Louisiana law will criminalize approaching police under certain circumstances(apnews.com)
apnews.com
Louisiana law will criminalize approaching police under certain circumstances
https://apnews.com/article/police-distance-law-louisiana-85f269d421b03a173bfbd4b98e95a018
29 comments
So if the police insist increasingly upon being treated like dangerous wild animals (seriously, look at every 'how to deal with police' guide), how long until we can legally shoot them? Wishful thinking I suppose, just like thinking that highway robbers would be shot or hanged.
What I should never feel uncomfortable approaching police.
Feels like this is an admission of guilt by the cops…
Feels like this is an admission of guilt by the cops…
IANAL, but isn't interfering with official duties already a crime in most/all jurisdictions? Or perhaps this proposed law just buttresses it with a specific distance quantitative property for LA.
Texas example: https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_38...
Texas example: https://texas.public.law/statutes/tex._penal_code_section_38...
> Language in the measure appears to put in some safety nets, stating that an acceptable “defense to this crime” includes establishing that the “lawful order or command was neither received nor understood by the defendant.”
Noise cancelling headphones?
Noise cancelling headphones?
It’s not obvious to me that 25 feet distance from an officer conducting an arrest isn’t reasonable assuming the wording of the law and its interpretation are not putting innocent bystanders who blunder into a situation at additional risk. The article indicates there are ostensibly protections for this but I would not want to be the person testing that in practice and there may be any number of edge cases that could make the law unreasonable like when an arrest occurs on private property etc.
You can still film an officer from 25 feet away.
You can still film an officer from 25 feet away.
25 feet is actually pretty far. You could be on top of a two story building or across the street and still be "too close". Obviously neither of those cases would interfere with an officer's duties.
To me this law is clearly overreaching, and seems intended to scare people off from trying to see what their "officers of the law" are doing.
To me this law is clearly overreaching, and seems intended to scare people off from trying to see what their "officers of the law" are doing.
25 feet is a distance under which running at someone with a knife is a very dangerous attack. Decreasing the chances of that happening to the officer (while they're e.g. arresting someone else) is the purpose here.
So the operative theory is that someone willing to commit a very illegal assault on an officer is going to suddenly care about a minor charge for being too close to the officer?
If that’s really the goal, Louisiana _really_ needs to work on their public education and maybe check the water for heavy metals and what not. That’s stupid on a level where I’m worried if they’re doing alright down there.
If that’s really the goal, Louisiana _really_ needs to work on their public education and maybe check the water for heavy metals and what not. That’s stupid on a level where I’m worried if they’re doing alright down there.
No, the theory is to change the average behavior to remove excuses for the bad people.
What excuses are they using, and how does the average behavior feed into that? That doesn't make any sense to me unless Louisiana has a very weird legal system that operates on the average behavior rather than a codified set of restrictions and exceptions to those restrictions (they don't).
The law doesn't deal in excuses. If everyone decides to charge an officer, that doesn't suddenly make it legal. More importantly, these are tried by jury, so anyone that skates on an "excuse" doesn't have an excuse, they have the support of a jury of their peers who do not believe they are "bad people".
This is just fascists who don't like their fascism being filmed. They're a lot like street gangs in that regard.
The law doesn't deal in excuses. If everyone decides to charge an officer, that doesn't suddenly make it legal. More importantly, these are tried by jury, so anyone that skates on an "excuse" doesn't have an excuse, they have the support of a jury of their peers who do not believe they are "bad people".
This is just fascists who don't like their fascism being filmed. They're a lot like street gangs in that regard.
You're so set on a line of thinking you're not really considering anything outside of your viewpoint.
If the average person, after being told so by the officer, stays 25 feet away, then that gives the officer a nice safety buffer to operate in. Anyone not following that rule now sticks out like a sore thumb.
If there are multiple people crowding the officer, leaning over them as they are kneeling on the ground, it's really hard for the officer to remain safe in case one of them decides to attack.
If the average person, after being told so by the officer, stays 25 feet away, then that gives the officer a nice safety buffer to operate in. Anyone not following that rule now sticks out like a sore thumb.
