People can still record. Zoom lenses on phones and cameras have gotten better since the iPhone 1. 25 feet is not all that far. You don’t need to be almost within arm reach to take a video.
2 Likes
Is there not a minimum distance already? We’re really just debating where an appropriate line is. Surely no one thinks they should be grinding up on officers.
1 Like
25 feet is not that far if you have a clear view of what is going on. In many cases, 25 feet could also mean being around a corner, behind some cars, etc, where video is not feasible.
Is there anything magical that happens between 10 feet and 25 feet? I am pretty sure you can shout and record from either of those distances, and both are far enough to give space. Most people have a pretty good sense of when things are dangerous and will stay away from that, I just think it could be abused by officers in tight circumstances.
Regarding GF and Chauvin - most of the video seems from sufficiently out of reach and away from the altercation?
This is why I think that if a police person asks for such a distance and things go wrong, there should be sufficient deterrent so that it’s clear you can’t ask for distance so that you are not transparent.
I would want audio. Admittedly that’s more of a cherry on top.
1 Like
Couldn’t beat on anyone else with his night stick, even though his hands were free.
This bill would have been a lot better had it also included a provision requiring police use body cameras. I’d fully support it then. As it, seems like just a way for police to try to avoid anyone filming any unlawful actions.
4 Likes
Several studies have shown that a knife attacker can get to a gun wielder if they start out within ~20ft. Cops know this.
1 Like
I’ve never heard of actual studies, just the apocryphal 21’ rule. Any idea where those are?
I am mostly in favor of keeping onlookers a little further from police who are engaged. A policeman should simply not also have to deal with evaluating distractions in that situation. However, the knife attack angle that has been presented is very poor support IMO.
1 Like
Yep. An officer should be required to have a working body camera to be considered on duty. No camera, the laws that apply are those for a civilian, not an officer.
1 Like
I actually wouldn’t mind the 25’ rule if we had rules requiring always-on body cams. No “my camera malfunctioned and the suspect tripped and slammed his face into the ground and kicked himself in the head.”
As it stands, we have too little police oversight. I’m not a fan of less.
4 Likes