DeSantis Signs Bills To Create 25-Foot Halo Around Cops, Strip Oversight Boards Of Independence
from the lifted-shitheel-licks-boots dept
Here come more bad laws, courtesy of the Florida legislature — a government body that hasn’t met a right it isn’t willing to violate to further its bigoted agenda.
These laws won’t necessarily violate rights right out of the gate, but the potential is definitely there. Here’s Douglas Sole of the Tallahassee Democrat (it’s a newspaper name, not a political allegiance) with the latest legislative bad news:
Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis signed two bills Friday that he says will support law enforcement, but which critics warn will undermine the public’s ability to prevent police brutality and corruption.
“I don’t think there’s anyone that can match what we’ve done to protect the citizens of this state, but particularly to ensure that we respect and protect the men and women who wear the uniform,” DeSantis said at the bill signing event in St. Augustine, surrounded by uniformed officers and standing behind a lectern sign that said, “Supporting Law Enforcement.”
One bill (SB 184) creates a 25-foot “no-go” zone around first responders, including police. The other (HB 601) would limit what citizen police oversight boards can do, including investigating complaints of officer misconduct, and would require these panels to be re-established under county sheriffs and municipal police chiefs, who would appoint the members.
Ron, I don’t think anyone should “match” what you’ve done. And it’s certainly not being done to “protect the citizens” of Florida. The second half of that sentence is far more honest: these laws are meant to protect some of the most powerful people in Florida: law enforcement officers.
While SB 184 extends the halo of protection to first responders like firefighters and EMTs, the real purpose of the law is to give cops a reason to harass or arrest people who attempt to film them. Pushing them 25 feet back (a distance left to the discretion of the officer enforcing the new law) makes it harder to get a clear view of what’s happening.
And the lectern sign gives away the game: “Supporting Law Enforcement.” No first responders who aren’t cops have ever complained about the public interfering with their work or wasted valuable first response time telling people to stop recording. That’s something cops do almost exclusively. This isn’t about ensuring first responders are given space to do their jobs. It’s about adding another 20+ feet of distance between cops and accountability.
Here’s DeSantis’ excuse for this latest bit of bootlicking:
DeSantis said the legislation “recognizes we’ve got some strange currents going on in our society right now that really seek to delegitimize law enforcement,” accusing news media outlets of warping narratives about police for attention and “clicks” and citing media coverage of the recent controversial police killing of Dexter Reed in Chicago.
Ron, cops have done plenty themselves to “delegitimize law enforcement.” The only difference in recent years is that it’s a lot harder to control the narrative when everyone on the street is carrying around a camera of their own. That’s what this law aims to deter: citizen recordings. According to the vague wording of the law, filming cops could be considered an act “without legitimate purpose,” which would be enough to justify cops moving people recording police interactions far enough away they can’t fully document the incident.
An amendment to protect citizens’ right to record was rejected. So was Rep. Angela Nixon’s amendment, which simply asked the legislature to fully own the underlying conceit of this ridiculous legislation:
[N]ixon’s proposed amendment to change the name of the bill to “The I Don’t Want the World to See the Police Kill an Unarmed Innocent Man Like George Floyd Again, So I Want To Protect Bad Cops and Violate Free Speech Act” [also failed].
Creating even more separation from accountability is the second bill, which removes the word “independent” from “independent oversight” to allow police to police themselves, something they deliberately do poorly.
The twenty-one civilian oversight boards that currently exist in Florida will be altered starting January 1 of next year, stripping them of anyone local cops don’t approve of. This stripping of any pretense of accountability could not be more transparent, ironically.
All boards will be required to have from three to seven members, with one member being a retired law enforcement officer. (Keep in mind that a lot of officers choose to retire, rather than face internal investigations or other accusations of misconduct. So, there’s a good chance a lot of retired cops are also bad cops.)
Then it gets worse:
All members must be appointed by the sheriff or police chief over the area
Foxes and hen houses, inmates running asylums, or whatever your favorite idiom is. This law ensures no officers will ever face accountability from oversight boards by stocking them with cops and their friends. It’s the opposite of a kangaroo court — a place where exoneration is guaranteed.