If there are multiple people crowding the officer, leaning over them as they are kneeling on the ground, it's really hard for the officer to remain safe in case one of them decides to attack.
No, it's not, because that situation happens so rarely to not even be worth talking about.
Just checking some data, the FBI says 48 officers were killed in the line of duty in 2019. Of those, 44(!) were killed with firearms. So we're talking about 4 deaths that this maybe would have helped with. This data also includes prison staff, so there's a fair chance that it's really less than 4.
For reference, 20 people were killed by lightning in the US in 2019. So we're talking about an issue with a scope one fifth the size of "people being killed by lightning".
There were only 75 incidents of LEO's being assaulted and injured with "Firearms, Knives, or Other Cutting Instruments" in 2019 per FBI data. Again, this is not a substantial problem. Bouncers get assaulted at rates far higher than police, and yet nobody seems to mind.
> If there are multiple people crowding the officer, leaning over them as they are kneeling on the ground, it's really hard for the officer to remain safe in case one of them decides to attack.
Then call in backup? They love throwing on their LARP gear, give 'em a reason to use it.
Just checking some data, the FBI says 48 officers were killed in the line of duty in 2019. Of those, 44(!) were killed with firearms. So we're talking about 4 deaths that this maybe would have helped with. This data also includes prison staff, so there's a fair chance that it's really less than 4.
For reference, 20 people were killed by lightning in the US in 2019. So we're talking about an issue with a scope one fifth the size of "people being killed by lightning".
There were only 75 incidents of LEO's being assaulted and injured with "Firearms, Knives, or Other Cutting Instruments" in 2019 per FBI data. Again, this is not a substantial problem. Bouncers get assaulted at rates far higher than police, and yet nobody seems to mind.
> If there are multiple people crowding the officer, leaning over them as they are kneeling on the ground, it's really hard for the officer to remain safe in case one of them decides to attack.
Then call in backup? They love throwing on their LARP gear, give 'em a reason to use it.
No, the purpose of this is to discourage people from recording police.
Yeah clearly a defensive distance threshold that's been taught all over the world for decades is purely a coincidence, surely.
Recording video at 25 feet is plenty good for evidence.
Recording video at 25 feet is plenty good for evidence.
You might be living in fantasy-land.
In the real world, the police officer will arrest you for recording him, charging you with:
1) interfering with official duties.
2) Resisting arrest.
3) Felony assault on a police officer.
Remember, in a criminal trial, you have to prove your innocence. How do you prove you did not do something that a police officer, testifying under oath in a court of law, says you did?
In the real world, the police officer will arrest you for recording him, charging you with:
1) interfering with official duties.
2) Resisting arrest.
3) Felony assault on a police officer.
Remember, in a criminal trial, you have to prove your innocence. How do you prove you did not do something that a police officer, testifying under oath in a court of law, says you did?
> in a criminal trial, you have to prove your innocence
No you don’t, at least not in the USA. The state has to prove you’re guilty. Granted, I gather the word of an officer will usually trump an ordinary citizen, but that’s a great use case for the filming of Officers! It’s hard to prove interference with official duties when you’re quietly filming an officer from 25+ ft away.
No you don’t, at least not in the USA. The state has to prove you’re guilty. Granted, I gather the word of an officer will usually trump an ordinary citizen, but that’s a great use case for the filming of Officers! It’s hard to prove interference with official duties when you’re quietly filming an officer from 25+ ft away.
I mean, I am European, I'll give you that.
So, if I have a constant video recording where the officer is clearly at a distance, wouldn't that be great for my defense? Much better than if that same video showed me walking right up to them, within touching distance, with the video not showing where my limbs are at all times.
If you're worried about unlawful arrest, stay away from the cop and record them -- and if you do that, great, this law wouldn't affect you.
So, if I have a constant video recording where the officer is clearly at a distance, wouldn't that be great for my defense? Much better than if that same video showed me walking right up to them, within touching distance, with the video not showing where my limbs are at all times.
If you're worried about unlawful arrest, stay away from the cop and record them -- and if you do that, great, this law wouldn't affect you.
