• 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!

NYC Mayor Suggests Latest iPhone Is a Prerequisite for Civil Rights

Centrist

Banned
Supporting Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2022
Messages
2,349
Reaction score
1,643
Location
Anti-Populism, Pro-NATO
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
A controversial position by the NYC Mayor, Eric Adams.

This is from Reason.com - a leading libertarian magazine:

Eric Adams says you may have to upgrade your phone if you want to record the police, because you'll need to do so from a distance.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams said on Wednesday that bystanders filming the police too closely "is not acceptable, and won't be tolerated."

When he won the Democratic nomination last summer, Adams was seen as a moderate. A former New York Police Department (NYPD) captain turned state senator, Adams rejected calls to defund the police at a time when the idea had gained currency on his party's left flank. But Adams' term in office has not been a civil libertarian's dream. For example, despite criticizing the "stop and frisk" policies practiced under former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Adams now plans to implement his own version.

On Wednesday, Adams appeared at the New York City Police Academy in Queens to announce his reintroduction of the NYPD's controversial anti-gun unit. In response to a reporter's question regarding citizens who want to "document what's going on," Adams responded forcefully:

"That is one thing that we are going to do: We are going to teach the public how to properly document…If an officer is trying to prevent a dispute from taking place and deescalate that dispute, they should [not] have someone standing over their shoulders with a camera in their face, yelling and screaming at them, without even realizing what the encounter is all about. There's a proper way to police, and there's a proper way to document…Stop being on top of my police officers while they're carrying out their jobs. That is not acceptable, and it won't be tolerated."

Adams also added, "If your iPhone can't catch that picture with you being at a safe distance, then you need to upgrade your iPhone."

That last jab was likely intended to be tongue in cheek, but it fits with the overall patronizing tone of Adams's answer, which implied that there is a right way and a wrong way to hold the police accountable. While Adams did affirm the general right to film—allowing that "You can safely document an incident, and we can use that footage to analyze what happened"—his overall answer on the subject leaves much to be desired.

Bystanders filming police as they interact with the public is not new, but it exploded into mainstream consciousness with the 2020 murder of George Floyd by former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. While the Minneapolis Police Department's initial report merely mentioned that a man died "after [a] medical incident during police interaction," bystander footage made clear what actually happened.

But despite being affirmed by multiple circuit courts throughout the country, the right of citizens to record the police remains controversial among police and lawmakers. Officers continue to harass citizens for filming them, sometimes violently, even when the officers have not been obstructed in any way. And multiple states have attempted to pass legislation restricting the practice further. What those bills tend to do is establish minimum distances for recording, anywhere between five and 30 feet, and say that anyone filming is not allowed to get any closer to an officer. But these laws, especially those with high minimum distances, are quite likely unconstitutional. There is a clear difference between interfering with an officer's duties, and merely recording the event, and it is dangerous for lawmakers to conflate the two.

Though citizens should not obstruct a police officer in the course of his duties (which is already a crime, including in New York), a bystander should be permitted to film that officer.

People have a First Amendment right to film police interactions, even if they are "yelling and screaming," in Adams' words. After just a couple of months in office, Adams' record on police reform is already disappointing.
 
Makes sense to me. Don’t be so close that you’re getting in the way.
 
I tend to agree with Mayor Eric Adams. If I were a police officer/detective, I certainly wouldn't mind being captured on film but standing right by me?
I'd tell them to move away (some) or I'd charge them with obstructing an officer's duty.
How about if the suspect has a weapon and the officer has to worry about not just his life but the dumb-asses standing right by him.
(The officer has to keep looking over his shoulder....the suspect notices that...waits..then pulls out a gun...not a good scenario.)
 
Pointless thread.
Well that is your opinion.

LIke for example, my opinion about your signature is pure propaganda. The story with the sailors turned out to be fake. They are in russian custody.

I like to analyze information and hear as many perspectives before I say is pointless. I am not Vladimir Putin to be a dictator and just listen to myself.

:cool:(y)
 
Last edited:
A controversial position by the NYC Mayor, Eric Adams.

This is from Reason.com - a leading libertarian magazine:

Eric Adams says you may have to upgrade your phone if you want to record the police, because you'll need to do so from a distance.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams said on Wednesday that bystanders filming the police too closely "is not acceptable, and won't be tolerated."

When he won the Democratic nomination last summer, Adams was seen as a moderate. A former New York Police Department (NYPD) captain turned state senator, Adams rejected calls to defund the police at a time when the idea had gained currency on his party's left flank. But Adams' term in office has not been a civil libertarian's dream. For example, despite criticizing the "stop and frisk" policies practiced under former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Adams now plans to implement his own version.