None of this is surprising. DeSantis is an aspiring fascist and there’s little more conducive to fascism than law enforcement agencies being given permission to be a law unto themselves. Florida’s governor and far too many of its legislators have declared war on the Constitution. And all the while, they continue to pretend they’re the greatest Americans of all, even as they work in lockstep to create a nightmarish blend of bigotry and totalitarianism.
Filed Under: 1st amendment, filming police, first responders, florida, law enforcement, ron desantis
Comments on “DeSantis Signs Bills To Create 25-Foot Halo Around Cops, Strip Oversight Boards Of Independence”
i hope it gets sued and thrown out
Re:
It probably will be. After cops murder people of course.
Re: Re:
I think we are at the point where that being sufficient to fix the law would be an improvement…
That’s a batshit crazy thing to say and mean it 🙁
Re: Re:
Sounds like illegitimate violence. Great way to piss away the state’s monopoly on it.
Alright let’s go.
If you see a cop dying, leave them to die since you cannot be within 25ft.
It would be interesting, when this law comes up against somebody using another “bad law”. Stand Your Ground.
“I feared for my safety against this angry person with a gun coming at me!”
Re:
I’m a little surprised that this hasn’t happened yet.
Mmmmm. Pretty sure the constitution (See the 1st through 6th, 10th and 14th Amendments) says that is by and large outside of the federal/state authority.
Re:
Also, if the cops are in the act of killing a black or disabled person over an alleged dodgy $20 bill, then any filming instantly gains the legitimate purpose of publicizing the murder of this minority group member.
Re: Re:
That’s exactly what they’re trying to keep people from recording.
Re: Re: Re:
Words “legitimate purpose”… *whooooooosh!*
Next up, the 'making cops look bad is a felony' bill..
If ‘the public being able to see what the police are doing’ and ‘anyone but cop-approved oversight’ is considered such an existential threat to the cops within your state that you pass two laws to eliminate both that’s a pretty big pair of red flags that the cops are the problem, not the public.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
“…controversial police killing of Dexter Reed in Chicago.”
Whats so controversial? Criminal shoots at cop, forfeiting right to life, gets killed for shooting cop.
If it were controversial, it would be a story here. Cops in the right, so no story here. Plus the cops weren’t white therefore it doesn’t fit the narrative.
Re:
trolls are obvious and you are obvious
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
You have certainly proved that you haven’t watched videos of the shooting.
Re: Re: Re:
ah yes becuase he has guns pointed at him and he shot back cuase he was in danger?
Re: Re: Re:2
You aren’t shooting back when you shoot first.
Again, watch the videos. That’s plural. There is more than one. There is even more than one angle.
Re:
A cop isn’t judge, jury and executioner. The undercover tactical unit that sprayed and prayed is kind of infamous in Chicago for how they conduct themselves and when they need almost 100 bullets to subdue someone in a car, it is controversial for a host of reasons.
Re:
That’s literally not the law. They don’t forfeit their lives. While it is a common police practice to shoot to kill if a suspect has shot at cops, it isn’t a de jure death sentence or even a de facto one in all scenarios. Some people who have shot at cops have been arrested rather than shot. And judges and juries don’t sentence them to death unless they’ve committed murder. Criminals always retain the right to life and the right to due process. And this mentality that cops should be so ready for violence has cost the lives of plenty of non-criminals.
Re: Re:
To wit: Breonna Taylor.
Re: Re: Re:
Heck, you don’t even have to shoot at them at all. Just ask Bounkham Phonesavanh.
Re: Re:
Some people who have shot at cops have been arrested rather than shot.
For some strange reason I suspect that a particular factor might influence which is more likely to happen but I can’t qwhite put my finger on it…
Re: Re:
TBF, cops should be ready for violence and to respond appropriately. Unfortunately, they are the former, but not the latter.
Re: Re: Re:
The violence I was referring to was police violence, not suspect violence. Cops are ready to perpetrate it even if the circumstances aren’t warranted or appropriate or even legal. And kids get disfiguring flashbangs in their beds because of it.
Re: Re: Re:2
He said about a sentence in a comment regarding suspects shooting at cops. Lie better.
