[mitt_romney_12]

>25 feet isn't very far. In the other states mentioned I believe it's 10 feet, which is reasonable

The 25 ft buffer means that while people aren't prevented from recording an arrest, they are prevented from making a recording that would actually show anything. Like the article says "They create a visual and auditory buffer likely to produce reasonable doubt in the courtroom. Is the officer’s knee on the suspect’s shoulder, or on his windpipe? Is the suspect fighting, or flailing? From 25 feet, with officers blocking visibility, phone cameras can’t capture crucial details. From 25 feet, they can’t capture choking sounds or someone crying “I can’t breathe.”"

[rootusrootus]

> From 25 feet, they can’t capture choking sounds or someone crying “I can’t breathe.”"

If you really believe that, I recommend going outside and stepping off 25 feet and then trying some smartphone recordings. 25 feet is actually very close. I wouldn't be surprised if cops find it very uncomfortable to have bystanders that close when any kind of violent encounter is in progress. Most people can run that distance in under 2 seconds.

[mitt_romney_12]

> If you really believe that, I recommend going outside and stepping off 25 feet and then trying some smartphone recordings.

I recommend you trying that in a high stress situation involving an number of people in close proximity and lots of environmental noise. And then trying to see how that footage would be interpreted by a hostile lawyer in court

> I wouldn't be surprised if cops find it very uncomfortable to have bystanders that close when any kind of violent encounter is in progress

These are not violent encounters, the only violence that is going on is from the police. While I do care about the comfort of the police while arresting people, I am more concerned about not being assaulted or killed.

[valval]

> I am more concerned about not being assaulted or killed.

Don’t be — you’re safe unless you decide to make 10 of the worst decisions of your life in a row.

[mitt_romney_12]

I don't think that's what causes police killings unless you consider walking out of your friend's house with a cellphone in your hand making "10 of the worst decisions of your life in a row"[1]

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Killing_of_Andre_Hill#Incident

[valval]

Exceptions exist to every rule, and spending your life worried about getting struck by lightning is a terribly miserable existence.

Besides, I could probably go over the incident you’ve linked and point out all the bad decisions the person in question had made up until that point, but frankly I’m too lazy to even open the link to hold your hand through this process of critical thinking.

[autoexec]

Maybe you should try having one friend stand 25 feet away while another steps on your neck to see if the camera can still make out your pleas for air while 3-8 others are screaming at you to stop resisting.

There are already laws to deal with people who interfere with the work of police. These anti-filming laws don't make interfering with police illegal. They only make recording crimes committed by police illegal.

There's no justification for these anti-filming laws other than allowing police to abuse the public. They can even make it a crime for the person actively being beat by police to record the event.

[valval]

> There's no justification for these anti-filming laws other than allowing police to abuse the public.

There is, and it’s been stated in simple terms multiple times in these comments, as well as the justification for the law. You saying otherwise doesn’t make it untrue that filming police from too close is dangerous and obstructing.

You’re simply talking about a subject you know nothing about either great confidence and guts.

[autoexec]

> There is, and it’s been stated in simple terms multiple times in these comments

Yet not in yours. What makes "these comments" a better source on what these laws are for than the laws themselves?

The laws are explicitly about stopping people from filming police. They don't make it illegal to obstruct the police. Laws preventing obstruction of police already exited before these new laws. Police already had, and continue to have, the power to order people to move back or disperse due to concerns over officer or public safety.

These new laws don't change those existing laws. All these new laws do is criminalize filming police.

[minitoar]

But like all laws applying a heuristic to technology it will rapidly become outdated.