On Wednesday, Adams appeared at the New York City Police Academy in Queens to announce his reintroduction of the NYPD's controversial anti-gun unit. In response to a reporter's question regarding citizens who want to "document what's going on," Adams responded forcefully:

"That is one thing that we are going to do: We are going to teach the public how to properly document…If an officer is trying to prevent a dispute from taking place and deescalate that dispute, they should [not] have someone standing over their shoulders with a camera in their face, yelling and screaming at them, without even realizing what the encounter is all about. There's a proper way to police, and there's a proper way to document…Stop being on top of my police officers while they're carrying out their jobs. That is not acceptable, and it won't be tolerated."

Adams also added, "If your iPhone can't catch that picture with you being at a safe distance, then you need to upgrade your iPhone."

That last jab was likely intended to be tongue in cheek, but it fits with the overall patronizing tone of Adams's answer, which implied that there is a right way and a wrong way to hold the police accountable. While Adams did affirm the general right to film—allowing that "You can safely document an incident, and we can use that footage to analyze what happened"—his overall answer on the subject leaves much to be desired.

Bystanders filming police as they interact with the public is not new, but it exploded into mainstream consciousness with the 2020 murder of George Floyd by former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. While the Minneapolis Police Department's initial report merely mentioned that a man died "after [a] medical incident during police interaction," bystander footage made clear what actually happened.

But despite being affirmed by multiple circuit courts throughout the country, the right of citizens to record the police remains controversial among police and lawmakers. Officers continue to harass citizens for filming them, sometimes violently, even when the officers have not been obstructed in any way. And multiple states have attempted to pass legislation restricting the practice further. What those bills tend to do is establish minimum distances for recording, anywhere between five and 30 feet, and say that anyone filming is not allowed to get any closer to an officer. But these laws, especially those with high minimum distances, are quite likely unconstitutional. There is a clear difference between interfering with an officer's duties, and merely recording the event, and it is dangerous for lawmakers to conflate the two.

Though citizens should not obstruct a police officer in the course of his duties (which is already a crime, including in New York), a bystander should be permitted to film that officer.

People have a First Amendment right to film police interactions, even if they are "yelling and screaming," in Adams' words. After just a couple of months in office, Adams' record on police reform is already disappointing.
"they should [not] have someone standing over their shoulders with a camera in their face, yelling and screaming at them,"

This is the contextual part of the Mayor's statement...not about whether the public can record an incident or not.
 
Well that is your opinion. Opinions can be wrong and right.

LIke for example, my opinion about your signature is pure propaganda. The story with the sailors turned out to be fake. They are in russian custody.

I like to analyze information and hear as many perspectives before I say is pointless. I am not Vladimir Putin to be a dictator and just listen to myself.

:cool:(y)
By definition, that is not correct.
 
Like for example, my opinion about your signature is pure propaganda. The story with the sailors turned out to be fake. They are in russian custody.
Wrong. Take another look at my signature.
I like to analyze information and hear as many perspectives before I say is pointless. I am not Vladimir Putin to be a dictator and just listen to myself.

:cool:(y)
Good for you. 👍
 
All I needed to read was the first sentence. Libertarian magazines are deliberately biased to the far right and therefore completely unreliable for getting real news about real life.
 
All I needed to read was the first sentence. Libertarian magazines are deliberately biased to the far right and therefore completely unreliable for getting real news about real life.
From their website:

Founded in 1968, Reason.com claims to be the nation's leading libertarian magazine.

They produce hard-hitting independent journalism on civil liberties, politics, technology, culture, policy, and commerce.

As the magazine of free minds and free markets, Reason claims to exist outside of the left/right echo chamber. Their goal is to deliver fresh, unbiased information and insights to their readers, viewers, and listeners every day.


https://reason.com/
 
A controversial position by the NYC Mayor, Eric Adams.

This is from Reason.com - a leading libertarian magazine:

Eric Adams says you may have to upgrade your phone if you want to record the police, because you'll need to do so from a distance.

New York City Mayor Eric Adams said on Wednesday that bystanders filming the police too closely "is not acceptable, and won't be tolerated."

When he won the Democratic nomination last summer, Adams was seen as a moderate. A former New York Police Department (NYPD) captain turned state senator, Adams rejected calls to defund the police at a time when the idea had gained currency on his party's left flank. But Adams' term in office has not been a civil libertarian's dream. For example, despite criticizing the "stop and frisk" policies practiced under former Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Adams now plans to implement his own version.

On Wednesday, Adams appeared at the New York City Police Academy in Queens to announce his reintroduction of the NYPD's controversial anti-gun unit. In response to a reporter's question regarding citizens who want to "document what's going on," Adams responded forcefully:

"That is one thing that we are going to do: We are going to teach the public how to properly document…If an officer is trying to prevent a dispute from taking place and deescalate that dispute, they should [not] have someone standing over their shoulders with a camera in their face, yelling and screaming at them, without even realizing what the encounter is all about. There's a proper way to police, and there's a proper way to document…Stop being on top of my police officers while they're carrying out their jobs. That is not acceptable, and it won't be tolerated."

