Texas want to make it illegal to photograph police

03/15/2015 11:39:31 AM · #2

I actually don't see this as a problem. 25 ft is nothing, especially with a zoom lens. It certainly is plenty close to get "action" shots without interfering with the police, or getting anyone -including the photographer - hurt. There are just way too many people with cameras and no common sense, trying to be ckever and "get the shot".

Olympus 300mm f/4.0 IS PRO M.Zuiko Digital ED

03/15/2015 11:50:54 AM · #3

Without the law it just seems like common sence, not sure I understand the bit about staying 100m away if you are carrying a gun though, unless they think people are likely to trigger the wrong thing.

Phocal

OM System OM-1

03/15/2015 11:54:25 AM · #4

Originally posted by jagar:

Without the law it just seems like common sense, not sure I understand the bit about staying 100m away if you are carrying a gun though, unless they think people are likely to trigger the wrong thing.

That is the one part that I have a problem with. I have my CWP and always have my gun with me, especially when I have several thousand dollars worth of camera gear on me. Why will I be treated different because of this? I mean, I passed all the requirements to get the permit and the government feels I am reliable to carry a weapon. So why am I different then the guy with a gun who does not have a permit or the one with knife looking to use it?

fyi - I live in Texas and after reading this I am sending some emails to my representatives.

Ronnie

bvy

Sigma DP1x

03/15/2015 11:54:32 AM · #5

Originally posted by tanguera:

In practical terms, I agree. I'm more concerned about the precedent this could set. 25 feet in Texas today, 100 feet somewhere else tomorrow. Then what?

nygold

Nikon D5000

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G

03/15/2015 11:56:38 AM · #6

Originally posted by bvy:

Originally posted by tanguera:
I actually don't see this as a problem. 25 ft is nothing, especially with a zoom lens. It certainly is plenty close to get "action" shots without interfering with the police, or getting anyone -including the photographer - hurt. There are just way too many people with cameras and no common sense, trying to be ckever and "get the shot".

In practical terms, I agree. I'm more concerned about the precedent this could set. 25 feet in Texas today, 100 feet somewhere else tomorrow. Then what?

vawendy

Sony Alpha 1

Sony FE 200-600mm f/5.6-6.3 G OSS

03/15/2015 12:11:29 PM · #7

Originally posted by Kobba:

Originally posted by jagar:
Without the law it just seems like common sense, not sure I understand the bit about staying 100m away if you are carrying a gun though, unless they think people are likely to trigger the wrong thing.

That is the one part that I have a problem with. I have my CWP and always have my gun with me, especially when I have several thousand dollars worth of camera gear on me. Why will I be treated different because of this? I mean, I passed all the requirements to get the permit and the government feels I am reliable to carry a weapon. So why am I different then the guy with a gun who does not have a permit or the one with knife looking to use it?

fyi - I live in Texas and after reading this I am sending some emails to my representatives.

Ronnie

If I were a police officer, I'd be nervous if I was in the middle of arresting someone and someone with a gun came up to me -- even if it looked like they were just photographing. It's not a job that I would want to do. It would be really hard not to be paranoid; your life could depend upon that.

Regarding the photography: It does seem like common sense. I really don't like the legislating it, though. It's not one of those things that will become common knowledge, like "wear your seatbelt" (with all the signs and media spots). It's just another reason to arrest photographers, imo. They already have the right to move people back if they're in the way. That's enough. People aren't going to sit with their cameras and think "am I within the 25'? Do I have to move?" They'll need to move the people anyway. Can't see the legislation doing anything.

aliqui

Nikon D300s

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

03/15/2015 12:38:15 PM · #8

Originally posted by vawendy:

Originally posted by Kobba:

Originally posted by jagar:
Without the law it just seems like common sense, not sure I understand the bit about staying 100m away if you are carrying a gun though, unless they think people are likely to trigger the wrong thing.

That is the one part that I have a problem with. I have my CWP and always have my gun with me, especially when I have several thousand dollars worth of camera gear on me. Why will I be treated different because of this? I mean, I passed all the requirements to get the permit and the government feels I am reliable to carry a weapon. So why am I different then the guy with a gun who does not have a permit or the one with knife looking to use it?

fyi - I live in Texas and after reading this I am sending some emails to my representatives.

Ronnie

If I were a police officer, I'd be nervous if I was in the middle of arresting someone and someone with a gun came up to me -- even if it looked like they were just photographing. It's not a job that I would want to do. It would be really hard not to be paranoid; your life could depend upon that.

