State lawmakers are pushing witness intimidation legislation (Senate Bill 1126 and House Bill 1539) that purports to protect police officers. But these bills really are a not-so-veiled attack on communities of color that will make law enforcement less accountable. They build on the harmful legacy of the 2021 anti-protest bill, HB 1, which was a direct attack on the free-speech rights of those seeking racial justice.
If passed, this legislation would allow police officers greater authority to harass and criminalize people for documenting their use of excessive force. It would make it illegal to approach within 20 feet of a police officer (and, in the case of the Senate bill, other first responders) effectively criminalizing, with fines and jail time, the filming of police at close proximity.
There is no more compelling example for why this misguided bill should be rejected out of hand than Darnella Frazier. Frazier filmed the final moments of George Floyd’s life as he was being murdered by a Minneapolis police officer. Her courage in documenting Floyd’s murder was a key factor in getting justice for Floyd and his family, but under this ridiculous legislation, she would face criminal charges.
When I read your title I thought it was a terrible law.
Then I read your post and learned you have to be 20fret away.
Which makes the law both reasonable and logical.
Glennfs wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 10:44 pm
When I read your title I thought it was a terrible law.
Then I read your post and learned you have to be 20fret away.
Which makes the law both reasonable and logical.
I disagree. If you're 19 feet away, you go to jail? Not a ticket?
Current laws already forbid obstruction of a police officer. This is simply a way for cops to go after people who film cops, since they obviously don't like it.
gounion wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 10:53 pm
I disagree. If you're 19 feet away, you go to jail? Not a ticket?
Current laws already forbid obstruction of a police officer. This is simply a way for cops to go after people who film cops, since they obviously don't like it.
Like they are going to be out there with a tape measure. How about if you are 19 inches away is that ok
Glennfs wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 11:04 pm
If you don't set a standard then it doesn't matter if you are 15 feet or 15 inches. 20 feet is a very reasonable standard.
Standard is already there. Cannot interfere.
But again, if you're 15 feet away, do you think it's an offense that's so severe that you are jailed for it?
These bills are unnecessary. It already is illegal to obstruct police officers carrying out their duty. This proposal would make already tense situations worse and allow police to abuse their authority by invoking an invisible barrier between themselves and citizens, even when those within its radius are passive and non-threatening.
So, Glenn, you would throw the girl that captured the murder of George Floyd on video in jail? She was closer than 20 feet.
gounion wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 11:09 pm
From the link:
So, Glenn, you would throw the girl that captured the murder of George Floyd on video in jail? She was closer than 20 feet.
Imagine that you come up with a straw man argument and a newspaper which is little more than a democratic party and liberal rag puts the opinion of the liberal "journalist" in the news report.
Glennfs wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 11:11 pm
Imagine that you come up with a straw man argument and a newspaper which is little more than a democratic party and liberal rag puts the opinion of the liberal "journalist" in the news report.
So is the answer yes? You'd jail the girl that caught the murder of George Floyd on her cell phone?
There are two different bills but both are basically the same. From reading each of the bills, a first responder refers to police, fire, and medical personnel. Here's part of the Senate bill:
2)(a) It is unlawful for any person, after receiving a21
warning from a first responder not to approach, to violate such22
warning and approach or remain within 30 feet of a first23
responder who is engaged in the lawful performance of any legal24
or emergent duty, with the intent to:25
1. Interrupt, disrupt, hinder, impede, or interfere with26
the first responder’s ability to perform such duty;27
2. Provoke a physical response from the first responder; or28
3. Directly or indirectly harass the first responder or
make so much noise that a first responder is prevented from30
performing their official duties or providing medical aid.31
(b) A person who violates this subsection commits a32
misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s.
775.082 or s. 775.083.
The difference between the two bills appears to be the distance with the Senate bill specifying 30 feet and the House bill 20 feet.
I don't think the opinion piece is correct in saying you can't film the police. What the bills say is after given a warning, you can't do it within X-number of feet but you could still film them as long as you keep the proper distance and don't interfere while they perform their duties. Whether the law is needed or it's simply a stunt by the republican lawmakers to show voters they are tough on crime I don't see the need for it. I don't think Florida is any different from any other state in that interfering with a police officer or fireman in the performance of their duties is already illegal.
gounion wrote: ↑Wed Apr 12, 2023 11:13 pm
So is the answer yes? You'd jail the girl that caught the murder of George Floyd on her cell phone?
No the answer is once again you came up with a ridiculous scenario
Talk about flaming hypocrite. This you vehemently oppose. Sending people to prison for voting for Republicans you have yet to oppose.
Glennfs wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 5:11 am
No the answer is once again you came up with a ridiculous scenario
Talk about flaming hypocrite. This you vehemently oppose. Sending people to prison for voting for Republicans you have yet to oppose.
No, if that law was in effect, she would be in jail.
gounion wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 7:11 am
No, if that law was in effect, she would be in jail.
And who is engaging in whataboutism?