Adams also added, "If your iPhone can't catch that picture with you being at a safe distance, then you need to upgrade your iPhone."

That last jab was likely intended to be tongue in cheek, but it fits with the overall patronizing tone of Adams's answer, which implied that there is a right way and a wrong way to hold the police accountable. While Adams did affirm the general right to film—allowing that "You can safely document an incident, and we can use that footage to analyze what happened"—his overall answer on the subject leaves much to be desired.

Bystanders filming police as they interact with the public is not new, but it exploded into mainstream consciousness with the 2020 murder of George Floyd by former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin. While the Minneapolis Police Department's initial report merely mentioned that a man died "after [a] medical incident during police interaction," bystander footage made clear what actually happened.

But despite being affirmed by multiple circuit courts throughout the country, the right of citizens to record the police remains controversial among police and lawmakers. Officers continue to harass citizens for filming them, sometimes violently, even when the officers have not been obstructed in any way. And multiple states have attempted to pass legislation restricting the practice further. What those bills tend to do is establish minimum distances for recording, anywhere between five and 30 feet, and say that anyone filming is not allowed to get any closer to an officer. But these laws, especially those with high minimum distances, are quite likely unconstitutional. There is a clear difference between interfering with an officer's duties, and merely recording the event, and it is dangerous for lawmakers to conflate the two.

Though citizens should not obstruct a police officer in the course of his duties (which is already a crime, including in New York), a bystander should be permitted to film that officer.

People have a First Amendment right to film police interactions, even if they are "yelling and screaming," in Adams' words. After just a couple of months in office, Adams' record on police reform is already disappointing.
I was hopeful Eric Adams could turn NYC around, but I'm losing my support for him. Crime rates have not changed, but I will give Adams a break in that he tried to convince Albany to change the bail reform laws. He needs to get officers on the street to arrest felons that don't have protection under bail reform.
 
From their website:

Founded in 1968, Reason.com claims to be the nation's leading libertarian magazine.

They produce hard-hitting independent journalism on civil liberties, politics, technology, culture, policy, and commerce.

As the magazine of free minds and free markets, Reason claims to exist outside of the left/right echo chamber. Their goal is to deliver fresh, unbiased information and insights to their readers, viewers, and listeners every day.

Thanks for proving my point.
 
You claim to be a centrist but you post right-libertarian and foreign affairs dot com links.
 
I was hopeful Eric Adams could turn NYC around, but I'm losing my support for him. Crime rates have not changed, but I will give Adams a break in that he tried to convince Albany to change the bail reform laws. He needs to get officers on the street to arrest felons that don't have protection under bail reform.
He gets 3 months? How generous.
 
I support giving police a little distance to do their job.

I am a little concerned that the distance is open to interpretation. Not defining exactly what the minimum distance is opens up its own can a worms.
 
You claim to be a centrist but you post right-libertarian and foreign affairs dot com links.
I also posted The Hill, CNN, Financial Post, The Economist, The Daily Beast, France24, Nexta, Euronews, Study for the Institute of War, SkyNews etc, Bild, LaFigaro, G4Media, Visne, other euro sources.

Right-libertarian? Well I am lucky there is no supreme leader to excommunicate me then in the centrist movement.
 
He gets 3 months? How generous.

People are dying and getting hurt. He doesn't have time.
Plant based diet in NYC schools are not a top priority.

How many kids died from Covid in NYC versus how many shoot? The population least at risk are still required to wear masks.


Top priority is crime. You reduce crime other issues (economy- -tourist, people returning to the city) will improve.
 

People are dying and getting hurt. He doesn't have time.
Plant based diet in NYC schools are not a top priority.

How many kids died from Covid in NYC versus how many shoot? The population least at risk are still required to wear masks.


Top priority is crime. You reduce crime other issues (economy- -tourist, people returning to the city) will improve.
Again, he gets three months?
 
You claim to be a centrist but you post right-libertarian and foreign affairs dot com links.

Reasonable people first ask themselves about the accuracy of any given article and take the time to verify the article(s) through multiple sources.

Most often on here, some members will dismiss a well researched and written article just because it comes from a site that they dislike because they have a fear of contradicting views.

You are not reasonable.
 
Five feet seems reasonable. 30 feet certainly isn't. Reason being, that any police act happening in public should be open to sound recording as well as video.
 
Reasonable people first ask themselves about the accuracy of any given article and take the time to verify the article(s) through multiple sources.

Most often on here, some members will dismiss a well researched and written article just because it comes from a site that they dislike because they have a fear of contradicting views.

You are not reasonable.

You had a good comment going but you couldn't resist adding that nonsense at the end.

What is your position on anything and your worldview?
 
Back
Top Bottom