I like that Villalba proposed the law since it forces people in the state of Texas to suffer the consequences of the people they're electing to office. Sure he's a state rep now but he may become a member of the Federal Senate or House in the future. If he gets voted out now then his threat to democracy and the stability of this nation can be minimized.
So in effect I think the law is awful but I'm really glad this man proposed it.
Well, I'm all for police transparency, and would be flat-out against any law that forbade the filming of cops in action.
But from what I'm reading, this law basically says "Bystanders, don't stand within 25 feet of the action." Which seems pretty reasonable to me. You don't want people getting in the way. Personally, if I was witness to an altercation between cops and suspects, I'd want to stand back a lot further than that.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
In the article it also says that it prevents people filming their own interaction with the police. This sounds just like a thing that protects the cops from wrong doing disguised as a bill that protects civilians (100 feet if armed? So in incidents where the the question of police brutality most likely comes into play, you basically can't film period unless you break out the binoculars?)
"minimum distance of someone recording police activity" could get messy with the details of the specific situation. Its the sort of legislation that would be best avoided, but hey legislaters will make it any ways.
As far as not recording police while they are in acting in public, or punishing those who do record police activity, thats just wrong, no one should be fined, jails, or prosecuted for recording with a camera activity taking place in public by the police.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Collaborative Pub: Ice Cold Thoughts Always On Tap Twitter- RogueSource.
Decks: "Name one! I probably got it built In one of these boxes."
--------------------------------------------------- Vintage will rise again!Buy a Mox today!
---------------------------------------------------
[I]Some call it dig through time, when really your digging through CRAP!
Merfolk! showing magic players what a shower is since Lorwyn!
(100 feet if armed? So in incidents where the the question of police brutality most likely comes into play, you basically can't film period unless you break out the binoculars?)
A bullet can fly a lot further than a hundred feet, dude.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
Thats the problem, the term armed is so board. If the cop busts out the baton and pepper spray they can be considered "armed" as well. This is such a vague law that essentially boils down to 'anytime you think you need might to document police action, you can't'.
Thats the problem, the term armed is so board. If the cop busts out the baton and pepper spray they can be considered "armed" as well. This is such a vague law that essentially boils down to 'anytime you think you need might to document police action, you can't'.
as happens in Tampa with the cops. we've got several cases of cops unlawfullying seizing the people camera's, capturing the view of police acting against, what I guess "we call cubans" in ways that are innappropriate for police conduct. such cases could use some more national attention, but it is what it is.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Collaborative Pub: Ice Cold Thoughts Always On Tap Twitter- RogueSource.
Decks: "Name one! I probably got it built In one of these boxes."
--------------------------------------------------- Vintage will rise again!Buy a Mox today!
---------------------------------------------------
[I]Some call it dig through time, when really your digging through CRAP!
Merfolk! showing magic players what a shower is since Lorwyn!
(100 feet if armed? So in incidents where the the question of police brutality most likely comes into play, you basically can't film period unless you break out the binoculars?)
A bullet can fly a lot further than a hundred feet, dude.
I thought the purpose was to prevent interference with the police? I think a person can judge for themselves if they want to get close enough to film a shootout. One must be the custodian of one's own safety: that is the price of liberty. If you want to be free to do as you like, you must be responsible for the judgement calls you make - including whether 100 ft or 50 ft is what you judge to be a reasonable safe distance.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
I thought the purpose was to prevent interference with the police? I think a person can judge for themselves if they want to get close enough to film a shootout. One must be the custodian of one's own safety: that is the price of liberty. If you want to be free to do as you like, you must be responsible for the judgement calls you make - including whether 100 ft or 50 ft is what you judge to be a reasonable safe distance.
