# Texas Politician Proposes Bill Prohibiting Photographing Police, Receives Death Threats



## rexbobcat (Mar 21, 2015)

Death threats are seriously not cool. 

But why do you do this Texas? Why must you constantly be competing for most ass-backwards politics? Ugh...

Villalba faces death threats amends controversial bill


----------



## Designer (Mar 21, 2015)

Is your criticism directed at the threatener or at the state legislator?


----------



## 480sparky (Mar 21, 2015)

They're just following the path of disassembling the Constitution there.  It's already illegal to photograph private property with a drone over 8 feet up unless you have the owners written consent.

Unless you're in law enforcement.

Or a realtor.

Or military.

Or a firefighter.

Or a medic.

Or a medical examiner.

Or a farmer.

Or work for an oil company.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 21, 2015)

Designer said:


> Is your criticism directed at the threatener or at the state legislator?



The legistslator. I just didn't want anyone to assume that I condone death threats, so I prefaced my post. lol


----------



## Designer (Mar 21, 2015)

rexbobcat said:


> Designer said:
> 
> 
> > Is your criticism directed at the threatener or at the state legislator?
> ...


My original impression was that you thought Texans were too liberal with death threats.


----------



## rexbobcat (Mar 21, 2015)

Designer said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > Designer said:
> ...



Oh, no, heh.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Mar 21, 2015)

You would be hard pressed to find anyone (at least anyone I know or talk with) that would be in favor of this legislation. Legislation is proposed constantly that goes against what the majority of anyone with any common sense would support. Unfortunately I think this is just evidence of infringement on rights across the entire country.


----------



## Designer (Mar 21, 2015)

I'm an advocate of locally independent police forces, and they are under assault on many fronts, but this legislator is trying to write law without knowing what to write and how to write it.  Invariably such shortsighted legislation has more unintended consequences than desired results.  In this case I believe he is trying to protect the police, but his methodology is misguided.


----------



## tirediron (Mar 21, 2015)

The question that immediately jumps to my mind is:  "What is it that they're doing that causes them to be afraid of being filmed?"  Any civil servant at any level should expect to be subjected to and able to stand up to the most explicit public scrutiny at any time.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Mar 21, 2015)

I think if you look back not too far in history these types of laws are just the beginning to the erosion of basic liberties. Like tired iron said these are employees of the people who pay their salary. There has to be checks and balances for our system to function as intented.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Mar 21, 2015)

Designer said:


> I'm an advocate of locally independent police forces, and they are under assault on many fronts, but this legislator is trying to write law without knowing what to write and how to write it.  Invariably such shortsighted legislation has more unintended consequences than desired results.  In this case I believe he is trying to protect the police, but his methodology is misguided.



Has is not being able to take pictures of the police supposed to protect them?


----------



## Designer (Mar 21, 2015)

crzyfotopeeple said:


> Has (sic)(how)is not being able to take pictures of the police supposed to protect them?


I have no idea, but that shows the flawed thinking of the legislator, now doesn't it?

I sure hope you're not on my case for trying to make clarity of this mess, because you'd be wrong.


----------



## crzyfotopeeple (Mar 21, 2015)

Not at all. Just trying to clarify what you meant. I completely agree about the locally independent police force.


----------



## pgriz (Mar 21, 2015)

I have this (perhaps obsolete) idea that the local police forces are there to serve the local citizenry, and therefore are also accountable to those same citizenry.  The police-force masters (the local government) are (or perhaps should be) the middlemen taking care of the administrative details on behalf of the same citizens.  The other view of this would be to have the local police act as enforcers of the local government which is NOT accountable to the citizenry, and that is, at least in my opinion, the definition of a police state.

There are precedents in this.  It is illegal to photograph private property in a number of jurisdictions, and specifically, the operation of certain agricultural concerns, where in the past, smuggled videos and photo images have revealed abuse of animals.  Whether one agrees or not with the issues involved with animal cruelty and industrial agricultural practices, the act of making the images has been criminalized to the detriment of the ability of the citizenry to see what is going on.

Photography by the public is a form of accountability.  The more that is restricted, the more we need to really examine the motives behind those doing the restricting.


----------



## Designer (Mar 21, 2015)

pgriz said:


> Photography by the public is a form of accountability.  The more that is restricted, the more we need to really examine the motives behind those doing the restricting.


Along with accountability is the requirement to be informed.  An ill-informed citizenry is usually what prompts the police force to avoid meddlesome interference.

I've got lots more, but this is not the place to expand on it.


----------



## AggieDad (Mar 21, 2015)

This is my first post here, but as a Texan (34 years - not native), I can tell you we a filled with kooks and politicians who make the Tea Party seem moderate.


----------

