• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Black man harassed by cops for filming

or DETAINED.

Where does it say "or DETAINED"

If you're talking about the next sentence, it's talking about giving FAKE information. It doesn't say that you have to give ANY information.

"It also gives police the right to arrest you if they have lawfully arrested or detained you or if you are a witness to a crime and you give a fake name to the officer."
 
You asked why police might feel nervous. And the answer certainly includes the fact that 2021 was most violent and deadly against police officers in history.

The thing is police stations most likely have cameras filming those outside so openly filming them before you go and attack an officer is really stupid.
As a form of surveillance openly filming somewhere doesn't seem like the best idea but then again I'm not a spy so for all I know it may be a really good tactic.

It also assumes that anyone filming is doing so for nefarious purposes which is a rather sad state of affairs.
 
The thing is police stations most likely have cameras filming those outside so openly filming them before you go and attack an officer is really stupid.
As a form of surveillance openly filming somewhere doesn't seem like the best idea but then again I'm not a spy so for all I know it may be a really good tactic.

It also assumes that anyone filming is doing so for nefarious purposes which is a rather sad state of affairs.
Why was he filming the police station?
 
Why was he filming the police station?

Because he felt like it and it's 100% legal?
Why does anyone film anywhere?

As far as I know, the law says you can film anything you see from public property such as a sidewalk.
If it's against the law to film a police station then Google needs to be fined massively and every streetview driver pulled in for questioning as they have filmed almost all police stations and made them viewable to the entire world 24/7.
How about news crews interviewing in front of a station do they also need to be dragged in and arrested?
 
Where does it say "or DETAINED"

If you're talking about the next sentence, it's talking about giving FAKE information. It doesn't say that you have to give ANY information.

"It also gives police the right to arrest you if they have lawfully arrested or detained you or if you are a witness to a crime and you give a fake name to the officer."
You really do have an agenda, don't you? They detained him. So I suppose a judge will decide.
 
Because he felt like it and it's 100% legal?
Why does anyone film anywhere?

As far as I know, the law says you can film anything you see from public property such as a sidewalk.
If it's against the law to film a police station then Google needs to be fined massively and every streetview driver pulled in for questioning as they have filmed almost all police stations and made them viewable to the entire world 24/7.
How about news crews interviewing in front of a station do they also need to be dragged in and arrested?
If you don't know why he was filming them, you could have just said so.

Using your reasoning, it seems you would be completely comfortable with someone following your children to school and filming them on the street, day after day. 100% legal, right? You wouldn't consider that suspicious? You wouldn't ask the police to find out why this stranger is filming your children?
 
You really do have an agenda, don't you? They detained him. So I suppose a judge will decide.

Agenda? We're talking about what the law says. I can't help it if you have poor reading comprehension.

Here is the actual Texas statues...


(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace officer who has:

(1) lawfully arrested the person;

(2) lawfully detained the person;  or

(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a criminal offense.

============

And the judges already decided. I posted the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals that heard the case. Here it is again:

 
If you don't know why he was filming them, you could have just said so.

Using your reasoning, it seems you would be completely comfortable with someone following your children to school and filming them on the street, day after day. 100% legal, right? You wouldn't consider that suspicious? You wouldn't ask the police to find out why this stranger is filming your children?

You do realise there's a vast gulf of difference between stalking someone and simply standing and openly filming a bloody building?

What information could someone get from filming the outside of a police station?
Do officers regularly conduct police investigations on picnic benches that are freely viewable by the public?
 
If you don't know why he was filming them, you could have just said so.

Using your reasoning, it seems you would be completely comfortable with someone following your children to school and filming them on the street, day after day. 100% legal, right? You wouldn't consider that suspicious? You wouldn't ask the police to find out why this stranger is filming your children?

It's interesting that you compare the police to little children. I can't say you're completely off in this case.
 
You do realise there's a vast gulf of difference between stalking someone and simply standing and openly filming a bloody building?
Nope. You called it "stalking" because they were your children. Public sidewalk, 100% legal.

THis asshole wasn't filming the building, he was filming the police officers coming and going from their jobs.

What information could someone get from filming the outside of a police station?
When there are shift changes. What shifts a particular police offer works. What personal car does an officer drive. What's her license plate number. Cops deal some of the nastiest of nasty ass people in our society. and we we clearly see here, a lot of people hate cops.

And it is unimaginable to you why the police would consider it suspicious that someone is filming them coming and going from their jobs.
 
Nope. You called it "stalking" because they were your children. Public sidewalk, 100% legal.

THis asshole wasn't filming the building, he was filming the police officers coming and going from their jobs.


When there are shift changes. What shifts a particular police offer works. What personal car does an officer drive. What's her license plate number. Cops deal some of the nastiest of nasty ass people in our society. and we we clearly see here, a lot of people hate cops.

And it is unimaginable to you why the police would consider it suspicious that someone is filming them coming and going from their jobs.

If you honestly can't tell the difference between filming a building and filming people then I can't help you.
 
If you don't know why he was filming them, you could have just said so.

Using your reasoning, it seems you would be completely comfortable with someone following your children to school and filming them on the street, day after day. 100% legal, right? You wouldn't consider that suspicious? You wouldn't ask the police to find out why this stranger is filming your children?
Everyday could be construed as harrassment. The reasonable person standard applies.


No harrassment applies to filming a public building one day
 
The government films us all the time in public. Look up at just about any street light. Cameras on and in government buildings (including police stations). The dash and body cameras that police officers regularly use.

Are you guys really trying to claim that taking pictures in public is somehow illegal, now? Better let the government know...
 
If you honestly can't tell the difference between filming a building and filming people then I can't help you.
If you are going to make the ridiculous argument that we was simply a student of architecture, there's not much point in continuing this discussion. You also might want to go back and watch the video the OP posted.
 
It's interesting that you compare the police to little children. I can't say you're completely off in this case.
What difference does it make? 100% legal. Nothing suspicious, right?
 
Last edited:
But he is right. Detention is not arrest and in Texas you do not have yo give your name until you are arrested and the cops should actually know that.
Did you read the source I posted? It includes detention.
 
Did you read the source I posted? It includes detention.

Who has the agenda?

I posted the actual Texas law and the oral arguments before the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals about this specific case....but you have a LINK!
 
Did you read the source I posted? It includes detention.
Yes as well as the statute. It states you can be arrested if detained and you give a false name. There is no requirement to give a name at all if you are detained only if arrested.

And that makes sense. A detention would be done in the context of investigating a crime in progress, just committed or about to be committed. You do not need a name to do that.
 

Sorry, but I'm going to have to agree with @DiAnna until I find something that says otherwise.
Sorry, but that is after being arrested. In other words, you already have been arrested for a crime and then you have to identify yourself. Which is not stop and identify.
 
Why was he filming the police station?
maybe a self appointed auditor.

I have seen loads of government facilities who people film because it is their right, but I have also seen them filming a Chick Fil A, I don't get why that is being "audited". To me that sounds a bit like trying to get attention from the restaurant, maybe get them angry enough for them getting "assaulted/confronted" so that they an either sue or get clicks.
 
maybe a self appointed auditor.

I have seen loads of government facilities who people film because it is their right, but I have also seen them filming a Chick Fil A, I don't get why that is being "audited". To me that sounds a bit like trying to get attention from the restaurant, maybe get them angry enough for them getting "assaulted/confronted" so that they an either sue or get clicks.
A new Chick Fil A near me was simply built in the wrong location. The line for the drive through has created a nightmare for this one neighborhood. They got together and hired a firm to monitor, count, film and otherwise document the traffic nightmare.
 
Back
Top Bottom