Re: Re: Re:3
It was my comment. I was referring to police violence. You don’t get to tell me I’m lying about what I said.
Troll harder.
Re: Re: Re:4
“Troll harder,” said the troll.
Re: Re: Re:5
Reading comprehension fail. That wasn’t the comment that was referring to police violence.
It was the last sentence:
Thank you for pointing out that you didn’t track the conversation.
Re: Re:
Agreed. Fully. I’m the one you are replying to
But if I take a shot at a cop, I expect return fire, and possibly no day in court because of it.
Re: Re: Re:
your obviously a troll and pro cop
Re: Re: Re:
You don’t agree with me. What I said contradicts your position. I don’t expect cops to kill anyone unless it’s the last resort. Look up videos of people who have shot at cops and lived. Look at cops in Europe using shields to surround dangerous people wielding knives. American cops usually just shoot and go on a paid vacation. Does having a mental episode that includes wielding a weapon warrant an automatic death sentence? No, it doesn’t. Not morally and not legally. We just let cops get away with it because of authoritarian enablers such as yourself.
Re: Re: Re:2
Okay then, I don’t agree with you.
By the way, are those cops racist against acorns as well? They seem to treat them the same way they treat black people. Must have been a black oak tree. Mag dumping on some crazy nut.
Re: Re: Re:3
I love that you brought up an instance that proves my point. The cop thought the acorn was a patted-down and handcuffed black man inside his shop who was shooting at him because the cop is too ready to assume the threat of violence and too prone to shoot without knowing what’s going on. No, the cop isn’t racist against the acorn. It was literally him being racist against the unarmed, handcuffed black man and ready to murder an unarmed person because of it. And his department found that the shooting wasn’t reasonable, so even other cops who are also too prone to violence even thought it was too far.
Re: Re: Re:4
I guess you didn’t watch that video either. What were the police shooting at? I couldn’t see any targets in the video.
Re: Re: Re:5
Of course I watched the video. The cop shot at the suspect in the car because he thought the suspect was shooting from inside the car. Did you not read the article either? Why are you admitting your ignorance and then questioning the knowledge of others?
Re: Re: Re:6
The policewomans cam shows her taking lots of shots, but I didn’t see holes appear in vehicle nor any glass shattering, so I am not sure what she was shooting at. Was she shooting that big bad black oak tree?
Re: Re: Re:7
So you didn’t watch the video from the male cop’s body cam in which he shot up the back of his own shop? Why did you bring up a video you didn’t watch?
Re: Re: Re:8
WTF are you talking about? Cop shot up the back of his shop? What shop? What video are you watching?
Re: Re: Re:9
The acorn video. “Shop” is a term for a police vehicle.
Re: Re: Re:8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=817BItUQETQ
Here is a cop who needs to be fired before he kills someone. Sign the petition to have him jailed and fired.
But I guess I don’t agree with you…
Re: Re: Re:9
How could you agree or disagree with me about an incident neither of us have discussed yet?
Re: Re: Re:10
“You don’t agree with me. What I said contradicts your position.”
Re: Re: Re:11
That was in regard to the person I responded to initially that started this whole thread when they said, “Whats so controversial? Criminal shoots at cop, forfeiting right to life, gets killed for shooting cop.” What I said contradicted that position.
The video about the cop pulling the girl out of the car isn’t related to the Dexter Reed incident that first person to whom I replied and I haven’t opined about the girl getting pulled out of her car so you can’t agree or disagree about an incident we haven’t discussed. You don’t know what I think about that second scenario.
Re: Re: Re:12
I’m the same person, hence I clipped part of our earlier convo.
Re: Re: Re:13
And you don’t seem to be tracking the conversation and you brought up an unrelated incident.
Re: Re: Re:14
Obviously they can’t actually have a real conversation so they deflect to unrelated incidents when they are refuted on their original ridiculous claims. obvious troll is obvious. Let’s hope they never get in a situation where they do something stupid to cops and forfeit “their right to life”.
Re: Re: Re:15
I’m sorry you two don’t seem capable of following a thread. Nor understand nuance.
