Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'News / Current Events' started by Zaac, Apr 8, 2015.
Just crazy for obvious reasons.
Here we have a Republican in favor of big government intrusion into our lives. I guess when it fits their agenda they're all for it.
The logical extension of this is to make video features of cell phones illegal.
Wonder how much Jason Villalba gets from the police unions.
And if this were law in SC the policeman would have gotten away with murder. Great law, huh?
Idiocracy in motion there folks.
If the SC video proves anything, in light of the police report that was submitted, we need video accountability for police.
The timing couldn't have been worse. :laugh: God bless Texas.
Unless (don't know, just covering bases), there was something just prior that gave justification for the action.
It does seem interesting that only when police respond do the videos start; sorta like taking quotes out of context.
And before you bleeding hearts start yowling, all I'm saying is what SHOULD have been in so many other cases - WAIT TILL ALL THE FACTS ARE IN before you start crucifying; where ever they lead - FAIR ENOUGH??????
If every time the police showed up in your community and someone ends up dead or abused, you'd probably start filming the second police showed up too.
The facts are in. He shot a man in the back several times who wasn't posing any danger to him or anyone else. The law is very clear on when such deadly force can be used.
And then, apparently, they lied in their reports about how things happened. And he also attempted to change the crime scene by moving the taser.
He's locked up and up for murder just as he should be.
What could possibly have happened to write a law making it illegal to use a camera in open (public) spaces?
Money changing hands.
I think he is conflating your thread with the officer shooting the unarmed black man thread. It's the only explanation this "bleeding heart" liberal can think of. It's hard to think clearly when his signature is yelling at me.
I have his post on IGNORE because of that. :laugh: I still read his posts. But I can't stand scrolling through the screen and then that large font yelling at my eyes in every one of his posts.
Using IGNORE, I only have to see it when I open his posts to read them.
Bad law. Shouldn't happen.
No doubt I will take flak for this...
The prohibition is "within 25 feet".
If you are not the person being questioned, detained or arrested it does not seem unreasonable that you should stay back 25 feet so as not to interfere with a police officer in the performance of his duties.
No flack from me. Thanks for letting us know about this provision. I agree that some distance seems reasonable, but 25 feet seems excessive. I think a better number would be more around 10 feet. I'm thinking about situations in downtown areas with sidewalks 25 feet is probably pretty far away.
It won 't pass.
Probably won't even make it out of committee.