Must stay 25 feet back...

I know here in America we have the right to photograph police and other government workers/public servants in public places. However, there are people that push this, and in my opinion, misuse the right potentially causing risk for all involved. This 25 foot buffer does not sound like a bad idea to me. It allows the police to be able to do their job and keeps you the photographer far enough away to keep you reasonably out of harms way. And even with all but the widest of lenses, 25 feet is still right up on top of things to record what is happening.

I feel that this is a reasonable expectation and all the way around clarifies boundaries between intrusion by the public and the public's rights.

Thoughts?

Texas 'Cop Watcher' bill under fire from legal experts, law enforcement groups | Fox News

I think they are more concerned about people with cell phones. 25 feet with a cell phone is a pretty hard distance to get much detail. With my 70-300 or even my 18-140 25 feet it is not a problem at all.

Most of the on-the-street photos we see of cops in action are shot with bad cell phone cameras.

Do I have a problem with this law being passed? The part about legal concealed carry permit holders having to stay back 100 feet? Yes. The camera part I am not so sure. I think these photos have uncovered some very bad cops so I think a good cop should never have a problem with a citizen videoing them doing their job. BUT the citizen should never get so close as to interfere with the cop doing his job safely. If you are asked to back up to give them room to move then you should. 25 feet? Not so sure that is necessary.

But again, I am on the fence about this one. Giving up (taking away) any rights is a dangerous path to start going down.

Don Kuykendall said:

Do I have a problem with this law being passed? The part about legal concealed carry permit holders having to stay back 100 feet? Yes.

Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree with you on that part - I was just focused on the photography aspect.

Moab Man said:

I know here in America we have the right to photograph police and other government workers/public servants in public places. However, there are people that push this, and in my opinion, misuse the right potentially causing risk for all involved. This 25 foot buffer does not sound like a bad idea to me. It allows the police to be able to do their job and keeps you the photographer far enough away to keep you reasonably out of harms way. And even with all but the widest of lenses, 25 feet is still right up on top of things to record what is happening.

I feel that this is a reasonable expectation and all the way around clarifies boundaries between intrusion by the public and the public's rights.

Thoughts?

Texas 'Cop Watcher' bill under fire from legal experts, law enforcement groups | Fox News

Click to expand...

Safety? Whose "safety"? It's already illegal to interfere with a LEO in the performance of their duties and I don't see why they need a 25 foot buffer from the public to accomplish that... Doing so can already result in injury, arrest or both so why now, all of a sudden, is this such an alleged "safety" issue? Or, is it that some police officers simply don't like the idea that practically every citizen walking the street now carries on their person the technology to effectively surveil them on the job 24/7? Huh. There's a thought. And here's another: The tail doesn't wag the dog officer Friendly and the police don't get to curtail citizens rights because of personal technology, which is clearly what this is really about. Apparently this wasn't any kind of "safety issue" in the decades that pre-date the technology that now seems to really be problematic for cops that, apparently, like to overstep their authority. And now, suddenly, they need a twenty-five foot buffer zone? For "safety reasons", of course. Curious!

Personally, I'd like to see all LEO's body-cammed with full video and audio recording initiated automatically from the moment they dawn the uniform. No institute of law enforcement should have ANY ability to access those recordings; they should be kept under absolute control of an independent third party.
....

Horoscope Fish said:

Safety? Whose "safety"? It's already illegal to interfere with a LEO in the performance of their duties and I don't see why they need a 25 foot buffer from the public to accomplish that...
....

Click to expand...

This is where I think that clarification of a defined distance might not be a bad idea. Agreed, already illegal to interfere, but we have people that encroach as well as police officers that are overzealous in the amount of space needed.

Weighing in on this. I have an issue on this singling out photography. You want to make it mandatory to keep EVERYONE 25 feet away, fine. If I can stand at 10 feet but need to move another 15 feet back the minute I turn my camera phone on, that's a problem for me.

With that said, it also makes it illegal for me, should I be detained or even questioned by an officer, to video the conversation, and that's what I have the major problem with. I understand their need to do their work, but in an age when cameras are more an issue because of what they reveal and not who they interfere with this is complete BS to me.

My thoughts, and purely just thoughts...

