New Louisiana law will criminalize approaching police under certain circumstances
New Louisiana law will criminalize approaching police under certain circumstances
Louisiana Gov. Jeff Landry has signed legislation making it a crime to knowingly approach within 25 feet of a police officer while they are “engaged in law enforcement duties” after the officer has ordered the person to stay back.
Critics of a new Louisiana law, which makes it a crime to approach within 25 feet (7.6 meters) of a police officer under certain circumstances, fear that the measure could hinder the public’s ability to film officers — a tool that has increasingly been used to hold police accountable.
Under the law, anyone who is convicted of “knowingly or intentionally” approaching an officer, who is “lawfully engaged in the execution of his official duties,” and after being ordered to “stop approaching or retreat” faces up to a $500 fine, up to 60 days in jail or both. The law was signed by Gov. Jeff Landry, a Republican, Tuesday and goes into effect Aug. 1.
While the legislation’s language does not specifically mention filming, critics say that by default it would limit how close a person can be to observe police. Opponents have also gone further to question the law’s constitutionality, saying it could impede on a person’s First Amendment rights.
You're viewing a single thread.
do these guys know about lenses?
They shoot people who point things at them. They'll simply say they "feared for their life” when someone tries to take a picture of them at a distance.
"it was far away, it looked like a large black gun was being raised towards me"
I don’t know where to begin with this but I’ll try.
For starters, you gonna go by everyone a 70-200 and a camera body to match?
Cell phone cameras have been THE best accountability device. And yes they’ve gotten great. But up close, wide shots are going to be far more useful (partially because it’s way more stable)
yeah. my remark was mostly flippant and sarcastic. The law should not exist but it is good technology has some options. Still its sad we have to hack around bad laws.
Sorry, I should’ve assumed as much. I let my smug take over
I have a 70-200 I use on a full frame body and it’s awesome. But my phone can zoom in too even if the quality will be way worse. There’s even some optical zoom to it since phones have multiple lenses these days.
Well, see the problem is now officers can yell at people to fuck off, and when they later argue in court that they were fat enough away all the cop has to say is "per my judgment they appeared to be within..." and regardless of how stupid they may have to pretend to be, they are protected. They now have legal cover to intimidate random members of the public.
From copilot: "Yes, you're correct. The doctrine of qualified immunity does protect individual police officers from legal consequences in certain circumstances. It shields government officials, including law enforcement officers, from liability for civil damages as long as their conduct does not violate "clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known"².
This means that if a police officer, under a mistaken understanding of the law or a mistaken observation of facts, conducts an arrest or detention, they may be granted qualified immunity if they can show that they believed in good faith that their actions were lawful. The standard is whether a reasonable officer could have believed the arrest to be lawful, given the circumstances. This protection applies even if the officer's belief was mistaken, as long as the mistake is reasonable¹³.
However, qualified immunity is not absolute. If the law was clearly established at the time of the incident, such that a reasonable officer would understand that what they are doing violates that right, then qualified immunity would not protect them⁵. The application of this doctrine is complex and often depends on the specific facts of each case, as well as the jurisdiction in which the incident occurred. It's a topic of ongoing legal debate and has been subject to scrutiny and calls for reform¹³."
Source: Conversation with Copilot, 5/30/2024 (1) Legal Digest: Qualified Immunity - How It Protects Law Enforcement .... https://leb.fbi.gov/articles/legal-digest/legal-digest-qualified-immunity-how-it-protects-law-enforcement-officers. (2) SCOTUS decisions in 2021 that impacted law enforcement - Police1. https://www.police1.com/legal/articles/scotus-year-in-review-decisions-on-qualified-immunity-and-fourth-amendment-seizures-wXjUwXDQl9fSueBj/. (3) What is Qualified Immunity? FAQ and Impact - Legal Defense Fund. https://www.naacpldf.org/qualified-immunity/. (4) qualified immunity | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/qualified_immunity. (5) How qualified immunity protects police officers accused of wrongdoing. https://theconversation.com/how-qualified-immunity-protects-police-officers-accused-of-wrongdoing-159617.
From copilot:
Please don't do this. Even if the information is accurate, LLMs cannot be trusted. You could find that same information from a better source.
Downvote for going to an llm to tell you and us what to think.
I'm sorry I stopped reading when you went to copilot for information that matters. You can always cite the numerous court cases saying qualified immunity is a bar for any civil suit that isn't an exact replica of a case where a police officer was successfully sued in the past. And SCOTUS ruled that difference can be as little as them walking instead of running. Effectively making it impossible to sue a police officer.