Looks like the distance is actually 20 feet, and it specifically states that you can't approach a first responder with intent to harass after being given a verbal warning. If a first responder approaches you then you've done nothing wrong.
> If a first responder approaches you then you've done nothing wrong.
That is not how this is going to be enforced. Other places have passed this law and cops repeatedly walk up to people recording and threaten them to go back or block their view and often arrest them under their interpretation of the law the recorder then has to spend time and money to fight or simply suffer the consequences of an arrest even if they're not ultimately charged.
Yeah there's definitely all the usual problems of having to fight an unlawful arrest. Its expensive, or you likely get poor representation from a court appointed lawyer, and it can take a ton of time that most people don't have to spare.
Unfortunately its up to jurors in these situations. If we fundamentally disagree with a law as written and can't get representatives to throw it out, just toss out the case. Jurors aren't legally bound to decide whether the facts as presented meet the law as written. Jurors are empowered with deciding whether a peer should be punished. In the case of a law that you disagree with for whatever reason, you are well within your rights to go not guilty and avoid punishing a peer for something you don't think is worth punishment.
>> Jurors aren't legally bound to decide whether the facts as presented meet the law as written. Jurors are empowered with deciding whether a peer should be punished.
That is fascinating to me and the opposite of my previous understanding! Do you have any links or experience to provide? Many thanks! :)
Jury nullification is the term to search for here. I'd really recommend you just dive in and do your own reading. Its a complex topic that is viewed very poorly by lawyers and judges, not surprisingly as it means the success of their cases depend on juries that may not necessarily be predictable.
The history of this is fascinating though as it goes right back to the founding of the US and why our legal system is designed the way that it is. I know one of the founders wrote extensively on this I want to say it was John Adams but then I'm sure Hamilton did as well since the dude never stopped writing.
In the US jurors are basically untouchable for any decision they reach and can't be made to testify about their deliberations. So nullification is an off shoot from those two things where a jury can decide whatever they want even against their oath to follow the jury instructions and decide impartially. The prosecution tries to screen for this though during selection.
"Follow jury instructions" is a very slippery slope that IMO we shouldn't be okay with.
It allows for a scenario where lawyers and/or the judge can instruct the jury to exclusively consider the statutes in question as read and interpreted by the court, facts deemed relevant as determined by the court, and decide only if the facts presented appear to have violated the statutes presented.
This isn't a way that law should work and there's absolutely no reason to have a jury in the first place if it is going to be so mechanistic.
A jury is there to judge the actions of one of their peers. Lawyers are there to present the facts and the arguments for why a person should be considered guilty or innocent. A judge is there to make sure the proper procedure is followed and the trial is fair. That's it.
Jurors aren't bound to listen to only what lawyers tell them to listen to. Jurors are asked to decide whether or not to punish the person in question for the crime they're charged with.
Of course lawyers will try to screen for this view though. They want a predictable jury that will listen to every instruction given to them without question. When juries think critically and decide for themselves a lawyer can't predict which way the trial will go and a carefully constructed series of facts and yes/no questions during testimony may be wasted. Lawyers want a script and assured convictions when they can't get deals before trial, that's the whole game.
I'm afraid you're mistaken. Quoting with emphasis mine.
> judge can instruct the jury to exclusively consider the statutes in question as read and interpreted by the court, facts deemed relevant as determined by the court, and decide only if the facts presented appear to have violated the statutes presented.
> This isn't a way that law should work and there's absolutely no reason to have a jury in the first place if it is going to be so mechanistic.
> A jury is there to judge the actions of one of their peers. Lawyers are there to present the facts and the arguments for why a person should be considered guilty or innocent.
This isn't how it's supposed to work. Juries are not supposed to "decide if the facts appear to have violated the law". Lawyers are not supposed to "present the facts".
The textbook explanation of how the system is supposed to work is: juries are supposed to decide the facts after considering the evidence presented (either written or live testimony by witnesses), and then, given the facts they have determined, apply the law as instructed by judge (and argued by lawyers), decide the result of the case.
In short, facts are supposed to be decided by juries, and law is interpreted by the judge after hearing legal arguments from the lawyers. I think you kind of got it backwards.
Perhaps what actually happens in courts deviate from the textbook norm (since I don't know where you got your information from), but it's not supposed to happen that way.
The instructions are a product of both the prosecution and defense and largely just lay out what components the state is supposed to prove in order to satisfy the requirements of each of the charges. Those requirements are not as simple as just what's in the law and often are modified by court cases which is why they exist.
I do think juries have a role in using nullification judiciously but it's also important to remember the most prominent and wide spread use of jury nullification in history was during the Jim Crow era when juries routinely refused to convict or charge (in the case of grand juries) lynching cases.
That seems like a reasonable explanation of legal instructions, definitely more clear than my earlier one.
IMO the use of jury nullification really shouldn't depend at all on how it was used in the past though. Plenty of things have been used for terrible causes in the past, we can't throw the baby out with the bath water.
That isn't the correct bill, the bill that passed has the more broad phrasing "to violate such warning and approach or remain within 25 feet of the first responder"
Oh thanks, yeah that clarification is an important one!
The or remain addition ruins it, though I also don't see that holding up in court with any reasonable jury. In that scenario, if I start more than 25 feet away and stand my ground if a cop approaches me only with the intent of making me move or stop filming, I've truly done nothing wrong and the cop is intending to infringe on my rights.
Will a judge or DA see if this way? Almost certainly not. But if I were on the jury I'd throw that shit out, I don't really care what the law says as written if its a law I don't think is constitutional or reasonable. Juries are there, in part, to act as a check on the legal system.
Looks like the distance is actually 20 feet, and it specifically states that you can't approach a first responder with intent to harass after being given a verbal warning. If a first responder approaches you then you've done nothing wrong.
[1] https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2024/75/?Tab=BillText