100 foot rule for concealed carriers? BS. We don't need to discuss that. Let's focus on the photography side of things.

WHY would you want to be closer than 25 feet to an officer conducting his duties? If things get crazy, and adrenaline starts flying, why would you want to be close enough to be put in harms way? If you want pics, go get a $150 point and shoot with built in zoom, and you're getting decent pics from 25 feet away. Heck, you can even pinch/zoom/crop with the camera in a cell phone and get decent images from 25 feet. If you want to get closer, unless it's to help in some way, you're nuts. Bad guy goes nuts? You're a potential hostage or distraction, or a news story titled "Innocent Bystander Shot During Struggle."

But there are folks saying, "We're just out there to get the bad cops". GOOD FOR YOU! Most of 'em aren't, but let's say you DO get in the face of one of the "bad" ones... another bad move, IMO. It's a fairly safe bet that if you invade the personal space of someone in an aggressive situation, part of their aggression will soon involve you.

Our law enforcement officers have a hard job, and it requires them to constantly assess threats and respond to them. 99.9% of them are doing that job for the right reason, and I shouldn't be doing anything to complicate any situation they're involved in at any time. IMO, if you're close enough to be a distraction, your close enough to be considered "interference."

If it were me, I'd want to be even farther back with my 70-300. In fact, I'm not one to photograph such things, so I'd be even farther away not getting involved.

I didn't read it all in detail, FWIW, just going based on the comments here so far.

My .02, which is worth far less to anyone else but me.

BackdoorHippie said:

... it also makes it illegal for me, should I be detained or even questioned by an officer, to video the conversation...

Click to expand...

Excellent point.

.....

BackdoorHippie said:

Weighing in on this. I have an issue on this singling out photography. You want to make it mandatory to keep EVERYONE 25 feet away, fine. If I can stand at 10 feet but need to move another 15 feet back the minute I turn my camera phone on, that's a problem for me.

With that said, it also makes it illegal for me, should I be detained or even questioned by an officer, to video the conversation, and that's what I have the major problem with. I understand their need to do their work, but in an age when cameras are more an issue because of what they reveal and not who they interfere with this is complete BS to me.

Click to expand...

As said before, I didn't read the proposal, just weighed in based on the comments.

I agree with the above, draw a minimum distance for everyone ​not involved, not just photographers, for the examples I listed in my previous post. I also agree that I should be able to video, photograph or record the audio of any interaction involving my own self, no matter the situation. I'm guessing an officer wouldn't want to shout his questions to me from 25 feet away.... <smirk goes here> That could be conquered by adding the language re: individuals not involved or something similar.

Moab Man said:

This is where I think that clarification of a defined distance might not be a bad idea. Agreed, already illegal to interfere, but we have people that encroach as well as police officers that are overzealous in the amount of space needed.

Click to expand...

I am sure that if you and I were out and about an the cops came up and started aggressively questioning you I would grab my phone and start videoing the encounter if for no other reason than to share it here on Nikonites for everyone to enjoy. But I would stay at a reasonable distance. If they throw you to the ground I do not want to get hit with your head.

Don Kuykendall said:

I am sure that if you and I were out and about an the cops came up and started aggressively questioning you I would grab my phone and start videoing the encounter if for no other reason than to share it here on Nikonites for everyone to enjoy. But I would stay at a reasonable distance. If they throw you to the ground I do not want to get hit with your head.

Click to expand...

Just here on Nikonites?

YOUTUBE!

I think the laws are already in place and one more is not likely to do anything of value.

There is a lot of give and take in a free society. The more rules, the less freedom. Let me take my chances of how close I want/need/should get for whatever reason. Maybe LEO needs my help, but crossing the magic buffer makes me a criminal.

All that said, should be up to the state to say what rules they want to live under and up to me to live or not live in the state.

The technology age has coincided with the birth of many stupid people. I'm all for our rights, but when people get hurt it's always someone else's fault. We didn't need laws like this in the past because people used common sense. I think if I were a police officer in a fire fight, I wouldn't want any armed civilians in the area (100 feet would be too close). Bad things can happen fast, I could easily kill someone with a knife from 25 ft.

