Louisiana law criminalizes approaching police under certain circumstances

[BumRushDaShow]

Source: The Guardian/AP

Thu 30 May 2024 08.30 EDT


Critics of a new Louisiana law that makes it a crime to approach within 25ft (7.6 meters) of a police officer under certain circumstances fear the measure could hinder the public’s ability to film officers – a tool that has increasingly been used to hold police accountable.

Under the law, anyone who is convicted of “knowingly or intentionally” approaching an officer, who is “lawfully engaged in the execution of his official duties”, and after being ordered to “stop approaching or retreat” faces up to a $500 fine, up to 60 days in jail or both. The law was signed by Governor Jeff Landry, a Republican, on Tuesday and goes into effect on 1 August.

While the legislation’s language does not specifically mention filming, critics say that by default it would limit how close a person can be to observe police. Opponents have also gone further to question the law’s constitutionality, saying it could impede on a person’s first amendment rights.

Proponents argue the new law will create a buffer zone to help ensure the safety of officers and that bystanders would still be close enough to film police interactions. Bystander cellphone videos are largely credited with revealing police misconduct – such as with the 2020 killing of George Floyd at the hands of Minneapolis officers – and reshaping the conversation around police transparency.

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/30/louisiana-police-law

[MarineCombatEngineer]

1. AZ tried the same thing and the law was struck down PDQ, as I suspect this law will be also. nt

[BumRushDaShow]

3. WAY OT

but I saw this last weekend and thought of you since I know you have been getting your truck cab up and running again - https://autos.yahoo.com/kenworth-wild-supertruck-2-concept-210000292.html

[MarineCombatEngineer]

4. Wow!!!!

That is one ugly looking truck.
I wouldn't be caught dead in that truck, besides, I prefer Peterbilt, but I suppose there are those that will buy these.
Thanks for the picture, I really needed a good laugh this morning.

[BumRushDaShow]

6. It reminded me of this

[Miguelito Loveless]

2. Another excuse for the police to simply execute people

"Hey, I warned him not to approach."

[Silent Type]

5. 25 feet is still close enough to capture video. I'm for police cameras and private citizens holding police accountable,

but that doesn't mean a bystander(s) should be able to get in tight for a closeup.

[muriel_volestrangler]

13. It makes it easy for the police to hide things with their bodies

They just have to turn or move a foot or two to go 90 degrees, and the filmer then has to move a quarter of a circle - 40 feet (if that angle is available - it could be out in traffic, for instance). So, yes, getting in tight for a closeup can be important.

[SamKnause]

7. Fucking cowards and bullies don't want anyone filming their illegal activities.

[kimbutgar]

8. Louisiana is trying to catch up with Florida and Texas as to which state could be the worst for women and minorities

And LGBTQ people. Another state off my list to visit, buy items from and feel sympathy when natural disasters occur!

[Martin68]

9. Need a camera with a good zoom.

[atreides1]

10. Okay

“lawfully engaged in the execution of his official duties”...is there a more specific definition to this?

[malthaussen]

11. Who do they think they are, NFL quarterbacks? n/t

[littlemissmartypants]

12. Will they be using sign language? Because the HOH/Deaf don't always respond to verbal commands.

This is just more RWNJ idiocy.

[SomewhereInTheMiddle]

14. Crowd Control?

I am picturing a protest with 5000 people marching down a major street towards the LA Capitol Building. Ten cops spread out in a line with 20ft between them covering the whole street. The move to block the marchers. The marchers step forward the Police demand the marchers to retreat. To comply with the law the marchers have to step back 25 feet. The police then march forward and repeat the demand.

With this method the police can completely control the marchers, or they can arrest the marchers if they fail to comply.

This use of the new law seems to be an obvious violation of the 1st Amendment.

But that can't be what the legislators are thinking, surely .