given some of the shared video, that I felt the law may have prevented confrontation. Seeing the law wasn't enacted, it's really a mute point. So, where does that leave us? Back where we began. LOL. *moot Sorry, pet peeve. I picked up around page thirty, but you have defended the law. I'll pull quotes in a sec. Driving to Publix. Pet peeve of mine too. However, it annoys me far less than people saying "supposebly" instead of "supposedly". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JoeBags7277 734 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 I don't recall stating I was pro 25' law? Maybe I did? I did state, given some of the shared video, that I felt the law may have prevented confrontation. Seeing the law wasn't enacted, it's really a mute point. So, where does that leave us? Back where we began. LOL. *moot Sorry, pet peeve. I picked up around page thirty, but you have defended the law. I'll pull quotes in a sec. Driving to Publix. Pet peeve of mine too. However, it annoys me far less than people saying "supposebly" instead of "supposedly". For all intensive purposes, I could care less how people get their point across. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,158 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 I don't recall stating I was pro 25' law? Maybe I did? I did state, given some of the shared video, that I felt the law may have prevented confrontation. Seeing the law wasn't enacted, it's really a mute point. So, where does that leave us? Back where we began. LOL. *moot Sorry, pet peeve. I picked up around page thirty, but you have defended the law. I'll pull quotes in a sec. Driving to Publix. Pet peeve of mine too. However, it annoys me far less than people saying "supposebly" instead of "supposedly". For all intensive purposes, I could care less how people get their point across. LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,802 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 I don't recall stating I was pro 25' law? Maybe I did? I did state, given some of the shared video, that I felt the law may have prevented confrontation. Seeing the law wasn't enacted, it's really a mute point. So, where does that leave us? Back where we began. LOL. *moot Sorry, pet peeve. I picked up around page thirty, but you have defended the law. I'll pull quotes in a sec. Driving to Publix. Pet peeve of mine too. However, it annoys me far less than people saying "supposebly" instead of "supposedly". For all intensive purposes, I could care less how people get their point across. You mean we don't get French benefits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUDub 11,158 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 I don't recall stating I was pro 25' law? Maybe I did? I did state, given some of the shared video, that I felt the law may have prevented confrontation. Seeing the law wasn't enacted, it's really a mute point. So, where does that leave us? Back where we began. LOL. *moot Sorry, pet peeve. I picked up around page thirty, but you have defended the law. I'll pull quotes in a sec. Driving to Publix. Pet peeve of mine too. However, it annoys me far less than people saying "supposebly" instead of "supposedly". For all intensive purposes, I could care less how people get their point across. You mean we don't get French benefits? Shouldn't have expected them irregardless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,802 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 I don't recall stating I was pro 25' law? Maybe I did? I did state, given some of the shared video, that I felt the law may have prevented confrontation. Seeing the law wasn't enacted, it's really a mute point. So, where does that leave us? Back where we began. LOL. *moot Sorry, pet peeve. I picked up around page thirty, but you have defended the law. I'll pull quotes in a sec. Driving to Publix. Pet peeve of mine too. However, it annoys me far less than people saying "supposebly" instead of "supposedly". For all intensive purposes, I could care less how people get their point across. You mean we don't get French benefits? Shouldn't have expected them irregardless. Are you sad that "irregardless" is now in Merriam-Webster, and without absolutely scathing criticism for anyone looking it up? http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/irregardless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AUFAN78 3,911 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Trust me, it is not the first nor last time I'll make a grammatical error. 3 beers down. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Strychnine 1,802 Posted April 15, 2015 Share Posted April 15, 2015 Trust me, it is not the first nor last time I'll make a grammatical error. 3 beers down. I'm well into a fifth of whiskey, get on my level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.