Getting serious about the First Amendment

[The Barbarian]

The bill, titled “Concerning Prohibiting A Peace Officer From Interfering With A Person Lawfully Recording A Peace Officer-Involved Incident”, is just one of the steps being considered in order to increase police oversight in Colorado and hopefully it will lead to similar legislation in other states.

Joe Salazar (D-Thornton), co-sponsor of House Bill 15-1290, said the bill “came up as a result of the number of news reports we’ve been seeing about police officers telling people, ‘Give me your camera,’ or taking the data away, and that is unacceptable conduct”.

The bill will do so by entitling the photographer to a hefty sum of money, as described in the bill summary:

“The bill creates a private right of action against a peace officer’s employing law enforcement agency if a person records an incident involving a peace officer and a peace officer destroys the recording or seizes the recording without receiving consent or obtaining a warrant or if the peace officer intentionally interferes with the recording or retaliates against the person making the recording. The person who recorded the peace officer incident is entitled to actual damages, a civil penalty of $15,000, and attorney fees and costs”.

The bill considers “retaliation” as a threat, act of harassment or act of harm or injury upon a person or property. It also points out that the punishment set in this bill will not limit the district attorney’s authority to charge the officer with tampering with physical evidence or any other crime.
http://www.diyphotography.net/color...lice-officers-interfering-with-photographers/

 

[Buzzword]

'Bout time.

Of course, if the Silent Blue Line or whatever it's called refuses to criminally prosecute an officer who is recorded breaking the law, protecting the rights of bystanders to make such a record doesn't mean much.

 

[The Barbarian]

The problem is that the criminal doesn't pay for the crime, the way it is now. Instead, an injured citizen files a lawsuit, wins, and the taxpayers take the hit. This way, the crook gets nailed. I like it.

And yes, if the union was willing to weed out the criminals, it wouldn't be necessary. The weakness in the system is that decent officers are reluctant, even fearful, to report the bad actors in their ranks.

 

[kmoney]

:up:

 

[elohiym]

Good idea. :up:

 

[The Barbarian]

It's essential to a free society, as the Supreme Court ruled, that people be able to video police in public. The reason that the police are so determined to stop it, is precisely why it needs to be done.

It protects good officers, and nails the criminals among them. Given the culture of omerta that ostracizes police officers for reporting misconduct among them, it's the one way to hold them accountable.

Notice that the fracas featured on another thread was captured by dashcam, and that recording clears the officers of any wrongdoing.

Most of the time, since most officers are decent people who take their oaths seriously, the officer's actions will be found to have been justified. In those relatively few cases where they cross over to the other side, they need to be removed.

 

[1PeaceMaker]

:up: Go Colorado!

 

[kmoney]

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...es-Device-From-Onlookers-Hands-300751141.html

Feds Investigate Video of Law Enforcement Officer Snatching Device From Onlooker's Hands

 

[The Barbarian]

This always went on, I think. But there are now so many cameras out there in the hands of so many people, that more of these guys are being caught.

Unfortunately, it's true that mean people aren't too smart, so most of them haven't yet figured out that things have changed. Burning them with a hefty fine plus legal costs would be a quick way to drive the point home.

BTW, the Supreme Court ruled on that use of cell phones, and there is absolutely no legal way, short of a warrant, to take a cell phone or erase the contents.

 

[aCultureWarrior]

The bill, titled “Concerning Prohibiting A Peace Officer From Interfering With A Person Lawfully Recording A Peace Officer-Involved Incident”, is just one of the steps being considered in order to increase police oversight in Colorado and hopefully it will lead to similar legislation in other states.

Now that CO has appeased it's drug addicts by legalizing dope, they'll appease the criminal element by going after the police.

Of course most of these morons that are videotaping police officers making an arrest are inciting a riot and obstructing justice (minor details that liberals like the barbarian doesn't care about).

What will law enforcement do to counteract this bill if passed to protect themselves?

A surveillance camera on every corner.

You liberals wanted a police state, you'll get one.

 

[The Barbarian]

Now that CO has appeased it's drug addicts by legalizing dope, they'll appease the criminal element by going after the police.

Just the few criminals among them. The good ones never had anything to fear from being observed. But of course Connie wants to smear all of them as criminals.

Of course most of these morons that are videotaping police officers making an arrest are inciting a riot and obstructing justice

Supreme Court already disposed of that excuse. They refused to review the finding of the 7h Circuit Court that this right is essential in a free society.

(minor details that state-worshipers like Connie don't care about). Mussolini is rolling in his grave.

What will law enforcement do to counteract this bill if passed to protect themselves?

A surveillance camera on every corner.

We already have that, moron. What scares the relatively few criminals among the police, is that almost everyone has access to evidence like that, now. (Edit) Did you not notice that dash cams and body cams are only a threat to criminals?

The peasants are armed. With cameras. This is how the world is going to be, from now on, Connie. Get used to it.

You liberals wanted a police state

Defining "police state" as "where police are held accountable like everyone else" tells everyone about your agenda, Connie.

you'll get one.

Last year or so, we've had some major rollbacks against the police state. That's what really has you upset, isn't it?

 

[Saved.One.by.Grace]

The bill, titled “Concerning Prohibiting A Peace Officer From Interfering With A Person Lawfully Recording A Peace Officer-Involved Incident”, is just one of the steps being considered in order to increase police oversight in Colorado and hopefully it will lead to similar legislation in other states.

Joe Salazar (D-Thornton), co-sponsor of House Bill 15-1290, said the bill “came up as a result of the number of news reports we’ve been seeing about police officers telling people, ‘Give me your camera,’ or taking the data away, and that is unacceptable conduct”.

The bill will do so by entitling the photographer to a hefty sum of money, as described in the bill summary:

“The bill creates a private right of action against a peace officer’s employing law enforcement agency if a person records an incident involving a peace officer and a peace officer destroys the recording or seizes the recording without receiving consent or obtaining a warrant or if the peace officer intentionally interferes with the recording or retaliates against the person making the recording. The person who recorded the peace officer incident is entitled to actual damages, a civil penalty of $15,000, and attorney fees and costs”.

The bill considers “retaliation” as a threat, act of harassment or act of harm or injury upon a person or property. It also points out that the punishment set in this bill will not limit the district attorney’s authority to charge the officer with tampering with physical evidence or any other crime.
http://www.diyphotography.net/color...lice-officers-interfering-with-photographers/

The bill seems quite reasonable and protects photographers and their equipment which can get quite expensive to replace.

 

[The Barbarian]

A dictatorship cannot form without secrecy. Sunshine is a great disinfectant. We need more of this, and not just for the police.