Your idealism is very stirring, but in the real world, people can be utterly abominable judges of personal danger. And putting yourself into a dangerous situation is interfering with the police. The police are the "custodians of your safety" too - that is literally their entire purpose in society. If you're at risk of getting shot, they have to try to protect you; if you actually get shot, they have to try to save you. So if someone makes a "judgment call" that forces the cops to divide their attention when they're already dealing with an active shooter situation, then no, he doesn't have a libertarian leg to stand on. He's just a self-absorbed idiot who is putting everybody around him at risk.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
While people can certainly be abominable judges of personal danger, I don't think this disqualifies them from the responsibility of being that judge. In fact, this law wouldn't even prevent that, only serve as an additional punitive tool. If a citizen is actually interfering with police activity, there are already laws (presumably in texas too) that cover these situations. So when a new law is proposed that covers actions already covered by the law, one must ask what it covers that the other law did not.
And its obvious on the face of it: the law is more about requiring a certain specific distance than whether or not that distance is required for the safety and integrity of a police investigation or other police action.
I'd like to suggest that the following is not accurate "The police are the 'custodians of your safety' too - that is literally their entire purpose in society."
That's an interesting suggestion, but I don't think it mirrors reality. There are no police officers standing with me at work to make sure I am not harmed, nor are they in my home making sure I don't burn it down. In fact police are not the custodians of an individual's personal safety (i.e.your safety), but rather custodians of the public safety. They deal with individuals, but as it relates to public safety. Conflicts between people are only addressed by police when they rise to the level of causing harm to each other and the public. Police are not there to protect us from ourselves.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
While people can certainly be abominable judges of personal danger, I don't think this disqualifies them from the responsibility of being that judge.
Why not? A certain degree of stupidity doesn't mean a person deserves to suffer injuries or death that can be prevented just by having them stand back a bit. It doesn't have to be the law of the jungle out there.
That's an interesting suggestion, but I don't think it mirrors reality. There are no police officers standing with me at work to make sure I am not harmed, nor are they in my home making sure I don't burn it down.
And "the police are not responsible for my safety" is the only explanation you can think of for this state of affairs? There are both practical and legal limits to the reach of police power - they can't be everywhere at once and it'd be unduly invasive if they could. But if police officers do happen to be nearby when you something dangerous happens at work or home, they're not just going to kick back and let it happen on the grounds of not-our-problem. What's more, if you attempt suicide, they will try to stop you.
This is because it's incoherent to draw a distinction between "you" and "the public". You are the public.
Conflicts between people are only addressed by police when they rise to the level of causing harm to each other and the public. Police are not there to protect us from ourselves.
When you're standing too close to a crazy guy with a gun, and the police tell you to step back, they're not protecting you from yourself, they're protecting you from the crazy guy with a gun.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
While it would be nice to talk about what people deserve and what they don't, I don't think it's particularly useful to talk about what "a person deserves". A person gets injured or not independent of what they 'deserve' - as a result of the reality of the situation.
And "the police are not responsible for my safety" is the only explanation you can think of for this state of affairs? There are both practical and legal limits to the reach of police power - they can't be everywhere at once and it'd be unduly invasive if they could. But if police officers do happen to be nearby when you something dangerous happens at work or home, they're not just going to kick back and let it happen on the grounds of not-our-problem. What's more, if you attempt suicide, they will try to stop you.
This is because it's incoherent to draw a distinction between "you" and "the public". You are the public.
That was not an explanation for the state of affairs, but rather the facts that lead to the aforementioned consequence of being the custodian of one's own personal safety. A part of a whole is not synonymous with the whole - a wheel is not a car, even if a car has 4 wheels. An individual is both part of the public, and a private person.
When you're standing too close to a crazy guy with a gun, and the police tell you to step back, they're not protecting you from yourself, they're protecting you from the crazy guy with a gun.
As well they should. And a citizen should comply with lawful orders given by police. But one still must act on one's own: either one moves back to safety and complies with the lawful order, or one acts otherwise according to their own thoughts with all the risks and rewards that presents. Irrespective of which option is chosen, the onus still falls to an individual on how to act. And they bear the responsibility for those actions as they should, both social (i.e. the law) and physical (i.e. perhaps getting shot).