If I shoot at a cop, I expect them to return fire, this might mean that I die. Therefore I am POSSIBLY forfeiting my right to life by shooting at a cop. Does not mean that I literally forfeited my right to life, but I sure am taking a gamble with it.
Let me know if this is still too complicated for you to grasp.
Re: Re: Re:16
You’re pivoting. You didn’t say “POSSIBLY” before. You don’t get to change the details of your original statement and then pretend that it’s others who don’t understand nuance.
Re: Re: Re:17
I wasn’t talking about myself either earlier, but you managed to grasp that.
Re: Re: Re:9 Thank you
This cop is fired.
Update:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USIozcCSM4g
Re: Re: Re:4
“Abstract
This paper explores racial differences in police use of force. On non-lethal uses of force,blacks and Hispanics are more than fifty percent more likely to experience some form of force in interactions with police. Adding controls that account for important context and civilian behavior reduces, but cannot fully explain, these disparities
On the most extreme use of force –officer-involved shootings – we find no racial differences in either the raw data or when contextual factors are taken into account.
We argue that the patterns in the data are consistent with a model in which police officers are utility maximizers, a fraction of which have a preference for discrimination, who incur relatively high expected costs of officer-involved shootings.”
https://scholar.harvard.edu/files/fryer/files/empirical_analysis_tables_figures.pdf
Re: Re: Re:5
I too am capable of googling sources that support my argument:
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation-now/2016/07/21/paper-finding-no-racial-bias-shootings-police-criticized/87301632/
Re: Re: Re:6
I didn’t google something to support my position, like you, I googled research papers regarding police shootings. The Harvard study was first result.
I wasn’t sure if it would be respected given all that Harvard has gone through lately and it looks like I was right.
Your honor, I wasn’t evading arrest, I was attempting to maintain a 25 foot distance from the cop chasing me.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Just Use Your Zoom Lens
The citizens will decide whether they should match, by voting with their feet. Crime ridden democrat cities, or southern red states? Right now, the population movement is clearly in the red states favor. When oversight boards protect perpetrators and demonize cops, the citizens receive muggings and burglaries.
Re:
ok sex pest
Re:
Remember. Cops will let your kids die in a school shooting.
Re:
Red states that have to deal with an influx of people moving in from “Democrat cities” will see their crime rates rise in turn. Crime isn’t a “big city” thing—it’s a “desperate people” thing, and desperation is most decidedly non-partisan.
Re:
“The citizens will decide whether they should match, by voting with their feet.”
Yup – The brain drain is affecting red states to their detriment.
“Right now, the population movement is clearly in the red states favor.”
This is true .. since their objective is to have a very ignorant populace.
“the citizens receive muggings and burglaries.”
By the cops.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
“This is true .. since their objective is to have a very ignorant populace.”
Hence Bidens’ open borders policies
Re: Re: Re:
another troll
Re:
When oversight boards protect cops and demonize “perpetrators”, the citizens receive muggings and thefts … from cops.
Re:
I live in New York City, which is even safer than Winnipeg, in Manitoba, Canada.
Re: Re:
Addendum: Your link appears to be self-reported opinions about safety, rather than a statistical “per N people” study.
Re: Re: Re:
Ah, thank you. To be frank, It was a quick google search. That being said, it really does say something when New York City residents feel safer in their own city than Winnipeg residents do in theirs, so I stand by my link.
Re: Re: Re:
Check out NYC vs Miami, FL, with Miami having a Republican mayor and being in a red state.
Violent Crime: NYC 28.2 Miami 48.8
Property Crime: NYC 24.9 Miami 62.7
https://www.bestplaces.net/compare-cities/new_york_ny/miami_fl/crime
Re: Just use your brain
The lie that blue states are more dangerous are just that, lies.
Per capita the most dangerous sates are:
New Mexico
Louisiana
Arkansas
South Carolina
Tennessee
Alaska
Missouri
Oklahoma
Colorado
Arizona
Re:
The fact that your dumb enough to believe this shit is true really shouldn’t shock me, but here we are.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/america-has-two-economies-and-theyre-diverging-fast/
Democrat voting districts out produce, out educate, out earn, and out perform red voting districts to such a high degree that it’s clear that Republican voters are suckling on the nipple of Democrat voters while biting that the milk is sour.