OK to respond to your ridiculousness I will also be ridiculous.
What if she were standing 1 inch from the cops.
BTW How far away was she and are saying she couldn't have shot the video from 6 yards and 2 feet away.
Again 20 feet is a reasonable standard.
For the record what do you think would be a reasonable standard.
GoU once again not answering a question in 3 2 1
Glennfs wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 8:17 am
OK to respond to your ridiculousness I will also be ridiculous.
What if she were standing 1 inch from the cops.
BTW How far away was she and are saying she couldn't have shot the video from 6 yards and 2 feet away.
Again 20 feet is a reasonable standard.
For the record what do you think would be a reasonable standard.
GoU once again not answering a question in 3 2 1
She was closer than that. YOU would have her jailed. Not a ticket, but JAIL.
Yes, you would. You're good with that. Maybe next time, there won't be any video, right? That's what you guys want.
I dunno but I think an absence of a standard or an expectation often times lends itself to abuse. 20 feet is not all that far. Certainly close enough to film with a smart phone. Same is true for 30 feet. In my view it’s a minimal amount of space to allow a LE officer to operate and yet close enough for anyone taking pictures.
The MAIN point being - why should anyone go to JAIL for getting inside the arbitrary designation?
Why is this a JAIL offense?
In this case, the girl who took the George Floyd video would be in jail.
The secondary point is there’s already a standard - don’t interfere with an officer. If you’re inside their personal space, you can already be cited - and that’s getting a ticket, not jail time.
So I thought you guys were conservatives, and against frivolous laws. More freedom, remember?
But please, make your case as to why the young girl should be in jail for taking the George Floyd video.
gounion wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 11:30 am
Both of you ignore the point.
The MAIN point being - why should anyone go to JAIL for getting inside the arbitrary designation?
Why is this a JAIL offense?
In this case, the girl who took the George Floyd video would be in jail.
The secondary point is there’s already a standard - don’t interfere with an officer. If you’re inside their personal space, you can already be cited - and that’s getting a ticket, not jail time.
So I thought you guys were conservatives, and against frivolous laws. More freedom, remember?
But please, make your case as to why the young girl should be in jail for taking the George Floyd video.
I don’t ignore the point. I just don’t see the point. I don’t think 20 ft is unreasonable. I don’t think 30 ft is unreasonable. Nobody is saying you can’t film. Seems to me all they are saying is that folks should give the officer a reasonable space to work.
Do you think 20 to 30 ft an unreasonable distance? I don’t and I haven’t heard an argument to indicate otherwise. Why would you want to get closer? For what reason?
gounion wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 11:30 am
Both of you ignore the point.
The MAIN point being - why should anyone go to JAIL for getting inside the arbitrary designation?
Why is this a JAIL offense?
In this case, the girl who took the George Floyd video would be in jail.
The secondary point is there’s already a standard - don’t interfere with an officer. If you’re inside their personal space, you can already be cited - and that’s getting a ticket, not jail time.
So I thought you guys were conservatives, and against frivolous laws. More freedom, remember?
But please, make your case as to why the young girl should be in jail for taking the George Floyd video.
I believe the key is if your presence is interfering with the police or first responder performing their duties. Like I said earlier, I believe most states have laws prohibiting people from interfering with the police, fire department, and first responders in the performance of their duties. This law is duplicating what is already on the books and it's more for republicans to pretend they're tough on crime.
gounion wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 11:30 am
Both of you ignore the point.
The MAIN point being - why should anyone go to JAIL for getting inside the arbitrary designation?
Why is this a JAIL offense?
In this case, the girl who took the George Floyd video would be in jail.
The secondary point is there’s already a standard - don’t interfere with an officer. If you’re inside their personal space, you can already be cited - and that’s getting a ticket, not jail time.
So I thought you guys were conservatives, and against frivolous laws. More freedom, remember?
But please, make your case as to why the young girl should be in jail for taking the George Floyd video.
Nobody but you is suggesting that the person who filmed the Floyd incident would have or should have been arrested. So your lame strawman scenario has flopped.
So for the third time what would you consider a reasonable standard of distance for a private citizen to be when filming a policeman
Glennfs wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 2:11 pm
Nobody but you is suggesting that the person who filmed the Floyd incident would have or should have been arrested. So your lame strawman scenario has flopped.
So for the third time what would you consider a reasonable standard of distance for a private citizen to be when filming a policeman
NOT ARRESTED, JAILED.
And YES, that’s what you’re suggesting, since she was standing closer than that to the man murdering George Floyd.
You are saying she should have been put in jail, since you support this law.
Number6 wrote: ↑Thu Apr 13, 2023 1:25 pm
I believe the key is if your presence is interfering with the police or first responder performing their duties. Like I said earlier, I believe most states have laws prohibiting people from interfering with the police, fire department, and first responders in the performance of their duties. This law is duplicating what is already on the books and it's more for republicans to pretend they're tough on crime.
I don’t see it that way. 20 ft seems more than reasonable. So FL put a number on it.