With respect to this law specifically, the police already have tools to prevent people from interfering. If the stated objective of the law is to prevent people from interfering, well this law doesn't really do that any more than the existing laws do. If a person gets to close (regardless of a 25ft codification) the police officer will still warn individuals to back away. This law changes nothing about he situations it is supposed to address, while providing a tool to use in other situations that the police might not want to be recorded within 100ft.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
While it would be nice to talk about what people deserve and what they don't, I don't think it's particularly useful to talk about what "a person deserves". A person gets injured or not independent of what they 'deserve' - as a result of the reality of the situation.
The "reality of the situation" is mutable. The cops can prevent the person from making the stupid decision of getting too close. They don't need to get shot. But you're saying that the person should "bear responsibility" for their decision. I'm asking why.
That was not an explanation for the state of affairs, but rather the facts that lead to the aforementioned consequence of being the custodian of one's own personal safety. A part of a whole is not synonymous with the whole - a wheel is not a car, even if a car has 4 wheels. An individual is both part of the public, and a private person.
Correct. And proves nothing. If a mechanic has a duty to fix your car, and one of your wheels is broken, the mechanic has a duty to fix the wheel, because regardless of the wheel not being synonymous with the car, it is still a part of the car. So please stop torturing irrelevant freshman philosophy. There is no coherent analysis by which the cops can have a duty to protect the public and not have a duty to protect you.
As well they should. And a citizen should comply with lawful orders given by police. But one still must act on one's own: either one moves back to safety and complies with the lawful order, or one acts otherwise according to their own thoughts with all the risks and rewards that presents. Irrespective of which option is chosen, the onus still falls to an individual on how to act.
If you're trying to make some arcane point about free will, I really don't think this is the place for it.
With respect to this law specifically, the police already have tools to prevent people from interfering. If the stated objective of the law is to prevent people from interfering, well this law doesn't really do that any more than the existing laws do. If a person gets to close (regardless of a 25ft codification) the police officer will still warn individuals to back away. This law changes nothing about he situations it is supposed to address, while providing a tool to use in other situations that the police might not want to be recorded within 100ft.
Look, I've already said that I think there are some fishy things about this law. But if you want to say that there is no difference between the rule being a statutory bright line of 25 feet versus it being "Do whatever the cop says", that's simply not true. The bright line gives bystanders an a priori understanding of what is expected of them. Would you say there's no difference between having traffic laws and having the cops just direct traffic ad hoc?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Vive, vale. Siquid novisti rectius istis,
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
While it would be nice to talk about what people deserve and what they don't, I don't think it's particularly useful to talk about what "a person deserves". A person gets injured or not independent of what they 'deserve' - as a result of the reality of the situation.
The "reality of the situation" is mutable. The cops can prevent the person from making the stupid decision of getting too close. They don't need to get shot. But you're saying that the person should "bear responsibility" for their decision. I'm asking why.
That was not an explanation for the state of affairs, but rather the facts that lead to the aforementioned consequence of being the custodian of one's own personal safety. A part of a whole is not synonymous with the whole - a wheel is not a car, even if a car has 4 wheels. An individual is both part of the public, and a private person.
Correct. And proves nothing. If a mechanic has a duty to fix your car, and one of your wheels is broken, the mechanic has a duty to fix the wheel, because regardless of the wheel not being synonymous with the car, it is still a part of the car. So please stop torturing irrelevant freshman philosophy. There is no coherent analysis by which the cops can have a duty to protect the public and not have a duty to protect you.
As well they should. And a citizen should comply with lawful orders given by police. But one still must act on one's own: either one moves back to safety and complies with the lawful order, or one acts otherwise according to their own thoughts with all the risks and rewards that presents. Irrespective of which option is chosen, the onus still falls to an individual on how to act.
If you're trying to make some arcane point about free will, I really don't think this is the place for it.