And not content with the depth your ignorance, you’re doing your best to make states dumber:
https://idahocapitalsun.com/2024/04/05/idaho-is-losing-ob-gyns-after-strict-abortion-ban-but-health-exceptions-unlikely-this-year/
Re:
FTFY. YW.
Re:
Some phones have shitty, useless zooms. You can’t spot a cop planting evidence from 25 feet with a useless zoom. You also can’t pick up audio well from that distance and plenty of audio recordings have incriminated cops or proven that they knew they were making up charges or planting evidence.
But I’m not telling you anything you don’t already know. You’re not arguing in good faith.
Congress, state legislatures, and even SCOTUS have long been creating special rights, privilegeses, and imunities for police and some other classes of government agents.
Both REPUBLICANS & DEMOCRATS have generally supported these unconstitutional tyrannies for decades.
FLORIDA is merely following a well established oppressive trend in American Government.
Re:
Related side story – I understand that in russia some oligarchs have flashy lights on their vehicles that let them drive like idiots. Saw a video of some dude who jumped upon said flashy light vehicle. He had a bucket on his head which the driver successfully knock off – only to reveal a second bucket underneath. lol
was prob just a prank vid .. idk.
Re:
Only one party pretends to believe in Small Government while removing any and all oversight of government agents.
It’s not just about the obvious constitutional issues; it’s also about the never-ending Republican hypocrisy.
First responder perspective
I spend much more time training first responders than being one these days, but: I’ve rarely had a problem with members of the public intruding on a scene…and when I have, it’s because they’re upset about what’s happened or has happened to a family member, friend, or neighbor. Since we carry no weapons, we use what we have: our voices and our compassion. A hug and some understanding words are pretty much always are enough to control the situation.
As for recordings: we welcome them. We do post-operations review of every response, because no matter how well trained we are, no matter how experienced we are, no matter how careful we are: we always make mistakes and we can always do better. (Nearly all of those mistakes are inconsequential and invisible to the public. But we know.) We don’t have time to record so I’m gratified when someone does it for us and shares it with us, so that we can go over it second by second and use it to improve our next response.
We require no special protection, no privileges, no exemptions, nothing. We welcome scrutiny and we accept responsibility for our mistakes as much as we accept credit for our successes. We’re part of the community and we’re accountable to everyone else in the community for everything we do. And I, personally, think that this is how public service is supposed to be.
Re:
sadly ron is copying the ccp and wants every cop to do whatever they want with no consequences
Re:
Thank you for your actual public service.
Republicans are authoritarian religious creeps who want to control people’s lives and bodies using fascist violence—and make a nice profit in the process.
Re:
they keep saying there Christians but refuses what jesus say or will outright kill jesus if he came back
Re: Re:
Jesus was a Jewish Palestinian, born homeless to an unwed teenager, who spent his formative years as an illegal immigrant before returning to his home country. He associated with twelve men, prostitutes, and socially untouchable tax collectors while he taught a radical social doctrine that included ideas such as paying taxes, free universal healthcare, and the sharing of resources within a community. His advocacy for equality, love, and forgiveness for all people led to his arrest, trial, conviction, torture, and execution for crimes against the state.
Conservative Christians lost their minds when they were asked to do the bare minimum during the pandemic and wear facemasks. Not only would they crucify Jesus Christ all over again if he were to return without a display of the power of God, they’d complain about being “persecuted” by “woke leftist Antifa” for doing it. The allegiances of Conservative evangelicals lie not with the radical doctrine of Jesus, but with the all-consuming power of Caesar. That Donald Trump has captured them so much as a voting base that they celebrate the idea of a Trump-branded Bible speaks to the lack of principles behind their faith.
Re: Re: Re: 'Of course he's not the anti-christ, he doesn't have a european accent!'
That Donald Trump has captured them so much as a voting base that they celebrate the idea of a Trump-branded Bible speaks to the lack of principles behind their faith.