Regarding the photography: It does seem like common sense. I really don't like the legislating it, though. It's not one of those things that will become common knowledge, like "wear your seatbelt" (with all the signs and media spots). It's just another reason to arrest photographers, imo. They already have the right to move people back if they're in the way. That's enough. People aren't going to sit with their cameras and think "am I within the 25'? Do I have to move?" They'll need to move the people anyway. Can't see the legislation doing anything.

For the typical photographer, they probably won't do anything. What it does is gives them something to work with for repeat offenders or people they're trying to "throw the book" at probably. I don't know how much money is involved in making this rule go through, but I have to wonder if it would be financially worth it for a relatively small amount of aggressive offenders.

03/15/2015 12:39:11 PM · #9

Originally posted by Kobba:

I can easily envision a situation where a photographer with a weapon (concealed or not) approaches a scene where someone is being arrested, gets too close, and the "suspect" sees and grabs the 'togs gun while s/he is busy taking pictures.

Wendy, I agree that you cannot legislate common sense. It is pathetic that we even have to consider passing these "laws". But we're in the age of the lawsuit, so....

03/15/2015 12:41:37 PM · #10

If someone wanted to harm a police officer with his gun, he wouldn't want to shoot him first with his DSLR, "I'd love to go over there with my gun and kill someone but I can't go beyond the invisible 100m line because I've got a camera in my hand"

Olympus 300mm f/4.0 IS PRO M.Zuiko Digital ED

03/15/2015 12:44:33 PM · #11

Oh I see it's so that a criminal won't grab for the photographers concealed gun, better stay 100m away.

Phocal

OM System OM-1

03/15/2015 12:53:36 PM · #12

vawendy The law is about concealed weapons (not legal yet for open carry of pistols, they are working on that law at the moment, but we can open carry a rifle but this law does not talk about it), the cop would not know someone had a gun because by law they are suppose to be concealed. Hell, so many people carry in this state that cops know about 25% of the people they walk past have a weapon. But, the ones with concealed carry permits are not the ones that the cops are worried about and are least likely to cause problems. That's why I am not sure about why the added part about concealed weapons when you have a permit and no language about additional fines if caught and don't have the permit.

Something is up with this one and at the moment can not place my finger on it.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G

03/15/2015 01:03:08 PM · #13

Originally posted by jagar:

Oh I see it's so that a criminal won't grab for the photographers concealed gun, better stay 100m away.

Yes. That's what I meant.

nygold

Nikon D5000

03/15/2015 01:05:48 PM · #14

It's no secret that cops hate being filmed, now you just give them a free pass to lock up a photog or anyone with a cell phone taking pictures or video.
You could be 50 or 100 feet away, they will just take you in and say you were 25 feet away. Even if you can prove you were 100 feet away what are they going to do to the cop?

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

03/15/2015 01:27:49 PM · #15

Cops don't need and excuse to lock you up. But anyone can read Big Brother into anything.

tnun

Ricoh GR III

03/15/2015 01:34:08 PM · #16

Originally posted by bvy:

25 Texas feet IS 100 normal feet.

03/15/2015 01:35:18 PM · #17

could this just be a ploy so we don't get cops beating up the innocent splattered all over the news every month or two ?

Personally common sense tells me not to carry a gun and not to point my camera at the gendarmes.

Message edited by author 2015-03-15 13:37:21.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 50mm f/1.8G

03/15/2015 01:56:58 PM · #18

Originally posted by jagar:

Most - if not all - of the videos documenting police brutality have been taken from more than double the proposed distance. Even with a modest zoom, a shot taken from that distance will feel "up close and personal". I just don't see this as a ploy at blocking of filming police activity, but more of a safety issue.

nygold

Nikon D5000

03/15/2015 02:04:47 PM · #19

It's legal to film the police now and they still lock you up. This just makes it legal for them to do so.

aliqui

Nikon D300s

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

03/15/2015 02:36:18 PM · #20

Originally posted by bvy:

In practical terms, I agree. I'm more concerned about the precedent this could set. 25 feet in Texas today, 100 feet somewhere else tomorrow. Then what?

I really can't stand the "then what?" argument. If there's a real, genuine problem where photographers are interfering with police doing their job, then it's a law that needs to be made. In theory, this law is about everyone's safety: the officer, the photographer, the civilians, and even the perpetrator. If in the future photographers are managing to create an interference from 100 feet, then the boundary needs to be expanded.

I'm not saying we shouldn't question new laws and think them through, but in this case would a theoretical increase of the boundary outweigh the actual, current benefits? If a law becomes ridiculous, then I would fully expect people to stand up and say so, but only when it's actually brought to the table. We can't stop beneficial progression just because there is a slim possibility that somewhere in the unforeseeable future a politician might try to sneak one past us.