TexasCHLforum.com

MechAg94 wrote:The problem is that even if you set a "safe distance" of 25 or 30 feet, someone recording might still be standing on evidence in a crime scene or worse, inadvertently kicking it around. I would say the cop shouldn't arrest you, but they should have the authority to demand you move further away or point out a boundary.

They can arrest you for destroying evidence or whatever that particular crime is. The idea isn't an "arrest free" zone - it's the concept that beyond a certain distance, you're not impacting the ability of the officer to do his/her job.

A-R wrote: IF a cop is involved in a critical incident and for ANY reason the incident is not recorded (forgot to activate camera in heat of the moment, technical malfunction, bad camera angle/didn't actually record anything, camera damaged during the incident) then an ever growing portion of the populace will simply ASSUME the cop(s) are guilty and covering up their guilt. Cameras have a place, but they are not the ONLY measure of truth.

Personally, I'd never assume that a technical failure is the fault of the officer. I would consider that, with a camera that can be selectively activated, that an officer might have intentionally chosen NOT to activate the camera. It's a simple solution, really. Out of the car or lights on, then the body camera is active. It's not a technological marvel. Plus, it's a "workload" issue. I don't want LEOs to even have to think about it - I don't want to give them any distractions. Cameras should be fully automatic, non-distracting, and such would make it hard to fault the officer.

Cameras are not the only measure of truth, but certainly a substantial step towards it, especially in "2-party" incidents where only one person survives.

Cameras protect good officers from bad people. They reduce complaints. They reduce the use of force. All of these things reduce lawsuits. These things are not assertions, they're statistical facts. Someone tell me why they're not mandatory? Seems like a no-brainer to me. I really don't care if LEOs feel that they're intrusive. LEOs work for you and me and should never be afraid of what is happening on a camera.

A-R wrote: What distance is adequate depends on the “totality of the circumstances” (another concept that should’ve been taught in CHL class). You mentioned 20-25 feet? Ever heard of the “Tueller Drill” (another concept that should’ve been covered in CHL class)? It’s a training concept that states you must be able to draw, present, and fire your weapon at a target facing you in less than the 2-3 seconds it takes an average adult male to run 21 feet from a standing position and harm you with a bladed or blunt weapon. With that in mind, how can 20-25 feet be an adequate distance to stand away from an officer who is dealing with subject(s) on a scene and has his back to you while you’re filming? Suffice to say if an officer on scene tells you to “back up” or “stand over there” then you better do so or risk the Interference with Public Duties charge. If you don’t like it or think the officer is pushing you too far back, then pursue that grievance later. Just like the side of the road is not time to argue a traffic ticket, on the scene of an active police investigation is no time to argue how far back you need to stand.

I agree with you here, which is why any "minimum distance" law needs to not set an arrestable distance, but should set a safe distance outside of which you know that you're not breaking the law. Inside of that distance, LEOs get to use situational awareness and tactical digression to determine if he/she is distracted or threatened.

Because arrests are inherently punitive and potentially career ending (for some of us) indicating that it can get worked out in court isn't good enough.... Especially when we consider that we're going up against an "expert" witness and potentially without any actual recorded footage as cameras aren't required.

nightmare69 wrote:So how do we feel on the bill preventing people from getting within a certain distance, I.E. in the way, or in the face of LEOs performing their duties?

I don't like it. I'd rather see a bill that protects them from arrest and prosecution outside of a certain distance. For argument, lets call it 25 feet, but it could be any distance.
Inside of that distance, it's up to LEOs if you're a problem and they can treat you accordingly.. Outside of that distance, you know you're not breaking the law. It gives officers flexibility and protects the public. I think it would accomplish the same thing and be a lot less controversial.