While also providing some dark humor for anyone familiar with the sub-genre of religious movies that are the ‘rapture/tribulations’ ones that have as one of their central characters the anti-christ and the idea that it’s the true christians(which you can be damn sure his MAGAt followers would self-identify as) who would be the ones to see through his lies.
Re: Re: Re:2
there just a bunch of heretics at this point
Re: Re: Re:
Unwed mother, no. Mary was married to Joseph by that point. Also, there’s nothing in my Bible to say that Jesus had nowhere to live after his parents’ return to Nazareth. Now, I understand that the Bible sometimes has to be interpreted rather then read as-is, but there’s no need to make stuff up.
Re: Re: Re:2
The academic consensus on Jesus’ past also agrees that he was probably not homeless.
He was a carpenter, like his father before him, and had an education, if somewhat unorthodox, in the religious texts of his time.
Before 30, he would have had a roof over his head, because skilled labor such as carpentry would have been able to make a living. Not a good one, mind you, but enough to put food on the table and make rent.
And well, he was convicted of supposed insurrection. Ironic, considering that his message (drive out the Roman occupiers) was a cottage industry when he decided to be an itenarant prophet.
Stone’s message still stands, errors notwithstanding.
Re: Re: Re:3
Both you and the prior commenter seemed to miss the fact that I said “born homeless”, which…well, being born in a stable surrounded by a bunch of animals because there was no room at a nearby inn sounds a lot like being born without a home. Whether he was homeless later in life is beside that specific point.
Re: Re: Re:4
I’m aware that I’m splitting hairs here, but the assumption of being homeless assumes that Jesus never had a home.
Going back to a certain city to take part in a Roman census is not an indication of anything but obeying Roman law.
Re: Re: Re:5
Except they were homeless because they didn’t return to where they had been living before the census and they fled to Egypt until Herod died. So they were homeless refugees who had to flee their homeland to avoid persecution and death.
Re: Re: Re:4
Actually, he was born in a manger, which was the equivalent of a birthing suite for humans as well as for livestock at the time. Did my research.
Re: Re: Re:2
Unwed mother, no. Mary was married to Joseph by that point.
A distinction without a difference. That slut was pregnant and Joseph was conned into supporting her bastard.
Now, I understand that the Bible sometimes has to be interpreted rather then read as-is, but there’s no need to make stuff up.
How exactly is his (or my, for that matter) ‘interpretation’ of a book that was made-up in the first place ‘making stuff up?’
I fail to see the problem.
Re: Re: Re:3
Because being raped by a centurion (as Mary likely was) made her a slut? Troll harder.
you or your family Call for medical
Cop shows up, and you have your phone to record, Incase something stupid happens.
Officer DEMANDS you stop recording.
What a Fun instance.
Its your property, your house, and the cop has invaded it, BECAUSE HE WAS FIRST? He Cant give medical or put out a fire. “THEY ARNT TRAINED”.
So, me Officer, GO AWAY.
Yes, laws like this are exactly what we need, because those who would unlawfully interfere with first responders clearly can’t do so from twenty-six feet away.
Also I couldn’t help but notice that the bill text on FL’s website specifically calls out recordings as NOT harassment… but I’m sure the police will be fully briefed on that, right?
Re:
Not found in either the filed or amended versions of the senate version.
web version
Re: Re:
Apparently I was looking at an older version of the bill:
https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/75/BillText/Filed/PDF
“The peaceful audio or video recording or eyewitness observing of a first responder is a legitimate purpose that does not constitute harassment.”
The fact that it was there and was removed is quite telling, don’t you think?
Re: 20 feet?
try to find Most places Like backyards and inside homes with 20 foot range.
Re: actually, no
This appears to be unreliable information. Having downloaded the actual bill text, Ch. 2024-85, I find no reference at all to recording.
The closest thing to a mention is that if your actions could cause emotional distress, then your actions are illegal. We know that being recorded often makes officers feel distress, with perhaps the most notable examples being the unhappiness of officers recorded as they kill unarmed civilians. Even there, however, the term recording is not mentioned.
Link to session law, http://laws.flrules.org/2024/85 (PDF Fla-2024-85)
Re: Re:
I somehow ended up on a different version of the bill text, not its text as enacted.
