this post was submitted on 08 Aug 2023
216 points (98.6% liked)

politics

18883 readers
3521 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
  2. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  3. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  4. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive.
  5. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  6. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

A lawsuit filed in federal court by the American Civil Liberties Union of Indiana on Tuesday challenges a new state law that prohibits citizens from being within 25 feet of law enforcement officers.

The law, which went into effect on July 1, is called a violation of constitutional rights by the ACLU, which claims that citizens have a right to “observe and record the police.”

top 14 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 39 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Wait WTF how does that work..now these fuckers can arrest you for just being in their presences of a cop. Wow this is fucked up. Who come up with this law and before you answer it some asshat with R by their name.

[–] [email protected] 27 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Who come up with this law and before you answer it some asshat with R by their name.

A whole bunch of asshats with R by their names, aka the Indiana legislature, along with our esteemed ~~coward~~ governor, Holcomb.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

They acting like I do t have crazy zoom on my phone. We gonna see you.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

25' is a good distance to stop audio recording, unless your mic got a zoom too.

Dirty cops are happy about this law. The funny thing about Indiana is that all they have is dirty cops.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

It's really bad, but not quite as bad as that - the article lies about what the bill does. This bill would make it a crime for a person to come within a certain distance of a police officer performing duties if the person is told by the officer to stop moving or to move away.

More explicitly:

Provides that a person who knowingly or intentionally approaches within 25 feet of a law enforcement officer after the law enforcement officer has ordered the person to stop commits a Class C misdemeanor.

So they absolutely can arrest you for being in their presence; the minor caveat is that you have to be ordered to stop first, so you have some warning. What a fucked up bill.

The asshats by name (see iga link above, this is public information):

Authors:

Representative Wendy McNamara Republican, District 76

Representative Michael Karickhoff Republican, District 30

Representative Jim Pressel Republican, District 20

Representative Steve Bartels Republican, District 74

Sponsors:

Senator Aaron Freeman Republican, District 32

Senator Jack Sandlin Republican, District 36

Senator Mark Messmer Republican, District 48

Senator Linda Rogers Republican, District 11

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

Wow a lot of fucking Republicans who want to give cops full authority over the populalist. Wonder why? Must be worried about upheaval because they making the place a shit hole to live in?

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

So they absolutely can arrest you for being in their presence; the minor caveat is that you have to be ordered to stop first, so you have some warning.

In practice, there won't be warnings. They'll say, out of the blue, "I told you to move away," and then arrest everyone in the vicinity.

Also, how does this bill treat cops approaching you? For example, even if the cops do give warning, what if they continuously walk towards the person warned? I think this law is ripe for abuse by cops, who famously love to abuse.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

and if you run your resisting arrest and fleeing the scene.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago (1 children)

i guess they havent heard of this neat "zooming" thing that cameras can do

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (1 children)

“This recording is inadmissible, it was zoomed in so much it’s impossible to tell with any certainty what is going on.”

Digital zoom is literally just cropping out the rest of the video. You’re not actually zooming in, you’re just losing context.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago (1 children)

there's optical zoom too, though it's true that many cameras dont have that option

[–] [email protected] 5 points 1 year ago

In a perfect world, sure. But in reality, the majority of devices do not have optical zoom. Most recordings of police are done on cellphones, and usually older And/or lower end models that aren’t using optical zoom.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 1 year ago

But how can they get away with killing black people if the populace are allowed to get close enough to record them? Think of the cops!

[–] [email protected] 3 points 1 year ago

I can see that going really well.
"Step back! 25 feet!"
"You're walking towards me. I'm just standing here.
"I said Step Back!" Discharges Taser while continuing to close distance