- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: New Louisiana law will criminalize approaching police under certain circumstances
Posted on 5/31/24 at 7:59 am to geauxturbo
Posted on 5/31/24 at 7:59 am to geauxturbo
quote:
We are talking about FILMING the police. You are not a threat to an officer FILMING them. Courts have ruled you have to interfere physically for them to lawfully ask you to stop.
Standing say a foot behind an officer while they are doing their duty is physically interfering with them, and that doesn’t go away just because you have your phone out.
This post was edited on 5/31/24 at 8:01 am
0
Posted on 5/31/24 at 7:59 am to 4cubbies
Jeff Landry KNOWS where the system is broken.....and he knows how to fix it.
I feel safer already.
I feel safer already.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:02 am to Flats
quote:
Great, how is that defined? Can I act like a bratty sibling in the back seat and get as close as possible without physically touching him?
There are cases that protect speech (actual speech, not filming, although legally there is no difference) intended to interfere with an officer's duties, aka, getting close to them and yelling.
Words are not physical threats and in no way impede the officer's ability to perform whatever function they are engaged in. Filming falls into the same category.
quote:
Is physical contact required for "physical interference"?
For the most part. If you're engaged in behaviors getting to that point (like running at a cop aggressively) then they can stop you.
None of this is applicable to simply filming a police, however. And there are already laws on the books for interfering with LEO in the function of their duties.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:03 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Which is why I also agree that putting a hard number on it is stupid to begin with.
Agree, but like I said earlier, assholes are the reason we have stupid laws like this. I don't know that it's the best solution but I get it.
Everybody wants to ask why a cop can't do his job if someone's 10 feet away, I would ask why someone can't exercise their rights from 15 ft, or 20 ft, whatever. Is there a distance that gets absurd? Sure, but I don't think this is it. A welfare queen with a taxpayer funded phone can get more effective (potential) evidence at 25 feet than a handful of stringers from 30 years ago standing 5 ft away.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:06 am to Flats
quote:
I've done what are essentially LE functions while in the military, and you bet your arse the locals aren't allowed to crowd up around you.
"The locals" aren't Americans with First Amendment rights.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:09 am to Flats
quote:
assholes are the reason we have stupid laws like this
Assholes are the reason we have the 1A, too, and it supersedes these puny statutes.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:11 am to DisplacedBuckeye
And your first amendment right to film only goes up to the point where the officer has a reasonable basis/purpose, to have you back up.
The first amendment has limits just like all of the others. No, you can’t just do whatever you want because you have a phone in your hand.
The first amendment has limits just like all of the others. No, you can’t just do whatever you want because you have a phone in your hand.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:11 am to 4cubbies
Put this law in the context of a Rayshard Brooks situation. He’s the guy who passed out at the Wendy’s in Atlanta in 2020 and the police were called in.
That incident took place over a wide swathe of the parking lot and had potential to spill over to adjacent property. Once the guy started scuffling with the cop, neither one had a concept of the space they were utilizing. It was a taser vs. gun situation.
Possibilities: a crowd of onlookers in close range could have lead to mass casualties or a bigger riot. Maybe the cop would have died. Maybe Brooks wouldn’t have struggled and no one would have died if there were outsides filming. I think I understand the intention of the law, but it may take time to see the real world effects. .
That incident took place over a wide swathe of the parking lot and had potential to spill over to adjacent property. Once the guy started scuffling with the cop, neither one had a concept of the space they were utilizing. It was a taser vs. gun situation.
Possibilities: a crowd of onlookers in close range could have lead to mass casualties or a bigger riot. Maybe the cop would have died. Maybe Brooks wouldn’t have struggled and no one would have died if there were outsides filming. I think I understand the intention of the law, but it may take time to see the real world effects. .
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:12 am to NineLineBind
quote:
it may take time to see the real world effects. .
I doubt the law ever goes into effect. 25 feet as a blanket rule is going to be shot down.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:14 am to 4cubbies
This law has nothing to do filming. It’s to stop people from interfering and assaulting officers making arrests.
I’ve seen enough videos of people trying to push cops off of suspects and assaulting officers to see why they passed it.
Will it be upheld in the courts? That I don’t know.
I’ve seen enough videos of people trying to push cops off of suspects and assaulting officers to see why they passed it.
Will it be upheld in the courts? That I don’t know.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:15 am to bhtigerfan
quote:
It’s to stop people from interfering and assaulting officers making arrests.
Those laws already exist. Why add a new one?
Especially for "small government conservatives"
This post was edited on 5/31/24 at 8:16 am
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:15 am to Indefatigable
K. Thanks for your input, I guess. 
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:17 am to I20goon
quote:I think it only applies when the police are making an arrest.
Would this be enforced on a line of protesters 3 inches away from LEO yelling obscenities?
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:18 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
Especially for "small government conservatives"
It's almost like they aren't small government conservatives at all (see "Muh Second Amendment isn't absolute" comments).
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:20 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
If you're engaged in behaviors getting to that point
Great, is there a list of those behaviors somewhere?
quote:
None of this is applicable to simply filming a police, however.
This law has nothing to do with filming.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:22 am to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
It's almost like they aren't small government conservatives at all
Yes, and it's almost like the newly renewed interest in criminal justice reforms (the Trump trials, J6 defendants, etc.) for many aren't serious and are just based in partisanship.
Almost like that's been my larger point for months.
But yes, the intellectual inconsistently with identifying both as America First and "small government conservatives" has always been funny.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:24 am to Flats
quote:
Great, is there a list of those behaviors somewhere?
There are already laws for this on the books. I'm sure you can look at examples where convictions are upheld for plenty.
quote:
This law has nothing to do with filming.
OK filming, observing, etc. First Amendment stuff against a government that's out of control.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:25 am to roadGator
quote:Holy shite your takes in here.
roadGator
You never trumpers are seemingly terrible people.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:25 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Why should police get special “protections”?
Is this a serious question?
I don’t necessarily agree with this law, but the nature of what police do give them special “protections”. Their entire role is to “protect” - some are good at it and some aren’t, but if you acknowledge that police are a necessary component of a functional society, you have to also acknowledge that they need to be given discretion to do their job.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:26 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
But yes, the intellectual inconsistently with identifying both as America First and "small government conservatives" has always been funny.
How close can they stand?
If you want to stop preening for a minute, most non-retards can accept that there's a distance that's too close and we're ok with that. This isn't some new restriction that never existed before, it's just clarifying a distance. That doesn't mean you have to agree with it but pretending that this is a digital issue is for simpletons. You may as well just go ahead and mimic hank and do the "you are either for freedom or you're not" line.
Page 3 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News