That it was present before and was removed, I feel, speaks even more clearly as to the intent to chill behavior.
You wish
While I certainly share your concern that this is just to give less accountability to cops, the purported reason is more real than you appear willing to acknowledge: people trying to get their clickbait cellphone videos at the cost of victim privacy and partly disrupting and blocking rescue work have become a thing in recent decades.
View-blocking screens have become an item for first responders that also helps mitigating traffic jams from slow-moving peepers.
That part of the excuse for those laws is a thing. Of course there are ways to address that without overreaching laws that conveniently provide a lot of smokescreen for more sinister actions.
Re:
funny thing about that is majority of the time it’s the cops who dont want to be filmed and usually cuase they don’t want to get in trouble when they do something bad
Re:
There is no reasonable expectation of privacy in public.
If that were the issue, the law would be tailored to solve that problem, and it clearly isn’t.
Re: So
You have some really stupid persons, Pushing forward JSUT to get in the way of Medical trying to FIX someone.??
90% of EMT’s do not do more then Emergency patch up, and get you to a hospital.
AND anyone getting in the way, can BE ARRESTED, already.
I really dont see someone Jumping NEAR a fire Just to get a Video of those inside.
So now all cops need to do is approach people filming to make them guilty of a crime if they don’t back away. If this isn’t overturned, it’s pretty much guaranteed people of colour recording police wil either be arrested or shot for ‘resisting arrest’ as they back away from approaching cops to remain in compliance. ‘They had something in their hand! That phone I saw they had could have been a gun! If they didn’t have anything to hide they wouldn’t have tried to flee!’
Just searched Dexter Reed. Not at all surprised to learn that he, rather than his uniform (if he had one), was black.
Let Florida be Florida. They deserve him, and he them. Before long a hurricane will come along and make it all fresh and clean again. Then we should return it all to the Seminole, assuming anyone can FIND any.
Re:
An injustice anywhere is an injustice everywhere. If you want Florida to fuck off, then that means that you don’t care about the innocent people who are stuck there, or even the liberals and other left-wingers who live there (like my sister and her fiancé).
Re: Re:
“Stuck there”? By what, probation? You can always MOVE. Many seem to prefer to remain and complain. Anyway, given the current climate projections, only a fool stakes their future on that flaccid penis of a state.
Re: Re: Re:
Up and move to where? What do you say to Florida’s poor and disenfranchised, those on gerrymandered districts surgically constructed to minimise their voting power, people who have never voted for DeSantis and don’t have the kind of money or prospects that would enable them to just up and move?
There are plenty of people who had no meaningful say in putting DeSantis in power, and are there because they have no other choice, saying these should GTFO or be wiped off the map is a lousy thing to say. Think, then do better.
Re: Re: Re:
Moving takes resources and not everyone can do it.
Re: Re: Re:2
I suppose you’re also gong to argue that they could have never seen any of this coming. Florida has been this way for a VERY long time. DeSantis is a symptom, not the malady itself. I’ve left town with the shirt on my back before- literally. Sure, it wouldn’t be EASY, but leaving is always an option. I surmise that many of us prefer to complain than make the hard choices needed to move forward in their lives. It’s hard for me to find much sympathy for THAT.
Re: Re: Re:3
Your utter lack of sympathy for people has been noted.
You’re no better than the white nationalists you hate.
Re: Re: Re:3
Some people literally can’t move or the cost (not just monetary cost) of moving is too much. They may rely on medication/treatments to keep them alive and moving to a new state means new processes and waiting periods to get different benefits that may run out their supply before they get a replacement or a new state may not even have a replacement option. Some people have joint custody/visitation agreements with ex-spouses for their kids so moving might mean losing custody. Some people just have all their family living in the same area and want/need the connections or family support. Maybe they only make good money at their current employer and can’t afford to take a pay cut to work somewhere else.
But the bigger answer is that running away is giving the fascists what they want. They want to drive all the liberals, progressives, LGBTQ folk, atheists, Muslims, etc. away. They want their conservative theocratic authoritarian dystopia. It’s definitely not the responsibility of individuals to weather the bullying and tolerate the gerrymandering, but decent people abandoning conservative states en masse can create black holes where civil and human rights go to die.
