Exactly. Obstruction of justice and interfering with performance of duties etc already exist.
The opposition is that there is no justification for it. It doesn't express problem that survives scrutiny, and doesn't express a solution to a problem that survives scrutiny.
What it does do is give power to people that don't need it, for a reason that doesn't wash.
Only a bad cop even wants this. A good cop understands that their annoyance at bystanders witnessing them is not justification for trying to remove witnesses. Yes they can be annoying and interfering, and dealing with that is part of the job of being a professional officer with any inyegrity. Only a bad cop thinks their life should be easier at the expense of transparency and accountability. Only a bad cop is willing to accept the benefits of a chilling effect and ignore it's fundamental invalidity and dishonesty.
A good cop is willing to use existing means (since they do exist) to deal with actual interference. If a bystander is actually a problem, a good cop has no problem simply classifying them as a problem, dealing with it (arrest them) and defend that action later, because their action was justified and they can say it with a straight face to a room full of people who are not their friends.
It is designed exactly to sound reasonable, while not actually being either reasonable or justifiable. It addresses no valid problem, attains no valid goal, and so needs to be sold somehow.
Perhaps the valid problem is the public getting too close to police officers performing their duty, commonly while ostensibly filming, endangering either the police officers, or the public in the process.
Does a police officer have to worry about a legitimate journalist or honest citizen 5' away filming them while performing an arrest? No. But how exactly does the cop know the person is a legitimate journalist or honest citizen, and not an acquaintance of the person being arrested?
The opposition is that there is no justification for it. It doesn't express problem that survives scrutiny, and doesn't express a solution to a problem that survives scrutiny.
What it does do is give power to people that don't need it, for a reason that doesn't wash.
Only a bad cop even wants this. A good cop understands that their annoyance at bystanders witnessing them is not justification for trying to remove witnesses. Yes they can be annoying and interfering, and dealing with that is part of the job of being a professional officer with any inyegrity. Only a bad cop thinks their life should be easier at the expense of transparency and accountability. Only a bad cop is willing to accept the benefits of a chilling effect and ignore it's fundamental invalidity and dishonesty.
A good cop is willing to use existing means (since they do exist) to deal with actual interference. If a bystander is actually a problem, a good cop has no problem simply classifying them as a problem, dealing with it (arrest them) and defend that action later, because their action was justified and they can say it with a straight face to a room full of people who are not their friends.
All I see is "cop!=bad" logic. Just as dumb.