With respect to this law specifically, the police already have tools to prevent people from interfering. If the stated objective of the law is to prevent people from interfering, well this law doesn't really do that any more than the existing laws do. If a person gets to close (regardless of a 25ft codification) the police officer will still warn individuals to back away. This law changes nothing about he situations it is supposed to address, while providing a tool to use in other situations that the police might not want to be recorded within 100ft.
Look, I've already said that I think there are some fishy things about this law. But if you want to say that there is no difference between the rule being a statutory bright line of 25 feet versus it being "Do whatever the cop says", that's simply not true. The bright line gives bystanders an a priori understanding of what is expected of them. Would you say there's no difference between having traffic laws and having the cops just direct traffic ad hoc?
The implied supposition that a police officer will have better judgement than an individual about their best safety interests is what you are missing. I'm suggesting that a person has a right to make that judgement for themselves, and they quite rightly will bear the consequences. Just because a police officer has the duty of protecting an individual, doesn't mean a police officer is in a position to benevolently dictate what is and is not in the best protective interest of an individual.
Which is all an aside to the idea that the law addresses a problem that is already sufficiently addressed.
You've been pretty rude though, so maybe tone it down?
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Modern Decks
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
The implied supposition that a police officer will have better judgement than an individual about their best safety interests is what you are missing. I'm suggesting that a person has a right to make that judgement for themselves, and they quite rightly will bear the consequences. Just because a police officer has the duty of protecting an individual, doesn't mean a police officer is in a position to benevolently dictate what is and is not in the best protective interest of an individual.
Huh? You've argued that this law is unnecessary because police officers will already direct bystanders to back off to a safe distance, and bystanders are already obliged to comply with these directions. Your position is the one that gives cops dictatorial power and presumes their good judgment. Setting up a standard procedure in statute takes their power and judgment out of the question. If you don't trust the cops, you should be all for such statutes.
Now, you are saying that it's "right" for a civilian to bear the consequences of this decision they make. You seemed to have an objection when I interpreted what you were saying normatively, but now you're using explicitly normative language. So please explain what you think the difference is between a person "quite rightly bear[ing]" certain consequences and a person "deserving" those consequences.
I like that Villalba proposed the law since it forces people in the state of Texas to suffer the consequences of the people they're electing to office. Sure he's a state rep now but he may become a member of the Federal Senate or House in the future. If he gets voted out now then his threat to democracy and the stability of this nation can be minimized.
So in effect I think the law is awful but I'm really glad this man proposed it.
But from what I'm reading, this law basically says "Bystanders, don't stand within 25 feet of the action." Which seems pretty reasonable to me. You don't want people getting in the way. Personally, if I was witness to an altercation between cops and suspects, I'd want to stand back a lot further than that.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
As far as not recording police while they are in acting in public, or punishing those who do record police activity, thats just wrong, no one should be fined, jails, or prosecuted for recording with a camera activity taking place in public by the police.
Twitter- RogueSource.
Decks: "Name one! I probably got it built In one of these boxes."
---------------------------------------------------
Vintage will rise again! Buy a Mox today!
---------------------------------------------------
[I]Some call it dig through time, when really your digging through CRAP!
Merfolk! showing magic players what a shower is since Lorwyn!
A bullet can fly a lot further than a hundred feet, dude.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
as happens in Tampa with the cops. we've got several cases of cops unlawfullying seizing the people camera's, capturing the view of police acting against, what I guess "we call cubans" in ways that are innappropriate for police conduct. such cases could use some more national attention, but it is what it is.
Twitter- RogueSource.
Decks: "Name one! I probably got it built In one of these boxes."
---------------------------------------------------
Vintage will rise again! Buy a Mox today!
---------------------------------------------------
[I]Some call it dig through time, when really your digging through CRAP!
Merfolk! showing magic players what a shower is since Lorwyn!
I thought the purpose was to prevent interference with the police? I think a person can judge for themselves if they want to get close enough to film a shootout. One must be the custodian of one's own safety: that is the price of liberty. If you want to be free to do as you like, you must be responsible for the judgement calls you make - including whether 100 ft or 50 ft is what you judge to be a reasonable safe distance.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
And its obvious on the face of it: the law is more about requiring a certain specific distance than whether or not that distance is required for the safety and integrity of a police investigation or other police action.