Most of us would be smart enough to keep a safe distance, but there is a whole new brand of stupid walking the streets nowadays. I'm not too impressed with the police in my area, but I'm more sick of all the police hatred. I guess it's "cool" to hate cops now. Too bad.

All great comments, thoughts, and opinions. Loved reading this.

It all comes down to common sense and based on all the stories lately, it seems those that have any are a rare bread.

I get the the gist of the law, keep everyone away while an investigation is going on. The police officers are already dealing with situation at hand, they don't need some one coming into the scene and being an idiot. And it hasn't been mentioned, but if they don't have a safe distance law and people don't have to keep a safe distance then it adds another unknown to a currently unknown situation.

If they have you pulled over, the questioning just started and now they have someone with a camera in their face distracting them from the suspect. Now does this photographer have a gun, what's their intentions, the officer doesn't know. This is the unknown that I think something should be done to keep everyone not involved with it away from the scene. And the only reason for the law goes back to the common sense, that is lacking in the age of youtube and Internet lawyers.

No, don't single out photographers, it should be for everyone. Who knows that video/pictures from the bystander could help or hinder the officer at a later date.

But yet again, we have stupid laws to cover the idiots and we all know you can't legislate or fix stupid.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Krs_2007 said:

No, don't single out photographers, it should be for everyone. Who knows that video/pictures from the bystander could help or hinder the officer at a later date.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk HD

Click to expand...

I think this is the point of getting the photos. If it helps the police then great. They are doing their jobs. If it hurts the police then the police did something wrong and the video will help the victim of that wrong.

Stay our of arms reach at a reasonable distance, don't interfere with what is going on and keep your mouth shut but 25 feet is unreasonable. They are just overreaching their authority and in my opinion just trying to cover stupid cops doing stupid things. Before you explode I think the vast majority of cops do a hard and great job but just like everything else there are a few bad apples. These apples though can put you away for life or worse.

If a bystander is interfering just arrest him and cart him off but leave the rest of us alone.

And you are right "But yet again, we have stupid laws to cover the idiots and we all know you can't legislate or fix stupid."

This law is to do nothing more than help prevent the mobile phone video usage as mentioned above, nothing more.
Also mentioned above is we currently have laws in place (good laws for that matter) that help protect officers while doing their job.

This is nothing more than an attempt to prevent more exposure of wrong doing.

As in all professions, we have the good and the bad. Law enforcement is certainly no exception.

Don Kuykendall said:

I think this is the point of getting the photos. If it helps the police then great. They are doing their jobs. If it hurts the police then the police did something wrong and the video will help the victim of that wrong.

Stay our of arms reach at a reasonable distance, don't interfere with what is going on and keep your mouth shut but 25 feet is unreasonable. They are just overreaching their authority and in my opinion just trying to cover stupid cops doing stupid things. Before you explode I think the vast majority of cops do a hard and great job but just like everything else there are a few bad apples. These apples though can put you away for life or worse.

If a bystander is interfering just arrest him and cart him off but leave the rest of us alone.

And you are right "But yet again, we have stupid laws to cover the idiots and we all know you can't legislate or fix stupid."

Click to expand...

No exploding here, I just get tired of people not using good judgement and the rest of us that do have to pay the price by dealing stupid laws/rules.

25 is excessive, 15 may be better but I really wish it wasn't needed.

PD's will evolve with body cams/car cams and this will all just fold into the normal day of life. The bad will get caught.

Lighter story:

When we were doing our engagement pictures, we picked the DC Cherry Blossom season to do them, and managed to hit within a day or two of peak bloom. (If you've never visited the Tidal Basin/Washington Monument area of DC during Cherry Blossom bloom time, it's pretty much you and a million of your closest friends looking at trees. That said, our pictures turned out GREAT!) After we finished, we were walking back toward the Metro with our photographers when we came upon the DC police arresting someone. Our photographer ran over and grabbed some shots, probably staying 15-20 feet away at the time. The police didn't care. The pictures of the arrest came with our engagement pictures.

I agree people not getting arrested should stay back. The last thing anyone wants is a cop thinking someone is attacking them (that rarely turns out well). Instead of making it a law, a guideline of some reasonable distance makes sense to me.