Ostensibly, it's to prevent attacks, according to the author of the bill:
“At 25 feet, that person can’t spit in my face when I’m making an arrest,” Fontenot said while presenting his bill in a committee earlier this year. “The chances of him hitting me in the back of the head with a beer bottle at 25 feet — it sure is a lot more difficult than if he’s sitting right here.”
But it's very easy to see how it will also make it harder to record videos of the police. I bet that's at least part of the reason why they're doing it, even if they won't say so.
(I assume that Fontenot is speaking in the first person because he's a former law enforcement officer.)
“At 25 feet, that person can’t spit in my face when I’m making an arrest,” Fontenot said while presenting his bill in a committee earlier this year. “The chances of him hitting me in the back of the head with a beer bottle at 25 feet — it sure is a lot more difficult than if he’s sitting right here.”
But it's very easy to see how it will also make it harder to record videos of the police. I bet that's at least part of the reason why they're doing it, even if they won't say so.
(I assume that Fontenot is speaking in the first person because he's a former law enforcement officer.)
There aren't going to be any measuring tapes. "25 ft" will mean whatever the officer wants it to mean and police will use this law to arrest anybody they feel like and do so without consequences.
Fun fact, autofocus/auto-adjusting flash on cameras tends to work by measuring distances, now we "just" need a camera app to record that information in the video!
The photo EXIF field for that is called "Subject Distance".
The photo EXIF field for that is called "Subject Distance".
25 feet is e.g. also blocking the sidewalk over a non-main street.
Two arms lengths and an inch would be reasonable at most. Then the cop and citizen can't possibly touch each other.
Two arms lengths and an inch would be reasonable at most. Then the cop and citizen can't possibly touch each other.
So.. Panopticon drone that autokeeps distance while observing and live streaming events?
I think we all learned the value of some personal space during COVID-19. I'd really like the right to ask people to stop approaching you be extended to all people, not just police.
Would you criminalize 'approaching' someone... And what is the exact definition of approaching?
I'm personally against adding any additional laws to the books that will be abused and misused by the public and law enforcement.
I'm personally against adding any additional laws to the books that will be abused and misused by the public and law enforcement.
> Would you criminalize 'approaching' someone
That is a very misleading summarization. It is a short article. The law requires several conditions:
That is a very misleading summarization. It is a short article. The law requires several conditions:
* approach a police office
* approach has to occur "knowingly or intentionally"
* the officer has to be "lawfully engaged in the execution of his official duties"
* the approach has to happen *after* the person has been ordered "stop approaching or retreatWell to be fair to Mike, I also summarized these details with "approaching".
If someone is approaching me, I'm trying to do something else, they're harassing me, should it really be okay?
The other night, I was walking down the sidewalk, and some dude I've never seen held up the first bump and said what's up!? I was surprised, kind of kept on walking and he says "fuck you too". That's okay, but if I'm like get away, and he's getting in my way, following me, then yeah, fuck off. Cop sees that and he still doesn't stop, why not a ticket. That's better luck for fist bump bro than getting popped in the jaw.
It sucks cops abuse some things, and some people harass cops. It's not one way or the other, my read between the lines is this article is one sided.
If someone is approaching me, I'm trying to do something else, they're harassing me, should it really be okay?
The other night, I was walking down the sidewalk, and some dude I've never seen held up the first bump and said what's up!? I was surprised, kind of kept on walking and he says "fuck you too". That's okay, but if I'm like get away, and he's getting in my way, following me, then yeah, fuck off. Cop sees that and he still doesn't stop, why not a ticket. That's better luck for fist bump bro than getting popped in the jaw.
It sucks cops abuse some things, and some people harass cops. It's not one way or the other, my read between the lines is this article is one sided.
"lawfully engaged in the execution of his official duties" so .. and in duty officer?
But if it requires the officer to tell the person to stop or retreat(that isn't vague) then why do we need this law? There is already a law that you must obey lawful orders.
Yes but how do we make them obey unlawful orders? A: by introducing a vague language in form of a vague law.
That has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the article.