NYC Mayor Suggests Latest iPhone Is a Prerequisite for Civil Rights
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.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
"After just a couple of months in office, Adams' record on police reform is already disappointing."
What the hell, he ran as a democrat. What did you expect?
Republicans are far far worse on civil rights in relation to the police then Democrats. The mayor was as a cop, and that is the bigger factor the man what party.
Why all the protests in Democrat-controlled cities then?
Because Republicans believe that police are entitled to do anything to anyone for any or no reason with no repercussions, so they don't bother to protest. Still can't figure out how Democrats expect to enforce their Marxist utopia without obedient and brutal bluecoats, though.
Easily work do it for everyone from home in part time and I have received 21K$ in last 4 weeks by easily online work from home. qcfg I am a full time student and do in part time work from home. I work daily easily 4 hours a day in my spare time.
.
Details on this website:>>> http://WorkStar24.blogspot.com/
So you're saying you've never met or talked to an actual Republican.
"Why do Democrats protest in highly populated Democrat-dominated areas instead of in bumfuck, nowhere with a couple people where nobody will notice."
Gee I wonder.
He's also a former police officer (20+ years).
He's acting like it. As expected.
You know, I'm not sure what the balanced approach is here. It seems reasonable to this libertarian that if the cops are scuffling with a perp on the pavement, that you probably don't want to be reaching your arm between them to be filming.
Maybe the real answer is there shouldn't be a law, and then the cops can act within the discretion of reason. But then the problem is the cops stretch that reason out to "across the street" and people are being beaten and arrested who are clearly not anywhere near.
But then you've got the militant activists who want to test their rights to the limit and shove a phone in front of an officer's face while he's trying to cuff a suspect.
You can tell from the article that Joe sides with the militant activists.
To me the activists and the "concerned citizens" can be as much of a problem and hazard as the police. Did Chauvin sit on Floyd for so long because he wanted to, or because bystanders got in the way of the ambulance preventing professional care?
You should be able to document and there being a proper way to document seems a reasonable start, even if "reasonable" isn't any such thing in the proposed rules (activists and unions being what they are).
What I found is that Eric Adams' comment about 'getting a better iPhone' wasn't actually a crazy-pants response. He was making a point--- if you have to be within 6" to film officer's on the job, then maybe you need a better camera. It's a bit of a jokey response, but it's based within the bounds of reason.
Or maybe you just accept that your picture isn't perfect. You don't need 4K definition to use your camera to hold cops accountable. Just the threat of your phone being there can dictate how they behave if they're actually concerned about what they're doing.
If you DO want the definitive citizen-journalist proof picture of the guy reaching for a gun just before cops opened fire, you probably do want the best camera possible.
The key is to stop pretending "journalists" are somebody special and treat everyone the same, like the law is supposed to do.
"Hold cops accountable" x'D
Anyone who uses the word "cop" and any form or derivation of "accountable" in the same sentence, does not understand what police are, nor what they are for.
They're agents of the state. They're always going to be a representation of what the state is for. That's why cops are always extra shitty in big cities, because those big cities have terrible and shitty politics.
Cops and sheriffs in small towns might also be shitty, but there's a much better chance of the small town simply firing every cop to deal with a shitty department.
Exactly. You wanna be a "citizen journalist"? Equip yourself for the job, then! Or, from another cultural direction: "Git gud, scrub."
The headline was misleading-after all, this is 2022 and from that headline, for all I knew he wanted the city to upgrade to new iPhones for everybody!!
"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."
And you're a mendacious quasi-journalist if you believe that one, Joe. It is hardly "clear" what constitutes "interfering with an officer's duties" AT ALL
1) You can't tell if yelling at the cop is interfering with vital communications between the engaged parties.
2) You can't anticipate a "safe distance" without being fully grounded in the situation. It would be easy for a "citizen journalist" to become a hostage, or get shot in such a situation, which would be fine with me except they get pretty whiny when that "bastard" cop doesn't perfectly protect them while he's dealing with something else.
3) As has been pointed out above, there are some real ugly, hate-filled pieces of shit calling themselves activists nowadays and no cop should have to deal with somebody actively trying to mess him up while he's dealing with a cracked-out lunatic.
It's "dangerous" for legislatures NOT to clarify what constitutes "safe distance", Joe. How do you manage to get each foot to trip over the other-at the same time?
"
"I accidentally killed him because people kept yelling at me to stop killing him."
ok
What do you do when an out of control cop won't stop approaching you? You are not supposed to record them attacking you? No way this kind of rule won't get abused. As soon as they allow this rule cops will use the approach strategy to put you in violation.
How about citing an example, as these instances are extremely rare (unless a person has committed a crime, has an outstanding warrant, or is a suspect in a crime).
Citizen body cameras is the logical next step.
"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."
Except that BLM, CRT and Antifa activists (who falsely insist that police and white Americans are racists) film police chasing, apprehending and/or arresting violent black criminals, they have increasingly have obstructed, insulted and threatened the safety of police officers (while calling them racists).
Then their left wing media propagandists at NYT, WaPo, CNN, MSNBC, PBS, ABC, CBS, Bloomberg, etc. replay selective excerpts of these videos and falsely accuse the police of brutality and racism in order to create and escalate public protests and riots.
Sound familiar?
And of course, Reason always takes the side of the BLM, CRT and Antifa activists who capture videos of police arresting black criminals, and who falsely accuse police and white Americans of being racists.
Actually, Reason has done a pretty good job at showing that police aren't racist. They'll cheerfully beat anyone to death, regardless of the color of their skin.
Voice of reason, for once.
They'll do it on an order to do so, and they'll also NOT enforce law and regulations on an order, making them, ultimately, little more than small private armies for the local elites.
Which, if they'll bust a few crooks and let you off with a warning instead of a speeding ticket once in a while, most people don't have that much trouble with.
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."
Needing ID to vote is still racist, right?
This is the puppet cunt that said you needed ID to eat at a restaurant.
Not for vaccine ID it's not.
Or conceal carry ID.
If you want to exercise your First Amendment rights without restriction, buy a bigger newspaper publisher.
>>Adams was seen as a moderate.
by the uneducated.
Not at all. We have communism on the left, fascism on the right (and though they differ only in one insignificant organizational detail, the parties do have different priorities as far as implementing totalitarianism), and then moderates who say yes to everything either side wants to enact, and no to anything either side wants to repeal.
Shemale Rouen is the most popular web platform for finding casual contacts with hot girls in France
"girls".
Android not allowed. Especially not old ones. And definitely no cameras. Throw away consumer culture has now been made official.
It isn't about the camera, it's about the microphone. They want you far enough away so you can't hear the sweet nothings the cops are whispering in the ears of their victims.
Has that ever happened? Has anyone arrested for filming a police operation actually been obstructing the operation?
I assume it was always an excuse, but you never know.
It definitely sounds like an excuse, but I do also believe it's a problem. Far too often I've seen in such videos that people are shoving their phones into the personal space of others to record. I have no doubt that people are stupid and brazen enough to interfere in serious situations because they want credit for a viral video. Society is breaking down and I'm partially tempted to accept this excuse as somewhat valid based on these deteriorating social norms and reason
I'm normally 100% on the side of people who are making recordings of cops, I don't have any problem with making people stand 8 feet or so away from officers who are doing their jobs. That seems a lot safer for everybody.
Cops gonna cop.
What a surprise.