Re: Re: Re:
Yes, because everyone in Florida has oodles of money to move from the state, and then to move again when the political arena in their new state begins to reek of hatred and corruption. You are clearly an anti-LGBT+ troll. 🤦♂️
Re: Re: Re:2
Gave you ever been homeless? How about in Wisconsin, in FEBRUARY? Don’t make assumptions. You are clearly a FOOL.
Re: Re: Re:3
*whooooooosh!*
Re: Re: Re:3
And you are clearly a prejudiced troll who thinks moving out of state time and time again as the political climate becomes ever more unhealthy all over the US is so fucking easy. Ever tried moving with a severely autistic child below the age of ten? We moved one block, and that took ages to get him on board with the idea. I don’t like to imagine how things might be with families with autistic members in Florida. If anyone’s making assumptions, it’s you; you’re assuming that everyone is in your position, and thus failing to have any empathy for them.
Re: Re: Re:
Moving to a new place within a given state is, for the average person, a life-changing event that requires a fair amount of both money and time; moving to a new place in another state, even moreso. Not everyone has the luxury of being able to afford the cost of moving—financially, chronologically, and socially—and to tell those people “suck it up and move” is to take an incredibly shortsighted and privileged stance. Blaming marginalized people for their marginalization does nothing to help them.
Re: Re: Re:2
I’ve personally hitch-hiked between Wisconsin and North Carolina several times, with no place to live set up for my arrival. Don’t try to tell me what can’t be done, because I have probably DONE IT.
Re: Re: Re:3
And now do the same with a family.
Re: Re: Re:4
Or with medical issues. Or custody agreements. Or regionally-specific employment. Or any number of other challenges.
Re:
Yes, Florida can fuck off, taking Disney World, which pushes back against hatred of minority groups, with it. 🤦♂️
Re:
I just realized that you said Florida should be returned to the Seminole. I completely agree with that. But then you said that you don’t think there are any left, which is bullshit. For instance, Native American Filmmaker Sterlin Harjo is Seminole. Natives are still here, you just have to pay attention.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
Re: Re:
That’s because you’re neo-Marxist, anti-American scum.
If the Seminole wanted to hang onto Florida, they should’ve fought harder!!
Re: Re: Re:
for one it’s obvious that your trolling using the word marxist is very telling also he’s not anti American you most likely are
Re: Re: Re:
Fuck off, Nimrod, you racist piece of shit.
Re: Re:
I guess I shouldn’t believe all that I read. I saw an article decades ago that claimed that there were no remaining Seminoles, only white people exploiting the memory of those they’d ethnically cleansed. Given my past experience with Floridians, this didn’t surprise me. I’m glad to hear that it was untrue. I feel that the best measure of a democracy is the way those in control treat the indigenous population. Maybe we still have a chance at one in this country, even with the binary bullshit the two criminal enterprises disguised as political parties are forcing upon us to further their corporate agenda.
Re: Re: Re:
On that measure, the US Department of the Interior gave the Prairie band of the Pawatomi Nation’s land back: https://nativenewsonline.net/sovereignty/report-doi-places-prairie-band-potawatomi-nation-s-northern-illinois-reservation-land-into-trust
This law isn’t meant to DO anything.
it was designed to fail, BUT so cops can claim they THOUGHT it was still active. Which gives them at least several years “qualified immunity”.
Republicans: I hate government tyranny!
Also Republicans: I love licking the boots of those who carry out government tyranny!
The “thin blue line” represents the wall of corruption that protect criminal cops from justice.
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it.
That’s right, an@archist! B/c our brave law enforcement officers are SAINTS!
Calling shenanigans
When you see a news article about a thing that seems to make no sense whatsoever consider that you may be getting only half of the story, and that half supports whatever agenda the reporter happens to believe in.
Free Parking.
“No first responders who aren’t cops have ever complained about the public interfering with their work” Try parking in front of a fire hydrant. You forget how entitled some humans are: “The medics helping that dying man are not going to stop me from getting my XL Mccombo.”