# Texas Bill Would Make Recording Police Illegal.......



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

Not that I get a vote but it would be *no*..........
Texas Bill Would Make Recording Police Illegal


----------



## Steve M1911A1 (Feb 6, 2008)

I guess that Texans can be just as stupid as the rest of us, on occasion.


----------



## tony pasley (May 6, 2006)

It should never pass because it is public servants, serving their bosses in public settings. They have no expectation of privacy and they can record you without permission. Just plain wrong.


----------



## Bisley (Aug 24, 2008)

Steve M1911A1 said:


> I guess that Texans can be just as stupid as the rest of us, on occasion.


We have our share, for sure. But when you consider that we are second only to California in population, we aren't doing too badly.

Of course, bear in mind that Texans tend not to obey laws that they think are unfair, and that LEOs will be reluctant to enforce this one against the average citizen. Still, it looks like a bad law.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

Bisley said:


> We have our share, for sure. But when you consider that we are second only to California in population, we aren't doing too badly.
> 
> Of course, bear in mind that Texans tend not to obey laws that they think are unfair, and that LEOs will be reluctant to enforce this one against the average citizen. Still, it looks like a bad law.


Vermont may be 48th to California in population; it would be a bad law here too. Might work for Secretive Police Departments, Underhanded Police Departments, etc.


----------



## Gruesome (Apr 30, 2013)

I won't make the broad point that Texas has something to learn from Illinois, because...well, that's kind of ludicrous...but on this topic there may be something to it. Illinois has laws like that on the books, and they do enjoy screwing people with them. Some brave freedom fighter fought back and paid the hefty legal bills to get his conviction on such a crime to the supreme court (of Illinois, I think - might have been federal - I'm too lazy to look up details so all this may be the 'colored by a 3rd grader' version of the truth.) As I understand it, the law has been ruled unconstitutional, but it hasn't been repealed or changed yet. So hopefully the fact that Illinoiying has already been slapped down on this point will keep Texas from trying it.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

Myself, I don't have a problem with anyone recording any police activities......as long as they do not interfere in any way. You get in the way or endanger others, you then become fair game. 

Recording police activities is no different than just standing around and watching. Only difference obviously, is that you are using a recording device. 

For each time a recording may have indicted a police action, it has also provided proof that the action they took, was justified.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Nonsense. Now, anyone who baits the police into into a situation just so they can record it for YouTube needs to be slapped, in my opinion.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

GCBHM said:


> Nonsense. Now, anyone who baits the police into into a situation just so they can record it for YouTube needs to be slapped, in my opinion.


The world is changing. LE must change with it, whether they like it or not.

Sometimes, it's just a matter of keeping up. Other times, it's a matter of just trying to stay ahead.

Many years ago, I felt that $1.00 for a gallon of gas was fair enough. Look at what it is now, and what it will be years from now. I didn't stop driving because the price went up.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> The world is changing. LE must change with it, whether they like it or not.
> 
> Sometimes, it's just a matter of keeping up. Other times, it's a matter of just trying to stay ahead.
> 
> Many years ago, I felt that $1.00 for a gallon of gas was fair enough. Look at what it is now, and what it will be years from now. I didn't stop driving because the price went up.


I agree. I just don't like to see these punks set up a situation that they KNOW a cop is going to have to come address, and when the cops arrive (in this scenario they have arranged) these people are intentionally antagonistic and uncooperative, just trying to push the cop's buttons, just so they can catch them in the act of being bad cops. It makes me want to pistol whip them. Just being honest there.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

GCBHM said:


> I agree. I just don't like to see these punks set up a situation that they KNOW a cop is going to have to come address, and when the cops arrive (in this scenario they have arranged) these people are intentionally antagonistic and uncooperative, just trying to push the cop's buttons, just so they can catch them in the act of being bad cops. It makes me want to pistol whip them. Just being honest there.


I hear what you are saying and I don't disagree.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

GCBHM said:


> I agree. I just don't like to see these punks set up a situation that they KNOW a cop is going to have to come address, and when the cops arrive (in this scenario they have arranged) these people are intentionally antagonistic and uncooperative, just trying to push the cop's buttons, just so they can catch them in the act of being bad cops. It makes me want to pistol whip them. Just being honest there.


Because we live in America the 1st amendment gives them the latitude to be punks within the restraints of other laws...... Is the other side of the "coin" a better idea for America....

Many served and/or lost their lives in military service so "punks" have a right do this.......

While the Bill of Rights are not 100% perfect they do come close and are far better than the alternative............


