• After witnessing the continued decrease of involvement in the SpotterNetwork staff in serving SN members with troubleshooting issues recently, I have unilaterally decided to terminate the relationship between SpotterNetwork's support and Stormtrack. I have witnessed multiple users unable to receive support weeks after initiating help threads on the forum. I find this lack of response from SpotterNetwork officials disappointing and a failure to hold up their end of the agreement that was made years ago, before I took over management of this site. In my opinion, having Stormtrack users sit and wait for so long to receive help on SpotterNetwork issues on the Stormtrack forums reflects poorly not only on SpotterNetwork, but on Stormtrack and (by association) me as well. Since the issue has not been satisfactorily addressed, I no longer wish for the Stormtrack forum to be associated with SpotterNetwork.

    I apologize to those who continue to have issues with the service and continue to see their issues left unaddressed. Please understand that the connection between ST and SN was put in place long before I had any say over it. But now that I am the "captain of this ship," it is within my right (nay, duty) to make adjustments as I see necessary. Ending this relationship is such an adjustment.

    For those who continue to need help, I recommend navigating a web browswer to SpotterNetwork's About page, and seeking the individuals listed on that page for all further inquiries about SpotterNetwork.

    From this moment forward, the SpotterNetwork sub-forum has been hidden/deleted and there will be no assurance that any SpotterNetwork issues brought up in any of Stormtrack's other sub-forums will be addressed. Do not rely on Stormtrack for help with SpotterNetwork issues.

    Sincerely, Jeff D.

Is law enforcement in your video shot?

Doesn't matter whether it will pass. It is clearly unconstitutional. 1) They are public employees in the public place and 2) We have a due process RIGHT to record the police.
 
There are many keys to this. This is just an extension of a law in place that protects officers from interference of their job duties. This is just for those instances where something is going on and someone with a cell phone camera wants to get up close and personal, with no regard for officer safety. This shouldn't snowball into the chaser community whatsoever, unless you're sitting there sticking your camera up the officer's nose. The keys here are 25 ft and 100 ft.

Honestly, I'd like to keep 25-100 ft distance between me and someone with a gun that is dealing with a situation.
 
If a cop has the road blocked and you are shooting video, it's now illegal if you're in talking distance from him. That's where it gets weird.
 
Only in a police state would a policeman have a problem being videotaped doing his official duties. Amazing how police now have cameras on their uniforms recording the public while performing their job duties. Why not both ways?
 
I think the main purpose of this proposed bill is really aimed at a few activist that have gotten right up in the cops face during traffic stops, arrests, open carry demonstrations, etc. While it is very unlikely to pass I can see the reasoning behind it as during an arrest the cop doesn't need someone he doesn't know entering the incident scene. The cop has no idea if that person is there to help or hurt.
I don't see any problems with anyone taking video in public of police, fire, etc. so long as they remain far enough away as not pose a threat, hinder emergency response or other harm while doing so. So far as chasing goes I wouldn't worry about this even if by some wild chance it did pass. There are simply too many people out there (chasers or not) that have a phone that can record video and push to youtube and beyond. It would simply be unenforceable.
 
It's always good to remember the caveats about it being a proposed bill in one house of a state legislature (not national), unlikely to pass in present form, etc., but at the same time stranger things have happened. Granted, while highly unlikely to pass as written, IF it did pass in its present form, it could have legal implications for some chasers in certain situations as has already been mentioned. If I were a TX resident, I would be watching this closely and exercising my democratic rights to petition my elected representatives, making my voice heard, if this moves to a point where it could become a legislative reality. It's never too early to write professional letters or send well-written emails expressing concern for why this is a misdirected piece of legislation.
 
Wow - given the likely (I would say obvious) actual intent of this legislation, I'm somewhat surprised to see the state police union come out against it. But whichever; this is definitely good news and helps alleviate concerns vis-à-vis chasing.
 
There is one more argument to the law - it says you have to hold an FCC license. It doesn't say what type of license to have, so those that hold an amateur radio license is an FCC license, so therefore they have an FCC license = they can film police :D
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

David Drummond
Could taking pictures land you in jail?
Replies
10
Views
3K
Jeff Wear
Back
Top