TexasCHLforum.com

joe817 wrote:

ScooterSissy wrote:

joe817 wrote:Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I do not intend to go within 100 ft. much less 25 ft. of a law enforcement officer in exercising his/her duties. Unless.....I am needed to stop and render aid to the LEO, if in the remote event he/she, IMO, needs it.

What if said LEO stops you in your vehicle for a traffic violation? Keep in mind, I also never intend to get stopped; but it happens. I'd hate to think that I, or someone inside the vehicle, has to stop recording.

Well, let's look at what I said: "....I do not intend to go within...". That would mean me advancing on the LEO's position, doesn't it? If it wasn't taken that way, that's the way I meant it. If the LEO come to me then that's another matter, don't you think? Besides, I don't do video's of cops performing their duty. Not to mention a routine traffic stop.

The way I understood the law, if it passed as written, it would apply in a traffic stop as well. Yes, you said "go within 100 ft.", but in the discussion of whether or not this is a good law, you wouldn't need to "go". The law is written about "within", not "within after advancing upon". I asked because you didn't say. Snarky comments aside, "it won't ever apply to me" is a pretty poor reason for being OK with a law that would further restrict citizen's rights.

Your opinion may vary, of course...

joe817 wrote:And lastly, you are implying that you are in the car with me, if I do get stopped(" I'd hate to think that I, or someone inside the vehicle, has to stop recording."-your words, not mine).... I wouldn't permit somebody recording the incident. Besides, I don't even know you. And I don't let strangers in my car.

"Well, let's look at what I said" - nope, no such implication. I made that statement right after saying I never intend to get stopped, but it happens. I said "I" because I was talking about myself, and expressing one of the reasons I don't like the law.

My issue is that it's a completely unnecessary law, and ripe for abuse.
Unnecessary
I heard a policeman call into the Mark Davis show on the way to work this morning, and talked about how it's a "needed" law, because people filming a cop that close adds one more distraction that can interfere with their job. The problem with that is such a person can be the same distraction without the camera. Police already can detain, and arrest, someone interfering with their duties. They don't need a law specifying the person interfering has to have a camera.
Ripe for Abuse
As has been pointed out, there have already been cases where policemen have told people that it is illegal for them to record an officer. Some have tried to use wiretapping laws to back this up. Face it, even though the vast majority of policemen are just out there doing a job as best they can, there are some bad apples in the bunch. We don't need to give the bad apples another method to hide their deeds in darkness.

joe817 wrote:Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I do not intend to go within 100 ft. much less 25 ft. of a law enforcement officer in exercising his/her duties. Unless.....I am needed to stop and render aid to the LEO, if in the remote event he/she, IMO, needs it.

Bad bills should be opposed on principle, and not whether we think they'll ever apply to us.

I live in a small town and don't worry too much about the police, most of them know who I am and I don't get pulled over often or for anything major. However, I have heard horror stories about police in some of the larger cities like Houston and San Antonio. If I was being pulled over there and thought there could be a problem, I would adopt a method I have heard from others, turn on recording on the phone and put it in the cup holder pointing at the window across me. It wouldn't obstruct the officer and hopefully could just be deleted on completion of the stop but you never know what could happen. This bill would make even something like that which is in no way obstructive illegal.

adrbe wrote:

joe817 wrote:Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I do not intend to go within 100 ft. much less 25 ft. of a law enforcement officer in exercising his/her duties. Unless.....I am needed to stop and render aid to the LEO, if in the remote event he/she, IMO, needs it.

Bad bills should be opposed on principle, and not whether we think they'll ever apply to us.

This is a bad bill aimed at a few bad apples that winds up putting the most law abiding citizens in the state in the line of fire. Some one needs to have a discussion with this A rated law maker.

This bill has about a 1% chance of passing the Senate as-is.

Do any of us really think that the same people who just voted through SB11 & 17 will suddenly throw in with the anti-freedom crowd and especially throw us CHLers under the bus and go along with that extra "buffer zone" for CHLs...

I stand for the truth. I stand for cops being allowed to fulfill their duties without interference. I do know they are trained to deal with crowds and distractions. I've seen the cop shows with family members and crowds wailing for their thug that is being arrested... I don't see how recording is interfering unless they are too close. Who is to say what is too close? Texas streets and NYC streets are very different. And I find it very offensive that I am being singled out as a upstanding citizen who happens to have my CHL. What if an officer needed assistance, but due to this law it makes chl'ers reluctant to be near incidents?

I believe in watching the officers if the situation is safe, being a good witness works both ways. What if BG says cop punched him in the face repeatedly, but he had been beaten up by his girlfriend and wanted to save face?

At the end of the day, the truth will set you free. Had there been an impartial camera in the Ferguson case, an officer would have been exonerated much quicker and his life wouldn't be in danger. This bill leans too close to the left for my comfort.

I say enforce existing "interfering laws". Hopefully this never gets out of the legislature. If by some stroke of extreme bad luck it gets sent to the Governor, will he veto it.?

Even if this were to somehow pass and become law it wouldn't stand up to the scrutiny of the courts.

C-dub wrote:Even if this were to somehow pass and become law it wouldn't stand up to the scrutiny of the courts.

About as unconstitutional as it gets. Would probably make for some strange bedfellows in court.

Next thing we'll hear about will be free speech zones on college campuses. Oh, wait....

C-dub wrote:Even if this were to somehow pass and become law it wouldn't stand up to the scrutiny of the courts.

Correct as I see it. That thing'll never fly.

It sounds like Villalba has pulled the bill.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03 ... us-groups/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://kxan.com/2015/03/27/police-filmi ... rom-union/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

MojaveMan wrote:It sounds like Villalba has pulled the bill.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03 ... us-groups/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://kxan.com/2015/03/27/police-filmi ... rom-union/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Good. I'm glad to see his good sense returning.....

But Villalba maintains that his bill is to promote police accountability, and came at the urging of his hometown police.

Promote accountability... by not allowing people to film police within 25 or 100 feet? I don't understand how that promotes accountability. If anything, it has the opposite effect.