- 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 8:26 am to OceanMan
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:26 am to OceanMan
quote:
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.
The first Amendment is literally in place for this reason
This is literally what it's for, to ensure these protections are not legal.
1
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:27 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
There are already laws for this on the books.
Then this isn't a new restriction and you can stop pretending that it is. It's adding clarity to an existing restriction.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:29 am to Flats
quote:
How close can they stand?
That depends on the topic and what their overlords have stated.
quote:
most non-retards can accept that there's a distance that's too close and we're ok with that.
Again, there are already laws for this.
quote:
This isn't some new restriction that never existed before
It literally is.
It's more laws when we already have laws that cover this.
Ignoring the 1A protections, this is an unnecessary expansion of government.
quote:
but pretending that this is a digital issue is for simpletons.
My comment above is for "small government conservatives" who are now promoting adding more government that is not even necessary for the stated goal (as those protections already exist)
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:29 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is literally what it's for, to ensure these protections are not legal.
This statue probably won’t pass muster, but the general protections we’re referring to exist within first amendment jurisprudence.
The cops can already legally ask you to back up under certain circumstances, and can arrest you for not complying, and there be zero first amendment issue.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:29 am to Flats
quote:
Then this isn't a new restriction
This is literally a new restriction in addition to those laws.
What are you talking about?
quote:
It's adding clarity to an existing restriction.
It's expanding the restrictions for other purposes
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:30 am to Indefatigable
quote:
but the general protections we’re referring to exist within first amendment jurisprudence.
And already have laws to cover that, which have already passed Constitutional muster.
quote:
The cops can already legally ask you to back up under certain circumstances, and can arrest you for not complying, and there be zero first amendment issue.
Correct. No reason for anything else.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:30 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
adding more government
You can keep saying this and it still won't be true. This restriction already exists per your claims.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:31 am to 4cubbies
quote:
Bump for people who don’t want to only discuss a geriatric billionaire.
Hey look, here is an idiot that STILL doesn’t understand that the issue isn’t about anyone’s feelings about one man.
The premise of your thread is questioning government overreach, yet you minimize the effort of multiple governments to punish a person because of who he is and what he stands for and to interfere with a presidential election.
How could you expect to be taken seriously?
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
No reason for anything else.
I agree. Mainly pushing back on the absolutist types like DisplacedBuckeye or 4cubbies who believe that a phone camera enables you to do whatever you want wherever you want under the auspices of “observing” the police.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:32 am to SlowFlowPro
11’ 3/16”
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:32 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is literally a new restriction in addition to those laws.
quote:
It's expanding the restrictions
Which is it?
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:32 am to SlowFlowPro
If Democrats were just "clarifying" a longer waiting period for gun purchases or just "clarifying" fewer rounds for a magazine capacity restriction, these same "small government conservatives" would be throwing around fake outrage.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
This is literally a new restriction in addition to those laws.
Eh. I can see how the law can be construed to be merely defining a limit on how far you have to back up when ordered to do so. Not really a new restriction per se, just defining an existing one.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:33 am to Indefatigable
quote:
Mainly pushing back on the absolutist types like DisplacedBuckeye or 4cubbies who believe that a phone camera enables you to do whatever you want wherever you want under the auspices of “observing” the police.
If you have to lie to make your point, you don't have a point.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:33 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:Because this law basically attempts to prevent these type if incidents from happening in the first place.
It’s to stop people from interfering and assaulting officers making arrests.
Those laws already exist. Why add a new one?
Let me ask you a question. You’re a cop, by yourself making an arrest of a suspect. There’s a crowd of people around you screaming at you and threatening you. Would you feel more threatened if they were literally just a couple feet from you or if they were 25 feet away?
This is simply an attempt to deescalate volatile situations where a crowd of onlookers and participants will be required to stay away from officers and discourage them from trying to interfere in the situation.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:34 am to Flats
quote:
You can keep saying this and it still won't be true.
Right on time.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:36 am to Flats
quote:
This restriction already exists per your claims.
It doesn't. That's why they added a new law.
You can film officers within 25 feet today.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:37 am to Flats
quote:
Which is it?
Both.
There are already restrictions on how you can interfere with LEO in their official duties.
This expands restrictions and imposes more limitations on citizens. It's a new restriction in addition to the old one.
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:37 am to SlowFlowPro
quote:
You can film officers within 25 feet today.
After they, acting upon a reasonable/constitutionally appropirate basis for the purpose of this question, tell you to back up to a point (say a curb or sidewalk) that happens to be 25+ feet away?
This post was edited on 5/31/24 at 8:39 am
Posted on 5/31/24 at 8:38 am to Indefatigable
quote:
I can see how the law can be construed to be merely defining a limit on how far you have to back up when ordered to do so. Not really a new restriction per se, just defining an existing one.
but the fact that I can film LEO within 25 feet today shows that there are more restrictions on me once this law is implemented
Page 4 of 7
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News