I'd like to suggest that the following is not accurate "The police are the 'custodians of your safety' too - that is literally their entire purpose in society."
That's an interesting suggestion, but I don't think it mirrors reality. There are no police officers standing with me at work to make sure I am not harmed, nor are they in my home making sure I don't burn it down. In fact police are not the custodians of an individual's personal safety (i.e.your safety), but rather custodians of the public safety. They deal with individuals, but as it relates to public safety. Conflicts between people are only addressed by police when they rise to the level of causing harm to each other and the public. Police are not there to protect us from ourselves.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
And "the police are not responsible for my safety" is the only explanation you can think of for this state of affairs? There are both practical and legal limits to the reach of police power - they can't be everywhere at once and it'd be unduly invasive if they could. But if police officers do happen to be nearby when you something dangerous happens at work or home, they're not just going to kick back and let it happen on the grounds of not-our-problem. What's more, if you attempt suicide, they will try to stop you.
This is because it's incoherent to draw a distinction between "you" and "the public". You are the public.
When you're standing too close to a crazy guy with a gun, and the police tell you to step back, they're not protecting you from yourself, they're protecting you from the crazy guy with a gun.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
That was not an explanation for the state of affairs, but rather the facts that lead to the aforementioned consequence of being the custodian of one's own personal safety. A part of a whole is not synonymous with the whole - a wheel is not a car, even if a car has 4 wheels. An individual is both part of the public, and a private person.
As well they should. And a citizen should comply with lawful orders given by police. But one still must act on one's own: either one moves back to safety and complies with the lawful order, or one acts otherwise according to their own thoughts with all the risks and rewards that presents. Irrespective of which option is chosen, the onus still falls to an individual on how to act. And they bear the responsibility for those actions as they should, both social (i.e. the law) and physical (i.e. perhaps getting shot).
With respect to this law specifically, the police already have tools to prevent people from interfering. If the stated objective of the law is to prevent people from interfering, well this law doesn't really do that any more than the existing laws do. If a person gets to close (regardless of a 25ft codification) the police officer will still warn individuals to back away. This law changes nothing about he situations it is supposed to address, while providing a tool to use in other situations that the police might not want to be recorded within 100ft.
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Correct. And proves nothing. If a mechanic has a duty to fix your car, and one of your wheels is broken, the mechanic has a duty to fix the wheel, because regardless of the wheel not being synonymous with the car, it is still a part of the car. So please stop torturing irrelevant freshman philosophy. There is no coherent analysis by which the cops can have a duty to protect the public and not have a duty to protect you.
If you're trying to make some arcane point about free will, I really don't think this is the place for it.
Look, I've already said that I think there are some fishy things about this law. But if you want to say that there is no difference between the rule being a statutory bright line of 25 feet versus it being "Do whatever the cop says", that's simply not true. The bright line gives bystanders an a priori understanding of what is expected of them. Would you say there's no difference between having traffic laws and having the cops just direct traffic ad hoc?
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.
The implied supposition that a police officer will have better judgement than an individual about their best safety interests is what you are missing. I'm suggesting that a person has a right to make that judgement for themselves, and they quite rightly will bear the consequences. Just because a police officer has the duty of protecting an individual, doesn't mean a police officer is in a position to benevolently dictate what is and is not in the best protective interest of an individual.
Which is all an aside to the idea that the law addresses a problem that is already sufficiently addressed.
You've been pretty rude though, so maybe tone it down?
KnightfallGWUR
Azorius Control UW
Burn RBG
Now, you are saying that it's "right" for a civilian to bear the consequences of this decision they make. You seemed to have an objection when I interpreted what you were saying normatively, but now you're using explicitly normative language. So please explain what you think the difference is between a person "quite rightly bear[ing]" certain consequences and a person "deserving" those consequences.
candidus inperti; si nil, his utere mecum.