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Cait43 said:


> Because we live in America the 1st amendment gives them the latitude to be punks within the restraints of other laws...... Is the other side of the "coin" a better idea for America....
> 
> Many served and/or lost their lives in military service so "punks" have a right do this.......
> 
> While the Bill of Rights are not 100% perfect they do come close and are far better than the alternative............


First, I'm one of those who served, and I'm well versed in what our rights are, but that does not mean I have to like it.

Secondly, the 1st Amendment does not give anyone the right to do anything. It is a measure designed to restrict, not give, and it applies to the federal government only. And it does not guarantee anyone the right to just do/say whatever they want. It certainly does not give anyone the right to be a punk. It does not give anyone the right to set up situations for the sole purpose of trapping police officers, taking them away from their real jobs, which is not to have to deal with trumped up scenarios so that punks can get their jollies. Do you like it when someone intentionally pushes all your buttons just to spin you up so they can catch you in the act of exploding?

Lastly, as I said, I do not like it when punks do things like this. However, having said that, nowhere have I said that the Bill of Rights need to be abolished or even altered so that police can run amuck, so can we just keep things in proper perspective wrt to the actual discussion? Strawman arguments are futile at best, and serve as no contribution.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

If you actually READ the law, it just states that you must be 25ft away in order to film. What they are trying to do is make sure the filmers are not going ot be either in the LEO's way, or likely to get hurt by the "action".

There is/was no "NO filming" clause. Read the thing again.


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> If you actually READ the law, it just states that you must be 25ft away in order to film. What they are trying to do is make sure the filmers are not going ot be either in the LEO's way, or likely to get hurt by the "action".
> 
> There is/was no "NO filming" clause. Read the thing again.


The unfortunate thing about the laws being passed today is that there is often so much pork and/or ambiguity so that the average LEO can't determine exactly what they are supposed to do or enforce. So many laws make no sense, and it makes the LEOs job so much harder. Most of the ones I know personally really do not want to even have to deal with it. They just want to go home alive at the end of their shift without being subjected to nonsense from those who want to trap them. I do not envy their jobs!

I was "THIS CLOSE" to becoming an Alabama State Trooper in 2006, and now that I look back, I am sort of glad that I didn't go that route. I'm sure there are lots of things I would enjoy about the job, but the things I would not enjoy, among others, would be having to deal with people who are looking to pick a fight for no other reason than to get it on film so they can go viral with it. It's ridiculous!

I do not oppose filming, but some of it is way out of line, in my opinion.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

The reactions are to the banning _idea_, not to the proposed law. It is possible that Texas is not fubar.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

hillman said:


> The reactions are to the banning _idea_, not to the proposed law. It is possible that Texas is not fubar.


Say it ain't so (the Texas part)


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

SailDesign said:


> Say it ain't so (the Texas part)


Are you going for the double negative there? 

I'm pretty sure that Texas is not fubar, but it would take some work; repairs that Texans would have to do themselves, because they sure as hell don't want help.


----------



## SailDesign (Jul 17, 2014)

hillman said:


> Are you going for the double negative there?
> 
> I'm pretty sure that Texas is not fubar, but it would take some work; repairs that Texans would have to do themselves, because they sure as hell don't want help.


Kinda hinting that they MIGHT be fubar even so - but I've lost track of whether that negative is double or not at this point....

And you are so right about the not wanting to help.


----------



## paratrooper (Feb 1, 2012)

And.....if you are armed, you must stay 100' away. 

Myself, I'd feel better if they stayed 105' away.


----------



## hillman (Jul 27, 2014)

paratrooper said:


> And.....if you are armed, you must stay 100' away.
> 
> Myself, I'd feel better if they stayed 105' away.


Long as the filmer hasn't got the heebies, zoom will close up on the action.


----------



## Cait43 (Apr 4, 2013)

SailDesign said:


> If you actually READ the law, it just states that you must be 25ft away in order to film. What they are trying to do is make sure the filmers are not going to be either in the LEO's way, or likely to get hurt by the "action".
> 
> There is/was no "NO filming" clause. Read the thing again.


*The law also states you must be 100 feet away if armed.*.... The law would prohibit a person stopped by law enforcement from recording the interaction by each other...... So, the law is restrictive in nature and should not be implemented..........


----------



## GCBHM (Mar 24, 2014)

Cait43 said:


> *The law also states you must be 100 feet away if armed.*.... The law would prohibit a person stopped by law enforcement from recording the interaction by each other...... So, the law is restrictive in nature and should not be implemented..........


And I think that was by very clever design. Of course, then maybe we could demand they disarm or move 100' away!


----------

